Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of the electoral division of Klip River owing to the resignation with effect from 30 June 1986 of Mr V A Volker.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Laws on Development Aid Second Amendment Bill [B 121—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Education and Development Aid).
2. (2) Mines and Works Amendment Bill [B 122—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs).
3. (3) Coal Amendment Bill [B 123—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs).

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, dated 24 July 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Com mittee on National Education, dated 20 June 1986, as follows:

1. 1. The South African Certification Council is being established to ensure that the same norms and standards of education and examination are achieved and maintained for all pupils in all schools in South Africa, and in order to achieve this object—
   1. (a) the Standing Committee inter alia worded the proposed legislation in such a way as to provide that the council issues its own certificates at the various points of withdrawal after the norms and standards prescribed by the council have been satisfied;
   2. (b) the Standing Committee considered the possibility of one examination, whether on a national, provincial or regional basis, and accordingly inserted an enabling provision for the conducting and management of the same examination of candidates falling under the various State departments responsible for education with the intention that it be utilised when the various examining bodies agree to it;
   3. (c) your Committee recommends that in constituting the council educationally, expert persons, as far as possible representative of all South Africans, be appointed;
   4. (d) your Committee further recommends that from the institution of the council the national states be involved in its activities.
2. 2. Your Committee further recommends that the Report of an Intersectoral Committee of Investigation into the Composition and Functions of a National Certifying Council (SAMEP—140) be released before the Second Reading of the Bill as it will contribute to a meaningful evaluation of the Bill.

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on National Education, dated 5 August 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on National Education, dated 5 August 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on National Education, dated 6 August 1986, as follows:

The Committee is, however, of the opinion that Parliament should consider this aspect again within the foreseeable future.

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mondays and Wednesdays:
   14h15 to 18h30;
   20h00 to 22h30;
2. (2) Tuesdays and Thursdays:
   14h15 to 18h00;
3. (3) Fridays:
   10h00 to 12h45;
   14h15 to 17h30.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on 25 June, during the last minute before the House adjourned, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made a remark about me. I am referring to col 10047 of the Hansard of that day. It is a remark which I regard as a personal insult, and on top of that it is a blatant untruth. I would have expected the hon the Minister to apologise for having made that remark.

The Bill which is before the House provides for a second-tier authority with limited powers—advisory powers—an authority whose activities will for the most part be confined to the making of recommendations, but an authority that will nevertheless be given the power to take decisions, as I shall indicate in the course of my speech. The fact is that the joint executive authority which will be created in terms of this legislation which is before us, and which will include Blacks—in this case, members of the Zulu people—raises the question whether this is not in itself a drastic deviation from the intention of the constitutional sanction given by the electorate in a referendum in 1983. We say that the Government does not have the right to proceed with this Bill without the consent of the White electorate.

On the third level of government the Government has, by means of regional services councils, the co-ordinating council for local authorities, provincial executive committees, and now this joint executive authority for kwaZulu and Natal, accepted the principle that Blacks also form part of the process of government in South Africa. It really seems to me that it is the standpoint of the Government that it will go to the people for a mandate only in connection with the very highest level of Government. [Interjections.] In principle, therefore, the Government has already accepted the participation of Blacks up to the highest level.

It is very interesting to compare the two documents which underline this fact. The first one is the advertisement which appeared in many newspapers under the signature of the State President in February 1986. I quote this paragraph from it:

I want to compare this paragraph with another one from a different document under the heading “The people shall govern”:

As I have said, this paragraph comes from a different document, “The Freedom Charter, as adopted at the congress of the people on 26 June 1955”.

I want to ask the Government what difference there is. The objective is exactly the same; only the methods differ. [Interjections.] The Government wants to achieve this objective by means of an evolutionary process, while the others are trying to achieve it by means of a revolutionary process.

When the national leader of the NP repeatedly uses the word “freedom” or “sovereignty” at the federal congress, one wonders: Freedom for whom? Freedom for which people? For it is an incontrovertible fact that it is not possible for more than one people to be free or sovereign in the same territory. Such a situation does not exist; it does not exist anywhere in the world, or can the hon the Minister give me an example of where it is to be found? A people can only be free in its own fatherland, and every people with any self-respect has a father-land, a country that lawfully belongs to it.

When we last discussed this Bill, on Friday, 20 June, there was still an NRP provincial government in power in Natal. I can understand that the NRP was dismayed to learn that that NRP provincial government in Natal had been unseated with a stroke of the pen. [Interjections.]

Moreover, there is the blatant irony of the fact that that party’s leader in the provincial council also played a leading role at the Kwa-Natal conference, and that that leader has not even been included in the new executive committee of Natal. [Interjections.] I think it is an insult to that party!

Meanwhile, the council has been abolished. The White Natalian has no elected representative at the second level of government, therefore. This results in the incongruity that in terms of this Bill, the participating parties are the following: On the one hand, there is an elected government of kwaZulu, and on the other hand, there is a nominated executive authority of which the former elected member for Klip River has become a member.

As for the functions of that joint authority, these are set out as follows in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill:

1. (a) to exercise such powers and to reform such duties and other functions of the Administrator or a Minister of kwaZulu as the State President may assign to it;
2. (b) to make recommendations to the Administrator and the Chief Minister of kwaZulu;
3. (c) to act in a co-ordinating capacity between the Natal Provincial Administration and the kwaZulu Government Service; and
4. (d) to act as agent of the parties.

According to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, the State President may even fully transfer the administration of a law of kwaZulu or a provincial law to the joint authority. At the end of his speech, the hon the Minister to a large extent revealed the general direction in which we were moving as far as the second level of government of Natal was concerned. The hon the Minis ter said in his speech (Hansard: Assembly, 20 June 1986, col 9162):

So the hon the Minister ultimately foresees a decision-making body. He is therefore placing the emphasis here on a joint approach and joint decision-making, while the former hon member for Klip River, for example, put it as follows in his contribution to this debate on 20 June 1986 (Hansard: Assembly, col 9266):

One frequently finds such shifts of emphasis from one hon member to another. One may emphasise joint decision-making, while another may stress the aspect of separateness. However, the question is what the object of the kwaZulu-Natal conference is. According to Die Vaderland of 4 April, the chairman of that body, Prof Desmond Clarence, said:

That was the object. I should also like to quote what Mr Frank Martin, a Natal MEC, has said in this connection. According to Rapport of 6 July, he said he believed that—

That is what Mr Martin says. Furthermore, the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, said in an article in Rapport of 20 July:

He went on to say:

I believe that this is also the ultimate goal of the Government itself. I want the hon the Minister to deny or confirm that what Chief Buthelezi says is the ultimate goal of the Government itself. In fact, I believe that the Government wishes to establish a regional authority of this kind in every corner of South Africa so that it may eventually create an elected second-tier government again.

The Transvaal MEC said the following in one of his last speeches on this matter, and I believe that he would not have said this without the approval of the hon the Minister. Mr Griffiths said:

I think the hon the Minister should spell this out clearly.

As far as the second function of this authority is concerned, I refer to the memorandum on the objects of the Bill on page 17 of the Bill. It says there: “To make recommendations to the Administrator and the Chief Minister of kwaZulu”. I now want to ask hon members whether they can recall the original recommendation in regard to the President’s Council. It was only to have advised or made recommendations to the Government; it was to have been a body of experts with an advisory function only. However, this advisory body has gradually developed into a part of the legislative process of South Africa. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives discovered this to his dismay when the security legislation was actually passed by the President’s Council and not by the three Houses of Parliament.

What has been the historic development of that constitutional dispensation? At first there were three parliaments and three prime ministers. Sovereignty was to have vested in the White Parliament, and this was strongly emphasised by the hon the Minister of National Education.

There was to have been a Cabinet Council which would have had no overall authority. It would even have been differently constituted on occasion, depending on the subject under discussion.

The most important factor, however, was that the people that had a legitimate claim to at least a part of South Africa as its area of sovereignty possessed the power to govern its own area of jurisdiction. What has ultimately happened, however? The outcome has been one mixed general government, one parliament with three chambers and now one state, general citizenship and universal franchise which is now in the process of development.

That is why I say that the Government’s ultimate objective for Natal is not expressed in the Bill which is before us. As far as I am concerned, this also forms part of the hidden agenda for reform in South Africa. The Government has only one ultimate objective, and that is to surrender every square inch of Natal, in that case to Zulu domination.

I wish that were true!

It also applies to that part of Natal which for generations and throughout the centuries of our existence has been in the hands of Whites and ruled by a White Government. Perhaps the hon member for Bezuidenhout does not know the history of Natal. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The Republic of Vryheid!

I want to refresh his memory. There was once a Republic of Natalia. Hon members should take note of the history of Bloukrans, Weenen, Moordspruit and Italeni. There was a period of strife and suffering. [Interjections.] The founding of that Republic of Natalia involved great loss of life and enormous suffering. I am thinking, too, of the history of Blood River. It does not surprise me that the hon member for Klip River remarked here that that was a good example of co-operation between different peoples in the laager at Blood River.

Then they ousted him!

It does not surprise me, Sir, for do you know how the story of that important event in the history of Natal is being distorted today? In one of the school history books that important episode in history is described as follows. I quote from Die Geskiedenis van Vandag by F E Graves. This is all it says:

That is all. That is all we are told of the story of Blood River in this school history book. To back up the claim of a White people in Natal, however, I want to quote from F A van Jaarsveld’s history book entitled Van Van Riebeeck tot Verwoerd. I quote from page 130:

Then Paul Kruger is quoted:

I quote further:

From another history book, entitled Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika, by Prof D W Kruger and others, I want to quote what he said on page 221:

The territory which belonged to that republic is then described. However, that territory was subsequently occupied by the British authorities. On page 229 of this history book one reads this significant passage:

It is the descendants of the people who took this stand that will simply not accept the authority which the Government is now creating in terms of the Bill which is before us.

The history of this Bill is very strongly reminiscent, for example, of the referendum on open beaches held in Port Elizabeth. The Government said that it stood on the sidelines. The hon member for Newton Park was the only one who had the courage to say that he was in favour of open beaches. Then they lost the referendum.

I now want to say to the hon the Minister that he must have the courage to tell this House and the people outside that he is establishing a representative second-tier authority in Natal in which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and others will all participate. The hon the Minister must have the courage to say so here this afternoon.

He must say it in Klip River!

He must say it this afternoon, so that when the Klip River by-election is held on 17 September, the people will know exactly what they are voting on. [Interjections.]

This example of the Government’s unwillingness to say in which direction it is moving illustrates a typical case of a split personality. It is an example of double-talk by the Government. When an election is in the offing, we hear right-wing pronouncements all the way to Blinkwater, but the actions are leftist. [Interjections.] There are many examples of this, and I wish to bring one of them to the attention of this House. Before the “Battle of the Bergs” by-election of 1983, the hon member for Benoni said the following:

As far as Black nations are concerned, he said the following:

This is what he said in the Transvaler on 17 February 1983. [Interjections.]

With the passing of this Bill, the Government is moving one step closer to the total destruction of the whole concept of the separate freedoms of peoples. Now the hon members on the other side of the House say, “But times have changed,” and they groan when we quote from statements made by former NP leaders. They say that we are now living in a different era, but time is a relatively neutral concept which does not in itself have a material influence on events. It is man that intervenes; it is a party that intervenes, as the old NP intervened and gave a certain direction to the history of South Africa. Surely this is man’s cultural task; this is his calling.

It is that calling of the Afrikaner which has driven him to wage a struggle against the liberal who swims with the stream and offers no resistance. It is that calling of which the hon member for Innesdal speaks so scornfully today. It is to that calling of a people that hon members on this side of the House wish to remain faithful. That is why we refuse to submit to integration with other peoples, which is what this legislation seeks to bring about. That is why we are opposing it in the strongest possible terms, in the form of the amendment I have moved.

Mr Speaker, I am very optimistic about the future of all of us in this country but, on listening to the hon member for Pietersburg’s jeremiad and snivelling, I say we are facing a dark future in this country because of CP policy. [Interjections.] Today the hon member disinterred everything here on what battles had taken place where and who had done what in history. [Interjections.] If that is the hon member’s argument, co-operation between peoples in Europe could never have been possible today. People who were embroiled in warfare against one another are living in peace today. It is not to our advantage or to that of anyone else in this House where cooperation is being discussed to cause it to appear suspect in this fashion and to have mistrust created concerning it by that hon member.

Before Parliament adjourned for the recess and again today that hon member said he rejected this co-operation agreement in the strongest possible way. That is the crux of this legislation. The joint executive authority envisaged for kwaZulu and Natal is an indication of co-operation between two regional governments. That is what it comes down to. It is not an innovation; it is something happening daily which is merely being regulated now. The two regional governments have to speak to each other; they have to consult about roads, traffic control and various other matters. This is now being regulated and legislation on it placed in the Statute Book.

You will be the chairman of that thing!

I wish to add that this example set by Natal is worthy of emulation. It applies to every region in South Africa. [Interjections.] We must co-operate with our neighbours! [Interjections.]

One hears opposition expressed against co-operation, however; threats are uttered too. The hon member for Lichtenburg over there says, for example, that an NP meeting will never be held in the Free State again because they preach co-operation. He says the CP and he will see to it that the NP never holds a meeting in the Free State again. [Interjections.] That is bluster that he will not be able to substantiate! [Interjections.] The CP congress expressed itself on the co-operation agreement which took place at Louwsburg and rejected it in the strongest terms. It also deals with co-operation. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan made pronouncements in this regard at the CP congress on the current situation in South Africa. His party held up the NP as the archenemy of all in South Africa. He did not mention the ANC nor the UDF; he said the NP was the archenemy of South Africa. That is the man who is attempting to effect co-operation among Afrikaners or among Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians.

The co-operation of the present rightist candidate in Klip River, Mr Chris Wolmarans, with the other population groups inhabiting that province—he is the chairman of Aksie Blank Natal—comes down to his saying the province belongs only to the Whites in Natal. He says he does not wish to speak to the rest; he wishes to talk only to Whites and there is to be no further co-operation because the province belongs to Whites alone. Arising from this White exclusivity of Natal, I asked him whether Natal had become White before or after the arrival of Piet Retief because it is certainly an historical fact that it has never been White.

South Africa was always… [Interjections.]

I should like to hear the pronouncements of the hon leader of the CP on co-operation with his hon colleague, Mr Rajbansi, of the House of Representatives.

He is reading letters.

To what degree does he wish to co-operate with him or is he not his colleague? He is his colleague without a doubt. Under the dispensation in which the CP is a fellow participant of ours, we have involved Mr Rajbansi as a colleague, a revered colleague and a partner in Government.

He writes too many letters. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately the hon leader of the CP is not present but I wish to ask him whether he will apologise to his hon colleague if it is proved to be incitement of hatred which emanated from CP or AWB ranks. Will the hon member for Waterberg apologise to his colleague for the accusation levelled at him? [Interjections.] That is co-operation. [Interjections.]

Is the hon leader of the CP prepared to divulge which hon CP member threatened Mr Abramjee? That is not co-operation; that is the antithesis of co-operation.

Ask Abramjee personally! [Interjections.]

Will he inform the House which hon member of the CP it was? I can guess, Sir! [Interjections.]

Go and ask Boetie!

Just ask Jan Grobler! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik’s hair is so untidy it looks like a badly thatched hut. [Interjections.]

Order! No, we cannot permit such personal insults in this House. The hon member for Vryheid must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. I am sorry. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I wish to appeal to the hon leader of the Conservative Party. He is someone for whom I have a high regard. I wish to express my urgent insistence to him to attempt to curb the spirit of intolerance which has started to take root in the ranks of the CP under AWB leadership. He must attempt to curb those wild horses. [Interjections.] We have already listened to the pronouncements of those people; we heard what they had to say at the CP congress. This is definitely not in the interests of South Africa nor in the interests of peace and security in this country.

No one in this House can contest it today that it is to the benefit of South Africa for people to talk to one another. Colour is of no concern—I have to talk to my neighbour. We have to talk to the Black people as well as the Coloureds and the Asians. We simply have to talk to one another; we have to communicate.

How do you talk to your fellow Afrikaners?

Racial prejudice in this country has been relegated to the past for ever.

Will you talk to Beyers Naudé?

I shall not easily talk to the hon member for Rissik—at least not before he has learned to behave himself. [Interjections.] In South Africa it is necessary for all peoples and all persons of this country to demonstrate mutual respect to one another if we wish to attempt the pursuit of peace. The future of every region depends on the inhabitants of the area concerned. The people of every area or district in South Africa will themselves have to determine whether they are to enjoy peace and prosperity; no one else can determine this.

Jurie, when are you becoming a commissioner?

The people of every region in South Africa will be responsible for their own security. There will be no safety for the inhabitants of any region unless there is co-operation among the majority of those inhabitants. Here I include all districts in South Africa. In fact, Whites form the majority in only eight districts in the entire country. The inhabitants in every region will themselves determine whether there will be peace or not. This is possible only if everyone in every region can get on with his fellow inhabitants who are not Whites. When we in South Africa are unable to take our domestic help or our farm labourer or a colleague of colour in the circle of our employment with us, we stand alone and have no allies.

Security in a revolutionary struggle is determined by the attitude of the inhabitants. If we note what occurred today, yesterday and the day before in landmine incidents in the country, it is clear that the safety of the inhabitants of rural areas in South Africa can be secured only if Black people who live with Whites in those areas also assist in being the eyes and ears of all. That is why I believe co-operation is vital.

Do you want to take terrorists with you as well?

If we are able to accomplish this and if we can gain the co-operation of those people and make them our eyes and ears, we have already won the battle. We then no longer need to direct our energies at winning the revolutionary struggle. I think an enormous amount of goodwill remains in the ranks of the majority of Black people. Few of us realise the extent of the goodwill still existing towards us among Black people. I need only point out to hon members how much goodwill remains by referring to the initiative which occurred at Louwsburg. When a request was made for the Blacks to be provided with food, a gift of 16 cattle was made to them by Whites. The king decreed that those cattle were not to be slaughtered. He ordered the Black people to make a matching gift of 16 beasts. Consequently thirty-two animals changed ownership on that occasion. We cannot establish the extent of goodwill that does exist before we talk to people.

As regards the question of co-operation, I believe we should all work on a change of attitude too. We should remove the cobwebs of mistrust and prejudice among the various population groups. My sincere plea is that we refrain from inciting mistrust and prejudice any further as the CP continues to do. The CP is attempting to conduct “Black peril” politics. [Interjections.] What concerns me, Sir, is that, if the CP is unable to talk or co-operate with moderate Blacks in South Africa, what chance do its members have of talking to the radicals they mentioned a while ago?

To attain these objectives and to effect cooperation, we have to communicate with one another. We have to remove bottlenecks; we must do away with them. There definitely are bottlenecks but one does not know what bottlenecks exist before talking to people. Every region, every district, every individual has a role to play in this regard.

I can cite an incident in our neighbourhood as an example concerning this. Landmines were planted there and one farmer’s domestic servant went to him that morning and said: “Sir, the road was disturbed but I called the Police this morning and they deactivated the land mine”. Surely that is the way in which we should secure our safety!

It is certainly no secret that the revolution has moved out to country districts and no one can tell me that the Defence Force has sufficient manpower to ascertain that every farm road is safe. These roads are safeguarded by every individual farmer and the inhabitants of his farm. There has to be co-operation between the farmer and his people in his district. If the majority of the people support him, he has won.

I can quote another incident which occurred in my area as an example. On one of the mines radicals attempted to prevent the miners—approximately 5 000 Black people work on this mine—from going to work. A clash ensued; the moderate Black people routed the radicals and work proceeded. [Interjections.]

There is something else I wish to tell hon members about the agreement at Louwsburg. Long ago five districts of Northern Natal—that is the area under discussion there—were given to the Whites, the Boers—that is the Afrikaners—of the Transvaal by the king of the Zulus to assist him to ascend the throne during the civil war between Dinuzulu and Sebepu. The king told me that since that time there had been no clash be tween the Afrikaner and the Zulu for 102 years and that his purpose in this co-operation agreement was that there should be no clash in the next 100 years. He said there was an exceptional bond between him and the Afrikaner.

Sir, I wish to request my fellow Afrikaners, my compatriots, sitting in the CP really to conduct themselves very responsibly and to reflect carefully on their actions. The image of the Afrikaner among the Black people is exceptionally poor and it is the responsibility of each of us sitting here to improve that image. [Interjections.]

I wish to relate how this co-operation agreement at Louwsburg originated. Those people did not talk to one another; in the course of the past century those people had not gathered in a building. Now, however, 100 leaders of the Black people and the leaders of the Whites have taken a meal together; they sat at table in a hall as if it were an everyday occurrence. It was the most normal act which had ever occurred.

Why did this come about, however? It happened because the Whites cared about the Black people. The hon member for Rissik is feeling this so badly that he is trying to shoot it down in flames. I have a message for that hon member. From the way the people in Rissik greet that hon member, there will be an election there soon. Sir, do you know what happened there? The only reason prompting those people to start talking was that the Whites indicated that they cared about the Black people. The Whites had sports facilities and the Blacks none. The farmers then met and for days on end used their tractors to create sports facilities and soccer fields for the Blacks.

This happened because people living in the same area cared about one another. Cooperation means that the security and prosperity of the local community are guaranteed. The Government has approved this formula we provided. So what is actually the matter? This administrative co-operation was negotiated long ago and has been in practice for a long time.

The Chief Minister of kwaZulu as the representative of his government then approached the Administrator of Natal and asked whether the Government would approve of our talking to one another—not making laws—and negotiating on certain affairs of common concern. The Cabinet was sensible enough to agree and we are now discussing this legislation.

There were three parties in the Natal Provincial Council and it was one of the few occasions—if it had ever happened—that all were in agreement. All three parties agreed unanimously that this joint executive authority for kwaZulu and Natal should become a reality.

The Government agrees, the Administrator agrees, all the members of the Provincial Council agree, all right-minded people in South Africa agree but the CP says: “No, never!” They will never co-operate with reasonable people because those people are Black and Brown.

What did the hon member for Rissik say about Indians? He said they would take Indians’ property if they came to power. Are hon members aware of what a dangerous game they are playing? If the Black people ever come to power in South Africa, they will claim Whites’ property because Daan van der Merwe said Whites would seize the property of others. The hon members are playing a dangerous game in saying they will dispossess people by force. They tell radicals they may also dispossess them by force.

No one believes you.

The hon member need not believe me. No one listens to them. South Africa listens to me because we discuss our future and not a group of rabble-rousers who want to incite those of colour in South Africa against one another. If people permit themselves to be inflamed by the CP, we have no future in this country. I say this emphatically.

Before closing, I wish to add what the people said during the co-operation agreement between the farmers or the Afrikaners and the Zulus. They have the support of more than 90% of all Whites in that district and of what must be upwards of 95% of all Blacks. They said they wished to attempt expanding the ethnic relations in our district. Is there someone opposed to this, who says it should not be done? They said: “We wish to ensure the safety of all the members of the district.” By coincidence no Coloureds or Indians live there; there are only Whites and Zulus—and the Whites are all Afrikaners. They said: “We wish to ensure the safety of all the members of the district—of the Blacks as well.” Is someone opposed to this? We say no one can be opposed to ensuring that good labour relations exist. The hon the Minister responsible for labour will be grateful that the development and progress of our district are being promoted. Nor is it only the progress and development of Whites but of all people.

With a view to creating adequate training facilities, we had the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid there. That entire district with 40 000 Black peoples does not have a single Black high school. This has to be put right.

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

Order! Will the hon member reply to a question?

Sir, I know the type of questions that hon member puts. I should prefer to proceed.

Order! The hon member does not wish to reply to a question.

Adequate training facilities therefore have to be created. In conclusion, we should have a care for the morale of all the inhabitants of our district. Surely the CP cannot differ on this. There is co-operation at Louwsburg. It means co-operation in one’s home; it means co-operation on one’s farm; it means co-operation in the province. That co-operation must exist in each province—that co-operation must exist in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Vryheid made a very interesting speech. It could have been made by one of our own people for the most part over a very long time. The position is that there were years when that hon member sat in the same House as I did but in another place and when he made a very different sort of speech. It was therefore quite pleasant to listen to his speech today.

The hon member indicated that what was proposed in this Bill was in any case being done almost every day. I agree with him but I want to make an observation on this point. While it was being done every day on an informal basis, it is now necessary to do it on a formal basis as a consequence of the division of power and not power sharing. I think hon members will agree that this is an important distinction because the CP in particular believe that it is fair enough to divide power but they do not believe that it is desirable to share power.

When you share, you lose!

Right, that is the concept of the CP.

The position is that when kwaZulu became a self-governing homeland and Natal was left to run itself, the shape of the division was such that it was a physical impossibility to run the show without a certain amount of co-operation. Apart from any other consideration the Natal Provincial Council through sheer necessity started to make the appropriate arrangements to discuss all matters and problems by setting up committees of officials etc. As has quite rightly been said, this has been going on for years.

It is now a question first of all of formalising the situation and secondly expanding it to accommodate certain financial and other needs. This does in fact make sense. However, I do want to emphasise that the necessity arose out of the division of power and not power sharing. This Bill that is before us, as has already been indicated, is a practical proposal for setting up a joint administrative body to look after the affairs of the Natal/kwaZulu area that require collaboration on a joint basis. The details of these proposals were not imposed upon Natal by the Government, and we are very happy to concede this point since they usually do impose things upon us!

Do not spoil it now!

They were not imposed on Natal. The people of Natal and kwaZulu sat down around a table—a number of tables at different times—and thrashed out what was needed at that stage for the good administration of the whole area; they made proposals to the Government, and the Government, for once, saw the light and accepted the proposals. Now, that is in fact the situation. As has been indicated, it has been going on for years, it has been formalised and extended and the appropriate financial arrangements can now be made on a formalised basis. As I have said before, it was necessary to do this because, if anybody has seen a map of the areas of kwaZulu superimposed on the rest of Natal, it looks like a little lace doily of some sort or another because there are so many different bits and pieces. I am not quite sure how many parts of kwaZulu there are at the moment, but I think there are about 16 or 20. How many? [Interjections.] About 40 bits and pieces at present. But even with maximum possible consolidation there will still be a number of parts that have to collaborate with one another.

Now, this Bill before us, contrary to suggestions that have been made elsewhere, is not a political proposal, but seeks authority only to legally administer jointly in respect of many practical aspects. Of course, since this Bill was introduced provincial councils have been abolished, but acceptance of this Bill will still leave the original powers, that is the Natal Provincial Administration and the kwaZulu government, in control of the situation. In fact the Bill puts on a legal basis and, as I said before, to some degree extends what has been going on already. The abolition of the provincial councils in no way diminishes the need for this, and the benefits of the Bill will, I believe, be more necessary now than ever before.

The hon member for Berea quite rightly stated that this Bill was the result of negotiation, and was the first meaningful step towards something more meaningful. He was referring, of course, to the efforts of the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba to negotiate a single legislative body for the whole area. He is, of course, quite right, but the Bill as it stands is a very important step which will—this is the important point—improve the administration of Natal regardless of what happens at the indaba. This has to be borne in mind. It is a self-standing situation as far as this Bill is concerned.

At this stage I would like to remind hon members on the other side of the House that, as I said earlier, the terms were negotiated by the people concerned among themselves and the affected parties, and not for other people. Possibly the Government can learn a lesson from this—that when they want to have negotiations on matters relating to Black people and other ethnic groups, they should negotiate with them and not for them, because this is the only way to get collaboration and co-operation. I have said in this House on more than one occasion that one can present the best possible scheme and offer anything one likes, but if the other participants are not part of the negotiations, they will look upon it with suspicion and throw it out. It is a sad fact of life that humanity is very suspicious.

The hon member for Berea also regretted the imbalance between elected and nominated bodies that will now have to operate this Bill. I, of course, naturally agree with him. However, I believe that it will not be for very long, because already, as far as one can gather from the Natal papers, the hon the Minister is beginning to think perhaps that it might be desirable to go back to having elected provincial councils. I do not know if the hon the Minister has seen that report in the paper, but I understand it was a statement he made at the party congress in Natal last week. Of course, as the then hon member for Klip River said in his address, there are people in Natal who are opposed to this sort of collaboration, such as the Aksie Blank Natal, the CP supporters and possibly other rightwingers and also possibly some extreme leftists, but I want to assure hon members that the overwhelming population of Natal and kwaZulu of all races—and yes, I am including the majority of Natal Afrikaners—want to co-operate with one another for an efficient, peaceful Natal. I emphasise this point for the benefit of the hon member for Pietersburg who moved an amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He made the point—and I think it was a very valid point—in his address this afternoon that it was rather ironic that we, the NRP executive of Natal who had organised this Bill, the whole exco, were out on the street, none of them in the new body. Well, as far as we are concerned, it is rather sad and rather ironic, but we are used to getting the short end of the stick in Natal and certainly we as the NRP are sorry not only for our own people but also for the Government itself for being so terribly silly and shortsighted, because no matter what one thought of the individual people concerned, the relations between the Natal executive and the kwaZulu government are excellent, particularly that between certain of the members. So, I think it was a shocking blunder—a tactical, psychological blunder, if nothing else—to exclude the existing members totally. However, I must say again that the hon the Minister did have the grace to put in one NRP man, and I think he will find that he will be the most competent of them all.

Apart from those groups I have mentioned—Aksie Blank Natal and the CP—there has been great support for closer ties between our various groups. Has the CP in fact consulted the Sakekamer, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Junior Rapportryers and the FAK to get their opinion? I believe they would have quite a surprise if they did, and they would find that these various bodies in fact support this particular type of co-operation although they may have a different opinion in respect of a single legislative body. That is of course what the Natal Indaba is all about. Nonetheless, I can assure hon members that I would be most surprised if they do not believe that this sort of co-operation is a good thing.

The hon member for Pietersburg says this is an experiment in power sharing. However, as I indicated earlier this is not an experiment in power sharing—not that I would particularly object if it were an exercise in power sharing, but it just is not that at all. In this Bill power does not come into the matter. The power still remains with the existing bodies. All it is, is co-operation on a range of regional functions, and the power, as I have said, still remains with the kwaZulu government and the Natal Provincial Administration.

It is true, of course, that we Natalians look upon this as a beginning, not as an end. We believe that power sharing must come. I believe that the people of Natal, across a very wide spectrum of opinion, are prepared to accept it. That in fact is why we are having the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba. How power is to be shared, of course, is open to debate, but the concept as far as we are concerned is not. However, I repeat that this Bill does not deal with power sharing, but is just a formalised method of resolving joint and interlinking problems.

Insofar as the Bill itself is concerned, it is basically what was asked for, but I must raise a query in respect of clause 7(4)(a)(ii). It makes reference to officers or employees of the NPA or the kwaZulu government, but not to employees of statutory bodies of which there are quite a number, for example, the Parks Board, Sharks Board, Development Services Board etc of the NPA and the kwaZulu Finance Corporation of the kwaZulu government.

As this appears to be the imperative under which staff of the NPA and kwaZulu have their functions transferred to the joint executive authority, it could create complications if the staff of statutory bodies are not included.

I am advised that Clause 8(l)(d) will not cover this matter properly. The Minister’s comments on this point would be appreciated.

Mr Speaker, we in this party are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I shall in due course be coming back to certain ideas raised by the hon member for Umbilo. I just want to come back to the hon member for Vryheid’s speech. That hon member argued that the CP was opposed to consultation between Whites and Blacks and that we felt that there should not be co-operation between Whites and Blacks either. In this legislation, however, it is not merely a matter of consultation and co-operation. What is involved here is the establishment of a government body. The hon member for Umbilo can argue the point to his heart’s content, but it is nothing more or less than the implementation of power-sharing.

As far as I am concerned the question is whether the hon member for Vryheid considers it to be a prerequisite that when Whites and Blacks want to consult each other on a certain matter, or wish to co-operate, a body must be created on which they would serve jointly and therefore have joint executive authority, that being the only way in which there can be consultation and cooperation. That is the problem and that is what the CP rejects. We do not reject consultation and co-operation, but if the structure embraces one joint body, that is a horse of another colour, and that is what the CP is opposed to.

It is therefore futile for the hon member for Vryheid to proclaim to all and sundry that the CP is not prepared to consult or cooperate with people. That is a misrepresentation of the CP’s attitude and standpoint.

Another allegation made by the hon member for Vryheid is that no proper discussions have been held during the 100 years preceding the agreement now concluded at Louwsburg. I just want to ask the hon member for Vryheid what the Government has thus far done. What has been done by the Commissioner-General in kwaZulu and Natal in regard to the discussions? How is it that kwaZulu accepted self-governing national status if consultation did not take place?

One must not simply stand up in this House and make wild allegations about the events that have taken place in Louwsburg being the first wonderful thing that has happened in the annals of history this century. It is just a trifling event that took place as a result of a lengthy process of discussions that had many important results, for example the establishment of kwaZulu as a self-governing national state.

What is more, the hon member for Vryheid must not be so naïve as to say that when the CP speaks on behalf of the Whites in this country, its members are inciting the non-Whites in this country. Would the alternative then apply—that when one is interceding for the Blacks, it does not matter what happens to the Whites? Must the Whites simply swallow everything and be satisfied with it?

The CP members are, first and foremost, representatives of Whites in this country, and therefore it is their primary task to intercede for the Whites in this country. If one were to intercede for the Whites, and the feelings of the non-Whites were whipped up as a result, their reaction would be a very tragic one. Surely one does not have to deny or betray one’s own people, or leave them in the lurch, if one does not, when interceding for them, also intercede for the others. After all, having to intercede for other people, but not for one’s own people, does not hold water. That is all we are doing—we are also interceding, but this is probably the only effort that has ever been made to intercede for our people in this country.

This Bill is a consequential measure that relates to the provision that is being made and the authorisation that is being granted in terms of clause 5, read in conjunction with clause 17 of the new legislation on provincial government which was passed by this House in June, legislation in terms of which self-governing national states are being permitted to co-operate with the new provincial authorities by way of joint executive authorities. In terms of this Bill kwaZulu and Natal are being empowered to carry out the first experiment in this regard, and as far as I am concerned it is significant that it is specifically this area which has been selected for this experiment.

On the one hand we have kwaZulu, with the largest number Black people and with Chief Minister Buthelezi, pre-eminently the Black leader whose favour the Government wants to win at all costs for the implementation of its policy of power-sharing in regard to the Blacks. This Government knows that if it cannot win Chief Minister Buthelezi over to this policy of power-sharing with Blacks, the Government’s policy in this country will not succeed, it not being possible to implement it. That is probably also the reason why this man is allowed to appear on television virtually every evening and to put forward his standpoints.

On the other hand there is Natal, the province which, up to 30 June 1986, had never yet been controlled by the National Party at the second tier of government. Up to that date the NRP was in power there, whilst the old United Party was in power earlier. What we are now dealing with, is the following: In that province the Government, the National Party, is hiding behind another party which is in power there and which the National Party is allowing to do certain things there which the National Party itself has not had the courage to do. The National Party Government itself did not have the courage to initiate the system that it is now launching in Natal—unless the National Party did, in fact, do so behind the scenes. In other words, it is actually making use of the NRP’s executive committee, which existed in Natal, as a means for implementing this plan of power-sharing with the Blacks in Natal without itself being in the firing line as far as the voters are concerned; without itself accepting responsibility and thus maintaining its credibility in the eyes of the trusting NP supporters.

The recipe was clear, and the hon the Minister need not shake his head. I read that hon Minister like a book. In this House I read him like a book, and I shall now proceed to explain to hon members why I say this. [Interjections.] He will agree with me; in a moment he will be nodding his head in confirmation. [Interjections.]

Firstly, after the NP member who served as Administrator vacated his post, an ex-NRP leader was suddenly, in a very surprising fashion, appointed as Administrator in Natal. The question is: Why? What was the purpose behind it?

He is a very good man.

I have nothing to say about his goodness, his character, his personality or whatever; I am talking about his political standpoints and his political affinities. He was appointed as Administrator. With that executive committee the Government of this country is giving him a free hand to proceed with this Indaba of his. No stumbling blocks are being placed in their path, and as a Government the NP stands on the sidelines. It does not allow itself to become directly involved; it merely sends observers. It sends its members of the House of Assembly as observers who must stand there on the sidelines and note the discussions taking place between the kwaZulu authorities, the NRP executive committee and the Administrator of Natal. [Interjections.]

When the Indaba, however, approved a joint executive authority, when it came to the point of saying that such a body should be created, the Government, represented by the second strongest integration Minister, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, was only too eager to ratify this.

Who is the first strongest?

The first strongest is, of course, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Hon members do know that, after all. Surely we cannot have this hon Minister usurp his place. He is second in line; at least he is not that bad.

Overnight this Government has a Bill ready and waiting. Overnight, too, a section was incorporated in the new Provincial Government Act to grant approval and authorisation for this.

Let me also just ask the Government who it is leading up the garden path with conduct such as this, with the modus operandi being employed in Natal. The Bill is now making provision for the first joint executive authority between the Natal provincial authorities and the kwaZulu authorities. That is, of course, the new provincial authority, the provincial authority in its new guise.

This authority is no longer being elected by the voters, being appointed from above, and what is more it is a racially mixed executive committee. It is now being appointed by the State President without any responsibility or accountability to the voters of Natal, whether they are Whites, Indians, Coloureds or Black people. Fundamentally it is an illustration of the undemocratic way in which the Government operates. We can argue and debate the issue to our hearts’ content, but here we are fundamentally dealing with nothing short of the creation, the establishment, of a third authority for the area of Natal and kwaZulu. It is being called a joint executive authority. It is a third authority being created in Natal. The Minister does say, in his second reading speech:

Of course that is not yet the case. I accept the fact. It is, however, the forerunner of such an eventuality. The hon the Minister says it is merely an instrument which will be employed by the regional governments of Natal and kwaZulu to carry out joint projects and that it does not replace the two authorities. That is also true. This joint authority is not replacing the other two; it is simply a third authority which will have certain duties and powers. I shall be coming to that.

Once again I want to draw the attention of hon members in the House to the hon the Minister’s terminology. It is very interesting—and I find it very significant—that the hon the Minister speaks of two “areas”, of “regions” and of “regional governments”. Firstly I want to ask why specifically the hon the Minister repeatedly referred to the term “region”. I have noticed that the hon the Minister never makes incorrect use of a strange term or one that is out of the ordinary. He uses a specific concept with a specific purpose in mind and does so at a specific time and in a specific place. He does not use any concept for no rhyme or reason. [Interjections.] He is very skilful as far as that is concerned. Today he might use a term that goes unnoticed, but later he would confront one with it. If one attacks him on the issue, he says he has made repeated use of the concept on several occasions, that thus far nothing was said about it and that it had hitherto been accepted. I therefore now want to point out to hon members in good time that it is not without reason that the hon the Minister had used specific terminology in this Bill. In his mind it is the prelude to something else. He never makes random use of a specific concept.

He specifically has regional government in mind as the second-tier government in South Africa. Is he now going to shake or nod his head? [Interjections.] In the light of the provisions of the Bill approved by the House in June, ie that the provinces can be reduced in size and their boundaries changed, let me now ask the hon the Minister frankly whether it is his intention to replace the provincial authorities with regional authorities. Is it his ultimate intention that Natal/kwaZulu will eventually have one racially mixed government? Would the hon the Minister now please shake his head, or is he going to nod his head?

I shall give you a comprehensive reply. [Interjections.]

Yes, I hope so.

The Government will not force independence on kwaZulu. That is, after all, the policy he spelled out. The Chief Minister of kwaZulu does not want to accept independence either. In the context of South Africa as a whole, he wants to become part of the Government on his terms. According to him, black majority government must be the end result. This project in Natal is the forerunner of that eventuality. With the advent of this Bill, which makes provision for this joint “regional authority”, to use the hon the Minister’s words, kwaZulu will never accept independence. What is more, as this system is extended to other provinces or areas in South Africa, no other national state will accept independence either.

This joint executive authority, the hon the Minister’s “instrument” which is being created, has specific powers and responsibilities. Before dealing with this in greater detail, I now want to ask the hon the Minister, in the light of the fact that the national state of kwaZulu with its authority in Natal does exist and that the executive committee, with its specific responsibilities and powers, also exists in Natal, whether it is a requirement, or a specific prerequisite, that a third joint authority should now be created. What ought to be its functions? Is such a third authority necessary so that the two existing authorities can consult each other and so that certain joint projects can be carried out? Is this third authority really essential to effective government or is it a superfluous body that is being created? My contention is that the latter is the case. It is a superfluous body. Is it not merely an illustration of cooperation with ulterior motives if things have to be done in this way? With deceitful reform one cannot trust a single step this Government makes. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with two authorities within that former area of Natal which is now to be Natal and kwaZulu. Each of those areas has its own authority entrusted with certain duties and responsibilities with regard to the people of that area and of the area itself.

What is more, we are not dealing here with two independent states. The one is a provincial authority which is part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa and the other is a national state which also forms part of the Republic of South Africa, in spite of its self-governing status. If there are any matters of common concern affecting these two areas, whether it be a road traversing both areas, a certain speed limit which is applicable, a river flowing through both areas which could possibly give rise to a joint project for the supply of water, or whatever, is it specifically necessary for an executive body to be established to undertake these joint projects, or would it not be better and cheaper for this Government to empower a province to enter into agreements on such joint projects with the kwaZulu Government? Both could then furnish their inputs, make their contributions, and then such a project could be tackled by way of agreement. It would be much cheaper if the Government adopted this course, it would present the Whites in Natal with far fewer difficulties and engender far less opposition amongst the Whites in Natal in whose ranks there is already opposition to this kind of power-sharing. It really does not require a third joint executive authority to launch certain joint projects.

If today, for example, we had to launch such a joint project for the supply of water between Lesotho and the Republic of South Africa, or one involving the provision of electricity between the Government of Mozambique and that of the Republic of South Africa, must we now establish a third executive body for that purpose? There is no need for that. There is no need for such a co-operative body. The step being taken in Natal is a superfluous one, but as far as I am concerned it merely confirms the underlying reason for this, the surreptitious aspect, ie that the hon the Minister ultimately envisages one regional government for Natal and kwaZulu. Other than that the hon the Minister could do a far better job of tackling such joint projects by way of agreement than by way of a joint body. [Interjections.]

I am therefore amazed that the former hon member for Klip River, in his day a great champion of a Coloured homeland, compared the body now being established in Natal with bodies such as Nato, the EEC and the European Parliament—bodies created for, and negotiations taking place between, absolutely independent European states. Because the areas are adjacent areas, understandably there could be matters of common interest, and it is also understandable that co-operation might be necessary and even logical, but I want to reiterate that it is not necessary to have an umbrella authority. Results could be achieved more efficiently and more cheaply by way of agreement. This authority is now being established in terms of clause 5 of the Bill, read in conjunction with clause 2(4). In other words, this is taking place at the request of the Administrator and the Chief Minister. It is a cumbersome procedure that is being adopted here. The Chief Minister and the Administrator must each decide that certain projects or matters should be submitted, as joint projects, to this body which is to be established. Then they must go the whole way, through the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and through the State President, who then establishes this body, determining that certain matters be transferred to it. Matters transferred to this body could embrace the overall administration of certain matters, or even the overall administration of a specific piece of legislation, in terms of the Bill under discussion. In order to do so, an administration for this joint authority must be created. It surely cannot function without staff, nor can it function without money. Joint funds must therefore be made available. This body must also have its own staff and structures must be created for it. Those structures form the core of a joint regional authority that will eventually come into being.

It is true that in the present situation the Government of kwaZulu and the provincial authority of Natal still remain separate authorities, each with its own duties and responsibilities. The moment something is taken away from them—such is the provision in the Bill under discussion—the matter reverts fully to that third body, with the former two bodies having nothing further to do with the matter, and the third body must then carry out the implementation.

I find this extremely significant, Sir. It is very significant that the hon the Minister equates a transfer of this nature with the transfer of a matter from one Cabinet Minister to another. The interaction between two Cabinet Ministers is now being equated with the transfer of functions to this third joint authority. I want to know what is behind this contention on the part of the hon the Minister. Nor do I believe that he is simply using this analogy in a haphazard fashion. He also has a very definite purpose in doing so. The administration and staff involved in this third joint authority are going to cost money. It is going to cost money to keep that body functioning. Here I am not referring to the finance which will have to be supplied to carry out the body’s joint projects. I am speaking of the establishment of a third administration that will be necessary for the functioning of that body. My question is whether this is not superfluous in the light of the fact that when it is done by way of agreement, it is possible merely to use the administrations of the two existing authorities to carry out those projects.

The question is simply whether the Government is shying away from the possibility of agreements being entered into. Why is the Government shying away from the possibility of entering into agreements? Does that hon Minister want to tell me that the recipe for reaching agreement is an impossible one? Does he want to tell me that complete implementation is impossible? Does he not believe it will work? Does he therefore believe that a third racially mixed administration must therefore be called into being for Natal? I want to contend that this recipe for agreement would be more successful than the recipe for a joint authority—the joint authority that the Government is now trying to establish.

It is clear that this is a calculated step in thwarting any possibility or probability of kwaZulu obtaining independence. With this step the Government can forget about that once and for all. It will never happen. I think, however, that the secret behind all this lies in the following words of the hon the Minister, and I quote:

And now the significant words:

There we have it—joint decision-making. After all, in his recipe this hon Minister has incorporated a process of joint decisionmaking. This whole recipe of joint decisionmaking has, in fact, resulted in this tricameral parliament that we have today. At the time that hon Minister also began using the words “joint decision-making”. That resulted in this tricameral parliament we have today. So it is not without reason that the term “joint decision-making” is also being used in this case. The hon the Minister has in mind that it will result in something similar to what we have in Natal, ie joint decision-making by way of a joint, racially mixed body. That is, after all, the terminology this hon Minister starts using when he is proposing a recipe for power-sharing, his recipe for establishing racially mixed bodies in one joint authority for a specific area.

This brings us back to the whole question of the hon the Minister’s use of words, ie “regional structures” and “joint decision-making”. It also brings us back to the provision in clause 5(l)(d) of the Provincial Government Bill which was before this House in June, a provision to the effect that any other territory could be included in any province. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that the statement he made on that day with regard to these territories is still not acceptable to me under any circumstances. It is not acceptable to me at all, because I know about this hon Minister’s choice of words. Here we are dealing with nothing less than a transitional phase on the way to one Natal regional authority.

The hon the Minister says, for example:

He speaks of “structured regional co-operation”, Sir! [Interjections.] “Co-operation” was, after all, one of the words used at the time. This subsequently gave rise to joint decision-making and ultimately to the tricameral Parliament. We therefore know what those steps entail; we do not find this strange. We are simply mentioning it in advance so that when we get round to it, the hon the Minister will know that we were aware of what he was doing.

Power-sharing between Blacks and Whites is what is behind it. That is the purpose of this Bill. The Government, with the father of power-sharing in the NP as the hon the Minister now dealing with this Bill, administers power-sharing solely within the same governmental structures. The NP Government administers its power-sharing within the same governmental structures. We already have regional services councils at the third tier of government and a tricameral Parliament at the first tier of government.

The Government first tried a racially mixed executive committee, but now it still has the governments of these self-governing Black states within the provinces and is going to try to link them up jointly so that they can eventually become that regional authority in which power is shared in accordance with the Government’s recipe.

It is specifically for that reason that provision has been made in the Provincial Government Act for the possibility of implementing, elsewhere in the Republic of South Africa, the structure being created in terms of the Joint Executive Authority for kwaZulu and Natal Bill. He therefore does not want to stop with Natal; he does not merely want to stop with the joint executive authority for Natal. He wants to extend this throughout the Republic of South Africa, which he wishes to envisage as a unitary state. He also wants to extend this to the other areas. Here in Natal he has an opportunity to carry out the experiment, to start carrying it out. [Interjections.] I shall say it another ten times if it pleases the hon member for Welkom. I have the right to say something in this House as often as I want to, until Mr Speaker prohibits me from doing so.

Order! I shall now have to tell the hon member that he may not say it again because his time has expired.

Mr Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the preceding two speakers because, as has frequently been the case, they again contradicted one another one hundred per cent. The hon member for Umbilo of the NRP said that this was not an experiment in power-sharing. The hon member for Koedoespoort of the CP pointed out with great verbosity that this matter was undoubtedly heading for an evil power-sharing situation. This is the dilemma we are faced with, because our opponents on the various sides interpret these matters so differently that eventually one cannot make any sense out of it. The hon member for Koedoespoort said quite a number of things and I should like to return to them in the course of my speech.

In the first place I want to look briefly at the specific circumstances which in the case of Natal and kwaZulu make an arrangement like this possible on the one hand and at least desirable on the other. The hon member for Koedoespoort repeatedly asked the hon the Minister whether it was really necessary for it to be done in this way and whether it could not rather be done by way of an agreement. I want to discuss this point briefly.

When we look at Natal and kwaZulu together, we see that a specific situation prevails where the heterogeneity which we experience in South Africa is far less accentuated. Basically we are dealing here with the White group, the Indian group and the Zulu group. Consequently three of our population groups are represented in that area although other groups are also present in smaller numbers. As far as any joint decision-making is concerned, it is consequently far easier to handle this situation than is the case when one is dealing with more than ten different ethnic groups.

On the other hand in spite of consolidation kwaZulu still consists geographically of quite a number of areas, and these areas are distributed throughout the whole of Natal although they are confined to Natal. Consequently the situation exists here that the need for intimate co-operation between these two authorities is very great. Because the two areas are so continuous, there are a tremendous number of matters common to these two areas in the field of roads, water control, agriculture, and so on. Consequently this makes it essential for there to be some or other form of co-operation between the authorities of kwaZulu and Natal.

If the hon member for Koedoespoort was really interested in the replies to his questions, he would surely have paid attention to the way in which I have tried to explain this to him. On the one hand it is consequently essential for there to be co-operation.

The hon member for Koedoespoort pointed out how cumbersome it is when the authority of kwaZulu and the authority of Natal must first apply to the Minister for a specific matter to be entrusted to this joint authority. This was the argument he advanced and therein lay his own downfall, because he said that if there was no structured basis for cooperation, every agreement which was entered into would have to take place in accordance with this laborious process. In other words, what he is now holding up as a problem he wants to hold up later as a facilitating factor…

That is correct.

… and that cannot happen.

As a result of the closely interlocking nature of the interests of the people of kwaZulu and Natal it is most desirable—not indispensable, but most desirable—and far more effective to create such a structured joint decision-making body.

With reference to the speeches of both the previous speakers I want to state categorically that what we are creating here is a mechanism for joint decision-making in a specific region in South Africa. In that respect it is a specific form of power-sharing, because a specific power is being exercised with regard to specific matters of common interest and that power will be exercised jointly by these two components which the authority consists of. That is why it is a form of power-sharing.

I think one of the reasons why the hon members of the CP are opposed to this measure is that they foresee that there is a great danger that it may work. And if it works, then it will invalidate a large number of their arguments and the distorted reasoning which they put before the electorate. That is why the CP are so strongly opposed to this.

The hon member for Koedoespoort also made another interesting point. He said that if this co-operation took place by way of agreement instead of a joint authority, this would evoke far less resistance from the White voters. I do not know; he would appear to be contradicting himself, because the CP is trying to encourage resistance among the voters to the specific form we are dealing with. The CP is using that resistance as a form of propaganda against the Government and the NP. Consequently if we were to take the hon member’s advice, it would actually be detrimental to the CP. The reason why that hon member is so eager to give us the advice is that he knows we will definitely not take it.

If I understood the hon member correctly, and now I should like to have his attention for a moment…

I have been listening all the time!

The hon member said this was a consequence of section 5 of the Provincial Affairs Act. Is that correct? I do not see it that way and I cannot see how there can be any connection between the two, because, as far as I know, section 5 of the Provincial Affairs Act merely concerns the possible division of existing provinces into smaller administrative units.

No, you do not understand! You are making a big mistake!

In any case this Bill is not in any way dependent on any section in any other Act.

[Inaudible.]

It does not refer back to any other enabling Act; it is a Bill standing absolutely on its own.

The provision is made there.

The hon member said that the NP was hiding behind the NRP, was hiding behind another party.

Yes, of course!

Even before this Bill is passed in Parliament the NP has unseated the NRP in Natal. This is in fact the complaint of the other people. The NP Government in fact established an executive committee in Natal. There is an executive committee of its own choice which was not established by anyone else. It did this even before this Bill was passed by Parliament. Consequently there is no question that we are hiding behind an NRP Government in Natal to pilot this matter through on our behalf, because that NRP Government no longer exists in Natal. [Interjections.]

It is also clear that both the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Pietersburg, who spoke earlier, are totally confused about this initiative and the kwa-Zulu-Natal Indaba which is under way at the moment. As a matter of act, the hon member for Koedoespoort intimated that this Bill was actually a consequence of what was decided at the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba, whereas the Indaba, the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba only came into existence after these recommendations had been made to the Government.

As a result of discussions between the government of kwaZulu and the then NRP government of Natal and only after this had been agreed to in principle by the Government, the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba came into existence. In other words, it is definitely not a consequence of the present kwaZulu-Natal…

Was the NP present there the entire time, or were they only there as observers?

The NP was not present at the discussions which led to the proposal from kwaZulu and Natal which gave rise to this Bill.

That is where the egg was laid.

What happened is that after the proposals had been submitted to the Government, the Government negotiated further with the relevant two parties and reached an agreement with them regarding this Bill. In other words, the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba is in no way involved in this piece of legislation. Consequently it is quite clear, Sir, that both the hon members of the CP who spoke about this had no idea of the chronology or of how matters fitted together with regard to this Bill and its relationship with the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba which is under way at the moment. [Interjections.]

This Bill and this arrangement are of such a nature that on the one hand it can perhaps serve as a specific model for similar co-operation agreements which can be established elsewhere in the country. It will have demonstrative value, because there are other places in the country where there is also a close link between the local communities and the national states in the region. On the other hand it is also true that the circumstances prevailing in Natal and kwaZulu are so unique—I should like to emphasise this—that one cannot automatically see this arrangement being made for kwaZulu and for Natal as a model which can simply be applied elsewhere unchanged.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin tried to point out that confusion about power-sharing had arisen. The hon member for Umbilo said the Bill did not represent power-sharing and that the hon member for Koedoespoort had allegedly pointed out that the Bill represented power-sharing, but the hon member for Helderkruin did not tell us what his standpoint was. [Interjections.]

I said it was power-sharing.

I apologise; he said it was power-sharing, but I should like to quote the Minister to prove that the hon member for Koedoespoort is correct. The hon the Minister said the following:

That is why I think the hon member for Helderkruin should fight with his friend, the hon member for Umbilo, about whose policy they are really spelling out and implementing here today. [Interjections.]

The hon member said such a decisionmaking body was imperative for joint projects. The NP’s official policy in the past was that the various peoples, particularly the various Black peoples, should be led on the course of complete freedom within an own fatherland. Through the years a homeland—a fatherland—was therefore created for the Zulus. Millions of rands were spent on purchasing land for the Zulu fatherland, and efforts are at present being made to consolidate that fatherland. The eventual ideal was that kwaZulu, as the Zulu people’s father-land, would eventually become completely independent and free. That was the ideal the old NP strove for, and if it had continued on that course, it would not have been necessary to create such power-sharing bodies to allow negotiation to take place in order to give substance to these projects. It is very clear to me, however, that the National Party has dispensed with that ideal and is beginning to devise other plans, that it is beginning to make use of bodies such as this one to give substance to power-sharing, also on this level of government, on a regional government level, not only between the Whites and kwaZulu, as the hon member said, but between the Whites, Coloureds and Indians of Natal and kwaZulu.

Mr Chairman, when the NRP, which was the governing party in Natal until recently, launched the Natal/kwaZulu Indaba, the hon member for Vryheid—unfortunately I do not see him in the House at the moment—arranged his own little indaba at Louwsburg—the Louwsburg indaba; a kind of mutual aid indaba. One of the requests of this Louwsburg indaba was that the farmers of that region were to register their Black farm labourers as members of Inkatha. Unfortunately the hon member is not here now, but I should like to ask him how far they have progressed with the registration of their farm labourers as members of Inkatha. I think the hon member would agree that it would be easier for him to register members for Inkatha on his farm in the Vryheid constituency today than it is to register members in that constituency in the National Party.

You are right, Jan.

Mr Chairman, Inkatha has its own trade union movement. When the hon member for Vryheid and his Louwsburg indaba are registering members for Inkatha, they are indirectly recruiting members for a trade union movement for Zulu farm labourers in Natal as well. Since the hon member spoke about farm labourers and the attitude between farmer and farm labourer, I want to tell hon members today that the CP is opposed to trade unions for farm labourers. We are opposed to the creation of trade unions for farm labourers. [Interjections.] The CP is also in favour of good employer-employee relations, however, and good relations between the farmer and the people who work on his farm. The CP does not hate the Zulu people because we do not want them to enter upon a power-sharing situation with the Government. We grant the Zulu people much more than the multiracial body the Government is creating. We grant the Zulus their eventual full freedom within an own fatherland so that they need not ask the Indians or the Whites of Natal what they should do in their own fatherland, but can be completely free. That is what we grant them. If they are on that course, we shall have good relations with them. In fact, we think that is the recipe for good relations in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon member that farmers have great numbers of Black labourers on their farms today. Many Blacks would be unemployed and would have no homes or food as a result of poor economic conditions if those farmers did not keep them on their farms. If those farmers were to be compelled by a Black trade union today to provide prescribed remuneration and housing, such a directive could force those farmers to tell those people whom they are taking care of now, to leave their farms.

Order! I find no reference to trade unions in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to the argument raised by the hon member for Vryheid about the indaba idea.

Order! I want to tell the hon member that I find nothing about trade unions here, and the hon member will now cease that part of his argument.

Mr Chairman, this is a question of co-operation between people of kwaZulu and the White section of Natal—a smaller indaba which was held—and I merely wanted to draw it to that hon member’s attention that the fact that, with his smaller indaba, he is recruiting members for Inkatha, which indirectly is a trade union organisation, is also endangering the people. Many Blacks who are on farms today may have to leave those farms.

Order! That is the second time the hon member has made that point and he must drop that point too now.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in Die Burger of 15 August 1986:

[Interjections.] I beg your pardon? I do not want to read the whole report, but the hon the Minister said that if there were far-reaching proposals, they would be presented to the people of Natal. In other words, the hon the Minister held out the prospect that if there were far-reaching proposals, a referendum on this matter would be held in Natal. I would welcome this.

This Bill before us is the result of joint concept proposals which were submitted to the Government in March 1986. This Bill contains a drastic change in the existing situation. KwaZulu is a self-governing state with an own chief minister and a cabinet. In March 1986 the provincial authority of Natal was an elected provincial council in which the NRP had the majority. The hon the Minister also mentioned here that this Indaba took place on the initiative of the NRP and the kwaZulu government, and that this Bill is the result of the negotiations between the NRP government of Natal and kwaZulu. Let us look at the support for the NRP government in Natal which submitted this proposal to the Government in March 1986. At that stage the NRP was still governing Natal and this Bill is the result.

In the 1981 election the NRP received 4 200 votes in Port Natal. That represents 45,2% of the votes in Port Natal. A by-election took place in the same constituency in 1986. The NRP’s candidate, Mr J van R Smit, received 550 votes in the by-election. This represents only 5,3% of the votes cast in that constituency. In my opinion that little party is the only party of which the numbers have dropped more rapidly than those of the NP during the past year, because the NRP members are ranging themselves on the side of the NP which has swallowed up their policy to a great extent. [Interjections.] In Port Natal alone, the NRP’s support decreased from 45% to 5%. The hon the Minister is submitting a Bill to this Parliament, however, which emerged from discussions between the NRP and the government of kwaZulu. He is submitting that Bill to the House.

In July 1986 the provincial authority of Natal changed, however. A multiracial executive committee consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians was appointed.

I want to quote from the hon the Minister’s speech again, because he really wanted me to read him everything contained in Die Burger. At the end of that speech he said the following:

It neither wants to nor can take a stand on the Indaba at this stage. At the federal congress of the NP he said the other day he did not want to take a stand on the Indaba, but at this stage we have legislation before us which gives substance to the kwaZulu/Natal Indaba. The hon the Minister says, however, the Government does not want to take a stand on this yet.

I should like to refer to section 17 of the Provincial Government Act. Section 17(1) states the following:

That is section 17(1) of the Provincial Government Act. In other words, in terms of this section the State President may, on the request of any administrator or chief minister, commit a province and self-governing state to a similar joint government by way of a proclamation. Here we have the Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal Bill, but in terms of the section in the legislation on provincial government this is only the recipe for further possible steps which can be taken to establish such joint executive bodies for other provinces as well.

Administrator Cruywagen of the Transvaal and the chief ministers of Lebowa and kwaNdebele may make such a request to President Botha. The State President has announced that self-governing city-states may develop in terms of the NP policy. There is also a very strong possibility that a city such as Soweto can be such a self-governing city-state. [Interjections.] This means that Administrator Cruywagen and the chief ministers of Lebowa and kwaNdebele and of Soweto can request President Botha to establish a similar executive authority for those bodies in the Transvaal.

Administrator Cruywagen, who was appointed by the State President, who has no responsibility towards the Transvaal electorate and who was not appointed by them in a democratic way, but was appointed by the State President, can, with the Black leaders, request the State President to establish a coordinating body. He can do so while the CP’s support in the Transvaal is overwhelming. I think it is a foregone conclusion that if a provincial election were held in the Transvaal, the CP would obtain the majority. That is a foregone conclusion. [Interjections.] Not even one of the hon members will argue with me on that point. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Kimberley North, who does not even know what is going on in his own constituency, wants to debate that point with me. [Interjections.]

The Administrator, appointed by the State President, makes a request which is in total conflict with the standpoint of the White residents of the province of which he is the Administrator. It may be that this yes-man appointed by the State President can make a request to the State President which is in total conflict with the interests of the Whites in that province. [Interjections.] The Whites of a province…

Order! I did not quite hear what the hon member called the Administrator.

I said appointed people were the State President’s yes-men. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The Whites of a province are now bound by the action of a liberal stooge administrator appointed by the State President, and what is more, by the State President who does not have the confidence of the Whites of South Africa.

I want to make a statement today that this Bill is a drastic deviation from the existing dispensation, and before this Bill is implemented, not only must it be submitted to the Natal electorate in a referendum, but it must also be submitted to the whole of South Africa by means of a referendum or a general election.

I want to request that we consider the Executive Committee of Natal. That is one of the reasons I am asking for this Bill to be presented to the Whites of Natal and of South Africa by means of a referendum before it is implemented.

The Executive Committee of Natal was appointed. It consists of two Whites, two Indians and one Coloured. Three Whites, one Coloured, one Indian and one Black were appointed in the Cape Province. Three Whites, one Coloured and one Black were appointed in the Free State. Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were appointed in the Transvaal. It is very interesting, however, that only Whites, Coloureds and Indians were appointed in Natal, although, according to the census figures, there are 4,4 million Blacks, 560 000 Whites, 89 000 Coloureds and 654 000 Asians in Natal.

At this stage no Black Executive Committee members have been appointed in Natal. With reference to clause 5(2) which provides that the Government of kwaZulu and the provincial government of Natal should have equal representation, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether those vacancies were deliberately left vacant until such time as this Bill has been passed. Why were Blacks not appointed to the Executive Committee of Natal as in the other provinces? Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Blacks who will be appointed to the Executive Committee of Natal will possibly be the representatives of the kwaZulu government. The hon the Minister must reply to us on that point. If the hon the Minister is not going to appoint representatives of kwaZulu to this executive committee, he must tell us whether he is still going to appoint representatives to the Executive Committee of Natal for the Blacks who live outside kwaZulu. If he is not going to do so, I want to know why not. If the hon the Minister is going to appoint two Whites, two Coloureds, an Indian and two or three Blacks to the Executive Committee of Natal as representatives, and kwaZulu and Natal have an equal number of representatives in this executive body which has to be created, it may happen that kwaZulu will have its representatives in the joint executive body, while Natal has a White, a Coloured, an Indian and also a Zulu as representatives in this body. These are possibilities. [Interjections.]

Earlier in the House of Assembly the hon the Minister said a Black could become the Administrator of a province. If he is going to appoint Blacks from kwaZulu, Zulus, as representatives to this executive committee, I want to ask him now whether it is not perhaps possible for Chief Minister Buthelezi to become the Administrator of this province. Can he become the Administrator?

Does that worry you?

No, I know it will not worry the PFP. It does worry me, however. I am worried because a Black man can become the Administrator of Natal.

Why? [Interjections.]

It worries me that we have a government in power in this country which can cause a Black man to become an Administrator of the Cape. [Interjections.] It worries me and the CP that a Black man can become the State President of South Africa under the direction of that party, with the support of the PFP.

Why?

It worries me that that can happen. [Interjections.]

They are in the majority.

The hon member says the Blacks are in the majority and therefore a Black state president should come into power. They agree with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is a logical consequence of the NP policy.

Then they will all move to America.

A Black state president who is the head of the SA Defence Force, who can declare war and make peace, will be the result.

Order! The hon member has digressed far enough; he must return to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I said that was a possibility and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must give us a guarantee. If hon members look at these possibilities, which the hon the Minister and his hon colleagues have not clarified at all, this Bill must be presented not only to the Natal electorate, but to the voters of South Africa, by means of a referendum or a general election. [Interjections.] What we really want is an election.

Mr Tino Volker, former member for Klip River, who took part in this debate and is now a member of the Executive Committee of Natal and may be one of the members who will serve on this joint executive authority with the government of kwaZulu, said recognition was being given to the fact that the kwaZulu authority will co-operate officially with the White authority of the Province of Natal to deliberate on certain joint matters, to take joint decisions and to make recommendations which can then be implemented. Mr Volker, who is a member of the Executive Committee in Natal, was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] He said that recognition was being given to the fact that the authority of kwaZulu would co-operate officially with the White authority of the Province of Natal. I hope Mr Volker will realise in the multiracial Executive Committee of Natal, in which he is serving, that it is not co-operation between the government of kwaZulu and the Whites of Natal, but rather co-operation between the cabinet of kwaZulu and a multiracial executive committee which represents the Natal electorate.

The CP cannot support this Bill at all. It is one of the Government’s steps on the course of power-sharing, also with Blacks, which holds catastrophic results for South Africa and the Whites. This policy will not lead to peace and prosperity. It will not lead to development in South Africa; it will cause conflict and strife, as was proved in the past. The only alternative to this is a policy of partition, of separation, which will give the various peoples the right to govern themselves fully within their own fatherlands, so that eventually they will be able to govern themselves self-sufficiently and independently and can be completely free, and the various sovereign independent states will eventually be able to talk to one another about matters of common interest. That is the only peaceful course that can be taken.

Mr Chairman, I do not agree at all with the way of peace of the hon member for Kuruman, but I am not going to elaborate on that for too long. I want to ask the hon member one thing, however, and that is to please stop calling the State President a liberal, because that is an offence to my pride, to that of all other liberals and, I am sure, to that of the State President as well. [Interjections.]

I am also very surprised about the hon member seeing any plan of the Government in this legislation. Co-operation, even according to the Verwoerdian model, between neighbouring states would certainly be necessary but all I hear from the NP when it comes to new plans, is one great silence. One does not get any creative solutions from them. Co-operation between neighbouring but separate, intertwined units is hardly creative and is certainly not unique.

†The non-elected, NP appointed Natal executive is now a fact of life. This clouds the formation of the joint executive authority for Natal/kwaZulu which had as its prime motivation not simply a co-operative coexistence package between two ethnically defined authorities. It was also considered to be a phase leading towards the establishment of a fully representative second-tier government for Natal. Insofar as the Government refused to allow the previous executive to remain in office until the initiative which resulted in the indaba was brought to its conclusion, I believe the Government would be wise to limit the function of the new Natal executive to that of only a caretaker authority and to refrain from forcing its own discredited and ill-defined second and third-tier proposals on the people of Natal. [Interjections.] We call on the Government to place a moratorium on the introduction of any further second and third-tier structures until such time as the indaba has come forward with its proposals. [Interjections.] Such a moratorium is necessary in order to ensure that the function of this new joint executive should be merely to execute those proposals.

*The hon member for Pietersburg as well as the hon member for Koedoespoort and other hon members of the Conservative Party are in fact already fighting an election campaign with a view to the coming by-election in Klip River. They are trying hard to scare people about the outcome of the Indaba and are alleging that this legislation forms part of a process which in the end would lead to the establishment of a single legislative authority for that area. That could possibly be the outcome of the deliberations of the Indaba but certainly not of this legislation.

Therefore, let those hon members try to scare the people if they wish. However, I suggest to hon members here in this House that in Natal there is a feeling of optimism with regard to the Indaba and to the possibility that a Government of that kind could be brought into being. Businessmen and the general public elsewhere in South Africa are in despair. They do not want to make any new investments.

Why do you not put up a candidate in Klip River? [Interjections.]

The general view of people with regard to the outcome of the Indaba… [Interjections.]

No, you are obviously going to support the Nats in the Klip River by-election. [Interjections.]

Yes, rather the Nats than you! [Interjections.]

So you are helping your little brothers! [Interjections.]

I believe the general expectations of people in South Africa at this stage as far as the economy or security in this country is concerned, are not high. The general outlook of people is sombre. There is nothing more to comfort them. Even talking about a so-called Boerestaat does not make them happy any more. Even the talk of so-called city states proved to be nothing more than a vain dream. Although Monaco may be independent, Inanda does not want to be independent—neither does kwaMashu.

†The people of Natal actually have great faith in the indaba, particularly in these dark days for South Africa. Now, the Government sees in this merely a co-operative coexistence model. For co-operative co-existence to work, however, one presumes, first of all, that there must be divisions in order to make it possible to co-operate. The people of Natal, however, are not excited about the concept of co-operative co-existence. They are excited about the prospect of simply being people living in a so-called liberated zone in Natal—liberated from the fetters of apartheid, that is. They do not want to look for joint structures. They are talking in fact of a single governing structure for Natal. This Government will therefore do well not to hijack this mood of optimism prevailing in Natal and not to present this as exactly their model of co-operative co-existence.

*The former member for Klip River called this co-operation merely an example of cooperation between neighbours. He said that this could serve as an example to the rest of the country. I believe the people of Natal no longer regard one another as neighbours. They should now like to regard one another as one big family.

The hon member for Helderkruin suggested that the proposed executive council was an example of power-sharing. Well, perhaps it is power-sharing on the executive level. On the other hand, however, it is a false argument of the CP that this would lead to a single legislative authority and therefore legislative power-sharing. I should like to hear from hon members of the NP where they stand with regard to that argument. Is it a false argument to them, too, that this may lead to a single legislative authority?

†The original proposal was, of course, the outcome of people having spoken to each other. Therein, too, lies a lesson for the Government, especially for that hon Minister who claims that he speaks to everybody. The Government must not hold this up as an example of its success in the politics of negotiation. As a matter of fact, if this Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal fails, it will be precisely because the Government does not know what negotiation means.

I should like to quote what Chief Buthelezi said. Regarding the Government’s action in sacking the whole Natal executive that was partly responsible for the introduction of this Bill, Chief Buthelezi said:

He went on to say:

Should this executive not come up to scratch in any way, therefore, that hon Minister would be very much to blame because of his haste in wanting to introduce his form of second-tier government. [Interjections.]

The spirit prevailing in Natal at the moment is beginning to undercut the radicals on the left, and I think that Natal is in fact the only region where the true middle-ground or the moderate people, are riding high at this stage. I want to ask the Government to allow the people of Natal to show how the middle ground can in fact pave the way for a peaceful future in Natal. In Durban there is great excitement among the people from divergent backgrounds and affiliations about a new era of structures defined on a non-racial basis. There is also excitement about the bill of rights that has already been agreed upon.

People understand that the solution for South Africa’s future cannot contain any part of the problem, viz the definition of rights and governmental structures in racial terms. There is an understanding that in order to avert disaster, some people may not feel as secure as they do now and they may feel that they will not have all the privileges and the powers that they are enjoying at present. However, they do know that they will be infinitely better off than if we were to continue along the road we are following at present.

The Government should understand that it requires some real talking about non-racial alternatives in order to find answers, not merely talk about rearranging the ethnic furniture.

Are you for or against the Bill?

Sir, I therefore want to tell this Government to forget about city states, cantons, own affairs or joint structures as long as they are based on racial exclusiveness.

We obviously support the Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal, but we support it in the hope that it will be true to its original concept, namely that it will be a phenomenon with a very fleeting existence, like Halley’s Comet. However, we hope that it will never return.

Mr Chairman on 20 June 1986, the hon the Minister said (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 9162):

As is apparent from this legislation, what that underlying philosophy of the hon the Minister amounts to is nothing less than that the Government adopts the standpoint that the whole of Natal belongs to the Zulus. In the introduction to his speech he said that the Afrikaners only had “various beacons” that were of particular historic interest to them in that province. In the second place, he did at least say that English-speaking South Africans had “played a cardinal role in the development of the area”. Of the Indians he merely said that they had succeeded in putting down roots in the area. It is only of the Zulus that he said: “It is their ancestral land”. The Government is not allocating a square inch of “ancestral land” to either the Indians or the Whites, whether English- or Afrikaans-speaking.

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

No. We shall take the Government to task in Klip River, and we invite the hon members to Klip River because it is there that they will have to reply to this statement. I can inform this House today that in Klip River a swing away from the Government is in progress which is going to have dramatic consequences in South African politics. [Interjections.] I am not going to give the hon members any figures this afternoon—we still do not have the complete figures for the entire electoral division—but in Klip River a judgment is going to be passed on this legislation as there is no opportunity to do anywhere else in South Africa.

What is strange is that it is not only the Government that wants to give the whole of Natal to the Zulus. Even Mr Robert van Tonder makes this statement in his book Boerestaat—’n Beter Toekoms vir Suidelike Afrika. He says the Boerestaat also presupposes that Natal will become a Zulu republic and that Natal can find its own norms as a Zulu republic. [Interjections.] That is precisely what the Government is doing here. They are turning Natal into a Zulu republic, although Chief Minister Buthelezi might subsequently say that it has to become a kingdom. Whatever it may be, kingdom or republic, we are here enabling Natal to find its own norms, away from the rest of South Africa. This is what this Government is doing, under that hon Minister.

The philosophy underlying this Bill is the philosophy of the Government, not only in regard to Natal, but also in regard to the whole of South Africa. Natal is becoming the guinea-pig. In Natal the Government is moving further than the tricameral parliamentary system we already have. The Government is turning Natal into the guinea-pig for the whole of South Africa, because we cannot as yet take the practical steps that can be taken in Natal throughout the whole of South Africa. We can see, however, that the Government adopts the same underlying philosophy in respect of the future of the whole of South Africa.

The hon member for Kuruman, in a speech earlier this year, said inter alia that he was master on his farm and that even though there were many non-Whites he was entitled to be in charge there as the master and the owner. In reply to the hon member’s statement, the hon the Minister said that that statement contained an implication, namely that somewhere in South Africa there was a fatherland in which the Whites were in the majority. If that was not the implication, it meant that a majority had to be dominated by a White minority. There was no alternative. But if the hon the Minister said that the implication of the statement made by the hon member for Kuruman was that somewhere in South Africa there was a fatherland in which the Whites were in the majority, then the opposite is also true in respect of the hon the Minister’s statement, namely that because that there is no White majority anywhere in South Africa, the Whites do not have a fatherland anywhere in South Africa. Nowhere in Natal are the Whites in the majority, that is why the “whole of Natal is the ancestral land of the Zulus”. The reverse, or the implication, of the hon the Minister’s statement is the same for the rest of South Africa. There is not a district or a province in the rest of South Africa in which the Whites are in the majority. I therefore maintain that the view, or underlying philosophy, of the hon the Minister, which he adheres to in Natal, is the same as the one he adheres to for the whole of South Africa.

Order! The hon member must now return to the Bill.

That is why the State President said that South Africa was not a White man’s country. The hon the Minister said that there had never been a White South Africa.

Order! I asked the hon member to come back to the Bill. If not, he will have to resume his seat. The hon member may proceed.

That is why I want to come back to the hon the Minister’s statement. I want to illustrate that this Bill is not merely a Natal matter. We must consider this Bill against the background of what is happening throughout the whole of South Africa. We as a House are going…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, the Bill before deals with the position of Natal. The position of the remainder of the country is dealt with in terms of clause 17 of the Provincial Government Bill, which was disposed of in this Parliament.

Order! I agree with the hon the Minister. The hon member must confine himself to this Bill, which has nothing to do with the remainder of the country.

Mr Chairman, I am also referring to the hon the Minister’s speech. I began by referring to his speech, in which he spoke about the underlying philosophy. I cannot dispose of the matter of the underlying philosophy in a few words only. I am now referring to the philosophy, or the principle, which underlies the Bill. That is the basic point of departure in the Second Reading. With all due respect, I cannot see how I can deal with this matter thoroughly and demonstrate to the House, the country and the voters in Klip River what we are dealing with if we cannot dwell for a moment on this matter of the underlying philosophy.

Order! Whether the hon member can succeed in doing so or not is irrelevant. The rules of this House provide that the hon member is going to confine himself to this Bill. This is the third time I am asking the hon member to do so. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Kuruman must resume his seat, and the hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order… [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling, and the hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, do you not wish to allow me a point of order?

No, not at this stage. I have already decided. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Must I infer from your ruling that you are not going to allow any points of order in this debate?

When I have already ruled on a point of order, and my ruling was that the hon member for Sasolburg may proceed, a further point of order on that point on which the ruling was made, is irrelevant. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the State President, with reference to this Bill, said according to the Cape Times of 19 April:

How can we participate in this debate this afternoon, without referring to other matters? Here the State President said that this kind of body “could be established elsewhere”. How can one demonstrate to this House, to Klip River, to the rest of South Africa where else we are going, without considering where we are going in Natal. With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling; I do not want to come into conflict with your rulings at all. The cardinal aspect of this Bill is something which people find very difficult. The State President went on to say—this is according to the report in the Cape Times:

We agree with that. We do not want to refer to the Indaba. All I want to do is refer to this Bill and to its “underlying philosophy”, to demonstrate how important it also is to the remainder of South Africa. Another very important matter is that the NP, the present Government, did not withdraw a member—I am referring to Mr Tino Volker—of the executive committee that is governing Natal and that is going to have a say in this “joint administrative body” from this Indaba. That is an important point, but what is even more important is that in spite of pressure that was exerted on him to withdraw, he did not do so.

Let us leave aside the philosophy of this Bill for a moment; I think it is clear. In practice the Bill postulates the possibility that a Black man may be the executive official for the whole of Natal, and this is the first time in the history of South Africa that this is happening. It is the first time that this Government is going so far. Nowhere has the Government ever appointed a Black person in charge of an unlimited number of Whites in an entire area.

We are consequently dealing with an “underlying philosophy” which cuts far deeper than anything the Government has ever done before by way of practical legislation in South Africa. That is why the by-election in Klip River is attracting worldwide attention and why British television was in these buildings again this morning to conduct interviews. What is being envisaged is not merely one Black official for the entire province, but for the first time we find that a Black person, in respect of Whites as well, is going to dispose of funds which to a large extent are going to be made available by the central government, and on which this House may possibly vote, during the final steps in connection with the spending of those funds.

In the third instance, a practical step is being introduced for the first time in this legislation which is at variance with the Constitution which forms the basis of this Republic. There are “underlying philosophies” here which cut deeper than even the practical measures, namely that a third language may in fact become an official language in Natal. In terms of certain practical steps, prescribed by the Bill, a third language, Zulu, is going to have an official status. Here we are establishing an entirely new basic principle for Natal, and the State President says it can be extended to other territories. We accept that it applies to the whole of South Africa that there may be a third official language, and even more official languages. What could be more drastic than that?

There is not likely to be another Bill during this entire session which cuts as deeply into the politics of South Africa as this one. Now the question which occurs to me, and to hon on both sides of this House, and also to South Africa and the general public, is whether is going to remain at that. Are we going to go no further than just an administrative body, while an Indaba is in progress in Natal at which the National Party has representatives participating who refuse to withdraw even though they have in the meantime become MECs? Mr Chairman, what is going to ensue from this Bill? That is what the hon the Minister must tell us. Consequently I want to warn this House that with this Bill we are for the first time heading for real power-sharing among Blacks and Whites. That is the new point to which the hon the Minister will have to reply. In his speech, in his third last sentence, he said:

And where has there ever been such “real power-sharing”? The hon the Minister looks astonished, but I am quoting from his speech.

Mr Chairman, nowhere has that hon Minister or anyone else spoken about “real power-sharing between Black and White in South Africa” on a provincial level. That is why, Mr Chairman, this business is having such a drastic effect on the public, and I can inform this House that it is going to become the most pressing matter, the hottest issue of the Klip River by-election. If there is one point on which the English-speaking people are going to vote for the HNP, it is going to be in regard to this “real power-sharing between Black and White in South Africa”, because the hon the Minister… [Interjections.]… said at a Natal Congress in 1982: “Swartes mag nie in die huidige nuwe bedeling inkom nie”—as he explained to me later. He also said Blacks were not allowed to share in this new dispensation that had already been established, because it would destroy South Africa. When I confronted him with this, the hon the Minister told me that beyond the present new dispensation, a new dispensation was coming. It is therefore my contention that that is where we are headed with this new legislation. That is precisely what this Minister and his Government are doing: Beyond the dispensation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians they are now conducting South Africa towards a dispensation in which the Blacks, the Black masses of South Africa, are also going to be involved.

The first group is the Zulus in Natal and that is why this legislation—that is my point—is a prelude to infinitely more than we have had so far. This Government is now conducting us towards power-sharing with the Blacks, first in Natal in this way and then, the State President said, similar precedents can be created elsewhere. In this way, the Government is conducting South Africa towards an ultimate full-scale powersharing with the Blacks and that means the destruction of South Africa, because beyond this fourth dispensation of the hon the Minister, there is no other dispensation.

That is why I conclude by saying that we are going to broach these matters in Klip River. They are going to become the main debating point in Klip River and it is important to note that the Natal Mercury, which supports the PFP, has appealed to PFP members in Klip River to vote for the NP so that “the Nats may hang on to Klip River”. That is precisely what is happening—the Nats are battling to hang on to Klip River. One gets the impression that for the first time English-speaking persons are not hesitating to vote on a large scale or a “far-right” party such as the HNP. The HNP is going to the voters with this slogan: “Don’t surrender Natal; vote HNP!”

Mr Chairman, at a later stage in my speech I shall refer to the hon member for Sasolburg as well as other hon members of the opposition parties who have participated here.

By way of introduction, I merely wish to say that one of the cornerstones of the NP is the devolution of power and the decentralisation of administration on our path of reform. Something which we should remember, however, is that it should always be seen against the background of the Government’s constitutional policy of own and general affairs. As new structures are being created in order to accommodate this reform, it also means that a redistribution of functions will take place in this process, always bearing in mind the premise of devolution.

Since 1910 we have had a provincial system of government. But this NP Government came forward with its policy of separate homelands. As this idea developed, many of the areas which fell under the provincial government were excised and the provinces lost their jurisdiction over those areas and it was no longer possible for proper liaison to occur between the provinces and those independent states and self-governing states.

There is a reason for this. As a result of the status of these independent states and self-governing states, most of the liaison took place on the central government level. That is unfortunately the case.

Today I wish to say that if we are in earnest about bringing government closer to the people, then liaising mechanisms between these states and the provincial government must come into operation in order to bring it closer to the people.

It is unfortunately true that centralisation in many cases—I am not saying always—leads to a delay in decision-making and in the implementation of those decisions. Undoubtedly there must still be liaison between the self-governing states and the provincial governments. There are a multitude of interests which they have in common and to which I shall return later.

This legislation is terribly important because it is the first regional government structure. It is so important, and we should distinguish between provincial government regional government and self-governing states. To my mind, that is where the importance of this legislation lies. For the first time one has co-operation between the self-governing states and the provincial government in a regional context, two institutions in their own right, but which are here by means of formal parliamentary decisionmaking, by means of co-operation…

That is power-sharing!

Yes, it is power-sharing!

Don’t be ashamed of your name!

What am I ashamed of? If I were that hon member, I should be ashamed to be a member of that party. [Interjections.]

I am very proud of it. I am not a covert Prog like you!

No, the hon member may as well leave me alone. In any case, someone told me the other day that the difference between that hon member and a photograph is that the photograph is developed. Therefore the hon member should leave me alone now. [Interjections.]

If we take a look at the map, it is very clear that the degree to which kwaZulu and the province of Natal are intertwined has made co-operation imperative. It makes it a fact that, of necessity, there will be common interests. Theoretically each one would be able to make its own decision, but it does not work that way in practice. What the one does affects the other. What the one does could be disadvantageous to the other, and that is why the obvious solution is peaceful neighbourliness and co-operation among the various bodies.

And power-sharing!

And power-sharing. Is the hon member for Rissik satisfied now?

[Inaudible.]

Very well, I shall send the hon member in for development.

In this Bill a structure for co-operation in this regional context is set out. Within it there can be co-operation and consultation, and afterwards decision-making by the various bodies and then, something which is very important, a co-ordinated implementation of the decisions involved. That is very important. It is of no avail for each group to take decisions on its own without any co-ordination of decision-making. Then one does not achieve one’s aim with co-operation. I said that there were matters of common interest in this region. I wish to mention a few examples: Marine control—each one cannot have its own marine regulations; environmental conservation; regional tourism; regional health; regional planning; regional roads; the provision of employment, and shared economic interests. Here we have a unique opportunity in this region…

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

No, the hon member is not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member may proceed.

Here we have a unique opportunity to implement regional government, to see how it works so that we can learn from it, because we must remember that there are other self-governing states in South Africa that may have the same problem with regard to their provincial governments, namely that there is not enough liaison, and I foresee that this kwaZulu-Natal act may serve as an example of regional cooperation in future; something which we cannot overlook.

But what is the solution which the hon members of the CP and the HNP offer us? The hon member for Pietersburg merely criticised us. He never arrived at an alternative he could offer. He said that we on this side of the House had no right to involve the Blacks in the political processes of this country. He said we did not have the right to do that. [Interjections.] I then wish to know from the hon member what gives him the right—because his party claims that they are now the representatives of the policy of the old NP, as they call it—what gives them the right to include a Coloured homeland as part of their policy?

The hon member for Koedoespoort saw the problem. I wish to concede that. He realises that there must be co-operation among the various bodies. His solution is one reached by way of agreement, however, and not by way of an authorised co-operative structure. He denies that that is the answer. The hon member says we should rather think about agreements and not, as the hon member says, about a racially mixed council such as the one that is now being established here. Today, however, I should like to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort this question: How is he going to reach an agreement with the Blacks? [Interjections.] How is he going to reach an agreement with the Blacks?

[Inaudible.]

Is he going to do it by means of correspondence? I shall speak to the hon member for Sasolburg in a moment; I am speaking to the hon member for Koedoespoort now. Is he going to do it by means of correspondence or by means of discussions? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

By means of consultation? He is therefore going to consult with Blacks. Is it not therefore a racially mixed discussion that is taking place? Surely racially mixed discussions are taking place. [Interjections.] And the agreement which is reached; is that not a racially mixed agreement, because various races are involved in that agreement? [Interjections.] It is the old, old story. When one takes an argument to its logical conclusion, one sees what feeble arguments are being used.

The hon member for Kuruman made a very interesting point here. He said that each people should have its own fatherland. I think that that is basically the hon member’s argument: Each people should have its own fatherland. Surely the hon member will agree with me that we are members—whether he wants to know it or not, I am a member—of the Afrikaner people. That is correct; surely we are members of the Afrikaner people. I now wish to ask the hon member: Where does this Afrikaner national state (volkstaat), to which he lays claims, come in? Where does the Afrikaner national state come in? I see the hon member does not want to reply to me. He does not want to reply to me. [Interjections.] The situation, Sir, is that we are engaged in a figment of the imagination if we tell our people that something of this nature is in fact possible in this country.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member please give us an indication of what clause of the Bill he is now dealing with? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I wish to conclude by referring by the hon member for Sasolburg who, as usual, unleashed a tirade here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Sunny-side said the hon member for Parow could proceed. He did not have to discuss the Bill. Surely that is a reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot consider it per se as a reflection. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I wish to say this to the hon member for Sasolburg: I have tremendous appreciation for his oratorical skill. Today, however, I wish to admit to the hon member that I am becoming afraid of him and people who think the way he does. I say it openly, honestly and in all fondness.

No, no.

I am becoming afraid of them, because if they were to succeed in convincing the White population of South Africa of their standpoints…

No, never.

… then we have no future in this country. For my own sake and for the sake of my children, I am afraid that we shall not be able to survive here, because with their policy nothing is left to us but confrontation from one day to the next.

I wish to refer to another matter. The hon member said that a tremendously important new point was coming into prominence in this Bill, namely that of a third language. I can understand that that upsets those hon members, because they only want one language in this country. [Interjections.]

Is he going to change it according to the existing constitutional provisions in the White Statute Book, or is he going…

But the hon member for Sasolburg is going to propagate it.

Yes, I am going to propagate it. [Interjections.]

The hon member wants one language only. [Interjections.] No one except a Zulu need read this notification in Zulu. No one need read it! Does the hon member read both notifications? Surely one reads it in the language of one’s choice. I wonder whether it is in fact such a tremendous problem that it has to be singled out on this basis as a tremendously dangerous thing which is happening in our country. It is being presented as a terrible problem that is arising now.

Can you not perceive the principle?

Of course I perceive the principle. The principle is one of bringing things to the attention of people in the language which they understand. It is important that people understand what they read and do not have to try to read languages which they do not understand properly. The hon member for Sasolburg should remember that from the history of the Afrikaner. He is, of course, so obsessed with his selfishness in respect of the Whites that he forgets his history. He forgets that there are other people who feel about their language the way be and I feel about our language. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, thus far we have heard a relatively interesting debate on the Bill. As far as speeches by hon members on the Government side are concerned—I succumbed to the temptation to refer to the one made by the hon “charming” member for Parow—I find it significant that the speakers used a variety of words to put the purpose of the Bill to us.

I begin with what the hon the Minister said. He said he regarded this Bill as an important step towards a more structured regional co-operation, as well as a step towards real power-sharing between Blacks and Whites in South Africa. The hon the Minister therefore said it was an important step towards real power-sharing between Blacks and Whites. [Interjections.]

The former hon member for Klip River… [Interjections.]… who was the chairman of the standing committee that dealt with this Bill, said he envisaged opposition to the passing of the Bill. He referred to the position in Natal as well as to the Aksie Blank Natal campaign, and said:

[Interjections.]

And that is what Chris said!

The hon the Minister said we were on the way to real power-sharing. The former hon member for Klip River said the Government would be accused of introducing power-sharing with this Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member for Umbilo said it was not power-sharing, whereas the hon members for Helderkruin and Parow said it was power-sharing. The hon member for Vryheid never got to the Bill. [Interjections.] He merely became lyrical about certain events concerning Louwsburg, and his new-found status as a recruiting agent for Inkatha. [Interjections.] He sees only co-operation in this Bill, and not really much more. [Interjections.]

What is our basic objection to this Bill? The accusation was made against us here—in fact, it was aimed at all right-wing people in the country—that we want no co-operation with people of colour in this country, and that that is the reason for our opposition to this Bill. That is nonsense, to put it mildly. What nonsense? Anyone with common sense will realise that co-operation is imperative in Southern Africa, in which all the peoples are economically interdependent—some more than others—in the interests of everyone. The question, however, is on what basis one is going to seek and effect that cooperation. The standpoint of the CP and the right-wingers is that one will not promote and perpetuate that co-operation by forcing people into shared structures with joint decision-making.

My suspicion that this legislation is no more than an experiment on the part of the Government, and in particular on the part of the Minister, is being strengthened. It is no more than an experiment and I have reasons for saying so. One need only look at clause 4 of this Bill. Once it has been determined that the joint executive body of kwaZulu and Natal can be established upon the request of the Administrator and the Chief Minister, either of these two people—the Chief Minister or the Administrator of Natal—can ask the State President to end the affair at any future stage after the implementation of this executive authority. In terms of clause 4, the State President has no choice and the whole experiment has to be ended right there.

That is why I find this piece of legislation, that is attempting to create a new level of executive authority somewhere between first and second-tier government, strange. The stability of this new executive authority is completely subject to the unilateral decision of one of the participating parties that it be ended if this party so choose. Of necessity this creates a new bureaucracy. The new executive authority which is being established will have its main officials, its accounting and its normal administrative officials, and can be terminated at any stage.

I have to digress a little now, but when the Government envisaged that there could be insurmountable conflicts between the three Chambers of Parliament, it made provision in the Constitution Act for the avoidance of those conflicts. It is a pity that a similar section in respect of clause 4 of this legislation was not included in the Constitution Act. It could have suited Messrs Rajbansi and Hendrickse very well, according to some of their threats that any party can simply withdraw from the new structure. The fact is that this clause determines that if either kwaZulu or the provincial government of Natal, as it is stated, no longer wants to continue with the system, it can merely inform the State President, upon which the State President has to end everything.

We have had experience in this country of ours of government institutions which were or are being established at great cost. I am referring in particular to the defunct administration boards—later the development boards—which, after their dissolution, are saddled with thousands of officials who have no work to do, but have to be paid. We are taking the same course once again. Another experiment is being made—at the expense of Natal, and with a view to its furthere extension to the rest of South Africa. What I find interesting, however, is the following. The former hon member for Klip River said—and it was probably his honest opinion—that this Bill is a fine example of co-operation between the Zulus of Natal and the Whites of Natal. Apparently the hon gentleman was not aware at the time of this hon Minister’s intention to appoint two Indians and a Coloured to the Executive Committee of Natal. We find it interesting to put the following question. Why, when the Blacks of Natal make up the overwhelming majority of the population of that province, did the hon the Minister see fit not to appoint any Zulu to the Executive Committee of Natal? Or did Chief Minister Buthelezi not want to permit him to do so?

Is Natal not the Zulus’ ancestral homeland?

Of course Natal is their ancestral homeland!

I must say I find that extremely interesting. In the Transvaal, where the Zulus make up a small minority of the Black population, where the Tswanas, the Northern Sothos, the Shanganas, the Vendas the Ndebeles, the Swazis, make up the overwhelming majority of the Black population, this same hon Minister sees fit to appoint a Zulu to the Executive Committee of the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

Chris has not heard of Siyafunda yet!

The result was that that Zulu who was appointed by the hon the Minister…

… is a member of the ANC.

… was deprived by Inkatha of his executive position in the Inkatha movement.

Chris, you simply cannot make this thing work!

I therefore want to assume that the hon the Minister appointed that Zulu in the Transvaal without the mandate and the approval of the leader of Inkatha. In addition I want to conclude that the hon the Minister has not been able to nominate a Zulu to the Executive Committee of Natal thus far because he has not received Chief Minister Buthelezi’s agreement to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is shaking his head. The only other conclusion one can draw, is that the hon the Minister could not find any Zulu in Natal who was prepared to serve on that Executive Committee. [Interjections.]

Cas, you are right on target! You hit his little Cremora moustache dead centre! [Interjections.]

The only thing I can suggest to the hon the Minister is that a number of Swazis live in kwaZulu. Perhaps he should consider a Swazi for appointment to the Executive Committee of Natal. [Interjections.] He is welcome to do so, since he has appointed a Zulu in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

I also find the provisions contained in clause 5 of the Bill under discussion interesting. In terms of this Bill an executive authority is being established, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the provincial government of Natal—if, of course, one can say that such a thing still exists—and the government of kwaZulu—with vague objectives: They have to co-operate for the sake of common interests. The real procedure, the real way of decision-making, the way in which differences—if they were to arise—among the beautifully co-operating entities must be solved, is not stipulated in the Bill under discussion, however. The extension of the democracy in South Africa no longer works in that way. Those measures are left to the mercy of this hon Minister, who will be able to determine by means of proclamation how those people will decide—if they cannot agree—on the way in which their differences will be eliminated.

I want to cut a long story short. We in the Conservative Party are opposed in principle to the provisions of the Bill under discussion.

I can understand that the NRP is in favour of the Bill; it is their brainchild, after all. I can understand that the PFP supports it. If I understood him correctly, the hon member for Berea said the PFP was not quite satisfied with it, but that it was a step in the right direction, a movement towards the implementation of their policy of an eventual multiracial legislative authority for Natal.

The hon the Minister, on the other hand, takes the stand that it is a big step forward to attaining real power-sharing between Blacks and Whites—not only in Natal, but also in the rest of South Africa.

It is a step into the abyss.

The voters of Klip River are going to get the opportunity to express themselves on this Bill; and we are going to ask them to give their judgment. [Interjections.] It is not going to help the NP to tell the people in Klip River—they are doing so in my constituency—that the NP’s policy is still separate development. It is not going to help them, because with this Bill—it is actually an experiment, a practise run for the rest of South Africa—the NP has finally and irrevocably renounced separate development.

Lip service is still being paid to so-called self-determination. After all, we had the recent example of how lip service was paid to the maintenance and preservation of the Group Areas Act. During the NP’s Federal Congress the State President said that as long as he was State President, that legislation would not be tampered with. He had barely said that, however, when the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced that Hillbrow might become a Coloured group area. [Interjections.]

What has this got to do with that?

I am talking about the integrity of the NP’s word. [Interjections.] One can no longer believe the NP when they tell one what they are going to do tomorrow. [Interjections.] One moment they say “we stand by this” while in the meantime they are doing the opposite.

This Bill is preparing the way for a mixed, multiracial legislative authority for Natal. It is the first step.

Hear, hear!

The PFP is justifiably shouting “hear, hear”. It is in agreement with their policy. [Interjections.] The ordinary hon members of the NP are holding their breath and hoping for the best. Sir, we reject this measure with all its consequences.

Mr Chairman, usually the hon member for Barberton is a very effective debater. [Interjections.] Today, however, he had to plead a weak case; and a weak case always spoils an argument, particularly when one tries to strengthen it by using exaggerated arguments. We have had this continuously from the CP during this debate.

We thank the CP for the compliments which three of their speakers paid the NRP. [Interjections.] We appreciate the fact that they realise what a contribution we have made. [Interjections.]

However, they are now talking about a new level of government. No provision is being made in the Bill for a new level of government or a new bureaucracy. This is a system of co-operation between two administrations performing the same administrative tasks in an area in which it is impossible to cope with these tasks separately.

Nor is there any question of a super executive committee now being created. It is merely a case of two administrations coming together and creating one body to do what the two bodies did previously. Now there will no longer be two separate road construction organisations in the two administrations. There will be one instead of two. Therefore the bureaucracy is not being enlarged; it is a system which will require fewer officials. It is not an experiment for introducing a new system of government.

†This has been the argument of the Conservative Party throughout. They say that this is a new form of government. I want to bring the debate back to the two key elements behind this Bill.

The first key element of this Bill is that it was negotiated between the Natal Administration under the direction of the NRP Executive Committee and the cabinet of the kwaZulu government. This is what makes it acceptable—the fact that it was negotiated and agreed. I am glad that the Government accepted the draft proposals submitted by agreement between kwaZulu and the Natal executive. They accepted them virtually as they had been submitted. They did not try to change them but translated them into this Bill that is now before the House. Anything else would have destroyed the impact of the agreement.

I welcome the fact that the Government accepted this, put it into legal form and has now brought it through the standing committee to this House. Let me also say in passing—it seems to be forgotten by the hon members of the Conservative Party—that this has already been approved by the other two Houses of this Parliament. Both Houses have approved it although they are not directly included in this joint executive. There are, however, Indians and Coloureds included in the new appointed executive committee of the province. They come in as part of the executive and are not included as representatives of their groups. They have agreed to it and supported this. Now it is only this one party, the Conservative Party, in the whole of this Parliament that is opposed to it. They are opposed to it because it is an agreed measure between Black and White being incorporated into law.

The second reason why it is important is that it is setting a new pattern of co-operation in Natal between two overlapping administrations. It is a form of co-operation in which decisions will be taken by consensus, by agreement and where there will be equal representation and no domination by either the executive committee or the kwaZulu government. Decisions will be taken by agreement. I believe this too is fundamental to the new South Africa of the future—the taking of decisions by consensus in a consociational form of democracy. However, this is not a legislative body; it is not a new level of government; it is not a super provincial council or a superior level of government between kwaZulu and first-tier government. This is an executive, an administrative body, and from it flows the indaba which is now taking place and on which my colleague the hon member for Umbilo serves.

While I am talking about the indaba I want to refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. He spoke of Mr Van Tonder and the “Boerestaat”-concept. Let me tell him that the hon member for Umbilo and I sat there last Friday and listened to Mr Van Tonder’s exposition of the “Boerestaat”. This is the “Boerestaat” which he believes in and which has many of the same elements as propounded by the CP and the HNP.

As I listened to him I wondered if I was living in a dream world, a crazy, nightmare world. There was not a single bit of sense or practical reality to the whole concept of this “Boerestaat”.

And you are out!

Yes, we are out. I am not a Boer, I am not an Afrikaner. I am nothing, not even a “koloniale”. [Interjections.] If one has to be a Boer that even excludes Afrikaners who are not “ware Boere”!

They are going to annex Northern Natal, combine it with the Free State and the Transvaal and then sift out all the “vreemde elemente” like myself and all the others, such as the Afrikaans-speaking people of Natal who do not qualify as a “gebore Boer”. One cannot just be a Boer; one has to be a “gebore Boer”.

This was put forward as a serious proposal to the whole indaba, and it was very difficult to keep a straight face.

Order! The hon member will realise that certain foreign elements are creeping into his argument. The hon member must please return to the Bill.

It is relevant to this Bill, Mr Chairman, because the indaba was trying to plan the next phase—a joint form of legislating the ordinances under which this joint executive would function. When one takes decisions they have to be established in some form of law.

When we asked how this new “Boerestaat” would work we found that there was no need for a joint executive in the “Boerestaat” at all because only the Boere would have any political power. They would take all the decisions. They said that the rest of Natal would be given to the Zulus to become a Zulu homeland and the Whites would have no say there at all. This Bill is the antithesis of the concept that was put to us. As I have said, it was unbelievable to listen to.

Some people started to ask questions to see if one could bring some reality into it but there was none because it missed the crucial element that this Bill provides, namely cooperation between Black and White and other races in the joint administration of a common area. If therefore I have taken a little while to get to this point it was not irrelevant to this Bill.

Because of those two key elements—the fact of negotiation and the fact of co-operation—I believe that the Government has done the correct thing and they enjoy our full support for this measure in accepting the proposals put to them and accepting them in good grace. May I say that we welcome the compliments of the CP. We did indeed initiate and negotiate this matter and we took it all the way to the point where the draft was presented to the hon the Minister. I think we can have considerable pride in the part that our members of the executive in Natal played in the initiation, the drafting and the bringing to fruition of an agreement which forms the subject of the Bill before us.

May I touch on one or two other aspects? The hon member for Greytown asked that this legislation be held over until the indaba has been completed. I hope the hon the Minister will treat him no more seriously than he would treat Mr Van Tonder if he asked for the “Boerestaat” instead of the structure under discussion. This has been negotiated over a long period. It has been agreed upon and must now get started because I believe that is the way change evolves.

I prefer the words “progress” and “evolution” to “reform”, because when one uses the word “reform” it sounds as though one is taking a naughty boy and correcting him by putting him into a reform school. This Bill is a step on the road forward to the new South Africa. It is progress, it is a step forward. I frankly believe that it would have been better if we had put this joint executive into operation and then embarked upon the indaba to get to the next phase. [Interjections.] We are doing both together, but I would be very sorry to see any delay at all in getting this Bill passed so that the co-operation which is already taking place can be formalised and legalised.

I think the other arguments against the measure which I have noted are all based on the misconception that it is another form of government and that it is power-sharing. It is certainly, however, the sharing of responsibility, and I would like to conclude on that aspect of it. “Power-sharing” is the term that is always used, but power-sharing without the sharing of responsibility can never work because privilege carries with it responsibility. Where one shares power, one must share responsibility and show responsibility. This is crucial to the Bill because, for successful implementation, it will require not only joint decision-making but also responsible decision-making, because an irresponsible decision simply will not be carried out. If one of the partners wants to do something irresponsible the other will simply say no. I do not think this is fully realised.

If one of the partners, say the provincial executive, decided that they were going to build tarred roads in the White portion only, the whole thing would break down. The funding and everything else would break down. This forces a sense of responsibility into the joint administration. Unless that is there, there will be no money because it will not be voted and made available, and there will be no decisions because they will be rejected under such a system.

We support and welcome this measure. We are sorry that it could not have gone through before the short recess, but we give it our full blessing now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point referred to the speeches of hon members of the CP and of my colleague the hon member for Sasolburg. He said with a touch of happiness that after so many years the NP has more or less arrived at the basic principles for which the NRP stands. I can understand that the hon member for Durban Point was a little bit happy. But I have wondered whether one should not think a little more deeply about politics and listen more attentively to it.

I think the hon member’s memory is fairly short as far as politics in South Africa and also in Natal are concerned. The contribution of the NRP is a contribution which does not really do credit to the endeavours of the NRP or the old United Party over the years in Natal. Today I consider it a great pity that the hon gentlemen here were not really impatient with the Government because a frontbencher of the NRP like Mr Frank Martin who has served the NRP in Natal for many years has simply been overlooked when councils are appointed. He is simply being ignored.

My hon colleague referred to that.

The hon member’s colleague referred to that, but judging by the way in which he referred to it, the NRP did not feel as uncomfortable as it should have. [Interjections.] The NRP’s happiness is going to be short-lived, because that hon Minister is moving so far to the left of the NRP that in the near future they will find themselves in a situation where they will have to be in opposition to this hon Minister in Natal.

I think the NRP who still say they represent a large percentage of the English-speaking people in Natal, are not doing justice to their responsibility when they support this hon Minister in the way in which they are supporting him today.

We support the Bill, not the hon the Minister.

No, we are dealing here with the principle.

But we drafted the Bill.

Order!

If those hon members also want to serve the interests of groups there, they must get to know that hon Minister better as regards his standpoints towards groups in Southern Africa. I shall return to this later.

I want to tell the hon member that the NRP is done for just like the NP is done for. If the NRP really had an interest in Natal, they would at least have nominated a candidate in Klip River. [Interjections.] Where are they? Where is the NRP in Klip River? [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out to the hon member that the debate is not concerned with the election in Klip River. The hon member must confine himself more closely to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect I want to tell you there is a very important by-election under way there and this Bill significantly affects every voter in Klip River. If we want to broaden the democracy in South Africa, we must at least be given the opportunity to discuss these fundamental aspects. I shall point out to you later…

Order! In so far as the Bill concerns the Klip River by-election, I have no objection if the implications of the Bill for the by-election in Klip River are discussed, but the debate does not deal with the Klip River election. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in this new dispensation which is apparently going to disappear soon, the old Second and Third Readings have now been combined in one reading and for that reason it is correct for us not only to talk about the principle of a Bill, but also about the consequences of a specific Bill. In his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister referred very clearly to the broader philosophic ideas which he has and the effect which this Bill will have on the rest of South Africa.

But the hon member for Durban Point has forgotten that the hon member for Umlazi, who is not here today—if my memory is not playing me false, virtually no Natalians have participated in this debate today…

I was here!

With the exception of the hon member for Vryheid, there was not another hon member from Natal who spoke. I feel it is a pity that hon members from Natal have been conspicuous by their absence today. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister said that here one could really see how power-sharing between Whites and Blacks was going to work. I want to remind the NRP that a few years ago none other than the hon member for Umlazi, Mr C J van R Botha, and the hon member for Benoni, Mr C R E Rencken, published this NP pamphlet, because they were attacking the NRP in Natal at that stage. Today, for the sake of this good argument about this Bill, I want to refresh the memory of the NP as well as the memory of my few hon friends sitting on my left. What did the NP say about those matters through the mouths of two hon members who are still in this House today? [Interjections.] They said that the NRP was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In what year was that?

Does it matter when it was? I can understand that it does matter in what year it was said, because one can no longer believe today and tomorrow what the NP said yesterday. [Interjections.] I shall return later to the question of the credibility of the NP, this hon Minister and his State President regarding what they are saying today in Klip River or anywhere else in South Africa.

Through the mouths of two hon members who were sitting here, the NP said that the NRP was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. [Interjections.]

Now the NP is a sheep in wolfs clothing!

My colleague the hon member for Kuruman says that today the NP is a sheep in wolf’s clothing. [Interjections.]

In this pamphlet they said:

These are precisely the same words that the right-wingers are using today regarding the NP. At that stage the NP said through the mouths of two of its members that the NRP was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

They then answered their question themselves and explained in the pamphlet why a Black majority government would come into power in Natal under the NRP. It is interesting that it was the NP, through the mouths of the hon members for Umlazi and Benoni, that indicated here on the basis of these black and white balls Mr Bill Sutton used here, precisely how the checks and balances would have to work. The eventual conclusion reached by the NP sitting there today and the hon member for Umlazi, who is not here today but who should have been here, was that it was worse than a system of one man, one vote. The hon member for Umlazi was the one who said this. That is what the NP said about the plans of the NRP.

Today the NP says that what they want in South Africa is not a system of one man, one vote. [Interjections.] The hon member for Umlazi says that the people must not be misled by worthless assurances. He said the NP assured that our local authorities remained in the hands of the Whites while local management structures would be developed for the Black groups. For that reason I want to state that with legislation like this the NP is ensuring that not only in Natal but throughout the entire country a Black majority government will come into power.

I also want to say that the State President, who has been in the House very seldom recently—he is not here today either—spoke in Natal. I want to get back to what my colleague the hon member for Barberton said about the credibility of the NP’s leaders. What did the State President say?

[Inaudible.]

I am glad the hon member for Umlazi is back. I hope he is going to participate in this debate later. He is very welcome here. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that they were present when the State President made one speech in Durban and the other in Pietermaritzburg. They sat there and applauded him as the NP has been doing recently. Last week they were in Durban again. They sat there for two hours and all they did was applaud.

But what did the State President say in Durban in Natal in reply to a question which was put to him regarding what was going to happen in connection with the consolidation of kwaZulu? The State President is the man in South Africa we must believe and trust today. In reply to that question he said:

Prior to an election the State President came to Natal and he replied in this way to a question which someone put to him. Hon members can go and read the speech. One insult after another was directed at persons asking questions, as the State President is wont to do. Someone stood up and asked him about these very important matters. In his great wisdom and his great vision of daring, statesmanship and justice, love and reform and adjustment, and hon members can list the adjectives, the State President replied to this and told the poor people sitting there in front of him the following, which drew applause from the hon member for Umlazi:

The hon member for Umlazi applauded him. Now they come here today and announce power-sharing, and the hon member is applauding again. [Interjections.] He is applauding again. Sir, do you know what the trouble is with the NP? In the past—the hon member for Durban Point knows this—we were so disciplined and we believed so implicitly in our principles and our leaders that you could have nominated a broomstick as an NP candidate and the people would have voted for that broomstick. [Interjections.] Today the NP caucus is full of broomsticks.

The State President made another speech in Natal—this State President who is leading us with daring today—and he said the following to the Natalians in Pietermaritzburg:

[Interjections.]

Can you believe that? Can you believe that of a man who must lead South Africa in a time of crisis, and what he says today he contradicts tomorrow? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is sitting there laughing, but he is laughing because he feels uncomfortable. They are laughing because they feel uncomfortable. [Interjections.] I repeat that the State President, the former Prime Minister, went to Natal a few years ago. What did he tell the Natalians? I want to repeat this for the hon the Minister of National Education, because that hon Minister is coming to speak in Klip River. It is not the left-wingers; he is sending a crowd of right-wingers to speak in Klip River. What did the State President say there; that person he wants us to believe? He said:

And now? Who is ensuring today that the principles and the policy of the NRP and the PFP are succeeding in Natal? The NP! They have the name of the National Party, but the principles they are implementing by means of this legislation are the principles of the PFP. [Interjections.] I maintain it is shameless to deceive the electorate in one way after the other.

I want to get back to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The State President says that as long as he is the President certain things will not be abolished. I must still accept this, but I think he knows that hon Minister is going to succeed him and then nothing which President Botha has said will endure in South Africa. What did the hon the Minister say? He said:

He said that. He has changed since 1985. But I want to ask him: How is he broadening the democracy with this Bill? I am asking him how he is broadening the democracy. I am referring to clause 5(3)(f) where he describes the constitution of the authority. In what kind of democracy does the hon the Minister believe? Who forms the majority of the sum total of individuals in Natal? It is surely the Zulus, not so? It is the Zulus who form the majority. How is he broadening that democracy? Tell us what the answer is to this debate. Tell us how he is broadening the democracy with this constitution. Tell us who the chairman of this authority is going to be. Can a Black person aspire to this position; can a Zulu do so? [Interjections.] Can he be the chairman? Very well, he can be, but he cannot be State President.

[Inaudible.]

Help, Tom, help!

No, we help each other, and I accept the help of my hon colleague here with great pleasure. [Interjections.] The hon member said a Black could be chairman. A Zulu could be chairman. The hon the Minister must reply to us on this later.

But if one wants to understand this hon Minister, one must not only read one of his Second Reading Speeches. You must read him in the total perspective, and I want to mention a few things now, because I am worried about the interests of the Whites in Natal. That hon Minister made a speech to the young people at a student leaders’ conference in the Oude Libertas in Stellenbosch in July 1986. There he talked about the question of leadership. The hon the Minister used these words. He said:

Consequently he is saying that the interests of the whole in the kwaZulu which is going to be established are more important than those of a group or a people. Today the hon the Minister must get up and tell us whether the interests of the Whites are going to be subordinate to the interests of the whole of kwaZulu. The hon the Minister went on to say:

I want to ask the hon the Minister, in the light of his approach to politics in Natal, whether he is prepared to meet the demands of Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi fully.

The answer is no.

Is the answer no? The hon the Minister is consequently not going to meet all his demands.

No, of course not.

He is demanding that discrimination be abolished. Is the hon the Minister consequently not going to abolish all discrimination? [Interjections.] I am asking a rhetorical question. The hon the Minister can reply to me later; I do not want him to do so now.

But the hon the Minister who must assist with the constitution of the authority which is to be established must get up today and reply to us on this. After all he has now broadened the democracy to such an extent that poor Tino Volker has been removed from here and posted there! [Interjections.] I am asking the hon the Minister when he speaks later today to tell us how and to what extent he is prepared to protect the interests of the Whites in Natal. He must not tell me he is only going to protect them as long as he is the Minister; he must tell me whether the NP agrees with his approach in principle. I want to know what the position of the Whites there is going to be, because the hon the Minister said:

The word apartheid was then deleted—

That is why it is extremely important to us, in the light of the fact that the hon the Minister said that he was presenting the basic principles of his philosophy on South Africa, that in his reply to this debate the hon the Minister will tell us how he is going to broaden the democracy, how he is going to give every individual in Natal political franchise, and how he is going to protect the interests of the minority groups, which includes the Whites, in that dispensation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, during the past week I had the opportunity, along with many other hon members of this House, to experience something in Durban which in my opinion is probably one of the biggest political events in the history of our country.

The circus in Durban! [Interjections.]

There one experienced dynamic leadership, original ideas, a forward-looking approach to the future and fearlessness voiced by amongst others, the State President, members of his Cabinet and our fellow nationalists.

Are you serious?

This morning on the way back here from Durban, I thought it would be wonderful to see how that idealism and forward-looking approach to the future is converted into a reality in Parliament. But what did we find here? From my humble back bench I had to listen to the old predictability and the unoriginality, negativity, defeatism and pessimism of the hon members of the CP and the one vocal member of the HNP. [Interjections.] During the course of this debate I also saw that an absolutely desperate attempt was being made to politicise a Bill which, ironic as it may sound, did not have to be approached politically in the first place.

In his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred to the fact that this proposed joint executive authority has in fact to a great extent been placed beyond the scope of this highly important, but occasionally heated debate of political reform by what has led up to it. Hon members of the CP and the HNP have nonetheless tried to politicise this Bill, as is the case with everything they touch on. I want to say that they, as has often happened in the past, not only discredited themselves in the process, but also the whole political process. Not only are they themselves constantly suspicious of every piece of legislation and measure of the Government, but they also try to sow suspicion about it. In this case according to the hon members’ own admission, the reason for it is the by-election which is coming up in the constituency of Klip River.

It was interesting to find out how many hon members of the CP have taken it on themselves to now act as spokesmen in this House for the voters of Natal. But I want to give the CP and the HNP a warning. I have very good reason to think that I know the voters of Natal much better than any hon member of the CP or the HNP, in particular the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] One thing about this matter is clear and that is that the hon members, as in the past, have hopelessly overestimated themselves and completely underestimated the voters of Natal, just as they did in Port Natal.

Order! I repeat that I am not prepared to allow a debate on the election in Klip River as such. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to refer to two basic aspects of the Bill. It should firstly contribute to the economic use of resources and the optimal utilisation of human skills and resources. Secondly this Bill should also be seen as proof of the fact that negotiations can be and is successful and that different parties can reach consensus on highly important matters of general importance.

I want to put it on record that what is implied by the CP’s and HNP’s opposition to this Bill, is that they are opposed to the economic utilisation of resources and the optimum utilisation of people in Natal, even if it were to result in the possibility of saving millions of rands, amongst other things in the sphere of medical services in Natal, seeing as this legislation is necessary for that. I also want to put it on record that they, owing to their opposition to this Bill, are against the principle of negotiation on questions of general with people of colour interest, because this Bill is the concrete manifestation of such co-operation. But the HNP and the CP reject it.

Various hon members referred to the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba, but the fact that the matter is that the two concepts which are relevant here, are two totally separate matters. The Bill before the House deals purely with administrative matters, while the Natal-kwa-Zulu Indaba is searching for a single legislative authority in the political sphere, amongst other things. Whatever stems from it—and this has been said repeatedly—will have to be tested and considered by the Government if a consensus decision about it were to stem from the Indaba. It is a fallacious and senseless statement to make, as the hon member for Kuruman did, that this Bill gives substance to the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba. The Bill deals with a joint executive authority, as I have said, while the Indaba deals with the question of a possible legislative authority.

Together with the overwhelming majority of the voters of Natal, I reject the casting of suspicion on this Bill and I should like to support it.

Mr Chairman, during the course of his speech the hon member for Parow said he was afraid of the HNP and their allies because if they were to win an election and come into power in South Africa, a revolution would take place in South Africa. It simply amazes one that the hon member for Parow can come up with such nonsense. It is indeed the same refrain that we had to listen to so continuously in the years before 1948. At that time it was also said that if the National Party of Dr Malan, Hans Strijdom and others, with their policy of separate development had to come into power a revolution would follow in South Africa. People also argued then that it would cause the banks to run out of money, that people would flee from the country, that industries would grind to a halt—the general expression was: “Industries will grind to a standstill”—and many more suchlike ill omens were conjured up. Then over a period of approximately 30 years we experienced a situation in this country where the policy of 1948 about which those ill omens were raised, prevailed in South Africa. A revolution did not take place then. To tell the truth, money did not flow out of the country, but streamed into the country. Industries flourished throughout South Africa. There was general prosperity everywhere.

Order! I think the hon member for Soutpansberg has made his point very effectively. He must stick to the Bill now.

I shall return to the Bill now, Sir. I am replying to a statement which was made in this debate. [Interjections.] Then in a very short period of time, however, we came across those who turned their backs on that policy, and as a consequence we have a situation of non-revolution in South Africa at the moment and at the moment we have a situation in South Africa where money is flowing into the country.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg must leave that theme now.

The hon member Mr Schoeman, who has just taken his seat, waxed lyrical about an experience he had last week in Natal, which is what this Bill is about. He is one of the few people who I have noticed so far—even including the spokesmen of the National Party—who wax very lyrical about what was experienced by certain people in Natal last week, where the hon the State President said that his policy amounted to power-sharing and the division of power.

You want it; we have it.

Yes, exactly! You want it; we have it! Now we are sitting here with the hon members of the National Party. We are sitting with 30 of so so-called Neo Progs, under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. From there onwards we have various factions—some only a little more right-wing than the extreme leftists in the National Party. Now the question arises as to whether there are power-sharing power-distributors as well as power-distributing power-sharers in the National Party? Who are they actually? [Interjections.] Is the hon the Minister of National Education a power-sharing power-distributor, and is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs a power-distributing power-sharer?

I am a Nationalist!

He is merely the temporary hon member for Vereeniging! [Interjections.]

Now this is the situation we are saddled with in South Africa, Sir.

We are all Nationalists! [Interjections.]

Nervous Nationalists!

Sir, the hon the Minister of National Education says they are all Nationalists. [Interjections.] When he says he is a Nationalist, he is merely busy with an exercise in semantics. [Interjections.]

I want to put a question to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This piece of legislation of his is being labelled as an experiment. Others again say it is not an experiment. But to me this is not what it is about. This Bill makes provision for the fact that one of the provinces in the Union of South Africa—of course now the Republic of South Africa, but constitutionally still a Union—be allowed to choose its own course. In the Union and in the Republic of South Africa we had four provinces which basically had a uniform system as far as provincial matters were concerned. As far as accents, for example, are concerned, they had the right to deviate in one direction or the other, but the four provinces in the Union of South Africa and in the Republic of South Africa were governed in the same way at the provincial level.

But what does the hon Minister now say to Natal? Natal was always one of the children in the house of the Union who always wanted to hare off in another direction, first to this side and then to that side again.

Like Douglas Mitchell who marched.

Yes, like Douglas Mitchell who marched. Natal was always the one little boy in the family who had to be kept in check. Now that little boy which is Natal comes along and says he is jumping out of the house. He says he is marching now, and he is marching with kwaZulu.

What is being laid down here, is the severing of the ties of a specific province, of one of the constituent parts of the RSA, so that it can follow its own direction. If this experiment which has already been used in South West Africa and has failed is now going to succeed here as far as the hon the Minister’s tests are concerned—apparently he alone sometimes decides whether an experiment has succeeded or not, and an experiment which according to him succeeds can according to all the other people be a failure—and let us accept that it succeeds—does it mean that there is also the possibility of such a joining of executive committees and local governments for the Transvaal? At this stage, however, we have the provincial authority in the Transvaal.

And city states in the future.

We can also get down to city states. At this stage we have Lebowa, Gazankulu, kaNgwane and kwaNdebele.

You are sitting with Chris Heunis. [Interjections.]

I now want to know if everyone of the executive authorities of those different national state authorities can now join the Whites in a setup in which there would be six executive committees, three White and three non-White? Besides, if everyone has to have equal representation in the Government, there should be six Lebowans, six kwaNdebeles and six representatives of Gazankulu. Now where will it end?

Do not forget about the Swazis.

Oh, yes. They of course are the people of kaNgwane, and they will also have to be represented. This is the absurdity of the direction in which this kind of policy could develop. This is the one course which is being followed now.

There is a second course which I want to point out to the hon the Minister. I am very pleased that his colleague from the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education is sitting next to him.

His deputy. [Interjections.]

No, the CP knows him as the leader of the Transvaal who is allowing the Transvaal, the administrative seat of the RSA, to be fragmented in no time. [Interjections.] I now ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to give the Transvaal the right to choose its own course, like Natal, the only place where the NRP has governed, has chosen its course together with the Zulus. Natal has chosen a course with the Zulus. Is that hon Minister now prepared to give the Transvaal the right to choose its own course? I put this question to him because if he is not prepared to give the Transvaal that right, on what principle is he then refusing to allow the Transvaal to state by means of an election, a referendum or whatever, that it wants to follow another course?

The NP Government has in fact broken the uniformity, the basis on which the RSA is composed, when they gave Natal the right to choose for itself. [Interjections.] I now ask the Government to give the Transvaal and the other provinces the right to decide as well what form of government they want. I now ask the hon the Minister to give me a reply to this.

Come, make a name for yourself, FW.

Are you now advocating the “Boerestaat”?

No, I am not advocating a “Boerestaat” at all. I want to indicate a principle… [Interjections.] I ask the hon the Minister to give me an answer based on principle in regard to this matter. All I want is a reply based on principle.

A principle is a difficult thing for him to understand. [Interjections.]

Are you against the “Boerestaat”?

If one wants to see something fast in a “Boerestaat”, it will be the hon member for Innesdal on a bicycle. [Interjections.] Now we come to the following point. One of the hon members has already referred to it, but what is the cost of implementing this legislation going to be? [Interjections.]

We shall save R4 million per year in the first stage. [Interjections.]

As I read this legislation, both the kwaZulu authority and the provincial authority are still there and there is now a third authority as well. The State President can now for example give a Zulu minister the right to exercise a particular power which is vested in a minister. A particular power which can be vested in the executive committee of Natal, can again be transferred to the administrator by the State President at the request of the former. Now the hon member for Durban Point says he is going to save R4 million per year.

Just at the beginning stage.

I am grateful for the R4 million which is going to be saved according to him. It is a terribly small amount which is going to be saved at the beginning stage. Since rationalisation has become a popular word in South Africa, saving is one of the catchwords and paying one of the practices.

Vote NP and pay.

The people of South Africa are battling in the positive sense of the word to pay for what would have been saved through rationalisation.

We throw up our hands in despair over what the Government is doing. It is not because we do not have faith and confidence in the future of South Africa—the hon member Mr Schoeman alleged this—but because we see that South Africa and the survival of the Whites and everything which has been built up in this country since 1910, is being dragged over the abyss, particularly through this legislation, by the Government and the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the speaker from our party who initiated this debate, the hon member for Berea, indicated that we regard the Bill as a useful exercise. It is in that light that I wish to make certain remarks on the Bill and its application.

First of all there have been many remarks made by the Conservative Party and the HNP on the state of Natal and the effect that this Bill will have. It is possibly necessary that we consider a few facts regarding Natal rather than just the vague manner in which this measure has been referred to by the CP. [Interjections.] In Natal there are 560 000 Whites, 94 000 Coloureds, 638 000 Indians and 854 000 Blacks. When one looks at those figures—I am obviously now talking to the CP—one sees that 39,8% of the population in Natal is Black, 29,7% is Indian, 26% is White and 4% is Coloured. In Natal the Whites are therefore the third largest group. That is excluding kwaZulu. Let us now add kwaZulu where Blacks make up 99,8% of the population and we arrive at the following figures: In kwaZulu there are 3,7 million Blacks and when we add these to the Blacks of Natal the total is 4,6 million. When therefore Natal and kwaZulu are put together, 78% of the population is Black, 10,9% Indian, 9,5% White and 1,6% Coloured.

It is interesting to note with all the talk about Klip River—I take to heart what you said earlier and I do not intend to talk about the squabble that is going on between the two right-wing parties—that the Whites in the Klip River constituency are in a 4:1 minority compared to the Blacks. This is again a point for those who wish constantly to emphasise that it is a White man’s country. It is not. It is a Natalian’s country and a South African’s country.

The other remark that I want to make concerns the geographic and economic situation in Natal. I quote from a document drafted for consideration for planning in Natal and kwaZulu. It was submitted to the Executive Committee and it is a background document. I quote from it:

This is the so-called “White” Natal—

It is on that point that we emphasised that the exercise that is being conducted with the joint executive authority of kwaZulu and Natal being set up is in order to administer that common area.

The hon member for Durban Point made a remark concerning Mr Van Tonder’s submission to the indaba on Friday of the “Boerestaatkomitee”. I was also there and I found it fascinating. What I found most fascinating was that it was perfectly obvious that Mr Van Tonder—this is probably true of the CP as well—had never submitted his political arguments to debate with Black men before. Mr Robert van Tonder stood there and spoke of the “Boerestaatkomitee” and it sounded in theory like a marvellous plan. However, what was the reaction? The kwaZulu cabinet minister stood up and said that it was lovely that they spoke of the “Vryheidrepubliek” and the “Nuwe Republiek”. He said that that was fine but he wanted to know how far they went back in history because in the 1820s Chaka ruled the area from Mozambique to Transkei and from the coast to Standerton and could they therefore have their land back. [Interjections.] What is the answer to this? No, history does not work that way.

His history is not right!

History is only for White men. [Interjections.]

There are certain questions with which I think the hon the Minister might be confronted which are of particular interest. I want to refer to one now and to another one a little later. It was reported—perhaps this was incorrect—that the hon the Minister had remarked that it might be necessary to re-establish in a different form elected provincial councils. This was reported in The Natal Mercury last Friday. I wonder if the hon the Minister would react to that?

It was emphasised by my colleagues the hon member for Berea and the hon member for Greytown that we believe in the temporary nature of this authority. It can only be that whilst other matters continue. In this light I would just like to say to the hon member for Durban Point that the hon member for Greytown did not say that this legislation should not be considered until after the indaba. What he said was that one should not proceed any further with the legislative structures at second and third level until the Indaba had reported. The Indaba is not only considering the legislative process in Natal but also the areas which should be looked at in Natal as areas of common responsibility.

Since this debate was initiated in June there has been a significant change in the executive committee. This was touched upon in particular by the hon member for Umbilo. The executive committee members who constituted the executive at that time were not appointed to the new executive committee which came into existence. I am not certain whether anybody—not even in the hon the Minister’s department—has actually examined the constitutional position. As I understand it there will be a link between the executive committee and its functions and a parliamentary standing committee. The parliamentary standing committee obviously has a responsibility to this Parliament. What is, in fact, going to happen is that, indirectly, representatives of this Parliament are actually going to be sitting down with members of the kwaZulu cabinet to debate and discuss. This raises interesting points, particularly in terms of financing the kinds of activities that are going on there.

The last point I want to make regards merely the areas of agreement and discussion which could be arrived at. We have had indications of some of the areas that might be agreed on as far as co-operation is concerned, such as physical planning, roads, traffic control, pounds, straying livestock and conservation. I would particularly like to ask, however, whether it is possible for the Natal provincial government—let us call it that—and the kwaZulu government to come to an agreement to deal with the area of hospitals. The new national health plan has obviously provided interesting new constitutional perspectives on the relationship between own and general affairs. I would like to ask, particularly as I understand from media reporting that hospitals will, in fact, fall under provincial government, whether the functions of those hospitals, even though they are theoretically an own affair, and their control—I am obviously referring particularly to the intake of patients—can be negotiated at this kind of level.

My party has indicated its support for this measure as an interim, temporary measure while something better is achieved. We consider it a useful exercise, but by no means the answer to the problem of government in the area of Natal.

Mr Chairman, 14 speakers participated in the discussion of this Bill and the subject embodied in this Bill.

†I would like to start by referring to the speech made, and now probably forgotten, by the hon member for Berea. He supported the adoption of the Bill before us. I am not sure whether his colleague the hon member for Greytown supports him in this because the latter suggested in his speech that we should not implement this Bill.

No, I did not say so. You do not listen!

I have not finished yet.

It will be another hour or two yet!

The hon member said that the Bill should not be implemented until the Indaba had concluded its work. Did he not say that? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Berea expressed a certain amount of concern and also related the question of this Bill to the Indaba which is now in progress. He made a very interesting statement which, with due respect, does not correspond with the facts.

Firstly, he said that the subject matter of this Bill had been negotiated by two elected legislative institutions. With due respect, that is not correct. The subject matter of this Bill was negotiated by the executives of two governments. Just for his information… [Interjections.] Just let me finish.

Elected by the Natal Provincial Council.

Will the hon member give me a moment? The Cabinet of kwaZulu was not elected, so it was not two elected bodies that negotiated the subject matter of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Secondly, it is true that the Provincial Council of Natal at that time had been elected, but that is not true of the government of kwaZulu. It had been elected only in part. [Interjections.] The hon member is interrupting. I did not interrupt him. The point I am trying to make is that it is so easy to make a general sweeping statement without relating it to the facts.

He said that accord had been reached by two elected bodies. I submit that that is not factually correct.

That is semantics.

It is not semantics. In fact, the concept which was negotiated had not, in the final analysis, been submitted to the provincial council for approval.

What is true, however, is that the executives of those two institutions had identified the need for co-operation in matters concerning the areas of jurisdiction of the national state and of the provincial administration. [Interjections.]

Secondly, it is also true that that process had been going on for a long time. What the Bill actually does is to give statutory endorsement to a practice which has, in fact, obtained in Natal and kwaZulu for many years.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, I should like to make a few general statements before replying to the debates of individual hon members. I want to begin by saying that there are certain misconceptions that must first be corrected. One of these is that the legislation we are now considering is the result of the Indaba that is now taking place. Both the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Kuruman referred to that, as did the hon member for Helderkruin, who has apologised for his absence. The fact of the matter is that the legislation we are now considering was not on the agenda of the Indaba that is now taking place and was not the product of that Indaba either; on the contrary, I think the hon member for Berea correctly identified the issue involved. For practical reasons the executive committee of Natal and the Cabinet of kwaZulu entered into negotiations on the possibility of a joint campaign in regard to joint services in both the area of jurisdiction of the provincial council of Natal and the area of jurisdiction of the national government of kwaZulu.

It is not as innocent as all that.

I shall be replying to the hon member for Sasolburg. I did him the courtesy of listening to him, and listening to him is a strain, as it is, but having had to listen to what he said today was an even greater strain. I shall be coming to him.

The second misconception I want to correct is that we are dealing here with another tier of Government, and in this connection the hon member for Koedoespoort was specifically the guilty party. He said that we were dealing here with another third tier of government. If the hon member had really had a look at the legislation, he would have found that it was nothing more than a structure for co-operation between two already existing tiers of government. In the particulars I shall deal with in a moment I shall be referring to that.

The third statement I want to make deals with the accusation that we are in the process of creating a new bureaucracy. Again the legislation makes it very clear that what we are dealing with here is joint action relating to the administrative capability—the staff capability—of the existing executive body, ie the executive committee of Natal and the kwaZulu Cabinet. I shall come back to that.

The hon member for Koedoespoort ascribes very sinister motives to me, and I do not think it is quite fair, because I have always regarded myself as someone in this House who says exactly what he means. [Interjections.]

They only realise it when it is too late.

The hon member for Kuruman has just made a very interesting remark indeed. He said that others only realised it when it was too late. [Interjections.] With all due respect I just want to say that the hon member for Kuruman must not blame me for that deficiency in the capabilities of his party. With all due respect let me say that the hon member will understand the sentiments I am expressing. I was not present when intelligence was dished out to certain people.

I want to correct another aspect relating to the misconception that the Government, according to hon members…

I was actually talking about your people…

No, they say we should buy the hon member a mirror. [Interjections.] There is a misconception about the Government following in the footsteps of the NRP in this specific context. I can now give hon members a very interesting bit of information. If hon members would, in this connection, look at section 7 of the Provincial Government Bill, they would see that the general principle embodied in that section was identical to the principle being proposed in this legislation. The hon member for Kuruman will concede as much. The fact of the matter is that as far as historic developments are concerned, the proposed provincial legislation that we passed here in June was the result of negotiations with the executive committees of all the provinces. The negotiations as such identified the need for some or other structural co-operation between the provincial system and the other systems. As far as hon members are concerned I immediately want to make the point this evening—and I make no excuse for doing so—that because the tangible proposals for a specific dispensation were forthcoming from the Natal executive committee and kwaZulu, we thought it would only be right to grant symbolic recognition to that undertaking of theirs. I am not in any way apologising for that. It does not, however, detract from the fact that all the administrators and all the executive committees for all four provinces identify the need for co-operation with the governments of the national states on matters of common concern.

I therefore do want to ask that we in this House weigh up one another’s standpoints. I find no fault whatsoever with that because that is, in effect, what politics is all about. Could we not, however, just for once rid ourselves of this one aspect, and that is doubting of one another’s bona fides?

In this connection I should like to say something to the hon member for Waterberg.

[Inaudible.]

I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Waterberg, but there is just one thing I want to say, and I want to emphasise this. I have said it before. Primarily this House is the instrument for obtaining approval for a dispensation for South Africa which will ultimately solve its problems in the constitutional sphere and in other spheres. This House consists specifically of one particular population group. This specific House is made up of people who have had the longest exposure to democratic institutions in the country’s history. They are the people who have the best idea of the rules of the game. They are the people who have the best idea, not of the statutory provisions, but—if I may describe it in these terms—of the atmosphere in which democracy can thrive.

No.

It is true.

No.

Oh, please, why does that hon member not go and take a rest? [Interjections.]

What I am trying to say is something about which every hon member will agree with me. In our country we have developing communities. Everyone knows, as well as I do, that the fundamental task in the prevailing circumstances in our country is one of reconciling the systems of developed communities with those of traditional and developing communities. There is no getting away from that fact. As far as I am concerned—and if I am wrong, I will concede as much—the result is that we in this House should specifically exude an atmosphere that is indicative of the possibility of having the separate communities, constituting the population of the country co-operate within a system that can maintain the values we believe whilst, at the same time ensuring the other communities in this system. Not one of us in this House has the final answer when it comes to the ultimate constitutional dispensation in the country. There are, however, certain things we have in common, and I should like to come round to that. I should specifically like to come to the speech of the hon member for Pietersburg.

The hon member did something about which I want to confront him. He quoted, amongs other things, from the Freedom Charter. I shall come back to the rest of his speech. It is very interesting indeed to see the hon member, in quoting from the Freedom Charter and from the advertisement concerning the State President, arguing by way of suggestion that the advertisement actually accepted the Freedom Charter. I now want to ask the hon member: Are there no elements in the Freedom Charter with which he agrees? I am asking him that question. Does he not, for example, agree with the Freedom Charter stating that all people will have an equal right to use their own language and to develop their own ethnic culture and customs?

In which context?

In precisely the same context. [Interjections.] With all due respect, the hon member for Soutpansberg was not paying attention when the hon member for Pietersburg spoke. [Interjections.]

I am now dealing with the hon member for Pietersburg. Surely there are elements in the Freedom Charter which the hon member endorses. The whole philosophy of the hon member’s party—if I understand it correctly—does in fact endorse this specific aspect of the Freedom Charter. As far as the hon member is concerned, it would not be honest of me to state that the policy of the hon member’s party amounted to a summary acceptance of the Freedom Charter.

That goes without saying!

Of course, Sir, but why does it go without saying? The hon member for Rissik is correct. If it goes without saying, however, why is that so? It is because the hon member for Pietersburg, in the passage he quoted, equated the Freedom Charter with the question of the advertisement, in the name of the State President, concerning rights for all people. [Interjections.]

There is another question I want to put to the member. They say that all national groups will be protected by law from insults relating to their race and their national pride. Is there anything embodied in this that the hon member for Pietersburg finds fault with? [Interjections.]

Do you support the Freedom Charter. [Interjections.]

May I reply to the hon member? I am saying that there are elements in the Freedom Charter which are part of the CP’s policy. That is all I am saying. The only other point I am trying to make in this specific context is that we should not debate matters with one another on that basis. That gets us nowhere, and that is the whole reason why I am referring to it.

I now want to come to hon members’ speeches.

†The hon member for Berea is not here, but look at what the hon member says.

He will be back in a second.

That may be too late. [Interjections.] Look at what the hon member says. In all fairness he says he has dealt with the question that the accord had been reached by elected institutions. I have dealt with that. Now he goes further, however, and I would like to take him to task for this statement. He is a lawyer; he should know better. He says that we do not deal with the people. We now have a responsibility not to elected people but to the State President. He says that this joint executive is now going to be responsible not to the people but to the State President. That is not true, however. It is not factually true because firstly, the kwaZulu executive participating in this joint executive will be responsible to its legislative assembly. That is a fact.

Secondly, the Natal executive will, in terms of what it has done there, be responsible to this Parliament. Therefore, in all fairness, what basis does the hon member have to suggest and to argue that we now have responsibility to the State President and not to the elected body?

I should again like to make a specific point. Let us compare our respective arguments. I have no problem with that but when we argue, I suggest our arguments should be based on the facts as they are.

Who appoints them, Parliament or the State President and yourself?

That is a very interesting question. Firstly, the cabinet of kwaZulu…

We are now talking about ours.

Will the hon member just give me a chance, please? [Interjections.] No, there are two parties involved, so we must consider both sides. Hon members should not just argue their own point. [Interjections.]

The cabinet of kwaZulu, which is going to be part of the joint executive, is not elected by a legislative institution. It is, in fact, appointed by the Chief Minister, exactly as the case is with the executive which is appointed by the State President. [Interjections.]

They are members of the legislative assembly.

This is very interesting, Sir. That is not the point at issue. In all fairness, the point which is argued is that in one case we are dealing with appointed members and in the other case not. I suggest that they are appointed in both cases. Furthermore, in both cases they are appointees of institutions. Whether they are appointed by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu or the State President of South Africa, they have to report back to an elected institution. In one case the institution is Parliament and in the other the kwaZulu legislative council. That is the only point I am trying to make. [Interjections.]

*I should now like to take the matter further. This brings me to the hon member for Pietersburg. I honestly want to say that I did not insult the hon member. But if the truth is insulting, I do not have to apologise for the fact. His speech today was proof of what I have said, however, and that is that he is not in a position to discuss the Bill. With your leave, Sir, I am now going to deal with this.

The hon member for Pietersburg says that for the first time Black people are becoming part of the process of government in South Africa.

I spoke about the second-tier Government.

No, the hon member did not say they were becoming part of the second-tier of Government. He said it was the first time Black people were becoming part of the process of the government in the Republic of South Africa. That is not true, however! [Interjections.] The fact is that in developing bodies the Black people have been, for decades now, participating the process of government in South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, you must please grant me your protection. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the establishment of Black local authorities for Black people has been part of the process of government within the Republic of South Africa. It is untrue to say that this legislation is for the first time granting Black people participation in the process of government. I do, however, want to remind the hon member of the fact…

That is an old story.

But of course! [Interjections.] Does the hon member now want to tell me that the Bible is less true because I frequently read it?

Are you drawing a comparison between yourself and the Bible?

Oh, please! [Interjections.] The hon member goes further and says—hon members must now listen carefully to what I am saying—a people can only be free in its own fatherland. The hon member therefore advocates the standpoint that there can only be solutions in South Africa if we divide the country up in such a way that every people lives within a geographic fatherland, having sovereignty there. He says that there is no other possibility and asks me where in the world things are any different.

Come on, do tell us.

Very well, then, let me tell hon members. We are now speaking about people in terms of the cultural definition of the concept…

You must first ask how…

Please! I am now replying to the hon member for Rissik’s speech. He is the broomstick of which he spoke!

I am just helping you along a bit! [Interjections.]

No, wait a moment.

The hon member for Soutpansberg agrees that if they speak about a people and its country, they are doing so along the lines of a cultural definition of the concept. The question that was put to me was: In what instances do various peoples share the same fatherland within a certain constitutional option? I think that is a reasonable question. Let us look at Switzerland. Are there not four peoples which, in terms of a cultural definition, share the same fatherland with one another and which are included in the same constitutional models? [Interjections.] It is no use hon members shouting me down as far as this is concerned. There the French, Italian, German and Latin people share the same constitutional dispensation within the same fatherland. [Interjections.] Let us also take Belgium as an example, and with all due respect, on the basis of a cultural definition the hon member for Soutpansberg confirmed this. There are also French-speaking people and Hollanders—three different cultural groups—within the geographic boundaries of one fatherland and one constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] There are three different cultural groups. Let us take a final example. What is the position in Canada?

As far as hon members are concerned, there is one point I do want to concede and that is that it is easier and simpler to have a homogeneous state consisting of one people. That is the ideal, but the fact of the matter is that this is not what South Africa is like. No party, is to blame for the fact that this is not what South Africa is like. He who determines the destiny of all of us has ordained that this should be so.

That is why the question that we must answer is whether we are willing and able to live with the realities that have been ordained for us and whether we can continue to maintain our value systems, although I honestly want to say that in listening to certain hon members on the opposite side of the House, I shudder at the thought of whether that is possible. That is what it is all about.

Hear, hear!

I should like to tell hon members that I do not want to score points off anyone.

We do not believe you.

Very well, then, the hon member does in fact have every right not to believe me. The hon member for Jeppe knows, from his own experience, about people not believing him. I can therefore understand it. [Interjections.]

I do not believe you and I do not believe your boss either. Unlike your boss, I have not yet told a lie in Parliament.

I can understand that. It seems to me the hon member is saying he lies outside Parliament, not in Parliament. [Interjections.] I really do not want to quarrel with the hon member this evening.

But I do want to bring home this point. If possible, I would like to emphasise the seriousness and the responsibility attaching to this House, but apparently I am not succeeding. The hon member for Pietersburg quoted Mr Frank Martin and Chief Minister Buthelezi. The Chief Minister, of course, makes specific statements and has specific aspirations, relating to that hon member’s party, too, because the hon member for Pietersburg’s party will also have to bear in mind the aspirations of the Zulu’s as interpreted by Chief Minister Buthelezi. [Interjections.] What he does with that is not the point. The hon member for Pietersburg, however, will have to understand that Chief Minister Buthelezi and other Black leaders have precisely the same right to emphasise and articulate the aspirations of their communities and their peoples as he and others have to emphasise and articulate ours.

Not in a common father-land.

I am coming to that. The question arising in the consideration of this legislation is initially the following. Does the necessity exist for co-operation between the respective constitutional and political institutions and the people serving in them?

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Rissik’s reply is affirmative.

I say people can co-operate without sharing power.

All right. We shall get to that in a moment. I am first attempting to establish in what respects there is common ground between us. Consequently it is impossible to carry out Conservative Party policy without simultaneously emphasising the need for co-operation. The crux of the matter is therefore no longer the concept or the principle of the Bill because co-operation is definitely possible.

The hon member for Koedoespoort said that co-operation could be dealt with best by way of an agreement.

But not by way of power-sharing.

All right! I do not wish to argue with the hon member on this. Nevertheless an agreement between parties surely means that they have shared the decision-making. [Interjections.] Sir, hon members have nothing to gain by laughing about this now. When I put the question to the hon member for Jeppe, I believe he will confirm that an agreement contractually means that there has to be consensus between the contracting parties.

I became voluntarily involved in that agreement—because I wished it!

But of course! [Interjections.] That he became voluntarily involved in that agreement or not still does not alter the fact that he shared the decisionmaking power. [Interjections.] No, wait a bit! The hon member for Jeppe himself said he had participated in the agreement voluntarily so the hon member is laying himself wide open again now. He admitted the truth of my statement; my definition was correct. Nevertheless he participated in the agreement voluntarily. I now wish to request him to apply that voluntary participation in the agreement to the legislation before him. What do we find in the legislation? Not a single party can involve itself in the agreement other than voluntarily. [Interjections.] They cannot… [Interjections.] No, such a joint executive authority can only be constituted in accordance with the hon member for Jeppe’s standpoint that it happens voluntarily, for example by way of an agreement. [Interjections.] The basis of the power-sharing… [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir… [Interjections.] The basis of the power-sharing is therefore both a consequence of the agreement… [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I am not replying to questions now. [Interjections.]

It is a very simple question! [Interjections.]

Sir, of course, I have to say without further ado that I have never expected a complicated question from the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] We are obviously proceeding from fundamental points of departure at present. The hon member for Jeppe’s interjection turns the aspect of own volition into a fundamental point of departure. I now say this comes down to precisely the same in the case of both an agreement and a joint executive authority because both take place on a voluntary basis.

That is not the same thing! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg would be better advised to concern himself with the discipline he studied—animal genetics. Would he kindly confine himself to that in preference. [Interjections.]

Chris, I think I know from what you are descended!

I do not think I was discussing descendants. The hon member should know the question of descendants is a sensitive one. I do not believe we should discuss it. [Interjections.]

†I should like to refer now to the hon member for Umbilo. I also want to thank him for his contribution. He put a specific question to me, and I should like to reply to that now. The hon member for Umbilo referred to the staff of the statutory boards and asked whether they could be seconded to these new bodies. Let me state immediately that in terms of the Bill now before us it is possible for the controlling authorities of these boards, by way of agreement, also to use the employees of those boards for the purposes of the execution of the common functions of these bodies.

The hon member for Umbilo also referred to the fact that the NRP negotiated as executive with the kwaZulu government. I have already acknowledged that fact.

Secondly, I would like to suggest to the hon member that there is one flaw in his argument. I believe this institution is one of power-sharing. I believe power will be shared within this institution in terms of the decisions they will take. They will use the administrative capabilities of both institutions, however, for the purposes of executing the joint decisions.

*I should like to proceed and get to the hon member for Koedoespoort to whom I shall refer only briefly. What did the hon member have to say? He said inter alia that we had introduced this legislation because we wished to court the favour of Chief Minister Buthelezi. [Interjections.] The hon member did say this but he forgot to add that the Provincial Government Act contained a provision which made co-operation possible for all provinces with…

But I told you that.

No, wait, the hon member must give me a chance now. I certainly did not fight with him. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort today I seek no one’s favour but I do seek something else.

What?

I seek a constitutional dispensation—it exists nowhere in the world—which can serve a society like ours. That is what I seek. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg I shall be getting to him; I should be grateful if he would not provoke me now. His contribution to finding solutions on a negotiating basis is nil; on the contrary, the standpoints proclaimed by him—I am selecting my words carefully—have precisely the same effect regarding confrontation as those of the people of the extreme right and the ANC. [Interjections.] I shall get to that hon member and his facts.

The hon member for Koedoespoort said we were hiding behind another party. I am taking the hon member up on his own words. Hon members should listen carefully because the hon member for Koedoespoort said “the Government is hiding behind another party”. At the same time, however, the hon member accused me of actually being the leader taking us along the road of an integrated government. With the utmost respect, if that is true, why should I then hide behind a vanishing party?

In addition the hon member said that we now had a racially mixed executive committee without any responsibility toward the people of Natal. That was the hon member’s statement and he said it was such. He said it was utterly undemocratic. What the hon member did not say, however, was that that mixed executive committee was accountable to this House and hon members of this House are elected.

Does that make them accountable in respect of the people of Natal? [Interjections.]

Are the people of Natal not also represented in this House? Are they not represented in the other Houses of Parliament?

It is high time that they were elected again.

When was the last Parliamentary election?

Sir, this is really very interesting. There we see those hon members’ basic problem. They alter their attack in accordance with the one they have lost. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Koedoespoort put another question too. He asked whether it was true that it was our intention in section 5 of the Provincial Government Act—the section merely provides that, at the request of the provinces and with the approval of the standing committee, the provinces can be divided according to other provincial boundaries within the boundaries of a province—to replace the provinces with regional governments. Surely the province is fundamentally a regional government because it governs a specific geographic area which is smaller than the borders of the Republic. All I want to know is where this takes us.

The hon member asked whether there was a need for such an authority. Let us examine it. The hon member asked—this is a fair question—if there was a need for such a joint structure for joint execution of functions, for the co-ordination of functions and for advice on the enlargement of functions, who would identify those needs. Obviously the people involved in those functions are the ones to identify the needs for such a joint structure. They identify the needs. The people who have to carry out the functions at ground level therefore say they require such a structure and request us to give it to them.

The hon member then made an interesting statement but did not complete his sentence. Hon members should listen carefully now. He said one of the components of the joint structure still formed part of South Africa. It is undoubtedly true that the hon member said so. It then occurred to him that the national states also formed part of South Africa and he abandoned the argument just like that. Both are part of South Africa.

I said that and qualified it.

Yes, of course. Both are part of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member added that we were now creating the need for new personnel and additional funds. Other hon members took the lead from him on this. What are the actual facts? If the hon member had read the Bill, he would have found that in principle the existing personnel of the two administrations would be used. Nevertheless there has to be—I wish to concede that point—a chief executive officer to be held accountable, with a small administrative personnel to assist him.

I now wish to ask the hon member with reference to his province whether a need does not exist in the Transvaal for co-operation concerning roads.

Yes, but not a power-sharing body. [Interjections.]

Surely we have dealt with power-sharing and the rest by means of an agreement and that is also power-sharing.

Was the Nkomati Accord power-sharing?

In my opinion the hon member for Helderkruin made one important point and I wish to thank him very much for it. It is obviously easier to develop systems in a homogeneous society. The society in Natal is more homogeneous or at least less heterogeneous than in many of the other provinces.

The fact remains, however—I want to state this without apology tonight—that power-sharing is demanded by the mutual interests of the population of the country. We may argue on the form it has to assume but South Africa cannot be governed effectively without power-sharing among all the communities and without their co-operation in State institutions. [Interjections.] This does not turn the South Africa of the future into a unitary state… [Interjections.]

Chris, you are totally confused.

I can never become like the hon member for Rissik.

We are a composite state in which the various institutions and their representatives will have to share power at executive and legislative level. We shall negotiate on this and even with the hon member…

[Inaudible.]

Of course we know the difference. [Interjections.]

Now we get to the hon member for Kuruman. [Interjections.] In comparing the standpoint of the hon member for Kuruman with that of the hon member for Barberton, we see a fundamental clash between the two. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman said that in this case they wished to give the Zulus very much more than the NP. They wanted to give the Zulus an independent state. The hon member for Barberton, however, came and said that no persons permitted themselves to be forced into joint structures. Surely I understood him correctly? Does the hon member understand the contradiction between these statements? [Interjections.] One can force them into independence but not into joint structures. As if we want to force anyone into joint structures!

Chris, only you are permitting yourself to be forced in.

Oh no, surely we have progressed beyond Std 8.

One would never say so on listening to the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.]

The hon member then came and quoted from Die Burger. I asked him in all fairness to quote the report in full. I said, however, that all proposals from the Indaba would be tested against the fundamental points of departure of the Government.

Yes!

Yes, but there is a difference.

What are the fundamental points of departure?

I said that if there were acceptable proposals, they would have to be considered in order to test them if they represented drastic deviations.

But what are the proposals?

The hon member is asking me what the proposals are but the Indaba has not yet brought proposals to us. Now he is asking me what the proposals are.

What are your principles on this? [Interjections.]

The hon member went further and said—in his own words—the Bill gave substance to an indaba. That is certainly not true. To date the Indaba has not submitted any proposals whatever to the Government so how can the Bill give substance to the proposals of the Indaba?

But the two executive committees held an indaba to give substance to the Bill.

No, I am sorry, but the hon member will not get away with this. He said the Indaba! And that Indaba is the one in progress in Natal at the moment. The hon member cannot employ a witticism to get away from the statement he made. I say it is untrue and in addition the hon member knows it is untrue. [Interjections.]

I further charge the hon member with referring to lackey (kripvreter). I wish to tell him that I regret our use of these terms in describing other people in public life. The hon member went further and gave a definition of a lackey—someone appointed by the State President.

Yes!

The hon member for Nigel agrees. Let us examine this statement somewhat. I wish to ask the hon member for Waterberg in all fairness whether he agrees with this statement. Does he agree that someone appointed by the State President is a lackey?

You are well aware in what context it is being used!

What is its context?

[Inaudible.]

No, you tell me. [Interjections.] Let us view the CP tonight as it exists in its nakedness.

To say that someone appointed by the State President is a lackey is an insult to Strijdom because he was appointed by the State President.

Who?

Strijdom! Prime Minister Strijdom was appointed by the State President. [Interjections.] It is an insult to Verwoerd, because he was appointed by the State President. It is an insult to Vorster, because he was appointed by the State President. [Interjections.]

Who was the State President in Advocate Strijdom’s time?

No, wait a minute. Surely that is not the point. The point is the definition the hon member for Kuruman gave, that what was appointed by the head of state was a lackey. They were all appointed by a head of state, or his representative.

Without having been elected to that position! Advocate Strijdom was an elected member of the House of Assembly.

It makes no difference what he was.

He was chosen as leader by his caucus!

That is not the point the hon member made. He said that a person appointed by another political leader was a lackey.

That is your definition!

No, it is not my definition.

You make your own definitions!

Let us go further. The hon member for Waterberg was appointed. Is he a lackey?

He was elected leader of the province!

He was appointed Minister by the State President, or the Prime Minister. Is he a lackey? [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg was appointed. Was he therefore a lackey (kripvreter)?

Tom was fast asleep at the trough (krip)! [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Kuruman to stop describing honest people in this fashion in the highest Council Chamber of the country. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter with the hon member now; he will have to account for it himself.

The hon member asked me whether it was possible for a Black person to become the chairman of such an executive authority. The answer is “yes”.

I just wanted to know it, that is all.

That hon member voted for a dispensation in which a Coloured or an Asiatic person could become head of state.

When did I vote for that?

The hon member voted for it in 1977.

No, that is not true. That is an untruth, and you know it.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, the hon member said a moment ago that I was telling an untruth…

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw what he has just said.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I have no further comment to add to what I have already said about the speech of the hon member for Greytown. [Interjections.]

*I come now to the hon member for Sasolburg. I want to tell him that his allegation that we want to give Natal to the Zulus is a lie, and anyone who says it outside this House is a liar. I shall accuse him outside this House of being a liar. [Interjections.]

Hon members must listen carefully to what the hon member for Sasolburg said. He said the Bill made it possible, for the first time, for the chief executive officer, who disposes of funds voted by this Parliament, to be a Black person. The hon member must come and tell me if I misunderstood him, because I had to make notes. I did not have the advantage of his Hansard. That is what he said, but surely it is not true. The chief executive officer of any national state government can be Black. Surely what the hon member said was not true. There is nothing in our Constitution which prohibits the chief executive officer of any department from being either White, Coloured, Asiatic or Black. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that one what the hon member said is not true. We know one another. Surely the hon member need not base his case on such untruths.

The hon member went further. Surely he will know that the funds appropriated for the national states are voted by Parliament. Surely he also knows that the funds appropriated for the independent states are also voted by Parliament. But he says that a Black man can now, for the first time, become the chief executive officer.

He also went further, and I want to make an accusation against him in this regard. He said this Bill made a third official language possible. What is the hon member trying to say? He wants to use this statement for his petty political motives, but surely the laws pertaining to the status of the national states has already elevated their own languages to official languages for their areas. [Interjections.] But he said the Bill was now making it possible to have a third official language. [Interjections.] What he did not say, however, was that all resolutions or promulgations in both official languages, as far as Natal and also as far as kwaZulu is concerned, must be issued in their own language. That is the same hon member who has so much to say about the cultural rights of other people. It is the same hon member who says that we base our constitutional development on the acceptance of those cultural values of people.

I want to know from the hon member for Sasolburg whether this is the level of debate to which we have sunk in this House. [Interjections.] He said we were really going to share power with Blacks now. I make no apology for that. If the voters of South Africa wish to reject this party because it wishes to take realities into account and because it accepts that there are common interests among all the people, then they must do so. But then they must know in what direction they are being led.

The hon member for Parow made an extremely important contribution—in one respect in particular. He said that in the past liaison had primarily been on the central level among the governments of the states. That is true. With the devolution of functions it is necessary that this happen on that level as well. I agree with him. The whole concept of the devolution of power is related to the argument advanced by the hon member in this connection. [Interjections.] The hon member identified areas of co-operation, and in that regard, too, I agree with him.

I come next to the hon member for Barberton. Actually I think the hon member for Durban Point was very kind to the hon member for Barberton. The hon member for Barberton knows that I have great appreciation for his insight and debating skill, but now one has to consider what the hon member said. It was very interesting. The hon member said we were experimenting with Natal, and that any of the constituent components could terminate the co-operation. The hon member was correct. The hon member then went further, and it is interesting to note that he objected to any of the executive authorities being able to terminate co-operation.

Oh, please!

Let us see. He may as well listen when I am replying to him, because I listened carefully to what he said. [Interjections.] He said that in the 1983 constitution we had made provision for conflicts between the three Houses. He was correct. That is quite right. He said he thought we should have included the same provision of withdrawal in the Constitution. Hon members must listen carefully to what he said. He said we should have included the provision that any specific party may withdraw from the co-operation agreement in the Constitution of 1983 as well. Anyone of the components of this Parliament should have been able to withdraw if it so wished. Surely he has that right; surely he can simply resign?

Oh, please!

It is no use the hon member saying “oh, please”. The hon member should have considered what he was saying, but he did not. Now he is taking this specific point further.

The hon member for Barberton lives in an area in which he should have appreciation for the need for co-operation among government bodies and other members of the community. The area in which he lives dictates geographically the need for co-operation with all bodies. He knows that.

I want to thank the hon member for Durban Point very sincerely for his support. I agree with him that there are two crucial elements in this legislation, which we support. Firstly we are working with something that has been negotiated. [Interjections.] It is true. This Government has embarked upon a course of negotiation, in spite of what anyone says. That is why I welcome the standpoint of the hon member for Durban Point on this legislation. Thirdly, he said we could establish a pattern for future co-operation and consensus. I agree with that as well. I think those are the crucial elements in this legislation.

I now want to come to the hon member for Rissik. He made an important statement, which I want to deal with…

Just tell us about the Zulu in the Executive Committee of the Transvaal!

Koos, stay inside, man!

Do you still beat your wife? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is engaged in completing his arguments and making them understandable to everyone here, and now the hon member for Jeppe is shouting something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did you notice that the hon member for Vryheid began the altercation by passing a remark? All I did was reply to him.

Order! That is precisely where you made a mistake! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I get the impression that you are not on my side. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member does not always make good deductions, but this time he did. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Speaker, if you would allow me to make a personal remark to you, I just want to say that I admire your powers of discrimination. [Interjections.] However, I just wish to deal with one important point as far as the hon member for Rissik is concerned.

The hon member quoted from a speech which I made before the leaders of the Stellenbosch students. He referred to a specific aspect of that speech, and I do not blame him for doing so. He is free to use whatever part of it he thinks will suit him. He said, however—and this is important—that I had said that general interests were more important than group interests. I did in fact say that. In fact, I thought the function of the State in essence, as the State, was to reconcile own interests with general interests. I thought that the responsibility of the state, in each one of its institutions, lay therein that it had to reconcile own interests or group interests with the general interests, because that is after all the function of the state. That is why I make no apology for having said that the general interests are the primary interests in a country.

But now the hon member is going further, and is giving a twist to this matter when he asks whether I am going to subordinate the interests of the Whites to those of kwaZulu.

It is a fair question.

No, it is a stupid question. [Interjections.] The hon member, who has such a great deal to say about the NP…

I have very little to say about the NP!

No, wait a minute. In the constitution of the NP, of which the hon member for Rissik was also a member, there is a statement—I shall summarise it—that any person who places race, people or country of origin above the interests of South Africa, is not welcome in the NP.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member subscribed to that, and when he did so, he said that South Africa’s interests were greater than the interests of Whites, Coloureds, Blacks or any other group.

It is a complete distortion of that document!

No, these are the facts. The hon member simply did not understand them.

I did understand them!

What the hon member did not understand, however, was that if we in South Africa wish to succeed in serving the general interests, we shall have to stabilise the interests of every group. [Interjections.] That is why serving the general interests does not mean that a choice has to be made between the interests of groups, but that a choice has to be made in the interests of everyone.

I do not want to do what the hon member for Koedoespoort said I was doing. Today I want to say that the debate which is being conducted here is being conducted on the basis that one group can win in South Africa. I want to say this evening that that is an illusion. The hon members of the CP are playing precisely the kind of winner-potential political game we must not play, because either all of us can win or all of us can lose. [Interjections.] That is inevitable. That is not our concoction; those are the circumstances in which we are living.

I agree with the hon member Mr Schoeman that the legislation implies the optimum utilisation of skills in that area, human skills, resources, capital and so on. One cannot plan Natal in isolation from kwaZulu, and one cannot plan kwaZulu in isolation from Natal. The legislation presupposes institutions that are able to do this, and I make no apology for that.

†I now come to the hon member for Pine-town. Let me say one thing very quickly, namely that medical services could obviously form the subject matter of co-operation between the various institutions.

*I singled out the hon member for Vryheid because I should like to conclude with his speech. I want to conclude with it for one reason. Everything hon members said was true; we cannot force everyone into an independent state when it is established. We cannot force anyone into joint structures. We can draw up all the constitutions possible, and it is the easiest thing to draw up a constitution. Any young academic can do it. One thing remains true, however, namely that no one can write a seal into a constitution. No one can write an approach into a constitution.

And not the protection of minorities either.

Yes, one can write protection of minorities into a constitution, but I am talking about something else which the hon member for Rissik knows nothing about. [Interjections.] I am saying something else.

Unless all of us in this country succeed in generating a spirit of acceptance of communities and groups as they are, without humiliation and without settling scores, South Africa is not going to succeed. Unless we use our labour, our skills, our intellect—everything we have—to develop structures in which the values we are discussing can be preserved, South Africa is not going to succeed.

Furthermore I want to say that in that future South Africa—once again I make no apology for this—the Whites will have to play a prominent role because their exposure to the values has been longer than that of any other group in the country. I now want to ask this: Is it not possible for us to remove the venom and the personal attacks from our debates and to argue with one another on the basis of our factual statements, our arguments and our solutions?

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

Before I commence with the Second Reading Speech as such, let me first extend my thanks for the words of welcome. I also want to thank hon members who wrote to us. Many thanks, too, for the prayers said on my behalf.

The Bill which is being dealt with here is chiefly a product of the minority report of the Grosskopf Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance which was tabled in Parliament on 14 May 1985 and in which the recommendation was that instead of the traditional third-party insurance of motor vehicles, underwritten by means of premiums, a petrol levy be imposed on petrol-driven vehicles, and that a premium be levied on vehicles that are not petrol-driven vehicles.

After due consideration of all the implications that could result from the implementation of the recommendation, the Cabinet decided to accept the proposed levy, but also decided that the levy should apply to all types of fuel for motor vehicles.

†In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary to repeal the existing Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and to promulgate a new Act which will amongst other provide for the establishment of a new fund which will in future be referred to as the Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, in short the MVA Fund. The MVA Fund will be dependent on moneys allocated to it in terms of the provisions of section 1(2)(a)(ii) of the Central Energy Fund Act of 1977. Funds so derived will be utilised exclusively to defray the expenses incurred by the manager of the fund in the execution of his powers and duties and for matters specifically provided for in the Act, including contributions to the National Road Safety Council Fund.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I now wish to deal with certain provisions in view of the fact that numerous conflicting reports have been circulated causing considerable confusion amongst the public.

As the MVA Fund does not have the necessary personnel at its disposal to cope with claims arising from the new measures, provisions is made in the Bill for the appointment of agents to handle claims on behalf of the MVA Fund on predetermined conditions.

All the provisions in the existing Act relating to claims have been incorporated in the Bill.

As insurance now falls away, it will no longer be necessary to obtain third-party tokens every year. The proposed Bill, however, places an obligation on the owner of a motor vehicle to display a token of identification on each vehicle. Such tokens are obtainable free of charge and may be obtained from anyone of the companies acting as agents for the MVA Fund. Tokens will be valid for the duration of the life of the vehicle in respect of which they have been issued which dispenses with the cumbersome formality to replace them annually.

Regarding change in ownership, I wish to point out that the purchaser of a vehicle is at liberty to retain the token displayed by the previous owner, or to obtain a new token from an agent of his own choice.

The names of the companies which will act as agents for the MVA Fund have already been widely published but will also appear in the Gazette in the near future.

Questions have been raised regarding the necessity to display tokens and this matter was discussed thoroughly by the standing committee. For the purpose of this speech, I do not wish to give a long-drawn-out account, but I do wish to point out that it does serve several purposes, of which I shall name but a few.

A motorist can exercise his democratic right to elect an agent who will best serve his rights in the unhappy event of him becoming involved in a car accident. Similarly, the aggrieved party and investigating officers will be able to identify the agent of the wrongdoer beyond any doubt and this will greatly simplify the institution and settlement of claims.

*Questions have also been raised about the position in regard to trailers, caravans and agricultural and other implements designed to be drawn by a motor vehicle. In this regard let me state that they are exempted from the obligation of displaying separate tokens, but they will nevertheless enjoy the same cover as the vehicle by which they are drawn.

It should also be mentioned that the Bill also makes provision for cover for electrically driven vehicles, even though such vehicles do not make use of fuel and will therefore not actually contribute to the funds of the MVA Fund. Cover is provided for these vehicles, however, in the existing Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, and as a result of representations from various quarters requesting provision in the proposed Bill for cover for these vehicles, and the fact that the risk attached to these vehicles is minimal, after careful consideration it was decided to include the necessary cover in this Bill. This decision obviates the necessity of adopting additional provisions in regard to vehicles of this nature.

In conclusion I want to draw attention to the fact that the agreement entered into by members of the consortium for the handling of third-party claims is only valid for a period of two years. This was done to subject the measures to a test and, on the strength of the experience gained, to adapt them after two years, should this be deemed necessary.

I should also like to draw attention to the provision made in clause 7 of the Bill, ie that an advisory committee be established to advise me on certain matters. This committee’s representation is very far-reaching and involves all interested parties who can make a meaningful contribution on the question of third-party insurance. I specifically want to mention one aspect that has been entrusted to this committee, ie the fact that one of its functions is to determine the conditions in accordance with which additional agents can be admitted to the consortium and advise me on that score. This implies that the number of agents dealing with third-party claims at present need not necessarily remain the same.

I cannot neglect to mention the fact that this Bill is the product of several meetings held by the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs. Outside bodies, including the Association of Law Societies of South Africa, the South African Assurance Association and several bus and goods vehicle operators were allowed to testify before the standing committee, and after an in-depth discussion a number of well-considered amendments were accepted by the standing committee. I want to convey my thanks to everyone for the interest they showed and for the care they took in dealing with matters in this standing committee.

It is my considered opinion that this Bill will bring about great developments for motor vehicle owners and claimants, at the same time bringing about savings in administration costs, and that is should therefore enjoy overall support.

Mr Speaker, this Bill has already been read in another House. Before going into the details of the Bill, let me say that when the original Bill was presented to the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs, it was most contentious, not only from the point of view of the opposition parties but also that of the governing party. This meant that we had to hear much evidence as well as have long discussions, but by the end of the day the committee was able to present a Bill to the various Houses on which consensus had been reached.

The chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen, did not have an easy task sorting out the dissention, but he acquitted himself well of his task. The committee had the fullest co-operation of the Department of Transport through the good offices of Mr Eksteen, the Director-General, who attended every session, as well as of Mr Boy Claasen and Mr P F S Conradie. The efforts of all these persons deserve the appreciation of this House. [Interjections.]

The principle of the Bill is an important one because motor transport is part and parcel of our daily lives. The Bill seeks to provide for the payment of compensation to all South Africans for certain loss or damage unlawfully caused by the driving of certain motor vehicles. It is a contract by which the State, through the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, undertakes to insure the citizens of South Africa against pecuniary loss by the payment of a sum of money in the event of loss of life or injury caused through a motor vehicle. This contract comes into effect the moment fuel, irrespective of the type of fuel, is purchased from a pump. In the case of petrol 2,6 cents per litre goes to the MVA Fund. The most satisfactory result will be that every motor vehicle driver on any road in South Africa will in future be completely covered, whereas under the old Act, many vehicles were driven for which no insurance premium had ever been paid. One cent per litre will give the fund about R80 million.

The standing committee consulted with and heard evidence from a wide range of people from the ranks of the public, and it is not my intention to mention each of them by name. Many of the proposals made by the organisations mentioned were accepted and some 30 amendments were effected to the original Bill covering twelve of the 21 clauses of the Bill. The committee really went out of its way to accommodate all parties in order to produce a Bill which it believed would be fair and just to all concerned, and unanimously proposed the setting up of a motor vehicle accident court or tribunal. Despite this, the chairman of the permanent committee on MVA matters of the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa at a seminar held in Johannesburg before some 500 attorneys criticised this Bill very severely. I shall debate this matter later because it deals with two important matters in the Bill, viz the definition of “special circumstances” which do not allow for any neglect, omission or ignorance, and clause 14 of the Bill which deals with prescription of a claim.

In the definition we have accommodated people who own small kombis by defining a motorcar as a motor vehicle designed to carry ten people including the driver, while a motor vehicle is defined as being capable of being propelled by either fuel or electricity, and includes trailers, caravans and agricultural implements. No levy is paid in respect of electrically driven vehicles, while a plough or a threshing machine or a trailer which may be left at the roadside and is involved in an accident is covered by the MVA Fund.

As stated in its final report to this House the standing committee has not finalised its decision on the affixing of a token of identification, and is investigating the question of its incorporation into the annual licence. This investigation may result in amending legislation next year. The committee did decide, however, that tokens were not necessary for trailers, caravans or agricultural implements.

In the original Bill fourteen insurance companies forming a consortium were contracted by the hon the Minister. A copy of the agreement was made available to us, and I am pleased to say that there is no exclusivity for the present agents. Therefore, the number could be increased by amending the original Bill. The Bill now before the House, therefore, stops a monopoly once and for all. The advisory committee, in terms of clause 7(1) of the Bill, can now lay down the conditions under which agents of the MVA Fund shall be appointed. This will be set down in regulations, and whoever complies, can become an agent if such a company conforms to those regulations. The agents will now receive R450 per claim instituted for injuries, irrespective of the quantum of the claim, and the chairman of the SA Insurance Company, Mr C J Oosthuizen, in his evidence declared himself fully in favour of the opening up of participation by any insurance company which could comply with these certain minimum standards.

The committee did feel that it should be open to people to make claims directly to the MVA Fund, but it also conceded that the insurance companies should act as agents because the MVA Fund would never have enough highly experienced personnel to undertake all the work involved.

The AA Mutual was a member of the consortium, and it had the second largest market share—some 16%. It is now in liquidation and the hon the Minister has issued a statement to the effect that such liquidation has no effect on the liability of the MVA Fund.

An agreement between the Association of Law Societies of South Africa and the MVA Fund is published in a South African legal journal, De Rebus, of July 19, 1986. In terms of the agreement the MVA Fund accepts full responsibility for payment of all amounts which could lawfully have been recovered from AA Mutual in terms of the previous Act. The agreement covers many points, eg service of future claims, distribution of claims for handling, actions already instituted, future actions, extension of prescriptions, use of the AA Mutual’s attorneys, and also other problems. I would like to congratulate the MVA Fund on the agreement reached. It is a clear indication to the motoring public of South Africa that the contract entered into between them and the MVA Fund is in no way alienated because of the disappearance of one of its agents. This should provide further confidence in the fund.

The advisory committee to be appointed under the Act has been given increased powers and covers much wider membership than was originally envisaged. In his evidence Mr S W van der Merwe, the chairman of the Supreme Court Committee of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa, stated that the Grosskopf Commission had proposed an advisory committee for different reasons and objects. I want to quote some of his evidence. He said:

These very points have been met in the Bill. However, the Minister has the responsibility to administer the MVA Fund. Above all, he is ultimately responsible to Parliament. Both the functions and the composition of the advisory committee have been well defined. The success of this committee now depends on the quality of its members and the person the Minister appoints.

The word “advise” means to offer counsel to the Minister regarding the financing of the fund, its financial position, the appointment and disciplining of agents, security to be offered in lieu of levies, and other matters.

The committee will have to be assertive and make its opinions felt if it is to be effective. If it wishes to relax and be a rubber stamp then the onus on the committee will be of no account whatsoever. It is possible for this new advisory committee to do all that has been asked for, but then the Minister must bear the ultimate responsibility, namely his responsibility to this House.

The whole question of the amount of levy on fuel that public and private bus operators and public carriers should pay was discussed in evidence. This led to evidence being given by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. As a result, the levy paid by these bodies differs materially from those paid at a retail pump because of the quantity of fuel purchased, and because deliveries are made directly to their own pumps on their own premises. The amounts were agreed upon between the various organisations involved, and I must say to everybody’s satisfaction.

There are a large number of clauses which deal with administrative matters and procedures. Whatever recommendations in respect of these matters were made by those who gave written and oral evidence were carefully considered by the committee, and many improvements were effected. The limitation of liability in respect of cases where conveying is for reward or on personal business has been increased from R12 000 to R25 000. This was requested by diverse bodies such as Assocom and the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa. The standing committee also debated the question as to whether this amount should be adjusted by regulation or laid down in legislation because of the problem of continuing inflation. In the end it felt that for clarity’s sake it should be stated in the legislation.

The question of collaboration between the TBVC states and the South African MVA Fund has been fully covered and any problems connected therewith can be resolved between the MVA Fund and the state concerned.

Lastly, this Bill is retrospective to 1 May 1986, because that is the day on which the previous Act ceased to be of legal effect.

I have in front of me a large number of documents that show that every point that was raised by the public was carefully analysed by the Department of Transport, and their comments and recommendations were presented to the standing committee for its consideration. It is important that the public should know this. There were a number of occasions when the standing committee upheld these representations rather than follow the recommendations of the Department of Transport.

Despite all this, two contentious matters remain for debate. The first is the issue of “special circumstances” and “prescription” and the second the issue of the establishment of a special court or tribunal to deal with MVA claims.

Mr D P Honey of Bloemfontein is the chairman of the permanent committee on MVA matters of the Association of Law Societies of South Africa. He is likely to be the representative of the Association of Law Societies on the advisory committee as laid down in clause 7 of the Bill. It was he who was the principal speaker at a seminar held in Johannesburg. It was attended by some 500 attorneys and their he attacked the new Bill before the House. He appears to have repeated almost all the things he said in evidence before this standing committee when he dealt in detail with two very important legal points which this House must know about which affect attorneys very vitally, namely “special circumstances” and “prescription”.

Clause 14(3) of the Bill makes provision, when prescription has taken effect, for a third party to make application for condonation for a further 90 days if he can show “special circumstances”. It is important that I quote from the evidence that he gave. He said:

This is the argument that they tried to advance—

This is what he told the attorneys in Johannesburg.

I am sure that all the hon members must have read the article in Time magazine about insurance. He went on to say:

He said the Bill is “fraught with traps, technicalities and technical defences with which the claimant will get confronted”. He also said that it is no good to say to an attorney that he is a qualified man and should know what he is about.

The same stance was also taken by Mr S A van der Merwe who said:

He stated that the last policy taken out by the law society entailed a premium of R1,8 million, but that the claims approved had already exceeded R3 million. The insurance company has therefore lost about R1,2 million and the renewal premium will be well above R3 million. He was trying to say that because of the MVA Act they had to pay an extra premium. He went on to say:

The standing committee’s reply to the evidence of Mr Honey and Mr Van der Merwe was very simple. We said that the MVA Fund was able to prove that the two-year period before prescription took effect was ample. There had to be prescription for obvious reasons and experience had shown that two years was ample. The MVA Fund believes it is not its function to condone the negligence, omission or ignorance of any attorney, irrespective of the colour of his skin. He has become an officer of the Supreme Court of South Africa by virtue of his qualifications and is therefore considered suitable to accept all the responsibilities required by law.

To try to equate this with insurance premiums for fidelity is both futile and puny. He mentions the article in Time magazine dealing with the very steep premium increases in insurance policies. Insurance is the business of taking premiums to counter the possibility of risks actually happening. Insurance companies are in business to make some money and to make a profit.

I want to quote an underwriter at Lloyds, who said the following in his latest report:

The attorneys of South Africa will have to realise that their Professional Indemnity Insurance is not a social security scheme, and that the responsibility of avoiding prescription is a responsibility that every attorney must learn to carry. Why should the MVA Fund have to carry the burden of some attorneys who are neglectful, remiss or ignorant? The MVA Fund is not a social security scheme because compensation comes from levies paid on the consumption of fuel. This compensation does not come from general taxation and the redistribution of wealth.

Finally, I would like to deal with the special MVA court. We recommended the establishment of a court or tribunal to deal with all litigation in connection with motor accident claims. The report of the standing committee reads as follows:

I repeat, “unanimously in favour of the establishment of such courts”—

That is in about 12 days’ time. The report continues:

The standing committee noted that section 17 of the Labour Relations Act, No 28 of 1956, sets out in great detail the establishment and functions of an industrial court, and were in favour of amending the Bill before them on similar lines.

The appendix to the report supplies the motivation for the establishment of such a court. This motivation is extremely sound as it arises as the result of the long delays in settling claims and the fact that litigation today has become extremely expensive. I would like to refer the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs as well as the hon the Minister of Justice to the appendix.

The hon member for Yeoville will discuss more adequately than I can why the PFP favours this special tribunal. [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon member for South Coast as well as other hon members on the other side of the House will also want to debate this matter in more detail.

In a letter to the Director-General of Transport Affairs, the Director-General of Justice intimated that the hon the Minister of Justice was going to appoint a committee consisting of Mr S A van der Merwe representing the Association of Law Societies, Adv J D W Swart representing the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and Prof H J Erasmus representing the Society of University Teachers of Law. To date, these persons have not been officially appointed, and hon members of this House are entitled to know why this has not been done. It seems to me as a layman that further conflict is being generated because lawyers as well as advocates will have the right to appear before such a court, whereas at present only advocates appear in the Supreme Court.

This committee cannot be delayed any longer because even the hon the Minister of Justice is of the opinion that the procedure regarding the settlement of MVA claims could possibly be distinguished from the procedure of other civil claims. The standing committee desired to amend the original Bill to include this special court, but some hon members—strangely, it was the members of the PFP—felt that the goodwill of the Department of Justice was necessary and that it was in the best interests of good government that the co-operation of the Department of Justice should prevail. Already representations of the Bar Council in various divisions of the Supreme Court have been forwarded to the standing committee. This evidence should have gone to the special committee which the hon the Minister has promised to appoint, and not to us. We hope this will be soon, so that the necessary legislation for the establishment of this special tribunal can be placed before this House sometime during 1987. I should like to address this to the hon the Minister who seems to be very busy talking about health affairs. [Interjections.]

This matter cannot be delayed any longer because it must be clearly understood that the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund is not a social security scheme. It is an insurance scheme which costs the motorist lots of money which he has to pay into this scheme when he buys fuel at the pump. The scheme must operate effectively and cheaply in the interests of all the motorists of South Africa. This special court must be introduced as soon as possible.

We on this side of the House will therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout made a very wide detour as far as this legislation is concerned, but it was nevertheless a most effective detour. The hon member said much of what hon members on this side of the House and on that side of the House, too, could have said. I want to thank the hon member for this because he enumerated very nicely what the standing committee has done regarding this legislation. I cannot fault the hon member’s conclusions and, still less, what he said happened in the standing committee.

I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout as well as his colleague, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who serves on this standing committee, for the zeal displayed by the two of them, and as well as by other hon members. I also thank the hon members for Durban Point and De Aar for the zeal they displayed and the manner in which they, too, tried to reach consensus on this legislation. We appreciate their actions in this regard.

This shows once again that when one is dealing with legislation that affects the public at large, and politics plays no part, it is fantastic to see how hon members’ reasonableness and common sense prevail so that a solution may be found to difficult problems.

I want to state immediately that this legislation is a great step forward, but it certainly does not mean the end of motor vehicle accidents and the associated insurance expenses. The hon member for Bezuidenhout made mention of the question of accelerating claims and said that we felt a special court should be appointed to investigate matters of this nature.

It is very clear to me that the Department of Justice is not interested in seeing a fragmentation of our legal system in South Africa. I am personally not in favour of fragmentation, either. We have, however, already created a precedent by instituting certain special courts which have certain responsibilities. The evidence before us was very clear that our courts are to a large extent being overloaded with third-party claims arising from motor accidents. There is nevertheless no doubt that the longer a case’s litigation, the more expensive it will become for both plaintiff and defendant. Therefore if one way or another we could create a system that would make it cheaper for the public at large, I think we should most certainly do so.

There is, however, no doubt that we shall have to have the co-operation of the bar council and the law society. It seems to us that the Law Society is predominantly in favour of the creation of special courts in this regard, but those two bodies differ with each other on this subject.

The hon the Minister of Justice is not here this evening but he will come to talk to us at some stage. There was simply not enough time for this but at some stage or another he will discuss this subject with us in the standing committee. I therefore say that the last word on this matter has not yet been spoken. The hon member for Bezuidenhout can accept that before much more water has flown under the bridge, steps will indeed be taken to determine whether we can accelerate the disposal of this matter. Whether special courts will in fact be created is another matter. I think one could at least work towards making it cheaper and accelerating the settlement of these claims.

This legislation represents a significant step forward. It is a pity we could not go further. We have, however, a certain responsibility and this is to deal firstly with legislation that has replaced the old-fashioned premium with a levy on fuel. That was our primary responsibility.

The question of courts was actually a side issue. We could well have taken certain decisions in the standing committee, and the standing committee almost did so. I think, however, that it would have been inappropriate to have done so at that stage, knowing that to do so we also needed the co-operation of the hon the Minister of Justice and the administration of justice.

The advisory committee which is to assist the hon the Minister in this respect, will be made up of nine members. I hope that they, when they have to consider the agents to be appointed, will not adhere to the present composition of the consortium, but if a company or an institution has a reasonable claim and wants to act as an agent, will consider it very sympathetically.

As I already stated at the beginning of my speech, one hopes that this legislation is a step forward and that we have improved upon what we have on the Statute Book at present.

Mr Chairman, as far as the remarks made by the hon member for De Kuilen are concerned, I just want to say that I do not think the idea is that this matter should be approached from the point of view of the fragmentation of the courts. I think the decisive consideration in connection with claims of this nature should in the final analysis be the interests of the litigants. If there are problems between the side bar and the bar, it is in the interests of the administration of justice and of the individuals who are the unfortunate victims of third-party cases that this problem in connection with special courts should be solved as soon as possible, because the problem is also that the cost which a claimant has to incur to settle a matter of this nature is so high that very often, those claims cannot be proceeded with, and this is not in the interests of society.

†As far as the speech of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is concerned, I am also in agreement with what he said, except for his very harsh, unsympathetic and cruel attitude towards the attorneys. [Interjections.] It is very evident that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has neither been associated with nor worked in an attorney’s office. It is not a matter of negligence or an omission or problems of that nature. It simply sometimes happens that a two-year period elapses before the claim can be instituted.

*It is a very difficult situation. In respect of a less important matter, such as goods sold and delivered, the period of prescription is three years. In this case, however, it is two years, and there are many other urgent and time-consuming matters which an attorney has to attend to. I wonder whether the hon the Minister, who is a very sympathetic person, and the Director General of that department would not reconsider this very difficult matter.

The CP supports this legislation, and we also know that it has become essential, for even this unpopular Government was not prepared to let the premiums go up by 300% and another plan had to be devised to meet the claims of injured people and other victims.

As far as the broad principles of the Bill are concerned, the problem we have with legislation of this nature is, of course, that no Committee Stage has been requested. Normally there is no Committee Stage, so it is essential that certain aspects and certain clauses of the Bill be scrutinised.

In the first place, I want to refer to clause 10(c). It provides that when a member of the SA Police, the SA Defence Force or the SA Railways Police Force is injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident while being conveyed in the course of his employment in a vehicle owned by the SA Police or any of these bodies, such a claim cannot be instituted against an agent by the dependants or the injured persons. We cannot understand why clause 10(c) makes the exception that members of the SA Defence Force and members of the SA Railways Police are not allowed to institute such claims against an agent of the MVA Fund. Unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion among lawyers about whether this exclusion is applicable to both the following situations: Firstly, the case in which another vehicle is in fact involved, and the claim is instituted against the third party insurer of the other vehicle; and secondly, the case in which no other vehicle is involved, and the claim is then instituted against the insurer of the vehicle in which he was conveyed.

Furthermore, in terms of this new Bill the State itself is no longer an insurer, and its vehicles will also be covered by this scheme. In the first place, it seems that it will not be possible in either case for any claims to be instituted against the MVA Fund by policemen, Railways policemen or members of the SA Defence Force, irrespective of whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle or by the negligence by anyone else. Clause 10(c) is unclear, and I ask the hon the Minister to reconsider it.

I now want to refer to clause 6(1), in which a distinction is drawn between two kinds of claims. Subparagraph 6(l)(a)(i) deals with claims of the first kind, those in which the owner or driver of the vehicle has in fact been identified. In such cases, the agent handles the claim, and the claim has to be instituted by him. Paragraph 6(l)(b) refers to those claims in which neither the driver nor the owner has been identified, in which case the claim has to be instituted by the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund.

However, the token of identification is sometimes so badly damaged in the collision that one cannot ascertain by which agent it has been issued. [Interjections.] The car may be destroyed by fire, for example, or the token may be damaged in such a way that one cannot ascertain which company has issued it.

Are the people still alive?

Perhaps they are; perhaps not.

These tokens are issued by several companies. One no longer fills in a form when applying for third party insurance, as one did in the past. Nor is an amount of money payable, so that one may ascertain from the payer’s cheque book to whom he has made the cheque payable. In cases where the identification token has been destroyed as result of the accident, therefore, the problem is that one cannot determine which company handled the insurance.

This is a shortcoming in the Bill. An attempt is made to rectify this in terms of regulation 7(l)(b), but in our opinion it is not successful, since this regulation only distinguishes between those cases in which the token is in fact affixed to the vehicle and those in which it is not. The regulation then prescribes the steps to be taken in cases where the token is not affixed to the vehicle. We in this party are concerned about those cases in which it has been established beyond doubt that the token was in fact affixed to the vehicle but where the company which issued it cannot be identified. No provision has been made for this.

I now wish to refer to the language used in some parts of the Bill. In the first place, I want to refer to clause 8(5)(a) and (b). It deals with certain undertakings that have to be furnished. In the English text the word “undertaking” is used throughout, and it occurs four times. It is used twice in paragraph (a) and twice in paragraph (b). The Afrikaans translation, where it occurs for the first time in paragraph (a) as well as (b), is “onderneming”. Where it occurs for the second time in the relevant paragraphs, however, the word “ooreenkoms” is used. When one studies clause 8(5), it is quite clear that the meaning it is intended to convey where it is used for the second time is also that of “onderneming”.

As far as the use of language is concerned, I want to refer in the second place to clause 9(1), which deals with the limitation imposed on the liability of an appointed agent. In it, certain circumstances are described under which the liability arising from any one occurrence is limited to R25 000, for example. In the English text, the word “occurrence” is used throughout. In the Afrikaans version, the words “voorval” and “gebeurtenis” are used alternately to translate this concept. Although both Afrikaans words could, in layman’s terms, be translated by the word “occurrence”, I do think that there is a technical difference, and I wish to refer to the HAT, which gives different definitions of “voorval” and “gebeurtenis”. I think that attention could be given to this matter as well. I do not wish to take up hon members’ time by defining “voorval” and “gebeurtenis” on the basis of the HAT’s definitions, but I think there is definitely a technical difference between these two terms.

Still on the subject of language, I come to clause 14(l)(a) of the Bill, and I think this raises another very important language problem. In the Afrikaans text, reference is made to prescription which shall be “opgeskort”, and in clause 14(2), it refers to prescription which shall be “gestuit”. It is quite clear that both provisions are intended to convey exactly the same meaning and that the correct word that should be used in both cases is “opgeskort”. After all, “opskort” means that prescription does not run during the period of suspension, but is resumed and continues to run when that period has ended; in other words, prescription is merely interrupted during the period of suspension. The word “stuit”, on the other hand, indicates that prescription ends and has to run again from the start. On the basis of the English word “suspend” I want to suggest that the word “opskort” should be used throughout.

I also wish to refer, if I may, to the regulations that are going to be made. In this connection I refer to regulation 7(l)(b), which provides that in those cases where the identification token is not affixed to the vehicle and the owner or driver has in fact been identified, the claim must be instituted against the insurer as indicated in the Gazette. The intention seems to be to allocate certain days of the year to all the insurance companies that are interested in handling third-party insurance claims, in proportion to the percentage of the third-party insurance market that they have captured. A motor vehicle collision which took place on those dates would then fall under the insurer concerned. If the period between 7 and 15 May has been allocated to company A, for example, all claims arising from any collision which took place between 7 and 15 May will have to be instituted against agent A.

The practical problems are legion, of course. A man was involved in a collision around midnight of 15 May 1986, for example. He is unconscious and cannot say exactly when the collision took place. If the collision took place on 15 May 1986, the claim will be instituted against agent A. However, if it took place on 16 May, it will be instituted against agent B. It may be argued, of course, that the MVA Fund is ultimately responsible for paying out the claim, but in reality, the agent has to be sued, and he will probably be able to put up a valid defence by saying that he was not the responsible agent during that period.

Another aspect concerning the regulations arises from clause 8, and I think the problems I want to mention now are even more serious. It is very similar to the old section 21 of the principal Act. However, a very important addition has been made, which may appear quite innocuous on the fact of it, but which may cause enormous problems in practice. This clause deals with the liability of the MVA Fund and provides that the MVA Fund or its agent shall be obliged to compensate people for any loss, but it shall be done subject to the provisions of the principal Act and “on the prescribed conditions”. It is these words, “on the prescribed conditions”, that give rise to serious problems. “Prescribed conditions” obviously refers to the regulations. It means that almost any conditions may be added by regulation to the conditions contained in the legislation itself. This will actually amount to legislation by regulation. This is a reprehensible approach in principle, especially since we are all aware of the enormous confusion, contradictions and bureaucratic red tape that we find in regulations.

One of these conditions is contained in regulation 7(2)(b)(3), for example. It provides that if the insurance company requires in writing that certain particulars be furnished, and these are not furnished, the insurer need not pay. In principle, the whole idea of the exchange of facts is to be welcomed. This is quite improper, of course. In practice, it means that the claims clerk makes unreasonable demands that have to be complied with, and unreasonable requests with regard to particulars that have to be furnished.

Those are the old regulations.

In that case, however, one is dealing with the agent, who can then make demands and require particulars which may be unreasonable. There is in fact no provision in the regulations in terms of which the demands made by the agent, or the conditions or particulars on which the agent may insist, are subject to any requirements of fairness or reasonableness.

Furthermore, Regulation 7(2)(b)(l) requires a certified statement to be submitted, containing the particulars regarding the occurrence concerned. This must be done within 14 days after the person concerned has been placed in a position to do so. I specifically want to draw attention to the words "… is in a position to do so…". This means that this statement has to be submitted even before the claim is submitted. Surely it is customary for all the documentation to be submitted together with the claim. Here it imposes the duty on the claimant, even before he is absolutely sure of the extent of his claim, or even whether he is going to claim at all, to furnish a certified statement within 14 days after he has become able to do so, and this is compulsory. Of course, there is also a serious question of fact involved in determining when one is in a position to furnish such a statement. Does this merely mean that one has to have knowledge of the facts? Or does it mean that one must have regained consciousness after the collision? What is the position regarding a two-month-old baby who was in the car with his father and mother, where the father and mother have both died? When is a minor deemed to be in a position to make a sworn statement?

Then there is the case where the minor was not involved in the accident at all. The dependent child may not have been present at the place where the collision took place. He may not even know what happened. How can he be expected to make a sworn statement within 14 days of becoming aware of certain facts?

The same applies to a driver of a vehicle who has been unconscious for a long time and has no recollection of the incident or the circumstances surrounding the collision. Fourteen days is a very short period within which to furnish particulars to one’s legal adviser to enable him to make the sworn statement and send it to the agent.

As I have said, it is regrettable—this is simply the way this new dispensation works—that we cannot debate each clause individually and that we have to raise matters of this nature in a Second Reading debate. Nevertheless, I believe that the matters I have mentioned here are important ones.

Is that in terms of the old regulations or the new ones?

These are the regulations that are to be promulgated.

It is important, therefore, that before the regulations are promulgated, the hon the Minister should give very serious consideration to the arguments we have advanced here. He should also give consideration to the matters that have been raised in connection with the legislation itself. However, the CP supports the principle of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan quoted several regulations here. I suppose these are the new ones that the hon the Minister is going to announce after the legislation has been passed. I have not yet seen the regulations, and it is a pity that we are already dealing with them before the Bill has been passed.

I just want to ask the hon member why he did not give those objections to their representative, the hon member for De Aar, so that we could discuss the matter further. We deliberated on this legislation for six months and tried to effect an improvement to the previous Act. I should like the hon member to give all those items to the hon member for De Aar next time so that we may discuss the matter, and not come along here with them for the first time. [Interjections.] In this way the hon member for Brakpan will make our task much easier.

I think the hon member for Bezuidenhout gave a comprehensive explanation of the problems, and I want to thank him because his summary dealt with what we wanted to use half of our speaking time to say. It is therefore not necessary to go any further into the matter. I should merely like to add one or two points that the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon the chairman of the standing committee only touched on and did not go into in any further detail.

The one point I still want to touch on although the hon the Minister discussed it at length during his Second Reading Speech—the hon member for Brakpan also referred to this matter—is the display of the third-party tokens. As we have now managed for almost six months without the tokens I think that after two years, when this consortium is expanded, we can take another look at whether the tokens are really necessary. All vehicles that use petrol are covered in any event.

While we are appointing a new committee as an advisory committee, I should like to address a request to the hon the Minister. The powers of the advisory committee have been extended, and it is fairly representative. Nevertheless, I want to address the request to the hon the Minister that when the advisory committee commences its work, their first task will be to draw up the set of regulations with which one has to comply to join the consortium. People had already dropped out of this consortium before it had even come into operation, and it will begin its work only after this legislation has come into effect. This happened in connection with AA Mutual.

There are people and institutions that are willing and able to participate in this consortium. This consortium has been set up for two years, but I want to appeal to these people and institutions to draw up, if possible, a set of regulations so that the consortium may be expanded to include everyone complying with the rules of the game, so that they may participate. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would address such a request to the committee after setting it up.

There is one further point that I should like to raise here. We have accepted in principle that certain levies, which have a bearing on consumer expenses, can be placed on fuel. Someone who uses his car a great deal consumes more fuel and is a greater risk on the road. Because he spends more on fuel, he contributes more to the fund. In my opinion this is a sound principle and a very good point of departure, although it was the minority report of the Grosskopf Commission that investigated the matter.

I should now like to address a request to the hon the Minister, and we have already debated this matter. This now being an established principle, we would do well to extend it to vehicle licences, too. It is an easy way of collecting money. I know there will be criticism, also because the municipalities should receive some of the money. However, I want to request the hon the Minister once again to appoint a commission or committee of this nature. If it should again be necessary to accept a minority report in order to achieve a better system, I shall support the hon the Minister in that regard. I want to ask the hon the Minister to appoint a committee to investigate the possibility for the annual licences of all motor vehicles—that is, heavy vehicles, light vehicles and motorcars—to be included in the fuel price. The commission should further be instructed to distribute the funds collected. Decisions must be taken regarding what should go to the provinces and what should go to the third-tier government and regional services councils, and what the hon the Minister wants for his first tier. I do not think he will get much, but never mind; let us just try to get something for him, too, on the first tier to finance some of his roads. I should be very happy for the hon the Minister to give this matter urgent attention. The time is right to apply the principle of consumer expenses here, too, because it will contribute to a more reasonable relationship between the use of motor vehicles and what the motorist contributes to road funds.

There is one point, to which we have not paid much attention during this debate, that I want to highlight here, namely the criticism and questions regarding the position of trailers, caravans and agricultural implements. I know that the hon the Minister, one hopes, will refer to this again in his reply, but allow us to tell everyone once again: Those vehicles that are not actually vehicles—I want to mention them again by name—namely trailers, caravans and agricultural implements, which are towed by another vehicle, do not need a disc. At the moment a measure of uncertainty still exists among people. They do not know whether their trailers and caravans need discs. They do not need discs if they themselves are not driven and do not use fuel. We should just bring this to the attention of the public once more because questions still exist in that regard.

There is a last point that I want to raise briefly. Certain criticisms of the Bill have been mentioned here. Those by the hon member for Brakpan were in my opinion a little sharp, but attempts have been made, as the hon member for Bezuidenhout said, to obviate most of the criticism. At this stage, however, there were also problems in respect of third party insurance in Bophutatswana, Venda, Ciskei and Transkei. I just want to say—the hon the Minister will no doubt elaborate in this regard—that given this new legislation, as well as the similarities between South Africa and those countries, most of the problems we can foresee have at this stage been solved as far as third-party insurance and South Africans involved in accidents in those countries are concerned.

I am indebted to the hon the Minister, the department and the standing committee for the fact that we have been able to solve this problem—which was quite nettlesome in respect of the coming into effect of this legislation—at the same time as drawing up this new Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to repeat all the points which have been made, but rather to emphasise and support some and raise one or two others.

Firstly, I should like to say that I agree with the hon member who spoke for the Official Opposition on the two strong points he made, namely the question of a special court and the question of the liability of an attorney in terms of the prescription period. I am not going to repeat his arguments but I believe both are valid points.

While listening to the hon member for Brakpan a few moments ago, I wondered whether perhaps it was not that sort of hairsplitting which was responsible for some of the very high costs of court cases. Despite all the arguments and all the very erudite replies which have been given by the various bar societies the fact remains that when one looks at the annual report dealing with third-party insurance one finds that the percentage of costs classified under legal expenses is totally and unrealistically excessive in relation to what the claimant eventually receives.

That is quite right.

Something like 40% of the payments that are made goes to legal costs and in some cases even more. The claimant receives about half or a little over half of that amount.

We hear all sorts of explanations as to why this happens and they sound very plausible. However, if the replies are correct, there is something wrong with the system that makes those replies correct. That is why the committee was unanimous in pressing for a special court. We were looking for a solution to these excessive legal costs and the delays. When one takes into consideration the fact that today an advocate will get paid anything from R1 000 upwards for a day’s work in court, one finds that every time a case of his is postponed, he earns another R1 000. In this way he can build up a tremendous bill in no time simply by finding reasons to get adjournments of the court and extensions of time.

Come on, Vause, that is not true.

I know the advocates will not agree with me, but when one listens to the differences between the attorneys and the advocates, one finds that the attorneys claim that that is so and the advocates, of course, say it is not so. [Interjections.] Can one blame them for saying it is not so? Today I again read through the evidence given by the bar councils of the various provinces. They gave every reason in the world why it should never be necessary for a case to take longer than six months to be finalised and why there should not be excessive costs. [Interjections.] Still, it should not be necessary. However, it is so that sometimes it takes years to finalise a case.

A medicolegal report takes six months.

To be told that there should be no reason why a court case could not be settled in six months’ time is not an answer. If there is no reason, then why is it not settled? In one case, the society admitted that it was true that there had been long delays, but that these had now been eliminated. That does not eliminate the problem, however, and if there are legal reasons—and I am not a legal man—why a special court is not possible, then we have to find another answer. In one of the documents which made up the evidence, there were some suggestions as to how to reduce the costs of delays. In other words, there was a tacit admission that something was wrong. Therefore, if the solution which we have proposed of special courts is not acceptable to the legal profession and to the Department of Justice, then we have to find another way of dealing with this problem, but we have to cut these excessive costs and the long delays. I am not saying that advocates are becoming too rich. They are entitled to charge; they have studied for a long time. What I am querying, however, is the extent to which those costs are loaded onto an often helpless cripple; a person who has suffered permanent damage; a person without the ability or the funds to fight a case and who very often then has to settle because to go to court would cost him more money even before he started. It costs one R500 for the simple issuing of a summons through an advocate in the Supreme Court.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why it is necessary for the litigant to go to court and to make use of advocates? Is it not correct that he has to prove a case against the company that is dealing with the assurance? Why does he not blame the company instead?

That is a very reasonable question. However, companies automatically contest the claim in the hope that the person will not be able to afford to go to court or will not continue with the case. [Interjections.] I blame them just as much. They contest the claim, resulting in court cases which should not really have taken place. The advocates of the companies act on their behalf.

†Sir, if you have a dispute with an insurance company, they refer it to their legal department…

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

I just want to finish my sentence. I have just had such a case. They do not take a decision as a business or humanitarian decision; they refer the matter to their legal department. The legal advisers or employees then go through the case with a magnifying glass, looking for some way to oppose it. I will now take the hon member for Hillbrow’s question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Durban Point whether he is aware of the fact that an MVA case is based on a medicolegal report? The surgeon who gives the medicolegal report demands R400 or R500 cash before he gives that report. Is the hon member aware of that?

Yes, Sir, that is the problem with all these professional trade unions. It does not matter whether one gets sick, gets into trouble, steals something or gets knocked over by a motorcar, or whether one’s house needs attention, one should keep out of the hands of doctors, lawyers, advocates, engineers, accountants and similar people! [Interjections.] If one can somehow steer one’s way through without having to make use of their services, one’s life becomes much simpler. Unfortunately, however, it does not work that way. That is why we were so insistent to have taken up in the report our feeling that there should be motor vehicle accident courts. However, if that is not the answer, let us find another answer. This is not politics, it is not against the legal profession.

It is vested interests.

Yes, the hon member is correct, it is vested interests. Vested interests, big money and big business are always stronger than the little man, and I will fight for the little man, even if I tread on people’s toes.

Even if you are not little!

Even if I am not little. If I tread on people’s toes I am sorry about it. If I upset the professional people and if they think I am being unfair, I am sorry if I hurt them. I would, however, rather hurt their feelings than see one single person lose what he is entitled to because he cannot afford to defend his rights. That is why we feel so strongly about this. It is not just that party; all the parties in this House felt strongly about this matter. In this regard I wish to give my full support to the hon member for Bezuidenhout who raised the matter and other hon members who spoke on it.

On the prescription period one can argue both ways, but I feel there too there is a solid case, a case for the exception not to be totally excluded.

Not only prescriptions run against you!

Yes, I am just watching it. It is ticking away like a time bomb, but I will deal with this one point and then leave the other points I want to make until tomorrow.

I merely want to say that I support the view that we should look at this again. [Interjections.] All right, let us try it. We cannot amend it now, but we have to look very carefully at this and I should like to support the appeal that the hon the Minister should give this as an instruction to his advisory committee.