laid upon the Table:

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned last night I was pointing out an anomaly. I said that one in three White workers was working in the service of the State. I said that they had generous conditions of employment, that they were the most educated and best trained section of the population, and that these people—33⅓% of the White workers—were virtually excluded from supplying entrepreneurs to the country because their conditions of employment were extremely satisfactory where they were and none of them was likely to risk his security, pension and other benefits to take the chances involved in free enterprise. These are the people—or many of them at least—who should be supplying the risk capital which will create employment in the country. However, because of the comfort in which these people live, we are now looking to the Black section. The Bill that we are considering at the moment is therefore designed to make entrepreneurs of Blacks who have had none of the exposure to the industrial and commercial world that the Whites have had, who have had none of the advantages of education that the Whites have had.

It is strange that it is from them that we now expect to find the entrepreneurs who will stimulate industry and create jobs, and not from the White section that is tucked comfortably away in the Public Service.

The hon the Minister of National Education said that I was always negative in my attitude towards the Public Service, but he is quite wrong. State employees are not responsible for the laws that are made or the regulations which they have to administer. They are not responsible for the employment policies that affect them. These are all Cabinet responsibilities.

I am not negative but I will admit that I am bitter about the Cabinet and the policies they adopt. Let us take the Police for example. I have said frequently that one cannot blame them for the state of emergency. The Police have to administer the laws that are laid down by the Cabinet. I am on record as having said that if the 27 hon members of the PFP here had to administer those same laws they would either have to say that they cannot administer them and walk away from the job or they would be using Casspirs and tear-gas as the Police have to do. In actual fact, those laws are the problem and the Cabinet created those laws. They are the board of directors that set the policy. Those laws cannot be imposed except by force because they are totally rejected.

The hon the Minister of National Education will not remember this, but he accused me of being negative about five years ago. In those days we used to debate the total onslaught and the effect of the onslaughts of communism. I described Little Soweto in Port Elizabeth. At that time it was a township of approximately 66 000 people who lived in structures made of mudguards and pieces of iron, with 38 taps.

They don’t listen!

The hon the Minister is not listening, but that was the situation five years ago. The township still has no services whatsoever, and the only changes are that it now has 126 000 inhabitants and a ring of Casspirs around it 24 hours a day to try to maintain law and order. That is the township about which the hon the Minister accused me previously of being negative, and that is the amount of progress which has been made in the intervening five years.

I am not being negative, but I do feel bitter as I watch that Cabinet and Government steadily destroying my country. I feel like this every time I see a young man leave the country heartbroken because he has completely lost confidence in the rationality of this Government.

We find that we increasingly judge Cabinet Ministers by the way in which they leap over or bypass hurdles they have set for themselves, and this Bill is all about that. We judge the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs by his success in avoiding oil sanctions which would never have been applied if the Government had had reasonable policies. We watch the hon the Minister of National Education trying to manage an education system that is imposed against their will on a population who reject it. We are going to judge the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry by his success in avoiding sanctions that should never have been imposed. We judge the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning by his success in unilaterally hatching up little constitutional bodies without any input whatsoever from the Black section of the community. The hon the Minister in charge of this particular Bill is doing precisely the same thing. We are now giving powers to the State President to cut through all those impediments which he himself has created.

I still fear that the Government has not come to terms with the type of freedom that is necessary to make a free enterprise system work. They want economic growth—yes! and they would love the small business sector to mop up the massive unemployment threatening to overwhelm us—Yes! They would love Black entrepreneurs to stimulate the economy and to create growth. However, they want these things on their own terms, and very frequently those terms exclude the possibility of these things happening. I want to give two examples.

Firstly, I want to point out how the Group Areas Act impinges upon urbanisation and inward industrialisation. Just the type of industrialization that we anticipate will take place or hope will take place as a result of the provisions of this Bill. When one takes the CBD’s which have been opened to all races, one sees that it really is a cock-eyed way of going about this. They opened the CBD’s but one needs a lot of capital to start a business in a central business district. [Interjections.] When one thinks back 40 years to how the small Chinese or Indian shops started, one realises that they did not start in the CBD’s. These people started with one-room stores in residential areas. The Group Areas Act must be eliminated if we expect this Bill before the House to have any success whatsoever. [Interjections.]

We also need the stimulus which comes from a successful entrepreneur being able to enjoy the quality of life that he desires. That involves his moving to an area to which he wants to move. If one does not get that stimulus, one will not get his commitment. The relationship between productivity and the identification of national goals is critical. When one looks at the way the newly industrialised countries in the Far East got going, one finds, for example, that the people of Korea were prepared to make a real sacrifice. They were prepared to go hungry and accept low wages at first because they had agreed on a common goal for their nation.

That is not the way our Blacks work because they have not been included in such a common objectives; on the contrary, they have been excluded. Dr Jan Lombard analysed the situation in his work Industrialisation and Growth. In it he mentioned three strategies, namely an export-led strategy, an import replacement strategy and inward industrialisation, which is the term he used to describe the kind of industrialisation in the small business and informal sectors that would take place through urbanisation and if Blacks were released from some of the regulations and laws which have hampered them up to now. Dr Lombard’s conclusion was that those three areas were not mutually exclusive and that all three strategies had to be exploited to their fullest possible extent for the sake of our intended objectives.

Since then the Government’s refusal to move towards a multiracial democracy, its bull-in-a-china-shop type of diplomacy and its total loss of credibility have resulted in damage to export-led growth, which I would think is almost terminal. Import replacement is now going to be adversely affected by increased costs because of factors such as the diminishing value of the rand and the drying-up of our credit resources overseas. For that reason also the strategy is going to be far more difficult to implement. Inward industrial development is going to be far more difficult to bring about and will have no success if the Government does not simultaneously abolish the Group Areas Act, cut Government expenditure ruthlessly and move strongly and clearly towards a non-racial democracy to which it should commit itself now so that everybody will know where the country is going.

Mr Chairman, we listened very attentively to what the hon member for Walmer had to say about this Bill, and in general we on this side of the House would like to say that we really appreciate his support for the Bill. We especially appreciate the hard work being done in the standing committee by the hon members for Bezuidenhout and Pinetown. They came to the standing committee especially to have a hand in this Bill and I can honestly say that they made a very good contribution.

The hon member for Walmer accused us of many things last night. He claimed that we brainwash the electorate and that the Public Service was a vested interest with powerful lobbies. He also spoke about people being thrown into Black Marias.

I can understand the opposition having stated that they would like to take over the Government. We on this side of the House know—we do not just think so—that it would be absolutely impossible for them with their policy and their record ever to take over South Africa. [Interjections.] What worries me, however, is the language used by the hon member for Walmer who is a greatly respected businessman in South Africa.

He spoke about people, he spoke about the Government, and then he used the example of people still being prosecuted in the informal sector. He even produced two summonses. May I just ask him whether the summonses which he showed to this House were issued by Government officials or municipal officials?

I will show you the summonses later on.

No, were they issued by Government officials?

I do not have the information here.

I have the feeling that the people the hon member mentioned who were prosecuted because of activities in the informal sector—one for selling tomatoes and I do not know what the other one did—were prosecuted in terms of municipal bylaws. [Interjections.]

The very essence of the Bill before us is to move away from a system in which people can be prosecuted because they want to become involved in business activities. It is obvious, however, that my friend, the hon member for Walmer, has climbed on the bandwagon in order to lay everything that is wrong in South Africa at the door of the Government. I just want to say to him that even if he can see the bandwagon, it is too late to get on. As far as the PFP is concerned—they accuse the Government of being responsible for everything that is wrong in South Africa, especially also in the field of the informal sector—I am absolutely convinced that they are completely wrong. Many people and bodies such as the President’s Council and others in the private sector were involved in the investigation of these issues, and what we have before us in the form of this Bill is the culmination of efforts on the part of both the Government and the private sector to give us in South Africa a Bill of which we as parliamentarians can really be proud.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he believes that the measures in the Bill can be successful whilst the Group Areas Act is still on the Statute Book? [Interjections.]

Sir, I cannot understand why the hon member for Walmer asks that question. The State President said at our recent congress in Natal that the Group Areas Act would be adapted insofar as business is concerned. The hon member knows that many CBD areas in South Africa have been opened. I think that is a process which nobody will stop, and the Government certainly would not like to stop it. Therefore, if the hon member wants my answer to his question, I say that especially with regard to the promotion of business in the formal and semi-formal sectors of the economy, the Group Areas Act will in fact be amended more and more insofar as the opening of central business districts are concerned. As far as I am concerned, it may benefit the ideologies of some hon members in this House when a local authority such as that of Pietersburg prohibits the African Bank opening a branch in Pietersburg but, insofar as business is concerned, it is an absolutely crazy viewpoint to hold.

*The fact is that the interaction between White and non-White in South Africa as regards business cannot be denied. No one can deny that. There is nothing in South Africa, not a single manufactured garment worn by any hon member in this House, or any other service provided by the world of commerce, which is not a result of an interaction between White and non-White initiative. That is an accomplished reality in South Africa, and this measure is in fact aimed at bringing to the fore the best in each person in respect of a spirit of enterprise and to remove the vast number of measures, rules, regulations, laws, Government notices, ordinances and everything that one can think of that every member of the House has already had to deal with, so that the initiative of the individual can be developed to its full potential.

The hon member for Walmer referred to the large Government sector in South Africa. It is true that 21% of the total economically active population is White, but that 39,7% of those active in the public sector are White. Of the total economically active population Coloureds by contrast constitute 10,7%, but those involved in the public sector constitute 10,8%. The corresponding figures for Asians are 3,1% for the private sector as opposed to 2,3% for the public sector. I think the figure for Blacks is very important, because they constitute 64% of the total economically active population and only 47,2% of the economically active population in the public sector.

The problem is then clearly apparent if we take the Blacks into consideration. The other day my wife phoned from Pretoria to ask whether we could not find a position in a business for a young Black man. This young man came to Pretoria from Bronkhorstspruit with a matriculation certificate, which he produced. There he walked from one firm to another in an effort to find work. If we in South Africa cannot perceive this powder-keg, then we cannot work on a future.

You made the powder-keg.

A professor from one of the South Africa universities said the other day that approximately 80% of the Black population between the ages of 18 and 26 have never had a permanent job, and this matter was also broadcast on one of the Monitor programmes. If one arrives at that situation in South Africa and one has to admit that 80% of the people between the ages of 18 and 26 have never had a permanent job, then this measure of the Government—it started with the Carlton Conference and was followed by the SBDC, and one must link it to the Government’s privatisation initiatives as well as the Government’s initiatives to promote competition—is indicative of a new era of freedom in the economic sphere in which everyone, especially those on the lower economic levels, who are perhaps less educated, will have the opportunity to make a contribution in the interests of South Africa.

All the members of this standing committee worked very hard this year on many measures. In respect of this particular measure I should like to express my gratitude to all the members of the standing committee on the Government side as well as to those of the opposition parties. Every member of that standing committee made his contribution to the hard work that was done. The members of the standing committee who are also members of this House, are the hon member for Umlazi, the hon member Mr Kritzinger, the hon member for Kimberley South, the hon member for Fauresmith, the hon member for Umhlanga, the hon member Mr S J Schoeman, the hon member for Johannesburg North, the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Green Point and the hon member for Brentwood. Together with the hon the Minister we are all justifiably proud of this measure which we are dealing with here today.

In respect of the hon member for Walmer I should just like to make a single observation. Yesterday he referred to the Public Service in a very derogatory way. Many of us on this side of the House can testify that the vast majority of our voters are people who are in the service of the State. The economy of this country has developed over a period of many years. My own father once said to me that there is only one place where I should go, and that is the Public Service. It is the only place where one enjoys security. We as Afrikaners and as South Africans have for many years in fact grown up in a culture in which there was a place for us in the Government sector and the Public Service in which there was great job stability. Today we are linking this specific measure to the Government’s privatisation strategy, as well as the actions taken by the Government to promote competition in South Africa. As we have been saying over the past number of years, under the guidance of the State President, we repeat today that we should stimulate private initiative. In the same way as the hon the Minister of Finance does, we also say that the Public Service should be made smaller. Obviously it is a process which cannot be completed overnight. The hon member for Walmer spoke about interest groups. The whole of society—politically, economically, socially etc, in fact in its entirety—is a society of interest groups. It is a society in which we all deal with the interests of political parties, of people in the economic sphere, and so on.

In respect of the informal sector among our Black people I wish to point out to the hon member that there is one aspect which ought to cause us grave concern. The other day an article appeared somewhere on the shebeens in Soweto. Even on that level the Black people form an organisation. The purpose of that organisation is in the first place to protect their own interests, and in the second place to try to exclude new entrants. I believe that it is indeed a cause for concern. The same situation exists at the moment in respect of the Black Taxi Association. Once those people have established themselves firmly in the informal sector, they eventually form an organisation which prevents new members from occupying a position there.

Another aspect which has given cause for great concern in the sphere of the informal sector, is that of the limitations which the national states are imposing on economic activities. The hon the Minister will in fact know that in the Ciskei at present a transition on almost a phenomenal scale has taken place in order to liberate the economy from control and regulations. Besides, evidence also exists that too many restrictions are being imposed on the economy in certain other national states. Of course it is no use our promoting the informal and semi-formal sector by means of a measure of this kind in our own area, if at the same time action is not also taken to encourage the governments of the national states to follow the same example in their own areas. That is of absolutely vital importance, especially in view of the vast numbers of people who are at present unemployed in the national states.

There are several spheres in which we can apply deregulation with the help of the present measure. Far be it from for us therefore to act prescriptively in this regard today. I am referring for example to the sphere of health services. The other day the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare told us what the Government’s plans in that regard were. I am also referring to national education. The other day the hon the Minister of National Education also indicated what the Government’s plans in that sphere were. The hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs also told us what the Government was envisaging in his sphere of activities. We can carry on in that way. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has also given indications of the Government’s plans in respect of transport affairs in South Africa. All these things therefore indicate that the present measure is a sign of the Government’s attitude towards deregulation. It is for this very reason that we are so tremendously encouraged.

This measure is also indicative of the tremendous poverty which we have in this country at the moment. The hon member of the HNP likes to tell us how the standard of living of Whites has dropped proportionately to that of the Blacks. What the hon member for Sasolburg says is very true. What he should add, however, is the tremendous increase in unemployment and the tremendous poverty which we find among Blacks. Consequently there are two things we should actually say at the same time. We should say that the Blacks in South Africa have progressed, but when we discuss this measure, we should also say that this measure seeks, by involving the masses and the masses which are unemployed, to help them to find work.

Party is far more expensive than wealth. The one consumes and the other generates. It is of no use looking at one’s country from any other angle. Poverty consumes the State’s wealth. In fact, poverty consumes everything in all spheres of one’s country, while wealth can help to generate it. In this whole process of involving masses of people, we want to help more and more people to generate. Under all circumstances poverty always puts its hand deeper into the State’s treasury than does wealth.

If one could express it in this way, there is no better fertility-drug in the whole world than poverty. Poverty is the greatest, the best and the surest fertility drug in the whole world; and in a country such as South Africa in which we speak so much about population growth, it is vitally important to combat poverty.

What are the real costs of poverty? Everyone in this House will agree that as regards the costs of subsidies, pension schemes, welfare assistance, the combating of crime, unrest—oh, Sir, every single aspect—there is one phenomenon in South Africa which we must combat with everything we have, and that is poverty! Besides, poverty also goes hand-in-hand with tremendous unemployment.

We in South Africa are not looking for more hands to take money out of the State coffers. What we are looking for in South Africa, are more hands to put money into the State coffers, money that can be used for the infrastructure so that the initiative of people and communities can build up our country.

I want to tell the hon member for Walmer that when we speak about the large Government sector in the Public Service it is important that we tell the officials in our country from this House that we have tremendous respect and appreciation for them. As regards the recommendations of the commission in respect of this matter, the standing committee felt that if this new select committee which could come into existence in Parliament could also in future be used by the hon the Minister and the Cabinet to provide a little support from Parliament in respect of the privatisation campaign as the Government sees it, it could serve a very worthwhile purpose.

The fact is that the interaction between privatisation and deregularization is very closely interwoven. In the short term deregulation could perhaps create the most job opportunities, but here and there privatisation will eventually lead to unemployment. We merely need to think what will happen if a large Government undertaking is privatised. There can be absolutely no doubt that people who take it over would firstly see how they could save on personnel. This is also the phenomenon which has emerged throughout the world in respect of privatisation. That is why we say to the hon members of the Official Opposition that we should have respect for our public servants. We on this side of the House know that if we are to take the Public Service along with us when it comes to privatisation and deregulation, we shall be able to do it under the auspices of this measure, because we believe that most of the public servants in South Africa are already psychologically geared to helping the Government with privatisation and deregulation, in the interests of the country.

There are many hon members on this side of the House—I could mention the hon member for Waterkloof for example, as well as the hon member Mr S J Schoeman—who were part of the machinery of State for a long time. For a long time I also had this privilege. We know the culture of the machinery of State. If we speak about the public servant’s attitude towards privatisation and the growth of the country’s economy, we as representatives can therefore speak with far greater insight than many hon members of the Opposition. It is therefore wrong to blame the Government for everything that has come into existence. Instead, this is an opportunity for the Opposition to unreservedly express its gratitude for being able to be participants and for the Government coming forward with such a measure as this.

We should like to thank the hon the Minister for the guidance he has taken provided in respect of this measure. Generally we can also thank the Government, because I think there are many countries in the world that would be very proud of such legislation as this. The Parliament of South Africa can rest assured that all of us, as members of Parliament who represent the interests of voters and of the country as a whole, are with this measure and also by means of the standing committees becoming a greater part of the Government’s privatisation and deregulation strategy. We wish the hon the Minister and his departments everything of the best with the implementation of this measure. We know that good work is being done here in the interests of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make two comments on the hon member for Innesdal’s speech. Firstly, I wish to say he actually gave a non-answer to the hon member for Walmer’s question on the Group Areas Act. The hon member said the State President had stated at the Natal congress that the Act would be adapted. I well remember the State President’s saying a number of years ago he would examine ways in which the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act could be improved. The result of this was the abolition of these particular Acts. So it has become a case here of “adapt and die”. The moment the Government proceeds to adapt an Act, one has to start realising the death knell has been sounded for that particular Act.

Secondly, the hon member had a considerable amount to say about poverty. This is something horrendous which can strike any person or community so the State bears the responsibility as regards the material or cultural possessions of man of ensuring that those who at least want to work will make a good living. I wish to remind the hon member, however, that a few years ago—especially during the 1983 referendum—hon members said we would have a progressive community in South Africa if we voted “yes” to power-sharing and all matters arising from it. Today I think the hon member condemned his own powers of judgement of a few years ago because he had to admit that not only was dire poverty prevalent regarding non-White peoples in South Africa but also regarding the White.

I think the Government’s shortcoming is that it seeks the reasons for all South Africa’s problems among other people and not in itself.

This Bill became somewhat diluted in respect of certain of its standpoints of principle after the standing committee had finished with it. A considerable number of people gave very interesting evidence reflecting various degrees of approval or disapproval of the legislation. I myself listened with a critical but open mind and subsequently, as is fitting, discussed the matter with my hon colleagues as well.

This Bill will have a drastic effect on the South African situation. Some of the objects of this Bill certainly contain merit but it also became clear later that the methodology of achieving these objects was highly irregular here and there.

Are you opposed to a compromise?

I shall get to the hon member for Bezuidenhout in a while; just let him remain calm and relaxed for a little.

In the standing committee I did not bind myself to specific approval of or opposition to the Bill for the very reason that it is vital to evaluate the evidence and discussions in the case of this particular Bill. I wanted to return to my own caucus and colleagues afterwards regarding a standpoint on this. Based on the principles of our party and viewed in the light of our objectives and ideals for South Africa, however, it is very clear to us that this Bill conflicts with our ideals for South Africa. In consequence, we shall not support it.

On looking at hon PFP members, I observed that they went to the standing committee with more or less the same thoughts or views on the legislation as mine. I think the hon member for Bezuidenhout was less successful than the hon member for Walmer in arguing the Bill and the initial problems I thought hon members had. I feel the hon member for Walmer’s discussion of this Bill was a very much more accurate reflection of PFP principles and standpoints and, viewed from his angle, he made a better contribution here today.

The PFP is revealing the dilemma that the NP is moving to the side of the PFP in its legislation on cardinal matters in South Africa. The NP is so bumbling, reluctant and tense in its execution of the policy of power-sharing, however, that this has led to an indecisive attitude in the PFP too. This also creates uncertainty in the PFP on the actual approach in principle of this Bill.

There is no uncertainty!

Yes, the greatest reaction to such a statement would come from the hon member for Bezuidenhout, who is one of the right-wing members of the PFP. The hon member had better listen a little in his maturity to what a stripling has to tell him. [Interjections.] I shall leave the PFP at that pro tem.

This legislation contains two standpoints of principle which make it very difficult for us to support it. One is the additional powers granted to the State President in terms of this Bill. The second is the Government’s inability to demonstrate a clear perception of the situation in South Africa which brings the First World and the Third World together, where one has the presence of persons from India and also the world of a specific ethnic group which to some degree stands amid all the various backgrounds.

As regards the powers of the State President, the PFP in particular should know that in the debating of the Constitution in 1983 we said the Constitution granted extraordinary powers to the State President. We also said those powers could hardly be tested, even in court. Surely we were ad idem on this. We realised that the powers granted to the State President would not have a good effect on democracy as we should like to see it. Both parties were conscious of this.

Hon PFP members who are on the standing committee are aware that the Bill before us grants the State President additional extraordinary powers. I regret the State President is not here at the moment; he has not been in the House much recently. I want to say that, although he comes of a people of the First World…

Where is your leader?

My leader is here far more than the State President.

Who is your leader?

I have only one leader, but the hon member has three! [Interjections.]

Although the State President comes of a First World people, he has very little sympathy with and understanding of the struggle for existence which a people of the First World experiences in this Southern Land of ours. We are not prepared to approve the powers granted to the State President in terms of clause 1 of the Bill. This Bill does its utmost to keep its objects from being discussed in this Parliament and therefore from the eyes and ears of the voting public.

It is stated in the Bill that the standing committee will occupy an exceptional position. There is certainly room for limited discussion of certain matters within the standing committee but such a committee can never take the place of Parliament. For various reasons all hon members of Parliament do not have free access to standing committees. Any changes to be brought about in the legislation of South Africa should first be subjected to adequate discussion and argument here in Parliament.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether this could all have happened as it did with the rest if meetings of the standing committee were open?

Standing committees can never replace Parliament. The hon member will recall that it was our standpoint during the discussion of the question of standing committees that the Government was most desirous of circumventing Parliament in this respect. Its members want to hold private discussions and take steps in the inner circles of the mixed standing committee where the public cannot see them and they want to do as they please in this Cabinet.

The CP’s standpoint is that Parliament is the highest authority and before any changes are effected to legislation they should first be discussed and argued thoroughly here. That is our point of principle.

I am surprised that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has moved so far toward the NP that he is becoming vague about the value of Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon member should be cautious in interceding for the NP.

No!

The hon member Mr Schutte and other hon members also referred to certain study documents emanating from the President’s Council. I wish to repeat very roundly today that the CP does not endorse the existence, composition and functioning of the President’s Council as implemented by the Government. Just as I am sceptical in many respects about research carried out by certain academics in South Africa, I am equally afraid that the research done by the President’s Council is loaded by the predetermined NP political standpoint. Consequently I want to tell hon members of the Government not just to come to me with the publication of and research done by the President’s Council.

There is a proverb which runs: “Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.”

What does Connie have to say?

Dr Mulder is in complete agreement with me on this matter.

On the work being done there? [Interjections.]

This is truly amazing! When I talk to the NP, hon members of the PFP react vociferously.

And vice versa!

Yes, and vice versa.

Is the hon member for Bezuidenhout in the process of coming across?

[Inaudible.]

There is a proverb which runs: “One cannot quarrel with one’s bread and butter” (“Wiens brood men eet, wiens woord men spreekt”). [Interjections.]

Yes, that is Connie!

That Dutch proverb is one of the great verities and that hon member should take note of it. The other day the hon member for Kuruman spoke about “kripvreters”. That hon member should take note of that.

About what?

About “kripvreters”!

There is reference in clause 2 to consultation which the State President may conduct if he wishes but he is not obliged to do so. I think the clause is a type of sop or consolation to the PFP and hon members of the other Houses because it means nothing. There is mention in such a clause of the State President who does not even regard himself as bound by the principles of his own party which is governing this country without a mandate and are we to think he will take any notice of this? The hon member for Bezuidenhout is under a delusion if he thinks it will work!

Attack them!

As regards the tabling of the proclamations, I object to how these matters will function in practice. Let that suffice on the powers of the State President. Hon members of the PFP are perhaps prepared to grant the State President those powers, but the CP is not.

Hon members should remember that this legislation applies to a tricameral Parliament. When the Government accommodates the Blacks of South Africa, I should like to know what a Black State President from the Third World will be able to do with this type of legislation if he takes any notice whatsoever of the legislation of this Parliament.

My second objection deals with problems I should like to put to the House. I am concerned about the rights and privileges of employees if I look at the way this particular legislation will affect such rights and privileges. Even in standing committee discussions it emerged very clearly that there was uncertainty and unease on the rights and privileges of employees. I am disturbed about this and, as far as the legislation permits us to do so, we shall pay a great deal of attention to this from our side. In addition, I am perturbed about the possibility of the abuse and exploitation of employees.

The Government deals with so-called red tape in this legislation and Mikro’s Rooi Lêer springs to mind but there was a specific reason behind every rule and regulation. Here I want to pick a bone with the hon member for Walmer because I think his comments on public servants were unnecessarily pointed. When politicians are incapable of governing the country and of reconciling principle and policy, it is very easy to pass the buck regarding the problems of a country to the Public Service. There is too much facile talk about a bureaucracy. I wish to tell the hon member for Walmer and people who are so quick to make such remarks that, if in many countries of the Western world there were no public service standing like a solid pillar while governments came and went, the countries concerned would fare very badly.

I agree.

In many respects officials are saddled with laws, rules and regulations made by politicians who come and go but the Public Service remains even if there is a change of government. That is why we should be a little more cautious in our criticism in speaking about our public servants; they are very frequently bound by the very clumsiness of lawmakers.

Laws, rules and regulations grow from the experience of a specific ethnic community over many years. The current generation’s memory—this applies to any period in the life of a people—is often very short and uninformed. New people come in very easily and without any effort at all delete affairs of 10, 20 or 30 years ago, without any real appreciation of why those rules, regulations and laws were placed in the Statute Book. [Interjections.] Thorough and incisive knowledge should be applied in investigations into the removal of rules, regulations and laws and this should take place only after discussion. These matters cannot merely be summarily scrapped.

For many years—I am speaking on behalf of the Whites of South Africa or at least that section who wish to survive as I do—we appealed for an examination of some rules and regulations applying to Whites. There were two points which we have already brought to the attention of the Government; one of these was the position of small entrepreneurs in rural areas in particular. We frequently told the Government it was impoverishing country districts with its policy for the very reason that it was insufficiently sympathetic toward the problematic aspects affecting the retailer and people living in the country and in small towns. On the recent admission of Indians to the Free State, we warned the Government that their presence would also create problems for the White trader.

There is a further matter which we brought to the Government’s attention for many years and which it should first have examined. That is the position of township developers. For many years we had the experience that township developers sometimes had to wait for 8, 10 or 12 years from the time of the purchase of the land to the subdivision into erven for sale so that the area could be developed. I think the Government was unsympathetic towards the Whites at the time and now it is removing these rules and regulations for other reasons. I shall revert to that in a while.

There is a further important factor. I want to tell the PFP one cannot study NP legislation in isolation and judge it as it appears in the Statute Book but one has to view it against the background of the specific milieu it desires in Southern Africa. There is no legislation which so clearly illustrates the failure of Government policy as that before us. The Government of South Africa is making one nation of all the peoples of the Third World and the First World, including persons from the East and also the Coloureds. My speech deals with the peoples of the First and the Third Worlds who are being forced into one territory, one Parliament and one political system.

The Government is indifferent toward the White; it wants to create a type of “melting pot” appendix of the USA in South Africa at the promptings of its American advisers. This will not work in Southern Africa.

This legislation was drawn up without instituting a very thorough investigation into African conditions. Government knowledge on Africa is strongly suspect.

I have a book here. I do not know whether the hon member for Benoni is present but he will recognise it. I shall return to the book in a moment. The title of the book is Fool’s Gold for Africa by Dr Bruno Bandulet. It was originally written in German under the title Schnee fur Afrika. I do not agree with all the scientific data in this booklet but it contains many truths. The hon member for Benoni translated it in the good days at a time when he still stood by the old principles of the NP. NP knowledge about Africa before its colonial occupation as well as Africa under White occupation is inadequate. Its knowledge about Africa after the withdrawal of colonial powers from the continent is disturbingly deficient as well.

In what political milieu does the Government want to bring this legislation to the House? It presents it to us in the political milieu in which it has abolished influx control. The consequence of this is that one is not now dealing with so-called detribalised and westernised Black people but persons very close to and completely within the milieu of the Third World. They are simply pouring into White areas at present. We read recently—I do not know how accurate this is—that many tens of thousands of Black people were flocking to the Cape Peninsula. The Government is bringing about these changes while we are dealing with a situation in which White areas are being swamped by Black people. This also has serious repercussions on the security situation in these areas. The social situation which will arise there will only later become a reality to the Government.

The Government did not supply a solution to that problem in the words of the hon member for Innesdal; he did not reveal the Government’s plan on the Group Areas Act. Certain White business districts are being thrown open where business enterprises were launched by White initiative and where Black people sold their labour and were paid for it. Now those areas are simply being thrown open. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning merely makes a certain announcement that he is able to declare a block of flats or whatever in a specific town or city a group area. That is the situation of uncertainty in which this purposeless and directionless Government wishes to plunge us. The application of this legislation in White areas will result in many problems. One does not even know whether one is dealing with general affairs or own affairs and whether they are to be discussed here in the House of Assembly or jointly. I am concerned about the consequences of this legislation in White areas.

I wish to add that this type of legislation is not conducive to good State administration; it is not calculated to produce good State administration and has an effect on all spheres of our society. It has an effect on the future health situation and will also have certain financial consequences. I should like to know how matters like GST and taxes which have to be collected will be dealt with.

It will have an effect on the exploitation of employees, as I have said, which will lead to social problems. It may also hold implications of unnecessary friction and conflict between the employer and the employee.

This Government is characterised by its destructive intent, especially after the Conservatives left it. There are few spheres the Government has not penetrated and destroyed, to be replaced by confusion reminiscent of Babel. It has an unplanned ad hoc policy which attracts the poorest elements one finds in the Third World to South Africa. The Government is on the way to chaos; that is where it is heading. [Interjections.] In addition, I want to tell hon members of the PFP that their party has recently become incapable of providing opposition whereas the NP is not qualified to govern. [Interjections.]

I want to quote just three references from this book; this very interesting book about which the hon member for Benoni knows so much. I shall read the English version. I want to read the first item of the table of contents to hon members: “Exploitation in reverse”. In this he quotes a very interesting statement by Karl Kraus:

In the last paragraph under the title “Thoughts on Tomorrow” he quotes Oswald Spengler from one of his books:

There is great truth in that.

You are afraid of the future.

No, I am not afraid of the future. Who said that? Was it the hon member for King William’s Town?

Yes.

Pat, you know better than that! [Interjections.] I have just taken particular pains to leave my friends of the NRP out of this. [Interjections.] I want to say the CP is not afraid of the future. The hon member should have stood where we were four years ago; we who in four years have thinned out and destroyed the once mighty party to what it is today sans vitality, sans energy and sans power, because it no longer has a moral, historical or fundamental basis. [Interjections.]

I shall quote this last paragraph from Dr Bandulet for those who still wish to think:

I hope some remain in the NP who are prepared to listen to the truth and lessons of history and who will have the courage once again to be able to shoulder and carry out a task offering idealism, prosperity and life.

Mr Chairman, we should probably be thankful to the hon member for Rissik for having lifted, like a great magician, the veil, cloaking his party’s standpoint on this Bill. I sat here listening to the speeches of the hon members for Bezuidenhout and Waterkloof, the hon member Mr Schutte and the hon members for Walmer and Innesdal and grew increasingly afraid that we would not be hearing a word from the CP, and that they would be as silent about their standpoint on this Bill as they were during the months in which the standing committee deliberated.

The hon member for Rissik is a senior member of this House. He has now made this great revelation, but one probably has the right to expect more of a senior member of the House than the mouse that brought forth a mountain here this afternoon. The hon member for Rissik was really not in top form, and I think hon members will agree with me, after having listened with me to his two little arguments, that they were as superficial as the rest of his party’s arguments. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that the two major arguments about principle—just imagine, arguments about principle—that they have against this legislation are firstly that it grants untoward powers to the State President and, secondly, that they are concerned about the rights and privileges of employees. Imagine that, Sir—after two months in which they served with us on the standing committee, those are their only objections to this monumental legislation that the Government is presenting to the country. [Interjections.]

In his hatred for the State President, that hon member’s vision is so blinkered that any measure that would appear to extend the State President’s powers would be odious to him and to his party. [Interjections.] That is the fact of the matter, after speakers from both sides of the House have pointed out that these powers are being granted to the State President merely as a practical arrangement. It would not be practical to entrust those powers to one or other of the Ministers who, in turn, would have to keep an eye on the actions of his colleagues. It has nothing to do with the State President, Mr P W Botha, as such. Those hon members, however, are so embittered in their opposition to the State President as such that they see no merit in the measure, just because so-called powers are being granted to the State President. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik put forward a second argument. He suddenly grew very worried about the rights and privileges of employees. In the standing committee meetings we did not hear a single word about that concern—not a single word when one trade union leader after another expressed his doubts to the committee. Why did we hear nothing about that? It was on behalf of Black people that the trade union leaders were speaking. That is why the CP was unconcerned. Now they have probably heard, however, that the Ari Pauluses and the like in this country could lend a bit of support to their cause if they suddenly revealed themselves to be the great champions of the employee. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that this legislation primarily addresses the question of job-creation in our country. Hon members on both sides of this House must agree that job creation is the greatest single problem facing our country. One cannot sit in this House for years and not come to realise the tremendous increase in the supply on the labour market in our country, chiefly of people of colour. One cannot but realise that the single greatest challenge facing our country is that of job-creation.

If we cannot find work for the thousands upon thousands of people entering the labour market, our attempts at maintaining law and order in this country will be futile. [Interjections.] Our attempts at making it possible for people to fill their hungry stomachs, whilst still remaining within the framework of the law, would proof futile. Hon members of the CP allege that its members set as much, if not more, store by the maintenance of law and order in South Africa as we do. Can they then not see and agree with us that job creation is essential if one wants to avoid chaos in this country.

Those hon members contend that the maintenance of Western Christian norms is a matter that is dear to their hearts, but just as we cannot maintain law and order in South Africa if we do not create jobs for those entering the labour market, we likewise cannot guarantee the maintenance of Western or Christian norms in this country if we do not tackel the problem of job-creation.

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

Mr Chairman, I am making my speech now; the hon member and his confederates have had every opportunity to participate in this debate, but they decided for themselves not to do so.

Louis, old man, go and speak at Klip River.

I am also going to speak there, but you are scared of me.

We are dealing with the development of constitutional systems. Over the past three years we on this side of the House have come to the fore with proposals, but hon members of the hon member of Rissik’s party alleged that they also had specific proposals for a constitutional future for South Africa.

My contention is that it is futile to come along with constitutional model for the future if we do not tackle the problem of job-creation in South Africa, because one cannot argue with a jobless mass that has no way to make a living and no food to eat. In the standing committee we had overwhelming evidence to indicate that small businesses constituted the single most important factor in tackling this problem, if we accepted that job creation was our greatest need.

We have seen examples from America’s recent past, and I should like to quote from an article presented to the standing committee. The article was written by Bruce D Philips, Chief Economist of the Office of Economic Research within the US Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. His article is entitled “Deregulation and the Growth of Small Business”:

He also makes the second point:

In this long article presented to the standing committee, he furnishes a few examples of how deregulation has encouraged the small business sector and how that stimulus has provided new jobs. He gives the following example:

I quote another matter to which the hon member Mr Schutte also referred:

Lastly he emphasised the creation of new businesses:

We have these examples of the effect of deregulation on the most sophisticated and largest economy in the Western world.

It is true that we had to live through the era of the big corporations and big conglomerates to eventually get to this important aspect of small businesses. We have moved through an era of large conglomerates in which the emphasis was placed solely on cost efficiency. In the large undertakings the summum bonum was always the question of low administration costs, low wages, low salaries and few workers, and also greater mechanisation. We did, of course, have to go through that in order to learn the lesson that when all is said and done small business are the greatest job-creators in our country’s economy, secondly that small businesses flourish in conditions of deregulation and, thirdly, that deregulation is a prerequisite for the creation of new undertakings. This whole movement towards deregulation is therefore a movement aimed at encouraging the natural functioning of the market mechanism.

When we speak about deregulation—and this Bill deals with that subject—it appears that protected job opportunities should, as far as possible, be changed into situations of free access. Building standards in the various regions of the country should, as far as possible, be lowered and standardised. The promotion of Black housing in urban areas is a related aspect. The idea of the making available of premises on which certain basic services are provided and on which people are then allowed to build for themselves—as well or as badly as they can—is one of the ways in which the provision of jobs can also be regulated. Licensing should, as far as possible, be an automatic process. As far as licensing is concerned, in the article to which I referred Mr Phillips quoted a very interesting figure. He mentioned the relaxation of the licensing requirements in regard to road transport in the USA and said the following:

The granting of licences should therefore be facilitated.

A further aspect of deregulation is the opening up of free trading areas to all races, something we have witnessed in this country over the past year. Safety and hygiene requirements should be critically investigated and attention should also be given to matters such as the Factories Act, particularly as far as home industries and smaller industries are concerned. Thought should also be given to more flexible working and business hours.

As the hon member for Rissik has said, it is in fact true that we shall encounter resistance. That is unavoidably the case because every measure aimed at deregulation clashes with vested interests. This must inevitably engender resistance on the part of those who already have licences. It is only human for those who are already actively engaged in the labour market to try to keep out those who have not entered the market yet. In the standing committee we also repeatedly heard the argument from business undertakings which contend that they spend a great deal of money to build up a business, and also that of organised labour that contends that it has negotiated its rights over many generations. It is an inevitable characteristic of a refined economy. It protects those who are already in the market at the cost of those who are not.

In saying this, I do not want to imply for one moment, of course, that those arguments, those pleas, should simply be waived aside. I do believe, in fact, that we should have the utmost understanding for the pleas of those who are already part and parcel of the economic market system, because it is specifically the boldness of those people, who braved the conditions of the regulated market-place, which built up our economy. It is true that those people who already operate within the market framework form the backbone of our economy. It is also true, however, that we are living in a community in which there are hundreds of thousands of people—actually this runs into the millions—seeking access to the market-place each year. One is then forced to the conclusion that we can no longer afford a closed economy. That is the purpose of this measure, ie to open up our economy to a large extent.

If our economy, seen from the outside, seems to be one that benefits certain factions, we shall draw the wrath of the masses, waiting on the outside to get in, down upon our heads—and upon the heads of those already in that market-place.

This Bill makes provision for an ample degree of consultation with those already operating within the economic system. In the final instance, however, the fundamental question is—and I believe that this Bill is addressing it correctly—what is in the interests of South Africa and all its people and not what is in the interests of those who are already actively participating in that economy. It is with very great pleasure that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umlazi spoke mainly about the creation of job opportunities. It is probably also the main purpose of this Bill. He must please excuse me for not elaborating on that theme. I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Rissik’s speech.

It is true that the hon member for Rissik did make an interesting speech. It was interesting that one could establish precisely the grounds on which they oppose this Bill. The hon member did mention that the main reason for their opposing this Bill rests on a matter of principle for the CP. This is the principle that every alteration of Bills or to the law should be debated in Parliament in public. They cling to that point of view, and regard it as a point of principle.

This is something that one can appreciate, but what one then tries to determine is whether it really is a matter of principle with that party. Is it really such a deeply held matter of principle that each alteration of legislation or regulations should be debated in Parliament in public? I cannot detect any firmness of principle in that regard. Two months ago the CP supported a Bill—I refer to the Public Safety Amendment Bill—in terms of which far-reaching powers, far more comprehensive than those vested in the State President, are vested in the Minister of Law and Order.

But we did debate it here.

We did not hear the same type of objection advanced in that debate on the grounds of firmness of principle. I am of the opinion that the opposition of the CP should rather be sought on a political basis.

†Their view, Mr Chairman, is that the Verwoerdian concept of apartheid is what they should strive for. Under that model the Black urban dweller was a temporary resident, and no measures which could turn him into a permanent resident were welcome or were introduced during that period. In fact, every possible method was employed to ensure that the Black urban dweller remained a temporary sojourner so that at some later stage he could go back to his homeland. That has been reversed, and now one actually encourages or at least allows an urbanisation process which means permanent rights in the urban areas.

I can understand from the CP’s point of view that this kind of measure enables Black residents and Black dwellers in urban areas to put down their roots and to perhaps make a permanent life in the urban areas through job creation. Naturally the whole process of urbanisation must be something which the CP opposes, and I believe that the main reason for their objection is based on this and not on the point of principle. However, I was glad that he mentioned that the rights of employees was something that worried him. I am glad that the hon member for Waterkloof also mentioned that one needed to bear in mind that deregulation should not be allowed to get out of hand because workers, their rights and the conditions under which they worked would continue to require the protection of legislation administered by the hon the Minister of Manpower.

I want briefly to express a few views on the likely or possible effect which this legislation could have on labour relations and unions generally, and the relations between employer and employee. Great concern was expressed when this Bill was initially published because, justifiably, critics said that Draconian powers were being given to the State President to deregulate in areas which could directly affect the working conditions and the rights of the worker. The National Manpower Commission looked at the initial Bill and came out with a very interesting memorandum which it submitted to the standing committee for consideration. In this memorandum the National Manpower Commission set out the underlying philosophies on which the manpower legislation is based. Points which were contained in the White Paper and the Wiehahn Commission Report were referred to in the report and I think they should perhaps briefly be repeated because these rights should continue to remain fundamental to the worker and the environment in which he works. These points are:

Mr Chairman, the Wiehahn Commission suggested and the White Paper published by the Government accepted that these seven points ought to be the basis upon which labour legislation is premised, and that everything possible ought to be done to protect these values and these goals. Everything possible ought therefore to be done to ensure that this Bill and these measures, once passed, are not used to infringe upon those basic rights which I have just referred to.

I said the initial reaction by labour unions was therefore understandable. The State President had virtual carte blanche powers to deregulate the areas which would directly affect these rights which I have referred to. That could have and probably would have undermined many of the achievements of unions, of employers and employees through negotiation, and that would have been prejudicial and could have been catastrophic to labour relations and industrial peace.

I believe that the amended Bill is an improved measure in that firstly it requires the State President to give notice in the Gazette of any intended deregulation; secondly, it provides for objections or representations to be lodged for consideration by a special standing committee; thirdly, it gives special recognition to the labour legislation administered by the Department of Manpower; fourthly, deregulation affecting labour matters can only take effect with the approval of the standing committee and after the Minister of Manpower has been consulted; and fifthly, it leaves out the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Workmen’s Compensation Fund with the result that the question of contributions payable to those funds cannot be subject to deregulation.

The State President therefore does not have carte blanche powers any more but they nevertheless remain extraordinary powers. The situation is that on the one hand one has to take into account that job creation in the informal sector is important and a prerequisite to any form of stability and, on the other hand, one has to bear in mind that if that is to be achieved through a relatively speedy process, powers which one would not normally grant might have to be used in order to achieve it.

In the interests of sound labour relations and industrial peace I believe that every labour union and every employers’ organisation will have to watch the deregulation process with hawk eyes in order to ensure that unions are not undermined, that the rights which are referred to are not undermined and that workers are not exploited. The Bill as it stands now provides for a procedure whereby objections can be lodged and representations made to the standing committee. I believe that can have an influence on the outcome of any proposed deregulation and I believe that procedure ought to be made use of by everyone who has an interest in this.

A special responsibility rests on the hon the Minister of Manpower and his advisers. He has the power to block any deregulation measures which could be prejudicial to any of the statutes which his department has to administer. I am glad to see that the hon the Minister is here. If labour is to have the trust in the hon the Minister that he will objectively and in the interests of labour legislation look after those rights and principles then he must try to keep out of the controversial political games which he has been involved in recently. He has on more than one occasion, on television and through the Press, become involved in the sanctions arguments and made allegations and also threats to the effect that unless certain labour union leaders who are not South African citizens stop advocating or supporting sanctions, they may lose their work permits. That is what I understood him to say. This hon the Minister must keep his nose out of political game-playing if he is responsible for manpower affairs. Why, Mr Chairman? The one positive claim that the Department of Manpower can make and has made is that it has consistently done everything it could to try to play the role of an independent facilitator or arbiter between employer and employee.

As I understand it, the aim of the department and of the Ministers has been not to make political controversy out of manpower matters because of the facilitating role they play. The Minister is now entering that area and I can assure him that, if he continues to do that, he will sabotage that good name the department has. This is so because he knows that, despite the fierce opposition, cynicism and mistrust which the voteless people have towards the Government, as far as the Department of Manpower is concerned, there is a considerable degree of co-operation and trust. He knows that. If he wants to sabotage that then he must go on making statements such as that labour leaders will lose their work permits if they continue to support sanctions. That is not his domain. If it is a criminal offence, let the Minister of Law and Order handle it. The hon the Minister of Manpower must keep his nose out of politics when it comes to labour leaders, otherwise he will have no weight in that area any more. [Interjections.] He must also not try to interpret the views of union members, because he knows nothing about them—not that I claim to know much more.

He has made statements to the effect that the majority of union members are opposed to sanctions. That may or may not be true.

Yes.

He should not, however, place himself in the position of trying to interpret the views of union members. He should leave that to the union leaders. It is not the role of a Minister of Manpower to use labour leaders and the views of union members for his own political games.

I act on behalf of the workers of this country!

The responsibility on the hon the Minister’s shoulders is a heavy one. He, his department and the National Manpower Commission know that, if the rights of unions and of the workers are prejudiced, if safety conditions are undermined or if the long-fought-for privileges of union members are reduced or watered down, that could and will, I believe, prejudice industrial peace and therefore the relationship between employer and employee. I ask the hon the Minister and his department to bear that in mind and to ensure that no deregulating measures are allowed to go through which could in any way prejudicially affect those seven basic rights which I quoted from the White Paper on the Wiehahn Commission’s report.

We believe that job creation is vital. At the same time this Bill contains risks which need to be watched but, on balance, we can support it and we will therefore vote in favour of it.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon member for Durban Central. He had a hard time criticising the Government’s legislation this afternoon. Of course he was in favour of it. He should at least have given an indication this afternoon as to why he and his party are not taking part in the by-election in Klip River. [Interjections.] They have just announced that they want to double their number of seats; they strive for the power, but do not even see their way clear to nominating a candidate in Klip River. Surely they should have made a start somewhere, and where could they have made a better start than in Klip River. [Interjections.]

The only thing I object to is that the hon member for Durban Central referred to the hon member for Rissik and said that perhaps he was not being quite sincere or quite honest in saying that he objected to this legislation in principle. That was his objection to the hon member for Rissik. He carried on at length, struggling to express a bit of criticism. Actually he endorses the Government’s standpoint. Nothing whatsoever will come of his party’s endeavour to double their number of seats; they will side with the NP to an increasing extent.

I also want to refer briefly to a point made by the hon member for Umlazi, although he is not here at the moment. As far as this legislation is concerned, he said the main objective of this legislation—and the hon member for Durban Central endorsed this—was the creation of employment. The hon member for Umlazi said the creation of employment was our greatest problem. He did not say who was responsible for this, however, and whom it should be created for. My party’s standpoint is that as the Blacks become independent in their own areas, their own fatherlands or homelands, they must gradually accept complete responsibility for the creation of employment for their own people. [Interjections.] There is no responsibility upon the White people, which consists of approximately 4,5 million people, to supply 40 million or 50 million or 60 million Blacks with work. In so far as the Black man strives for political power in Southern Africa, we accept that. It was a great change for the Whites, but under Malan, Strijdom and especially under Verwoerd, they accepted that the Blacks also want and must have political power. Where they get political power, they must have full political power within their own fatherland or homeland. Absolute responsibility goes hand in hand with political power and freedom, however. The Whites accept no responsibility at all in South Africa for the creation of employment up to that point at which every Black from the homelands can come here, while we have to ensure in some way or another that whoever turns up, from Malawi to the Ciskei, is provided with work.

If that is the main purpose and the real purpose of the legislation—I agree to a great extent, and shall come to that in a moment—it is the first reason as to why we shall dig in our heels and vote against this legislation. It is an incorrect premise, and a criminal offence against the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] I invite the hon member for Umlazi to go to Klip River with me so that we can address the voters there on this subject. [Interjections.] He stands for job creation, but who are the “we” of whom he spoke? He is not here now, and I cannot ask him, but which “we” does he mean? What does he mean by “we”? Which “we” must deal with the creation of employment, the greatest problem? He had the Whites in mind. When he said “we” he meant the Whites, and I am going to tell the voters of Klip River he said “we”—he and the Whites—must accept the responsibility because our greatest problem is to create employment for whosoever turns up, irrespective of which part of Black Africa they come from. [Interjections.] I am not going to dwell on this point any longer, but I think it is a matter we can convey to the voters.

You are employing political strategies!

Now the hon members say these are political tricks…

[Inaudible.]

The hon member can come along. He can come along to the meeting and lend a hand. There can be two of them there. Five of them can come if they feel like it.

You are living in a dream world! [Interjections.]

It is not necessary for hon members to become so angry. They need only come to Klip River. It is a friendly invitation. Come! [Interjections.]

This statement is made in the very first sentence of the memorandum on this Bill:

The point therefore is that to an increasing extent there are laws and measures that regulate. Who initiated all those laws and measures, Mr Chairman? The NP! And who is responsible if there is any question of an excess of regulations? The NP!

Now the NP puts forward this memorandum in this Bill in which the Minister involved accuses his own party! He says: “Chaps, we must go slowly now and stop regulating.”

Since the days of Hammurabi, man’s societies and companies and communities have been regulated by laws and regulations. We concede that there can be an excess of regulation. That is possible. Then one should be honest, however, and get up here and say one is accusing oneself of having gone too far, and then there should be an indication of how far one has overstepped the mark, but there is nothing of that. In the relevant Minister’s Second Reading speech there is no indication of the extent to which there has been too much regulation in South Africa in general—I am talking only in general now.

I hear the voice of the knights of the free market in this memorandum to the legislation in question. They are the ones who are riding the horses here. That is why it is specifically stated that in the sphere of industry it results in economic progress being inhibited in an improper way. That is Adam Smith’s laissez-faire.

That is in fact one of the main causes of the economic crisis South Africa has been plunged into: Recently it was not regulation, but the free game in the free market of economic powers which led inter alia to the economic crisis South Africa is experiencing today. I call as witness Mr Chris Stals, the Director-General of Finance, who made a strong speech in Pretoria a week or so ago in which he indicated very clearly, in contrast with the statements the hon Minister of Finance himself made earlier this year, that we had gone too far with the free market. The free market was given too many reins. We now have to move back to more regulation in the economy.

A little more socialism!

I do not use the word “socialism”. I do not like the concept. I wanted to dwell on this, however. I am pleased the hon member for Durban Central sees what I am heading towards.

We must know that the fact that the Director-General of Finance made that speech has the sanction of the Government itself to a great extent. A senior public servant would not make such a speech if he did not know he had the approval of the Minister and the Government in doing so.

There is a move in progress, therefore, and we welcome it. There is a move in progress in the top planning structure of economic affairs in South Africa, away from the free market, back again to more regulation. The move is not in the direction of socialism, but in the direction of more regulation. We are also opposed to socialism. Then the representatives of the Government should rise here this afternoon, however, and tell us: “Gentlemen, there was too much regulation, and we are going to reverse the process with this measure; it does not fit into the pattern of what we are really doing already.” I cannot understand how the Government, as Mr Chris Stals said in Pretoria, can move away from the free market system to regulation and then present legislation again this afternoon in which its premise is that we had too much regulation and that the economy should be eased.

They are confused, man!

They are completely confused! Mr Chris Stals made a speech of which the hon the Minister who is submitting the relevant Bill apparently did not take cognisance. I can understand that there can be a degree of duplication in that one had too much regulation and wants to move to more freedom in the economy. When one changes one’s policy, there may be a bit of a problem for a while. One cannot simply change the whole system at once. The relevant hon Minister should tell us that, however. [Interjections.] The hon Minister must have the integrity to say: “Gentlemen, we are advocating a measure in which we want to make an end to regulation only in this sphere, or in which we want to scale down regulation. But in principle we have actually already decided to move in the opposite direction.” There is no truth in this allegation. Of course the reason is very clear. It is that the Government still does not understand why free rein cannot be given to the free market’s views, to a laissez-faire policy in South Africa. The reason for this is that we are not a First World country like America and England. We are a First World community which touches on or is to a great extent intertwined with a Third World community, and over the years it was the wisdom of people such as Dr Dӧnges and others that recognised that we could not have a free market economy in South Africa.

We must have a free market in South Africa—we are not socialists—but with a greater degree of control over certain aspects, otherwise we in South Africa are heading for a disaster, and early this year, on various occasions, I told the Minister of Finance concerned in this House that this was one of our most fundamental points of criticism against this Government in the economic sphere. Initially the hon the Minister took no notice—and I am not saying he changed his policy because of what we said—but I do want to tell the Government if there is a speech—just one speech—from Government or authoritative ranks which we welcome, it is that speech made by Mr Chris Stals in Pretoria recently.

It is the first glimmer of hope that the economy will be able to recover again, but then it depends on whether the Government is going to apply Mr Stals’s views relatively precisely and strictly and whether the Government itself can make a success of doing so, which of course we no longer believe to be possible.

Even if the Government does recognise the correct course, the Government itself is so entangled and entwined in all kinds of other views that it will not be able to make a success of things. [Interjections.] Another very important statement is made in the third sentence of this particular memorandum:

Who are those “certain sections”? Are they the Whites? Are they the Coloureds? Are they the Blacks, the teachers, the businessmen? Who are these sections? Since the Government does not want to tell us, I shall have to. They are the Blacks. This reference is to the Blacks. This measure is being passed, therefore, to find a refuge for the Blacks and to create possibilities for them within the White economy. The Government must do this now because it has abolished the influx control measures. [Interjections.] According to Die Burger of 19 August, the Blacks are streaming to Cape Town and to the Peninsula at a rate of 26 000 per month.

I now want to tell the hon members of the PFP, and the hon members on the opposite side of the House in particular: Get up today so that we can go and tell the voters in Klip River that the Government is passing this measure inter alia to make provision for the 26 000 Blacks who are streaming to the Peninsula monthly to come and work here. Soon there will be more Blacks in the Peninsula than Coloureds, and then we shall probably have to take more other measures to supply the Coloureds with work!

The Government is raving mad! It has taken complete leave of its senses. If that is only the influx to the Peninsula, what is the influx of the Rand, to Port Elizabeth, to Durban and to other large centres in South Africa? After all, there is a large Coloured population in the Western Cape. It was the traditional home of the Coloureds. Just look at the rate. Between December 1985 and May this year alone, a whole new community of 130 000 unemployed Blacks have sat themselves down on the threshold of the Peninsula, and now the poor State President has to have new legislation passed to make it possible for these people to get employment. [Interjections.] If the prospects had indicated that this could succeed, one might still have had a point. The hon the Minister who is smiling over there on the opposite side knows just as well as I do, however, that he is not going to succeed.

One of the reasons for throwing open hotels, restaurants and residential areas is for the Coloureds and the Indians to be able to buy White houses in White residential areas to stimulate the market once again. This was said openly. The hotels were thrown open so that the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians could promote the economy in the hotels. We read in The Citizen of 5 August, however:

Where does the plea that we should ease the economy come from, that we should deregulate, in whichever sphere, because it will result in an upswing in the economy. That is what this memorandum says, but it is utter nonsense. [Interjections.] I did not have time to do proper research; I simply grabbed at what I could find this afternoon, and then, in the twinkling of an eye, I had all these newspaper reports in my hand. It did not work with the hotels. Listen to this:

[Interjections.]

I just want to say that these were not the Afrikaner farmers; these were the hon member for Pinetown’s people who did not want to drink in the hotels with the non-Whites. But this is just one small aspect of the matter.

It is proof of segregation.

The point I want to make is that the abolition of the apartheid measures has made no contribution to stimulating the economy. Nor will this measure contribute to doing so. This measure will simply result in a greater burden, financially and otherwise, which will have to be borne by the White taxpayers and the White voters.

In the meantime, while there is no money for the farmers, and while there is no money for the hungry children of the Whites in the cities of Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth and so on… [Interjections.]

Do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

… while thousands of Whites are unemployed today… [Interjections.]… according to The Star of 19 August last year, there are plans in business and other circles to collect R5 000 million “for the backing of Black businesses”. It says:

In other words, R5 000 million will possibly be collected to assist the Blacks with small business enterprises, and it is to launch those small business enterprises that these Acts have to be amended in an effort to create employment for the Blacks on a massive scale in White South Africa. That is what this is all about. We accuse the Government of coming here with an apparently innocent measure, which is really meant to attempt to undo the mess in which it has plunged South Africa.

It is simply sinking deeper into it! [Interjections.]

Yes, it is merely going to sink even deeper into the mess. [Interjections.]

Technically the administration of this Bill is in the hands of the State President. It revolves around the person of the State President. What is going to be done, however, when deregulation really has to take place, will not be the decision of the State President, who himself said on occasion he was no economist. The decisions will have to be taken by the hon the Ministers of Finance and of Trade and Industry. It is primarily these two men who will have to decide on how we are going to deal with this deregulation. They will actually have to advise the State President on what we do and do not have to deregulate in each case. If these two gentlemen were capable of speaking with authority, it might have been a different matter, but what did Dr Wassenaar say about them?

You are arrogant, man! [Interjections.]

Just listen to that, Sir! Now that the hon member is getting hurt, he shouts insults at me. He can do so; I am going to read to him—not what I say, but what Die Burger of 21 August says. It deals with the implementation and accomplishment of the steps that are being made possible by this legislation. I want us to consider what will happen if this legislation is applied. Is it going to succeed? Is it going to bring about the objective? My point is that the two people who have to advise the State President are also involved. Die Burger reported as follows on what Dr Wassenaar, a Broederbonder, an Afrikaner, a Government supporter, and a great and famous businessman, said about them:

These are the officials in the Public Service who in turn have to advise the two Ministers involved, and I should like us to see what Dr Wassenaar said about them. Hon members must see whether or not it was an insult. He said:

These are people like Mr Chris Stals. He continued:

Notice, Sir, that Dr Wassenaar said the two relevant Ministers had no knowledge of this. Never in all the years has anyone with his authority ever said anything of that kind about any government. He said they had no knowledge of this. He continued:

We are making two mistakes. In the first place we are giving these two hopelessly incompetent Ministers, according to Dr Wassenaar’s testimonial, an even greater economic responsibility. Is there no one on the opposite side who at least wants to come out on behalf of the Government and say we must just hold this measure in abeyance for the time being, because we cannot go on in this way?

Dr Wassenaar said they could be good politicians—if only they were!—but they are rotten politicians! The current among the voters is against them. They are both weak politicians. The hon the Minister of Trade and Industry has not made a speech about politics in this House in my presence this year…

Nor in his constituency!

… and he is too afraid to appear in his constituency. I am going to talk in his constituency one of these days. He is conspicuous by his absence in general, but in particular when politics is being discussed. Dr Wassenaar is therefore doing him a favour and writing him a testimonial in the political sphere which neither I nor anyone else can give him. He is a weak politician; he has not taken part in one political debate in this House this year. We cannot even argue with him, because we never get the opportunity to do so.

I now want to tell Dr Wassenaar I think the hon the Minister of Finance is a better politician than the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. [Interjections.] Look at what he has done this year. He made a political statement when he said we were proclaiming lies in Sasolburg. We refuted that and challenged him, but he never responded to our challenge; he did not accept it and in conclusion wrote Mr Jaap Marais a note in which he did not react to the economic points in Mr Marais’ letter at all.

I am sorry that I have to return to the point concerning the hon the Minister of Finance, but he and other hon members—I think it was the hon the Minister of National Education—were angry with me because I quoted from an international magazine that he was “of very inferior calibre”. I did so only because he said I had told a lie. I do not tell lies, however, and nor do I permit anyone to say that I tell lies. [Interjections.] I was telling the truth. [Interjections.] It is no longer only the international magazines that are saying the hon the Minister is “of very inferior calibre”. A man like Dr Wassenaar has also said he has no knowledge of finance.

Which legislation are you talking about?

I am talking about this Bill.

That is not what it sounds like.

I am talking about the people who will have to take the decisions and advise the State President when this legislation is included on the Statute Book. That is what I am talking about, and I am talking about the principle of this whole matter. [Interjections.]

You know nothing about it.

I am sorry, but placing greater economic responsibility in the hands of the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry through each clause in this legislation is reckless irresponsibility towards the whole of South Africa—Blacks included. It is reckless irresponsibility!

To place Sasolburg in your hands is reckless too.

We oppose this legislation because in our view it is an evil measure. I shall mention a further point. We say it should never have happened, because this legislation causes the following questions to arise. Is the hon the Minister here?

Who is it?

The hon the Minister who deals with this legislation. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister… [Interjections.] Who deals with this legislation?

The hon the Minister who has so little hair.

He does not even know who deals with this legislation. [Interjections.]

It does not matter. What does it matter who deals with it? The one is just as rotten as the other in any case. What does it matter? [Interjections.] If Dr Wassenaar said what he did about the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, what is he not going to say about the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services and about the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works? [Interjections.]

Those remarks are the disgrace of the year! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister who deals with this legislation… [Interjections.] We knew one another well earlier… [Interjections.] I want to ask him in all earnest to tell us in his reply to this debate whether the powers of the State President include an encroachment on municipal ordinances.

To which hon Minister are you putting that question?

Will the real hon Minister please stand up!

Can the State President also encroach upon municipal ordinances in terms of this legislation? [Interjections.] Does this include the compulsory opening of central business districts to all population groups? It is not stated in the Bill. It is difficult to discover that, but it looks as though it can be interpreted in that way. [Interjections.] The abolition of influx control causes pressure to be exerted on wage levels as a result of the inevitable oversupply of labour. [Interjections.] The question now is whether this legislation gives the State President the authority to regulate those matters.

You have not read the Bill. [Interjections.]

I have read the memorandum, the Bill and the hon the Minister’s speech, but it is not absolutely clear, and my fear is that this is possible. If it is possible, this legislation is even more dangerous than the hon member for Rissik and I thought.

This legislation contributes to the Blacks’ getting an increasing economical grip on the Whites within the Whites’ own fatherland. This will not ensure the continued existence of the Afrikaners and the Whites in South Africa. As a people we are already in a difficult position. We are already struggling with the implementation—to whichever side; but we have our own solution—of the solution of a large problem in Southern Africa. To allow the Blacks into our economy on this immense scale, however, and in addition to assume the attitude that we are responsible for whosoever turns up—to get him work, to change, ease and adapt the regulations to accommodate him in my community; to disrupt my orderly existence so that he can have greater freedom of movement—attests to the Government’s taking an enormous step by means of the measure in question in the direction of giving the Blacks an ever greater hold on the Whites. In the long term this can be completely fatal for us.

But you are talking absolute nonsense! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, this afternoon I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to the hon member for Sasolburg. I think he is the first hon member of this House with the dubious distinction of having made the same speech here more than 50 times. [Interjections.] I think it is now approximately the 54th time that the hon member has made exactly the same speech in this House—each time with just a slightly different accentuation or change of nuance. [Interjections.] His absolute ignorance about who is dealing with this legislation, what the measure is all about and what it contains, bears the clearest possible testimony to the fact that he stood up here today to make an election speech which he will, of course, be using in Klip River again. He has therefore made no contribution to the present debate or to the legislation now being dealt with in the House. In fact, he has not yet made any positive contribution to a single debate conducting in this House. [Interjections.] I can therefore understand the voters having opposed and rejected his party for almost two decades now. I am also quite convinced that it is again going to happen at Klip River. No voter can, after all, be satisfied with someone making contributions such as these in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

The difference between the National Party and the party of an hon member which, like the hon member for Sasolburg, makes nothing but wild and irresponsible statements, lies in the fact that he is assured that his party will never come into power. He therefore never has to be accountable for his irresponsible utterances. We in the National Party, however, have to accept the responsibility—and we also do so—for what we do, and that is one of the very reasons why the measure under discussion has come before this House today. It is true, is it not, that unemployment is one of the major issues of our time. The Government, however, has committed itself to dealing with the problem of unemployment, and that is why one of the objectives of this measure is to promote deregulation, something that will result in the creation of jobs.

Only this morning we had the privilege of listening to what the small business development corporation is doing as far as job-creation is concerned. This organisation is, in fact, one of the organisations that welcomes this legislation because it will specifically lead to the creation of job opportunities, particularly in the informal, the semi-formal and the small business sectors. So the small business development corporation is one of the bodies that welcomes this Bill wholeheartedly. The Small Business Development Corporation indicated to us this morning that it had already succeeded in the creation or maintenance of 84 000 jobs. The creation or maintenance of 84 000 jobs in the small business sector certainly is an achievement, to my way of thinking. What is more, this legislation, with its deregulation measures, will make a further contribution.

On the strength of what the hon member for Walmer and the hon member for Rissik said, I just want to make a second remark. It is very interesting to note the nervousness with which these hon members took part in the debates this afternoon. It is very clear, as a result of a remark that the State President just happened to make about a possible election, that there is a great degree of nervousness discernible in those parties. Because they do not really have much substance, nor a policy either, they now make personal attacks on the State President and other hon Ministers. The personal attack which the hon member for Walmer made on the State President is typical of opposition parties. The hon member could rather have debated the merits of this Bill.

Other hon members spoke at length about this Bill, and I do not want to repeat what has already been said. In conclusion, at the request of the hon member for Innesdal, I want to thank Mr J Vermaak for his contribution and assistance in preparing this Bill for the standing committee. I also thank the hon the Minister very sincerely for having introduced this Bill and I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, as has already been said, the hon member for Sasolburg made his ad nauseam speech. Although we are used to it, every time we hear it we are sickened by it! Surely that hon member must know that when he makes speeches of this nature, and they are reflected outside in the public Press, he is dragging himself and the members of his party down into the pit of blood. He must beware, Sir, because, as I have said previously, he is doing nothing more than adding to the friction between the races in this country.

I do not hold against him the fact that he stands up for people he believes in; but then he must be consistent, Sir. He is the man who stands here and says, “Ons moet nie werk vir die Swartes skep nie.” Yet he is the very man who has on other occasions quoted examples of how in the past the NP stood up for the Afrikaner when the Afrikaner was in a desperate situation. Now, that is the Government of South Africa, not the Government of Afrikaners, not the Government of Whites; it is the Government of this whole country, and he, more than anyone else, should understand it! He must go and look at the industry at Sasolburg. Who made that industry? Not just Whites! The people working there represent all colours. Just because he tips his hat and kowtows to the extreme emotions of certain sections is no reason why we in this House should ad nauseam have to listen to these speeches.

He is a man who has advocated central planned economy. Now, the closest example to a central planned economy in this world is the economy under the Communist Party of Russia. [Interjections.] That is central planned economy.

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

No, Mr Speaker. It is the closest to a central planned economy, and I will state that the kind of thing the member for Sasolburg is advocating is akin to the communist system of Russia.

Then this member for Sasolburg stands up and has the temerity to attack the PFP and goes on about Klip River and so on. Some time this member must stand up and please explain to us logically the language-medium policy of his party.

You will hear it.

I will be very glad to, because we hear one thing and then we hear another, and they must sometimes be consistent. [Interjections.]

I would like to turn to the legislation itself. As has been reported, the legislation stems from the report of the Committee for Economic Affairs in the President’s Council, A Strategy for Small Business Development and for Deregulation, in which certain recommendations were made regarding legislation of the Government and of other tiers of government that needs to be re-examined because it restricts economic activity. I would like to touch on that report shortly, but before I do, I would like to make quite clear where this party stands with regard to economic policies.

We have a charter entitled Social and Economic Progress in South Africa. I would like to quote from that charter because it reflects on the economic progress of all people in this country:

On that, equality of opportunity, much of this Bill revolves. I continue with my quotation:

The fifth point is very important:

Economic democracy is a policy that believes in fairness and the correctness of each individual contributing to this.

Reference has not been made in this debate—but I would like at this stage to do so—to the comments which the State President initially made about this Bill. It was during a taped conversation with Dr Van Zyl Slabbert on 25 November 1985. The State President was talking about taking actions in the economic sphere—I quote from a typed copy of their conversation:

Dr Slabbert’s response was:

The State President continued:

He was talking about the PFP—

Dr Slabbert’s response was:

And the State President said:

It is a very interesting conversation, because it also shows the views of Nationalists. Because we did look at this legislation; we as a party looked at it very carefully. We sat down with that standing committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Innesdal. We heard evidence for weeks on end, we put in amendments and we worked at it. And it is a far better piece of legislation than that which the State President introduced in this House much earlier this year.

It is legislation that we can support—and I am going to give views on that now. I believe that there is a very fine line—we tried to draw it in the Charter which I mentioned earlier—between making sure that the strong do not overwhelm, protecting the weak and allowing own initiative to be a response.

Those areas were the main problems in the original Bill; problems for the unions; problems with the power of the State President; and the whole question of consultation and submissions.

I would like to touch on the unions—my colleagues from Durban Central as well as Bezuidenhout have also done so—and the whole question of the problems the unions originally had with this legislation. It was perceived by the unions as being a direct attack on their traditional rights, gained over a long period of time in dispute both with Government and with employer organisations. The unions felt very threatened that these rights gained over a long period would be wiped out simply at the whim of the State President. He could wipe out industrial council agreements, workmen’s compensation, benefits under the UIF etc.—it could all disappear.

This was obviously of major concern. One must reflect accurately that at the standing committee there was the unanimous opinion that it was not the intention whatsoever to wipe out these vested rights of existing trade unions.

What was important—and we gained this from the trade unions—was that the trade unions themselves that gave evidence were happy to recognise that there were areas where deregulation should occur. Here a compromise had to be reached between leaving the Bill as it was originally—which was a problem for the unions—and totally removing labour matters from it.

I must state quite clearly that the PFP felt very strongly that union matters should be totally excluded from the orbit of this Bill. A great deal of evidence was presented for both trains of thought. The eventual compromise was that the schedule should be split into two. Union matters and matters affecting the rights of trade unions will be dealt with in consultation with the Minister of Manpower. We do not think that this measure is strong enough, but it is there in the Bill.

Secondly, the whole question of the UIF and workmen’s compensation was excluded. The reason for this was that it was the distinct perception of both the employer and organised employee organisations that the two measures of UIF and workmen’s compensation are insurance measures; that if an individual is either injured or finds himself out of work, he is in some way insured against that. Workmen’s compensation in particular falls into that orbit because, if an employer does not have workmen’s compensation, it is perfectly easy for any employee to sue that employer for compensation for injury received whilst on the job. A compromise has therefore been reached in this legislation.

Secondly there is the matter of the powers of the State President. Now, here we had long and very involved arguments. I shall not go into the constitutional and legal position in this regard. It is very interesting, however, that a formula has been arrived at in this legislation which may, in many ways, become a precedent.

There was an old convention that the State President acted on the advice of the Cabinet; that it was the Cabinet that devised the views, while the State President had to implement them. Well, we now have a new one, because the State President does not act on the advice of the Cabinet any more; he acts in consultation with the Cabinet. Now, however, we have in this Bill the wording that the State President has to act, or acts, on the advice of the standing committee.

Clause 1, subsection (2) reads:

Sir, we have heard many arguments to the effect that it should be Parliament itself. The hon member for Rissik was particularly vociferous about that. We also felt that the object of Parliament is, in fact, to examine these pieces of legislation. There is, however, a corollary. The very title of this Bill, the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill, and the second last clause, to the effect that the Act shall cease to have effect on 31 March 1989, mean that the work carried out on these regulations is of a temporary nature; the regulations are suspended temporarily. I grant that it would and should be advisable that the decision to remove a regulation permanently, particularly if it is a State regulation or an Act, should come before this House as soon as possible.

However, in terms both of ordinances and of local government regulations, it would, by virtue of this Bill, be impossible to actually bring them temporarily before this House, consider them for a passage of time and then possibly have to reinstate them through this House. We in this party will be looking at this piece of legislation extremely carefully to see what is going to come out of the need for deregulation.

I want to quote some practical examples of what we believe should be looked at in the circumstances. I would like to refer hon members to a book called Unemployment and the “Informal Sector”: Some Proposals by David Dewar and Vanessa Watson. It comprises research work done by the University of Cape Town mainly in the area of Crossroads as it was then and Heideveld. They examine particularly the factors affecting small business in these informal sectors. They consider the relationship of small businesses to Government in terms of the development of control and legislative control. They examine measures such as the Factories Act, the Marketing Act and the Group Areas Act. In dealing with municipal legislation they say the following concerning hawkers:

There follows a long list of 13 regulations by which every hawker under every local authority in the Cape Province and other areas must abide. Let us look at some of them:

1. (ix) The hawker must move his location not less than 100 yards at the end of every hour.

What is the purpose of that? It is so that he does not end up in competition with the businessmen around him.

There is no doubt that this kind of regulation has to go if we are looking to employing more people and initiating a far closer relationship between the Third and First Worlds.

The book makes recommendations concerning certain deregulatory measures that could be applied here. In relation to hawking the authors recommend the following, among other things:

One could quote at great length, but the point I am trying to make is that the people who prepared this report are not supporters of the NP. They are looking for what is best for the people of South Africa, and they believe very strongly that the kinds of vested interests that have at times created regulations at Government, provincial and particularly local level no longer reflect the greater good needed for all the people of South Africa. So certain regulations have to go.

Secondly, I want to quote from the Information Digest of the Durban Chamber of Commerce, dated 10 May 1986 under the heading “Natal Shop Hours—State President Assents to 24-hour Trading Ordinance”:

Here is a business organisation setting out quite clearly how they can take advantage of that.

The next quotation is from the Natal Mercury dated Wednesday, 20 August 1986 under the heading “Durban Urged to Lift Job Restrictions”:

They go on to mention a number of things they could do. I want to indicate clearly to the hon the Minister that these are in the main highly anti-apartheid organisations which are strongly opposed to the Government. The statement says:

I am glad the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is here—if only I can get through to him:

It must be stopped because it will affect the lives of all.

That has been stopped.

Has it stopped? Totally?

Yes.

I am very pleased to hear that.

We can quote many examples of these kinds of views, for instance counter-productive regulations in the building industry and the funding of the Small Business Development Corporation which should be aimed more at small business. There is an article by Jill Natress in The Indicator, summer 1986, dealing with regulations in small business, expanding small business and a policy programme. There are many areas.

So, what am I trying to say? As I indicated right at the beginning, we want the hon the Minister to be aware of the areas we are looking at which should be satisfied and should be deregulated.

It is interesting to quote from somebody else’s charter. The Freedom Charter of 1955 said:

The NP can agree to that today without any problem whatsoever. The President’s Council Committee recommended that the following Acts need to go: the Black Administration Act, the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the Group Areas Act, the Influx Control Act…

The Physical Planning Act.

The Physical Planning Act, the Land Tenure Act, the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act and so forth. We also need to look at real rights to land, land use and township development, the Health Act and at professional and trade restrictions. These are areas we believe the Government should tackle immediately. It is not enough to say, “Okay, fine, we are all for deregulation”. That’s good; it’s mother-love and apple pie.

The Government, the governing party of this country is going to have to grasp the nettle and do some things in this area that are unpopular. It is actually going to have to make the town council of Pietersburg accept that the African Bank has the right to set up offices there. It is going to have to do that kind of thing. If they are going to use this legislation to do that, we will support them wholeheartedly. [Interjections.]

Naturally the PFP will take up the position on a standing committee of viewing very critically the regulation and deregulation areas that come before us. Have no doubt about it, Mr Speaker, the PFP will question and examine and be as critical as possible in ensuring that rights of individuals outside the parliamentary structure are protected, because we believe that deregulation does have extremely positive effects. We are going to do all in our power to ensure that those positive effects are realised.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr S J Schoeman said that the hon member for Walmer had made a personal attack on the State President because he was very nervous, since the PFP did not have a policy. I agree with the hon member. The PFP has very good reasons for feeling nervous. The NP has accepted the PFP’s policy of power-sharing to such a large extent that this party has reason to feel very nervous. [Interjections.] That hon member was so nervous that he completely forgot to thank the PFP for supporting this specific legislation. [Interjections.]

When the hon member for Sasolburg quoted Dr Wassenaar concerning the ability and competence of the Ministers of Finance and Trade and Industry, who have to advise the State President on these matters, the hon member for Prieska called out from the back that Dr Wassenaar was a “has been”. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister this question: Is Dr Wassenaar a “has been”?

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister says that has nothing to do with this legislation. The hon the Minister is only going to discuss the legislation. In any event, that is what the hon member for Prieska said about Dr Wassenaar.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that a greater measure of unemployment existed in the country than was necessary for the furtherance of internal order and stability. That is why this legislation was necessary.

Therefore I think the hon member for Sasolburg is quite correct when he says today that this Bill is to a large extent aimed at job creation and deregulation, and that job creation is concentrated not only on the Black people who are present here, but on those who are streaming into the White areas of South Africa today in their tens of thousands. The hon member Mr S J Schoeman also said that unemployment was South Africa’s greatest problem today, and he said the NP accepted responsibility for it.

The hon member for Umlazi, who made a speech and who has not been back in this House since he spoke… [Interjections.]… said the greatest challenge to the Government was job creation. In the same vein the hon member Mr S J Schoeman said that this legislation would result in job creation. We must therefore infer that this Bill’s most important objective is to create job opportunities in this country.

The hon member for Umlazi said that the CP, if it should come into power, would also have to look into job creation. I want to tell the hon members that the CP will definitely look into job creation for the people and population groups of Southern Africa.

The CP, however, says that job opportunities for Black people should not be created in Khayelitsha, Cape Town and Port Noloth. The CP says that job opportunities should be created for Black people within their own fatherlands.

We say it is very unfair and a big mistake that the people to whom the hon member for Pinetown referred here—the ostensibly poor people whose interests have to be looked after, the Xhosas from the Ciskei and the Transkei—should come to Cape Town to find job opportunities and to earn money for food.

The CP says that job opportunities for these people from the Transkei and the Ciskei should be created within or adjoining the Transkei and Ciskei so that those Xhosas can live within their own fatherlands and exercise their political rights there. They must live there with their own families in their own fatherlands and they must be able to do their own work there.

Who must pay for it? [Interjections.]

Now the hon member is asking who must pay for it, but who must pay for it when employment is created for them in this part of South Africa? [Interjections.] The CP says that job opportunities should be created for those people, but within their own fatherlands; it is essential that this be done, and if this Government comes forward with legislation to create job opportunities for their Black peoples within their own fatherlands, then the CP will give that legislation its full support. [Interjections.]

What is happening now and are they coming forward with this legislation? Let us take a look at the city of Khayelitsha. Three years ago the hon the Minister said that a city, Khayelitsha, had to be created here which would make provision for 300 000 Black people. Then he caught a group of Cape Peninsula members napping by telling them that the people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu were going to be moved to a consolidated Black city.

What is the situation now, after three years? Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads are still where they were, but 100 000 Black people have already moved into Khayelitsha. The hon member for Sasolburg alleged that Black people were streaming into the Cape Peninsula at an average rate of 26 000 per month. [Interjections.] This means that at this rate 312 000 will stream into the Cape Peninsula in one year. It means that the 312 000 who will stream into this area into one year, plus the 300 000 who are already here, could within a year comprise a Black population on the Cape Flats which would be as large as Botswana’s total national population of 600 000.

Now the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the Office of the State President is coming forward with this legislation for creating job opportunities.

It is for economic reasons.

I should now like to quote the State President, but first I just want to say something further about Khayelitsha. Last year we had to pass legislation for a railway line, which will cost the State R60 million, to convey these people from Khayelitsha to Cape Town, and this Parliament had to furnish a guarantee that it would guarantee the loss of R20 million per annum. [Interjections.] But what did the State President say in respect of this situation? He said:

The State President then went on to say:

He wanted to protect the Black people and the Western Cape against economic problems that had arisen. What were the economic forces that caused the State President to lose against this reality?

The rich businessmen of the Western Cape…

Now you are really talking tripe!

… want the Black people of the Transkei on the Cape Flats so that they can sell their furniture, their motor cars, their meat, their bread, their milk, etc, to these Black people. They want those Black people here, because the more Black people who are here, the more support there is for their businesses.

The more money they make!

That is why they twisted the State President’s arm until he made these concessions, and now he has lost against reality.

What absurd nonsense! [Interjections.]

The State President said he had lost against reality, for in 1981 he was still saying that the Western Cape was a labour preference area for Coloured and White people. What is the result of this influx? Job opportunities have to be created for these Black people who are streaming into the Western Cape at a rate of 26 000 per month, because they are already ousting the Coloured people from their jobs; already there are Coloured people who are unemployed. I shall deal with Port Nolloth in a moment, a town with 300 Whites and 5 000 Coloured inhabitants. A number of Black people who had to leave South West Africa were resettled in Port Nolloth, while half of the Coloured people in Port Nolloth are unemployed.

This Bill must now be passed to create job opportunities for these people. The State President said he lost against the stream of people, these economic demands, this reality. This Bill empowers the State President, until 1989, to announce certain deregulation measures, and cause them to be applied. The CP maintains that we cannot entrust such powers to such a State President.

What did the State President say at the NP congress in 1977? His words were:

That was a standpoint of the State President which we fully supported. This year, however, the State President said we were living in one country, and formed one nation, in which there had to be equal opportunities for everyone. He said that everyone—including the 17 million Black people—would share in the government and the future of this country. They would participate in the structures on which joint agreement would be reached.

The standpoint which the State President adhered to in 1977 and 1982 is diametrically opposed to the standpoint he is now adopting. [Interjections.] My friends and I now ask how one can grant such powers to a State President who has changed his standpoint so radically within the space of a few years? [Interjections.] I think this Bill, which grants such powers to a State President until the year 1989, should not appear on the Statute Book at all.

I should like to refer the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services to something which is now happening in his part of the world; I also referred to this earlier. A report in Rapport, dated 24 August 1986, under the headline “Port Nolloth skielik Juweel van ’n Dorp”, read as follows:

The report went on to state:

What evil is being referred to here, Sir? Almost 370 000 Black people, mainly Xhosas, who worked in South Africa and subsequently became unemployed in South West Africa and had to leave that country, have now been settled in Port Nolloth, in which there was previously no Black town or community. That is in the hon the Minister’s constituency. The vast majority of the 370 000 people were women. They were chased out of South West Africa, but now they have been resettled in Port Nolloth which was occupied by 400 Whites and more than 5 000 Coloured people, of whom more than half are unemployed. I quote further from Rapport:

The report also refers to the fact that work was in progress on governmental level on the problem created by this influx of Blacks to that beautiful little Namaqualand village. Is the hon the Minister now going to give in to those people who are at present making money out of these Black people—whose presence there is illegal—by legalising their residence and creating job opportunities for the unemployed Coloured people, as well as for the Black people who are there at present, or has he also lost against that reality? [Interjections.]

I have already said that the CP’s solution is that job opportunities should be created for each of these peoples within their own fatherland. [Interjections.] The millions of rands which this slack Government is spending today on the accommodation and…

Peace songs!

Yes, peace songs! Where is the hon the Minister of “Pop Shop”, who is composing a song now. Why cannot these millions of rands rather be employed to create employment opportunities for the Black people within their own fatherland? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Welkom that if he and his party were to come forward with such legislation, they would be able to rely on the support of the CP. [Interjections.] Before the referendum it was said that when the new dispensation became a reality…

And Lapa is the conductor! [Interjections.]

Yes, for a R20 fee! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker,…

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must really confine himself to the Bill now. It is all very well to depict every standpoint and to point out all the different factors, and to argue immediately afterwards that surely legislation of this kind cannot in any way be entrusted to this hon Minister. Of course this does not mean that the hon member then returns to the provisions of the Bill. Not at all! What the hon member for Kuruman is doing here at the moment is to make a Third Reading speech. I order the hon member to confine himself to the particulars of the Bill from now on. If he regarded his preliminary remarks as an introduction to his speech, I think I have now allowed him sufficient time to get done with it.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In this new parliamentary dispensation of course we no longer have such a thing as a Third Reading stage. That is why we should also like to point out the possible consequences of this legislation.

Order! We cannot use the Second Reading stage for that purpose.

Mr Speaker, does that therefore mean that we may not point out the possible consequences that are implicit in this Bill? Clause 1 of this measure gives the State President certain far-reaching powers. Clause 1 deals with the power of the State President to suspend laws or conditions, limitations or obligations thereunder or to grant exemptions from the provisions thereof. May we not, therefore, present the possible consequences of this Bill to you? I should like to know that, because that is in fact what I want to do. In fact, I want to make the statement that…

Order! If the hon member relates the possible consequences to the provisions of the Bill, and narrows this down to a specific clause, I am prepared to allow him to proceed. He cannot, however, make a prolonged statement about the situation which exists in a certain place, and what is more, elaborate on it as he did. I have nothing against it when it is the standpoint of the hon member’s party, but I cannot allow him then to apply it to the legislation itself. The only connection the hon member eventually made between his statement and the legislation itself was to refer for example to the question of the State President and then to ask how these powers could be entrusted to such a State President. That has no bearing whatsoever on the provisions of the Bill. The hon member may raise any argument here, so long as he relates it to the provisions of the Bill, as set out in its separate clauses.

This Bill confers certain powers upon the State President, and I am trying to point this out to the House.

I think the hon member now realises what standpoint I am adopting on this matter. I shall allow the hon member to proceed, but honestly, we must at least adhere to the provisions of the Bill. After all, we are discussing whether the provisions of this Bill should be passed or not, and all I expect from the hon member is to tell this House that, for example, he considers certain specific provisions to be absolutely bad provisions, and does so for definite reasons, and that his party is consequently opposed to the legislation. That is how the hon member should deal with the discussion of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to say that clause 1 of the Bill, which confers these powers on the State President, is a bad provision, and I do not think it should be passed. After all, it is a very bad provision which confers powers on such a State President, powers which he may exercise until 1989. [Interjections.]

I come now to what I wanted to say. The title of Bill is the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill. The most important restriction inhibiting economic development in this country is in fact this Government, which chose the course of power-sharing and political integration.

Order! The hon member must wait a minute now; I want to address him again on this matter. I do not want to inhibit the hon member’s argument. After all, I did give him a great deal of time. Yet he immediately returned to the subject of this Government which did this, that and the other thing. How does he relate that to a specific provision of this Bill? To precisely what provision in this Bill is the hon member now referring?

Mr Speaker, I am referring to clause 1.

No, the hon member did that just now! The hon member presented his argument on that matter and put his point to us.

I honestly want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that I do not wish to inhibit any debate in this House. In fact, I do not wish to impede any hon member’s speech. As far as clause 1 is concerned, the hon member has already said it is a bad clause. He also said we were entrusting the duties—this was the substance of his words—to a weak State President.

Now that he has disposed of that point, the hon member must proceed to the next clause and relate it to the legislation. [Interjections.] Honestly, the hon member must now discuss the Bill. I have given him sufficient opportunity to state his standpoint.

Mr Speaker, we have come to the end of this Second Reading debate, which was considerably more extensive than any of us had foreseen. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members, especially the hon member for Innesdal, the chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this legislation. I want to convey my special thanks to the hon member for Innesdal for the insight he showed in helping to place this particular measure on the Statute Book. According to my information, all the hon members who served on that committee made a positive contribution, except for certain hon members such as the hon member for Rissik, of course. I have discussed the matter with him and he is aware of it. Unfortunately, he made no contribution on that committee, and I am surprised, therefore, that he and other hon members of his party, as well as the hon member for Sasolburg, have taken such a strong stand here today. [Interjections.]

There is a very strong insistence in Western countries on fewer laws, less control and less administrative prescription. South Africa, too, has become a part of that process, which is spreading around the world—it has reached us as well. In a country with both a sophisticated First World economy and an underdeveloped or a developing Third World economy, deregulation is even more urgently needed. [Interjections.] It is not only more urgently needed, but also more complicated, because one is dealing with different standards within one and the same integrated economy.

For this reason, it is important that this legislation should be flexible—and that is in fact what this Bill provides for—so that attention may be given to the interests of people from different walks of life, who maintain different standards and who come from different regions.

†The measure before the House is not a harsh measure but it is a measure aimed chiefly at assisting regulative authority to reach the desired goals expeditiously.

The Bill must, inter alia, be seen as a strong and an earnest attempt to involve the underdeveloped part of our population in the economy of this country—but this time also as entrepreneurs.

*I do not think the advantages of this legislation should be overestimated. It would be wrong to suggest that there has always been an undeveloped goldmine in our midst and that we are suddenly going to open it up. That is not true; it is not so. Anyone who creates such an expectation in this House is creating a vain expectation.

Your hon members are the ones who said so!

This legislation on deregulation is a process—let me say this to the hon member for Rissik—which will go on for years. It is not a sudden happening. I want to go further and say something else to this House. It is an experiment, the success of which will depend on the co-operation we receive from all involved.

Who are the people who are involved in this Bill and whose co-operation is required to make a success of this? In the first place, there are the organisations, private commerce and industry, and in the second place, there are the many regulating authorities in this country.

I do not know whether I shall have time for the hon member for Sasolburg’s questions, but allow me to say to him that a large number of the regulating bodies are of course local authorities. If it would give the hon member peace of mind, I may tell him that I have negotiated about this Bill with the United Municipal Executive. I have negotiated with the town clerks, and they all support it.

What is the effect of… [Interjections.]

We have already requested all the regulating authorities to start deregulating on their own initiative, and to report to us in this connection every six months.

As far as individual attempts are concerned, any hon member who has a stake in South Africa is free to participate in this process. Furthermore, I want to request members of standing committees dealing with legislation to scrutinise every Bill which they discuss, in order to see whether all the provisions it contains are necessary.

The Competition Board is also a partner in this enterprise. A section of that council is doing research on deregulation.

All these functions and all this concerted action is taking place under the overall authority of the State President. As the Bill indicates, the objectives are economic development, competition and job creation. I do not think that even the hon members for Sasolburg, Rissik and Kuruman could have any objection to that. [Interjections.]

In this respect, we must revise our thinking and go back to the basic need that has to be satisfied. What is that need? In a developing country, that need is the promotion of entrepreneurship. That is what we need. Whatever political party one belongs to, one cannot do without that! [Interjections.]

Do it in the homelands.

I should like to refer to a few hon members’ speeches. The hon member for Innesdal referred to this and said that this legislation should be linked to the initiative in connection with privatisation. That is quite correct. Deregulation is a very important part of privatisation. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has already announced this in connection with transport affairs, and hon members read in the newspapers a little while back that privatisation had already begun as far as interurban passenger bus transport was concerned. Hon members are probably aware of the advantages of this. A bus ticket between Johannesburg and Durban costs R88, as against a first-class train ticket, which costs R218, and an air ticket which costs R250. Moreover, the travelling time by bus is only a little more than half the travelling time by train. Surely the advantages this holds for the public must be obvious to hon members.

The hon member for Innesdal pointed out that with this Bill we were indeed trying to address the problem of the poor. The hon member was quite correct in saying that.

The hon member for Waterkloof said that the Government should create a climate by giving individuals a chance. However, he said that there should also be order. I think that over the years, we have overemphasised the concept of maintaining order, while that element of giving people a chance has been neglected. Our country is not the only one in which this has happened. Since the war, overregulation has been prevalent throughout the Western world. That is why countries such as Japan have outstripped us in the industrial field.

Then why did we have more growth then than we have now? [Interjections.]

But our present situation and the present circumstances relating to our population are completely different from what they were 40 years ago. Does the hon member not know that?

Yes, we now have a situation of power-sharing! [Interjections.]

I believe that we should make it possible for people to participate in the economy. I discussed this matter with a Black businessman the other day. He told me that Black people were said to be the enemies of capitalism, but that this was not true. He said that it was simply too difficult for the Blacks, because the standards we set were too high. The Black people could not become involved in the economy.

The hon member also said that we should not run away with deregulation. I agree with that. We cannot allow community services to be destabilised by deregulation. That is correct. I agree with that. However, there is a big difference between destabilising on the one hand and overregulation on the other.

When did we have overregulation?

I shall reply to that question presently.

There is a wide field in which this process can take place.

The hon member Mr Schutte quoted figures here to indicate that the small business sector which we are trying to encourage by means of this proposed legislation is actually the best job creator. That is correct. It is not only the best job creator; it also creates the most stable labour force. Small groups of people are less inclined to strike, because the employer has contact with them. The important point, however, is the fact that the cost of creating jobs in the small business sector is much less per capita than in the big business sector.

The hon member also referred to the informal sector, and especially to the fact that it was already making a major contribution to the provision of employment in this country. This legislation is indeed important, but it must be used.

I thank the hon member Mr S J Schoeman for his short but very balanced contribution. He also replied effectively to the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umlazi apologised for having to leave. He cannot be here. He made the important point—anyone who refuses to concede this is refusing to face up to the real problems which we have—that job creation is essential if we are to maintain law and order. This is so. Does the hon member for Sasolburg understand this? [Interjections.] If one does not address the question of job creation, one has no chance of succeeding in politics. Then no political formula will succeed in this country. I thank hon members on this side of the House for their participation, which has greatly facilitated my task in this debate.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout said that our real problem was poverty and that deregulation was necessary. I reiterate that. He said our challenge was to settle the millions of poor people in this country in business and agriculture and to provide them with housing. We have to do that in a Third World way because we cannot afford any better. It is a pity, as the hon member pointed out, that only a very few representatives from the sector of organised labour gave evidence.

I want to say today that in this whole process of deregulation there is also wide scope for organised labour because as the businesses of entrepreneurs develop, and they move from the informal sector into the formal sector, the scope is also broadened for the unions.

The hon member for Umhlanga referred to what the AHI, the SBDC and the FCI had to say, namely that problems had to be solved and not created, that the rights of employees should not be reduced and that deregulation should not be overregulated. The hon member stressed these points, and they are valid points. However, I think he himself provided the answer to this when he said that control had to be limited to the minimum. That is the answer to those three points.

The hon member for Walmer said that certain things had begun to dawn on the Government and that it appeared that they were trying to get away from some evil that they themselves had created.

Correct.

Deregulation is something which is taking place throughout the Western world. It is therefore no exception that we are doing it in this country. [Interjections.] It is a movement throughout the Western world. [Interjections.] We also know that increased interference does mean less growth, and that is the underlying principle.

The hon member also referred in a degrading manner to public service employees as if they are hiding within a privileged position and are afraid to take risks. Today I can state that to my knowledge there are numerous public servants who left the public service and became very successful private-sector entrepreneurs.

I support that.

I do not want to be personal but I should like to tell the hon member for Walmer that he can do his personal image a lot of good by not making such sneering remarks. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to women who were prosecuted in connection with hawking, but I should like to ask the hon member what he did about that? Did he report it, or did he just bring it to Parliament? As I have explained just now, the success of this Bill will also depend on the hon member’s action when such things are brought to his notice. [Interjections.]

The hon member said he was bitter about the policies of this Government and he was also bitter about people leaving the country.

That is right; I am.

I should like to tell the hon member it is the bitterness of and also the negativism revealed by people like the hon member that is causing people to leave this country. [Interjections.] That is what is causing people, especially young people, to leave this country. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown referred to equal opportunities. I believe this is a way in which to make it possible to create equal opportunities with a view to a better distribution of wealth in this country. The State President must act on the advice of a standing committee in respect of legislation passed by Parliament. That has also been built in as an extra control measure. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

*The hon member for Durban Central apologised for his absence. He referred to the rights of workers as contained in the Wiehahn report. I have no problem with that, of course. Labour is probably the most important element in our economy. However, if labour should unduly impede economic development, competition and job creation—and I emphasise the phrase “unduly impede”—the question of labour could be reviewed, but, as stated in the legislation, only on the advice of a standing committee and in consultation with the Minister of Manpower.

The hon member for Sasolburg tried to turn this discussion into a debate on influx control. I have no objection to that either. The hon member is quite free to talk about influx control, and so are the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Rissik. They are welcome to talk about influx control. Of course, their ideas on the subject differ from ours on this side of the House. However, that kind of discussion is simply not appropriate in the debate on this measure. I do want to explain this to the hon members. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg says that there is no responsibility on the Whites—and I assume that under “Whites” he includes the White Government—to create jobs for the Blacks as well.

I did not put it like that! [Interjections.]

Very well, the hon member put it in more general terms. He said that there was no responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Whites to create jobs for the Blacks. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg is a lawyer. He is therefore acquainted with the implications of the law.

Please do not insult the legal profession! [Interjections.]

I now ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether there are not Black South Africans, too, who are unemployed. [Interjections.] The hon member says that if there has been overregulation in South Africa, it is the fault and the responsibility of the Government. I agree with him. Of course it is the Government’s responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of Governments throughout the Western world. In the explanatory memorandum from which the hon member quoted, we say that there is a tendency to overregulation. And that is the tendency we have to resist. The hon member asked me what criterion was being used. The criterion is whether there is undue impediment. That is the criterion.

Furthermore, the hon member wanted to know from me which sectors could not afford standards. He put this question to me. Surely it is not only Blacks. There are poor White people, too, after all. There are people in the business world who allege that their businesses are being completely overregulated. In fact, the hon member for Rissik referred to this. He spoke about the approval of townships. This applies to virtually everyone—throughout the country. Now I must honestly say, however, that the hon member for Sasolburg surprised me. Moreover, he is an exception in this respect. He is the one and only hon member who is arguing that there should be more regulation. [Interjections.] I know that no economy can be entirely free of regulation. But I told the hon member that the criterion which is used is whether there is undue impediment. No economy can be entirely free of regulation. However, the hon member for Sasolburg is advocating a larger degree of regulation. [Interjections.] I am convinced that the hon member will soon start creating jobs in Sasolburg by turning petrol back into coal. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik says that this Bill was brought to Parliament in a very watered-down state. In his very next sentence, however, he contradicts that by saying that this Bill will have a drastic effect on the South African situation. How does the hon member reconcile a watered-down Bill with a drastic effect? [Interjections.]

Invite me for a cup of coffee, then I shall explain it to you. [Interjections.]

The hon member says he has two objections to the Bill. Firstly, the hon member objects to the powers that are being given to the State President. Yet the hon member was a member of the standing committee which found the following in connection with the powers of the State President—the hon member can read it for himself on page 5 of the committee’s report:

This is the finding of that standing committee on which the hon member also serves. [Interjections.]

This hon member also says that he is concerned about the rights of employees. We are all concerned about that. However, this hon member is so blinded by political prejudice that he does not think of the rights of those people who are unemployed. That is the important point, Sir: It is the political prejudice of that hon member which blinds him.

The hon member again availed himself in this debate of the two “skeleton keys” mentioned by the hon member for Welkom. The hon member has a “skeleton key” in each pocket. One is called “power-sharing”, and the other one is called “integration”. If he cannot unlock the door with “power-sharing”, he unlocks it with “integration”. [Interjections.] In this case, the hon member once again raised the question of integration. I now ask him whether he is suggesting that the economy of South Africa is not fully integrated.

I shall reply to you. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman says that the CP will only create jobs within the Black areas—that is the only place where they will create jobs for Black people. What about the 6 million Blacks who are legally present in this country? What will the CP do with them? The self-governing Black states that have not yet accepted independence are just as much a part of this country, after all, as Namaqualand or Kuruman. These people are South African citizens just as much as the hon member and I.

The Cape Flats does not form part of Transkei.

The hon member tried to drag an incident from my constituency into this debate, and it is something which has no relevance to this debate. However, I want to tell him very briefly that it is a matter which the local authority, the legal authority in Port Nolloth, is dealing with, and they have been dealing with it right from the start.

I thank hon members for their contributions and I hope that this legislation will really have a positive effect in this country.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz J H Hoon, F J le Roux, E M Scholtz, W J Snyman, L M Theunissen, C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, F A H van Staden, J J B van Zyl and L F Stofberg) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, we shall vote against clause 4 with the objective of negativing the existing clause 4 and moving a new clause in order to eliminate any confusion or doubt with regard to actions or rights acquired up to 31 March 1981 in terms of the Bill.

The objective of the Bill is to give certain special powers to the State President, for a limited period, namely up to 31 March 1989. What is temporary—this is the important point—is the powers of the State President in terms of the Bill. The rights, privileges and obligations cannot be other than permanent until they are withdrawn by a competent authority.

If there is, however, any uncertainty about these rights acquired during this period of three years the Bill will not attain its objective. The new clause I shall move eliminates that uncertainty by providing that the proclamations will be of force until the State President amends, withdraws or partially withdraws them by proclamation in the Gazette. In the first place, this will again take place on the recommendation of a standing committee. In the second place, it will have to be tabled again, and in the third place Parliament will again have the right to set aside such a withdrawal.

Mr Chairman, we need not discuss this matter any further. We on this side of the House will support the amendment of the hon the Minister.

Clause negatived.

New Clause to follow Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, I move:

4.

1. (1) This Act shall cease to have effect on 31 March 1989.
2. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) any proclamation issued under section 1 shall continue to be of force until it is amended, withdrawn or partially withdrawn by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette: Provided that any proclamation with regard to the suspension of or exemption from the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and of any other law relating to a matter mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, shall only be amended, withdrawn or partially withdrawn on the advice of a standing committee of Parliament to which the amendment or withdrawal in question has been referred.
3. (3) Any amendment, withdrawal or partial withdrawal of a proclamation referred to in subsection (2) shall not come into operation before the expiry of 30 days after the issue thereof, if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, before the expiry of 30 days after the commencement of its next ordinary session.
4. (4) The provisions of section 3(1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any proclamation issued under subsection (2) of this section.

New Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.