Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, this motion deals with the question of the deliberations of the joint meeting of Committees on Standing Rules and Orders. It is of course a very important subject, and the report also covers a fair number of different issues.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to go back into history, but you will remember that the Official Opposition campaigned against the introduction of the present Constitution, and we voted “no” in the referendum.

Harry did not!

The basis of our objection then was that Blacks had been excluded, that there had not been proper negotiations with the various communities involved and that there were going to be three separate Houses of Parliament. We also felt at the time that the whole question of dividing affairs of State into general affairs and own affairs was wrong in principle and would cause problems. Furthermore, we felt that even if we had three different Houses a problem would arise if we had three separate sittings.

I am not going to say that we have been proved right on all those counts, although I happen to think that we have been. Certainly, however, in regard to the last one, experience has shown that the decision originally taken that the three Houses should sit separately has been shown to have been an error. This is the most important issue in the present debate—the question of joint sittings of the three Houses.

We made it plain from the start that the sight of uncomfortable and, as it were, ad hoc chairs being brought into this Chamber and put there in the aisle, and the sight of the Coloured and Indian MP’s traipsing in when the bells were rung, then sitting there like puppets—mute puppets—and then at a later stage traipsing out again, whereafter we adjourned while the chairs were taken out, was surely not worthy of our Parliament. I do not think anybody felt really happy about that arrangement. Certainly, the Coloureds and Indians did not; and I am sure that most right-thinking hon members of this House did not view that spectacle with any great pleasure.

There was another problem as well. That, I understand, was the problem experienced by Ministers. I wonder whether they like the system of having to go to three separate Houses and to undergo the experience of three separate debates all on the same subject. Moreover, to be human and to be fair, we must point out that in the other two Houses Ministers would not have the protection of that solid phalanx of colleagues around them to laugh at their feeble jokes and to support their infantile policies. [Interjections.] I can therefore understand that the Ministers of State were getting edgier and edgier as the weeks went by. I was not surprised when some months ago the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament first approached me with the first tentative suggestion that we might have joint sittings on a more formal and more extensive basis.

There is another problem and that is the question of the adjournments which the other two Houses keep having. We experience now that they in fact are being criticised for having a recess while this House is still busy with its business. For all these reasons the whole concept of separate sittings has come under a certain amount of criticism.

What do we have to do about this? We in the Official Opposition have a perfectly simple answer to it. We feel that if we are going to enter an era of joint sittings—I have no doubt that we are going to—we must do it boldly and honestly and as soon as possible. [Interjections.] I have no doubt that our colleagues in the Houses of Representatives and Delegates to a man share the feeling very strongly that we should implement a system of joint sittings as soon as is reasonably possible. I think one must be fair and say: “As soon as may reasonably be possible” because there is no physical possibility of a proper joint sitting until the new Chamber is available. It is going to be called the Chamber of Parliament.

What about the Good Hope Centre?

I do not think we should go looking around for odd venues. This is where Parliament sits and I think we can reasonably wait until the new building has been completed. I think that is fair. I think Parliament should sit in surroundings which are worthy of its history and its traditions. I think the new Chamber will be a remarkably beautiful and convenient venue.

When the Black MPs arrive it will be too small.

We will deal with that problem when it arises, as it certainly will.

They should start building a new Chamber already!

In view of the facts that I have just mentioned it is quite obvious that we will be moving an amendment. I therefore move the following amendment:

The effect of this will be that we will ask this House to accept, firstly, that the principle of joint debates on all matters of general affairs be accepted. That means that the reservations on joint sittings that follow in the succeeding subparagraphs would consequentially fall away if our amendment is accepted. I say again that the principle is a simple one.

If the Government is insistent that there be separate voters’ rolls for the different communities and is insistent that there be separate Houses, then it should not go the whole hog. It should at least allow us to have joint debates on all matters of general affairs.

Another very important issue in this particular order is the question of maintaining the joint rules which would lapse after the expiry of the two-year period. Obviously we must keep them going subject to an ongoing scrutiny. The other provisions of the recommendation provide for such maintenance and scrutiny and we therefore support them.

An interesting aspect of the report deals with the question of a podium in the new Chamber of Parliament. If one has been to look at the construction under way at the moment I think one will be impressed by the fact that the new Chamber is going to be considerably larger than this one.

It will be surprisingly big. Of course, the equipment has not all been installed yet and one cannot get the final picture until one sees the benches, carpets, instruments and microphones. I feel, however, that hon members who have not yet seen the Chamber will be surprised at the feeling of space.

In view of that, I would be the first to admit that it is worth looking at the question of a podium. Frankly, I can see some argument in its favour, but I am not all that committed to it at this particular stage. I think the matter ought to be looked at when the building is much further advanced than it is now, because a podium—that is one central place from which all speakers will address the joint sittings—is foreign to our traditions. It is something that must be looked at by the committee recommended by the report before us. We would prefer the committee to look into the question and see how the podium system works in other parliaments where it works well. I have not been to the United Nations, but I believe they have such a system.

The United States has it.

We do not want to commit ourselves to a podium system, and we are recommending the appointment of a subcommittee to go into the question.

Mr Speaker, during the course of what I have to say I will react to the basic philosophy expounded in the amendment proposed by the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. With regard to his introductory remarks, I was really rather disappointed. He started the debate in the wrong spirit. He was rather petulant and, I think, supercilious in his approach. [Interjections.]

He spoke the truth!

He tried to score small political points, and I was really disappointed in his attitude.

We are disappointed in your introduction! [Interjections.]

This report accepted in a joint meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders firstly contains the very important principle that we now also accept joint debating at a full session of Parliament—note my emphasis of “also”. This is no new principle introduced in dealing with the new dispensation…

Go on, FW! Who do you think will believe you? [Interjections.]

Debating already takes place in every joint committee on precisely the same basis and every joint committee is an extension of this Parliament. [Interjections.] When a standing committee meets, it is a committee of this Parliament but it is of especial significance that on suitable occasions we are now extending the debating which took place behind closed doors in standing committees—this is still to be negotiated—to public debate also when all members of Parliament meet. That is why hon members laughed too soon. I am not trying to explain away this principle as a mere bagatelle. In fact, I regard it as a very important development in the establishment of the new constitutional dispensation within which we find ourselves…

Huntington would be proud of that argument.

It is to the detriment of Parliament as an institution if we are to score small political points from this decision. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I know it is expecting too much of hon members in some Opposition parties to resist the temptation to make petty political capital here and to want to broadcast distorted deductions about it. [Interjections.]

When we predicted this, you said we were rumour-mongers!

Before dealing with the advantages and significance of this, I want to illustrate one facet very clearly. Voting procedure after such a debate in Parliament will operate in exactly the same way as it does in the standing committees.

For how long?

This means that when the vote is taken on a matter dealt with in such a joint debate, each House will put forward its own majority vote, resulting in three majority opinions on a specific matter. Consequently, all the votes will not be cast into the same hat. That fundamental principle built into our system is in no way affected by this resolution. [Interjections.]

In discussing the advantages attached to this, I wish to reply to the speech of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition at the same time. Firstly, we shall bring about a more effective utilisation of time and of members and Ministers by this. Secondly, this resolution provides adequate scope for planning according to need. The amendment moved by the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition falls short in that respect. He wants to lay down an inflexible rule that all three Houses should always sit and debate together on all general affairs.

Why not?

Merely for the following reasons: Firstly, for the sake of more effective utilisation of time and conclusion of business, we regarded it necessary, long before the new dispensation became operative, that simultaneous sittings should sometimes be held in more than one place when we went into committee on budgetary Votes. For the same reason this resolution provides scope for it to be done like this.

Try saying that in Vereniging!

Oh, I say everything I say here in Vereniging—always to a full hall.

You are too frightened to hold a meeting there!

Very recently we held a mass meeting there with the State President, which was a resounding success.

You were not on your own!

You are just rubbish!

Order! The hon member for Kimberley South must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

This resolution has built-in flexibility which on the one hand provides the Parliamentary Chief Whip and the body of Whips of all the parties in all three Houses with scope for planning, negotiating and conducting the order and flow of activities in such a way that there is effective action.

Secondly, this flexibility also provides the respective Houses with adequate opportunity, when they decide in respect of a specific portfolio that they require that Minister in their House because they particularly wish to call him to account on specific facets, that they may arrange for this in the negotiating process too and ensure that a full-scale debate takes place in the respective Houses on specific matters.

There is also a need for this flexibility which was built into a specific subdivision of the resolution when it was decided that budgetary debates concerning the Transport Services Appropriation Bill and the Post Office Appropriation Bill in particular would not take place at a joint sitting. Why was this built in? It was done because hon members frequently choose to use those debates to raise matters concerning specific constituencies. That is why I wish to support the flexibility incorporated here. I think the inflexibility inherent in the amendment introduced will be to the detriment of the effectiveness of Parliamentary activities.

I also wish to emphasise that this resolution proceeds far beyond the question of joint debate. To my mind it includes matters of great significance. In addition to the practical advantages to which I have referred, this contains important evidence of confidence in the ability of hon members at all times to uphold the honour and prestige of Parliament together with that of the respective Houses, evidence of confidence in Parliament as an institution and evidence that the accusation of White paternalism which is so often levelled at the current dispensation is untrue. [Interjections.]

I wish to stress that this resolution extends much further than the mere question of joint debate, especially in two respects. Firstly, there is a movement away from the Westminster tradition of confrontation debate in the motions embodied… [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, we are moving away from confrontation debate in the sense that hon members in future will have to exhibit their ill behaviour from a podium when they conduct themselves improperly. [Interjections.] A few hon members who are frequently guilty of unseemly behaviour in the typical Westminster debate we conduct in this House will then have their conduct exposed from a podium and I think this may have a beneficial influence on them. [Interjections.]

There is a further reason and that is that resolution 1(13) as it appears in the minutes means the start of a new, fresh approach to the stereotyped customs related to Parliamentary sessions. The mere fact that we are experiencing a second session in 1986 serves as proof of the need for a new approach. [Interjections.] I think we should seek an answer in the investigation referred to in recommendation 1(13) which I wish to read aloud:

In implementing this we shall have to seek an answer which takes the following facets into account: Firstly, the emotive subject of where in South Africa action at Government level should be carried out must be dealt with effectively. The assignment of administrative, legislative and judicial capitals to the respective provinces is dear to all our hearts. If there is any fundamental tampering whatever with the historical agreement which was reached that Pretoria be the administrative, Cape Town the legislative and Bloemfontein the judicial capital, we are looking for trouble.

But you have trouble about it already!

Consequently, any new arrangements made as a result of this investigation will have to take this very important, sensitive matter into account. [Interjections.] Secondly, the high demands the new committee system will make of members throughout the year in future will have to be borne in mind in such an arrangement.

Thirdly, the need felt by hon members and their constituents that their hon members should serve their constituencies as regularly and continuously as possible must be accommodated in any new arrangement. The abolition of provincial councils contributed greatly to this need in White politics because there is no longer, apart from the member of Parliament, an elected political representative present in the constituency almost throughout the year.

That is broadening democracy.

This creates specific new demands of MPs and any new arrangement will have to enable them to satisfy these demands.

Fourthly, disadvantages attached to the physical removal of the top management of the Public Service from their head offices for long periods, as incorporated in the current model, will have to be addressed. Each of these needs will have to be thoroughly accommodated in any new dispensation.

Why is Chris Heunis not talking about this? [Interjections.]

The need, to the extent that it exists, for greater continuity in Parliamentary activities will also have to be satisfied within this framework. [Interjections.] I believe this will call for the wisdom of Solomon but where there is a will, there is a way. [Interjections.]

I wish to express the hope that we shall use the opportunity offered by this report to expand this Parliament into a worthy institution and in the second place use the opportunity offered by recommendation 1(13) of the report by the committees for an incisive investigation into how we may reconcile ostensibly clashing needs in our public management system. [Interjections.]

The old system was dear to all hon members but we shall have to apply renewal in the organisation of Parliament, in the allocation of time, in its utilisation and how we enable hon members best to do their work.

It is my firm belief that this motion as a whole opens the door to both hon members and hon Ministers to enable them to make a more effective contribution in the best interests of all in the country. I therefore support the report as presented and we on this side of the House are unable to support the amendment of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition moved an amendment to the effect that we should transform the present tricameral Parliament into a multiracial parliament with one Chamber as soon as possible. [Interjections.] Over the years the PFP has maintained a very consistent standpoint on this matter. They also propagated that standpoint during the referendum. They said at the time that eventually we should have only one multiracial unicameral Parliament. Over the years the PFP has said we should have a unicameral Parliament with facilities for everyone. They maintained a consistent standpoint, therefore. In fact, I can understand why the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is moving this motion today.

As I said three years ago, however, I want to repeat to the hon members of the Official Opposition today that they need not be hasty with this matter. What they are proposing today will become the National Party’s and the Government’s policy tomorrow in any case.

But of course!

Oh, that little joke of yours is really hackneyed by now!

It is really no joke. In fact, it is the truth. [Interjections.]

FW, you have lost all your hair because of Chris Heunis! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I can give the hon the Minister the assurance that indeed that is the truth—and no joke. [Interjections.] Before the referendum—I remember it so well—the hon the Leader of the House told me: “Man, I am going to have a good laugh at you CPs when the Indians are sitting in Durban, the Coloureds on the Cape Flats, and we are here in the House of Assembly.” Even then I told him his transport services were not fast enough to convey Ministers from one House to another to deal with their legislation there. I told him then that circumstances would force them eventually to have only one multiracial parliament in South Africa, according to the wishes of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

But you must take the reality into consideration, Jan!

The ideal of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—I want to put this unequivocally here today—is embodied in the PFP’s motion. [Interjections.]

He must rise here today and tell us that!

Mr Speaker, we cannot accept the amendment of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, and if this was a Bill, we should have proposed today that it only be read this day six months. We cannot accept this motion at all.

So you are an old prophet, are you not?

When we debated the First Report of the Committees on the Standing Rules and Orders in 1984, the Chairman of Committees would not permit me to say these things. He stopped me from saying these things throughout my speech. On the occasion of that debate, on 12 July 1984, with reference to the then envisaged new Chamber, I said here in the House that there was room for 352 seats. Parliament, as constituted in terms of the Constitution Act at the time, had 308 members. I asked the hon the Leader of the House whom the extra 44 were meant for. To this day we have not received a reply to that question. Perhaps the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can tell us today who those extra 44 seats were meant for. [Interjections.] I now want to quote here what I said in the House in the same debate (Hansard, Vol 115, Col 11544):

By way of an interjection the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament asked me whether I was a prophet. That very same hon Chief Whip of Parliament, who is chattering away now, wanted to know from me then whether I was a prophet to be able to predict something like that. I then went on to say:

Mr Speaker, this is the next step…

We hope so!

Hear, hear!

An hon member of the PFP is saying “hear, hear!” [Interjections.] I take it they are correct.

You are a prophet, after all!

I predicted this thing quite correctly. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will also fulfil the PFP’s ideal in due course, viz that Blacks also come and sit in this Assembly Chamber.

And FW will accept that too! [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon the Minister of National Education will accept it too. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, of course I find it very interesting that the hon the Minister of National Education is supporting this motion today. I find it very interesting that his party is pushing him forward to do these things. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the arguments he advanced in a moment.

Mr Speaker, I want us to take note briefly of the evolution of this Parliament. In 1977 this hon Minister of National Education wrote about the Council of Cabinets that it would draw up Bills on joint affairs and then send these to the people’s parliaments for approval.

In 1977 that hon Minister stood for a people’s parliament, therefore. In 1978 Mr Piet Marais said there should be only one tricameral parliament. Then the NP said that was not their policy, and the present State President repudiated him. Later this policy of Mr Piet Marais that there should be only one parliament was accepted, however.

Subsequently a referendum was held about a constitution which was drawn up to give South Africa one multiracial tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.] In its pamphlet the NP said:

[Interjections.] The people got a mandate for this. The hon member for Hercules wrote to his voters:

The NP got a mandate for this. The mandate therefore was that there should be three separate Houses.

I can still remember how the NP told the people before the referendum: “You need have no concern. This is still separate development. We have three separate Houses which will never sit together, except at the opening of Parliament.”

They told the voters they would never sit together, and the trusting voters of South Africa supported the Government in that. [Interjections.]

Then, Sir, a similar report appeared in Rapport on 3 March 1985: “Almal in een Huis? Grondwet kan só verander”. The report read:

The reporter then elaborated on this unicameral parliament for everyone.

The proposal emerged this year, and the Committees on the Standing rules and Orders have accepted this proposal without the NP and its partners having a mandate to do so, because they told the people they would sit separately, and that is what the people voted “yes” for. [Interjections.]

According to this report the principle of joint debating is being accepted. Paragraph 1(3) of the report reads:

During the debate on the Vote of Parliament last year I told the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that when this Chamber was completed, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would go to the NP and tell them: “We have already accepted the principle of joint debating in the standing committees. We have also incorporated the principle for joint debating into the regional services councils.” Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will tell the NP members: “Gentlemen, we have already accepted this principle; we can just as well conduct these debates in one multiracial Parliament.” That is what I said last year and do hon members know what happened this year? I made only one tiny mistake in my prediction last year. I said it would be the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who would propose this, but instead the hon the Minister of National Education, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the leader of the so-called “conservatives” in the NP, did so. [Interjections.] He was instructed, Sir, the head boy instructed him, to move this motion in this House. [Interjections.]

Just don’t cry.

No, we are not crying. I tell the hon the Minister, however, he is going to cry after the next election, because the people of Vereeniging are not going to send him back to this place. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said joint debates could take place in this new Chamber and it would be possible for the vote to be taken in this new Parliament, as happens at present in the case of the standing committees. I want him to listen now. He said the vote could take place as it does in the standing committees at present. If there has to be a vote after a debate among the 308 Members of Parliament, the Speaker will ask the House of Assembly and the Houses of the Coloureds and the Indians to vote. In that joint sitting we may then find that the five members of the NRP, the 26 PFP members …

27!

… yes, there are 27 Progs—the 85 Coloureds and the 45 Indians can muster 172 votes together, although their votes are shown separately. If the NP and the CP agree on a subject—let us say separate schools—the NP, CP and HNP can muster 138 votes in the joint sitting.

That proves a point! [Interjections.]

The argument used by the hon the Minister is shot to pieces, therefore, because here one sees that the minority…

But surely that is the case already!

I am pleased the hon the Minister has said so.

He admits that!

He admits that the minority are able to pass a decision in this Parliament at present.

That is domination.

That has also happened with the security legislation. [Interjections.] There are 138 NP, CP and HNP members compared to the NRP, PFP, Coloureds and Indians who form a majority. [Interjections.] Minority decisions lead to conflict.

The hon the Minister also said we would have to consider the possibility of two sessions per year. The hon the Leader of the House has just moved a motion that as from next week we should not sit on Monday and Wednesday nights. There was also a request that we do not sit tonight. I want to tell hon members why this was the case. The House of Assembly has no work, because we can finish the work that appears on today’s Order Paper by tomorrow night. The House of Delegates and the House of Representatives met last Monday and adjourned on Wednesday. It could happen that because there is no work, the House of Assembly could adjourn before the other two Houses meet again.

I want to make the statement today that the legislation we have launched through Parliament thus far could just as well be launched by Parliament in January 1987. [Interjections.] Our standing committee had to set aside three weeks for the legislation on constitutional development, but only one Bill has been submitted to the standing committee, and we have not been able to reach unanimity on it yet.

The Government is afraid and wants us only to sit during the day—we must stop sitting on Monday and Wednesday nights—because it could happen that the House of Assembly’s work is concluded before the Coloureds and Indians return. They have to prove that it was necessary to have a second session this year. Parliament was convened at great expense to the taxpayer. Many people’s family lives were disrupted by coming here. The Government is trying to prove now that this was not unnecessary.

Your whole little plan is falling flat.

The hon member for Kimberley South must get up and talk for a change, because all he can do is sit here and laugh. [Interjections.]

According to point 1(5) of the report we are discussing, joint appropriation committees which will be able to sit simultaneously in the respective Chambers will be created. What is being proposed, therefore, is that a committee sit here and committees sit in the other two Chambers. This was done to plan in the meantime for the use of the Chambers of the House of Assembly and the other two Houses when South Africa has only one multiracial Parliament in respect of general affairs.

I want to give hon members an example. Last year 101 Acts were launched by Parliament, of which 97 dealt with general affairs. If this Parliament had taken its course, this means that 97 Acts can be concluded during joint sittings of a multiracial Parliament. The function of the House of Assembly and the other two Houses would then fall away, except for the few cases of legislation on own affairs for which provision has been made. That is why provision is being made in the planning for these Chambers to be used.

In Rapport of 24 August 1986, Mr Johan Vosloo wrote that the Coloureds and the Indians were adjourning because there was no work here. That is not quite correct, since there are 178 House of Assembly members as against 85 Coloured and 45 Indian members of Parliament and obviously there has to be more discussion in the House of Assembly. He wrote the following: “En is die Blanke LP’s nie lief vir hul eie stem en hulle eie standpuntjies nie!” [Interjections.] I wonder if that is not a breach of the privilege of Parliament. He went on to say:

He then made the statement:

That is what Rapport has prescribed to the Government.

The standing committees consist of 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians, and among the 11 Whites the 27 PFP MPs have two representatives; the 18 CPs have one; the five NRP members have one representative; whereas the HNP’s hon member for Sasolburg has no representation. The newspaper reporter said the debates were thrashed out in the standing committee and further debating in the Houses was unnecessary. I want to tell the House, however, that the standing committees deal with clauses of the legislation, but a party that has 18 representatives in this House cannot even express its view on the principle of the legislation.

I now come to the question of the proposed podium from which hon members have to address one another in the new Chamber. Before I get to that, I want to refer to the question of the debating in the joint House. In the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders I said that 60% of the speeches made there might be in Afrikaans. Most of the hon Indian members will not understand a word of what is said there, just as they do not understand a word of what is said in the standing committees today. English has become the official language in the standing committees because the majority of Indians in the standing committees cannot speak Afrikaans. [Interjections.] A large number of the hon members of Parliament will not understand what is said in the joint House when Afrikaans is spoken.

The hon the Minister said there should be a podium which can eliminate conflict. Even if the CP has to go and stand on a podium in the new Chamber, we shall go and fight there for the interests of the Whites in South Africa. We shall not be afraid to put our case there merely because of the presence of the Coloureds and Indians; we are going to have the interests of our people at heart. [Interjections.]

The Government did in fact contend in its referendum pamphlet that joint debating should not take place because it causes conflict, like the conflict that exists between the hon Government members and us in this House at present, to arise. This conflict is one of the rewards of the Government’s policy of power-sharing; it divides the Afrikaners as we are divided now. That conflict potential will not be eliminated in the new Chamber.

On the contrary!

Yes, on the contrary. I think the conflict potential in that Chamber will be increased.

Why do you not get to the committees?

I want to tell that hon member that the CP will not crawl before the Coloureds and Indians with its standpoints to reach consensus. [Interjections.] For as long as the NP is prepared to lay its own standpoints on the altar of consensus and good relations in this Chamber, the NP may agree with that, but that is not going to satisfy the CP. [Interjections.]

What would happen in a Chamber if a debate had to be conducted about the allegation, for example, that a Minister had written a letter in which the CP was criticised? This could lead to large-scale racial conflict. I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I could argue about that kind of thing. He and I might also have to cross swords about the things that are sacred and dear to him and me, in the presence of the Coloureds and Indians in the Chamber. [Interjections.] He agrees that this could happen. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That is why this proposal is not acceptable at all. It will lead to South Africa’s eventually having only one multi-racial Parliament to deal with and decide on all general affairs. It will lead to conflict debating in the new Chamber and greater conflict and strife, not only between Afrikaner and Afrikaner, but also between White and non-White. That is something the NP said over the years could be eliminated only by a policy of partition, of separation, so that each of these various peoples could have its own Parliament.

The CP cannot associate itself with the amendment of the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition at all. It will be quicker in coming, but the NP’s motion is on its way to fulfilling the PFP ideal in any case. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I gladly accede to the request by the hon member for Rissik that I should enter the debate. I accept his invitation with the greatest of pleasure. [Interjections.]

We must just get a few things into perspective. The principle of joint sittings and, consequently, the principle of joint debating…

But not decision-making!

… is contained in section 67 of the Constitution, which provides, among other things, how and under which circumstances joint sittings should be held.

The only prohibition imposed by section 67 concerns the question of joint decision-making. With all due respect to the hon member for Kuruman, the fact remains that whether we sit jointly or in our separate Chambers, we do not work with a numerical majority of the total number of members of Parliament when it comes to decisions on general affairs. Indeed, we work with concurrent majorities.

What about the assurance in the little blue book?

I want to take it further, and I am addressing the hon member for Kuruman in the same courteous language that he used in this debate. Of course the hon member and I are going to have our respective standpoints and we are going to debate them with each other. That is why we have a parliamentary institution. However, the question is not whether we are going to conduct a debate, but whether we are going to do so responsibly. I am not ashamed to debate our respective standpoints with the hon member in the presence of Coloured people, Asians or Blacks.

Or the Broederbond!

It is actually a reflection on ourselves for hon members of this House to say that we cannot conduct a joint debate because we cannot behave like this in the presence of other people. [Interjections.] I want to emphasise this point very strongly today.

I shall just refer briefly to the next thing the hon member for Kuruman said. He had been expecting me to make the announcement concerning joint sittings, but then the hon the Minister of National Education entered the debate.

Surely this is not correct, because the concept of joint sittings is contained in the Constitution on which we held a referendum, after all. [Interjections.] The distinction that the hon member does not draw, however, is that the parliamentary institutions are created in terms of the Constitution, but that the Standing Rules and Orders regulate the functioning of these parliamentary institutions. That is why we are not concerned in this debate today with the Constitution and its institutions, but with the functioning of those institutions as far as the legislature is concerned.

I should like to begin by conveying my thanks to you personally for the guidance you provided as chairman of the Committees on the Standing Rules and Orders of this Parliament. Secondly, in all fairness, I should like to convey the thanks and appreciation of this side at least, to the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, to whom these sensitive negotiations were entrusted, and who did an excellent job.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I want us to understand that when we debate the Standing Rules and Orders, it basically concerns the success or failure of parliamentary institutions, for in our debate on the adaptation or possible adaptation of the Standing Rules and Orders, we must to a large extent bear in mind that a new parliamentary system is in operation in South Africa.

Then the hon member for Kuruman says that the House of Assembly does not have enough work to do! That is why I want to make this point today. Did anyone of us expect, in all fairness, that a new Parliament with three Chambers or Houses should be able to function in exactly the same way as a Parliament with one House?

Old Jan thinks so.

Secondly, the activities of Parliament are surely not determined and evaluated in their entirety purely on the basis of what happens in Parliament, in the various Houses, and in public. Surely this is not so. The fact is that in terms of the Constitution, standing committees function as extensions of Parliament and all its Houses. We are therefore creating a false impression by suggesting that if the House of Assembly and the Houses of Representatives and of Delegates do not sit in public, Parliamentary activities have come to a standstill. That is not correct, and we must not create that impression.

I did not say that the House of Assembly had no work to do.

There has been a fundamental change in the activities of the House of Assembly. The Committee Stages, including those of measures dealt with in the House of Assembly, take place on the Standing committees and not in this House. [Interjections.] That does not mean that Parliament is not functioning properly. On the contrary…

Why can we not finish tomorrow?

I did not interrupt the hon member, and I am really engaged in debate now. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and ask whether it is not also factually correct that the workload of members of the House of Assembly has increased phenomenally as a result of the new system. The workload has increased basically as a result of the fact that members of the House of Assembly sit on standing committees on a continuous basis, apart from the formal sitting of the three Houses of Parliament. Because of this, it became necessary to review the Standing Rules and Orders.

It is consequently recommended—in recommendation 1(13), if I remember correctly—that we should re-examine the functioning of Parliament. It is correct that we should do so, and in fact, I personally maintain that there are many reasons why we should give priority to that particular recommendation.

I want to come to the hon member for Groote Schuur, and I want to tell him that I am grateful for one thing at least, and that is that he did not conduct the debate today on the basis of the other reasons for his party’s opposition to the Constitution, but only on the basis of the functioning of Parliament in terms of the Constitution.

I was sorely tempted.

Yes, I accept that.

The mere fact that at its inception, Parliament adopted its joint rules for a period of two years shows that we all foresaw that adjustments would become necessary in the course of the development of the new Parliament’s functions in terms of the 1983 Constitution. We are simply giving effect at the moment to our own standpoints at that stage.

Let us be quite honest with one another today. Few people would deny that at the inception of the new Parliament, when it came into operation, we felt some trepidation about whether the new system would be a success or a failure. I for one had a feeling of trepidation.

We knew it!

Yes, but since then those hon members have learnt nothing. That is the trouble with them. [Interjections.]

We knew it was not going to work and now you are also saying that it has failed! [Interjections.]

Now there are two specific aspects of the debate that I wish to discuss with hon members. Firstly, we have naturally been experimenting with the legislative institutions created by the Constitution. Most hon members, in spite of their initial opposition to the Constitution, came to Parliament with a fundamental motivation to make a success of it.

†In this regard I would like to commend hon members. The fact that hon members opposed the principles of the Constitution Act at the time did not preclude most of the hon members from actively working towards the success of what we have created. The reason for this is that is democracy.

Not we!

But that is precisely the point! I said I was talking about most hon members. I did not say that all the hon members were democratic. I said that most hon members accepted the decision.

I am not talking to the hon the member for Jeppe…

We are endeavouring to destroy this system!

The UDF too. You are birds of a feather.

I want to make a second statement. Most hon members have not only tried to make a contribution and to function within the system.

Koos…

Order! The hon member for Kroonstad must not say that! [Interjections.]

Most hon members have not only contributed to making a democratically instituted system work and functioning within it. Most of us now look back, after a period of two years or more, on success that has been achieved in this way. I submit that the story of the functioning of this Parliament as a legislative institution is a success story and not a story of failure. [Interjections.]

However, I want to go further. In discussing these matters, we are dealing with an emotional subject. Whether we like it or not, there is a tremendous intensity of emotion when different population groups or races have to function within the same system. What I want to say in the first place applies to the hon member for Kuruman as well.

What applies to me?

If the hon member listens carefully, I shall tell him what applies to him.

I submit that the Constitution and the functioning of this Parliament have brought about increased opportunity for intergroup communication. No one can deny that. There is greater intergroup communication in South Africa than there was before 1983.

And you have not made any more concessions than you have made since then.

Furthermore, several new structures have been established in terms of legislation which have enabled us—including the hon members in the CP—to look our fellow countrymen in the face, to look one another in the eye, to listen to one another and to learn to understand one another. It is my belief that there is not a single hon member in this House or in the other Houses who has not been enriched by that process and who is not better able to understand other people’s aspirations, expectations and hope for their country.

Does that apply to the Blacks as well?

Otherwise we would not have achieved this success. I want to say to the hon member for Kuruman that the Constitution within which we function is not the final political dispensation for all people in South Africa, after all. [Interjections.] Surely this goes for all hon members, because it is the standpoint of all hon members, after all, that this is not the final constitutional dispensation. So why do we have to quarrel with one another about this? [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I should like to complete my speech.

I maintain that we would not have achieved this success had it not been for the attitude on the part of most members of Parliament that we can associate and co-exist with one another in peace.

I believe that we have learned to recognise the human dignity of people and to respect one another’s needs, aspirations and ideals, but in the interests of South Africa, we have learned to work as partners to promote the general wellbeing of South Africa. In this way, I believe, we have given true meaning to the concepts of patriotism and nationalism, because my definition of these concepts would be that South Africa’s interests should predominate under all circumstances. Many hon members of all three Houses have been able to put this into effect in practice.

Secondly, we have had a new opportunity for co-operation. I want to say again that it could only succeed if all those involved accepted that they depended on one another for the passing of legislation and the taking of decisions affecting the lives of all South Africans. Allow me to say once again that in spite of growing pains, hon members of the three Houses have passed this test to a greater extent than was initially expected. We have learned that it is not possible for one group in Parliament to force another to conform to its wishes, but that by way of cooperation we have been writing a success story.

And by making concessions.

Thirdly, in spite of what the hon member for Kuruman says, the Constitution which brought this Parliament into being has opened up new ways of conflict regulation and the achievement of consensus among groups. The very fact that we are discussing a report on the Standing Rules and Orders today shows that we have achieved a larger degree of unanimity by way of consensus concepts that we had believed possible, and the report we are considering is tangible and visible proof of that fact.

Furthermore, this has only been possible because we have been able to rise above ourselves and because we have been willing and able to adapt and reconcile divergent demands in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of unanimity in the interests of our country.

Fourthly, the new dispensation has required that the concepts of own affairs and general affairs be accepted as complementary concepts in the structure of government. Non-interference in one another’s domestic affairs was to be the basic premise, but at the same time, each group had to take care not to handle its own affairs in such a way as to prejudice or humiliate other people. In particular, we have realised that own affairs and general affairs are not opposites and that they cannot be dealt with in isolation.

In the fifth place, I submit that the new dispensation has required us to act responsibly so as to utilise a new negotiating framework in an orderly fashion and with self-control, in the interests of everyone, and not to use or overstrain the capacity of the new structures to promote our own interests only, at the expense of others.

In the sixth place, the new dispensation has required patience and magnanimity to enable the new structures to grow and mature. No one has pretended, nor am I pretending today, that the structures are perfect or that they are final. They must continue to be evaluated with a view to possible adjustments from time to time.

Finally, in this connection, the success of the new Constitution has depended on the results that we would be able to achieve in the process of co-operation. I am referring to the results as far as attitudes are concerned, but especially to results which affect the promotion of the interests of the entire population. This is an appropriate occasion today to ask what degree success we have achieved and what mistakes we have made; in other words, to review our performance. I suggest that we do so in a sober, rational and honest manner.

†I believe sincerely, allowing for a number of growth pains—they are there and they will also be there in the future—that the new Constitution has proved to be a tremendous success in promoting intergroup relations among the communities. I believe it has proved to be a viable institution of government in a heterogeneous society.

Firstly, I am sure that all hon members have a greater knowledge and a deeper appreciation of the needs and aspirations of the various groups represented in this Parliament.

You are saying that for the second time now.

Of course, Sir, but I am saying it so that other people may hear it too. I am repeating the key words for the benefit of the hon member for Kuruman, because it takes him a long time to understand!

Now you are wasting time.

Secondly, I believe that the new legislative structures have served as effective mechanisms for the articulation of the needs of our constituents and for the negotiation of improved living conditions for all our people.

Thirdly, consensus was obtained in the executive and in the legislative institutions on a large scale with regard to general matters. Do we really take into account, Sir, that over the past two years we have in fact reached consensus on more than 200 general Bills, while only four have been referred to the President’s Council for a decision? I say that is a success record of which this House and hon members can be proud. [Interjections.]

I want to take the matter a step further. It is not a success story only because of the Constitution itself; I believe it is also a success story because of the rules of this House and of the behaviour of hon members in terms of those rules.

*I wish we were able to conduct the debate in the spirit that we are achieving success in South Africa and that constitutional development was taking place which would protect our values.

†I believe that the new structures created in terms of this Constitution have already proved that peaceful and democratic development is possible if the people involved display a proper, positive attitude. I believe that this augurs well for the future of our country.

*I submit that the recommendations of the committee which are before us are another important indication of the success of the new dispensation. Undoubtedly, we would not have had such a recommendation before us if we had not had such a success story over the past two years. That is why I wish to pay tribute not only to you, Sir, for the guidance you provided, but also to hon members who participated, for what they did to make this report possible.

If we had not been able to make joint deliberation, decision-making and government function as effectively as possible, we would not have considered introducing joint debates by the various Houses.

I submit, therefore, that the recommendation of the committee is in the first place a consequence of that success, and in the second place, it creates new realities for the future. For these very reasons, of course, the hon member for Kuruman is opposed to it.

I also submit that the recommendation is a logical and rational consequence of the principles underlying the Constitution. It involves the development of the principle of joint responsibility. It also involves the principle of joint decision-making on matters of common concern. This is a basic standpoint of the Government and this party, whether we disagree with it or not.

If joint deliberation on a group basis, which has already been created in the structures of the standing committees, is accepted on the basis of these recommendations, it can be extended to Parliament as a whole, for the principle is exactly the same. I submit that the decision-making process will run smoothly in this way, without detracting from the principle that each House may eventually take its own decision without interference. That principle remains.

In the dream world in which the hon member for Kuruman lives, there is no joint responsibility nor any need for it among our various communities, so joint deliberation is not only unnecessary, but actually dangerous, in terms of his argument. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the principle of self-determination for every group with regard to its own affairs, as laid down in the Constitution, is not affected in any way by the proposals. [Interjections.] The recommendations only affect those matters that are of common concern to all communities. Moreover, I suggest that joint debating would enhance the opportunity for improved communication, which is an important cornerstone of the Constitution and without which joint decision-making, in terms of the provisions of the Constitution itself, becomes difficult. In this way, we are being enabled to demonstrate that we can in fact communicate successfully, learn to understand one another and come to an agreement with one another.

Unfortunately, the hon member for Kuruman does not grasp the country’s urgent need for understanding among the various communities. The hon member for Kuruman and his party believe only in walls, not in gateways. His party believes only in isolation on islands, not in opening doors to contact and discussion. [Interjections.]

Naturally, the new procedure will make new demands on us. The hon member for Kuruman is right; it is going to make new demands on us. In particular, it will require us to behave in a dignified manner and to moderate our language, as befits civilised people. [Interjections.]

Then the State President will have to weigh his words in the House. [Interjections.]

Moreover, I submit that the joint debating which takes place on the committees at present could take place in public for all to see. Do hon members know what one of the crucial aspects in this connection is? Members of the public do not always see Parliament functioning in the process of reaching consensus, because it takes place on the standing committees and not in public.

I am convinced that we have the ability to continue debating and disagreeing with one another with responsibility and self-control. I submit that after all, we are conveying a message to ourselves as hon members of this House and to other citizens of this country, a message which I want to sum up. It is a message which says, firstly, that peaceful negotiating processes do produce results and, secondly, that democratic institutions are indeed possible in our complex society. [Interjections.] Thirdly, it is a message which says that we can only live in peace with one another on the basis of a set of common values. I can understand that the hon member for Jeppe does not share these common values with me. Therefore he will not understand what I am saying. [Interjections.]

†In conclusion, Sir, I wish to state that I believe this is an urgent message which we have to put across. We are in a process of accommodating all communities in South Africa in decision making, also at central level. I believe we are achieving this through a process of negotiation, while in many other countries such reform or change comes about by way of revolution, conflict and strife.

*Finally, I want to point out that this Parliament must convey a clear message to all the communities of this country, a message that we in South Africa—the Government and other political parties represented in this house—are serious in our wish to negotiate about a solution. I maintain that we are going to succeed in doing so in South Africa. I also maintain that we have reason for optimism about the future of South Africa. In this House we have proof of the way in which adult people from different groups can co-operate with one another in the interests of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated that he had an urgent message to convey to us. It took him nearly thirty minutes to get to it, by which time, I must tell you, the urgency had gone right out of it. [Interjections.] I must say quite frankly that I cannot even remember what it was. I regret it, Sir. I am sorry. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House moved a motion here this afternoon, Sir, calling for a debate on a report signed by you personally.

In the last half-hour, however, I have not heard any reference to the subject-matter of your report. I have not heard any of the subject-matter of that report of yours being debated, Sir, and indeed, prior to that, I heard precious little reference to it too. I did, however, with due respect, hear some reference to it by the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. Therefore, I believe it is with him that I must discuss this matter here this afternoon because, obviously, the other three parties in this House are going to indulge in a full-scale political argument about the Constitution, and they are not particularly concerned with what is contained in your report, Mr Speaker. We have consistently stated what our objective is politically, and we have consistently said what we want to see, namely, all races represented in this Parliament. We have also said that we want to see joint debates.

There is a lot we want, Sir. We know our objective, and we also know that the report you have laid before this House this afternoon, Mr Speaker, is moving us along the road towards that objective. In that we take a vast measure of comfort. [Interjections.] We welcome this report because we see it as a tangible move towards what we regard as the solution to the problems of South Africa. I regret to say, however, that we cannot agree with the amendment moved by the hon member for Groote Schuur. I will deal with this issue, if I may, while I talk about your report.

Firstly, Sir, let me reiterate that the principle of joint debate is something that we heartily endorse. Secondly—obviously, it is for logistical reasons—we accept that this Chamber, which is the only Chamber available to us, cannot cater for joint debates. I concur with what the hon member for Groote Schuur said: Having the chairs carried in and out and having the hon members sit the way we do when we have joint sittings, is not a pleasant experience. We accept, therefore, that it will not be practicable to effect changes without incurring fruitless expenditure. We also accept, therefore, that we are not going to be able to hold joint debates until such time as the new Chamber is completed.

Except for these aspects, however, I differ with the amendment moved by the hon member for Groote Schuur. I do not agree with him when he says that they want to move for the omission of subparagraphs l(4)-(8), because, once one rejects things, one has set one’s position clearly for once and for all. Standing Rules shift under us all the time; standing rules are constantly being amended, and I do not think that we should be too hard and fast in our attitude towards them. I make this appeal because I want to say that if any party in this House would labour under the conditions set out in subparagraphs (4) and (5) of the first paragraph of this report, it would be this party. Certainly the HNP would find this situation untenable. It is suggested that—

And I am now quoting from the report—

And then subparagraph (5) deals with the fact that it is suggested that—

And it lists the four Chambers. Now, Sir, a party of five represented in four places makes for interesting gymnastics; but a party of one represented in four places makes for an impossibility. However, we have proved in the past that the principle of having joint appropriation committees can and in fact does work. Before the advent of the new Constitution we did, in fact, have appropriation committees operating both in this House and in the Senate Chamber. Although it was difficult for the smaller parties, and although we found it particularly onerous at times, we were able to cope, and I do not think we must legislate just for ourselves. We must legislate for what may come in the future. I think the joint appropriation committee system is one that should be pursued and it is for that reason that we are not prepared to support that aspect of the amendment of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition because I think that looking down the track this is something that we should not reject at this time.

We have no argument with the fact that the Transport Services Appropriation bill and the Post Office Appropriation Bill be dealt with separately in the three Houses because it is either that or there would have to be a joint sitting in one Chamber for the debates on both of those bills. Perhaps that could be looked at. Equally, the same remark applies to no-confidence debates, for obvious reasons.

Finally, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition recommends the rejection of the thought of a centrally placed podium. With respect to him I think he argues against himself. As he says, this is going to be a large debating chamber. Surely, by virtue of the fact that it is going to be a large debating chamber, we should give consideration to members addressing the House from a central podium. Otherwise it is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for members rising in their seats to be seen. I also think order will be better maintained and preserved with a member going to a podium. This is not the usage in the United States, as was suggested. I have visited the United States Senate and House of Representatives and members do speak from their seats.

I did not say that.

However, they do have a podium which is used on occasion. The point I am making is that it is not the practice all the time.

Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate that we believe that your report is worthy of very serious consideration by this House. Personally I want to say that I am very grateful for the fact that I am able to serve on your committee because I think that the work of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders is the most interesting work that one can possibly be involved in this place. To me it has always been a great joy, a great privilege and a great honour to be part of that committee.

Sir, I do not look upon this report as being something that is inflexible. I said earlier I believe that rules shift with the times, with the need and with the requirements. I think this is what is going to happen and I have confidence that these rules, these amendments, these thoughts and this report is going to take us on the road towards the goal that we have set for ourselves, and that is the goal of a truly representative Parliament for the Republic of South Africa for all its people.

Mr Speaker, the statement made a short while ago by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about there never having been an instance of one group dominating another is not true. There was the case involving the two Bills on law and order when South Africa stood on the threshold of a revolutionary disaster, a precipice, with the other two Houses opposing the Government’s decision and with this Government, this White Chamber, imposing its will on the Indians and Coloureds by having recourse to the President’s Council. So that statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is simply not true.

We do not know, and we shall possibly never know, how many times the two other Chambers took a stand, for example in regard to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act, how many times they made very strong and clear public statements demanding that those two provisions be done away with—apparently against the Government’s will, at least at that stage, with the Government eventually, for whatever reason, bowing to the will of the other two Chambers.

So merely judging by these few examples the relevant Minister’s statement about this arrangement having thus far been successful because one party has not imposed its will on another, is simply not true.

Secondly I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon the Minister of National Education. He said we must not meddle with the question of the division in South African politics between Pretoria as the administrative, Bloemfontein as the judicial and Cape Town as the legislative capital. He said that we dared not meddle with that agreement because it was an agreement we entered into in 1910. Even though it was not contained, in so many words, in the Constitution of the then Union, the major agreement we entered into was that our democratic order would proceed along the path of what the Government calls the Westminster system. It was never stated that we could not become a republic and it was not stated either that we could not do this or that, but it was implicitly embodied—that was the whole basis of our democratic order which was agreed upon in 1910—in the legislation that we would adopt and maintain the basic parliamentary, legislative and administrative procedures and customs rooted in the Westminster system, as the Government calls it. As I have said, we would also maintain the democratic order which, to a certain extent, we could also call our Dutch heritage or background.

For quite some time now the Government has been hammering at the fact that they are jettisoning the Westminster system.

We did so a long time ago, with the referendum!

That hon Minister must keep quiet; he must not utter another word until I have finished; then he can talk again. [Interjections.] As far as the Government is concerned, that order—ie the Westminster system plus that portion of our Dutch background—on the basis of which our entire constitutional dispensation came into being in 1910 and on the basis of which the Republic…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon member for Kuruman have the right to refer to the hon the Minister as a “tweegatjakkals”?

Order! We have already argued the question of the use of the word “tweegatjakkals” in Parliament. I do not actually know from what angle the hon member is raising the point of order. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am merely asking whether it is permissible, bearing in mind the actual meaning of the expression.

The hon member is just wasting my time!

Order! I am just a little confused at the moment. The hon member is not confused about the use of language; he is raising a point of order on the literal meaning of the word. I then ask the hon member to withdraw it. [Interjections.] Has the hon member for Kuruman withdrawn it yet? A number of people were busy talking.

Sir, I have withdrawn it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the point I want to emphasise at the outset is that with its overall legislative programme, and the overall course it is adopting, in particular as far as this measure is concerned, the Government is consistently, day after day, detracting from the agreement we Whites concluded with one another in 1910. As the Minister himself stated, one would experience difficulties if one meddled with the Pretoria-Bloemfontein-Cape Town arrangement.

Today let me warn him of the difficulties that he, this Government and South Africa as a whole are going to experience with the dismantling or destruction of our democratic order that has grown out of the Westminster and Dutch traditions. The dismantling of that structure is going to embroil us in difficulties in South Africa. It will give rise to violence as far as South Africa is concerned, and it is going to lead to disasters ten times worse than any that one could experience if one meddled with the Pretoria-Bloemfontein-Cape Town issue.

Secondly, let me again issue a warning: As soon as we make it impossible, within the traditional framework of our Westminster and Dutch heritage, for the Whites to impose their will on White South Africa as a whole, there will be violence and bloodshed. Let us understand each other very clearly. We are not prepared to have those traditions thrown overboard by this Government, the communists or anyone else.

Secondly I want to emphasise that the techniques adopted by the Government are, to our way of thinking, completely dishonest, and I shall indicate why. In America, with the advent of the New Deal under President Roosevelt, there was a long period in which there were accusations from the then Republicans about the New Deal being nothing more than creeping socialism. What they meant was that although the American government did not want to come right out and say so, it was introducing increasingly more socialistic measures which would eventually, according to them, disrupt the normal, familiar American economic order. In other words, that government was accused of not wanting to say, frankly and honestly, what course it was adopting.

I accuse this Government of “creeping integration”. The Group Areas Act serves as an example. The Government says that it is not going to abolish the Act, that Group Areas are to remain, but that the Act is not a sacred cow and is to be amended. The same sort of thing pre-dated the steps taken in the case of the Immorality and Mixed Marriages legislation: They said they would not do this or that, or would not do it in a certain way, but eventually it nevertheless did happen.

Today the Government comes along with this proposal, even though the Government told us in the 1983 referendum that the new dispensation was to be based on three separate Chambers. They set the minds of the voters at rest—to a large extent even HNP members—about the three Chambers not being integrated. It was expressly stated in the agreement with the voters in the referendum that the three Chambers would not be integrated. Now the Government is also dismantling that. They are fragmenting, shattering, destroying the firm impression the voters had when two thirds of them voted for this system. We are now moving towards a fusion of the three Chambers.

Hon members must now take careful note. As far as the three separate Chambers are concerned, the Government has said that it is a principle of the new White-Coloured-Indian order that there will be three Chambers. The committees are mixed, however, they are piebald, amongst other things because it is a practical arrangement; functions are performed behind closed doors, with the public seeing and hearing nothing. This is something quite different to the outward manifestation of the system of three separate Chambers.

Now the hon the Minister of National Education comes along this afternoon and says that the principle that now applies in the committees must replace the principle laid down in regard to the three Chambers when the referendum was held. That is completely dishonest. At the time the three Chambers were presented as the specific principle, the committee set-up being a practical arrangement that had to be made to have the overall system succeed. They are now elevating this practical arrangement to a principle, with the erstwhile principle being reduced to something which is no longer a principle. That is dishonest. It is completely dishonest, and I am stating it mildly if I call it “creeping integration.”

The hon the Minister of National Education also said that with this measure before the House this afternoon we were moving away from confrontational politics or from confrontation. Let me warn the hon the Minister, and the House too, that there are going to be clashes and that feelings are going to run much higher; there will be sharper clashes in a multiracial debate than in a debate between Whites alone. English-speaking people in South Africa, in particular the PFP, are so deeply rooted in the same traditions on which our whole order is structured, that they can still calmly discuss even the harshest or most uncompromising statements that we make on this side of the House. The same applies to us. If the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates were to take part in a debate here and we were to debate with him the statement he made during his first speech here, about their pain and suffering as a result of apartheid measures, and we tackled him on what he and others of his race or people do their minorities, as I was only able to do by way of an interjection, we would have to accept that we were crossing racial boundaries and that the feeling would run much higher and rage more fiercely than this House has ever seen before. However hotly we disagree with the Progressives, we speak from the basis of a given set of values and against a broad background which is, to a very large extent, the same. [Interjections.] That is going to fall away, however, and the Government has already acknowledged as much by saying that we should speak from a podium. What nonsense is that?

We must now hold lectures—that is what it amounts to, because the moment one takes up a position behind a podium, one is holding a lecture—and this would destroy the whole spirit and atmosphere of the debate. [Interjections.] We would then have one hon member after another standing there and presenting a little lecture, with everyone facing in the same direction. I wonder whether the Government understands what a destructive effect it would have on the whole tradition of sound, lively, given-and-take debating if we were asked to speak from a podium. [Interjections.]

Firstly let me state that I do not want to speak from a podium. They will definitely have to make additional provision for me. I want a small table top here next to me on which I can arrange my cuttings and various other items, because having a podium in front of one is merely a hindrance. One cannot give vent to one’s feelings from behind a podium to the same extent that one could if one simply stood up in the House to speak one’s mind and unburden one’s heart. [Interjections.] Of course one cannot, and every hon member in this House knows it. How could stand there behind a podium like a lay-preacher? No, let me tell that hon Minister that the fact that they want us to speak from a podium is an acknowledgement, on their part, that in terms of that system feelings and emotions are going to run higher than is the case at present.

That is, in fact, an acknowledgement.

They know it! They are acknowledging as much—that is why they want us to stand behind a podium. [Interjections.]

If the Government proceeds with this proposal, I want to know how on earth the Government is still going to maintain separate dining facilities.

That is your stomach talking now!

The degree of separation that still exists in the dining-rooms—we know that the Coloureds and Indians have now proved for themselves that they have the right to eat in the “dun-eet” as well—is now also going to fall away because it would no longer make any sense.

I also want to ask the Government how it can still say that the political parties, all the political parties, cannot and must not eventually accept members of other races. How is the NP going to remain White? What right has the NP to continue saying that it will remain White once this new dispensation is implemented?

What will happen under the new dispensation if one portion of the Indians and one portion of the Coloureds take sides with the Government, for example, against the CP and the HNP or, as could happen at times, even against the PFP? What would happen then? Let me tell hon members that I shudder to think how, in our search for consensus, we are heading for greater problems, more tension and more hostility than we have even had before!

As far as the functions of MPs are concerned—I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also referred to this; he spoke of the MPs with their greater load—an arrangement must now be made to facilitate those parliamentary functions.

When this Government abolished the provincial set-up, fundamentally abolished it, incorporating the MECs in the new dispensation and doing away with the services of the MPCs, thus placing a greater burden of work on our shoulders at the time, why did the Government not tell us then that this change was also going to result in our having to make a new arrangement so as to lighten the burden carried by MPs here? They did not say it at the time. At the time there was no thought of lightening our workload. Now they are latching onto—this is absolutely false and dishonest—the greater workload as an additional reason why that system should be implemented. [Interjections.]

If they had been honest, if they had put their cards on the table, they would have done their planning at that stage and said: “We realise it is going to entail a greater workload for you, and we shall therefore have to make some new arrangement; and the new arrangement we are going to make is that of introducing joint debates.” The Government, however, did not do so.

The actual reason is a political one. The speeches of the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have nothing to do with the real reasons. The speeches they made here this afternoon could just as well be thrown into the waste-paper basket. This new proposal has everything to do with the fact that the momentum of the whole move to the left in Durban has come to a standstill because the Government is unable to make the National Statutory Council a reality and therefore desperately has to do something to re-establish the momentum of the move to the left. That is the reason. The NP can say whatever it likes this afternoon, but on this point the PFP is going to agree with us. At the second Rubicon the State President, like a two-year old, splashed around in midstream because he has to give new momentum to the move to the left, but has not done so.

Let me just say here in the House this afternoon, that the other afternoon I was sitting in the Springbok Chambers about two metres away from a very prominent White professor at a university in the Western Cape. I could not help hearing his discussion, because he was sitting so close to me. He was saying to a reporter: “I am shocked at the speech the State President made in Durban because the momentum of the whole reform movement has bogged down and has ground to a standstill.” [Interjections.] He said that, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The English-language Press, a large portion of the Afrikaans-language Press, countries abroad, President Reagan, Mrs Thatcher and the whole world would agree. [Interjections.] The visits of the Eminent Persons Group and of Sir Geoffrey Howe to South Africa were failures. The whole effort aimed at giving South Africa a boost by the new step of granting political rights to the Blacks in the present dispensation has thus far been a failure. The state of emergency has not yet been lifted. The Government simply cannot allow the momentum to the left to come to a standstill, and that is why it is coming to light with this step this afternoon. It has been done purely from the point of view of political expediency; it has been done solely to give the outside world the impression that even if they have not come to light with the National Statutory Council—that was the whole purpose of this session which has been convened, but they cannot come to light with it, because they cannot get a single prominent Black leader to serve on the National Statutory Council—they did think of an alternative, and the best and most dramatic alternative they could latch onto was that of announcing that there would be joint sittings. [Interjections.]

The HNP will vote against this Bill.

I say: “Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye!”

We are voting against this Bill in all earnestness because it gives expression, is going to give expression—in the long run that is also the Government’s intention—to the Government’s view of one overall South African nation consisting of a certain number of minority groups.

Parliament must be the outward reflection of the Government’s idea of a nation, and that hon Minister who is, after all, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, knows it as well as I do. On this point we shall, in the future, be tackling him more concertedly than we have done in the past, and not in Vereeniging or anywhere else will he be able to get away from the fact that he and his Government are indeed in the process of at least getting the Indians and Coloureds absolutely entrenched with the Whites in one racially mixed South African nation.

That is why we are asking, demanding, from this Government that a general election be called or that a new referendum be held, because in 1983 it grossly deceived the voters, its own voters, when it presented them with quite the opposite picture.

At that time the Government did not tell them about everything it was planning to do, and although they regard it as an achievement to have reached this point in two or three years’ time, that is not what they told the voters in 1983. In that sense, therefore, they do not have a mandate either. Not only do they not have a mandate to incorporate the Blacks, but they do not have a mandate to take the South African electorate any further along this road either, because in 1983 they did not give the voters even an inkling of what was to come. That is why there is only one solution for the Government, and that is to ask the people of South Africa to decide anew, either by way of an election or by way of a referendum, so that we can give them the facts as they have subsequently manifested themselves.

I have no doubt that the White people, the Afrikaans-speaking people and the patriotic English-speaking people, will sooner or later rise up and reject the Government. We shall nullify everything the Government has done, regardless of who votes for us or against us in this regard.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether there are some English-speaking people who are not patriotic?

Yes. Let me just explain what we mean by patriotic English-speaking people. [Interjections.] We say that the Afrikaans nation is the original indigenous White nation.

And they are all patriotic.

They are all patriotic in the sense that they are members of an indigeous White Afrikaner nation. [Interjections.]

In the course of time a large number of Whites who spoke English and various other languages were added. Those Whites, English-speaking, German-speaking or whatever, who identify themselves with the struggle of this indigenous White nation—it is in our programme of principles—to maintain and promote its sovereign independence as a people in its own fatherland…

They are in the minority.

It does not matter how many there are. Experience tells us that they are increasing. [Interjections.] We say that those English-speaking people… [Interjections.] Hon member is now interrupting me. By patriotic we do not mean that a person only loves South Africa. Let me explain that to the hon member for Parktown. I am not saying he is unpatriotic, because I do not know what his eventual standpoint will be. We use the term “patriotic” for want of a better term. All Whites of other nationalities who identify themselves with the struggle and endeavours of the Afrikaner people to survive here in South Africa as a sovereign White nation, with political power and authority over its own fatherland, we shall, for the time being, call patriotic Whites of other nationalities. In so far as they identify themselves with our struggle and endeavours, we include them in our ranks. It is our endeavour, if they can be won over in the course of time, if they can be convinced… [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member put a question to me, and I should very much like to take the opportunity of explaining our standpoint.

What about the Indians?

No, we do not include the Indians and the Coloureds.

The Blacks, yes. [Interjections.]

Are the Blacks indigenous Whites? [Interjections.]

Order!

Stoffie, they tell me you are a Dutchman. [Interjections.]

I can see the hon member is afraid of the explanation, because they did not know this. They did not know how the land lies. They are afraid of this explanation. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must now give the hon member a chance to provide a comprehensive reply to the question.

Sir, we increasingly want to persuade Whites of other nationalities, chiefly the English-speaking Whites, to accept, by way of a democratic process—in no way does one need to enforce it—the view that we should move in the direction of Afrikaans as the only official language in South Africa. To be able to do this, whilst preserving the present constitutional language rights of the Whites, there must be a two-thirds majority. The Afrikaners do not constitute two thirds of the population, and will probably never do so either; we must therefore persuade a large portion of the English-speaking people to accept Afrikaans as the only official language in South Africa, not because we want to do away with English, but because we want to strengthen even more those ties binding Whites of other nationalities to us as the indigenous, original White nation, as was the case with the advent of the Republic. That is the goal we strive for. It is an idea that we believe can be realised. [Interjections.] If the Whites of other nationalities cannot, by way of a democratic process of persuasion, be persuaded to accept this idea, it cannot be brought to fruition. [Interjections.] If we could persuade them, however, and obtain a two-thirds majority, we would like to bring the ideal to fruition. That is the HNP standpoint, and we have no problem in putting this logically to reasonable, fair-minded English-speaking people. [Interjections.]

Order! That is the longest reply to a question that a member has ever been allowed to make in this House.

Mr Speaker, I do not often agree with the statements of the hon member for Water-berg, but if there is one statement with which I do agree wholeheartedly, it is the one he made when he called this hon member a “rare bird”. [Interjections.]

You are an eldana! [Interjections.]

One need only have listened to his reply to see how he managed to pass from the state of emergency to Sir Geoffrey Howe in his reaction to the report; that takes some doing! [Interjections]

Except in this lighter vein, I do not want to argue with hon members about this report today. It was my privilege to be personally involved with it to a large extent. Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the very considerable freedom of movement you allowed me in the process and for the opportunities you afforded me to consult you intimately in this regard.

When we embarked on the new constitutional dispensation—and in this context I am referring specifically to the House of Assembly—to a large extent we probably introduced a new system. However, to a large extent we still adhered to the Westminster system in respect of the other traditions of our system. It is strange that the most conservative hon members should be those who want to retain the Westminster system. We adhered to it for such a long time because we developed a certain pattern of debating in this House. Over the years we maintained a style of confrontation, and we have not yet succeeded in escaping from that, despite the work that is being done in the standing committees.

Some hon members sit and sulk in the standing committees, but they are the most talkative members in this House.

Who are they? Name them.

I do not want to be personal, because I do not want to fight with hon members. [Interjections.]

Name them if you are a man!

The hon member for Kuruman need not look too far afield if he insists that I name the hon members. [Interjections.]

If the cap fits, wear it!

The hon member need only look at the hon member for Rissik, who served on the two most important standing committees—those on Home Affairs and on National Education—but hardly ever opened his mouth in those committees. [Interjections.] The hon member challenged me, so I am now challenging him to deny that he hardly ever opened his mouth in the standing committee. However, he is the most talkative member in this House. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein East does not open his mouth in the standing committees either.

That may be so, but at least he does not open his mouth in this House as often as the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.] The fact is… [Interjections.] The problem, Mr Speaker, is that those hon members are afraid of being tested against a certain standard. Now the hon member for Kuruman contends that in such a joint sitting the State President will have to be careful what he says. I should like to say this to the hon member for Kuruman today: I believe he would be disgraced if he saw how members of the House of Representatives and of the House of Delegates behave towards the State President.

That is just like you! You are now comparing Whites to Coloureds! It is a disgrace!

Oh, Jan, you are just filled with hatred!

The hon member for Kuruman is filled with hatred to such an extent…

You are a disgrace!

He is filled with so much hatred towards his Head of State that he could learn a lesson every day in each of those two Houses on how one should behave towards one’s Head of State.

P W Botha deserves nobody’s respect! [Interjections.]

You are a typical example of you new Nationalists! You are a disgrace!

Do keep quiet now, Jan! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in this report of yours it is proposed that there be a central podium in the Chamber of Parliament from which speeches may be made. I foresee that such a central podium will change parliamentary debating dramatically. In this one respect, I believe, the hon member for Sasolburg did discuss the report itself. He complained about the proposed podium. He said he wanted his own place where he could put his papers and where he would have his gallery. [Interjections.] Although, of course, this is not the object of this proposal, the following point is still valid. Remove that hon member from his gallery and put him in a place from where we all have to speak—where he would be alone with his Creator—and we shall see a completely different picture. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to disturb the hon member for Sunnyside. He is sitting so quietly in his seat. [Interjections.] It really is not my intention to offend the hon member for Sunnyside.

Order! A short while ago an hon member also singled out hon members here and launched personal attacks on them. The debate took a turn for the worse that evening and had some ugly consequences. I want to tell the hon the Chief Whip very bluntly that my policy in this House is that we should refrain from being personal. I think this matter has now been taken far enough.

Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. I actually wanted to compliment the hon member for Sunnyside, but if you say so, I shall not compliment the hon member for Sunnyside.

He is not worth any compliments anyway.

Mr Speaker, I want to come back to the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, who introduced this debate. I have, of course, often had discussions with the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition about this matter. I am grateful for the way in which we were able to discuss matters. Now, however, the hon the Chief Whip has come up with an over-simplification which, unfortunately, has become common practice in many circles, and that was to suggest that since joint sittings of all three Houses were now going to take place, all the problems would be solved, and it would no longer be necessary for certain Houses to adjourn—everything would go smoothly. However, Mr Speaker, allow me to remind the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that this House is not the only place where this report is discussed. This report has already been discussed in the House of Representatives, where it was dealt with by the Leader of that House. It was also discussed in the House of Delegates, where the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in that House dealt with it. Those people can speak for themselves as far as this aspect is concerned. I honestly believe that it is most inappropriate for the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to regard it as his special task to speak on behalf of those two Houses. They have been given the opportunity to speak for themselves, and they have availed themselves of it. They agreed to this report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders without moving any amendments in respect of it.

Therefore, to suggest that it is “perfectly simple” to introduce joint debating in respect of all debates, is simply a euphoria, if the hon member thinks it is going to save time.

I did not say it would save time.

No, but the hon member did say it would be a very practical arrangement. Surely, a practical arrangement implies that it would be possible to dispose of the business of Parliament within reasonable time. I think the hon member will concede that.

This year’s debates on the Votes already serve as an indication of the effect of joint debating. If, for example, we should decide to deal with a few comprehensive Votes on general affairs, such as Parliament, the State President, Constitutional Development and Planning, Foreign Affairs, Law and Order and Defence—I could add many more, but for the purpose of my argument I shall confine myself to these examples…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Chief Whip a question?

No, Sir, I am not going to allow myself to be tempted.

So, if those Votes are to be discussed in the Chamber of Parliament at a joint sitting—ie with the members of all three Houses present—without changing the rules to such an extent that the time allotted to each House is drastically reduced, and if the time needed for each Vote is determined individually, then, surely it is practical to accept that since, at present, three debates may be held simultaneously, as it were, in the three Houses, the time will have to be accumulated. This accumulation of time will entail that in order to deal with only those six Votes in this year’s Budget at a joint sitting, 40½ hours’ additional sitting time will be required.

That was not what you said in 1984.

In order to save time, it is proposed that appropriation committees be created which can meet simultaneously at various venues.

To use this year’s Votes as an example again, if the appropriation committees on Education and Development, Justice and Agricultural Economics sit simultaneously as three different appropriation committees, because the membership does not overlap to such a large extent, about 300 minutes or five hours would be saved in the process. Likewise, in the case of Manpower, Environment Affairs, Home Affairs and National Health, more than six hours would be saved.

I want to summarise by saying: Say for example we discussed those votes in the Chamber of Parliament, in the full committee of all three Houses, which would mean an additional 40 hours, then, with the total time allotted to these appropriation committees, the session would last only one week longer.

As far as the financial and tax Bills are concerned, again calculated according to 1985’s sitting time, it would mean that the session would be extended by 2½ weeks. The 1985 session was relatively short as far as legislation was concerned. Calculated according to the time of the 1985 session—there were joint sittings—we would have sat about two weeks longer on legislation. If one looks at this year’s legislation, it would necessarily have been considerably longer. In total, therefore, conservatively calculated, the session would have lasted an extra six weeks or two months, and to simply say that it is going to be easier and more effective, is, therefore, not quite correct.

I should like to come back to the present situation just for a moment, because I think recommendation 1(13) is one of the most important recommendations contained in this report. In terms of this recommendation all aspects of a parliamentary session should be investigated and proposals for a possible alternative be submitted. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already dealt extensively with the new attitude that should prevail in respect of parliamentary sessions. Hon members must accept—and I think we as parliamentarians have learnt to accept this—that under this new dispensation the business of Parliament has become a continuous process. Perhaps it will become continuous to an even larger extent. So, the adjournment of one House does not mean the adjournment of Parliament. We have, on many occasions, tried to spell out to the media that the adjournment of one of the Houses does not bring Parliament to a standstill. Despite this, controversy about the adjournment of Houses does arise from time to time, as happened last week in relation to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. This causes some of the members to develop feelings of guilt—quite unnecessarily so—hence the statements sometimes made by some of them that the system is not working. It is precisely because the system does work that the business of those Houses is concluded earlier. Proportionally there are fewer members in those Houses, and also smaller Opposition parties. Those Houses do their work—that is the purpose of this system—in the standing committees. They do not sit and sulk in the standing committee and then try to settle the matter in public in their House. They do their work in the standing committee, and if they support a Bill, which happens in most cases, then… [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, with due respect, the temptation is becoming irresistible.

You should stop deriding your own people for a change.

Mr Speaker, in other words, if in future this House of Assembly should be compelled to suspend its public activities in order to afford the standing committee the opportunity to dispose of its business, it will not be a question of the system breaking down or being unsuccessful. [Interjections.] It will be because standing committees must be afforded the opportunity to analyse legislation. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Kuruman can carry on with his running commentary. I do not want to be personal, but despite the fact that he is the Chief Whip of his party, he has never shown any understanding of the proceedings in this place and his contribution is limited to cheap political arguments. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it will be necessary for the standing committees to consider the compelling nature of their activities from time to time. A fine tradition of examining legislation incisively in the standing committees is developing. In comparison with the old Westminster system, a process has developed whereby each standing committee goes further than the old select committees used to go. So every Bill has, as it were, become the subject of a commission of inquiry, in that evidence is called for on a very broad basis and documents are called for.

Consequently it is to be expected that it could take weeks before a Bill is placed on the Order Paper, whereas under the old dispensation, it went directly from the Government Law Adviser to the Order Paper. The reason for this is that the standing committees do their work properly. They do not only endeavour to reach consensus, but also to improve the legislation and to accord the private sector a say in the matter. If all hon members participated in the activities of the standing committees, they would perhaps not feel the need to try and rectify matters here in this public Chamber.

I can foresee that even during the course of this short session, this House will have to suspend its public activities from time to time and adjourn so that the standing committees may complete their work at a more urgent pace. This is necessary for the smooth functioning of this House. In subparagraph (13) it is recommended that the whole system of parliamentary sessions be reconsidered. Apart from the other recommendations, which include approval of the rules, the cardinal recommendation, in my opinion, is that the pattern of parliamentary sessions be reconsidered.

Under the present system hon members are increasingly called upon to spend time away from home. We shall simply have to develop a standing committee system that will enable hon members periodically to spend an uninterrupted period of time in their constituencies. We therefore wish to strongly support the proposal in the report that the whole system be investigated. We should like the committee that is to give that instruction, to give instructions now that the matter be investigated as a matter of urgency. However, the instruction must be that a broad-based investigation be undertaken, since the South African experience is not the only one; there are other democracies, too, which have acquired experience in this regard. We must look at how other people approach the matter, so that we can design a system of parliamentary sessions which will not only result in the best possible legislation, but which will also accommodate hon members in the process.

Mr Speaker, the hon Chief Whip of Parliament…

Order! Before the hon member for Rissik proceeds, I should like to set the record straight. While the hon Chief Whip of Parliament was speaking, the hon member for Kuruman repeatedly said to him: “You are scandalous!” The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Before the Chief Whip of Parliament rose to speak, the hon member for Kuruman loudly and repeatedly shouted at him: “You are an ‘eldana’!”. The word “eldana” is the scientific name of a type of worm. Now, I just want to ask whether it is permissible to resort to this kind of method to say that another hon member—in this instance the hon Chief Whip of Parliament—is a worm. May an hon member, therefore, use a scientific name and shout it across the floor of the House?

Aren’t you clever, Jan?

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

…, you are a worm!

Order! The hon member Mr Vermeulen will withdraw that remark, and under the circumstances he will also apologise.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member will also apologise!

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask whether it is permissible for one hon member to say to another hon member that he is a worm.

Order! No, it is not permissible. That is what I have just ordered the hon member to withdraw.

Mr Speaker, according to the hon member for Innesdal—so I understand this—the hon member for Kuruman persistently said to the hon Chief Whip of Parliament…

Order! In that case the word “eldana”—and not the word “worm”—was used. In any case, I shall go into this. However, let me say bluntly that I find it astonishing that an hon member can say to another hon member, immediately after I have given a ruling on this matter, that he is a worm.

Mr Speaker, I did apologise.

Order! The hon member did apologise, it is true. But honestly, gentlemen, we really should not allow a decline in the standards of this Parliament. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Kuruman is present in this House at the moment. You could no doubt ask him what he meant by the word “eldana”. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member for Kuruman prepared to say what he meant by the use of that word?

Mr Speaker, the hon Chief Whip and I were together on a sugar farm in Natal, and the eldana is a worm that attacks the sugar cane. I therefore withdraw it and apologise.

Order! The hon member has withdrawn it and has, in addition, apologised. That shows how solutions can be found here. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

I wish to say to the hon Chief Whip of Parliament that this debate, and the emotion that has emerged today, are an emotion and a conflict that the leader of the hon Chief Whip predicted as long ago as 1980 in connection with a system of Parliamentary debates in which the principle of power-sharing was an underlying factor. I want to quote this, and then come back to a few of the things he said. The State President said the following:

I wish to reiterate today, as the CP has said over the course of many years, that the path taken by the Government is going to increase in intensity to the extent that it proceeds with these plans without a mandate.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Planning and Development is not present. He came and made his speech; now he has gone. We were not even told that he had apologised or anything of that nature. He has simply gone! I want to say to the hon the Leader of the House that he should not allow himself to be misused by doing this kind of thing.

After the events on 24 February 1982 in the caucus of the NP, the State President suspended us in connection with the issue of so-called healthy power-sharing with Brown people and Indians. I ask the hon the Minister, who is a responsible member of this House, what road we have been travelling over the past four years. Where is the Government taking us? Where is the government going with this country? This particular measure is one which the CP has referred to before. I wish to quote from what my colleague, the hon member for Kuruman, who has been in the fray all day today, had to say (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 10204):

The hon member for Kuruman said that the architects—he had the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in mind—would come to this House after two years and say that the proposals he had made were not working. The hon member went on to say:

What has the hon Chief Whip done in this debate thus far? He has told us here, in a superficial and elementary way, that the tricameral system supposedly does not work. Two years ago my hon colleague predicted this, however, and now the hon Chief Whip of Parliament says that my hon colleague makes no contribution in regard to order, the arrangement of debates and his functioning as a Whip. For many years we served together with the hon Chief Whip on that side of the house as Whips, as senior Whips, and never once in all those years did I hear the hon Chief Whip say that the hon member for Kuruman had not done his work.

On the contrary.

Not once.

Did the hon member not hear what the Speaker’s ruling was?

Sir, you know me as a very obedient member…

Oh?

Yes, in the 20 years that I have been in Parliament, I have never been sent out, nor do I intend to allow that to happen. However I am speaking to the hon Chief Whip now, and I want to say to him that he came up with arguments today which my hon colleague advanced two years ago. I want to quote further, because the NP’s memory is very short; that is to say, if anything at all is left of their memory. The hon member for Kuruman said:

Sir, I am now quoting from Hansard and I must also quote a ruling you gave. It is stated here (col 10204):

Mr Speaker, apparently my hon colleague had prophetic insight. Quite probably he had co-operated long enough with the hon members of the NP. [Interjections.] After this ruling my hon colleague said:

Then the hon member for Mossel Bay—I am pleased the hon member is present—says:

He said “That is not true”. [Interjections.] We as members of the CP clashed with the State President four years ago for real reasons of principle. We predicted these things that are going to happen in South Africa and you know, Sir,…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he can tell me why, if clause 10 makes provision for these additional joint sittings, we are having this debate today? If clause 10 already makes provision for that, what is this debate about today?

Mr Speaker, the hon member should answer himself. While we are dealing with this hon member I wish to quote something else. The hon member for Mossel Bay should listen. My hon colleague the hon member for Barberton spoke during the same period. In col 10276 on 2 July he said:

Now the hon member for Mossel Bay must listen carefully because he spoke just after that. [Interjections.] He rose and addressed this House. What, among other things, did the hon member say then? He said (col 10277):

Then the hon member for Langlaagte says: “I do not fall for nonsense”.

Now I want to say to the hon member—and the hon member, of all people, knows this—that the more one tries to conceal something that is not correct, the more one encounters problems!

During the 1983 debate we wanted to argue about these matters. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning comes here today and states that section 67 of the Constitution which incorporates this provision was agreed on then. How good is the memory of the hon members opposite, however? We were scarcely able to get to section 30 when the guillotine rule was imposed by the previous Leader of the House and we were unable to discuss the other measures.

We have often said in this House that there is no escaping death and the truth. Both are catching up with the NP. Ultimately the truth will destroy it. Those hon members make predictions. They made promises to the voters and gave them assurances. The other day I said that the NP was now composing a song to be sung when they pass the graveyard of broken promises and principles of the NP.

My colleague who spoke today once again made predictions. We said that this system would not stop here. My colleague made speeches in the past in which he was asked why the Government was constructing a big building adjacent to this one. He said that if one took into account the sum total of the members of Parliament one would find that there were still a number of places left. He asked who would be sitting in those places. Today the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—he just spoke briefly and now he is gone—discussed not only Brown people, Indians and Whites who had to speak together, but Blacks as well. The CP says that the Government, through the hon the Minister himself, says that the constitutional development of South Africa has not yet been finalised. As early as the beginning of the year the hon the Minister said—and we hear this time and again when we listen to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—that they want to bring millions of Black people into the same constitutional dispensation—we are now wasting millions of rands—sometimes when I look at what the State President does, I think that if he had lived a thousand years ago he would have declared himself king, with the dynasty he wants to establish around himself. We are here spending vast sums to accommodate the Coloureds, the Whites and the Indians, but the hon the Minister still does not have a plan in regard to how they want to have the Black people accommodated in South Africa. Where are we going with South Africa, where is the hon the Minister going with South Africa? This is a journey to nowhere, except to destruction in the abyss.

When we discuss these things the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke here about the 1983 Act and he then quoted it to us and said that the principle that we would have these joint sittings had been built in as far back as 1983. Why did the hon member for Hercules—who is not present either at the moment—go and tell the electorate at large that the CP was telling lies and untruths when we made these predictions? Now we are getting this. We stated in documents that this was going to happen, and we reiterate today that this is not the final objective. Tomorrow or the next day the Government will say that we have built in here today the decision as to what we are going to do tomorrow and in a year or two.

The hon the Minister who is going to reply must tell us frankly today…

The Leader of the House.

Yes, the Leader of the House. I want to speak seriously to the hon the Leader. In the referendum we had the kind of speech in which it was said that the Brown people will sit here in the Western Cape, we shall sit in the House of Assembly and the Indians will sit in Natal; and that no Coloureds or non-White people would have a seat in the Cabinet. Today I want to ask the hon the Minister bluntly to tell us today whether provision is now also being made for Black people in this new Chamber; he must tell us frankly. If that is the case then I tell him that if he wants to be true to the principles of democracy then that place that is being built is too small, unless he…

You know you are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister should just tell me in what respect I am talking nonsense.

You insinuated that 44 places were being set aside especially for Blacks. That is nonsense!

Very well, then, I shall provisionally take the hon the Minister at his word today. Does he then want to tell me that another Chamber is to be built in South Africa in which the Black people will be involved? [Interjections.] We have to agree to these things and we are using the taxpayers’ money. What system does he have? Does he want to tell me that this is the maximum number of people who, in his view of the new South African nation, are going to sit in this House?

There will be no fourth Chamber.

I am not speaking about a fourth Chamber now. [Interjections.] I am speaking of a single Chamber which the Government built. It is not a fourth Chamber; there are many chambers in this place. I ask whether, in that new Chamber that we are now going to move to…

We are opposed to the principle of one man, one vote in one system. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister should not come up with that kind of thing. Does he want to tell me that in his future dispensation a Black man’s vote will not have the same value as that of a White man?

Surely you know what… [Interjections.]

I do not know; that is why I am asking him. I do not know. He must also state how he is going to accommodate the Black people. A few years ago we predicted that this would happen.

I want to put further questions to the hon the Minister—this is very important—because he has not spelt out to us half, or even a tenth or a hundredth, of the practical problems entailed by the new system. I want to ask the hon Chief Whip what the place of the White opposition in these debates is going to be. How much time is to be allocated to the White opposition parties? With a view to the allocation of time in those discussions I ask whether the time of the governing coalition parties of the other two Chambers and the House of Assembly is to be added together. Is the time that is allocated at present to the CP, for example—the time which will become even more if the Government asks for a mandate so that we can get more hon members here and take over the Government—to be reduced in that Chamber? Will the time allocated to the Official Opposition in each of the Chambers be precisely the same?

What is the situation there? I want to say to the hon Chief Whip that I am equal to the problems of public life. I want to say to the hon member that when we are sitting in standing committees and we differ on a principle, then no matter what I say I will not get the principle changed. Now this hon member wants to make one-sided references today from standing committees so that Die Burger—in other words Mr Freek Swart—will write in his column what he said and in that way that image of the Conservative Party is put about. I want to say to the hon member that a reflection is being cast on his own chairmen in that way because on various occasions they have praised the contributions of members of the Conservative Party and said that we have made a contribution. We said in 1983 that the Government wanted to keep the debates away from Parliament. They want to neutralise the role and the significance of Parliament. They want us to go and speak in the inner circles of the standing committees, and in a new system they supposedly want every member of Parliament to get his rightful time to speak.

That is why I want to come back to the question of the podium. In this regard that hon Chief Whip gave away many of his arguments. In this House the opposition parties—and that includes all of us—are pursuing the National Party. They are short of breath. The PFP is attacking it from the left and we are attacking it from the right. They are so short of breath that they no longer want to have debates here.

Last year we had the spectacle that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as my hon leader and that of the NRP put forward significant problems. However, the National Party no longer wants debate in South Africa. It wants to govern in such a way as to circumvent Parliament. It wants to govern by way of so-called consensus which in every instance signifies a surrender and concessions, and by way of its newspapers, television and radio. By means of this idea of the podium, in terms of which the hon member for Sasolburg will supposedly be taken out of his milieu and will have to go and stand at the podium, they want to try to silence us so that we no longer conduct debates. The Government wants us to stand there and deliver a kind of lecture. [Interjections.] This is a debating institution! [Interjections.] When one looks at the history of Parliament one will appreciate that it is a House in which one speaks and debates. The Government wants us to deliver lectures from the podium, or speeches which could equally well be delivered from public platforms.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that he is not going to silence our discussion in that way, even if I have to use a Biblical expression and say that the stones would then cry out. The Government will not kill democracy in this way. I therefore want to say to the Government that it can come along with all its frippery; it can come with its podium, but we shall state our principles and standpoints as we are doing here now. Just as Brown people, Indians, public servants and the Press reporters are listening to us here, there too we shall state our standpoints to them from the podium. We have never been ashamed or afraid to state the standpoint of the Afrikaner and the White man as against Black, Brown or Indian. [Interjections.]

Nor have we!

Yes, the hon the Minister may not be afraid of them because he is yielding. [Interjections.] However I want to say to him that he can no longer do so before the Afrikaners. The hon the Minister must not cause me to be tempted to do what Mr Speaker warned me against a moment ago. [Interjections.] We shall await the public meetings.

I do so regularly in all the other Houses. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has a different story that he tells over there. There may be one advantage to this new system. Until we have taken over, the NP will have to face the Brown people, the Indians and Blacks and it will not be able to tell two stories. That is perhaps the one temporary good thing that will result from this. The NP will then have to refute our arguments and those of the PFP, while at the same time speaking to the people of colour.

We are not afraid of that! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister says that they are not afraid of that, but they realise, of course, that you will no longer be here in any event. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, the Government threw us out of the NP and misled the people by saying that there were so-called own affairs and general affairs. If I remember correctly it was the hon member for Smithfield who came to this House with a couple from his constituency and said: “Look, this is where the Whites sit alone and talk.”

You are being silly.

No, the hon member’s memory is short, too. The hon member for Smithfield…

Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Rissik not doing exactly what the hon Chief Whip of Parliament did when he was speaking?

No!

Mr Speaker, I shall stop immediately, I just want to say that the Government and the hon the Minister…

Order! The hon the Minister put a question to me. I have been listening very carefully to the hon member. All hon members may debate about something that an hon member said or did, but that is not the same as singling out another hon member and speaking about sitting there sulking and that kind of thing. That is the difference. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker. I am making the general statement that the Government lacks a mandate to do these things, and secondly, that in the mandate it obtained it has misrepresented the way this Parliament operates. [Interjections.] In the third place, the Government has not yet finally outlined its constitutional standpoints in South Africa. I therefore want to say that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and hon members who have spoken, as well as the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, simply came here today and proved that the NP has no course that it wants to follow.

In this regard I agree with the hon member for Sasolburg that those hon members are in search of energy, momentum and a little life in the lifeless skeleton of the NP. They want to get something going again, because outside, everything is stark and lifeless. There is no-one with a sense of responsibility who is not deeply concerned about where the NP is going with this country. If one speaks to convinced left-wingers such as the hon members to my right, who have advocated many of these things over the years, one finds that they do not know either.

This whiting of a sepulchre will get the hon the Minister nowhere. He must deal with the essential issues in South Africa, and then he must give the electorate the full opportunity to select what direction we should take in South Africa.

We are dealing with the essential issues; you are running away from them.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to dwell on the question of the podium. It seems as if we discussed this matter only yesterday. We are going to meet in a Chamber which will have more than 300 seats. Obtaining a loudspeaker system which will work effectively is going to be a problem. My personal feeling, however, is that if the podium becomes a great issue, we need not have it. We can rather build a hall like this one—but at immense cost—with a built-in loudspeaker system which can accommodate everyone, and which Hansard can handle effectively. That is my personal feeling. What is at issue here is not a podium that is meant to cramp people’s style by making them stand and talk in a different way, as indeed the hon member for Sasolburg alleged. The point at issue is the effectiveness of building a hall in which a good loudspeaker system can be installed with a view to decent tape recordings for Hansard. That was the real reason for the proposal in respect of a podium. I see it as no problem at all, however. Members do make use of a podium in certain other Parliaments. Some people say we should have eight podiums. Then people will not have to walk so far.

You have no argument; now you are hiding behind the Chief Whip of Parliament!

Some people say everyone can make use of one podium. To my mind that is not a question that creates great problems, however, Mr Speaker. The purpose of such a podium is not to favour the activities of one group or another. Once one has such a podium, everyone must speak from it. I never thought, however, that this podium would create such a problem.

The hon member for Rissik wanted to know from me…

May I bring my caddy along to hold my books?

Mr Speaker, there are many hon members who speak without notes. The Standing Rules and Orders stipulate in any case that hon members may not read their speeches. It will be a very good thing once hon members have nowhere to put all kinds of papers down in front of them. Then everyone can talk without notes for a change. [Interjections.]

The same should apply to hon Ministers!

The hon member for Rissik put a question to me.

Half of the Nats will not even be able to make speeches anymore!

The hon member for Rissik wanted to know from me whether provision was being made for Blacks in the new Chamber. I now put it to the hon member that this party and this Government do not intend to establish a fourth Chamber. [Interjections.] There cannot be a fourth Chamber with a variety of ethnic groups in it. That is not practical politics.

Why not?

But we are talking about one Chamber now!

There will not be a fourth Chamber. The hon member for Rissik put a question to me, and I am replying to it.

Therefore there will be only one Chamber!

The hon member wanted to know on what basis members would be granted speaking turns and times would be allocated.

In the one Chamber, not so?

Blacks are not coming in. There will be no Blacks in that Chamber.

Not in Parliament? Surely that is what is going to happen!

There will be no Blacks.

Who is going to clean there? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

Yes, ask if you must.

Mr Speaker, I merely want to know whether I understand the hon the Leader of the House correctly. When he says there will be no Blacks in that Chamber, does he mean that there will be no Blacks in the future Parliament? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have said that already. It is clearly on record.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

No, we have too little time! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the House does not want to reply to further questions.

Mr Speaker, the hon member put a number of questions to me. He must give me a chance now to reply to them. [Interjections.] The hon member asked how the opposition parties’ speaking turns and their times were to be allocated. Surely the hon member knows that in the new dispensation we shall allocate the time pro rata as it is done at present. When we note the respective parties’ representation in Parliament, it appears that the HNP and the Conservative Party—on the strength of their representation—are much better off than the National Party.

But hold an election, then we shall see a change! Parliament is not representative of the people at the moment!

I cannot understand, therefore, how the HNP and the CP as opposition parties can be concerned about the speaking turns they are going to get. According to the present system they are much better off in any case than most hon members on this side of the House are. [Interjections.]

We held a referendum about a clear question. There will not be joint decision-making, therefore; only joint debating. The question in respect of joint decision-making is still exactly the same as it has always been.

Joint decision-making will come!

In that respect nothing is being changed.

Joint decision-making will come in any case!

What I want to know, Mr Speaker, is whether this system threatens my continued existence.

Of course! You know that!

Does it really threaten my continued existence?

But you know you are threatening your continued existence by joint decision-making!

Everything and everyone has to adapt. Nothing and no one is static or stagnant. [Interjections.] It could easily happen, for example, that we no longer sit on Mondays next year.

No, that is a poor example!

I kept completely quiet while you were talking, Jan.

Yes, but you must not put forward such weak arguments!

It is Jan Hoon’s privilege to talk all the time, after all!

Mr Speaker, I am a person who adapts to my circumstances. I do so without sacrificing my principles. [Interjections.] I say that next year it may happen that we find it is no longer necessary for Parliament to sit on Mondays. As it is, the standing committees do not manage to finish their work. I should not like to see that the House does not sit on Fridays, because then the people go and look at flowers instead of visiting their constituencies. We could even sit on Friday nights, for example. In this way we are constantly adapting this system, Mr Speaker. It is a new dispensation, with a tricameral Parliament, which has had its growing pains. Now we have come forward with practical proposals. You yourself were the chairman of the committee, Mr Speaker; and the hon member for Kuruman served in that committee himself. He put his standpoint there too. I say it! He is part of the system, however, and he can see we are experiencing problems in getting the system to work smoothly. After all, we can save time by having some joint discussions.

I now want to say I am prepared to say in front of the Indians and the Coloureds what I say in front of the Whites. I do not assume a different standpoint in the other two Houses from the one I assume here. I assume the same standpoint throughout. Nor am I afraid to debate in the presence of Coloureds or Indians. I am not afraid of that; I shall put my standpoint in front of them. That is why I say I believe this step will be to our advantage if we can have joint debating on a fair basis and if we allot the time fairly. I do not think we need have any further argument about this.

Mr Speaker, there is a question which I should like to put to the hon the Leader of the House. We put the standpoint from these benches that if there cannot be two governments, there cannot be two parliaments governing the same country either. Now we have assumed the standpoint that the Government will have to accommodate the Blacks in this Parliament. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, “you are stating the obvious.” Does the hon the Leader of the House agree with that?

Did he say “you are stating the obvious”?

Yes.

That is not my standpoint. [Interjections.]

Amendment put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The operations of the Land Bank are controlled by a board, the members of which are appointed by the State President in terms of section 4(1) of the Land Bank Act, 1944, and which consists of a chairman who is also the managing director of the bank and at least six but not more than ten other members. The remuneration package of members of the Land Bank Board is in line with that of members of certain statutory and other boards similar to the Land Bank Board, in accordance with the current emphasis on uniformity within the public sector.

The remuneration of a member of the Land Bank Board who presides at a meeting in the absence of the chairman was, however, fixed at one guinea per meeting in 1912, and as no change has subsequently been made it compares unfavourably with that of members of statutory and other boards.

Order! Will hon members please lower their voices. The hon the Minister is speaking.

A need has therefore arisen for adjustment.

The Land Bank Act confers special powers of summary execution on the Board of the Land Bank, whereby it may exercise the legal remedies contained in sections 34 and 55 of the Act against a debtor without recourse to a court of law. The bank is also enabled by those sections to exercise its powers of summary execution against a deceased debtor whose insolvent estate is dealt with under the provisions of section 34(2) or (5) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965. Recently, however, section 34 of that Act was amended, and its content was thereby completely changed. It is therefore necessary to amend the Land Bank Act accordingly.

*Land Bank auctions in terms of the Land Bank Act have hitherto been conducted by deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court on behalf of the bank. It is, inter alia, the purpose of the Sheriffs Bill, 1986, which is presently before Parliament, to repeal the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, and the Magistrates Court Act, 1944, relating to the appointment of functionaries of the relevant courts, and to provide for the appointment of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and acting sheriffs for superior courts as well as lower courts. In the circumstances it is deemed necessary that the Land Bank be supplemented so as to provide for auctions to be conducted on behalf of the bank by any one of the functionaries in question, thus ensuring that any auction of attached property conducted on behalf of the bank is legally in order and fully enforceable.

Section 34(9) of the Land Bank Act stipulates that any person obstructing or hindering the attachment or sale of property by the bank shall be guilty of an offence. The value of attached assets has over the years increased out of all proportion to the prescribed penalties and it has lately been found that, on attachment, these assets are dealt with in an illegal manner and that attempts are made to obstruct the Land Bank in the execution of its legal powers in terms of the Land Bank Act. In order to protect the interests of the bank it is deemed necessary to enlarge the penalty clause in such cases.

It is, therefore, the purpose of the Amendment Bill to provide for the remuneration of a member of the Land Bank Board who presides as chairman at a meeting of the board to be brought into line with that of members of statutory and other comparable boards; to provide for references in the Land Bank Act, 1944, in connection with the bank’s legal remedies governing insolvent deceased estates, to correspond with the redrafted section 34 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965; to protect the bank’s interests and any auction of attached property conducted on behalf of the bank; and to increase the penalties for obstructing or hindering the attachment or sale of assets.

Mr Chairman, in my view it is necessary that these technical irregularities be rectified so that the operations of the Land Bank may be adapted to the changed circumstances. I trust that hon members will see their way clear to support the proposed amendments.

Mr Speaker, this Bill has been pending for quite a long time and at long last it has come before the House. I hope to demonstrate in a few moments that there was no need at all to introduce it; that there has been a very substantial waste of public money in introducing it; and thirdly, that this demonstrates why the hon the Leader of the House finds himself in the situation where we are actually filling in time rather than using it expeditiously and effectively in order to pass legislation which is needed.

Before I come to that, I wish to set the record straight by saying as the representative of an urban constituency that the Land Bank fulfils a very important function. Its existence is necessary, and it is required even more at a time when farmers in the Republic of South Africa are in dire need of assistance. I therefore find it a little disappointing and depressing to learn from the latest report of the Land Bank that the actual number of loans granted has apparently been decreasing.

Allow me to quote some very simple figures from the annual report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa for 1985. There were 8 126 loans granted in 1983, 5 397 in 1984 and 3 983 in 1985. On the face of it, I would have imagined that when farmers are suffering hardship, more rather than fewer loans would be granted. The size of the average loan granted also tends to be larger.

If we think this only applies to long-term loans, we should look at the figures for short- and medium-term loans which paint much the same picture. The number of such loans granted in 1983 was 2 298, whereas the number in 1981 had been as high as 3 799. It went down to 1 781 in 1984 and 1 425 in 1985. It seems, therefore, as if the worse off farmers are, the fewer loans are granted to them. I find that a very strange phenomenon which needs some explanation.

Regarding the Bill specifically I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that it is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It has cost us an unnecessary amount of money and involved unnecessary time on the part of the standing committee and this House. I shall demonstrate this immediately by pointing out a number of facts.

Firstly, the Bill really concerns only three issues. The first is a change in designation from “messenger of the court” to “sheriffs” or “deputy sheriffs”. If the gentlemen who sit in luxury in Twin Towers—in flats which have been bought at considerable expense to the Land Bank, and which are unnecessary, whereas directors-general find the lesser luxury of Acacia Park adequate—had taken the trouble to read the Sheriffs Bill to which specific reference is made in the measure before us, they would have seen what is stated in clause 65 which reads as follows:

The Sheriffs Bill has now been passed by this House. I invite the hon the Deputy Minister to explain to this House why, when that provision is contained in the Sheriffs Bill, it is necessary to waste the time of this House in order now to amend the Land Bank Act by deleting the references to “messenger” and substituting them with references to “sheriff’. I should like to have an explanation from him because it is obvious that it is absolutely unnecessary.

The second amendment for which the standing committee was called together and for which this House was called together deals with the insertion of the very important provision that when a person other than the chairman takes the chair at a meeting, instead of getting a fee of one guinea extra for taking the chair, he is to receive a fee to be determined by the Minister. Now, that is a really important provision! It is vital that we all waste our time in order to debate this. That is why one has to have legislation. [Interjections.]

The third provision contained in this Bill is one in which they want to increase the penalty by stipulating that any person who obstructs or hinders the attachment or sale of any property can be put away in jail for two years. During times of drought or difficulty, when farmers are perhaps emotionally affected and may not act completely as a person would act under normal circumstances and they get a little worked up, these gentlemen come along and, for a first offence, want to put them in jail for two years!

“Boerehaters”!

[Inaudible.]

Oh, it is five years if he does it again. When one looks at the original provision which is actually quite fascinating—I shall deal with the various copies and what they have cost us in a moment—one sees that on a first conviction such a person can be sent to jail for two years, and if he does it again, he can be imprisoned for five years. In these emotional times—I think the standing committee agreed with me—when this occurs one certainly should not seek to exact such a penalty. People certainly have to obey the law, but I wonder how you would feel, Mr Chairman, if you were a farmer and you were in difficulties and your farm were to be sold. How would you like to have your belongings sold up around you? Maybe you would not act quite so rationally. Certainly one must obey the law, but suddenly the Government comes with this big stick with which to hit the farmers. If a farmer does something wrong, he must be put in jail for two years or for five years if he does it again.

I understand, and so we were told, that maybe other people would try to obstruct the sale, and not just these people, but for some reason the Government needs to have these heavy penalties against the farmers in these circumstances. It is a little strange that it happens to be a representative of an urban constituency—I want to assure hon members that there are not many farms in Yeoville!—who winds up having compassion for the farmers who are hit by drought and difficulties. The hon the Deputy Minister also does not represent a farming constituency, and he should tell us why he wants to put these people into this kind of situation. [Interjections.] As I see it, this is utterly irrelevant.

So, those are the three real things on which we have to waste our time. However, that is not the end, because when one looks at the original Bill, one sees that they printed 1 650 copies of this masterpiece. Not satisfied with that, 1 650 copies were printed of the amendment which the standing committee effected. Not satisfied with that, they printed 1 650 copies of the Bill as amended. Now a Government Gazette has to be issued. In fact, a whole business has now to be gone through for these three petty amendments.

This could have waited until next year. It could have waited until another amendment to the Land Bank Act was required. If it was so urgent for those people who sit in Twin Towers there at such expense to the taxpayers to justify their being in Cape Town, and if it was so urgent to look on that beautiful view from those very expensive flats, perhaps in those circumstances they could have inserted these amendments in the Financial Institutions Amendment Bill or in some other general financial Bill without having to waste the taxpayers’ money in this way.

I must tell hon members that I want to register the strongest protest, not against the provisions of the Bill because the standing committee has now put them in order, but against what I think is an abuse of the process of Parliament, a waste of the taxpayers’ money and an insensitiveness to the whole situation existing in South Africa at the moment. I support the hon the Deputy Minister when he talks correctly about saving public money. If, however, we calculate what this has cost the taxpayer and use it as an example, then, while we will vote for the Second Reading, I want to express absolute protest at the way in which this thing has been put before this House.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Yeoville has spoken. In his argument on this amending Bill he raised quite a few matters. In the course of my speech I shall be referring to them.

Firstly he launched an attack on the administration and staff of the Land Bank.

The PFP is the farmers’ friend.

After having done so, he as much as told us that he actually represented an urban constituency but was negotiating here for the farmers. What he does, however, is malign those who help the farmers. How can one actually, as the farmers say, “hom kop toe vat”? [Interjections.]

You people leave the farmers in the lurch! [Interjections.]

As an urban MP he supposedly takes up the cudgels for the farmers, but he maligns those who must help the farmers obtain their loans! So we do not actually take him seriously on that score.

They do not help the farmers!

The hon member for Yeoville also mentioned that there was a tremendous decrease in the number of loans that the Land Bank granted in the past few years. I should just like to present to him the note I have here…

[Inaudible.]

That hon member with the beard must listen for a change to what I am going to say. [Interjections.]

The note reads:

That is the reason why fewer loans have been granted since 1983.

The other point raised by the hon member for Yeoville dealt with the timing of this Bill. He asked why it should now come before the House and not next year.

Early this afternoon we had to listen to the hon member for Kuruman saying that we did not have enough legislation on the Order Paper and that we would be able to complete the legislation on the Order Paper by Friday. The PFP members, however, object to there being too many items on the Order Paper, saying that this piece of legislation is actually inopportune and actually makes the Order Paper even longer. Now one actually does not know which of the two groups one should believe. We think it is opportune to pass this legislation now. The standing committee took evidence, the Land Bank explained matters to us and the standing committee and Mr Speaker gave their permission for this Bill to be dealt with this afternoon. We think it is opportune to do so now.

In the amending Bill it is proposed that a few shortcomings in the Land Bank Act, 1944, be rectified with a view to the meaningful adaption of the functions of the Land Bank to the changed present-day circumstances. In clause 2 of the Bill it is provided that if a member of the board, in the absence of the Chairman, is elected by the other members of the Board of the Land Bank to act as chairman, such member will receive such remuneration as may from time to time be determined by the Minister.

The allowance payable to a member of the Board of the Land Bank who is acting chairman in the absence of the chairman of the board, was fixed at an amount of one guinea in 1912 and has never been amended since. Since it has never been amended, in the interim, it compares unfavourably with the remuneration of members of statutory and other boards, and it is therefore essential that the matter be rectified. I think we also owe it to the Board of the Land Bank as such, a board which has, in recent times, rendered a great service to agriculture.

The Bill also provides for amendments to the Land Bank Act to bring action taken in regard to insolvent deceased estates into line with the provisions of the reconstituted section 34 of the Estates Act, 1965.

In terms of the provisions of the Land Bank Act, in the past land bank auctions were dealt with by deputy sheriffs or messengers of the court on behalf of the bank. That is, amongst other things, the object with the Sheriffs’ Act, 1986, which was piloted through this House recently to repeal the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, and the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, dealing with the appointment of functionaries of the relevant courts, and to make provision for the introduction of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and acting sheriffs for both the superior and the inferior courts.

In these circumstances it has become necessary for the Land Bank Act to be augmented to correct any uncertainty that could possibly arise with a view to ensuring that as far as the Land Bank is concerned the Act is legally and fully enforceable.

In section 34(9) of the Land Bank Act provision is made for the fact that any person who obstructs or hinders the attachment or sale of any property shall be guilty of an offence. Higher penalties are also being prescribed. Over the years the value of the attached assets has increased out of all proportion to the prescribed fines, and recently it is increasingly being found that these assets are being manipulated illegally. There were examples brought before the standing committee of people preventing the Land Bank from taking certain steps.

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

No, I want to complete my speech. I am not interested in answering questions. The hon member for Yeoville has had his turn to speak.

To my knowledge the Land Bank has never, in the past, made use of that specific provision to which the hon member for Yeoville referred, ie the one relating to high fines and imprisonment. [Interjections.] It is merely a deterrent.

But…

In order to protect the Land Bank’s interests, it is therefore necessary to extend or increase the penalty in such cases.

When that hon member for Yeoville was maligning our farmers in the Transvaal Provincial Council, my heart was with the farmers, and that will continue to be the case. He should therefore just keep sitting there in his little corner. [Interjections.] So these are essential amendments that I should like to support on behalf of this side of the House.

I also just want to touch on another point while I have the chance. In the period from 1981 we have come to realise anew the correctness of the Land Bank’s financing policy when it helped our farmers with loans at the productive value of land and livestock. I think that those private financial institutions that also provide financing and assistance to agriculture can take note of the events of the past five years and the Land Bank’s financing policy of paying more attention in the future to the productive value and not so much to the market value of a farmer’s land. Before a loan is granted to a farmer, the commercial bank manager ought to look at what the farmer can produce on that land or what he can do with his livestock, and not specifically at the market value of the property. In my view one of the points that the Land Bank has proved to us in the recent droughts has been that we should specifically look at the productive value when it comes to agricultural financing. I hope and trust that our financial institutions will have a look at that and continue this practice where future agricultural financing is concerned.

Since this problem has developed over a few years, it cannot simply be corrected overnight, and I want to ask commercial banks not to change their policy now by being unnecessarily strict as far as agriculture is concerned, not to arrange for unnecessary sales and not to call in mortgages. Just as the State has an obligation in difficult times, I think that the private sector also has an obligation to agriculture, and I would not like the private sector to be unnecessarily strict in calling up bonds and selling up.

I want to make one last point. The Land Bank’s interest rate is 14% at this stage. That is market-related interest. For a farmer who is in difficulties, it is too high an interest rate to allow the farmer to recover. There are also some of our farmers paying 20% and 24% in interest to some banks. I do not think it is right to drag people who already have a large burden of debt even further into the quagmire with interest rates of more than 20%. If the Land Bank, which also borrows its money on the open market, relends that money to agriculture at an interest rate of 14%, I cannot see why private financial institutions cannot do so too.

With these few ideas, let me say that I gladly support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke as far as his praise for the Land Bank is concerned. I cannot disagree with him on that score.

I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that I agree with him regarding the fact that this Bill could have stood over until next year. However, I think that it has for years been necessary that these amendments be effected to the principal Act. I shall dwell on that later.

When it comes to a discussion of the Land Bank, I am always an enthusiastic conversationalist—and always in a positive, constructive and appreciative sense. Since the Land Bank was established in 1912, ie 74 years ago, it has been a topic of conversation in practically every farmhouse and discussion amongst farmers on almost every farmyard and at almost every agricultural society in South Africa. The Land Bank has therefore become synonymous with the farmers of South Africa, irrespective of to which language group they belong. The Land Bank has become part of them, as it were.

When the Land Bank was established in 1912 it made a meagre beginning with a capital fund of R5,47 million. Since 1912, ie for the past 74 years, the Land Bank has often been the lifesaver of many a farmer. It has been instrumental in that thousands of farmers have obtained their own farms. Similarly, the Land Bank has been instrumental in making it possible for thousands of farmers in South Africa to keep their farms when they ran the risk of losing them owing to conditions of nature and other circumstances. The Land Bank has also been the institution that has come to the aid of many a farmer when he has had to plant his next crop. It has also been true that the Land Bank has been the financial institution that has assisted many a stock farmer after a protracted drought to replenish his herds of cattle, sheep and goats. That, Sir, is the Land Bank.

It is, therefore, a privilege for me and my party to support this Bill. The two previous speakers quoted what the few amendments entail which this Bill effects to the Land Bank Act. Firstly, it makes provision for the determination of an allowance by the Minister of Finance payable to a member of the Board of the Land Bank when in the absence of the chairman, he acts as chairman at a meeting of the board. If one were to argue this point superficially, one would say, that if the managing director of the Land Bank is not there to act as chairman, one of the members of the board can act as chairman, since they are there in any event. Very well, one can say this, but what is the role of a chairman? Who would understand this better than you, Sir? All hon members in this House who have on occasion been chairmen of committees and boards, will know that it is a chairman’s task and duty to familiarise himself with the agenda of the meeting he has to chair. It depends on the ability and insight of the chairman as to how smoothly the discussion and decisions will proceed at a meeting.

In this regard it is therefore probably often necessary for the chairman to spend hours of extra time in familiarising himself with the agenda so as to let the proceedings run smoothly, since, as I shall point out in a moment, the Board of the Land Bank does not deal with thousands or hundreds of thousands of rands at these meetings, but millions of rands.

Now it is interesting that in 1912—when the Land Bank was established—it was decided that the allowance of a chairman would be a guinea a day. What is of further interest is that the Land Bank Act was practically rewritten in 1944, but in 1944 the guinea of 1912 was still a guinea. What was the reason for this? I think the reason is that in 1944 a guinea was still a guinea. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask hon members to recall the years 1912, 1920 and 1944 for a moment. Hon members must imagine one of the members who has been appointed as chairman of that board. In my mind’s eye I can see that chairman on a Friday afternoon when the board has completed a difficult week’s work. I imagine the chairman to be someone almost like our Speaker—a disciplined man, a man with authority, and a man for justice, but also a friendly and approachable person. I imagine that on that Friday afternoon in 1944 the chairman said to the members of the board: “Chaps, we have a difficult week’s work behind us; let me take you out for a meal.”

Order! Is the hon member speaking about a guinea or a Guinness? [Interjections.]

Why was he able to take them out for a meal? Because he knew that he had a guinea in his pocket. [Interjections.] They then went and ate. Hon members must also bear in mind that in 1944 one could still enjoy a meal fit for a king for half a crown. [Interjections.] Then the chairman would pay for all eight members, since there were eight half crowns in a guinea. [Interjections.] What is more, there would be a shilling left over—a handsome tip for the waiter.

However, I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance whether, in these times, he sees his way clear to invite seven or eight people to dinner with a guinea in his pocket. [Interjections.] He cannot, and that is why I think these statutory amendments are long overdue, although the hon member for Yeoville disagrees with me. [Interjections.]

No, I just do not want us to waste so much time on that guinea. [Interjections.]

During the past week we have also contributed to a further statutory amendment—the legislation on messengers of the court, who will in future be called sheriffs—and the Land Bank Amendment Bill also brings this principal Act into accordance with that measure by increasing the penalties for the unlawful obstruction or hindrance of the attachment or sale of assets by the Land Bank.

I was a little surprised at the hon member for Yeoville in this regard. I have already told him and many others that I think he is one of the most competent finance people in the country, and I am reiterating this afternoon in this House, but he is also an attorney, one versed in law. I was, however, surprised at him this afternoon when he opposed clause 3(l)(d) which increases the fine from R200 to R2 000, since it comes into operation when a person’s action thwarts a legal action.

You are also against the farmers.

No, I am for the farmers. I am for the farmers because I know the farmers and I know the Land Bank.

You surprise me. Now the CP is in trouble. [Interjections.]

At the beginning of my speech I said that the Land Bank began in 1912 with a capital fund of R5,47 million. From that beginning, according to its 1984 annual report, the Land Bank’s capital fund has grown to R269 809 000. Apart from that it has built up a reserve fund of R257 194 000—a total of approximately R527 million.

This afternoon I want to say that in this case the Land Bank did the one thing and did not neglect the other. Why do I say this? I say this because this capital fund and the reserve fund of the Land Bank could have been bigger if the Land Bank was bent on making a profit. However, the Land Bank always acted in such a way that the farmers would not have to pay too high an interest rate. On the other hand, the Land Bank also acted in such a way so as to build up for itself as a financial institution a fund of R527 million as a reserve and as security. I think this is an exceptional achievement.

I can point out to hon members this afternoon that the 24 branches of the Land Bank throughout South Africa are manned by staff who are willing to listen and who understand the problems of the farmer. I want to say that from the top to the bottom they are approachable and accessible. They are always willing to listen to the problems of the farmer.

I want to make it clear today that I like the Land Bank. I have often said this to people in the Public Service or in the public sector. I always say that what I appreciate about the Land Bank is the fact that it is always accessible and in favour of dialogue. One never finds oneself in front of a closed door at the Land Bank. One does not only come up against people who simply say “Schluss! We can go no further”. Instead one is asked whether it is not possible to take a further look at a problem and to rethink the matter; whether the purchaser cannot perhaps compel the seller in some way to lower his prices somewhat; whether the purchaser cannot increase his contribution somewhat. That, Sir, is what I appreciate about the Land Bank. The Land Bank is always open to negotiation.

Rather tell us about the…

I am talking about accessibility, Sir. I want to give the hon member for Yeoville an example of a truly great man. This happened years ago. It could be as far back as 18 years ago. At the time I was still a young member of Parliament—young in age, as well as in period of service. In my constituency there was a certain Hollander who at that time applied for a loan from the Land Bank. It was rejected. He then approached me about the matter, and I made an appointment with the managing director of the Land Bank. We then went to see him. Beforehand, however, well aware that Hollander perhaps talked too much and often said unnecessary things, I said to him: “Look, Attie, I shall do the necessary talking, and right at the end, if you find it absolutely essential to make a contribution, you can do so—otherwise you had better keep quiet.”

We then arrived at the office of the managing director in Pretoria, and I had the feeling that everything was going well and the matter was making progress. It was clear to me that the big guy understood our problem. When I eventually felt that we had won our case, I made the mistake of asking the Hollander; “Attie, would you perhaps like to add anything?” [Interjections.] The Hollander leant forward and banged his fist on the desk. He said: “Sir, I want to tell you, if you grant me this loan, I guarantee you that you can come and ask me for a job in two year’s time!” [Interjections.]

I conclude as far as my reference to the accessibility of the Land Bank is concerned. What is very important, however—I do just want to add this—is that four days later the Hollander telephoned me and said: “Wollie, you won’t believe me; I have received a letter from the Land Bank, signed by the managing director himself—my loan has been approved”. [Interjections.] I shall read to you, Sir, about the accessibility and the understanding the Land Bank displays towards the South African farmer:

That was 1984.

Sir, does this look like a body, an institution that does not understand the position and circumstances of the South African farmer in difficult times?

Sir, I hope that these small statutory amendments will make a contribution to further facilitate and extend the tremendous work the Land Bank has been doing for many years, for the sake of the Land Bank as an institution, and for the sake of the South African farmer.

Mr Speaker, may I say how very much I enjoyed the speech of the hon member for Meyerton. I was very interested to listen, too, to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. It made me realise that there is a difference in thinking between an hon member with a constituency in the city and hon members like myself who represent rural areas. What struck me very clearly was the fact that the hon member for Yeoville tended to look at this Bill in possibly a very much more businesslike way than those of us who are close to the land.

I also realised then the reason why the large majority of farmers do in fact farm. They do so, not so much for the profit motive, but for the way of life that farming offers.

Hear, hear!

That is possibly where we differ in our thinking. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I was very interested to hear his comments. Since I do not serve upon the Standing Committee on Finance I do not feel I am competent to respond, shall I say, to some of the points he has made.

When one relates this Bill to and compares it with some of the documentation that committee has to deal with, it may appear trivial to members of that committee. I would like to assure the hon member, however, that from an agricultural point of view this is in our view a very serious piece of legislation.

Beginning with…?

Perhaps during the course of my speech I may be able to point out a few things to the hon member.

One realises that this Bill is largely of a technical nature. One appreciates the fact—with a certain amount of nostalgia—that the word “guinea” is actually being removed from the original Act. Those of us who can recall the days when payment of professional fees were calculated in guineas and not in pounds, shillings and pence will appreciate the significance of the guinea as a form of currency. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that it is regrettable that the provisions contained in clause 3 had to be included in this legislation. One must realise though that malpractices have taken place in regard to the disposal of certain assets at a time when those assets should not have been tampered with. As a farmer—and I know I speak on behalf of many farmers—I, for one, feel no sense of annoyance or regret that the prescribed penalties are now being increased. After all, why should people who do play the game have to carry others who are tempted to abuse a situation which is outside the law? From that point of view, therefore, I accept the increased penalties that are proposed.

I also want to deal very briefly—the hon members who spoke previously did so as well—with the role of the Land Bank. In doing so I want to refer to two specific paragraphs in the 1985 annual report. I think these two paragraphs lay out clearly the functions of the Land Bank. I quote from the annual report:

I would like to read from another paragraph at the same time:

I accept the fact that the Land Bank has played a vital role from the point of view of financing essential capital development and providing essential financing for co-operatives, particularly in the form of short-term loans. I see this as a means of providing, members of those co-operatives with a service and assistance in respect of their financial requirements.

However, I just want to say that I am concerned that the attitudes within many co-operatives are tending to change in that these co-operatives no longer see themselves as having to be answerable to their members. The position that is arising now, indicates that thinking has changed and co-operatives see their members as being answerable to them. I want to ask the Land Bank to take cognisance of the fact that, when interest rates are set in respect of financial assistance being granted to co-operatives for the purposes of production loans for members, careful surveillance be kept of interest rates that co-operatives in turn are charging to their members. One hears alarming reports that certain co-operatives are charging more than they should for reasons of handling individual loans to their members. I want to ask the officials of the Land Bank to keep a watchful eye on this particular aspect.

I think that it is as well that in this debate we should also study the role of the Land Bank to the farmer. I too want to pay tribute to the Land Bank for the excellent work that it is carrying out. It is interesting to note that, at the present time, there is an amount of some R2,3 billion outstanding in long-term financing loans. Above all, I think this much-repeated plea to keep the young farmers on the land and to encourage young farmers to come onto the land is being well serviced at the present time in that, according to the figures that I have at my disposal, over 400 young farmers under the age of 35 have had access to long-term loans since 1 January 1986, and these loans have amounted to R64 million.

However, I must also warn that the agricultural industry is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, mainly as a result of the fact that input costs—this matter has also been raised repeatedly in this House—have escalated enormously and that the prices of products have not escalated on a comparable basis. What I am worried about is the fact that confidence in the industry is being lost. I only have to think back to the day before yesterday when I was asked to attend a meeting within my constituency which was attended by some 120 young farmers. The tone of that meeting was most disturbing. A sense of desperation and a complete lack of confidence in the agricultural industry was evident throughout. What was most alarming of all was the fact that the extension officer of that particular region provided documentation which underlined the fact that any farmer wishing to go onto the land had to have a capital cash commitment of some R625 000 before he could even consider farming on a viable basis. The problem that the agricultural sector is facing at present is its inability to service the present debt of some R11,5 billion that the industry has incurred. We know that the Land Bank has the enormous responsibility of keeping farmers on the land, as well as encouraging new farmers, and keeping young farmers viable.

Another interesting factor that came to light at the meeting, some two days ago, was that the highest failure rate in the farming community occurred among the young farmers. We should therefore not underestimate the seriousness of the present agricultural situation. I want to urge the hon the Deputy Minister to investigate, through the Treasury, further ways and means whereby assistance can be given to alleviate the burden of repayment of interest rates on long term loans. As I see it, recognised norms will have to be abandoned and a far more imaginative and flexible approach will have to be found to ensure that the industry itself is kept on an even course.

I have to warn that, as a result of the high input costs, I foresee a real danger of a shortage of foodstuffs in this country within the next two or three years unless some solution can be found to keep the semi-intensive farmer, in particular, in business. These are the areas from where the bulk of agricultural production originates and where increased input costs are being felt most!

In conclusion may I emphasise that it is largely on the shoulders of the Land Bank that the very heavy responsibility rests of restoring confidence and stability to the agricultural sector. Judging from its past performance, I look to the Land Bank in the hope that it will be able to resolve the problems that we are confronted with at the present time in the Agricultural Industry. We in these benches have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon members who took part in this debate and I thank them particularly for their support. Regardless of how hon members such as the hon member for Yeoville and I may feel, the farmers clearly consider this to be a very important measure. I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville that in the departments in which I hold responsibilities I have on two or three occasions recently turned down legislation because I thought it would waste the time of Parliament to present it here. I suggested that such amendments could be introduced when the next important amendments came up. I agree with that principle. I want to give the hon member and the chairman of the standing committee the following undertaking: If the standing committee feels it can make out a case why legislation can stand over until a more appropriate time for dealing with all the clauses that may fit in amongst other clauses in which more important things are being dealt with, and indicates that to my department, I will be delighted to hear that. This is not to say that I agree that this Bill is such a measure, but I want to give the hon member the undertaking that I would be delighted to hear that. It is so that we sometimes come to Parliament with amendments which could have stood over.

As far as these measures are concerned, however…

Is the change of “a fee of one guinea” important?

No, the guinea is obviously not.

And the amendments concerning sheriffs?

Bringing the Bill in line with the Sheriffs Act and the Administration of Estates Act…

It is automatic!

That is so, but the State’s senior legal adviser strongly advised that these amendments should be brought.

He did not read the Sheriffs Bill.

Even if the matter is dealt with in the Sheriffs Bill, the hon member knows that it is better, legislatively speaking—also much neater—to make it clear and unequivocal in the legislation itself, particularly when one is dealing with sensitive matters. The matters we have been dealing with today, which concern farmers being sold out, are highly sensitive.

The Land Bank has a problem in these circumstances. It becomes a community problem when a farmer becomes uprooted in whatever circumstances. In such a situation one wants to have legislation which is absolutely beyond doubt.

I thank hon members for their support.

*The hon member for Meyerton, in his charming way, told us a charming story from the past, and he also paid the Land Bank a few compliments. We share with him, and thank him for, his contribution.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke replied very well to the hon member for Yeoville.

What about the legislation?

I do not want to talk about the Bill again; the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke did that very well.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he replied to the question of why the total number of loans had decreased. It decreased because of the terrible drought during 1983. During that period there had been a lot of large applications, and since then the number has decreased.

What about the legislation? You have not replied yet either. There are three points in the Bill and so far no one—including you—has given any reply in regard to those points. [Interjections.]

As far as the relief scheme is concerned, the hon member said the banks should also consider the production possibilities of the farm and not the value of the land. That would lead to fewer financing problems among the less excessive borrowing by the farmers. I agree with the hon member. It is most certainly good advice, and one hopes the banks will take it.

†The hon member for Mooi River said some good things and some bad things about the Land Bank, and raised some problems that he had concerning agriculture generally. I do not think this debate is the right occasion on which to deal with that kind of thing. The question of inputs is a huge debate. As the hon member knows, there is a commission looking at it at the moment. He knows that we are sensitive to that and concerned about it. We must try to do something about it, or at least bring about understanding of the whole problem.

The hon member said that we had to keep young farmers on the land. He also provided some statistics on loans granted to young farmers. I think he said that 423 farmers under the age of 35 were granted loans. It is interesting that 71% of the applications of farmers in this age group succeeded. This shows that the Government is also serious about this matter.

As far as the Land Bank’s responsibility to keep people on the land is concerned, I think the statistics speak for themselves. In the first seven months of this year there were only 27 cases of farmers indebted to the Land Bank being sold out, and in only five of those cases did the Land Bank take the initiative. In those five cases it was also often at the request of the farmers themselves. This is not an aberration. If one takes a long period from 1 January 1982 to 1 July 1986 one sees that only 60 farmers who were indebted to the Land Bank were sold up, and in only 10 of those cases the Land Bank took the initiative at the request of the farmers involved. So, it shows the sensitivity, the understanding and the sense of compassion that the Land Bank has towards its clients.

*As the hon member for Yeoville said, it is not a very important Bill. The Bill was disposed of by the standing committee and we have thrashed it out again this afternoon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I object. I want to debate it…

Do not get upset.

I think there is a time and a place for everything, and this is the second time today that the hon the Leader of the House has tried to move a motion without consulting anybody or asking…

We did.

… without suggesting what they want to do and having a discussion about it. We have come here to deal with these measures, and I have waited now for days for these measures to come on.

I have sat here patiently, waiting for these measures to be discussed. The hon the Deputy Minister is here although the hon the Minister is not here, and I want to go on with the legislation. What does the hon the Leader of the House want to do? I want to get on with the Bill. I want to get on with the work of this House.

I think this Parliament is being made a farce of. [Interjections.] Let us just get it quite clear. Why were we called here for a second session of Parliament? What are we doing here? We are now filling in time. If one takes this last Bill we have just discussed, it is clear that there was no reason to waste people’s time by bringing them down to Cape Town, by bringing officials down here and having a whole mass of people sitting here, waiting for this. Then, having done it and having us all here, now he wants to go to have supper. Not on your life, Sir!

The reality is that there is legislation which is ready to be dealt with, but I assume that he does not want to come back after 8 o’clock tonight either. I want to come back. I want to come to work.

That was the proposal.

Perhaps so. However, I want to go on now. We should go on until 18h30. That is what our job is, and that is what we should do.

Can we adjourn at 18h30 for the evening?

No!

No! Not on your life!

That was my proposal.

With great respect, Sir, one of the things about which the NP must make up their mind is whether they wanted us to come to Parliament for a second time this year to work, or are we just here to waste our time? [Interjections.] That is the question. It is a simple question and I want an answer to it. If, in fact, there is nothing for us to do, let us go home now. Let us finish, and make an end to this farce.

However, if there is business which has to be done, let us do our job. We cannot go on in this way. [Interjections.] Either we do our job or we go home, but I certainly am not prepared to spend my time sitting around here, doing nothing, when I could be attending to the affairs of my constituency or we could be attending to the affairs of the country. Now, they must make up their minds. Either Parliament sits and does its job, or we adjourn until January and we go home. Let us make up our minds now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to support the hon member for Yeoville in his opposition to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House. Parliament was convened for an extended session this year at tremendous cost for the taxpayer, and now we have to hear we must go home, whereas we are prepared to deal with legislation.

I want to agree with the hon member. If the Government wants us to come here, we must work; if not, we must go home. We cannot come and waste our time here in the Cape.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the hon member for Yeoville I just want to place on record that this is the second time today that the hon the Leader of the House has come with a motion or with an idea without any consultation whatsoever with Whips of the opposition parties.

Disgraceful!

This has never before happened in this House, and for it to happen twice in one afternoon quite honestly just leaves one almost speechless. The hon member for Yeoville is perfectly correct in every word he has said, and I join him in his indignation at the attitude which has been displayed towards this Parliament here today.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give my firm support to the hon member for Yeoville and the other speakers. My Whips are the NP Whips. They asked me this morning to give them an indication of how many Bills on the Order Paper I want to speak about. I mentioned four or five or six to them. [Interjections.] I am prepared. To come and tell me now, when we are ready to conclude matters here, simply to go home, is absolutely unacceptable to me. I cannot understand that one can adopt this attitude towards the affairs of this House. That is why I want to advocate very strongly that we either go home now, back to Pretoria, or we do the work as quickly as possible so that we can go back to Pretoria as soon as possible.

I am the only representative of my party and in addition I fill the post of chief secretary of my party. I therefore have a great deal of work to do. I do not have an hour to waste here in the Cape. We are either going to finish now or we are going home, but we are not going to sit and waste our time here in this way.

Mr Chairman, this is a very interesting game. The hon members complained when we said that we would be sitting on Monday and Wednesday evenings. [Interjections.] At the start of this part of the session every one of them objected. This afternoon, after the hon the Chief Whip had consulted with the Whips, I suggested…

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible]

That is untrue!

He consulted with the Whips and told me they were going to oppose it. That is a tradition.

That is untrue!

Now they are being very pious and saying that they are working themselves to death. Now they are the only ones who are working.

That is untrue!

It is an old game. If the hon member for Yeoville can get excited, then he must know that I can also become excited.

This afternoon I suggested that we not sit tonight. The hon members said they opposed that. [Interjections.] I now move the same motion. I said this afternoon that we would not be sitting on Monday and Wednesday evenings, nor tonight. What is the reason for that? There is still a lot of work that has to be placed on the Order Paper. The standing committee is still busy with it.

You did not do your planning!

It is not a question of members of Parliament not working. The members of Parliament are busy on the standing committees. We do not only sit here; we also sit on the standing committees. Now suddenly the hon members want to go home, back to Pretoria. They know just as well as I do that there is a tremendous amount of work still to be done by the standing committees.

You convened Parliament for nothing.

At the moment the circumstances are such that no one can predict how long the standing committees will still be busy. Who can be the leader of a House and say next week an hour will be devoted to a piece of legislation? It sometimes suddenly happens that the opposition speaks for three hours.

You convened Parliament for nothing.

The angel Gabriel will not be able to do this job. He will truly not know how long the members of the opposition are going to speak. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether there is any reason why we cannot proceed with item No 3 on the Order Paper, South African Mint and Coinage Amendment Bill, item No 4, the Sectional Titles Bill and item No 5, Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill? Surely we can go on with these Bills tonight? I see no reason why we cannot do it.

Mr Chairman, last time that hon member said that we were tiring out the staff by sitting in the evening. We do not have enough work to do if we sit tonight and Monday evening. [Interjections.] We are waiting for work to come from the standing committees. [Interjections.]

*This is terrible. Next time hon members should remember what occurred here when I move that we sit in the evening. Then you, Mr Chairman, will hear what a fuss they make. Then we will be working the staff to death…

[Inaudible.]

It is an old game. We know this game. We know this old story. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Leader of the House a question? [Interjections.]

Order! I do feel that we could have one speaker at a time. The hon member for Umhlanga may continue.

Thank you. Sir. May I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he would state specifically which Whip in the governing party spoke to which Whips in the opposition parties about the proposal that he made at 14h15 this afternoon? Will he please state that specifically?

Or this one.

Order! If the hon member for Umhlanga would add “or this one” to his question it would be more in order.

Mr Chairman, it is not the custom for the Leader of the House to consult with the Whips. The Chief Whip of my party does that. [Interjections.] He came to me and said the Whips of the opposition parties were not prepared to co-operate.

Answer my question!

They were not even asked!

Mr Chairman, the hon members must not quarrel with me about that.

You are telling an untruth!

Who?

You! You told an untruth…

Order! Let us not get too excited. Whether what the hon the Leader of the House says is true or not can be thrashed out when the Whips have a meeting again.

Let us have a select committee to see who is telling the truth! [Interjections.]

We can thrash that out. If there is a misunderstanding, we will have a discussion tomorrow at the Whips’ meeting. [Interjections.] My information is that there was consultation. That is what I heard.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House a question?

Sir, we are wasting time.

We are not wasting time. It is now a question of credibility.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House has indicated that he is not prepared to take a question. [Interjections.]

No, I am not prepared to answer any more questions.

It is a question of credibility and we want a select committee.

I say we need argue no further. The hon members have performed splendidly, but I say we are now going to adjourn. [Interjections.] Until tomorrow afternoon.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can we have clarification of exactly what is happening at the moment? As I understand it, the hon the Leader of the House got up a moment ago and moved that we adjourn. He now says that we are adjourning until tomorrow. What are we discussing—that we adjourn until tomorrow or that we adjourn now before the dinner break?

Order! As I understand it, the motion was that the House do now adjourn.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The motion of the hon the Leader of the House represents a notice of motion and…

No, indeed not. Notice need not be given. I shall now put the question.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In terms of the Standing Orders we have certain sitting hours. If those have to be suspended, then notice must be given in respect of the suspension. One may move that we adjourn now, but one cannot move an adjournment in respect of a later sitting.

Order! No, the hon member is not correct and I am now going to put the question.

In terms of what rule? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must indicate to me in terms of which rule it is wrong.

No, Sir, I am asking you.

No, I am not here to answer questions. The hon member may state his argument and mention the rule in question on which he bases his argument.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is an existing resolution which regulates the starting and adjournment times during this session. All that is happening now, is that it is being requested that we now adjourn for today, just as we adjourned at 17h50 last night, when the hon members did not object. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now going to put the question. [Interjections.] I request hon members to obey the Chair.

Question put,