as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 27 August 1986, as follows:

Board of Trade and Industry Bill [B 108b—86 (GA)] to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on National Health and Population Development, dated 27 August 1986, as follows:

Mr Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon the Leader of the House has seen fit not to motivate his motion because I assume he is thoroughly ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] Something funny has been going on in Parliament for the last week—something I could not quite pinpoint. The penny is, however, dropping, Mr Speaker, and I have come to the belief that the Government has brought us here, for the extended session, under false pretences. [Interjections.] I am prepared to go so far as to say that the Government is treating this Parliament with contempt. [Interjections.]

How many motions have we had aimed at changing the hours of sitting and changing the end date of the session? I can remember the hon the Leader of the House saying so proudly in June that he was the first Leader of the House who had set a firm date for the end of a session. We all know what happened. Within 48 hours that date had been changed.

I believe that for those who could see, it was clear that the rot had begun to set in shortly after we went into recess. We were given to understand that the recess would be devoted—after a decent interval with hon members taking a week or so off—to the activities of standing committees so that we could process the important legislation which we knew lay ahead of us, and so that we would have a decent job of work to do when we came back to Cape Town on 18 August. What happened, however, Mr Speaker? We found that standing committees were not set down to sit. We found, too, that those which had been set down to sit had had their dates extended, and those few weeks—valuable weeks—were wasted, utterly wasted! We now have a situation in which the Government’s legislative programme is in a state of virtual collapse.

Just like the Government!

Now, Mr Speaker, there is a remedy. We do not have to give up sitting on Wednesday evenings, or for that matter, even on Monday evenings. Is there any hon member present here who honestly believes that the situation in South Africa does not require full debating? Are we going to sit here discussing the matters on this thin Order Paper, and are we not going to sit on Wednesday nights when there are a million people in Soweto who are in turmoil, when our foreign affairs are deteriorating, when the economy is depressed, when the people of kwaNdebele and Moutse are in turmoil, and when there are problems with SA-TV? You name it, Sir, and we have a problem with it.

Yet here we sit. We have been brought down here and so have the senior public servants; and we are just going to go through the farce of debating legislation which can basically be left over until next year.

Hear, hear!

In fact, Sir, when I look at the work we have done already, I am inclined to suggest that there are perhaps only three pieces of legislation which could not safely have been left until next year, namely, the two building societies bills, the Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal Bill, and the Motor Vehicle Accidents Bill. Moreover, these Bills could have been dealt with in June. They were all ready, they had been dealt with by the respective standing committees…

We offered to debate them.

Yes, we offered to deal with them. We wanted to deal with them! We opposed the adjournment!

We were brought down to Cape Town to deal with this particular legislation during this extended session, yet now we find there is no constitutional legislation before us. Instead, there are only these feeble matters on the Order Paper.

Where are all the constitutional development and planning Bills?

Where is that Minister?

What has happened to the State President’s indication, his intent, his wish that the National Statutory Council Bill be dealt with, and I quote him, “in the extended session of this Parliament”? What has happened to that? What has happened to the constitutional legislation of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning?

Where is he?

I do not know about him, but there is no legislation of his before us.

We oppose this motion on that ground, Sir—that we believe that this Parliament is sitting at the moment under false pretences.

Secondly, however—I think this is just as important—I have many times in the past spoken on the role of Whips in the parliamentary process. I can remember doing so at the start of last year to the hon members of the other two Houses. I have spoken hundreds of times to foreign visitors, to school-children and to emissaries from the independent states, and it has always been one of my themes that the key to the working of the South African Constitution and Parliament was the relationship among the Whips. I have said on every occasion—I will repeat it today—that in my one year with Mr Pen Kotzé, my six years with the present Chief Whip of Parliament and my 18 months with the present Chief Whip of the Government not once have I ever been let down. I think they can say the same about me.

However, I can no longer say that. The Government under our system, in the last resort, can impose its will upon the minority parties. There are two brakes upon that. One is the rules—I am not suggesting that the hon the Leader of the House yesterday broke the rules; on the contrary, he was well within his rights in respect of both those matters—the motion in regard to the adjournment of the House and the motion in regard to Monday and Wednesday night sittings. However, just as important as the written word are the conventions that exist among the Whips under a Westminster system. There again I have never until now been let down by the NP Whips. Yesterday I was in the House all day, during the lunch-hour and during the afternoon. I was never informed of either of those two motions, although I could quite easily have been. One of the strongest conventions among the Whips of this House is that on all occasions—it has never been contravened before—the Whips of the minority parties will be given reasonable notice of the intentions of the Leader of the House.

Do hon members know how I learnt of the coming adjournment yesterday afternoon? I left this Chamber at 17h50 to go to my office and at about 18h20 I asked one of the service officers to get me a sandwich as I did not want a heavy meal. He replied that it was impossible because all the catering facilities except those in the dining room had been cancelled.

Disgraceful!

When I asked him why, he asked whether I did not know that we were not sitting that night. I asked him what he was talking about and from where he had got the idea. He replied that the instructions had come through. [Interjections.] That is not the way that Parliament should operate, it is not the way that it has operated in the past and it is not the way that it will operate in future. This will not happen again.

The problem was compounded yesterday because it happened to be a Wednesday. Hon members had dining commitments and I know that hon members of the Defence Group had a function out at Wynberg. What would have happened if hon members of my party had gone out to these various functions and then returned in time for the continuation of the sitting at 8 pm?

One did!

Some probably did.

Yes!

Is that how we are going to order our House? It cannot possibly be so.

I now have to weigh my words carefully. I believe that this Government can no longer be trusted with control of the parliamentary processes and I therefore on behalf of my party withdraw the co-operation of the Whips.

Mr Speaker, I should like to exchange a few views with the hon the Leader of the House who moved this motion, and I want to tell him we do not agree with it.

The hon the Leader of the House of Assembly made the statement yesterday that hon members of the opposition parties had raised objections when he moved that the House sit on Monday and Wednesday nights. I should now like to refer him to the Minutes of Monday, 18 August when this motion was moved, and there was a unanimous decision that the House of Assembly would sit on Monday and Wednesday nights. In other words, for the sake of an argument, he propounded an untruth here.

The hon the Leader of the House said last night:

I now want to refer him to the motion he has just moved. He did not say a single word—I made sure of this on his Hansard recording—about the fact that we were not going to sit last night. That was the second untruth which had to be used to move an adjournment.

In addition the hon the Leader of the House said:

That is not true. He did not say that.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House this: When the historians read these debates one day with the arguments advanced for or against extended and changed hours of sitting, and analyse the replies given by the hon the Leader of the House, those historians will be forced to say this was a man who became the doormat of everyone who wanted to tread him underfoot, who adapted himself as he was instructed to, and who was not a leader.

I am talking to the Leader of the House as a friend, because I have very great respect for him as a person. I want to tell him today he must not allow himself to be pushed and moved around any longer, and made a fool of in this House. We do not want that to happen.

When my hon leader put a question to him yesterday, the hon the Leader of the House took the opposite standpoint to that of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It was the exact opposite standpoint, and they tussled about it behind the scenes yesterday afternoon. I see he is backing down again.

That is not true!

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House not to permit the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who was the acting Leader of the House when we adjourned, to push him around as he is doing.

Stand your ground! [Interjections.]

I should not like the hon the Leader of the House to allow himself to be pushed around.

He moved on 18 August that the House sit until 22h30 on Monday and Wednesday nights. We supported him because we accepted that enough Bills were ready for consideration by the House of Assembly during this second part of the session. We accept that the planning as done by the Chief Whip of the Government and the Chief Whip of Parliament required the House of Assembly to sit on Monday and Wednesday nights in order to conclude the submitted Bills. We accepted that. We accept that the hon the Leader of the House is in earnest about our sitting on Monday and Wednesday nights to conclude the enormous amount of work, and we did not object on 18 August to sitting until half-past eleven on the first night of this second part of the session. We accepted that they were in earnest about there being a certain amount of legislation that had to be concluded.

Now, after eight days of this session, the hon the Leader of the House says there is not enough work. Yesterday he said:

If we could sit on Monday and Wednesday night and conclude the work that appears on this Order Paper, why cannot the House of Assembly adjourn so that we can go home and do our work in our constituencies? [Interjections.]

Why cannot the House of Assembly adjourn so that the standing committees which have to consider legislation, can sit and conclude their work? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the House requested initially that we sit on Monday and Wednesday nights and we supported him, but now he says there is no work to do!

He is caught up in Chris’s current.

Now the hon the Leader of the House also says he is waiting for the standing committees to conclude their work. Before the House of Assembly adjourned on 25 June, we were told Parliament had to adjourn so that the standing committees could prepare legislation for the part of the session that was beginning on 18 August. One of the hon members said they wanted to go and make biltong. We then adjourned. The most important reason for this that was advanced then, was that Parliament had to adjourn so that the standing committees could sit to prepare legislation for this part of the session.

And then they bungled!

The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, of which I am a member, convened meetings for three weeks during this short recess. We noted that down in our diaries. Do you know, Sir, what happened? This committee sat for three days. Why did they sit for only three days? That happened because the legislation that had to come to this standing committee to give substance to this part of the session, simply did not turn up.

Very important legislation was to have been submitted to the standing committee for consideration to be concluded during the part of the session which was to start on 18 August. I agree completely with the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. Important legislation could have been concluded. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the State President created expectations of extremely important reform measures which would be submitted to the standing committees and then to Parliament. Everyone in South Africa expected the NP to come forward with dramatic legislation which would give substance to their integration-reform plan. Everyone expected the National Statutory Council Bill to be submitted to Parliament, the Group Areas Act, as they call it, to be addressed, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act to be abolished, and that there would be legislation which would affect the Blacks’ future. That is what everyone expected.

A Federal Congress of the NP was arranged to give substance to the legislation which would emerge during this dramatic part of the session which is in progress now. [Interjections.] These dramatic expectations proved to be nothing but a false alarm on the part of the Government. [Interjections.]

This part of the session was to be indicative of reform and to mark out the course of the NP’s reform policy. Within two days after this Parliament had begun, the Coloured and Indian Houses adjourned because there was no work, and within eight days the hon the Leader of the House said the House of Assembly had no work either and we could therefore not sit on Monday and Wednesday nights. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the House to withdraw this motion of his. He must not allow himself to be shunted around by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Let us conclude this Order Paper today and tomorrow; let us stop wasting the taxpayers’ money. [Interjections.]

At the end of the earlier part of this session, the House of Assembly was rushed with morning, afternoon and evening sittings and legislation, which could have been discussed just as well now and concluded without haste, was forced through. That is why the CP says it is very clear that this part of the session is unnecessary. Legislation which could have been concluded just as well next year, was piloted through during this part of the session.

The CP cannot support this motion of the hon the Leader of the House, and I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the House please to be the Leader of the House himself. He must please be the Leader of the House himself for once and ensure that we conclude this Order Paper so that we can go home; so that these standing committees can do their work, and so that when Parliament begins next year, we shall not be in the same situation we are in now.

Mr Speaker, I associate myself completely with what has been said by the hon member for Groote Schuur, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, and the hon member for Kuruman, the Chief Whip of the CP, concerning the work that we have on the Order Paper as opposed to that which we were told we would have on the Order Paper. Certainly, I agree with everything they have said but I want to deviate a little from their line.

I want to say a few things that weigh heavily on my mind. I believe we have perhaps got to the stage where things need to be said, and I say this more in sorrow than in anger.

Are you saying goodbye now?

I will ignore that hon member because I predict that his goodbyes will come before mine. [Interjections.]

When I came to this House in 1974 I took my place in the back bench over there. One thing that interested me immediately was the way Parliament worked, its traditions and courtesies. I must confess today that the one thing in which I wanted to become involved was the Whipping. It was my great good fortune to have known for some years Mr Bill Sutton and, prior to coming here, I had a personal friend in Dr E L Fisher. Through these two gentlemen I was able to start learning a little about it in the first three years that I was here.

In 1977, when we returned as the New Republic Party, I was Bill Sutton’s understudy, and in 1978 or 1979 I took over as Whip of the party. So, Sir, I think I can speak with a bit of a background as a Whip, as can the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Kuruman.

I have served in this House under four leaders. I served under the present State President, Mr P W Botha, as Leader of the House. When I say I served, I attended Whips’ meetings with that gentleman chairing them followed by Mr Lourens Muller, Mr Fanie Botha and now the present incumbent, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs.

I have always been impressed by the courtesies and the traditions that exist among Whips and, like the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, this is something in which I take a lot of pride and pleasure. However, I want to state emphatically that never, never have I known of either a notice of motion or a motion for adjournment being put without prior consultation with the Whips of all parties. I have never known it happen, but yesterday both occurred without any prior discussion whatsoever, contrary to what the hon the Leader of the House claimed in his speech, and I will deal with that in a few minutes.

At 14h15 the hon the Leader of the House gave notice of a motion, which we are now discussing. Later in the evening the hon the Chief Whip of the National Party suggested that the reason that I was not advised was because I was not in my office. Mr Speaker, I was in a luncheon which you hosted and from which both you and I excused ourselves because of the duties that we have in this House—mine being that I am to be here daily at 14h05 in case there is anything that has to be attended to; and one of the things that could have been attended to—because I did this—was for a Whip of the governing party or for any other Whip to talk to me about any subject. Therefore, that excuse I reject with the same contempt with which he rejected my question—a dismissive wave of the hand!

I sat in my bench the whole of yesterday afternoon because I was involved in the debate, and not one word was said about the motion for the adjournment. There was no prior warning, there was no discussion.

I should like to say—as I should like it to be understood—that there are four people in this House for whom I have the highest regard and to whom I have a responsibility. [Interjections.] Those, Sir, are the four people—and I am not ashamed of the fact that there are only five of us—whom I serve as Whip. They have a right to expect me to keep them informed.

Now, Sir, if the National Party and their leadership and their Chief Whip want to have an arrogant attitude towards their members and to treat their own members in the cavalier fashion in which they think they can treat everybody, then, Sir, so be it. That is their concern. [Interjections.]

Brian, you are talking utter nonsense now!

I want to say, Sir, that I am not prepared to treat my colleagues or to have my colleagues treated in this shabby manner. Sir, I repeat what I said to a newspaperman this morning. National Party arrogance grows in an inverse proportion to the support it receives from the voters outside. The arrogance displayed by those hon gentlemen grows as they lose support each day, but the only problem is… [Interjections.] The only problem is… [Interjections.] All right, Sir, let them howl! The more they howl, the more I like it! [Interjections.] The only problem is that as they lose support they become more and more arrogant. The more support they lose, the more arrogant they become and they can accept neither fact. They cannot see and accept the fact that they are becoming more and more arrogant. They also cannot see and accept the fact that they are losing support. I have no objection to their going down the slippery slope because—and I want to state that very clearly—it means nothing to us. [Interjections.] I also want to add, Sir, that we in these benches will not suffer their arrogance any longer.

I want to remind a certain hon Minister in this House of a discussion I had with him. I shall not name him. He said to me: “Ah, when the time comes …” I want to talk a little about the English speaker now, because we get the Afrikaner ad nauseam in this place. Now I want to talk about the English speaker. I am an English speaker!

You are a jingo!

I know of an hon Minister who said: “When the time comes, the English-speaking people will fall in behind PW Botha.”

They have already done so!

Do you hear that, Sir? “They have already done so!” [Interjections.] Yes, one or two of them have, and we have them sprinkled around in those National Party benches over there. I will tell you, however, Sir, in their constituencies it is a different story. Let the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs go to the constituency of Durban North and see how many English-speaking supporters he has left there. [Interjections.] The English speaker of South Africa is fast turning away from any ideas he has ever had of supporting PW Botha. He is becoming sickened by the arrogance of this Government. [Interjections.] He is becoming sickened by it, and let me give them that message today, Sir, so that they can understand it. There is one thing about an English speaker. He cannot abide arrogance. He does, however, respect a little humility, which is a word those hon gentlemen do not even know how to spell, much less pronounce. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, it is time that those hon gentlemen stopped looking down imperiously on the rest of the world, started a little self-examination and began to look at themselves.

Now, Sir, let me talk to the hon the Leader of the House.

I quote the words of the hon member for Yeoville addressed to the hon the Leader of the House shortly before we adjourned yesterday:

The hon the Leader of the House reacted by way of interjection and said: “We did!”

I continue, Sir, by quoting the hon the Leader of the House himself:

[Onhoorbaar.]

[Onhoorbaar.]

Mnr B W B Page: Dit is nie waar nie!

*Just listen to this, Sir! “It is a tradition!” Yes, I know it is a tradition! However, he did not consult us at all, Mr Speaker. He did not consult the Whips of the PFP either. Not at all! Not a word of it is true. Therefore, what is written here, is untrue!

†It is untrue! What the hon the Leader of the House has stated here stands on record as an untruth; and it is a pity I cannot use the word I want to use! [Interjections.] It is a pity I cannot use that word; but I want the hon the Leader of the House to know that I am thinking it! [Interjections.] Those hon members on the other side of the House are laughing! Yes, let them laugh at their Minister who stands in this House and tells an untruth. It is good; they should laugh at him! They should make him feel good! [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman has said he must not allow himself to be made a fool of. He has been made a fool of, however.

In conclusion, I want to say that if somebody is responsible for the hon the Leader of the House’s having told an untruth, then the hon the Leader of the House must get that hon member to rise and to apologise—not to me, not to the PFP, not to the CP, but to Parliament. That is what he should do! He should rise and apologise to the finest and noblest institution in this land—the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa!

Mr Speaker, my position in this House is somewhat unique in the sense that I am the only representative of a political party; and right at the beginning of the year, before the House met for the first time, I communicated with the NP Whips in writing to ask whether I, too, could not attend the meetings of the Whips, since, after all, my party is a separate party with different interests, and so on. However, I was told that this was not possible. I was not happy about it, but I accepted it; there was nothing I could do about it.

I shall not go into all the details now, but I think that what I experienced was unique, particularly in the light of the fact that I represent a party that has been a fierce opponent of the Government for a period of 16 or 17 years. I can bear witness here today that although there were certain problems, things really went very well very soon. The NP Whips treated me and arranged my affairs in such a way that I really could not complain. In fact, at times I was given more time in budget debates, inter alia, than was specifically allotted to me. Therefore, although my interests and those of my party run counter to those of the Government party in every way, my affairs in this House were completely in the hands of the Whips of the Government party. We have found one another, however, and, I repeat, it has gradually really gone very well.

I must add that if it were not for the assistance, communications and information I was also continually given by the Whips of the CP in particular, my whole function as a member of this House to which I was legally elected, would have been much more difficult.

I must qualify this strongly by saying that my position in this House has really been made very tolerable and pleasant by the cooperation I have enjoyed from the NP, particularly the exceptionally favourable and good treatment—very good treatment throughout—on the part of the CP Whips as well. [Interjections.]

What shocked me, was that over the past few days I have been told—this year I have apparently spoken more times than any member has spoken in the history of this House…

Too much, Louis; far too much.

That is possible.

As I was saying, I have recently been told by the NP that we should try to cut matters short. I gave this my full support. They presented me with the lists of order papers, and I looked to see how much legislation there was that I would possibly not have to speak on. [Interjections.] I looked to see how much legislation there was that was by no means contentious, so as to give my co-operation so that we would not have to prolong proceedings unnecessarily.

One evening when we were walking out I said to a very senior member of the Cabinet—I had spoken that evening and he greeted me after not having greeted one another for a long time—I hope we will not have to sit here for much longer. He then jokingly replied that it would depend on me. [Interjections.]

Yesterday during the course of the day—this has happened before as well—more than one NP Whip asked me on the telephone and by other means, for the sake of the arrangements of the House of Assembly—I think that the time I occupy also affects the progress of matters—to give as precise an indication as possible of what I was going to speak on and what not. Only yesterday I gave written confirmation of which matters on the Order Paper I was not going to discuss at all. I also said that when I do in fact speak, I shall make it as brief as possible so that we do not have to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.

I have already notified my head office in Pretoria—I also have responsibilities there—that they must be prepared that I may be back in Pretoria by the end of the week. Since the Government says that a general election could be announced at any time, it is important to my party that as Chief secretary I should return to Pretoria with a view to the necessary planning, and so on. I therefore make no secret of it: The sooner this session ends, the better it is for me and my party. That is why I said yesterday that I really do not have a moment to waste—not here, nor anywhere else. It was therefore a shock to me yesterday afternoon when the hon the Leader of the House really made all kinds of moves to prolong the session, when there was a possibility that we could go home.

Hon members are aware that the HNP are fiercely opposed to this system. What makes the voters at large even more angry, is the fact that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates sit considerably less than we do during the session. They were scarcely here for the extended session, when they went home again. However, they receive the same salaries and remuneration we do, and in their case there is no question that they had to take over the work of MPC’s when the provincial councils were abolished. They went home. It therefore makes no difference to the workings of Parliament if the members of two of the Houses go home to continue with their normal affairs. Yesterday it was within our grasp, as it were, to dispense with matters quickly and go home, and for that reason it came as a shock to me when the Government actually came with proposals to prolong proceedings until who knows when.

I must therefore emphasise that I am in full agreement with every word the hon the Chief Whip of the official Opposition, the hon member for Kuruman, the Whip of the CP, and in particular the hon member for Umhlanga—the Whip of the NRP—said. I am shocked, disappointed and amazed. I wish to conclude on this note by saying that there must be something seriously and terribly wrong with the Government party for acting as they have towards Parliament as an institution, the opposition parties, and the people of South Africa. I am therefore 100% on the side of the opposition parties as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I want to deal with the hon member for Groote Schuur. He said there was a convention among the Whips and he was not prepared to give his co-operation in the future. This is a very serious matter because we have had good co-operation thus far. I want to tell him that the words I used yesterday were that I had been informed that there had been consultation between the Chief Government Whip and the Whips of the various other parties. [Interjections.] If that is not so…

Who informed you?

I do not want to name persons. If that is not so then I want to beg hon members’ pardon, it is not the custom to take these decisions without consulting the hon Whips of the opposition parties. I think we will find each other with regard to this matter.

*If there has been a misunderstanding, we must set it right.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur… [Interjections.] The hon member for Greytown must now please keep quiet for a moment. I am speaking to a grown-up; I am not speaking to a whippersnapper. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Groote Schuur understands my problem, I shall go and see him in his office. Then we can discuss this matter and find a solution. Apparently they were not informed, and in that case I have nothing to say about that. However, the hon member must not simply say: “We withdraw the co-operation of the Whips”, because then I cannot do nothing anything either. If we cannot negotiate with each other as Whips…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon Leader how he can expect the Whips to maintain good relations if his hon Whips do not inform him correctly of the situation? [Interjections.]

No, that is not what I am dealing with at the moment. With our hon Whips present I will ask that hon member when he was consulted. This is not the place to debate that now. We can discuss that at a meeting of the hon Whips. I also want to find a solution to this dilemma; I do not want to pick a quarrel.

I now come to the hon member for Kuruman. The hon member does know that when we moved to sit on Monday and Wednesday evenings in the past…

The Standing Rules and Orders make provision for Wednesday evenings!

Monday evenings then. Surely he knows that there were objections. Why is he now making such a terrible accusation, calling me a liar?

Except when there is unanimity, as was the case last Monday!

That is correct. Every session we have had an argument about the reasons for sitting on Monday evenings and overburdening the staff. There have always been those arguments. [Interjections.] There have always been those objections. [Interjections.]

We must understand each other clearly now: The hon member wants to drive a wedge between the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and myself.

Everybody wants to do that!

We will not allow ourselves to be led around by you, Ferdi! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that the standpoint of the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is also the standpoint of the NP. It is that hon Minister’s duty to ensure that we find a solution to our country’s problems. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that if they are trying to drive a wedge between us while we are trying to get this done, they will get nowhere. I am not someone who falls for something like that.

You will simply allow them to trample on you until there is nothing left of you!

The hon member for Kuruman is now speaking of the dramatic congress in Durban. Why is he so sensitive about our having had a successful congress? [Interjections.]

It was a farce!

As soon as one does not have a case, one has recourse to insults, and these people are now getting very excited.

The hon member for Umhlanga said that we were losing support every day. Who’s talking? What support have they got in South Africa? He should look around him! [Interjections.] As we say in plain Afrikaans, his support is 50% of “boggerall”. [Interjections.] Now he comes here and flexes his muscles!

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the hon member for Sasolburg, but I want to tell him that the hon member for Sasolburg does not serve on a single standing committee. The hon member for Kuruman said that we could go home on Friday. He said that I should take the lead once and for all so that we could go home on Friday. What will happen to the standing committees then?

They can carry on!

Very well, but who should go home then, because all the hon members are serving on the standing committees. [Interjections.] Who must go home then, because everyone…

Go and look at the Order Paper and see which standing committees have to convene. [Interjections.]

There still is a great deal of legislation to come before the standing committees.

Is it necessary to have the whole of Parliament convene because five standing committees… [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament has a problem during the recess. He has to give notice of a standing committee meeting fourteen days in advance. It is not that easy simply to arrange these matters.

Not one of these hon members understands that we have a parliamentary system that has changed. The sessions are only a part of our work. We no longer have committee stages and the parliamentary work is being done by the standing committees.

There are exactly five standing committees convening at present. [Interjections.] Now the whole of Parliament… [Interjections.]

I should like to come back to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and ask him a question.

†I ask him to let us have a discussion on this matter and not to make a final decision now. Let us come back and have a discussion. He said that I had treated Parliament with contempt.

Yes.

Hear, hear!

That is not the case. One should see what is going on the Order Paper. All of a sudden people stop talking and then we find that we have no work for next week. We do, however, have standing committees that must sit.

So why must…

I do not think it is so unreasonable. I ask the hon the Chief Whip to let me come back to him on the matter of withdrawing his cooperation. He cannot withdraw his cooperation.

Oh yes I can!

He is too much of a gentleman to do that. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Mr Chairman, I move:

In the past the South African Mint has relied heavily on the sale of Kruger Rands for its profitability. Due to intensified boycott campaigns abroad, as well as the unfavourable domestic economic climate, the sale of ordinary Kruger coins has declined significantly, whilst the sales of Kruger coins of proof quality have declined drastically. In order to compensate for this decline in demand it has been though necessary for the South African Mint to find an alternative source of profits. In this connection it should be mentioned that the 1985 Parliamentary commemorative coin enjoyed good sales both in South Africa and abroad. The demand for this coin has shown that a continued programme of commemorative gold and silver coins can prove successful.

To capitalise on this initial success, the South African Mint investigated the strategies adopted by overseas mints in regard to commemorative issues. The majority of Western countries mark important events with a gold and/or silver commemorative coin. The gold coin is normally minted in two sizes, a one-ounce coin and a smaller one. Consequently two denominations are being suggested in this Bill, a one-ounce coin and a one tenth of an ounce coin called a “Protea”.

†From a numismatic point of view it is desirable that these coins should be legal tender. The First Schedule to the South African Munt and Coinage Act, 1964, in which legal tender is defined, will therefore have to be amended to provide for the gold coin in question. This Bill makes the necessary provision for this. The proposed coins will be used to commemorate events considered by the Government to be of particular importance and will enhance South Africa’s image abroad whilst earning foreign exchange. The 1986 issue will—as hon members are aware—commemorate the Johannesburg centennial.

Mr Speaker, if no hon member from the opposition parties wants to speak on this specific legislation I should like to.

I should like to address two requests to the hon the Minister of Finance regarding this specific legislation. The first of these is on a lighter note and concerns the building of the new Reserve Bank in Pretoria. This building is going to be the tallest building in Pretoria. At the moment the tallest building is that of a commercial bank. I suppose it is a good thing that the Reserve Bank, which is the central bank, will be taller than a commercial bank. It is now being said in Pretoria that the hon the Minister of Finance must please put a stop to the building of this bank because the taller the building gets the lower the rand falls.

There are two reasons why this legislation is before us. In the first place the demand for Kruger rands has dropped owing to the economic climate and the boycott action. This influenced the profits of the coin, and now other ways must be found of ensuring these profits. In the second place the sale of the Parliamentary coin last year turned out to be so successful that it was decided that it would be a good idea to commemorate our national events by issuing a coin and not only by issuing a postage stamp from time to time. A gold commemorative coin is a special way of commemorating a national event. That is why the first protea was minted to commemorate the centenary of Johannesburg.

It is interesting to note that Johannesburg is almost 101 years old. This legislation has been lying on our desks since March. Consequently the passing of this legislation this afternoon is going to be just in time.

The history of this gold coin is briefly as follows: The first coin was minted on 25 April at Gold Reef City, the new branch of the Mint in Johannesburg. It is interesting that the hon the Minister of Finance, who wanted to mint the first coin, did it so vigorously that it was completely bent. I do not know whether it is the hon the Minister’s cricket-playing activities which enable him to bend coins. In any case, the second coin was beautiful.

He wanted to make capital out of it.

The hon member Mr Schoeman says he wanted to make capital out of the situation. [Interjections.]

Twenty-five of those coins were minted, but those coins are not yet coins, because provision had not yet been made for them in the South African Mint and Coinage Act. I am now referring to gold commemorative issues or medals; call them what you will. Only after the Act has been promulgated will it be a coin in the true sense of the word.

Of the 25 Protea coins minted, 12 were mounted and sent to overseas missions that advertise these coins and bring them to the attention of prospective buyers. The reception both here and abroad by those persons who saw it was very good, and it was predicted that the sales would be excellent. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to note that those persons who have seen this coin consider it to be one of the most beautiful coins ever minted. It is called the Protea because on one side it depicts the king protea or protea cyneroides, which is the king protea’s botanical name.

On the reverse side, because we are celebrating the centenary of Johannesburg, a prospector, a mine dump, a mine shaft and the skyline of Johannesburg are depicted. Among all the coins in circulation in the world at the moment, this will be one of the outstanding coins.

With the limited publicity which these coins have received, the Mint has already received orders. Local orders total R4 million and orders from abroad, R1 million. This augurs well for the Protea and we wish the Mint every success in the marketing and distribution of this excellent commemorative coin, for the benefit of the Mint and our country, and also to the advantage of and to advertise the great expertise of our Mint.

I should now like to make a second request. When this amending Bill appeared, we looked at the existing Act of 1964. This was the Act which was passed after we had decimalised in 1962, and reference is still made in that Act to Transvaal coins, pounds, shillings and pence and similar coins which are no longer in circulation, or relevant.

After 24 years this Act is no longer really appropriate, although it is still on the Statute Book. I think we could replace the Act very successfully and make it more modern to fit in with prevailing circumstances. Perhaps we could also introduce an amendment which would make it possible for the Mint to mint such gold commemorative coins from time to time without having to come back to Parliament for a statutory amendment every time.

Mr Speaker, this Bill was discussed in the other two Houses a long time ago. I am very grateful to the hon member for Hercules for refreshing the memories of the hon members in this House as regards the background to and motivation for this Bill.

I have taken cognisance of his idea regarding the revision of the legislation. I shall certainly refer this to the department in order to revise the matter and so that adjustments can be made where necessary.

It is in fact the idea that in the Bill before us we are effecting an amendment which authorises the Mint to issue commemorative coins from time to time, the design of which can be decided on from time to time.

I am very grateful for the support which the Bill enjoys.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Speaker, if there is no objection, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Sectional Titles Act, 1971, brought about an important and drastic change in the field of ownership and land registration. Before the Act came into operation it was not possible to acquire separate ownership of part of a building and to register such ownership in the deeds office. In short, the Act makes it possible for a person to buy part of a building and to obtain the title thereto, registered in the deeds office. He enjoys the same rights as an ordinary landowner in that he is entitled to sell the property, to lease it, to mortgage it and to bequeath it in a will.

Sectional title ownership, only gradually became popular with the public, but has now established itself as an alternative form of ownership. During the period 1 January 1985 to 31 January 1985, 21 529 sectional title transfers were registered in the deeds office.

The Sectional Titles Act, as in the case of other Acts, had to stand the test of time, and although the Act complies with most of the requirements, certain shortcomings came to the fore. After consultation, over a number of years, with nearly all organisations involved with sectional titles, proposals which entail fairly drastic amendments of the Sectional Titles Act were formulated. Due to the extent of the proposed amendments, it has been deemed expedient to repeal the existing Act rather than to amend it. This Bill therefore replaces the existing Act.

The most important differences between the existing Act and the Bill are the following:

The manner in which notice of meetings has to be given, has also been redefined in order to facilitate the procedure.

Another important amendment is the provision allowing for a sectional title scheme also to consist of free-standing units. Such schemes will be subject to the local authorities’ approval and will therefore not detract from orderly township development. The Registrar of Deeds and his personnel have until now checked sectional title plans, although they are not trained for the task, while the Surveyor-General, who is in a position to check the accuracy of the plans properly, is not involved. The Bill remedies this shortcoming by providing that the sectional plans will in future have to be approved by the Surveyor-General.

I would also like to mention that provision is now made for bodies corporate to purchase fixed property for the purposes of a sectional title scheme, for instance, for the provision of parking amenities.

The procedures to be followed when a piece of the common property is expropriated have also been simplified without affecting the individual owner’s rights. The shortcoming in the existing Act with regard to the extension of section title schemes has now been remedied by providing that rights of extension may be registered as real rights, thus enabling the developers to mortgage it. The Bill also makes it possible for sectional title units to be rated separately, in which case bodies corporate will have less funds to administer, reducing the risk of loss to owners due to fraud and maladministration.

The Bill also gives attention to the calculation of participation quotas. A participation quota is the basis on which an owner’s shares of levies and costs are determined. The existing formula is retained in schemes intended for wholly residential purposes, but in schemes which are partly residential and partly commercial provision is made for an amended procedure. Especially in schemes where there are shops on the lower level and flats on the upper levels the existing procedure of similar quotas is not acquitable. Shops normally have a higher value and also need more maintenance than flats. The Bill also gives recognition to a practice which has developed over the years whereby pieces of the common property are allocated to owners for their exclusive use.

These exclusive use areas may now be registered as real rights, giving the owner lawful title. Sectional title schemes are managed, controlled and administered by means of rules contained in Schedules 1 and 2 to the existing Act. These rules are inadequate and have in most cases been substituted by other rules.

The Bill provides that in future the rules will be prescribed by regulation. It will therefore be possible to revise the rules on a more regular basis. It is also necessary that I mention that the existing regulations have been made in consultation with the Deed Registries Regulation Board established by the Deeds Registries Act of 1937. The architect and land survey professions, as well as local authorities, are not represented on this board and problems arise when regulations affecting their activities have to be framed. Provision is therefore made for the establishment of a Sectional Titles Regulation Board on which the various professions and bodies concerned with sectional title will be represented. The regulations will deal mainly with the form of registers and documents, office procedures and the fees and charges which may be levied in terms of the Act. It is also, the intention to submit the proposed regulations to the various bodies concerned with sectional title for comment before they are promulgated.

In closing, I wish to thank the chairman and members of the standing committee for their positive approach to this piece of legislation. I am aware of the fact that the private sector welcomes the proposed legislation and I am also sure that the comments received by the standing committee from the private sector will confirm this view. The amendments which the standing committee made to the Bill are important improvements and confirm the co-operation which typified the preparation of this legislation.

Mr Speaker, it appears to me the hon member for Hillbrow is not participating in the debate; he is on strike.

I wish to take this opportunity to express the opinion that the Sectional Titles Bill serving before the House is one of the finest examples of co-operation between the private and public sectors which we have seen in the Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works.

The original Sectional Titles Act, Act 66 of 1971, was a new concept in the registration of title deeds. For a long period this Act was actually sui generis. Gradually, in the course of the fourteen years in which the Act was operative, it became clear that practical problems had arisen because from the nature of the case there was no previous example of this sort of measure. The former Registrar of Deeds, Mr Murdoch, and Prof Cowan then met and turned their attention to bottlenecks in the original legislation.

The result of these consultations was the publication in November 1984 of draft legislation on sectional title for comment. The response received was so comprehensive—I have been informed that upwards of 40 interested bodies furnished comment—that the total number of memorandums ran into twelve volumes, an enormous stack of material which clearly indicated great appreciation of the legislation in the Statute Book on the one hand and feeling that certain impractical elements should be removed on the other.

When the standing committee came face to face with the draft legislation which arose from all those memorandums, the necessity for general consent among interested parties on such legislation became clear. It was also obvious that, if the standing committee were to call for comment from all, it would sit for months—possibly years—in an attempt to accommodate every interested body. Fortunately for the committee, the three most important, the three leading organisations concerned, soon made themselves felt in the negotiations. Those three organisations were the Association of Building Societies, the Association of Law Societies and the South African Property Owners’ Association Ltd—Sapoa. In the reports they submitted, these three actually met the bulk of the objections and reservations which existed.

I am grateful to be able to say that it was the unanimous opinion of the standing committee to invite comment from these three organisations—let us call them the big three among interested parties. The memorandums subsequently received from these three organisations made it clear that certain bottlenecks remained although the Bill, which was actually a total substitution for the Sectional Titles Act, had general support and the feeling very definitely existed among all interested organisations that the new legislation should become operative as soon as possible. The amendments submitted to the House by the standing committee represent the net result of consultations between the standing committee, officials of the department and these three large organisations from those interested.

I think ours was an exceptional experience in the sense that we experienced a great degree of unanimity from all sides, all interested parties in the standing committee, not only on the original Bill but on the proposed amendments.

I have mentioned that it was an example of co-operation. The fact remains that the entire idea of a modernising measure such as this emanated from a large number of institutions in the private sector. I think it is a very good example because it illustrates two points; on the one hand the necessary response and reaction from the side of the State in formulating legislation more suited to the purpose for which it is drawn up when there is adequate and sufficiently articulated insistence from the side of the private sector and, secondly, that one can also overcome the problem of too many people in agreement, as in this case, in which a large number of interested organisations fundamentally agreed on this measure.

I do not wish to go into detail on this Bill. The hon the Minister has already illustrated the important drift of this in his Second Reading speech. We are also grateful to be able to say that the other two Houses have already concluded business on this legislation; this House is therefore the last to come. There were no problems in the other two Houses so I think there is general unanimity—in those Houses as well. We take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking on the amendment I caused to be placed on the Order Paper; it is printed there in my name. The hon member for Umlazi will be able to confirm that I was the only member of the standing committee who opposed the omission of a specific provision from the Bill under discussion. Clause 15(4)(c) of the original Bill, as submitted to the standing committee, read as follows:

Mr Speaker, you will note this provision has been omitted from the Bill being dealt with here at the moment. I believe this omission will create many problems. I had my opposition to the omission recorded in the standing committee; I even went as far as having an amendment placed on the Order Paper in this regard. As the hon member for Umlazi said, the original Bill was submitted to the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa as well as to Sapoa—the South African Property Owners’ Association Ltd—and the Association of Building Societies. Not one of these bodies objected to the presence of that provision in the original Bill. Who was therefore in favour of the deletion of that provision? Not those bodies, Mr Speaker, but the conglomeration of liberalists in South Africa; they are the ones who wanted to delete that provision! It was the new Progs and their kindred spirits on the standing committee—the New Nats who have now emerged and who will leave South Africa in the lurch in its hour of need. They are the ones who deleted that provision. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should have expected the PFP to support the omission of that provision; after all, it accords with their policy—we are well aware of this. At least they are honest about it and say so openly. I knew the NRP would be opposed to such a provision because it is not in line with their policy either. What truly surprised me, however—and I say so roundly—was the fact that some of my former colleagues, who had sat with me in the National Party, voted in favour of the deletion of that provision. They were the people who had sat with me in the old National Party as I used to know it before. By the way, my grandfather was a founder member of that party; my father was a member of the National Party till the day of his death. I was a member of the National Party for years until I was evicted from it because of my principles. [Interjections.] I was evicted because I continued to stand for the principles of the National Party as I used to know it. [Interjections.]

You were not evicted! You deserted!

I then had to see all the principles of the old National Party being totally dismantled. Everything!

The Group Areas Act too! [Interjections.]

It revolted me! [Interjections.]

Of course they are dismantling the Group Areas Act as well! [Interjections.]

They fell over one another to have that provision removed from the Bill. Since its inception I have taken the trouble to study the Group Areas Act thoroughly from its initial stage. In this respect I wish to quote what the late Dr Dӧnges, the Minister of the Interior of the National Party at the time, said on the occasion of the introduction of the Group Areas Bill in this House. It happened on 29 May 1950. In column 7446 of Hansard of that date one reads Dr Dӧnges’s words:

Who are the people impeding this process at the moment? It is the Government. It is the current new Progs sitting in the National Party. Which elements spoke in opposition to the relevant provision in the Bill? The same ones! Those elements are the present so-called National Party which has gone raving mad, lost its backbone and become a jellyfish.

The late Dr D F Malan also spoke in that debate. Hon members should recall I am now referring to a former Prime Minister of South Africa; I am talking about Dr D F Malan. I am not ashamed of naming him. From my childhood I imbibed every word of Dr Malan’s and to this day my faith in him is unshaken. I wish to refer to what Dr Malan said in this House on 31 May 1950 regarding the measure introduced here by Dr Dӧnges. I refer hon members to his speech in Hansard of 31 May 1950, col 7722 et seq.

I shall now quote from Hansard of 13 June 1950, col 8804:

I shall now refer to col 8805 and quote:

Since then nothing has changed. World opinion was also considered at the time. It is just that the NP of the time had thews and sinews… [Interjections.]… and carried these matters through. [Interjections.]

If the provisions of the Group Areas Act, which also apply to this Sectional Titles Bill, ultimately have to disappear, what would happen? It is public knowledge that they are to disappear. Rapport, for instance, wrote as recently as 18 May:

That is why it has been omitted from the Sectional Titles Bill. [Interjections.] As regards the Federal Congress of the NP in Natal, Beeld of 16 August quoted what the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said:

The State President is reported to have said at the Federal Congress that the Group Areas Act should be made more flexible. Flexibility means here that he wishes to slaughter another sacred cow but that he wants to bend and break that cow’s back and then slaughter her. How many sacred cows have not been slaughtered since this Government came to power? White South Africans…

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

No, I am busy; the hon the Minister must resume his seat as he had a great deal of time to talk.

White South Africans should beware—they are the next sacred cows to be slaughtered by that party on the other side of which that hon Minister is the Transvaal leader.

He is an equivocator.

As a result of the reckless and totally irresponsible Government we have at present, that party is headed for the ultimate destruction of the White in South Africa. [Interjections.] We are living in bad times; peace can reign only if there is partition; conditions have not changed since the late Dr D F Malan’s days that respected leader of his time in South Africa. Can you imagine what would happen if the Group Areas Act no longer applied to buildings to which the Sectional Titles Act applied? Rape, murder and mayhem would occur. No one would be safe in those flats any longer. Influx control has already been abolished and that is a further sacred cow which has been slaughtered.

Then there is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—another sacred cow in the crush pen to be slaughtered. The Group Areas Act is in the crush pen already—its back still has to be bent and then broken. If this continues, the White people will no longer have a watering place and an outspan in its beloved South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Another sacred cow is standing there to be slaughtered.

Only the NP remains to be put into that crush pen.

In The Citizen of 24 August 1986 one reads—and I wonder who composes these idiotic advertisements and places them in newspapers:

Some advertising association or other or whoever composed that idiotic advertisement had the arrogance to attach the State President’s signature to it. It was perhaps with his approval but I do not believe he had read it. This type of advertisement damages South Africa. People are actually being advised to sleep with open doors—probably also in the type of flats which are being erected today! This affair is too idiotic for words. We shall fight this Sectional Titles Bill because of the omission of the provisions of the Group Areas Act from it and vote against it because we believe the essence of separate development is being annihilated in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to refer to clause 15(4)(c) to which the hon member for Nigel has already alluded. I want to pause briefly at the fact that, when I criticised and actually attacked the State President this year for wishing to dismantle group areas in South Africa, he told me he was prepared to alter the Act but he remained in favour of group areas. By means of this legislation the Government is deliberately creating the possibility that not only the residential areas of groups may become mixed but that specific blocks of flats may also be occupied by people of different races. This accords with the creed of the NP candidate in Klip River. According to page 2 of the Ladysmith Gazette of 15 August 1986 he made a basic statement which comes down to a creed. It is in line with the action of the Government and in particular that of the State President. I shall quote a single sentence:

The NP candidate in Klip River is therefore acting in accordance with the current views, standpoints, actions and legislation of the NP because he claims he is striving for a solution in a “multiracial society”. It could not be stated more clearly or concisely. It is on the basis of this that the NP will suffer devastating defeat in South Africa in the long run.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry you have to listen to me twice in one day but it is the fault of the hon members for Nigel and Sasolburg.

The hon member for Nigel is a member of the standing committee which considered this legislation and, when this particular clause came up, the hon member objected to it. That is true. Nevertheless it was very clearly pointed out to the hon member that it was unnecessary for the Group Areas Act to be embodied in this Bill; the Group Areas Act may be applied per se. It is unnecessary to incorporate the same provisions as in the Group Areas Act in this legislation.

The Group Areas Act and the Sectional Titles Act are two separate Acts. If the Sectional Titles Act were contravened—in the case of aliens taking up residence—steps would be taken against them in terms of the Group Areas Act.

The hon member for Sasolburg raised the case of the NP candidate for Klip River to which I cannot reply because I do not know the candidate; I neither heard nor read the speech.

It has been recorded. [Interjections.]

I have not seen it so I cannot reply to it. The fact is that, if he and the hon member for Nigel wish to attack the Government, they could go about it in an entirely different way. They could then attack the Government because insufficient accommodation was provided for or available to Black people…

There are mixed flats in Ladysmith now. [Interjections.]

… there is insufficient accommodation for Coloureds and for Indians too.

Earlier this year during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services I pointed out that there was a shortage of 460 000 houses for Black people. The shortage in respect of Indians is 75 000 houses and I cannot even recall the figure regarding Coloureds at the moment. The Supreme Court case applicable in this instance is that of The State vs Govender. In this case the Supreme Court found that in terms of the Group Areas Act the State was not permitted to remove someone of colour from a flat or a housing unit if alternative accommodation was not available to him.

What has the Government done in connection with this case meanwhile? Earlier this year thousands of millions of rands were appropriated by the hon the Minister of Finance—he will be able to give the House the exact figure—for the provision of housing for Black people, Coloureds and Indians. That problem will solve itself. It is true that it poses a problem and everyone is in agreement on this but the solution does not lie in a provision in the Sectional Titles Bill. To insert a provision in the Sectional Titles Bill as proposed by the hon member for Nigel will definitely not solve the problem.

On the one hand housing is a very sensitive matter but on the other hand also a very important one. Economists will be able to state what the economic priorities of man are; first and foremost is food. The second priority is clothing and the third is housing. The priority accorded to housing does not exist among Whites only; it exists among all people and, the more sophisticated a community and its people, the higher the standards it sets for its housing.

One of the unfortunate phenomena which make housing so expensive is that land is created only once. It is created only once but people are created every day. The demand for housing therefore increases daily but the available land does not. In consequence of this very fact and the escalation in building costs, plots are becoming smaller with the passage of years and blocks of flats have risen. People have established themselves in flats and apartments. Yet every individual—in our country too—still wishes to have ownership rights to the property he occupies.

During the seventies the position developed in our country that the occupier or tenant of a flat—who could not afford a dwelling house on a plot—wished to acquire property rights to the flat for which he was paying an exorbitant rental so that it could become part of his estate. That was the origin of sectional title legislation. Over the years there has been further development and the demand for sectional title flats has increased. This has not been without its problematical aspect, however. In this way we have arrived at this Bill in order to address and eliminate problems which have arisen and been pointed out in the course of time—as the hon member for Umlazi indicated.

The demand for sectional title units has increased over the years. It is interesting to note that 21 500 sectional title units were registered at deeds offices in the names of new owners in 1985.

In respect of the Bill we are now discussing, the following may be of interest: In terms of the existing Act, it is the duty and function of the deeds office to consider and approve the sectional title plan submitted by the developer but the deeds office does not have trained personnel to evaluate plans.

As a result of this, a great improvement was effected to the existing Act by referring such sectional title plans to the Surveyor-General for approval in the first place. He first has to affix his stamp to them and be satisfied that contraventions of which the developer was perhaps not even aware or perpetrated deliberately will not disadvantage future owners. The personnel of the deeds office does not have the knowledge and training to uncover this and it will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the owners of the sectional title units. I consider it a very great improvement and excellent protection for the owners of such units.

One of the finest characteristics of this legislation is the effort to protect owners of sectional title units in the smallest detail. That is why the legislation provides that a developer may not sell units in a building or even advertise them for sale before this development is registered at the deeds office. I think we all recall clearly how many people came off second best in the early seventies because they bought sectional title units on the strength of a plan before it had been registered—not to mention their having been built.

The legislation inter alia provides much greater protection to tenants. When existing blocks of flats are sold in terms of the legislation, present tenants… [Interjections.]

Lucas, look at how many members you have talked out of this place.

The hon member himself is incapable of participating in the discussion on this Bill.

He is a sectional title.

He is a section without a title. Tenants of rent-controlled flats may be prime targets of conscienceless developers trying to evict these defenceless people, who are chiefly pensioners and occupy these flats because they have a small income, in order to sell the property.

The legislation now provides that, if the tenant is given the option of purchasing his rent-controlled flat and he does not take up the offer in 90 days, he may not be given notice to vacate the flat within six months subsequent to the date of sale. The flat may not be sold at a price lower than that at which it was offered to the tenant either. [Interjections.]

A further interesting matter regarding this legislation is the institution of the corporate body. In terms of this legislation the first party in the sale of a registered building is the developer but, after registration of the sectional title plan, the offer of the flats for sale and the sale of the first flat, a corporate body is instituted and, within 60 days after the institution of such a corporate body, a meeting has to be held by the owners of these units to determine rules of management and conduct according to which the new owners of that building will then live together. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Kuruman stop trying to strike up a conversation across the floor of the House. I called upon the hon member for Hercules to speak.

Mr Speaker, a further improvement to the existing Act is the fact that units or flats will now be rated separately and that the owner will be liable for the payment of rates. Up to the present the corporate body was responsible for the payment of rates on property and it happened that the corporate body, and especially trustees of the corporate body, mismanaged the rates which were collected by way of monthly levies until the owners woke up to the fact that the rates on the property had not been paid and local authorities were taking steps against them.

Units are now rated individually and the owner is individually liable for the payment of rates and this risk is no longer run.

Sir, I wish to close by thanking the hon the Minister for an excellent piece of legislation to be included in our Statute Book and especially for the way in which owners of sectional title units and also in particular tenants of existing buildings which will be sold in terms of the Act are protected.

Mr Speaker, at the start of the previous speaker’s speech this afternoon, he apologised for the fact that we had to listen to him for the second time today. Although this was his second contribution in the House today, it is a privilege for me to follow him.

I also think it is indicative of something else. It is almost tragic to see how the stamina of the Opposition in this House is disappearing entirely and running into the sand at this stage of the year. [Interjections.] It is also interesting, for the record, to notice that at this stage when one is discussing legislation which is so important to the people of South Africa that we want to protect, namely the home owners of South Africa, the interest of the hon members of the Opposition is of such a nature that there are only two hon members of the CP and three hon members of the PFP present here. [Interjections.] At the same time in all fairness I must say that at least the HNP is fully represented here this afternoon. [Interjections.] But this is a fairly complex topic and I can consequently understand that there are some hon members who prefer not to participate.

I can remember the days prior to 1971 when as a young newspaper reporter I was involved in reports on sectional title scheme which were usually introduced and marketed with great publicity. But what appeared almost as frequently were reports on such schemes which had sensationally collapsed like a house of cards. Those reports usually contained two elements. One element was the tragic stories of people who had lost the single biggest investment they had made in their lives when these schemes collapsed. Almost just as frequently the other element was present, namely the unscrupulous developers who escaped from these collapses unscathed. I can remember a specific case when I attended an auction of such a scheme. The developer of this bankrupt scheme arrived at the auction in a Rolls Royce.

As it is the custom of the NP Government to look after the interests of its voters, in 1971 it gave us the Sectional Titles Act. Today it again wants to look after the interests of the voters of South Africa, and we are being given greater certainty in law regarding the sectional titles scheme or the sectional titles system.

Whereas up to 1971 the image of and the confidence in the sectional titles system were very shaky and there was a great deal of suspicion regarding this kind of scheme, confidence in these schemes has grown since 1971 and sectional titles have become a very important part of the residential pattern of South Africa; and now they make a very important contribution to the accommodation of our people.

In 1971, when the Second Reading of this Bill was taken and because we were dealing with a very complex and sophisticated system, problems were foreseen and it was foreseen that over the years this Act would have to be amended. Over the years this Act has been amended eight times to improve it, make it safer for the investor and close loopholes, and today we have this legislation in front of us.

By means of this legislation the amendments of the past are being combined in a consolidated Act and I think one is justified in saying that in this legislation the sectional title system has reached full maturity and has finally been established in the South African residential pattern.

The hon member for Hercules singled out most of the important elements of this legislation, and I think there are only two matters to which I want to refer in conclusion. The first matter is the streamlining in respect of the approval of this system, in which the local authorities are being given a greater share in the matter. [Interjections.]

There goes the HNP! [Interjections.]

Yes, the entire HNP is walking out.

I also think that with the individual taxation on the units and yet again the greater certainty which is now being given to the individual owner in a sectional titles system, that security is also being strengthened and in addition the principle is being incorporated in the Act that the individual owner is being given a greater say in his own investment. Consequently I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I think it will always be a pleasure for us to follow the hon member for Springs, and I think in his contribution this afternoon, he again proved that he is going to do great things in this House.

I found it interesting to listen to the arguments of the CP and the HNP. One gains the impression that with regard to every Bill discussed in this Chamber they would want to insert something to keep people apart. The fact that it is included in other legislation and is regulated by that legislation does not matter. They want to repeat it over and over again to themselves and to the people outside, and that is simply utterly nonsensical. [Interjections.]

In the standing committee we had the same kind of arguments from the hon member for Nigel. It did not matter how hard one tried to get him to see that it was not necessary to leave it in this legislation; one could simply not succeed. That is why I find it a pity that he harped on the same theme in these debates. [Interjections.]

I also want to say something to the hon member for Sasolburg. Unfortunately he is not here now, but it was not necessary for him to allow himself to be taken in tow by the CP. I know they are blood brothers, but it was not necessary for him to continue with that.

I now want to ask the hon member for Nigel whether he can tell us what would happen if we were to omit that provision from this legislation. If we were to omit that provision nothing would change. The hon member for Hercules confirmed this. I want to read out to the hon member what is stated in the Group Areas Act so that he can realise once and for all that what he feels so aggrieved about is not true.

Section 42 of the Group Areas Act (Act 36 of 1966) provides:

1. (1) The officer in charge of any deed registry shall not register any transfer of immovable property situated in the controlled area or in any group area, unless the requirements prescribed under section 47(l)(c) have been complied with and the transferee has submitted to him such further proof as he may require that the transferee may lawfully acquire and hold such immovable property or that the transferor may lawfully dispose thereof to the transferee in terms of this Act.
2. (2) If any immovable property is registered in the name of any person who may not lawfully acquire or hold such property in terms of this Act, or could not lawfully have acquired or held such property in terms of the Group Areas Act, 1957 (Act No 77 of 1957), or the Group Areas Act, 1950 (Act No 41 of 1950), the registration shall, subject to any penalty which may be incurred under this Act and to the provisions of section 41, not be invalid by reason of the provisions of this Act.

It is impossible to state this more clearly, and that is why one actually becomes a little hot under the collar when members still come to this Chamber and still tell the public outside that we are in the process of making changes. They are only doing this so that they can repeat these statements in forthcoming elections. In my opinion this is unreasonable, dishonest and unfair. That party must not do this kind of thing to the public of South Africa. I think the CP as a political party must take note that they must be honest and fair to their voters.

The hon member also alleged that in the standing committee the members of the NP all spoke about the fact that this provision must fall away. Did I understand him correctly?

You did all agree that it must fall away.

We agreed that it should fall away because we said it was unnecessary for it to appear in the legislation. The hon member implied here that we had advocated in the standing committee that it should now suddenly be deleted, and he knows as well as we do—we told him so—that it was dealt with in the other legislation. [Interjections.] If we want to change the other legislation, we shall get to that point he is already debating.

Finally I want to ask the hon members of the CP and the HNP not to act in this way. One finds that what they say here is not always what they do. I have experience of this. In my own constituency there are CP members who are “nominees” for Indian businessmen who are doing business there. [Interjections.] This is the kind of thing that the NP has been fighting all the years. [Interjections.] People of colour are being treated dishonestly.

Yes, that is right. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that we catch them out all the time, and will continue to do so. [Interjections.] Judging by the reaction here, I believe that what is going on in my constituency is going on throughout the country. [Interjections.] I have proof that there are members of the CP who own shops in my constituency—they are the owners of the buildings—who rent the buildings to Indians. But then they object sanctimoniously here to that kind of behaviour. We are telling them that the time has come for us to cease this hypocrisy in politics in South Africa. We do not have time for that; we must put these matters right. The NP will put this kind of thing right, and we do not care how much they object to it.

I should like to get back to the Bill. I think there are several matters in this Bill which require the attention of the House. With the coming of the sectional titles legislation in South Africa a new era in housing was ushered in. Thousands of dwelling units were placed on the market at that stage which had not been there before. In the past they may have been leased. I think that with regard to the concept of “home ownership” in terms of the Bill before the House this afternoon, for the first time in history we are making it possible for South Africans to invest in cluster housing schemes.

When this Bill was initially submitted to us, we realised that it could have certain shortcomings. But I believe that the standing committee thrashed it out so well—we also had the co-operation of everyone whose evidence we got—that the problems which still existed should by now have been removed from the Bill. Because it was a new system, one could expect that there would be shortcomings at that stage. I believe that the standing committee performed its task very well, and that we have now produced a far more effective piece of legislation.

As far as the deliberations and decisions of the standing committee on this legislation are concerned, on behalf of this side of the House I want to convey our congratulations, thanks and appreciation to the hon member for Umlazi. His knowledge of and experience in connection with Sectional Titles Act became clear while we were dealing with the Bill. If it had not been for his exceptional expertise, we could not have dealt with this cumbersome Bill of approximately 80 pages so quickly and easily. [Interjections.] One of the other hon members mentioned that it was a complex piece of legislation, and I agree with that. But it was surprising to see how quickly the standing committee disposed of it.

The Bill replaces the Sectional Titles Act, and all bodies involved in the sectional titles legislation were also involved in the activities of the standing committee. Provision is made in the Bill for sectional titles also to be issued for detached units. I think this is a shortcoming which existed a long time ago and which we would have liked to eliminate earlier on, but this has now been done. This now means that constructions and parking garages can also become part of a sectional titles scheme. The Bill simplifies the administration of sectional titles schemes in that it is now possible for the sectional titles units to be taxed separately, for example. I think this is a step in the right direction; it helps the local authorities, the owner of such a scheme and individual owners.

The Bill eliminates the impediment which has existed up to now in that additional facilities can also be added. One foresees that in future new schemes may include sporting or recreational facilities, and persons will be allowed to share in that too.

I do not think there is much more to say. Most hon members have already mentioned those matters I would have liked to have emphasised, but from my side I should like to say that I think this is good legislation and it is a good thing that we are passing it. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, the Sectional Titles Act deals with ownership and business rights in or concerning sections of buildings and the registration of title on these particular properties.

If we examine this Bill before the House in a historical perspective, we can agree that there has been no single instrument in the property process of South Africa which has made ownership as accessible to so many people as precisely the Sectional Titles Act. The principal Act, apart from the accessibility of property in residential areas, enabled particularly elderly people and senior citizens to make units, which they had rented for many years and with which they were familiar, their own property—units which they really regarded as their own property due to the rent they had paid for them.

We are witnessing a very peculiar situation in the House this afternoon, because an important measure is being debated here. What is the basis of this measure? It is one of the most basic needs of mankind and that is to own property—security, protection, particularly for the aged, first time home buyers; people who are married and want to start out in life and start a family. The NP is prepared to participate in the debate. [Interjections.] The NP is prepared to play its part so that this process can be completed. When I look at the opposition benches to my right, I see only five members of the opposition parties who are interested in this Bill. [Interjections.] I think it is a disgrace that the opposition parties, due to their absence in the House this afternoon, convey to the senior citizens and first time home buyers that they are not interested in their weal and woe. [Interjections.]

That is right.

Through their absence during the discussion of this measure the opposition parties tell the senior citizens: “We leave you to your lot. You can be exploited by unscrupulous developers. We do not want to make a contribution to this debate.” [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I think the only positive message from this debate which should be conveyed to the voters of South Africa, is that the National Party, as far as the Sectional Titles Act, ownership and security is concerned, stands solidly behind those who want to acquire such ownership and security, and that the HNP, the CP and the PFP is not making a contribution and does not want to participate in the discussion which is aimed at establishing that security and ownership. [Interjections.]

When we look back and view things in their historical perspective, we see that the Sectional Titles Act, together with the Rent Control Act, has created a very peculiar legal situation. The Sectional Titles Act made it possible—when that measure was placed on the Statute Book in 1971—to obtain individual ownership in multi-storeyed and multiple units. In 1971 the Rent Control Act controlled the ownership and occupation of property in controlled premises. It was applicable to people who enjoyed protection on the strength of their income—the so-called protected lessees. Now we have found the situation arising that as the Rent Control Act has been phased out in five-year periods—from 1966 to 1961, and from 1960 to 1955 and at the moment from 1955 to 29 October 1949—the position of the protected lessee has become a problem in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. A whole saga has in fact arisen in regard to how the protection of protected lessees should be handled on the one hand as opposed to the question of how ownership should be consolidated for those who want to buy those units on the other hand. This presents the legislator with a very difficult problem to deal with. Section 4(6)(b) of the former Sectional Titles Act determined that if a protected lessee occupied a property in terms of the Rent Act, such a unit could not be converted in terms of the sectional titles plan. The reason for this was to prevent the exploitation of protected lessees. Section 4(6)(b) of the old Sectional Titles Act actually placed a hindrance on the conversion of units into sectional title units. Two or three protected lessees could be living in premises in terms of the Rent Act, for example, while in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, there might be 30 or 40 prospective owners of units in those particular premises—people who wanted to buy those units. Because the protected lessees were living there, however, such a property could not be subdivided.

The Act was then amended with the result that if a protected lessee was present in such a sectional plan, his right of occupation remained protected, while the developers were also given the right to sell the other units in the sectional plan. This was an admirable solution to the problematic situation of creating accommodation on the one hand, and on the other, the protection of the rights of pensioners and also those who lived on a fixed income.

The coming into effect of the Sectional Titles Act signalled the completion of a second very important process, the value of which cannot, in the history of South Africa, be correctly assessed at the moment. The concept of sectional titles, as has been refined in this Bill, resulted in old historic buildings being restored and being given a new lease of life as buildings of value as a result of being converted into sectional title units. Particularly in the central business district the sectional titles concept as such resulted in buildings being restored or improved.

In this way the units were subdivided and sold to new owners, and buildings which would normally have fallen victim to the ravages of time and the elements, rise again as historic buildings which can be preserved. This is a very important element of South Africa’s history which is therefore being preserved.

I also want to use this opportunity to thank the standing committee sincerely for the work that they have done in connection with this. The hon member for Umlazi chaired the standing committee in a very competent way. This important chairmanship in regard to this important measure before the House, contributed towards its being debated here in the House today.

As far as a few of these aspects are concerned, I just want to…

With whom are you people debating?

Does the hon member for Sasolburg want to make a speech?

I want to know with whom you are debating.

Was the hon member on the standing committee?

No, you people would not allow me to, not on one of the committees.

The hon member really does not want to make a contribution to this debate.

I should like to know with whom you are debating.

There are certain specific provisions in regard to this Bill before the House to which I want to return. The Standing Advisory Committee on the Sectional Titles Act recommended certain changes. I think it is important that the House takes note of these changes. I shall now briefly deal with each individual recommendation.

Firstly, let me just mention, however, that there is in fact still ambiguousness in the sectional title set-up which has to be settled, ie the rights of tenants as opposed to those of prospective buyers. This classic feud in regard to the rights of lessees as opposed to the rights of the developers has been settled in a completely fair way by this Bill. This matter is addressed by clause 10 of the Bill. I want to draw hon members’ attention to clause 10 of this Bill. When a scheme is being converted, the position of the lessees is regulated very satisfactorily by clause 10. When a conversion takes place in terms of the sectional title scheme, the position of the lessee is that the developer first has to go to the lessee and offer to sell it to him. This means that the existing lessees property and occupation rights cannot be taken away from them. This is the first matter which is being regulated here.

The second matter is that the lessee gets the option of deciding within three months whether he is going to buy that unit. This gives the lessee the opportunity, if he does not want to buy, to make alternative arrangements. Within this period of 90 days a lessee can decide, in terms of the provisions of the legislation, whether he is going to make a purchase in terms of the conditions offered to him.

Apart from the normal lessee there is also another kind of lessee in terms of the Rent Control Act, the so-called protected lessees. Hon members must understand very clearly that protected lessees are only those who have occupied their units before 1966.

These lessees who took occupation before 1966 and who are protected lessees in terms of the Rent Control Act, are individual lessees, but lessees who occupy units which were erected before 1948, are all protected lessees. The difference between these two concepts is that lessees who occupied units between 1949 and 1966 are protected according to their income. In the case of lessees who have occupied their units before 28 October 1949, the unit as such is protected. I have now explained the position as it pertains to normal lessees. Let us see what the position is regard to protected lessees.

You have nothing to say.

The hon member for Kuruman does not know anything about this. [Interjections.]

Your Whips have told you to speak for a full half hour and now you are just talking.

Mr Speaker, I wonder if the hon member for Kuruman could tell us whether, in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, there are any protected lessees in the Kuruman constituency. [Interjections.] The hon member will not be able to answer the question for two reasons. Firstly, the hon member does not know the Act. Secondly, could the hon member tell me whether Kuruman falls under the jurisdiction of a rent board? [Interjections.] The hon member remains dead quiet. The hon member cannot make a contribution to this debate at all. [Interjections.] I have half an hour which I should like to use to discuss this very important Bill, to which the hon member for Kuruman has no contribution to make. That is an absolute disgrace! [Interjections.]

The right of occupation of a lessee protected in terms of the Rent Control Act will not be affected in terms of the Sectional Titles Bill which we are debating here today. In terms of the Sectional Titles Bill the unit occupied by a protected lessee can be sold. The protected lessee’s right of occupation in terms of the Sectional Titles Bill is not adversely affected. This is another example that proves to the voters of South Africa that the NP sees to their interests and that the opposition parties have no contribution to make in this connection. [Interjections.]

There are a few specific cases in this Bill which in my opinion deserve attention. As a result of the affect of this legislation a body corporate comes into existence. When the first unit is sold in terms of the legislation and the title is registered, the developer is the majority shareholder in this scheme. A body corporate which handles the interests of all the sectional units then comes into being. This is a very important matter, because the body corporate is the body which sees to the general interests of the common property and also to the interests of the individual owner.

What is the body corporate’s task in terms of the Sectional Titles Act? The task of the body corporate is to administer the common property of the owners who have bought under the sectional title scheme in the best interests of all the owners who have bought. The task of this body corporate which can be managed by an agent, is to see to the collection of levies in terms of the participation quota; the payment of monthly accounts; the payment of the assessment and the services; and the organisation of meetings. In the past certain practical problems have arisen in connection with this body corporate, which are now being set to right by this legislation. Let us examine one of these problems…

Does the hon member agree with this legislation?

I agree with the legislation…

With whom are you fighting then? You are fighting now and you are watching a boxing match while you are shadow boxing.

Mr Speaker, here we have another very interesting phenomenon where the democratic right of a member of this House to speak is now being attacked. [Interjections.]

Scandalous!

The Speaker will decide on that and the hon member for Kuruman will not deprive me of my right to participate in this debate and to make a contribution.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, practical problems have arisen in connection with the function of the body corporate of sectional title units. [Interjections.] This legislation now sets it right.

I just want to refer to a few of these matters. The first is the local government functions and the overlapping in this regard with the functions of the Registrar of Deeds. Local government functions basically amount to the fact that when a developer wants to have a scheme registered, he has it surveyed by a land surveyor or an architect and then presents the survey together with the sectional plans, and everything connected to it, to the local authority. The experts of the local authority make a further examination of the sectional title plan in terms of the provisions of the town planning scheme.

Before this Bill comes into effect, the Registrar of Deeds goes through exactly the same procedure when a sectional title register is opened. There is therefore a case of overlapping as far as this matter is concerned. This is being remedied in terms of this Bill in that the control and the record keeping, in addition to the local authority’s functions, are also being referred to the Surveyor-General. This is a very important amendment.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member how the part played by the local authority in the case of the sectional title differs from its role in the case of the 99-year leasehold, with specific reference to the RSC’s when they come into operation?

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister will deal with this matter in his reply to this debate. [Interjections.]

There is another very important matter which is being regulated by this Bill, and that is that as far as the calculation of the participation quotas of a unit is concerned, there is a proportional distribution of the responsibility of each individual owner in the case of residential schemes. Basically the units are approximately all of the same size. But if certain business or commercial interests are incorporated then these interests, according to this participation quota is much greater and contributes more to the final general expenditures of the sectional title units. This cannot necessarily be reduced to the size of this commercial property. As a consequence it is determined in this legislation that the business aspect within a scheme, which is of a residential as well as a commercial nature, has to be reviewed and that it should not be subjected to the same high levies as apply in the general residential area.

I still want to refer to the tax aspect. In a sectional title scheme a great responsibility rests on the tax aspect. At present the taxation of sectional title schemes are dealt with by the body corporate. In most cases the body corporate is well administered and this money is spent capably and according to the set rules of the trustees, but in a few cases it could be that the body corporate is misspending this money. This could mean that the tax of the sectional title scheme is being held back. In practice one finds a situation where an individual owner who has paid his tax by means of his levy could be dispossessed because his tax has not been paid due to the carelessness or negligence of the trustees, his agent or the body corporate.

I think this is a timeous and very important amendment which once again shows that the Government, in a very complicated and complex situation of property ownership, is sympathetic to individual interests and wants to protect them although there could perhaps be default on the part of the agent of a control body. This is a very important amendment. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, right at the beginning of this debate I should like to convey my thanks to the speakers who took part in this debate. Firstly, I want to refer to the speakers on the NP side. Five of the seven speakers who took part in the discussions, were NP members. We as a House, are indebted to them for the way in which they proved that they were knowledgeable about this Act and for the contribution they made, not only today in this House, but also in the standing committee and outside.

I should like to address a special word of thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Umlazi, who, not only in the case of this legislation, but also in respect of other legislation in previous years, has shown in the standing committee that he possesses a special talent for communication and persuasion in the process of adapting legislation to the benefit of the community that it is going to serve and for creating unanimity among the people in the process. We all thank the hon member for Umlazi as well as the hon members for Hercules, Springs, Boksburg and Bellville for their specific contributions and the replies they gave to the other hon members who spoke here.

I should like to mention a few points briefly. The first is that this legislation has already passed through the other two Houses of Parliament and was spoken about with great appreciation and in-depth knowledge in those two Houses. It was evident that they had made a thorough study of the legislation.

Secondly, I should like to address a word of thanks in this House, on behalf of Parliament as a whole, to Dr Cohen, who has participated in the efforts to improve this legislation since 1975, as well as to the people who assisted him: The Law Society, the land surveyors concerned, the architects, estate agents, building societies, Sapoa and, last but not least, the Deeds Office and the Deeds Office staff who were involved, but also the Director-General of the Department of Public Works and his staff who were involved.

The number of names I have listed attests to the fact that all interested parties who possess in-depth knowledge and work with these specific aspects concerning our daily lives every day, were consulted. Indeed, because extensive consultation took place, this specific Bill contains legislation that has been amended over the years. In this process the growing pains have been eliminated and today we are able to discuss a Bill that has to be passed by the last of the three Houses of Parliament in order to become law. The quality of the Bill was commended by all the experts, and we should like to thank all those involved.

There is another aspect I also want to mention. Apart from the organised bodies who had a hand in this legislation, individuals were also free to make inputs to the committee, the department and the legal draftsmen in order to improve this legislation.

As far as this aspect, too, is concerned, I may mention that there were elderly people who had invested their last savings in title deeds to these sectional title units, who brought to the attention of the people concerned specific problems relating to the acquisition of parking space, which can now be added to these sectional title deeds. They did this after the Bill had been printed for the first time. They anticipated problems in this regard. Individual elderly persons made inputs in this regard which have been included in the final version of the Bill. This is another indication of the attitude and the approach that has been followed, for which we want to thank them.

Finally, we recently received information that a professor who is at present working on this, has sent a message to the hon the Minister under whom I work, to the effect that this piece of legislation before this House was an exceptional piece of legislation. So, even on that level it is being highly commended.

I should just like to react to the speeches by the two hon members who opposed the legislation. In doing so I shall perhaps associate myself with what my colleagues have already said in this regard. The hon members for Nigel and Sasolburg objected to the omission of a certain subsection of this legislation.

Right at the outset I should like to say to the hon member for Nigel that I do not think the words he used were appropriate in a debate such as this one. I think that to describe the hon members’ conduct as disgusting and jelly-fish-like, where legislation that is so effective overall, is being debated, is unworthy of him; he should not adopt that attitude here.

I can accept that he disagrees with the Bill, but the way in which people disagree is important in this process and I want to point this out to the hon member. Three points emerged from his whole argument. The first point was that he said that the omission in the sub-section of the Sectional Titles Act amounted to the abandoning of the Group Areas Act. I say that is not true. The second point he made, or the error he made in his argument, was that he said that by amending this legislation we were changing the Group Areas Act or abandoning it completely. I say that is not true either.

I want to ask that hon member, with great respect, whether the Group Areas Act which was introduced here by Dr Dönges in 1950 and which was subsequently passed by Parliament, as the hon member mentioned, has not been amended on several occasions since that time. [Interjections.]

Are you going to abolish that next year too?

No, but what is true, is that improvements will have to be made to the Group Areas Act from time to time, just as improvements had been made in the past. It was amended in 1957, and who was the Prime Minister then? Mr Hans Strijdom! It was amended in 1966, and who was the Prime Minister then? Dr Verwoerd! However, the injustice that the hon member is committing, lies in the words the hon member used when he said that the omission from the Sectional Titles Bill was a disgusting and jelly-fish-like act on the part of certain hon members. I do not think that is correct. [Interjections.] I do not think it behoves the hon member to act like this. [Interjections.] I shall not pursue that matter any further. [Interjections.]

I also want to point out to the hon member that the specific point that is now being included in subsection 15(4) of the Sectional Titles Bill, does appear in section 11 of the existing Act. Certain provisions are now being omitted, but subsection 15(4) provides that—

I shall skip paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c) in the original Bill as introduced, is now being omitted. That paragraph (c) reads:

That is completely in agreement with what the hon member for Nigel mentioned.

What does the Group Areas Act stipulate? When we look at the Group Areas Act, Act 36 of 1966, we see that section 42 provides that—

It then goes further. Therefore, the Group Areas Act already contains a provision that has to be complied with, thus making this provision in the Sectional Titles Act unnecessary. That is why I resent the Conservative Party’s insinuations and their failure to present the total implication of the measure as a whole. [Interjections.] What is more, they are misleading the public, who do not know any better. [Interjections.] Having said that, I just want to add the following: A person who acts in that way is, in the first place, not being honest with himself.

All I expect from the hon member is that he should emphasise both aspects and explain what it is all about. If he wants to criticise us, as the hon member for Sasolburg did, by saying that we want to abolish group areas, and by quoting a man from Klip River who is now a candidate, as if what he said was an indication of what the National Party wants to do, then that is one part of one leg of an argument one could pursue. However, I want to say to the hon member for Sasolburg that it is interesting that he and the HNP should now regard a broad statement in the election manifesto of a new candidate as the policy of the NP, but fail to quote what the State President and hon Ministers said. I want to quote that to him. [Interjections.]

Are you repudiating the candidate?

What I want to quote to the hon member is what the State President said, and I want to ask the hon member whether he accepts the State President’s views in respect of this matter as the party’s official policy or not. Now I should just like to know: If the State President and national leader of the National Party adopted a standpoint in regard to this matter, would he accept or reject it?

Does the candidate accept it?

He will accept it. He will accept it, because a Nationalist abides by the policy of the National Party as prescribed by the national leader of the National Party, and that is the State President. [Interjections.]

Order!

I accept that the hon member cannot imagine himself in a party such as this one, because he is at present the chief whip, chief secretary and national leader of his party here! He is presenting a one-man show, and that makes it difficult for him to imagine that there could be people who hold other views. [Interjections.]

I therefore want to quote to the hon member for Sasolburg what the State President said in the House of Delegates—not in this House. His words were (col 2257):

That was what the State President said in the House of Delegates on 23 April this year.

Yes, but that is not what the Government is doing.

No, that is what the Government is doing. [Interjections.] I was quoting from Hansard and, with due respect, if the hon member for Kuruman would sometimes keep quiet and listen to what is being said without arguing with other hon members, he would be able to follow the course of the discussion and be less confused in his own mind.

Your views change every 14 days! [Interjections.]

I shall quote the views the State President expressed 14 days later to the hon member. [Interjections.] At the NP congress the State President again took a stand on that issue. [Interjections.] He reiterated that own residential areas and own schools were inherent aspects of our policy and that they had to be protected. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Kuruman wishes to pursue this matter any further, I want to say to him that he is maliciously and erroneously presenting other ideas and other images to the outside world. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education also took a stand on that in that he specifically presented the protection and identity of own residential areas and schools as the policy of the NP. Therefore, as far as that is concerned, there is no confusion, but I want to say to the hon member for Sasolburg that the image he is trying to project that this legislation is following a course that will result in the abolition of the Group Areas Act, is not correct.

Oh, we have heard that before!

I also want to say that it is correct that group areas will be adjusted from time to time.

There you have it!

That is correct, but what that hon member said in the past was that what Dr Verwoerd and Dr Malan did was correct—also according to the hon member for Nigel. However, they, too, amended it from time to time, as I have said. [Interjections.] On the strength of that we say that we, too, shall adopt that course.

Nobody takes any notice of your views.

I do not care whether the hon member for Kuruman takes notice of my views. In fact, our politics differ to such an extent that I am proud of the fact that we hold different views. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Speaker, the hon member has had an opportunity to speak. His speech was very brief considering the circumstances, but I do not blame him, since he has spoken so much already during this session. He must be tired by now. [Interjections.]

There is one thing I cannot understand, Mr Speaker, and that is that the hon member should say: “It is all arrogance.” [Interjections.] The fact is, however, that throughout my reply to this debate I have devoted time to trying to reply to every argument advanced by the two hon members who opposed the Bill. I therefore do not believe it is correct to say anything of the kind in that respect either. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, in conclusion I should just like to make it clear that we are not so naive as to believe that this Bill will not need to be amended again one day because of the demands of the future, no matter how good it may be according to present-day thinking. The department and its officials, as well as the other parties involved and, of course, the regulations board to be established, will in future have to consider possible amendments to this measure if it is to benefit the community as a whole.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Speaker, I move:

My motivation for this motion, to put it briefly, is that I should like to have an opportunity to move the amendment that is printed in my name on the Order Paper, so that it may be discussed.

Mr Speaker, I object to the motion moved by the hon member for Nigel. I do not intend to consider agreeing to the amendment in any case.

Question negatived.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, when the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act was introduced in Parliament during 1984, it was mentioned that the profession of town clerk was one of the most interesting and challenging professions in our country. This statement emphasised the important part the town clerk has to play in the administration of the country and in the decision-making process in regard to matters concerning every voter of a local authority. I am also of opinion that the town clerk, as chief executive officer of a local authority, should as such get due recognition through the remuneration package received for this task.

The Remuneration of Town Clerks Act of 1984 has been on the Statute Book for two years. Apparently there was some opposition in certain provinces initially, a fact which could be ascribed to differences in interpretation. Furthermore, the fact that in such provinces no employers’ association existed, prevented the orderly structuring of a remuneration package. To a large extent the implementation of the Act brought about order where it had been lacking previously.

At the moment, the Act only provides for town clerks of White, Coloured and Indian local authorities.

In view of the principle of equal treatment of all the population groups, it is now the appropriate step to take to amend the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act of 1984 so as to also make the Act applicable to the town clerks of Black local authorities.

The definition of “local authority” is extended to include Black local authorities. Therefore the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act of 1984 will be applicable to all local authorities in a like manner.

The Government has committed itself to the creation of equal structures and equal treatment on local government level for all population groups. This amendment is in line with this object.

Section 1(2) of the principal Act provides for payment of a kind to, or on behalf of, an employee as a reward for his service to be excluded from the definition of “remuneration”.

Exclusions in terms of section 1(2) provide for the payment by local authorities to their employees, for example in respect of pension fund contributions, medical fund contributions and acting allowances to employees, to be excluded from the concept of “remuneration”.

The proposed amendment makes provision for the hon the Minister, in exceptional circumstances—after consultation with the Advisory Committee—to provide for the exclusion of certain benefits from the definition of “motor-car scheme” or “housing scheme”. The amendment awards the hon the Minister the same power in respect of a “motor-car scheme” and “housing scheme” which he already has in respect of the remuneration of town clerks and makes the application of the Act more flexible.

Section 3 of the principal Act is amended to give the three own affairs Administrations of my colleagues, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives and the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates, as well as the Association of Urban Councils of South Africa, as representative of the Black local authorities, representation on the Advisory Committee on Remuneration and Service Benefits of Town Clerks.

I believe that the three own affairs Administrations and the Association of Urban Councils of South Africa can play a significant role in the development and promotion of local government affairs in South Africa. To afford the abovementioned institutions representation on the Advisory Committee is also in accordance with the policy of the Government, which is to give all groups a say in the decision-making process when it affects their interests.

The standing committee has replaced the representation of the South African Association of Municipal Employees—which only consisted of White members—with the Federation of Municipal Labour Unions, to which various municipal labour unions are associated and which also includes members of other population groups. This brings the provisions of Act No 115 of 1984 into line with the Local Government Training Act, Act No 41 of 1985, awarding the Federation representation on the Training Board for Local Authorities.

Section 8 of the principal Act provides for the classification of local authorities according to different grades. The present procedure is that a Minister, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, classifies local authorities in accordance with a basis for differentiation which he deems fit, except on a basis of race or colour.

The present procedure requires that all amendments to the classification of grades be referred to the Advisory Committee, which consequently has to meet more often than would probably be necessary, merely to comply with the requirements of the Act. When the basis for the grading of local authorities has been determined, the Advisory Committee has only one option, and that is to consider applications for regarding in accordance with that basis. The proposed amendment provides that the hon the Minister, or an officer of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning authorised by the hon the Minister, can administratively deal with applications by local authorities for regarding in compliance with the already approved basis, and may by notice in the Government Gazette dispose thereof administratively.

The proviso provides that administrative action shall take place strictly in accordance with the basis determined by the hon the Minister, after consultation with the Advisory Committee. Fear that local authorities might be classified in a bureaucratic way, is unfounded. Any deviation from the basis will have to be approved by the hon the Minister only, after consultation with the Advisory Committee.

The proposed amendment has an advantage in that applications for regarding of local authorities can be expedited.

Mr Speaker, the standing committee which dealt with this matter, has a different chairmen. The former hon member for Klip River was the chairman of this standing committee, and he has now been succeeded by the hon member for Sundays River. In the first place therefore I also wish to express my thanks, on behalf of those involved, to the former member for Klip River who is no longer with us. I also wish to congratulate the hon member for Sundays River and wish him every success in his important task as chairman of this very important standing committee. [Interjections.]

Where is he? [Interjections.]

Where are all the hon members of the PFP? Since these hon members of the opposition parties now want to know where certain hon members of this party are, I want to say that when I look at the Opposition benches it seems to me the few of them sitting there are symbolic of what things will look like after the next general election. [Interjections.]

Since this matter deals with the remuneration and service benefits of certain officials I just want to say that a matter affecting peoples’ conditions of service, is always a sensitive issue. This is true of course, and it affects people personally. That is why it remains an important issue and an issue which can often give rise to friction. At the outset I therefore wish to express my satisfaction to the hon the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this legislation. The Remuneration of Town Clerks Act was passed in 1984 and over the years the hon the Deputy Minister and his department have been negotiating on it and the Bill which is now before us with interested parties. That is probably why they were able to ensure the greatest possible satisfaction.

This Bill amends the 1984 Remuneration of Town Clerks Act and in some respect makes its implementation more flexible. It also testifies to a sensitivity as far as this issue is concerned. Attention is now being given to what might still be difficulties and to difficulties that are being experienced in practice.

What the principal Act amounts to is basically that provision is being made for determining the remuneration and certain other conditions of service of the chief executive officers of local authorities. It also regulates the maximum limits of remuneration and certain other conditions of service of other employees of local authorities as well as making provision for additional matters.

It therefore means that this legislation deals with the conditions of service of an important group of officers. It affects town clerks of all the towns and similar institutions in the country, and they are a large group of people. By implication it also affects all municipal officers. Because there is a connection between the conditions of service which are laid down for town clerks, it also affects all the thousands of other municipal officers in the country.

It is probably superfluous to emphasise again on this occasion the important task of town clerks, yet I am of the opinion that it is worthwhile for us to refer to it briefly. I have had the privilege of having been intimately concerned for many years with the local authorities in the Orange Free State and therefore with the town clerks of those cities and towns as well. I can testify that the part which a town clerk plays in a town, especially in our smaller rural towns, is considerable.

It has struck me over the years that in a town with a town clerk who is a dedicated official and one who can act in a discerning manner, one finds that the personnel are enthusiastic people who do their job effectively. The whole appearance of the town reflects this in many respects. Also as far as town councils are concerned, one finds that with an effective town clerk the relations there are better than in a case of a town clerk who is not all that interested in his task and is perhaps rather lax.

The fact remains that a town clerk does an important job because the team over whom he must exercise control does important work and to a large extent influence the circumstances under which the inhabitants of the town have to live and work. That is why this to a large extent, determines the happiness of those inhabitants.

I know that the town clerk in a larger metropolis where there is a large personnel and where circumstances are perhaps different, plays an important part, but in that case there are many other important departmental heads and people who also make an important contribution.

Furthermore I wish to state that, in the future development in the sphere of local authorities, greater demands will be made on the office and function of the town clerk. That is why it is important that group of officials should also be happy in their working conditions which will have to be such that they will be able to function optimally. We should therefore welcome this amending Bill, because it does to a large extent enable changes to be made in that aspect as well.

Furthermore I wish to state that since this amending Bill also makes provision for the involvement of Black local authorities, a further important aspect of the activities in terms of local government is being addressed. The reason why Black local authorities are also being involved, is that the Government is striving for equal structures and equal treatment on local government level for all population groups. This is important. I think it has been pointed out in numerous debates in this House that one of the main deficiencies in the urban development of our country was that many of the towns of other population groups were developed on an undesirable basis. That is why it is a good thing that these people are also being involved in all the facets of urban planning, as well as everything dealing with development on local government level.

Furthermore there is a provision in this Bill that the housing and motor vehicle scheme may, in exceptional cases, be excluded from the remuneration. I accept that there are exceptional cases in which it will be necessary to be accommodating in this respect as well. Therefore I am unable to find fault with that adjustment either.

An amendment is also being effected to the constitution of the advisory committee. As I have already said, it also gives all population groups a say in matters affecting their own interests, especially since the Federation of Municipal Trade Unions is also represented. This advisory committee performs an important task, and therefore it is necessary that all interested parties be afforded an opportunity of having a say in it.

The regarding of local authorities is also being expedited in that departmental action can be taken after the basis has been determined. It may be contended here that the pattern is being deviated from since the Minister will not necessarily deal with this matter. The fact remains that once the basis has been determined the actual grading of a specific town is a relatively simple task to perform.

In passing I just wish to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the grading of towns with a view to determining the incomes of town clerks and other municipal personnel is based on the incomes of those towns. I foresee that inasmuch as Black towns are also being involved in this, the matter will be reconsidered because it is clear that there will be some disparity, for the simple reason that many of the towns of other population groups, especially the Black towns, are of such a nature that the basis of income will not serve as an equal basis in determining the income of a particular official. I think the hon the Deputy Minister understands what I actually want to say in this connection. I hope that matter, too, will in due course receive attention.

Finally I wish to point out that in the past, when dealing with the principal Act, it was alleged that the bodies involved were not always consulted in regard to the way in which these measures were treated and considered. Today I wish to emphasise here that statement is not correct. The bodies involved were in fact consulted. Many of them also acknowledged in writing and expressed their appreciation for the fact that consideration was given to their requests and to the standpoints they put forward.

Probably there are also those among the municipal officials, as is only to be expected of course, who will not like the fact that there will be restrictions in respect of their remuneration or their conditions of service, but as hon members know, this was done in the past by the provinces.

In the past I was also involved in this matter and it was repeatedly emphasised, at the administrators’ conferences as well, that the provinces should arrange these things on an equal basis, because town clerks in Natal or the Transvaal, or wherever, should not be assessed on separate bases and should not have different benefits.

The attempt to find an equal basis in all respects was unsuccessful. The officers of the various provinces met repeatedly in order to discuss these matters, and there was a difference of opinion. The greatest measure of equality was negotiated, but it was not equal in all respects.

Now that this matter is being dealt with by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, it is possible to have equal standards in respect of this matter throughout the country, which could also bring about greater satisfaction among town clerks and their personnel. One would like to see the personnel in the government sector acting at all times in such a manner that they will render their best services. We can only expect them to do so if they are happy in their professions, even though they are not satisfied that they are getting everything they would like to have, they should at least be satisfied that the authorities are listening to what they have to say, and that the department concerned with their affairs, will at least always listen to their representations and that judicious decisions will be arrived at on matters affecting them. In that case I am satisfied that the best services can be expected of those people. It is in the interests of all of us, because the vast majority of our people find themselves in the towns and cities of this country.

In closing I wish to say that I gladly support this amending Bill. I do believe that in time we shall have to effect further amendments as matters proceed, and as practical implementation and experience indicate. Yet it is necessary—especially since we are dealing with people—for ongoing attention to be given to this matter, whenever problems arise, so that we can ensure in that way that a happy municipal service corps will be available to our people.

Mr Chairman, the CP opposes this legislation. On the standing committee I extended my congratulations to the hon member for Sundays River upon his appointment as chairman of this standing committee. We said there that he was a relaxed, calm person, who gave good guidance as chairman, and once again we should like to congratulate him on his appointment to that position.

I find it very strange that this standing committee, consisting of 11 members of this House, examined and discussed this Bill thoroughly, analysed it from all angles etc, yet not a single member of the standing committee is now participating in the debate on this Bill, and that the hon member for Welkom should introduce the debate. That is why I also do not wish to make a long speech today, because we examined the Bill quite thoroughly on the standing committee and I do not think it will be necessary for hon members of the Government party to make interminable speeches in support of this Bill today. [Interjections.] I do not think it will be necessary, because what appeared strange to me in the debate on the kwaNatal legislation, was that we could hardly get four members of that side of the House to support the legislation, but this afternoon we saw five members of the Government party discussing the Sectional Titles Act, and I would not be surprised if the same were to happen this afternoon in the debate on the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill. [Interjections.]

Local authorities have in the first place been identified by the State President and the Constitution as an own affair. We are now debating a general Bill which is prescriptive for town clerks of own local authorities. Those very important officials of local authorities—the town clerks of the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—will be prescribed to by this one Bill. This afternoon I want to pay tribute to the town clerks of White local authorities, who are key officials and who do very important work, and who are to a large extent responsible for the effective functioning of a local authority and for its jurisdiction, which at the moment falls under them.

What is interesting, however, is that we are debating a Bill which is now by virtue of the composition of its advisory committee also making provision for the appointment of Blacks to such a committee, while the evidence before the standing committee was overwhelmingly that Blacks, Coloureds and Indians did not accept local authorities. They do not accept it. However, here we are already coming forward with legislation which is going to be forced upon their town clerks by way of prescription, and is doing so while they do not even have town clerks, and while they have consistently refused to accept separate local authorities. They demand one communal form of local government for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in every area of jurisdiction. That is what they are demanding. Furthermore I am simply afraid that this Government is eventually going to give in to the demands of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks.

Don’t believe anything, just be afraid!

Mr Speaker, I know that the track record of the Government proves it. The National Party’s track record proves that they go from one concession to the next, and…

You are the wrong one to be talking about track records!

… therefore I fear that eventually we shall have single multiracial local authorities, under the direction of town clerks, as envisaged in the present Bill—local authorities in which Blacks will not only have representation on the advisory committees, but in councils as well. [Interjections.] Representatives of Utasa gave evidence before the standing committee. The ad hoc committee of the Coloureds also gave evidence on this matter. They said that they refused to accept separate local authorities; they wanted a non-racial single local authority. The present Bill which brings about and perpetuates power sharing on the level of local government, especially in the form of the advisory committees to be established, which would give advice on own affairs—the so-called own affairs—is something the Conservative Party cannot accept at all. Therefore, Mr Speaker, we in the Conservative Party will vote against this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman has once again used the old, well-known CP technique, which they often use when they do not have a valid argument—as is usually the case—of having forebodings by vaguely contending that according to information at their disposal everything indicates certain things are going to happen in future, that the National Party might do certain things in future, and then attacking us on the basis of what the CP assumes we are going to do.

Are you in favour of separate local authorities?

Yes, I am in favour of separate local authorities.

For how much longer?

Oh please, Mr Chairman, that question certainly does not merit any comment.

For as long as you were a UP supporter, Daan! [Interjections.]

All that we in fact have before us here today is a Bill in which general standards for the norms for remuneration of local authority staff members are laid down—town clerks and other staff members of local authorities. The hon member for Kuruman regards it as power-sharing with regard to own affairs. The situation prior to the 1984 legislation was introduced, was such that the danger in fact existed that chaos could occur in regard to the remuneration of town clerks and of other staff members of individual local authorities. Moreover, the situation was such that strong employees’ organisations for the employees of local authorities came into existence, who were then capable of twisting the arms of individual local authorities in an improper manner, especially those of the smaller and weaker local authorities who were in fact defenceless against these powerful employees’ organisations.

In order to restore order to the situation—a situation in which local authorities were consequently able to compete with each other in a disorderly manner for services of particular people—an arrangement was made with regard to the maximum remuneration, or the degree of remuneration, which could be made applicable to town clerks, depending on the size of the local authority. It was also provided that other employees of local authorities should be remunerated in proportion to the town clerk of each specific local authority.

However, when one imposes limitations on the negotiating capabilities of specific employees, it is also appropriate that interested parties should have a say in the arrangements which are made. That is exactly what has been accomplished by establishing an advisory committee on which the central authority as well as the local authorities and the employees’ organisations are represented. From this committee advice is circulated on the specific level of remuneration of town clerks and other municipal employees.

If the hon member for Kuruman considers the fact that other population groups also serve on this advisory committee as being a lethal form of power sharing, it is certainly his privilege to do so. I think, however, that no one who knows anything about this situation, will really take that objection of his seriously.

The most important provision in this regard is in fact that while the 1984 Act was basically applicable to the local authorities of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, Black local authorities are also being placed on the same level now as far as this matter is concerned. It is in part the fulfilment of a promise which was made roughly ten years ago by our former Prime Minister, the late John Vorster, that local authorities for Blacks would be established on the same level as those for Whites. This is yet another instalment in the fulfilment of that promise. There is surely no reason why these various local authorities who serve the various population groups, should have to be treated differently.

The hon member for Welkom is someone who has had years of experience of local authorities and control over local authorities. He dealt with this Bill in tremendous detail and I do not want to try to affirm once again what he said, nor do I want to repeat it. I support what he said in respect of the Bill. On my part I also very much wish to welcome the hon member for Sundays River as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning. I wish to give him the assurance that the committee members on this side of the House will support him in all respects in facilitating his task.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Helderkruin has spoken, and I support the ideas he expressed too, also as a member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning.

The measure at issue here is known as the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill and was placed on the Statute Book in 1984. I am particularly grateful to have learned that the implementation of this measure was successful, barring a few exceptions. In cases of problems having been experienced in regard to the implementation of the measure, these were chiefly due to the fact that people did not always interpret the measure correctly.

This Act appeared on the Statute Book at the request of the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa and also the Association of Chief Administrative Officials of Local Government. The former is a professional institute, whilst the latter is a trade-union of heads of local government.

The placing of the Act of 1984 on the Statute Book ensured, for the first time in the Republic of South Africa, the creation of a uniform package for town clerks. This also came into its own when the Labour Relations Act of 1956 was amended in 1985 to provide for town clerks also to have access to the Industrial Council and the Industrial Court, which was not the case in the past. With the exception of the determination of the remuneration of town clerks, they have that full right, and I am exceptionally grateful for that.

The legislation now before the House results in more flexibility being embodied in the Act. After consultation with the advisory committee, the relevant Minister can make adjustments.

The Government has committed itself to the principle of equal treatment and the establishment of equal structures for all population groups. Whether the Opposition Parties like it or not, the Government has adopted that course and will maintain that course, regardless of what the Government’s political opponents in the House might say.

The truth is that the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill is only applicable to the local authorities of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. With this amending Bill provision is now also being made for Black local authorities to be incorporated and also to have representation on the advisory committee. This measure also provides for representation, on these advisory committees, of the representatives of the own affairs administrations for local government and housing of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, and also for the representative administration for Black local affairs.

I thought it necessary just to mention it this afternoon, although the hon member for Kuruman made a disparaging reference to the advisory committees, because people of colour will also be represented on them. I want to single out a few examples of what has already been ascertained by the advisory committees and already dealt with by the department concerned.

It has been the custom, for several years now, for the income limit at which our local authorities are graded to be adjusted to the inflation rate annually on 1 July. All the provinces, with the exception of the Cape, did so on 1 July ie at the commencement of each new financial year. This practice was implemented to ensure that a local authority was only upgraded if it evidenced real growth.

The Cape, however, adjusted the cut-off points to the inflation rate a year later than the other provinces. The result of this was that some of the local authorities in the Cape were given a higher grading—in a few cases two grades higher. In terms of the provisions of section 10(1) of the principal Act, owing to this arrangement the hon the Minister had to approve 39 individual determinations of conditions of service in terms of the higher grade. In the Orange Free State, the Transvaal and Natal there were five, two and one similar cases respectively. These facts indicate what the purpose of such an advisory committee is.

I also want to point out to hon members certain malpractices that have come to light. I want this placed on record here so that hon members and also the public at large can take note of it. It was found that a variety of allowances were paid to town clerks, the motivation being that they were being remunerated for the services they furnished in other capacities, for example a personal allowance that formed part of the salary cheque under the cloak of an entertainment allowance, an allowance which was, amongst other things, used for buying clothes, doing the wife of the town clerk’s hair, etc; allowances for meetings which sometimes took place during office hours and are seen as part of an official’s normal functions; long-service bonuses involving relatively large amounts paid out annually; unrealistic allowances for acting as secretaries to licensing boards, the activities of which normally take place in office hours and leave of up to 34 working days per year, a portion of which was paid out in cash. Those were the malpractices that came to light as a result of the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the Minister on the remuneration and benefits that town clerks received. In clause 2, section 3 of the principal Act is amended to provide for own affairs administrations also having a say.

I should like to express my appreciation to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning for the amendment whereby representatives of the South African Association of Municipal Employees are being replaced by representatives of the Federation of Municipal Trade-Unions with which several municipal trade-unions are associated and which also has members of all population groups. This brings the advisory committee into line with the provisions of the Local Government Training Act of 1985. In clause 4, section 6 of the principal Act is being amended so that, after consultation with the advisory committee, local authorities can be classified into grades, as the hon the Minister thinks fit. This also makes it possible for the Minister to appoint an official in his department to determine those grades classifications so that unnecessary red tape can be eliminated in the process.

Let me say this afternoon that it is of great importance to me to have the town clerk’s position protected at all times. The reason why I am broaching this matter is that there are signs of political scavenging, because these people are now having recourse to local authorities. We must take note of the political scavengers who are descending on the local authorities. It is my standpoint that the position of the town clerk, who is the chief executive official of a local authority, but who also frequently must be the buffer between the local authority and the community, must always be safeguarded by us. If the time has now come for us to ensure that those doing the political scavenging in this country, as far as local government is concerned, do not get their way, this Government will have to see to it that its policy is also implemented at that level of government.

I am primarily an advocate of the fact that we should give very serious consideration to a charter for local government so that we can lay down the necessary guidelines and local authorities will therefore know that they have to act within the framework of that charter. It is in this respect that the position of the town clerk is of the utmost importance.

There is another possibility that is being considered, but I want to make it very clear that I am not in favour of it. What that possibility entails—as is the case in other countries—is that we appoint someone with a veto to a local authority. I say that I am not in favour of that, but if it appeared to be desirable to appoint someone with a veto, I am of the opinion that power should be granted to the town clerk.

It is my privilege to give my wholehearted support to the measure before the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon members for Welkom, Helderkruin and Witbank for their positive contributions. [Interjections.]

As one would expect, the hon member for Kuruman’s reaction was again a negative one, whilst the other two parties in the House did not react at all. [Interjections.] That proves, when all is said and done, that it is hon members of the NP who do the work, who govern South Africa and who come to the fore with positive proposals. [Interjections.] I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon member for Welkom who made a good contribution here. With his years of experience as a member of the executive committee in the Free State he could, of course, speak with authority.

Amongst other things, the hon member mentioned the new chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Sundays River. The hon member for Kuruman also referred to him. I should also like to congratulate the hon member for Sundays River on his appointment and wish him everything of the best. I know it is not all that easy a standing committee to deal with, but with his years of experience, particularly in this field, too, I think that everything will be fine in that committee.

The hon member for Welkom emphasised the value that a town clerk has for a town, and I do not think there is one of us sitting here today who would dispute that fact. The truth is that when one drives into a town, one notices immediately the quality of the work done, amongst others, by the town clerk and his team. We have good town clerks in South Africa, and I want to pay tribute to them today.

That is why this Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill is necessary, because the Government would like to focus attention on these people and place them in a position in which they can all be happy.

The truth is—the hon member for Welkom also emphasised this—that this amending Bill did not materialise out of thin air. It was very thoroughly negotiated with all interested parties. There was consultation, and it is the policy of the NP and the Government that we do not simply place laws on the Statute Book before we have held negotiations and consultations. I can give hon members the assurance this afternoon that this consultation did take place and that it is still continuing.

The hon member for Welkom rightly said that increasing demands will yet be made on local authorities, and therefore also on town clerks. Since it is also a matter of the devolution of more powers and duties to local authorities, the town clerk’s task will also become more onerous and more difficult.

Black authorities are now also being involved. That is the major objection raised by the hon member for Kuruman, because now there will also be representatives of the association for Black local authorities—the body’s English abbreviation is Ucasa—serving on the advisory committee. The hon member for Kuruman now wants to pretend that the Government is not in favour of separate local authorities. Practical experience, however, proves the contrary. Local authorities for Whites have existed throughout the years, and we are also in the process of instituting management committees for the Coloured population group. At present there are also approximately 230 Black local authorities. [Interjections.] It is true that not all of them are functioning at present. The very fact that they are not functioning, as a result of attacks launched against them, is proof of the fact that the enemies of South Africa do not want these local authorities to function.

So all that is happening is that the Bill now before the House is also being made applicable to Black local authorities. We are therefore adopting the logical step of also giving those communities a say on an advisory committee. I really do not believe that this negates own affairs! It surely does not negate separate local authorities, merely because representatives come together on an advisory committee, where decisions can be taken on certain matters, amongst other things the remuneration of town clerks. I therefore do not want to give much attention to the hon member for Kuruman’s objection because we have by now grown accustomed to that kind of objection.

The hon member for Welkom referred to the grading of town clerks, saying that remuneration should not be the only basis. We have already published another formula, for comment, in the Gazette of 4 July 1986. The relevant comment should reach us by 1 August, and amongst other things we have presented 13 additional factors that can be taken into account. In future, as the hon member for Welkom has rightly said, we shall also be taking note of that.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to the hon members for Witbank and Helderkruin for their contributions. The hon member for Helderkruin rightly placed the emphasis on the gist of this Bill, ie regulating the system of remuneration scales for local authorities. The hon member for Witbank also pointed out that the own affairs departments of hon Ministers Venter, Curry and Dookie would, in the future, also be involved on this advisory committee, and this serves as proof of the value that we attach to the respective departments of local government and own affairs.

I believe that this is good legislation which is now before the House and, what is more, that it will help to place local authorities on a sound footing and also to bring town clerks some peace of mind.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.