Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill before this House is a consequence of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities in South Africa, known as the Browne Committee, which was tabled in May 1980. As a result of representations by various bodies, in November 1980 the Minister of Finance appointed an interdepartmental working group under the leadership of the Department of Finance to carry out an in-depth study of the recommendations of the Browne Committee, in consultation with the United Municipal Executive and co-opted experts, and to submit recommendations.

The working group found, inter alia, that the paying of property rates by the State, the provinces and government business undertakings, would mean a more equitable spread of the burden of property rates, and that at present quite different circumstances prevail from those that applied when the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act of 1931 was passed. In terms of that Act, local authorities may not levy property rates on State property. In the same way, the South African Transport Services and other Government bodies are exempt from paying property rates in terms of legal provisions. The recommendations of the working group in this connection mainly involve the primary principle that the central, provincial and municipal authorities accept mutual tax liability.

†The working group has also recommended that the State and governmental institutions be allowed a rebate on the rates payable. This rebate will be 10% in the case of rates payable by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications or the South African Transport Services, and 20% in respect of any other case. The central Government, provincial administrations and the various other governmental institutions will therefore be liable for 80% of the assessed rate. No rates shall however be levied on the value of Sate property which is held in trust for the inhabitants of an area or which is taken up by a railway line between stations or by public roads.

The Bill furthermore provides that the Minister of Community Development may, after consultation with the Administrator of the relevant province and with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, exempt any State-owned property from rates by notice in the Gazette.

It is estimated that the annual liability of the State and the provincial administrations in respect of assessment rates will amount to approximately R58 million while the rate bills of the South African Transport Services and the Post Office are estimated at approximately R29,5 million and R3,4 million respectively.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I believe that it is important legislation for local authorities in particular and that it will be appreciated by local ratepayers.

Coming as I do from a city with a substantial number of Government buildings, namely Pietermaritzburg, and also bearing in mind the need of cities like Pretoria which have to incur a considerable rates loss because of the large number of non-rateable State properties in those cities, I certainly welcome this Bill.

I think the 20% rebate is reasonable under the circumstances because clearly the presence of Government institutions does assist local communities in the way of housing and people, and in that sense it brings with it a measure of development if one regards bureaucracy as development.

The exclusion of roads and railway lines is also perfectly reasonable, and the fact that the Minister is given a measure of flexibility also seems to me to be reasonable.

Clearly, in principle, the Bill introduces certain concepts in regard to which we may well have to see how the system operates. However, without wishing to anticipate the Committee Stage, I want to take this opportunity of asking the hon the Deputy Minister if he will please tell us what sort of rating system will apply. Does the Government anticipate that each provincial system that applies and is relevant in respect of each local authority in each province will apply to State buildings or will there simply be a new formula for the rating of State property?

I think we should also have some indication as to whether institutions that are subsidized by the State such as universities will be subject to rates. Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister will also tell us how it is intended to use the right given to the Minister in terms of the Bill to apply flexibility and to exclude certain property.

We will be supporting the Bill through all its stages.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North will pardon me for not reacting to his questions. I think the hon the Deputy Minister will in fact react to them.

The measure before this House means that a measure that was known as the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act, No 32 of 1931, will now be repealed. It is interesting to note that the first law authorizing the levying of local rates on State property in the Cape was passed in 1836. Since the State was not mentioned in that law, State property remained exempt from local rates until 1891. In that year the Government granted special permission for the rating of State property in terms of the provisions of the Rating of State Property Act of 1891. The provisions were again brought into effect by the Cape Provincial Ordinance, No 10 of 1912.

it is true that exceptions were made in the case of certain buildings. I am thinking for example of prisons, public libraries, education institutions, railways and harbours, and the special exemption from local rates on the Parliamentary building. In Natal State Property was exempt from local rates up to and including 1910. Then, with a view to the establishment of the Union, Act 15 of 1910 was passed by the Natal Parliament in terms of which State property in Natal was made rateable on the same basis as in the Cape. A special exception was made in respect of the Governor’s residence at Durban and the Parliamentary building in Pietermaritzburg. No local rates were levied on State property in the Transvaal and in the Free State. A financial relations committee was appointed in the Transvaal in 1906. I should like to focus the attention of hon members on the history surrounding the question of rating of property over the years. As I have said, the first commission was appointed in 1906 to investigate and make recommendations in regard to financial relations between the Government and local authorities. Another commission was appointed in 1911 to investigate the financial relations between the Union and the provinces. The chairman of that committee was Sir George Murray. Another commission was appointed in 1915, the Transvaal Local Government Commission under the chairmanship of a Mr H J Hofmeyer. Since I am dealing with the history of property rates in our country, I also want to point to the attitude of our courts in this regard. This was laid down clearly by the Cape Supreme Court in a case between the municipality of Rondebosch and the WP Agricultural Society in 1911. In terms of that verdict the general principle was laid down that State property was exempt from local rates unless the Government expressly gave its permission to be rated. If we look at the debates that took place in 1931, when it was decided that the State’s property would not be rated, ie the Act we are repealing by way of the measure before us today, we see that in those years there was a considerable battle because local authorities would incur a loss as a result of the repeal of the provision that local rates could also be imposed on State property.

Let me mention a few statistics. In the case of the local authority of the Cape, they would lose £40 000; in the case of East London, £2 900 per annum; Durban, £6 000 per annum; Bloemfontein; £1 500 per annum; Port Elizabeth, £5 400 per annum and Pietermaritzburg, £8 100 per annum. I could mention many other examples to indicate why the representatives of the Cape and Natal objected at that stage to the repeal of the provision that local rates could be imposed on State property. It is true that property rates are one of the most important sources of income for local authorities. The urbanization process in progress in our country has resulted in heavy demands being made on local authorities and some owners in certain towns and cities are even taxed off their properties. I shall come back to this at a later stage.

The Government then appointed the Browne Commission on 28 January 1976, and now, eight years later, the recommendations of that commission, as processed by the Croeser working group, are being embodied in legislation. The report of the Browne Commission was laid upon the Table here in May 1980. Subsequently, in November 1980, the Croeser working group was instructed to investigate the recommendations of the commission further. That working group made use of the United Municipal Executive and of co-opted experts, and after an in-depth study of the recommendations of the Brown Commission they came forward with certain proposals.

The measure before this House is therefore a result of the recommendations of the Croeser working group. Local authorities took note with gratitude and appreciation that on introducing the Budget for 1981-82 the hon the Minister of Finance made provision as far back as in 1981 for an amount of R29 million to be paid to the local authorities concerned. Meanwhile, the working group continued with its investigation into the levying of rates on the property of the SA Transport Services and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. In the phasing—in process that had been agreed on, an amount of R43,6 million was budgeted for the 1982-83 financial year, and an amount of R60 million for the 1983-84 financial year. We have taken cognizance of the fact that an amount of R73 832 000 is being provided for the 1984-85 financial year under programme 8 of the Department of Community Development in order to give financial assistance to local authorities.

The Government’s decision to embody the payment of property rates on State land in an Act, is proof that Central Government understands the problems of local government. In so doing, the burden can be lifted from the taxpayers, and our cities and towns can benefit. We have also taken cognizance with gratitude and appreciation of the fact that in certain cases local authorities have lowered their tax rate as a result of the contribution from the State. In addition, there was the announcement by the hon the Minister of Finance on 12 May 1984 that the Government is making certain alternative sources available, as identified by the Croeser working group. In the first instance, there is an establishment levy which will be imposed at a very low rate on the turnover of all trade, manufacturing, as well as professional business undertakings in the municipal area concerned, and which will replace the existing trade licence fees based on stock. Secondly, there is a service levy on the salaries and wages that will be paid by all employers, in the public sector as well, in respect of all their employees. Because it is proposed that this levy will replace the existing transport levy, it is proposed that this portion of the revenue could be used to try to cover the cost of urban transport in general. Thirdly, there is a levy on a production basis in order to balance any …

Is that policy now?

I shall come to that in a moment; the hon member must just exercise a little patience.

I was saying that thirdly, there is a levy on a production basis in order to balance any possible negative effects which the proposed service levy could have on the creation of employment opportunities. This levy is really an extension of the working group’s recommendation that the total value of property should be subject to rates.

I want to make an urgent appeal to the working group to give attention to the recommendations which have been accepted by the Cabinet in principle, as announced by the hon the Minister of Finance, as soon as possible, in order to expedite the implementation of the recommendations. I appeal to the public sector to give their co-operation in this regard as well, in order to facilitate the task of the working group. Local authorities will play an increasingly important role in the new dispensation, particularly since we are in the process of taking the first step in respect of the other groups in our country at the local authority level.

I really do want to make an urgent appeal to our local authorities, too, to co-operate more closely in order to ensure that they restrict their expenditure to the financial capacity of the inhabitants of our towns and cities.

I have absolutely no objection to a rebate of 20% on the property of the State, and a rebate of 10% in the case of the SA Transport Services and Posts and Telecommunications, since one must also recognize the service being rendered to the community by those two bodies.

I have pointed to the tremendous financial pressure on local authorities. The reasons for this arise out of the urbanization process. What gives rise to urbanization? People do not move to our towns and cities of their own free will; they move there as a result of economic pressure in the rural areas, and this is what we have known to happen over the years. This applies to all groups. People move to our cities and towns because employment opportunities are created for them there. Certain demands are made of local bodies in the process. A person who moves to a town has to make provision for a home. Local authorities have to install water and electricity and provide health, ambulance, fire brigade, library, sewerage and cleansing services and in addition, they must also provide roads and storm-water drainage. The reason I am singling out this variety of demands made of local authorities, is, as I said at the commencement of my speech, because the most important source of revenue for a local authority is the taxpayer in its area. I am convinced that the demands made of the inhabitants of our towns and cities—I am referring to people who own their own homes within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority—are such that we shall have to look at other forms of taxation. Property rates are going to create problems for us in the future. People do not have problems with paying for services such as water and electricity, which they use physically, but as far as the payment of property rates is concerned, I am of the opinion that another form of taxation will have to be looked at. In this regard I am thinking of general sales tax, for example, so that the general community can also make its contribution. Towns and cities throughout the country are being inundated by people who settle there and make use of the facilities. Only people who own property in those areas pay for those facilities. There simply is no end to it. In the case of my own town there is a new valuation roll. Properties are revalued every three years. In certain cases the value of a property increases by 100%, and in a specific case I know of, the value of a property increased by 600%. I can appreciate local authorities who, in view of this, are prepared to lower their tax rate to accommodate those people. I want to make an appeal to the co-ordinating council appointed during this session by way of legislation to look at alternative sources to replace property rates in our country, since our people in the towns and cities can no longer make ends meet.

I take pleasure in supporting the measure before this House.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is brief and to the point, as was the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister. I, too, shall therefore be brief and to the point.

Clause 1 contains definitions. We have no problems with them. Clause 2 repeals two Acts. The first of these is the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act, No 32 of 1931, which is repealed in its entirety. The second is the Rating of Railway Property Act, No 25 of 1959, which is repealed in its entirety in so far as it applies in the Republic.

In terms of clause 3, local authorities may now levy rates on the value of State property, as it can in the case of the private sector and individuals. This was not the case in the past.

In terms of clause 4, rebates are granted on the assessed value of State property. The first rebate is 10% in the case of any rate payable by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and the South African Transport Services. They are semi-State departments that acquire and control their own finances. They are run like businesses and that is why they only receive a 10% rebate. We have nothing against their receiving a rebate, because they also render a service and make a contribution to the prosperity and expansion of towns or cities. The services rendered by these bodies, attract people and businesses to towns and the workers are provided with job opportunities so that the economies of those cities and towns are stimulated. The rebate for other State buildings, such as magistrate’s offices, police stations and the like, is 20%. They are receiving a larger rebate because they are not self-supporting. However, they also contribute, as do the others, to the welfare of the town in which they are situated and to the services rendered there.

We take pleasure in supporting this Bill and all its clauses. We shall therefore also support all the stages. I believe that municipalities such as Pretoria, in particular, are very grateful for such legislation, because there are many State bodies there. I also want to say a word of thanks on behalf of Germiston, which has just as many State bodies and semi-State bodies. Moreover this will mean a lot of extra income for them.

Mr Speaker, my thanks and appreciation to the hon member for Germiston District for her contribution and for her support of the Bill.

When assessing this Bill, I think it is important to point out in the first place, as did the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Witbank, that this is the result of thorough research, consultation and planning. After the publication of the report of the Browne Committee in 1980 the hon the Minister of Finance appointed an interdepartmental working group known as the Croeser working group under the leadership of the Department of Finance to make a thorough study of the report of the Browne Committee in consultation with the United Municipal Executive and co-opted experts, and to submit recommendations. The essence of the Bill under discussion is a direct result of the finding of the Croeser work group that the payment of propery rates by the State, provinces and Government business undertakings would lead to a more equitable distribution of the burden of property rates. For local authorities burdened with increasing responsibilities, and in particular those authorities in whose area of jurisdiction there is a great deal of State property—which also, after all, require specific services and expenses from the local authority—this measure is logical and fair.

In order to give effect to these provisions of mutual tax liability among the central, provincial and municipal authorities, the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act of 1931 and the Rating of Railway Property Act of 1949—the latter in so far as it applies in the Republic—are being repealed. The necessary flexibility in the interests of the community has also been built into the Bill. Thus the Minister may by notice in the Gazette effect adjustments and/or grant exemptions to certain Government institutions under specific circumstances. In addition, it is also to be welcomed that in the exercising of certain powers the Minister is obliged to consult the Administrator of the province in which the relevant State property is situated and also to obtain the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

No fault can be found with the proposed rebate of 20% on property rates with regard to State property and 10% with regard to the SA Transport Services and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Both the SATS and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications also make a definite contribution to the life of the community. This also applies to institutions such as hospitals and schools—and in some cases without services being sold to the community. Ons also has to agree with the provision in connection with exemption from property rates of property such as that held in trust by the State for a local authority.

With these few words I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill, as is well known, is to repeal various Acts which have given the Government and provincial institutions certain advantages in local authority areas whereby they did not need to pay rates and to create a system whereby in the future they will need to pay rates to local authorities. This has been a very heavy bone of contention between local government and the various State and provincial departments, and I imagine it goes back to the midst of antiquity. Way back in 1958 one of the arguments which I heard from people standing for the council in Durban, was about this very matter. 1958 is quite a long time ago, and I am sure these arguments were in existence even before then. There has always been a good case to be made out for the Government and provincial authorities and various other semi-State organizations not to pay tax. But over the last few years the various State bodies have begun to see light because a few years ago the Government agreed that in certain local authority areas where there were quite a number of State departments— at least more than the average—they should make a contribution to the rates. They also accepted the fact that local authorities could debit them with various sewerage charges, etc.

The principle has therefore been accepted that the local authorities should get something. There is no doubt about it that local authorities derive considerable benefit from having State departments within their boundaries because if they were outside the perimeters of such local authorities, it would be terribly inconvenient for these people living within the area of that local authority. It cannot be gainsaid that there is every justification for saying that the people in any local authority area do benefit from the presence of a State department. Such being the case, it is quite obvious that one must give consideration to certain benefits or discounts to the State departments in local authority areas.

It has to be borne in mind that local authorities go to great expense when these major State departments start to operate. When a huge multi-storey building is for example erected, a local authority needs to instal substantial water mains, sewerage mains to take away the effluent and they also have big problems with roads and in upgrading lighting, etc. These are all capital charges which the local authorities have to meet. I am very pleased to see that now at long last the State departments are appreciating this as well as the fact that local authorities also have to look after the maintenance of these capital services when they have been provided.

Another aspect of the Bill is that exemptions are being provided for. However, I am pleased that when it comes to the general and normal run of exemptions, it will only be done on the basis of discussion and after consultation with the Administrator of the province concerned. I believe this is an important aspect of this Bill, and I am certainly most appreciative of the fact that there has been the sensitivity to put this particular clause in. Regrettably one finds that a higher tier of government is prone to be a little heavy handed when dealing with government at a lower level. Therefore we in these benches are very happy that this clause has been included in the Bill. [Interjections.]

As I have already mentioned, I believe the rebate is well justified. There are a number of reasons for that, apart from the benefits it brings to the local authorities. After all is said and done, it is a question of taking with the one hand and giving with the other. If State departments are serving a useful purpose, as they do, then a rebate is justified.

There is, however, one aspect that causes some concern, and that is the system of valuation which is going to be adopted in respect of these Government buildings. I am unaware as to whether the department has made any arrangement or has come to any agreement with the United Municipal Executive in this regard, but the normal procedure for assessing valuation is on the basis of a willing seller of a piece of land, bearing in mind the use to which that land can be put. It is going to be extremely difficult to do it on that basis in respect of various State undertakings. I would therefore suggest that it would be highly desirable, if it has not already been done, for a generally accepted system to be adopted on valuation of these State properties. It should apply to all local authorities throughout the country so that one does not have various systems applying in various provinces. I think it can be done, possibly by valuating it as special residential land, or something of that nature. I am sure it is not impossible to do that. I do, however, believe it is vital that the same system applies throughout the country.

I have one positive reservation in respect of the Bill before the House, and this is in respect of clause 3(3)(a), whereby the Department of Community Development is automatically exempted from having to pay rates on land which it is holding in trust for the local authority. Again, this is something which has been a heavy bone of contention for a very long time. In this regard I can quote, for example, Durban Blocks AK and G, as well as Cato Manor. These are all areas which have been cleared for redevelopment purposes by the Department of Community Development. It was very necessary to do it, and I am not querying that at all. However, those large tracts of land which were previously revenue earning for years are now not earning any revenue. When the land is ultimately sold the department will be in a position to make a very substantial profit on it. It will make a very substantial profit because the amount it has paid for the land is obviously very much less than that which it will get for it, even allowing for the upgrading of the services to the areas concerned.

If a private developer buys a piece of land and strips everything off it and wishes to redevelop it, he has to pay rates from day one of occupancy of that land. He is not absolved from that privilege of paying rates. This is why I have a reservation in this regard, although I have no intention of doing anything about it, for example to move an amendment, because I want nothing to hold this Bill up. It is too important for that. I do, however, want to ask the department to have a look at this with a view—this clause could possibly be amended—to determine that there should be a limited time. One realizes that it takes a long time to take in all the land for redevelopment purposes. There should either be a limited period in which the department does not pay rates, or, alternatively, when it does sell the land a certain proportion of the betterment thereof should go to the local authority in lieu of those lost rates. It is worthy to bear this in mind because local authorities definitely do lose a lot of money in this regard. It will also serve as an incentive to the department to get that land off their books and to let it once again become rate-earning land. With the private entrepreneur that has to be the case, and I really cannot see any reason why the same should not apply to the department.

The hon member for Witbank raised the issue of the Croeser report and the funds required by local authorities. With the new dispensation and with the new functions that local authorities are going to be involved in and the new methods whereby they are going to be run, it may well be that they will require additional funds. I would, however, like to sound a warning at this stage because there has of late been a good deal of comment in the Press and elsewhere in regard to the recommendations of the Croeser report. Some of these recommendations are highly dangerous. Those recommendations about the way in which money for local authorities is going to be extorted from the businessman employing labour, on the basis of his turnover or the value of his equipment, are suggesting highly dangerous methods of raising money. I would therefore advise the Government to think very, very carefully indeed before they get involved in this sort of fundraising methods. I appreciate that this aspect is not dealt with in this particular Bill and I would not have raised it had the hon member for Witbank not been somewhat laudatory about the Croeser report. In so far as that particular part of it is concerned, I strongly oppose it, and I think any reasonable businessman will oppose it because this is going to be very damaging to certain marginal types of businesses that are substantial employers of labour.

Whilst I concede that local authorities have to be given a fair opportunity of raising adequate funds for their new constitutional duties, I want local authorities themselves also to bear in mind that they should be a little less spendthrift in their ways. One is told that local authorities all need money, and yet how does a situation arise such as we have in South Africa with a city like Durban, which is virtually debt free, and other cities which are hopelessly in debt? I maintain that it is because they do not know how to handle their finances. This is the trouble, Sir. In Durban, it was years ago made an absolute rule that we must build up capital development funds to handle our own affairs. So those who feel that local authorities must have massive amounts of money should think again. What local authorities need is a little expertise in handling the money they do get in the most economic way, believing it is their money and handling it as a businessman would handle his. If local authorities would attempt to spend their money in the same sort of way as Durban has done over the years—and I very often criticize Durban too for their spendthrift ways, but they have at least set a terrific example in comparison with many other local authorities in South Africa—they would find themselves in a far better financial position. If Durban can find itself in a position where it has literally hundreds of millions of rand in its capital development fund, then I think one must be very careful when one looks at other local authorities and say that they must have new methods of screwing the businessman into the ground so that they can get more money. I suggest that we should be very cautious in this regard.

Sir, we are going to support this Bill through all its stages. At an appropriate time, perhaps under some other Bill, I should however like to raise this question of Community Development not having to pay rates on land which they are hanging on to.

Mr Speaker, a wonderful peace has descended on this House, and I feel rather pleased that I should have been the one responsible for bringing about that peace—the agreement that exists among hon members and the wonderful spirit of consensus that we have experienced here this morning.

The hon member for Umbilo said towards the end of his speech he would like to debate with us the question of the rating of property of the Department of Community Development in local authority areas. The hon member referred to Block AK. As the hon member is aware, Block AK is owned by the Community Development Board, and they will most definitely be paying rates on that property. When we say that a property is held in trust for the community, we are usually referring to undeveloped or unserviced land from which no income can be expected. Rates will not be paid on such property. However, Block AK in Durban most certainly does not fall into that category.

I thank the hon member for Umbilo for his support. He said that he had been fighting for this since 1958. I know that the hon member was a Durban city councillor for many years and that he has been involved with local authorities for a long period of time. In fact, for many years he was the MEC in charge of local authorities in Natal, and he has become something of a rather controversial legend in his time. However, he is certainly a person who is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank him for his support.

The hon member mentioned the fact that this has been a bone of contention since 1958. Well, Sir, even if the hon member has waited for this for an inordinate length of time, he has at least learnt today the truth of that old adage that everything comes to him who waits, and I should also like to add to this, to him who has the patience!

The hon member also referred to our system of valuation. This question has not yet been ironed out. There will still be discussions with the provincial administration in regard to a fair system of valuation for Government property.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North was very pleased that Pietermaritzburg with its many Government properties would receive a substantial slice of this amount of R58 million plus. I happened to be in that wonderful city last week.

It is wonderful.

I do not think there are many cities in our country that have more buildings with an old world charm than Pietermaritzburg.

Kimberley has.

No, I think Pietermaritzburg outclasses Kimberley by far in this respect. [Interjections.] I should also like to say that the city council and the people of Pietermaritzburg are extremely conservation conscious. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has referred to the fact in the past that we have been instrumental in making two of this type of building available to the local authority.

The hon member also asked what our rating formula would be. We are not going to devise a new formula. We will not deviate from the existing local authority formula as laid down by provincial ordinance.

The hon member also referred to the question of exemptions and specifically mentioned universities and other institutions that are subsidized by the State. I do not intend making a list of those institutions I think may be exempted. It is clear that after consultation with the Administrator and with the approval of the hon the Minister of Finance, the Minister has the power to exempt certain buildings.

The hon member also referred specifically to the question of subsidies. As to whether there should be exemption from rates or an increase in subsidy is not a matter for us to decide because other departments are involved in this connection. However, I do not believe that these institutions will be worse off than they are now.

*I come now to the hon member for Wit-bank. I always find it a pleasure to listen to him. He is a true scholar. Whenever he receives an assignment he always surprizes me with the tremendous trouble he takes with it and the amount of study he puts into it. This became evident again this morning from his wide knowledge of this Bill. He was, of course, a city councillor for many years. The hon member has made a study of events in this regard leading up to the Act of 1931, the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act. (Wet op Vrydom van Belasting van Staatseiendom). Here we have an indication of how the Afrikaans language has progressed since then because I do not think we use the word “vrydom” any more. I thank the hon member for his contribution. I do not intend to get involved in the dispute between him and the hon member for Umbilo about certain recommendations of the Croeser study group because I do not think they are relevant here. The hon member pointed out that although an amount of R73 million was quoted in the estimates of the department in respect of taxation payable to local authorities, I mentioned an estimated amount of R58 million in my Second Reading speech. The R73 million of course includes the amounts the SA Transport Services, R29 million, and Posts and Telecommunications, R3 million, have to pay.

The hon member for Germiston District also made a fine contribution, and I thank her for her support. The same can be said of the hon member Dr Pieterse. He made a contribution in the best tradition of the scientist who makes a thorough study of his subject. He made a general study of the Bill, read up widely about it and did a great deal of research. I thank him for his scientific contribution, the contribution of the academic.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night I was making the claim that there appeared to be every likelihood that because of the policy of creating independent homelands with new boundaries and because of the very serious problem which these new states and boundaries are creating for border farmers, a movement of farmers away from these areas, even from areas where they are not so isolated, would result. There are indications that this movement, which in turn creates a kind of domino effect, has already begun. As I pointed out earlier, it is going to cost on an average R200 000 to assist farmers to return to the land. If this is so, I predict that the Government is going to be called upon to spend vast sums of money to counter the effects of its homeland policy on the White farming community. It will be an enormously expensive exercise.

The irony of this is that at the moment for every farmer that the Government is able to lure back on to our northern international boundary, it is losing many more along the additional boundaries which itself has created.

In the past border farmers adjacent to the old Black areas had over generations built up a good understanding and relationship with their Black neighbours. All that has now been changed. There are many disturbing factors, of which the generally impoverished and overcrowded nature of the homelands areas is perhaps the most important. These factors have created serious tensions along these borders.

The hon the Deputy Minister has not been directly responsible for creating these problems, although his Government has, but he is the one who, through this legislation, is going to be expected to counteract the effects of this policy. I predict that if it is to be done effectively, it is going to cost inordinately large sums of money. Obviously this is going to have serious political consequences.

Having issued this warning, it remains for me to return to the Bill before us and which, as I have said, contains no provisions on which we can take issue. Therefore we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Albany. He raised quite a few matters which I think are important and of a fundamental nature. I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister will react to them, particularly the question which he raised in connection with the border farms adjoining our independent and national states.

During the 1979 parliamentary session, when the then Minister of Agriculture piloted the population density legislation through this House, he said that the White depopulation of certain rural areas was causing concern, and that the Government deemed it necessary to take action because it was essential to keep a strong farming community in the remote rural areas. Today I wish to say that I am in absolute agreement with the former Minister of Agriculture and also that this matter is decidedly more important today than it was at the time because a strong rural area and a strongly populated area has great value for us when seen from a military-strategic point of view. Every farm which is occupied by Whites is an observation post for us today.

Certain areas which are situated next to our borders will also, I think, benefit socioeconomically from the programme to increase the density of those areas, but I wish to advocate that we should make greater efforts to maintain existing services in those badly depopulated areas. I am aware of the fact that certain Government departments are playing a major role in maintaining those services. I want to ask that they continue to do so. Teachers should remain on at schools where the numbers are not what they ought to be, because should teachers leave when the number of children diminish, the entire community suffers. Post offices, railway services and road networks are important forms of infrastructure which should be maintained and expanded in these designated areas. I believe that Escom can play a very important role in the co-ordinating effort, together with the other Government departments, to bring about more development there, apart from the efforts contemplated by the Department of Agriculture, to which I shall refer later. The extension tariffs which Escom sometimes charge farmers in those designated areas are very high. We know that Escom determines its tariff according to the distance between points, and because there are few people living in these areas, the distances are usually great, which causes the tariffs to be very high. Very few farmers are able to pay the monthly tariffs. I therefore want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to ask the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to convey the request to Escom that they should make a contribution in these designated areas by quoting more favourable tariffs to farmers so that more farmers will make use of Escom power. Those people have to suffer all kinds of hardships, and they would really welcome something like that.

To increase the density of population in these designated areas, is not the task of the Department of Agriculture alone. I believe that a co-ordinated effort should be launched by all Government departments so that action can be taken in every sphere and so that it will not be the sole responsibility of one department, namely the Department of Agriculture. This will motivate the farmers who are already living there to make expansions, and give other farmers in South Africa who wish to establish themselves there a greater motivation to purchase land in those areas.

The Bill contains certain provisions which I think will in practice bring about general improvements. In clause 1 certain changes in name and definitions are being proposed. The definition of “alienate” is being amplified so that in future it will no longer be possible for private companies to circumvent certain provisions in the Act. In terms of the present provisions of the Act it is possible to evade the occupation and control measures by registering agricultural land in the name of a private company. Since the share transfer transaction is not registered in the deeds office, the restrictive conditions are not applicable in such cases. With the amendment of the definition of the word “alienate” that loophole is now being eliminated.

In the principal Act a distinction is being drawn at present between people who are already the owners of agricultural land and people who do not possess any other agricultural land. The effect of the amendment is that the distinction previously drawn now falls away and that such people will now receive assistance according to the same favourable conditions. This will also enable farmers who have uneconomic units in those areas to purchase adjoining farms in order to make their units economic again.

In the past a measure of uncertainty existed as to whether the interest which was charged should be calculated at a compound rate or on a simple interest basis and whether the interest and capital was payable yearly in advance or yearly in arrear. The amendment of the provision in the Bill means that the interest will be calculated on a simple interest basis and that the interest will be payable yearly in arrear.

Since assistance to farmers in a designated area is granted under exceptionally favourable conditions, it is essential that speculation with land, which would defeat the object of the Act, should be discouraged. I want to refer briefly to the favourable conditions already contained in the principal Act and which, in terms of this Bill, are being further expanded. I think it is a good thing that we take cognisance of them. The conditions are as follows: If a person wishes to buy a farm in a designated area, he pays off no capital during the first eight years. For the first two years he does not pay any interest either. For the third, the fourth and the fifth year he pays only 2% interest. Only from the sixth year does he pay 4% interest.

From the ninth year he begins to redeem capital, a process which then extends over a 25 year period. Consequently these are very favourable conditions. That is why it is necessary for a provision to be inserted in the Act to ensure that people do not abuse this concession and enrich themselves unfairly with public money through speculation.

Assistance under the Agricultural Credit Act is of course not only granted for the purchase of land but also in respect of other requirements such as improvements and even the purchase of livestock. The proposed amendments provide that an endorsement may be made to the title deed at the deeds registry in which the condition is stated that the person to whom the assistance is being granted may not alienate the land for a period of 10 years after the date of registration of the bond without the consent of the Minister. This provision will deal with the matter to which I have referred, namely speculation. Provision is also being made in the Bill for the Land Bank also to be able to effect an endorsement to the title deed of the land owner in the designated area.

In cases where the Minister grants consent for the land in question to be sold prior to the expiry of the 10 year period, the owner shall pay back to the State those benefits which he received under the scheme. This applies only to that portion relating to the land purchased and not to any other assistance in respect of livestock and any implements he purchased during this period.

In terms of the present provisions of the Act, a landowner who received assistance under the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, before this land was proclaimed within a designated area, may apply for his interest rate to be reduced. If, at the time of his application, he complies with the requirements in regard to the occupation and control of the property, the Minister may fix the interest rate payable by him at 4%. If the Minister does this, the reduced interest rate will come into operation on the date on which the property was proclaimed within the designated area.

I believe that the provisions contained in this Bill are going to play a major role in causing these designated areas to become populated. I should also like to inform this House that these favourable conditions are also covered by stringent regulations that have been issued to ensure that the taxpayer’s money is not wasted. During 1983 the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in the Gazette of 6 May, issued certain regulations of which I wish to quote only a few to indicate what the penalties entail:

Consequently there are regulations which are aimed at not allowing the favourable conditions which are being made available to farmers to be abused.

A change in name is also being proposed in this Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister has already referred to this. I believe that the Act is now being given the right name, namely the Designated Areas Development Act. The emphasis now falls on the development, and I think that that is as it should be.

In the final few moments at my disposal, I want to refer to a matter which the hon member for Albany also touched on, namely that between 1 April 1983 and 31 May 1984, 194 applications were received for the purchase of land in the area in the north-western Transvaal indicated as a designated area. Of these 194 applications, 43 applications involving an amount of R8 million were approved. At present a further seven applications are still being considered. I also want to indicate why only such a relatively small number of applications were successful. At one stage excessively high agent’s fees and option fees were being charged in that area. I just want to bring it to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister once again—I think the problem still exists today—that certain agents charged prospective buyers in that area unnecessarily high agent’s fees and option fees.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether a plan cannot be devised, in some way or another, to promulgate a regulation pertaining to these designated areas so that the option fees could be laid down within a certain limit. One of my voters bought a farm in that area and had to pay an option fee of R45 000 before the purchase price could even be discussed. This led to 194 applications being received during the period April, 1983 to May this year, of which only 43 were approved. Land prices have therefore been pushed up artificially by these option fees. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister and his department to look at the regulations which were promulgated in 1983 and establish whether a provision that would rectify this matter could not be inserted.

Finally I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister sincerely for having heeded the representations addressed to him to effect these amendments. I think that all farmers in South Africa will benefit in this way, and specifically the farmers in that area in the north-western Transvaal. I have also contacted the Transvaal Agricultural Union, specifically the president, Mr Nico Kotzé, and he asked me to convey the thanks of the Transvaal Agricultural Union during this debate for these amendments which are being piloted through here today.

I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. He made a good contribution, and it was important because he is the representative of a constituency where farmers in general are experiencing problems—and not only fanners in designated areas—and he pointed out the problems there.

One should take cognizance of the fact that while it was this legislation which was being discussed today, legislation relating to designated areas, a great deal of what has been said up to now is also applicable to farming communities in general throughout our country. The needs which were pointed out, and those which are still going to be pointed out, in the designated areas are to a very large extent needs which apply to all rural areas.

We should like to support this amending Bill. We had the opportunity of discussing all its clauses with Mr Fourie of the department, and we are indebted to him for his sound insights into and fine explanations of the issued involved here. I just wanted to mention this.

When legislation in this connection was passed for the first time in 1979, we soon came to realize that there were many problems surrounding the Act and the practical implementation of the Act. I do not want to call them shortcomings, because it is, after all, true that there are shortcomings in virtually every piece of legislation. Hon members will agree with me that when this Act was placed on the Statute Book, we really had great expectations and entertained splendid ideals for ourselves because provision had been made for really favourable financing measures. Strict measures had also been laid down to deal with the major problem of unoccupied farms. This is certainly one of the greatest evils in the designated areas, and also in other parts of the rural areas. Measures were planned to tackle in a serious way and try to eliminate the problem of unoccupied farms in the designated areas.

It is important to note that there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the project in connection with the designated areas was a project that was in the national interest. It was in the national interest that legislation be placed on the Statute Book to give attention to the problem pertaining to designated areas. That was why there was great enthusiasm throughout the country—in the ranks of organized agriculture, among farmers and among all the rural communities—for this Act which was then being placed on the Statute Book. There was great interest in these designated areas. These were areas which, in actual fact, identified themselves, there on the northern borders of our country. However, as happens so frequently, it soon became very clear to us that, as the old saying has it: “Saying is one thing and doing is another”. In the case of this specific piece of legislation it was very soon apparent that as far as its practical implementation was concerned, everything would not be all that easy. We established that between the ideal and the reality there would definitely be many problems before the two things could be brought together.

Today it is history that the greatest single reason for this splendid piece of legislation— I should like to call it that—having to be shelved for quite a number of years was financial. The greatest single problem was the lack of sufficient finances. To this day it remains one of the most serious problems we have to contend with in the implementation of this legislation. In spite of the fact that we were aware of this, there was nevertheless a constant insistence among all farmers, particularly those in the designated areas, that this legislation should in fact, at some time or other, be taken off the shelf, dusted off and implemented. As a person who has over the years been intimately involved in the areas where the need for the implementation of this legislation is probably the greatest, I do nevertheless wish to testify that the Department of Agriculture, in spite of the non-implementation of the legislation, made a great deal of assistance available to those areas within its financial means. We cannot overlook that truth. Our farming community is undoubtedly very grateful for this. Although it became apparent that the legislation could not be implemented as soon as we would have liked, all kinds of other auxiliary schemes were introduced to alleviate the specific needs in those areas. That is why we welcome this amending Bill which is at present before the House. It indicates that serious attention is again being given now to the implementation of this legislation.

We appreciate the fact that the differences in regard to interest that various categories of farmers were charged are now being eliminated in the legislation. We also appreciate that drastic measures should be included in this legislation to curtail people who try to defeat the purpose of the legislation—hon members have already mentioned this—and in that way nullifying this kind of planning.

A restriction is now being included in the legislation to the effect that no person who receives assistance in those areas may sell his land within 10 years unless the Minister has consented thereto. Sir, you will agree with me that it is undoubtedly a drastic measure when restrictions of this nature are placed upon a person who owns property. However, if we look at the legislation as a whole, it is, under the circumstances, quite justified and necessary for this kind of restriction to be imposed.

We are particularly grateful that it is now going to be made possible for the Land Bank to play a more effective role in the financing of the farmers in the designated areas. To my mind, this is one of the most important amendments contained in this Bill. By involving the Land Bank, we are definitely going to have considerably more finance available to be able to implement the legislation in future.

People who initially enjoyed the benefits of low interest rates on the purchase of properties in the designated areas and who subsequently sold that property, are now being required to pay back any subsidies they received from the State, and we think that this is no more than right.

Hon members have already referred to the fact that there were certain loopholes in the Act that had to be eliminated, and as a result we now have a new definition of alienation. We are in complete agreement with that as well.

There is also an interesting shift in emphasis in this legislation which is being brought about through the change in the title of the Act. It will now be called the Designated Areas Development Act. According to the long title of the original Act the emphasis actually fell on measures taken to promote the density of population and the farming activities in those areas. If we had been able to apply those measures, it could, in fact, have led to development, but according to the new name of the Act we are now going to concentrate on the development of the designated areas, and in our opinion that is important. We feel convinced that this shift in emphasis is really going to be a substantial one.

The assistance that has to be granted in terms of Act No 87 of 1979 has to be applied to help the farmers to operate their farms in an economically viable way. Seen from the point of view of the farmer in the designated areas, this is certainly the most important need; that is to say, financial assistance to enable them to make an economic living in those areas. However, it is not only financial assistance that is necessary for the farmers in those areas, and other hon members have also referred to this. It is, in fact, also necessary for development aid to be given to the entire community, and here I am not referring only to the communities in the designated areas, but also to the communities in the other rural areas that have the same problems and needs as the communities in the designated areas. We therefore wish to associate ourselves with the hon members who said that the development aid should not only come from the Department of Agriculture, but from all possible Government departments. The necessary assistance should be granted in order to establish truly viable communities in the designated areas, but also in the surrounding areas.

We are frequently told that it does not pay the State to maintain and subsidize schools, post offices, business undertakings and industries in those areas. I think that we should get away from that idea completely. Whether it pays the State or not, it is in the national interest that these designated areas should receive real development aid, because it will then be possible for them to establish and maintain healthy infrastructures.

It was also said—and I should like to associate myself with it—that the original idea was that the designated areas were in fact those areas situated along the northern borders of our country. These are the areas adjoining Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland. However, it is indeed true that in the long term we should not only see designated areas as being situated in those areas, but also in the areas adjoining all our national states. Our farmers who adjoin those areas in the interior are having to contend with the same problems, and for them it will be just as important that the development aid to the so-called designated areas which is being planned here should also be granted to those other areas.

I am certain that we all agree that adequate development aid will be the decisive factor in implementing this very important legislation successfully. Therefore we gladly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, it is an exceptional privilege for me to be able to say a few words about this legislation today. I should like to associate myself with all the speakers who have already spoken and I should like to endorse what they, including the hon member Mr Theunissen, said. I know these areas very well because I come from that part of the world, and right at the outset I should just like to make one observation with reference to what the hon member Mr Theunissen said.

The hon member said that these designated areas should be extended to include not only the areas adjoining the neighbouring countries around South Africa, but also those areas adjoining the national states. However, this is a matter for the Cabinet, although I support the merits of the proposal, because my constituency also falls in such an area.

I should like to place it on record that I am not aware of any country in the Free World whose farmers receive better treatment than the farmers in South Africa do. I am also referring here to the recessionary conditions prevailing at the moment and the tremendous drought which has ravaged South Africa for such a long time. I say this, too, as the representative of the constituency in which most farmers in the country find themselves as far as constituencies are concerned. In my constituency there are five State water schemes as well as the Crocodile River and the farmers farming along that river. Therefore I know the area, and apart from the other developments which exist, I want to state categorically that there is no other government in the Free World which, under the difficult circumstances to which I have referred—and my constituency is in fact a declared drought-stricken area—has done so much as has been done for our farmers. The amount totals 1 billion rands. Show me any government, any ministry, that has done as much as that. There is no other in the world. That is why I want to thank this Government, specifically this ministry, and all the other bodies that have co-operated for what they have done for us in this connection.

In the second place, if there is a bank which ought to be called the Bank of the Year, then there is no bank that matches up to the Land Bank. Not only has the Land Bank proved itself to be the greatest friend of the farmer, but also to be an expert on the circumstances of the farmer. When I speak about the Land Bank, then I am referring of course to its officials, from the general manager down to the men who do the appraisals. Furthermore, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Agricultural Credit Board, and also to the committees under the chairmanship of the various magistrates in these designated areas in particular for what they are doing. We have come to know one another very well indeed. They are people of integrity, people on whom one can rely and people whose opinions I never doubt. We on this side of the House have great appreciation for the services of these people.

When we talk about this Bill, we are talking about land transactions, the buying and selling and the occupation of farms. There is another category of person whose activities are very frequently scrutinized and subjected to criticism, people whom I should also like to thank today. I am referring here to the property brokers. They play a very important role in bringing buyer and seller together. There is an Act on the Statute Book that provides that the estate agent shall qualify himself as a professional person. As such they have developed a professional pride of their own. To them I want to say thank you very much for what they have done in this connection.

I would be failing to do my duty if I did not also convey my thanks today to the farmers involved here, the farmers in the designated areas, people who are farming there and who are getting to grips with the situation there, and as such have been, are and will in future continue to be a positive security factor for the Republic. Finally, I extend my thanks to the officials who drafted this legislation, for the discussions we were able to have with them and for the thorough piece of legislation they have compiled.

The hon member for Albany said that he had his misgivings as to whether this legislation was in fact going to achieve its object. I have no misgivings on this score. I am certain that the legislation is in fact going to achieve its object, but in that regard I wish to state one condition. When a farmer is able to make the grade economically, he does not leave an area, regardless of where he is farming. I come from a designated area. I own property in such an area, in one of the most beautiful parts of our country, the Bushveld, along the Crocodile River, adjoining our borders. I know of no one in that area who wants to leave out of fear of any terrorists. There is only one factor which will cause our people to leave the border, and that is the economic factor.

That is why other hon members and I advocated previously to the hon the Minister and his predecessors that certain forms of infrastructure should be created in these areas, apart from the economic measures that have been adopted there. For example, dams or weirs should be built in the rivers so that when one, in addition, has made Escom power available to those farmers, and has been able to construct railway lines which would create a better infrastructure, one would be creating a situation in which it would subsequently no longer be necessary for the Government to adopt drastic financial measures, since that area would then be self-supporting.

On behalf of the farmers in that area which I come from and which stretches from the Hartebeespoort Dam, along the Crocodile River, to the Limpopo, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for the Crocodile River North Development Scheme as far as Escom power is concerned, which was put into operation this week. For those people this was one of the greatest moments in their lives, for now they can press a button, and pump water and have electricity in their homes. Although they were the pioneers in the outposts of our country, they are now able to share those conveniences. These are not only conveniences which are being made available to them, but they are now able to farm more economically because it is just not possible any more to pump water and irrigate wheat using diesel fuel—it is simply not economic to have to resort to such methods. The scheme which we advocated is now at our disposal. In addition, the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs—I think this has already been referred to—is granting farmers a rebate in the sense that, with retrospective effect from 1 April this year to the end of the year, no extension fees have to be paid. One does not have any money to make payments with if one has not harvested, and this is all the more true if one has not harvested for the past three years. As long as that meter is running, one pays for one’s electricity. As a result of the aspect to which I have just referred, I want to convey my very sincere thanks to the Government this morning.

I am certain that when the economy has recovered and when the rains have fallen again, the prospects will once again be favourable. In this connection I think it is necessary to mention that the hon the Prime Minister, together with the churches in this country, declared the 4th of March to be a day of prayer for the sake of peace and rain in South Africa. Half the country received rain. What we do not hear, and not from the pulpits either, is that the Creator has given us peace as we have never had before. There was a communist chain stretching from the Kunene as far as Mozambique, but it has simply been eliminated. I feel that we should witness to this fact in the House as well, because our prayers have been answered. If one does not have peace, one would still not be able to farm even though one had the heaviest rainfall on earth. I think, too, that the rains we are longing for, will also come.

Finally I want to make a few observations in which, primarily, I want to associate myself with what some hon members have said, particularly the hon member Mr Theunissen. As far as the old Act is concerned, certain problems and deficiencies did exist because in the first place there was no control over the resale of properties. It is a great pity that the necessary provision had not been made previously in this legislation so as to make such control possible. This caused the wonderful legislation which all of us in those areas were so excited about to collapse completely. Tremendous speculation occurred. People obtained money cheaply from the State. The value of the properties was pushed sky-high. The result was that one now has a distorted image in those areas. I am certain that this legislation will now form the basis for establishing a more realistic situation in those areas. Some of these property brokers came to me and asked me why the Minister did not confiscate all the farms in that area and then resell them at R200 per ha. Where on earth can one, at R300, R400 or R500 per ha as far as large-stock units are concerned, ever bear such a burden of interest, to say nothing of paying off the capital debt? I am saying what the general public said, and I think they were quite right when they said it. The amendments in this Bill entail great advantages. I want to summarize these advantages in a nutshell, because I am certain that our people outside are eager to know what is contained in the legislation. Even though this Bill is not a long one, and its provisions are not contentious either, I think it is one of the most important Bills we have had before this House this year.

A company is now being subjected to the same provisions as an ordinary land owner. In addition the amount on which interest is charged is now described, while the difference between the owner and the non-owner is also being eliminated. In this connection, therefore, we are dealing with a rationalization process. An endorsement is now being made to the title deed to prohibit the owner from selling within 10 years. The same applies to holders of Land Bank loans. The loan holder in those areas may also request now that his interest be reduced to 4% if he is a holder of a Land Bank loan. As a result of this Bill the emphasis now shifts to development in these areas, because provision is being made for the density in these areas to be promoted. I think that in 10 years’ time we will have some of our most prosperous farmers in those areas, precisely as a result of the measures which are now being adopted. With this Bill it is in fact being clearly indicated that we have confidence in our farmers in the designated areas.

Mr Speaker, hon members who have spoken up to now have referred to many of the points with which we all agree. This Bill is a modification of provisions of the principal Act and I think that when one looks at the Bill it is perhaps necessary to make reference to some of the remarks that were made when the debate on the principal Act took place in 1979. The hon the Minister at that time indicated that he regarded the measure as an experiment. I think that was a very important statement to make, because if it was an experiment, it has at least been proved that it is an experiment which is actually working. It is an experiment that must be made to work, because there is no way it can be allowed to fail. One accepts the fact that modifications will have to be made to the principal Act from time to time. I think it is essential therefore that one should not in any way detract from the realistic implications of the Bill we have before us.

When the principal Act was introduced, it was quite clear from the debate at that time that emphasis was placed on the necessity for a strong farming community to remain in the outlying rural areas. At the same time it was accepted that one of the main reasons for the depopulation of those areas had been because many of the units in the areas concerned were not viable at all. This has subsequently been proved to be correct. It was considered, from a strategic point of view, that it was absolutely essential to encourage the repopulation of these border areas. The point was also made that special financial assistance was justified to encourage this form of occupation of farms by farmers: In other words, that this form of reoccupation would be linked to an aspect of control. The thinking further was that this could be regarded as an investment in the younger generation who were desirous to go into farming and it was an incentive for them to use this as a starting point.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, prior to the lunch adjournment, I was referring to aspects of the original Bill which was passed in 1979. I was pointing out the various factors which motivated the Bill in question. It was established there that the repopulation of the area, that has been designated now, would assist in the restoration and maintenance of existing public services. This is a point to which the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke referred. I think that this is an extremely important aspect because it does highlight the fact that the Department of Agriculture must not be saddled solely with this issue without the responsibility being taken by other Government departments as well to assist in maintaining the infrastructure of these areas.

One must ask oneself whether the financial considerations are the only yardstick by which one can measure the repopulation of these areas. As I have already said, we in these benches realize that this cannot be the only consideration, but that this must also be tied to other aspects. It is important to note as well that one of the factors that has been responsible for the movement of people from the rural areas to urban areas has been that the facilities, services and general infrastructure in the rural areas have not received the attention they should in order to make life in those areas more attractive than it is at the present and that, as a result, people are moving from rural areas to the more attractive and flashy life in the urban areas. One must also question whether the regulations that have emanated from the present Act, in terms of which concessions have been offered, have succeeded in giving people, desirous of going into farming, the opportunity, which they would not have had under normal conditions, of making a start in agriculture.

We welcome this Bill and we shall be supporting it, because we see it as a Bill that is going to give greater flexibility to the whole scheme. I would like to repeat that it is most important that the process of improving conditions in the outlying areas, the border areas, should be monitored, regularly and that the experience that has been gained should serve as a model for the type of development that should be applied to the more remote areas and which become border areas as a result of the homeland policy.

I would like to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister that attention should also be given to the leasing of property in these areas. Greater attention should be given to this aspect, because one knows that the starting point for many existing farmers has been the fact that they were able to lease properties initially for a period of, say, three to four years and subsequently have been able to establish themselves permanently. I would also like to suggest that the department define its attitude quite clearly in regard to unoccupied farms. This applies particularly to those farms which have been deserted for a long period. This factor could almost become a stumbling block in the way of the ultimate success of the scheme which is envisaged.

I would now like to return to the Bill itself. While one realizes that the original Act, to which I have already referred, was passed in 1979, it actually only came into effect in 1983, when the designated areas were gazetted. One of the first observations was that a number of farms in the designated areas were not economically viable. It was obvious that attempts had been made to bypass existing regulations by the registration of properties in the name of companies and we are now delighted to see that attempts to defeat the object of the Act will now be controlled. One also realizes that financial concessions must be strictly applied and that there must be a sense of discipline attached to them.

I now come to clause 2. One notes that provision is made here for people who own land outside the designated area to now acquire property within the designated area. I believe this adjustment will be of substantial benefit as one is fully aware that full concessions were only applicable to people moving into the designated area provided they had no other agricultural land elsewhere. We think it is necessary that provision should be made that existing landowners in the designated area may now be in a position to extend their properties in order for them to become more viable. We assume that the principle, regarding the main emphasis being placed on density of the population is now being reassessed and that other factors are being brought into play. We agree that there is a greater need for the viability aspect to be stressed repeatedly.

Clause 3 contains provisions regarding Landbank involvement. It means that the responsibility of raising funds will no longer lie solely with Agricultural Credit. I believe this is a very positive development. One realizes as well that the endorsement of title deeds of those persons who are deriving benefit from the concessions are necessary and that they will be required to occupy and control the properties concerned for a minimum period of 10 years. The provisions relating to alienation of property before the expiry of the 10-year period can best be termed as reasonable and fair, and one notes with approval that any move away from the regulations must be conducted purely with the approval of the Minister. From the financial point of view, as I have said before, the concessions are indeed extremely generous. They must, however, be brought into line with the viability of individual farming units.

What about the workers?

I can ask the hon member what about going back and doing something himself? [Interjections.] It is interesting to note that there are some people who listen to “Radio Today”. [Interjections.] Sir, my dear friends on my right need, shall I say, a little bit of imagination.

The clause that provides that existing agricultural credit loans may be incorporated into a new scheme operative in designated areas is also a very positive approach.

Finally, in giving our support to the Bill I would like to repeat that we are of the opinion that a clearer definition should be given in regard to the leasing of unoccupied properties. There is little doubt that the success of the scheme to repopulate these outlying rural areas will depend on three principle factors. The first is the viability of the property concerned, the second the increased population density, and the third, adequate provision for infrastructural services. One hopes that the people moving into these outlying areas, and into these designated areas, will look upon their entry into these areas as permanent and not merely as a starting point for entering into a farming career. We have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank all hon members who gave their, and their party’s support to this legislation. Their support of the legislation testifies to this being a thorough piece of legislation. I shall come back to this point later, but at this stage I want to point out that a good deal of work was put into devising a workable scheme for this area. Even the demarcation of the area required a great deal of research. This was not undertaken by our department only, but we consulted very widely in this connection. On several occasions we sent commissions of inquiry to the area concerned. If one considers the composition of those commissions of inquiry, then it is truly a revelation to see what a wide field the inquiry covered. There were representatives from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, the SA Defence Force, the Department of Manpower, the Transvaal Provincial Administration—the various functions were represented—agriculture, of course, the SATS, the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, the Department of Community Development, the Sport Promotion and Cultural Affairs Division of the Department of National Education, the National Intelligence Service, the Department of Transport Affairs, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Department of Health and Welfare, Escom, the IDC, the SA Agricultural Union, the Transvaal Agricultural Union and a number of individual farmers. The representation was so wide because it was felt that the development of this area was not connected solely to the agricultural aspect. Various hon speakers who participated in the debate pointed out that we should also look at the infrastructure in that area.

The mere fact that the title of the Act is now being changed to “Designated Areas Development Act” indicates that our approach to those areas covers a wide spectrum. We should like to establish people there, but we can only do so if we make it worth their while to go and live there. That, then, is the spirit in which the speeches we have listened to today were made. We must make it worthwhile for prospective farmers to go and live there.

†Mr Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with the remarks made by the various speakers. First of all I want to thank the hon member for Albany for his and his party’s support of this Bill. The hon member pointed out that this is a very costly exercise. This is a sentiment with which I fully agree because the figures that I have at my disposal are even higher than those which the hon member quoted. It is undoubtedly a costly affair, yet I do not know what the alternative is. We have been trying various alternatives but I think the present scheme is the most workable one at the present moment. The hon member asked me for a prognosis in regard to the future development of these designated areas. This is naturally a very difficult matter, and I doubt whether anybody could give an exact and correct answer to that question. However, I am in a position to give the House certain interesting information regarding this area, and I think it would be advisable to mention just a few statistics.

Because of the very favourable and very attractive conditions offered by the department, we were literally inundated with applications. In the first few months after this scheme was announced, we received as many as 194 applications to purchase land. Of these 194 applications we could only grant 43. The total amount involved was R8,16 million. 37 new farmers were settled in the area and 23 farmers were assisted in enlarging their farming units.

The problem which emerged almost immediately after we announced the scheme, was that agents—and I think the hon member for Schweizer Reneke mentioned this— took options on all vacant farms and land prices soared sky-high. Hon members are aware of the fact that when the Agricultural Credit Board has to decide on loans to farmers they work on the agricultural value and not on market value. As I say, market values rose sky-high, to such an extent that very few of the applicants could contribute the difference between the loan which the board could grant and the actual purchase price. That is why so many of the applications failed. However, we still have a very proud record in that we have already settled approximately 37 new farmers in that area. We have also assisted quite a number of farmers who would have left the land, to remain there by giving them loans and consolidating their debts and so forth.

As I have already said, a very intensive study of the designated areas has already been conducted. Very interesting data emerged from this investigation. The entire designated area was divided into seven sub-areas for investigation purposes, and several reports were submitted in this regard, one of which I have here with me. This is a report that was submitted by the commission to which I referred earlier in my speech.

It is apparent from the report that the 10 km designated area covers 873 farming units, 430 or 49% of which are occupied. Owners of a further 130 farms or 15% live within a radius of 50 km from these farms. These are owners who do not occupy their farms. In addition, 330 or 36% of the farms are completely unoccupied. It is also interesting to note that a certain proportion of these farms belong to companies. It would appear that 23 occupied farms and 92 of the unoccupied farms are registered in the names of companies. These represent 14% of the total area. Hon members can appreciate therefore what we are dealing with.

We also looked at the ages of the people living in that area because it is also an important factor. In this regard, the hon member for Mooi River mentioned the fact that we should try to settle young farmers on the land and, of course, try to keep the young farmers already in the area there.

*If one looks at the age categories of the farmers in that area, the picture is a very interesting one. Of the number of farms which I have now mentioned to hon members, 32% of the farms are occupied by farmers who are older than 55 years. In the age group 40-55 years, the figure is 33%. I am referring only to the occupied farms now. On 13% of the occupied farms, the farmers are younger than 40 years. This means that the preponderance of farmers are in the region of 45-55 years. I would not say that this is too advanced an age, and in addition we do not have the percentage of those farmers who are older than 60 years.

In the granting of loans—and this is also our purpose—the age of the applicant plays an important part. A young farmer of 30 to 35 years, has a far better chance of receiving a loan than a farmer of 60 years, because it is our object to establish young farmers there.

What about a young wife?

An old farmer with a young wife will also be given a chance. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen also pledged his support for the Bill. I thank him very much for doing so. He made an interesting statement, a statement which one could, of course, apply to many spheres. One could probably apply it to speeches made here in this House as well. He said that saying is one thing, and doing is another. That illustrates the difference between speeches on this side of the House and speeches on that side of the House. I am saying this in all kindness now. The Opposition can talk, while we have to do things.

Probably because you have a young wife.

Thank you very much.

It is precisely when one has a young wife, that saying is one thing, and doing is another.

Order! Hon members must not allow this hon House to become a marriage bureau.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The hon member Mr Theunissen raised a very serious matter here, one to which other hon members also referred, namely the evil of unoccupied farms. I have already furnished the statistics pertaining to what percentage of those farms are unoccupied. In the scheme which the Government devised, it tried by means of the regulations which it announced to obtain the greatest possible degree of occupation in that area. Hon members are aware of the regulation that as soon as a property changes ownership, or even if it is leased, the new owner must occupy or must cause it to be occupied. We have a problem with the unoccupied farms in this sense that many of the farms are uneconomic units. I have the statistics, but I shall not go into this matter now. The suggestion was that the State should buy up those uneconomic units, consolidate them, and then make them available again. This is a commendable idea, but expropriations are always a sensitive matter. One would prefer to see these uneconomic units being consolidated with existing units in a natural way. That is why we are also making it possible now, particularly in regard to the new Act, for existing owners who wish to expand their units to obtain loans and in that way acquire economic units. The great problem remains primarily one of funds, and then of course there is also the question of the abnormally high prices that are being demanded for that land.

The hon member also spoke about development projects. If one looks at the Government’s expenditure during the first few months of the project, I can give hon members an indication of how the money we had at our disposal was spent, on development projects as well. When the Government initially, at the end of last year, made a start with the scheme, it had to receive an ad hoc amount from the Treasury. We received R10 million to start with. This R10 million we applied as follows: R5,7 million was allocated to agriculture and the remainder to the creation of infrastructure, namely for roads, powerlines, telecommunications and so on. That portion which accrued to agriculture, the R5,7 million, we applied for land purchases, in nine cases; for the payment of debt, that is consolidation of debt, in eleven cases; for waterworks, in one case; for the purchase of livestock to help a farmer, in two cases; for improvements to the farm, in one case; for the purchase of implements, in one case, and for the provision of electricity, in one case. Consequently we are not concentrating only on the purchase of land, but we are also helping to get development projects going there.

I have omitted the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, and I apologize. He dealt mainly with the preservation and the extension of the infrastructure to which I have just referred. He also spoke about the investigation, and I think I have replied on that score. It was a very comprehensive investigation which was not carried out once only, but repeatedly. There was also a great deal of consultation with the farmers in that area. We held a whole series of meetings. I have the minutes of all those meetings here, and if the hon member is interested in them, I shall give them to him to read. He shall then see that in that 10-kilometre strip there are quite dramatic differences of opinion from one place to another, particularly in regard to the regulations which we promulgated. For example, one arrives at a place such as Alldays—this is apparent from the minutes— and the farmers there tell you: Man, you should make everyone who owns land here occupy that land. That is the general opinion there, and the consensus of that meeting. Then one holds a meeting at another place in that area, and there the farmers tell you: Please, slow this whole thing down a little, you are forcing our land prices down to rock bottom. The hon member is welcome to get this information from me at some time or other.

There is also the question of improper price increases and the option fees, which are a great source of concern to us. We have looked into this matter as well. We hope of course that these measures, this compulsory occupation, this arrangement that benefits have to be repaid if a person sells within 10 years, will have an inhibitive effect on the increase in land prices.

The hon member for Brits made a very positive contribution. He said that farmers left an area primarily because of economic pressure. This is another thing we established in our investigations. There is no doubt about it. If it is economically viable for a farmer to live in an area, then he will stay on. He is not afraid of the terrorists, particularly not if he has a neighbour or two on either side of him. He is not afraid of the terrorists, but he is afraid of economic consequences. There is no doubt about this, and that is why we are applying our funds in such a way as to make it possible for those farmers to survive in those areas in an economically independent way.

The hon member also referred to infrastructure and to Escom power. This was part of the scheme from the beginning, as the hon member saw. Escom was constantly consulted and was also represented on the committees that carried out the investigations.

The hon member wanted to know why we did not confiscate that land. That would really be a drastic measure; we shall first see whether we cannot rectify matters in a natural way.

†I want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support. He referred to the original legislation and the aims therein contained. He also made mention of the uneconomic units with which we have to deal in those areas. Perhaps I should give the hon member some statistics on the position regarding uneconomic units. At the moment we have 873 farming units. If we were to convert those farming units into economic units, we would have 579 economic units. The region should really have 579 units and not 873.

I think I have already dealt with investment in young farmers. We try our utmost to settle young farmers. The question of public services is linked to the provision of infrastructure, and we are looking into that aspect.

The regulations will have to be amended to comply with the Bill.

The hon member suggested that we should encourage the leasing of property. We shall have to look into that. It is quite an interesting idea and we will look into it. I do not know to what extent it can be accomplished, but I thank the hon member for the suggestion in any event.

Could the Department not make it possible for people to lease these properties and to couple it with the option to purchase?

Mr Speaker, I think we can go into that as well.

*There is one more matter which was raised by various hon members that I must comment on, namely that as a result of the independence of the Black states we have created a far longer border. A border, whether it is one between two farms, between two provinces or between two countries, remains a difficult matter. The best way of solving border disputes is for there to be a good understanding between the neighbours. This is something we must endeavour to achieve. The best border fences will be of no avail if the relations between neighbours are not sound. The department is endeavouring to achieve this, while there are other departments that are also working hard to achieve this. In spite of all these things, however, we are constantly experiencing problems in this connection.

South Africa has an extremely long border, and we are trying to identify the most sensitive sections of it. There are sections to which not much attention is being paid in this process, and where the possibility of infiltration does exist, but these sections are being identified in co-operation with the Department of Defence and the South African Police. We will probably not be able to let this one designated area which we have at present suffice, but will probably have to establish more areas like this. This designated area, however, will give us an opportunity to acquire experience and know-how in regard to the handling of such situations.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, I missed out on the opportunity to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question during the Second Reading debate, but I would like to do so now. What time period is the department looking at for the completion of this scheme? Obviously the present rate of settling farmers is limited by the amount and available funds, but if one takes this as a constant factor how long will it take to complete this scheme?

Order! I must remind the hon member that we are now dealing with Clause 1.

Yes, Mr Chairman, but I thought that one was permitted to deal a little with the principle under Clause 1.

Clause 1 has nothing to do with the principle. I think the hon member should raise this particular point at Third Reading.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, in line 46, after “subsection (1)” to insert:

During the redrafting of the Bill in its final form the relevant words were accidentally omitted owing to an oversight. In terms of the proposed amendments in subsection (1) of section 5 it is provided that when a person who has already received financial assistance before his land was proclaimed as being within a designated area, applies for a reduction in his interest rate, on granting his application the Minister may determine certain conditions. In order to ensure that the conditions are complied with it is necessary for the provisions of the new subsection 3(A) also to apply. In terms of the present provisions in the regulations these provisions will not apply to him after the Minister has fixed his interest rate at 4%. If the Minister, however, makes it a condition that the regulations in connection with occupation and control over the property will apply to him or that he may not sell the property for a period of 10 years, the provisions of subsection 3(A) can only be applied if the amendment is accepted.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I should just like to use this opportunity to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question about the matter of the lease raised by my colleague the hon member for Mooi River. Could the scheme be so amended to make it possible to subsidize a lease? We are concerned at the fact that, as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, certain suitable applicants are turned away because they have inadequate finance. That problem has been exacerbated by the increase in land prices. If, on the one hand, one is losing good applicants and, on the other hand, one does not have enough funds to proceed at the right pace, which I understand is the case, the introduction of a leasing system would perhaps provide a solution. That would require far less capital from the State because one would then only be financing hypothecated loans for livestock and implements. The lease could be subsidized to bring it up to a market-related rate. Once such an applicant has then built himself up and paid off a certain amount of stock, he would then qualify for a loan and could proceed to the next stage of purchasing land. We feel that such a leasing system would actually assist tremendously in getting the younger person, who is more likely not to have capital, onto the land. That is the field which worries us most, together with the concept of having a target date for completion. We would very much like to see that as this scheme develops it should become a refined scheme which can be applied in other areas of the country as well. It can simply be differentiated by moving interest rates up and down, depending on the severity of the situation in that area. This is a most exciting scheme which lends itself to all kinds of flights of imagination. It could be used in other areas with refinement and different levels of interest. The key is to attract young people. It is important in building up a community to get young men with young wives and not old men with young wives so that schools, sport clubs and other institutions can then be established.

We would like the hon the Deputy Minister to give us a target date and to tell us whether it is in fact the intention to complete it within a certain time. The lease suggestion is very important and should be urgently looked at. This scheme can be introduced elsewhere with tremendous success costing far less if a lease scheme was made available.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for King William’s Town referred to the target date, but I must tell him that we have no target date at the moment. This is an ongoing scheme and its life depends on the popularity of the scheme and how many farms we can consolidate and how quickly we can resettle farmers on the unoccupied farms. That will to a large extent determine the length of time the scheme will run. I cannot give the hon member an exact date now as there is no cut-off point at this stage. As time progresses, we might be able to determine a cut-off date.

The hon member also referred to the question of leases. We assist farmers who lease land not with the rental, but with production loans to buy cattle and to develop the farms which they are leasing. We are therefore definitely assisting lessees. But we could go into this in greater depth. With our drought relief schemes we also have the problem with farmers who do not have their own property. It seems to me that we are slowly developing a system of assistance especially for lessees. The problem is of course that whan one wants to help a lessee, one naturally needs some form of security. I cannot handout State funds without obtaining security. However, I want to thank the hon member for his suggestion and I can assure him that we will look into it.

Question agreed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In the first place I want to take this opportunity to thank the select committee for the amended Bill now before this House. I also want to thank the committee for the speed with which they completed their activities. I want to address a particular word of thanks to the hon member for Roodeplaat, who acted as chairman of this select committee. I also want to express my thanks to the members of the committee, each of whom made a contribution in this connection in the midst of pressing parliamentary activities. I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the departmental and parliamentary offices for the assistance they rendered.

The amended Bill before this House is acceptable to me and accordingly I accept it as such.

I should like to refer to the different amendments. The proposed section 31A will not apply with retroactive force as far as the enforceability of the relevant agreements in a court is concerned. Nor will it be expected of the parties to submit the relevant agreements, but any organization, employer, or body contemplated in sub-paragraphs (iv), (v) and (vi) of the proposed section 31A(1) shall, within 90 days of the date of conclusion of the relevant agreement, provide the inspector defined by regulation with particulars of such agreements, as determined by regulation. In addition, the particulars of agreements which shall be provided as determined by regulation, will be of retroactive force so that information can be obtained to give the Department of Manpower a more complete overall picture of the collective bargaining taking place at all levels. It was also decided to make the contravention of the aforementioned contemplated regulation punishable only by a reduced fine not exceeding R500.

I should also like to thank the select committee for agreeing to the insertion of clauses 2 and 4, which will make the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1956, applicable to chief administrative officers of local authorities, except in so far as it concerns the negotiation and determination of their remuneration.

Prior to 1957 the Industrial Conciliation Act, which is now known as the Labour Relations Act, 1956, also applied to town clerks. Because of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Local Authorities in the Transvaal in 1955, town clerks have since 1 January 1957, been excluded from the ambit of the Act. This led, inter alia, to its being provided by ordinance that the salaries of town clerks, or chief administrative officers of local authorities, are determined by the Administrator. In 1967, section 46(8) was inserted in the Act, in terms of which changes in the remuneration of heads of departments—these are not town clerks— of local authorities, to which the relevant Administrator objects, may be submitted to the Industrial Court for arbitration.

In consequence, inter alia, of representations from the SA Association of Municipal Employees, the Institute of Town Clerks and the United Municipal Executive, and after further consultation with and discussions among representatives of all the interested bodies, it was decided that the Labour Relations Act should be amended to provide that all its provisions shall apply to chief administrative officers, or town clerks, of local authorities, except that they will not have the power to negotiate in respect of their remuneration or to have it determined in terms of the Act.

It was also decided that section 46(8) of the Act should be deleted and that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning should make provision, in its legislation on local authorities, for the determining or fixing of the remuneration of chief administrative officers of local authorities by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning after consultation with various bodies.

As far as the proposed deletion of section 46(8) of the Act is concerned, practical experience has shown that the provisions of the section have not served their purpose. In part 5 of its report the Commission of Enquiry into Labour Legislation, too, recommended that this subsection be deleted.

These then, Sir, are, in broad outline, the additional changes, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr Speaker, it is necessary to sketch some of the background relating to this Bill before us in order to understand some of its implications. Since the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission a number of far-reaching changes have been made in labour relations in South Africa. The official Opposition has not only supported and encouraged those changes but in many cases has actually pointed the way for them. It would not be going too far to say that the PFP was much more persuaded and co-operative in those initial stages of far-reaching changes than were many within the ranks of the Government itself. [Interjections.] One well remembers the former Minister of Manpower, Fanie Botha, standing in his place and virtually turning his back upon the Speaker—I am sure he did not do it deliberately—and on the Opposition and addressing himself to his own colleagues in the hope that they too would be persuaded. When we made the point at the time, he denied this but the very fact that we now have the CP, a party which is at odds with many of the changes that were proposed by the Wiehahn Commission and passed by this House, suggests that his task was a difficult one and that he was not entirely successful. Nevertheless, Sir, the changes proposed by the Wiehahn Commission were enthusiastically supported by members of this side of the House.

It is therefore with some disquiet and misgiving that we first read the Labour Relations Amendment Bill when it was introduced by the hon the Minister in February this year. During the debate on that Bill I illustrated, from the department’s own documents and reports, how they had broken faith with their own declared policy, namely a commitment to consult with the National Manpower Commission before introducing amendments to legislation. It is for that reason chiefly that I requested that the Bill be referred to a select committee, and referred before the Second Reading because there were a number of principles contained in the Bill which we regarded as contentious and unwise.

I was very grateful at the time when the hon the Minister agreed that the Bill should go to a select commitee, and I want to pay my own tribute to the hon member for Roodeplaat—who is not in the House today—and as the chairman of that select committee for the fair and open way in which he conducted those proceedings. A great number of meetings were held and at the very first of those meetings we were informed by the department that a report from the National Manpower Commission was about to be tabled. Now this report does not contain just a few lines; nor does it deal with only one particular subject. It is a report of well over 400 pages and deals inter alia with an investigation into the levels of collective bargaining and works councils, the registration of trade unions and employers’ organizations and related matters, and industrial courts.

Soon after this report was tabled a notice appeared in 1984 in the Government Gazette, inviting comments and representations on the recommendations contained in the report of the National Manpower Commission on an investigation … with a view to the drafting of a White Paper thereon. A period of six weeks was given in which people could make representations, and that period has not yet elapsed. Another two weeks remain during which employers, employers’ organizations, employees, trade unions, academics and others have the opportunity to make representations on a formidable and wide-ranging report which touches directly on the matter we are debating here today.

It is clear from the notice that I have just quoted that the Government intends publishing a White Paper in the wake of those representations. We do not have sight of that White Paper and we do not know what the Government has in mind in this regard. Obviously they could not as yet have made up their minds because they are still awaiting representations. Because the National Manpower Commission report deals with matters that are also dealt with in the Bill before the House, because representations called for by the Government are still awaited and because no White Paper is available, I suggested at an early meeting of the select committee that the committee report to the House that it was of the opinion that the Bill be not proceeded with until such time as the Government White Paper was tabled. I wish I could quote directly from the report of that select committee but, unfortunately, it is not available. This is an unusual and undesirable state of affairs, although one is aware that there are many things taking place during this particular session which perhaps make for a different approach. One would have thought that under normal circumstances a report of a select committee would be available when one was debating a new Bill that emanated from that committee.

The proposal I made on the Select Committee was supported by my colleague, the hon member Prof Olivier, but was not supported by the majority of the other members of the select committee who decided to proceed with the Bill which is now the subject of this debate. So much, then, for the background to this measure up to the present.

In the light of what I have said so far I submit that this Bill is clearly premature simply because representations are still being awaited on subjects directly impinging upon this amending legislation, and simply because we have no White Paper before us.

In support of my argument I wish to quote two telex messages received by the select committee at the end of its proceedings. The first of these was from Dr Van Zyl, the executive director of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, and the second was from the president of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries. The first telex message reads as follows:

The telex from the Transvaal Chamber of Industries reads as follows:

The reason why I have taken the trouble to quote these two telex messages that were part of the evidence submitted to us, is that it is not a question of a change of political stance. It is a question as to what is right and what is most helpful for the promotion of good industrial relations in South Africa. Obviously, there can be differences of opinion, political and otherwise. However, in terms of the sheer illogicality of the proceedings, it seems to me that my case is well-founded. This Bill is therefore not merely premature and illogical, but it is also potentially disruptive. It is, in a word, half-baked and quite out of step with the spirit of legislation which has been introduced in this House since the appointement of the Wiehahn Commission.

The substance of the Bill and the work of the department are always of vital importance, but of no less importance is the style of the department and the style of the Minister. I say that the stubborn determination to proceed with this Bill at this stage is not helpful to the maintenance of labour peace in South Africa, something which is surely the objective of all sides of the House. The fact of the matter, in a sentence, is that if the hon the Minister accepts the recommendations in the National Manpower Commission’s report-then the main clause in this Bill, namely the introduction of a new section, becomes largely irrelevant. It seems to me stupid beyond words to try prematurely to introduce a Bill and then to change that Bill if those recommendations are accepted by the hon the Minister.

It has been argued, and it was argued in the select committee, that unless we proceed with this particular Bill it will not be possible to introduce legislation until 1986. I have tried to examine that statement and I believe it is patent nonsense. In less than two weeks time the closing date for representations will close. The Government will then have the responsibility of compiling a White Paper. Surely it is not beyond the competence of the department, of its advisers or of the Government itself to produce a White Paper by September 1984. If that is possible, and I submit that it is, then it is surely not beyond the competence of law advisers to produce amending legislation following the implementing of that particular White Paper in time for the 1985-session, which lasts from January to June—we do not know exactly. It may even last for ever, the way things are going.

I would have thought that if the Government wish to build on success of recent labour legislation, it would go out of its way to proceed with discretion, sensitivity and patience. Its approach in this instance, with the introduction of this Bill, is a contradiction of all these values. It is in a word indiscreet, insensitive and impatient. To rush this Bill through at this stage will help no one, but may indeed widen the already existing distrust between some labour unions and the Government and make the task of the employer even more difficult than it is. Over and over again, speakers on both sides of the House have emphasized the fluidity of the situation. All of us have acknowledged and recognized that even though new laws have been introduced and new opportunities have been afforded that it is not possible for everything to work smoothly overnight. We all acknowledge that. We know that management itself is largely inexperienced in the field of industrial relations, particularly as it is related to the large, the vast army of Black workers who have only recently come into the whole operation of collective bargaining. We know, too, that many of the trade-union leaders of the new emerging unions are largely inexperienced and are still finding their way, but all of us who know anything about this subject—and I do not only mean the discussion of legislation—those of us who participate regularly where disputes are taking place and meet with trade unions and employers, know that the advantages of the new system are already apparent, that the success factor is high and that every year there seems to be a steady improvement. That is why we plead that we do not make any move which may disrupt this fragile peace.

The evidence which was called for by the Select Committee was almost equally divided between those who supported, many of whom with qualifications, the legislation and those who opposed it. Certainly, anyone who reads through the evidence will know that major reservations were expressed by many different groupings.

Earlier I referred to the substance and the style as far as the Bill is concerned. As far as the substance of the Bill is concerned there are in our judgment a number of contentious matters. Firstly I want to refer to clause 3. The new section 31A makes it clear that no agreement, expressed or implied, between two parties, one or both of whom do not comply with the provisions of section 4A(1), section 8(5) read together with section 8(8) and section 11, shall be enforceable in any court in any form including the industrial court. In other words, those organizations who have not yet complied with the requirements, have no recourse to the courts of law. Their agreements have no legal standing.

This strikes at freedom of contract without achieving any significant social purpose. Surely, one of the ways to defuse conflict and difficulties between employer and employee is through the courts, through conciliation boards, and in particular the success of the industrial court points to this method being far more advantageous than the alternative.

We supported strongly the introduction of an amendment—I think it was only last year—which made it possible for unregistered unions to ask the Minister to appoint a conciliation board. Why? The then Minister explained that it was far better to do this through constitutional means, and he was right. We therefore supported him. Now it seems to us that it is said that for the sake of a few, one is going to deny them access to the courts and to the industrial court as well, but where then do they turn when trouble starts?

Strikes may well be the alternative. Following the breakdown of an agreement, this may cause severe problems for management. Let us take for example an agreement which may be hammered out on the full problem surrounding absenteeism or productivity. Agreement is struck, every page is signed, and the employee body, the union, welshes on the deal. What happens and what can happen? They have not a leg to stand on, and vice versa of course it is exactly the same.

Secondly, particulars of agreements have to be sent to the department or the inspector within 90 days. Any person who fails to comply with this provision shall be guilty of an offence, let me say immediately that there have been certain improvements made on the original Bill which we debated in this House during February and which has now emerged from the Select Committee. This in itself is justification for that Bill being sent to a Select Committee as we requested. For example, the original Bill called on employers and employees to send not merely particulars of the agreement but copies of the agreement. Secondly the onus is now on the employer, and only he has to send particulars rather than copies. Thirdly, he is given 90 days rather than 30 days to comply with this. The penalty itself has also been reduced. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the select committee was able to come forward with these improvements, but I want to say as strongly as I am capable of that our major objection to the passing of this Bill still stands. I concede immediately that the department has every right, and may even be sensible in seeking, to gather as much information about agreements as possible, but if it is entirely benign, why then is it punitive? Secondly, as I pointed out before and in the select committee, the department’s frank and candid report for 1983 makes it clear that there are severe staff shortages. There are, who knows, between 400 and 700 agreements, and who on earth is going to be able to keep track of all these? Who is going to police it, who is going to file it, who is going to analyse it? There are so many other better things for the department to do, which it cannot do successfully against the background of not only severe staff shortages, but also underqualified people in significant posts.

I believe that the hon the Minister has been ill advised. The Government is using a large hammer to deal with a problem which has all the signs of working itself out. It is using the big stick of compulsion even before it attempts to use the carrot of encouragement. The department itself is on record as stating that only a handful of unions are not complying with all the requirements. Why then is it necessary to introduce legislation at this stage which can only stir up resentment and trouble, rather than reduce tension and increase co-operation and participation? What I am saying, is that the seriousness of the legislation, the implication of the legislation, is out of all proportion to the size of the problem. The department makes it clear that more than two-thirds of unions are reporting their membership. Registered union membership shows an increase from 1981 to 1982 of 52%. In other words, it is working and more and more people are recognizing the value of the system, of coming in on the benefits of the system. Why then throw a spanner in the works now?

A further contentious proposal is to take away from the industrial court an appeal by any person who feels aggrieved by the decision of an industrial council and gives this power to the Minister. It was only last year in May that we did the exact opposite when we took power away from the Minister and gave it to the industrial court. We all agreed that it was a very good thing. We all said that if you are going to try to put the emphasis on voluntary association, on the freedom of association, it is far better to leave it as much as possible to the employer and the employee, and if there is a problem particularly if it necessitates an appeal, then they should use a court, in particular an industrial court. Surely this move too is premature and contrary to the declared policy of the Government to be as little involved as possible between the two major actors on the labour stage, namely the employer and the employee. Let me quote in this regard what a prominent industrialist, Mr Peter Moorham, executive vice-chairman and managing director of Firestone said. He stated only yesterday:

He said further:

This is the over-reactive Government. Everybody must conform. The evidence to the select committee was very divided on this issue. We believe, too, that in the case of an appeal an industrial court decision would be viewed much more objectively than one by the Minister. It is for this reason that we do not support this shift away from that court to the Minister. In clause 5(l)(e) in particular the Minister is granted very wide powers indeed, particularly in the words “or in the public or national interest”. What does that mean? This is wide open to political interpretation, understandably so. At times we may be ad idem or in agreement on that, but at other times “the national interest”, as understood by the Minister or the Government, may be very wide of the mark compared with how we understand it on this side of the House. This is a matter that is very often determined by political considerations and political programs and policies, and I am not persuaded that the Government, in the person of the Minister, should be given the authority to decide that all or any of the provisions of any agreement, notice, award or order should not be operative within an area or part of an area described by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

Democracy is very, very difficult to achieve in any country at any time, and I do not think that giving powers to Ministers of any Government—I am obviously not referring to the present Minister personally—is necessarily conducive to increasing democracy. Ministerial discretion is undesirable in a system that purports to encourage self-government by industry and the parties involved and it is open to the charge of political bias. Open-ended discretion in the hands of politicians of whatever party allows room for manoeuvring but not necessarily for democracy. So, for all the reasons I have outlined, both in relation to the style and the substance, we will not be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill and I move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the official Opposition does not support the Bill before this House. I feel that we had sufficient opportunity to raise our objections on the select committee and to conduct a proper debate on them.

At the outset I should like to have placed on record the special thanks and appreciation of this side of the House to our colleague the hon member for Roodeplaat, who acted as chairman of the select committee, for the competent way in which he dealt with this particularly important Bill on the select committee. May I also take this opportunity to convey the thanks and appreciation of this side of the House to the Department of Manpower and specifically to the Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe, and to Mr Dennis van der Walt, who were always at the disposal of the select committee and who ensured that the administrative side of the investigation went smoothly. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all the persons and bodies who commented by way of memoranda. I can give them the assurance that we tried our best to read through all the memoranda and weigh up each one properly.

Today I want to make it clear that I think that the hon member for Pinelands did in fact raise certain valid arguments here. However, I want it placed on record that this side of the House does not want to use the so-called “big stick” at all. That is why in February of this year, when the Bill was tabled, the Minister was prepared to refer the Bill to a select committee at once. Consequently we are certainly not using a “big stick” here.

I agreed with the hon member for Pine-lands when he said that labour relations in South Africa were a sensitive matter and that they should be treated as such. I am on record as having repeatedly said in this House that labour relations should not be dragged into the political arena, that they were too sensitive for that. I cannot agree that this Bill is “premature” or “stubborn determination”. In future we shall hear a great deal about labour relations, specifically with reference to what the hon member had to say about Part 3 of the 1984 report of the National Manpower Commission. As far as this Bill is concerned, we are not, however, incorporating the entire report in legislation. Reference is only made to certain matters and aspects. I am sure the hon member has studied the report. I want to refer him specifically to paragraph 1.4, and I am quoting:

I am now quoting paragraph 1.4.1:

It is therefore clear that this legislation is not “premature”. I see this Bill as a point of departure, leading to better labour relations in South Africa. This year and next year amended legislation will be submitted in which the entire aspect of labour relations in South Africa will again be reviewed.

You will have to rewrite the Bill.

Whether or not we have to “rewrite” it; we must see this Bill as a point of departure. Labour relations in South Africa need this legislation now. We should not, however, see it as the alpha and the omega, but as the starting point of better labour relations in South Africa. We have to be honest with each other and say frankly that if it becomes necessary in future to amend the legislation, this must be done. We cannot be dogmatic about this, because then we would be using the “big stick”, and as far as labour relations is concerned we cannot afford to do that. We have to be dynamic, realistic and think big. We have to be honest and sincere with each other and say that if it appears to be necessary to amend the Bill after the information in the report of the National Manpower Commission has been processed, after comments has been obtained and after the White Paper has been tabled, then this must be done, particularly if it is in the interests of the workers of South Africa.

I see this legislation as a point of departure as far as labour relations are concerned. The hon member for Pinelands is an expert in this field, and I respect his knowledge of these matters. He will, however, agree that it will take a long time before legislation can be placed on the Statute Book which has stemmed from the report of the National Manpower Commission. The ideas of the commission cannot be seen in isolation. It will take at least two or three years to process everything. We must therefore rather make a well-considered study of this first, bearing in mind that this legislation is a point of departure.

This legislation as a point of departure lays down two very important guidelines. The first of these is that, in consequence of the actions of the hon the Minister and the select committee, bona fide, imaginative, dynamic and enterprising guidelines have been laid down within the general official policy framework for the handling of labour matters. It is essential to continued progress for labour stability and labour peace to be preserved, in spite of rapidly developing and changing conditions.

A second very important guideline is, however, also being laid down, a guideline for the future. This is namely the avoidance of unnecessary alarm about events in the field of labour and any hasty overreaction. This recognizes that the labour situation in South Africa is in a state of constant adjustment to a variety of new problems at the point of contact owing to the involvement of a far larger number of workers of all population groups in the activities of trade unions, and the active role played by the unions in industrial relations.

I believe we are involved in a real and honest endeavour to normalize labour relations in South Africa. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, at the very outset I should like to associate myself with the previous two hon speakers and also express the thanks of this side of the House to the hon member for Roodeplaat, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for his successful chairmanship of the select committee. As most of us know the hon member is an expert on our labour legislation.

To a great extent this Bill was already discussed fully during the debate which took place in February of this year in this House. As a matter of fact the changes made by the select committee do not affect any matters of principle. They are mainly concerned with details. In February we indicated that we objected to certain aspects of the legislation but that in general we would support the legislation. I do not want to repeat the discussions of the select committee unnecessarily, but I do want to point out one particular aspect. We are now entering the era of consensus politics, and if there has ever been an example of an effort being made to reach consensus, then it was on this select committee. I am able to say without fear of contradiction that we eventually reached consensus on the fact that we disagreed, and I do not know what that bodes for the future.

As far as we are concerned the two most important clauses in the Bill are clauses 3 and 5. As far as the proposed section 31A(1), as inserted by clause 3, is concerned, we feel that we are dealing with a rather peculiar position here. As far as I know this is one of the few cases in our legal history where it is not provided in legislation that an agreement cannot or may not be entered into, but where an association of persons is given the right to enter into an agreement, but that such agreement will not be enforceable in a court or in an industrial court. Legal history is being made here.

In February of this year during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, the hon the Minister touched very lightly on the necessity for this clause. We all know what the Government is seeking to achieve, namely to persuade certain people “to toe the line”. It is only right that, if the majority are required to comply with certain norms and requirements, everyone should be expected to do so. We therefore appreciate what the Government wants to achieve by this measure. But I have serious doubts as to whether the hon the Minister is going to achieve his objective. What is the result going to be if one allows a trade union, which does not comply with the requirements, to enter into an agreement with an employer, but one says that it will not be able to enforce that agreement? What could the result be? One could have strikes. I know this is a sensitive matter, Sir, and that is why I have my doubts about it. What we would like to see is that if we do not want those people to be allowed to enter into agreements, we should tell them so frankly. We should not tell them that that agreement will not be enforceable in a court, we should rather tell them frankly that it will be null and void. That is our standpoint.

As far as the proposed section 31A(2) is concerned, which provides that the relevant employers shall provide particulars of such agreements to the department, we have no objection because we feel it is important for the department to be conversant with the nature and scope of such agreements in the country as a whole.

In terms of clause 5 the appeal to the industrial court is now being done away with, and appeals must now be made to the Minister. In February we objected to this, and I just want to add a few words. Clause 5(l)(a) reads:

1. (iii) on an appeal under subsection (5) may appeal at any time to the Minister …

He may therefore no longer appeal to the industrial court, and we do not support this amendment.

Clause 5(l)(e) amends subsection (12), and in our opinion this is merely an amplification of a right the Minister already has, and I therefore do not find any fault with it. We are of the opinion that for the sake of the decentralization and deconcentration policy of the Government it will be up to the Minister to take an administrative decision in the interests of the development of the country as a whole, and for that reason we do not object to it.

As far as the remainder of the Bill is concerned we have no objection to it and we shall therefore vote for the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Barberton for his support for this Bill. The hon member expressed his doubts about consensus politics. However, I want to tell the hon member that our labour legislation in South Africa is based on consensus politics. I am referring now to the Pact Government when a Labour Party member was the Minister of Labour. That was also a National Party Government. Because English and Afrikaans-speaking persons reached consensus, this is one of the finest pieces of legislation on our Statute Book. This legislation has also stood the test of time. I want to express the hope that the period of the Pact Government, which was based on consensus politics, will at some or other stage be investigated by students or researchers.

How long did the Pact last?

It lasted for nine years, from 1924 to 1933. Coalition destroyed the Pact.

The hon member for Pinelands had a few things to say with which I want to agree. The hon member said that politics did not play a role on the select committee. It did not and it should not. This is not a matter politics should be dragged into.

The hon member also admitted that improvements were being made and he mentioned five or six of them. However, he also raised a few objections, and so did the hon member for Barberton. They objected to the matter of appeal. The Minister is merely being inserted. That was the major objection of the hon member for Barberton.

The hon member for Pinelands also objected to the fact that the legislation is being amended after a year. We are living in a time of rapidly changing circumstances, and many things, and important things at that, can happen in the course of a year. What has happened in the mean time? The small businessman has come on the scene. With the aid of the Small Business Development Corporation thousands of small business undertakings have been established in the country, and the Industrial Court procedure is a long and expensive process. With a view to the new circumstances which have arisen in the course of the year, the Minister is now being added as far as the appeal procedure is concerned. I say it is largely with a view to small business undertakings that this change is being made, so that the Minister can help them. In many cases these are undertakings that employ two or three employees and they cannot afford to leave their business undertakings and spend the day in court. In order to accommodate them, this change has been made. There is no underhand reason for it. There is merely an addition to facilitate matters for these people. It is general knowledge, throughout the world, that South Africa has very good labour legislation, but our labour situation is very sensitive. We must always bear this in mind. We are dealing with a diversity of workers, a diversity of tribes, a diversity of languages, and it is frequently as a result of this that unrest breaks out within the ranks of a trade union. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that it sometimes has nothing to do with the wages of the employees. On the other hand there are fortunately many employers who have the interests of the employee at heart, but unfortunately there are still too many employers who refuse to recognize the employees’ organizations. This still leads to a great deal of misunderstanding and conflicts. As a matter of fact, many strikes occur as a result of this.

Since 1924 the State has created order in South Africa through the Industrial Conciliation Act. It has brought peace to our labour industry and is trying to maintain it. Over the years a great deal of labour legislation has been amended. The Industrial Concilliation Act has been amended four or five times, each time for the better. Adjustments had to be made because changes took place. Sometimes changes take place quickly and obviously the legislation must also change to keep pace. Since 1979 a new dispensation has been introduced in the Department of Manpower.

The principal objection of the official Opposition is that the legislation was introduced a year ago in its present form and should not be changed now. I hope I have convinced the hon member why this important change with regard to the Industrial Council and the hon the Minister has been included here. I think it is a reason that should satisfy the hon member. I was under the impression— we do not have the minutes of the Select Committee—that hon members did not oppose the legislation in principle, but that they would raise problems in the Committee Stage and move amendments there. I was under the impression that they would support the Second Reading of this Bill. I may be wrong, but that was my impression.

Mr Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with two of the statements made by the hon member Mr Van Staden. Firstly, he said that labour legislation and labour affairs constituted a very sensitive field and that we should exercise great care when entering this field. I think consensus has been reached on that score, not only on the Standing Committee but also in general.

Secondly, I also agree with the hon member that at present things are happening at a more rapid pace. It is a strange thing that the more complicated matters get, and the more capable our community becomes, the faster the pace which is maintained, particularly in politics. There is an old saying “a week is a very long time in politics”, but what it actually means is that things happen very quickly. In general we can see a revolution in the attitude of the Government towards labour legislation as such, and in the international field we can also see how quickly things can improve or deteriorate. I agree whole-heartedly with the hon member as far as these things are concerned. Where I do not agree with him is that he was under the impression that on the Select Committee all of us would agree on the legislation we are dealing with at the moment.

†I should like to add the compliments of this party to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon member for Roodeplaat, who is not able to be here today. We certainly found it a most stimulating committee to work on. I should further like to add our congratulations and thanks to the department of the hon the Minister who under extreme pressure produced voluminous amounts of work, and this was almost unbelievable. The way they collected and collated and prepared for us evidence which we called for from various organizations was quite unbelievable. They did a remarkable job, and it would not have been possible to have given total consideration to all aspects of this Bill had it not been for the efficiency and the productivity of the hon the Minister’s department, and I should like to pay them my compliments.

As far as the actual Bill itself is concerned, I should like to say that if one reviews a Bill of this nature with the proposed amendments which are of very considerable importance, one should do that in the context of the labour relations out there in the work place at the moment to determine what the state of it is, whether it is relatively peaceful, whether it has a high potential for conflict and whether these amendments are an imperative of great urgency and of such a nature that they will drastically affect what is happening out there on the shop floor.

I should like to agree with the hon member for Pinelands when he says that at present and in reviewing the past five years we cannot help but agree that industrial relations have improved immeasurably in South Africa since those first steps were taken by the previous Minister, Minister Fanie Botha, in bringing about amendments which made it possible for all workers in South Africa, irrespective of race and creed, to belong to trade unions but also to improve industrial legislation immeasurably in terms of improving the work place situation.

I should like to quote, in support of the fact that we in this party believe that industrial relations are at a satisfactory level today, none other than the author of the new industrial legislation in South Africa, Prof Nic Wiehahn. He wrote an article in the Sunday Tribune of 3 June 1984 under the heading “Industry and labour five years on”. If ever there was a man who should know the difference between what happened five years ago and today, it is Prof Wiehahn. This sets the tone of the atmosphere within which we are going to have to judge the Bill. What does he say? This is a very interesting article, and I can commend it to hon members. He said that the number of strikes after peaking in 1982 took a dive last year, and the hon member for pinelands quoted the figures. Prof Nic Wiehahn also said:

He went on to say:

He then quotes very significantly:

This is the increasing tendency. Those unions who were most hostile originally to registration as such or to the requirements for registration, have in fact predominantly joined federations or individually subscribed to the system. I may also mention that more than 30 South African unions are in fact also today affiliated in the international federations giving them a lever to lobby for support in case of conflict with multi-national companies. We have had a very considerable maturing of the relationship between trade unions and employers. As the hon the Minister and the department have quoted to us quite liberally as well, at present there are no more than five or six unions that are actually operating in the classical sense outside the system. We do not have accurate figures as to the number of employees who subscribe to those unions, but I would guess that by far the majority of those five or six will find that their members tend to gravitate away from them into those unions who are now participating in the system. The question therefore arises why it has become necessary at this time to bring an amendment which is going to attempt to coerce—I can only use the word “coerce”—those five or six unions to join the system by disallowing them the right to take their agreements to court in the event of a dispute with an employer. I cannot see from the evidence which has been presented to us a strong enough case that we should bring in such a drastically new principle into labour relations merely to try to coerce those five or six unions.

There is very tangible evidence to suggest that this legislation is premature. I would like to quote from none other than the report of the National Manpower Commission dated March 1983 in support of this. In the select committee we heard ample evidence from a variety of people that they also believe that this legislation is premature. I must agree with the hon member for Pine-lands that we should rather wait for all the evidence which the Government has called for before we decide to introduce amending legislation such as we have at the moment. I can quote numerous individuals, people of substance, who are also members of the National Manpower Commission and who have indicated to us that they believe we should wait until all the evidence has been received and we have had an opportunity to study that evidence. I want to quote what is said in the report of the National Manpower Commission on this question. I think the hon member for Pinelands quoted this as well. In respect of this provision the Government wishes to bring in that any trade union which does not register may not have access to the court, paragraph 8.2.1.(a) on page 266 of the report reads as follows:

1. (b) The current provisions of the Labour Relations Act in regard to the registration of trade unions/employers’ organizations should be repealed and replaced by a system under which all organizations wishing to operate as a trade union/employers’ organization and participate in the process of collective bargaining at any level (within or outside the LRA) should comply with certain minimum requirements with the necessary consequential amendments to the various provisions of the LRA.

This is a recommendation of the National Manpower Commission, the majority opinion of the members of the NMC. The Bill we have before us today totally ignores this recommendation of the NMC. In fact, it goes contrary to it by attempting to bring in a new principle which deviates significantly from this recommendation.

The report contains further recommendations and goes on to say that organizations which do not comply with the minimum requirements as laid down in the Labour Relations Act will be guilty of an offence, and its officials and office-bearers liable to prosecution if it operates as a trade union/employers’ organization as defined in the Act. We in this party agree fully with these recommendations of the NMC. I may add that this is nothing new. In England and in the United States it is a necessary prerequisite for trade unions to register themselves with the relevant authorities. They have the Registrar of Trade Unions in London and he has a register there of some 437 trade unions in England. It is an offence not to register with him. He requires the name of the organization, its constitution and its list of members, and its audited accounts have to be submitted annually. It is an accepted practice in a democratic society that these trade unions should register. One should ask oneself which organizations would prefer not to register. Simply, those who have something to hide, those who are not prepared to operate in the open and show who their members are, how their money is spent and what their constitution says. Therefore, we would actually prefer to see, instead of the proposed section 31A, a system similar to the one we have on the books at the moment. In terms of the present Labour Relations Act a trade union “may” register. It does not say it has to register, but obviously there are implications if it does not. We would prefer to see a system consistent with the recommendations of the majority of the Manpower Commission that trade unions should provide this information and register with the Registrar who should by notice in the Gazette indicate which unions have in fact registered.

We are acutely aware of the fact that this has potential political explosiveness built into it. A large number of the trade union members who have been arrested or charged by the courts receive a sympathetic ear overseas and there the whole matter is blown up into a confrontation between trade unions and a police state. The negative publicity which results from that is of course something none of us desire. It is, however, an inescapable fact that, if we had to yield to pressure to change our laws to avoid bad publicity, we would almost become subject to blackmail by those organizations which wish South Africa ill. We believe that that is what would almost be the position in South Africa. We stand very strongly for the fact that trade unions should register.

In other respects we also have some problems with the Bill. As far as the removal of the provision is concerned whereby the Minister displaces the industrial court, that, of course, we cannot agree with either. On prior occasions we have indicated in this very House how strongly we stand for the principle that matters of dispute should be referred to an organization which is outside the executive. It is the old principle of having an independent judiciary which stands outside the executive and the legislature. It is a very fundamental principle of democracy, it is a fundamental principle of private enterprise and capitalism, and we stand by the principle that these disputes, whatever their nature may be, should be referred to the industrial court rather than to the Minister himself. The use people have had of the industrial court has, I believe, played a major role in bringing about the manifestation of relative peace we have in our industries today. The very fact that there is an objective organization, an outside organization, to which these people can go without a single suspicion that the decision will be politically motivated has, I believe, played a major role in contributing to the peace we have in South Africa today. If we start with a reversal of that trend by now removing this function of arbitration and by having certain functions revert to the Minister, I believe that that would be a retrogressive step and we are not in favour of that.

Then there is the amendment which removes the Administrator from the process of arbitration in respect of the setting of salaries for town clerks, who are predominantly the heads of administration of local authorities. We understand that this function will now go to the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or at least to his department. In principle, of course, one cannot argue with that very much. However, it looks very much to us as if this is the first alarm-bell ringing that there is a change imminent in the structure of provincial councils in South Africa. If that is so, if there are going to be such radical changes to provincial councils, and another department has to take over that function, well, so be it; but we, of course, would express our preference for the status quo to be retained until such time as the functions of the Administrator himself have actually been changed. We understand that the town clerks or heads of administration of local authorities are very anxious—the hon the Minister referred to this in his Second reading speech—to be brought back under the umbrella and protection of the Act governing industrial relations. We would of course like to satisfy their needs there.

As far as the other clauses are concerned, some of them are of special significance, for instance the proposed new section 31A, is certainly the main bone of contention. The hon member for Barberton as well as many of the people who submitted written evidence to the select committee, posed the same problem, namely that if one allows these “unregistered” unions to actually enter into negotiations with an employer organization—which might be a company or a federation—and allow them to participate in bargaining with the company and they then find that they have been cornered in the case of a dispute, one will get very violent reaction from the trade unions and their members. The very essence of an agreement between organizations, between the contracting parties, is the fact that there is some form of sanction should either party commit a breach of contract, otherwise the contract is not worth the paper on which it is written. I believe that some of the organizations will attempt to enter into these agreements despite the fact that they will find that it is not enforcable in law. Under those circumstances a new form of undesirable sanction will develop on the part of either the employer or the trade union. The trade unions will threaten strike action at the drop of a pin and will use it as a kind of sword of Damocles to hang over the heads of the employers. It will increase the potential for strike and not decrease it because it is the only option available to them. There will be greater intimidation of workers and they will find highly selected aspects to strike on, aspects which may in fact have very little relevance to employment conditions. Thereby they will prove the point to the employer that they are serious about their business as trade unions when they enter into an agreement. That sort of brinkmanship is undesirable in industrial relations in South Africa, but trade unions will resort to it nevertheless because they cannot take a breach of contract to court. As far as the employers are concerned in their relations with trade unions in not being able to take their contracts to court, I believe that the companies themselves will resort to undesirable methods of sanctions such as resorting to victimization, something which is very difficult to prove, of individual members, trained shop stewards, etc, and companies will also try to camouflage what happens on the shop floor simply because they will fear the potential strike action which is inherent in the “new deal” as proposed by the new section 31A. I believe it will lead to a distortion of the positive trendline which we have seen developing in South Africa over the past few years. Therefore, for that reason alone, we are strongly opposed to the Second Reading of this Bill.

As far as the right of appeal of any aggrieved party in respect of an industrial council agreement is concerned, that party was previously entitled to apply to the industrial court for a hearing, but it is now once again being changed and reverts back to an appeal to the Minister and we also find this trend-line undesirable. We believe that in the case of an appeal it should be dealt with by somebody outside the executive and political functions. In this regard I believe industrial councils should exercise greater sensitivity to those parties who wish to appeal against their decisions on agreements. If they cannot be satisfied, they should be able to go to the industrial courts.

The hon the Minister and hon members on that side of the House have argued that one of the reasons why appeals now revert back to the Minister is the fact that it is cumbersome and expensive for the small businessman to actually go to the industrial court. The answer here lies in streamlining the process of going to the industrial court and the proceedings of the industrial court and not in the reversion to an entirely different principle, such as having the Minister dealing with appeals. There will always be the suspicion, irrespective of which democratic country you are in, that a Minister’s decision in regard to an appeal is biased by political considerations, while decisions in cases such as these must, like Caeser’s wife, be beyond suspicion. For that reason we oppose the principle of reverting to ministerial decree.

As far as the question of administrative exemption, the power which the Minister has at the moment to exempt certain areas from an industrial agreement, is concerned, we feel once again that we should revert to the principle of the industrial councils themselves being able to grant exemption consistent with the policy of decentralization which the Government follows. It is a very simple matter to get industrial council representatives together. The hon the Minister and his Director-General called a meeting of industrial councils in Pretoria in November last year, a meeting which I was privileged to attend, where more than 100 industrial councils were represented, including the chairman of one, the hon member for Yeoville. I think the hon member for Yeoville will agree with me when I say that that seminar which we had with the Industrial councils was of tremendous significance and importance as a means of communication and better understanding. If the Government is so intent on facilitating its programme of decentralization and it wishes to have exemptions from industrial council agreements, I am sure the industrial councils themselves would be prepared to grant exemptions if relevant applications are made to them. Once again, for exactly the same reasons we are not be be found for the ministerial decree in the modified form which is presented in the Bill.

We have reservations also about the consequential amendments. The idea that an employer should register a contract within 90 days we have no great difficulty with. The fact that the fine has been reduced in this case we find quite acceptable, but unfortunately there are parts of the curate’s egg which are not so acceptable, and which constitute the major part of the Bill. Therefore we agree fully with the hon member for Pinelands and his party that it is preferable to wait until the Government has all the evidence which it has called for and has had the opportunity to draw up a White paper before we bring in amending legislation like this.

Finally, this party has always been found to have a positive attitude towards labour relations in South Africa. We have gone out of our way to support new legislation. We have rather erred on the side of supporting legislation which moved tentatively forward rather than to stand aside from it. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if this party has resevations about this legislation then they must be very significant reservations, and he should not pass them over lightly.

We have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon member for Pine-lands.

Mr Speaker, I should like to start by associating myself with the remarks made by the hon member for Durban North and other hon speakers in the debate in congratulating the chairman of the select committee, the hon member for Roodeplaat, the officials of the department, as well as the hon the Minister himself. A large measure of consensus was in fact reached in the select committee, a fact which may not be as apparent from the debate here this afternoon as it was then. That is something which I find somewhat astonishing. However, the fact of the matter is that all the speeches this afternoon, with the possible exception of the speech by the hon member for Durban North, were very much softer and very much more ameliorated than the speeches that were held in February when the Bill was debated before it was referred to the select committee. There is general consensus, even from the hon member for Pinelands, that this Bill is an improved version. This is a result of the willingness of the hon the Minister to submit it to a select committee, of the willingness of the various parties to try to bring about a better Bill without putting party-political considerations first, and a result of the willingness of the department to help us in the way the hon member for Durban North described. We have really gone a long way in bringing about a Bill which, I think, is more acceptable to everybody. That is evidence of a great deal of consensus. One can never of course expect to receive absolute and total agreement in every respect. I would, like to return to some of the things that the hon member for Pinelands said and in passing I will deal with the other two speakers of the other two Opposition parties.

It is true that the official Opposition has by and large had a positive attitude towards labour legislation, and that we are in agreement that labour relations have improved. The hon member for Durban North also agreed that labour relations over the past few years have improved and that they are while still delicately poised, in a stabilized situation. Not only did the number of strikes take a dive but the duration of strikes took a dive as well. Last year’s figures show that about 46% of the strikes lasted only one day and 75% lasted only three days. Strikes have therefore not only taken a dive in terms of numbers but also in terms of their duration, and this is certainly very hopeful.

However, I think it was an unnecessary dig at the Government party by the hon member for Pinelands to suggest that his party was more enthusiastic in supporting the labour legislation than our side of the House. I do not see what political purpose that kind of gibe serves since, after all, it was this side of the house that initiated that legislation. It was put before the House after full agreement had been reached in the caucus, and while certainly the CP did not hive off from the NP on the labour legislation, subsequent to its hiving off, of course, there has been a greater parting of the ways even in this sphere. I should, however, now like to come to the argument about prematurity of the legislation

I do not think that this argument holds water because the hon member for Pinelands in relating the things that happened in his background exposition did not, I think, relate the complete story as far as the select committee is concerned, and I think this is vital. When the select committee became aware of the fact that the NMC was about to publish a report, there was among all of us some doubt as to whether we should proceed with this or not at all. Thereupon the majority decided to proceed on the condition that we could get the report as soon as possible to study it. Then, after studying it, we could see whether we should not take a redecision on the matter.

I think, thanks to the officials, we did get the NMC report in excellent haste and were able to study it properly. The majority of the select committee then came to the conclusion that the few aspects dealt with in this Bill were not affected materially by anything in the NMC report, or that anything that this Bill intended to do would affect anything that was in the NMC report and therefore would not have a great bearing on whatever the Government would have to say in its White Paper.

That is not true.

On that basis we then proceeded. The hon member for Durban North quoted a piece from the NMC report to suggest that what I am saying is not true in anticipation, but even there I cannot agree with him because clause 3 that is now in contention here has nothing to do with the registration of trade unions per se. It is also not a measure to coerce trade unions to register or otherwise. What is required here is that, in the first place, the department needs the statistics or information about who is party to informal agreements. That was very clearly put to us by the officials, and the need for this was very clearly brought out in the Select Committee when the hon member Prof Olivier asked what the membership was of the informal trade unions and the number of people taking part in the informal agreements and so forth. The answer of the department was: We do not know because we cannot get the information. If these informal agreements and the people who entered into them—whether they are registered unions or otherwise—could have their statistical information sent to the department, one immediately has a better statistical picture, which obviously has many advantages. First of all, if one does not have complete statistics one might as well have no statistics for the compilation of the Year Book.

What about Black unemployment?

Well, even that will help to establish the real figure for Black unemployment and the extent to which it is structural or otherwise. It is an aid towards that.

The main objection at that time was that it would be coercive on certain unions, and there were only a handful of them. As the hon member for Durban North correctly pointed out, there were five or six of them which did not wish to meet this kind of requirement. One is now taking the stick away from then by placing the onus on the employer to provide the particular statistical information, not even a copy of the agreement. All he has to provide are the particulars in regard to the number of people involved in the agreement or association or whatever it is. That is all that is required, and I cannot see that it is going to act coercively on anybody who does not want to be coerced or does not want to register. In any event, the provisions of the principal Act already apply to unions whether they are registered or not. They still have to state where their head offices are and submit their financial statements and all that sort of thing. Therefore, all those things are irrelevant to this particular clause. All this particular clause seeks to do is to try to obtain the necessary statistical information which the employer now has to furnish. I cannot think of any good reason why any employer would not want to furnish the department with the kind of statistical information that is required. That is the one aspect of the matter.

Can I give you one?

Yes, certainly.

Let me put in the form of a question. I should like to ask the hon member whether he is aware that certain employers are very concerned about the necessity of having to provide this particular information because the unions concerned believe that that information will be given to the Government and that that will be the first step towards control. Therefore the position is very tricky in view of this fluid situation. Is the hon member aware of that?

I am aware of the situation, Sir, but I feel that once the legislation is passed, those unions will not be able to enter into that type of agreement which then would also meet half way the objections of the hon member for Barberton who would say that such an agreement would be ab initio nul and void. It would also meet a number of the objections of the hon member for Durban North. However, the point is that if unions do not wish to enter into an agreement, nobody can force them to do so. Once an agreement has been entered into and the statistical information is passed on, I cannot see that this is using the big stick in any way.

That is only as far as subsection (2) of clause 3 is concerned. What about subsection (1)?

There are various aspects to it but I have dealt with just this one aspect. [Interjections.] Yes, there are various aspects but I also think it was rather a tongue-in-cheek speech that was made by the hon member for Pinelands, and also by the hon member for Durban North, to try to portray this as the big stick instead of the carrot.

We have had this argument before. The hon member for Pinelands will remember that when the Manpower Vote was discussed in the standing Committee, in regard to the question of unions I made the point specifically that the five or six unions who did not want to play ball even to the extent of furnishing this kind of statistical information were not necessarily in the right. In fact, I think that the general consensus of opinion is that they are in the wrong. Therefore, to force them to register now would be using the big stick. That would be far more coercive than telling them that they can enter into agreements but that only the particular statistical information is required for statistical reasons. However, we have gone out of our way to meet these people and, as I say, there are only five or six of them.

The hon member for Pinelands tried to give us statistics in regard to how the membership of registered unions had increased immensely …

By 52%.

… whereas the membership of non-registered trade unions had not increased to anything like the same extent on a proportional basis. This brings me to the argument which I think the hon member for Durban North stated correctly that more and more people were tending towards those unions that were co-operating with the system. I think that the good of the many abiding by the proper system must take precedence over the good of the few. There are only a handful of intransigent unions that do not want to play ball even to this very limited extent. I do not think that the whole ability of the department to evaluate labour relations should be jeopardized indefinitely because a few people are being unreasonable about a perfectly reasonable thing. If one took the hon member for Durban North’s stance and that of the CP and forced them to register ab initio, that surely, the hon member for Pinelands must now concede, would be using the big stick to a far greater extent than allowing the unions to be unregistered but having to meet certain requirements or to be registered and having to meet the same requirements and to enjoy the benefits as well as the responsibilities of the Act. One cannot enjoy benefits without also meeting certain responsibilities. The whole argument why the PFP has supported the basic tenet of the legislation is because it removes discrimination based on colour and whatever, and gives equality of opportunity to everybody insofar as bargaining etc is concerned. It has put everybody in exactly the same boat.

If one makes an exception for these five or six unions one defeats the whole object of the whole new labour dispensation in removing discriminatory practices against certain groups, because by letting these people get away with it one is now discriminating against the majority who are prepared to play ball. I do not think that that is what we want to achieve and, therefore, I want to appeal, as I did during the debate on the Manpower Vote, to the hon member for Pine-lands that instead of, by adopting the attitude that he does, giving succour and comfort to people who are being unreasonable, he should rather join forces with us in trying to persuade them to be more reasonable for their own good, because it will ultimately rebound to the good of the labour relations system as a whole and will increase and enhance its stability.

The second bone of contention is clause 5 and it concerns the so-called right of appeal. I think that the word “appeal” in this particular context has become customary and has achieved a certain usage in our manpower parlance. But that also gives us room for certain semantic licence which I do not think is productive at all here. It is not really an appeal in the real sense of the word. What it is is an application for exemption from a ministerial decision. What happens here is that the Minister is empowered to extend the provisions of an industrial council agreement to people who were not party to the agreement in the first place. They did not take part in the initial negotiations and they were not party to the agreement, but the Minister can now make them party to the agreement. What is an agreement? An agreement, surely, is an accord reached between various parties. If people by ministerial act become party to an agreement and they did not take part in the negotiating situation, they are in fact not party to that agreement by their own free will. The ideal, of course, would be, before one extends the scope of such an agreement to such parties to, say, advertise it in the Government Gazette and then to let them lodge their objections beforehand so that they are excluded ab initio, so that it is not extended. But for various practical reasons which were discussed in the select committee and which certainly were accepted by the majority, we were told by the department that this was not a tactical way of doing it. Consequently, what happens now is that the agreement is extended first and then people can say: But now look, I disagree with this agreement as it affects me adversely. There are certain socio-economic conditions particular to my circumstances why this agreement should not be extended to me, and therefore I appeal against its extension to cover me; in other words, I ask the Minister to exempt me from his act of making me party to the agreement. Since the Minister, in the first place, was able to extend the scope of the agreement to these people, it is only right that if they have reasonable objections to being made party to this agreement, he should also then be able to release them from these obligations and responsibilities. Therefore I cannot see that this is an appeal in the real sense of the word and in the real manner in which we appeal to courts against other decisions. It is purely a case of people saying to the Minister that they do not want to be included in the agreement he has made them party to and they want to be exempted from it. Therefore it is not an appeal in the real sense of the word. Therefore I think this is a logical way of improving the legislation. It makes it very much more easier to administrate and it is not implying on the courts in any way and it is certainly not trying to take away the rights of the industrial court.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I want to express my appreciation for the spirit in which this discussion is taking place today. It is constructive and positive, and it is really to be welcomed most strongly if one compares it with how debates on this matter have sometimes been conducted in the past. It also reflects the spirit which prevailed in the select committee, viz a willingness to understand and to be obliging to a certain extent. It is indeed a pity that despite the efforts of the chairman of the select committee, as well as the officials of the department, we could not reach consensus on the fundamental aspects.

In that sense, I should like to reiterate what the hon member for Durban North said earlier in view of the remarks of the hon member Mr Van Staden. I do not think there can be any doubt that our fundamental problems were not dispelled in the select committee. What we did in fact do wat to co-operate on improving certain of the clauses, but the fundamental objections we stated at the outset by way of a motion which was not accepted by the select committee remained unchanged, and towards the end we stated very clearly that those fundamental objections still remain. I regret that the hon member Mr Van Staden is apparently under a misapprehension.

As regards the hon member for Benoni, to whom I listened attentively, we shall reply to a number of the points he touched on here when we reach the Committee Stage. I do at least want to tell him in advance that since he in fact denied that the provisions in this Bill are coercive or constraining by nature, I must point out to him—apparently this is what he did not quote—that as regards those trade unions that do not comply with the requirements laid down in the legislation, the coercive nature lies in the fact that any agreement they could conclude with the employers is not enforceable in court. What we are therefore saying to those trade unions is: Before you can conclude an agreement which will be protected by the law, you must first comply with this and that requirement. If that is not coercive or constraining by nature, I must say that I do not really understand the term very well.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he did not understand that I was speaking about relative coercion, vis-à-vis registration, and these other matters which are less coercive by nature?

Yes, the hon member for Benoni did say that later in his speech, but he commenced by saying that he denies that it is in fact a coercive measure.

The quotation of the hon member for Overvaal—I appreciate the spirit in which he spoke as well—from the report of the Department of Manpower essentially supports the standpoint adopted by the hon member for Pinelands—I think the hon member for Overvaal will concede that—in the sense that what that paragraph singled out is the mutual relationship between various aspects. The conclusion of that paragraph reads:

This particular paragraph shows us the underlying relationship between the various aspects of this matter.

I want to associate myself with the very basic problems singled out by the hon member for Pinelands with regard to this matter, and as supported by the hon member for Durban North. The objections the hon member for Pinelands pointed out to the hon member for Durban North are based on a rational analysis of the possible implications of this Bill. My colleague and I are grateful to the hon member for Durban North for spelling out so clearly the various possible implications.

However, the hard fact is that when we consider a Bill of this nature, there are basically two criteria that could be used. One of these is the question of whether it is necessary to effect these amendments at this stage, and the second is the merit of the amendments themselves.

As regards the first criterion, I want to point out that the hon member for Pinelands and the hon member for Durban North clearly pointed out that we have held the standpoint from the outset that this Bill should not be considered by this House at this stage. Because a comprehensive report was published by the National Manpower Commission, and the Government itself has indicated that it is awaiting representations concerning the report and that these will be followed by a White Paper, it is, as the hon member for Pinelands rightly said, extremely imprudent to force a measure such as this through the House at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that we all concede that we are dealing here with a very sensitive aspect of labour relations. In this regard I should like to quote from the report of the National Manpower Commission, from paragraph 2.1 of the summary and recommendations on page 351:

This is the basis of the whole development of labour relations over the past few years. I continue to read:

These are the fundamental points of departure laid down by the National Manpower Commission and it is on the basis of these points of departure that we feel that it is imprudent to go ahead with this measure at this stage. The commission goes on to say in paragraph 4.2.1.1 on page 358:

Here we have it in black and white. This responsible body says that we should approach this legislation with circumspection. I continue to read:

I do not think one could have a clearer pronouncement from a responsible body such as this. They go on to say in paragraph 4.2.2.4 on page 359:

That was the principle. This Bill is going even further now. Not only are we retaining that Ministerial capacity, but we are giving the Minister even more powers as regards these matters. The NMC says that another matter that has to be investigated, is—

However, this is not relevant now. Having said that our point of departure is that it would indeed seem improdudent to us to go ahead with this Bill in view of this report, our own representations could hardly weigh more strongly with the Minister than these recommendations of the National Manpower Commission itself. We still find it extremely odd that it has been decided by the majority of the members of the select committee as well—and I say this with all due respect— that we should go ahead with this measure. If we could have been convinced that it is absolutely imperative that we go ahead with these changes and that we cannot wait for the Government’s White Paper, we would be able to say that we should negate the report of the National Manpower Commission because circumstances have arisen in the interim which mean that we cannot take any notice of that report and the recommendations contained in it. However, I have not been furnished with convincing proof—I think I am speaking on behalf of the hon member for Pinelands and the hon member for Durban North as well—that it is absolutely imperative that we should go ahead with this Bill at this stage. Apart from the absence of any urgent necessity, our attitude that we should wait with this matter is further reinforced by the tremendous amount of dissension about this Bill. I am saying this on the basis of the various memoranda we have received. I think it is essential that we realize how strong that dissension really is. It is overwhelming. How a select committee such as this or its individual members can be expected, in the midst of that maze of enormous differences, to say the one is right and the other is wrong, I cannot understand. I think that is asking far too much. I just want to show what our experience was as regards the memoranda we received. I am referring specifically to the opinions expressed on clause 3 of the Bill, what was formerly clause 2. I am now leaving out the representations of which the gist was that the clause is supported in part, that it is supported with reservations, or that it is opposed with reservations. If one leaves out those categories, what does one find? The organizations which expressed themselves consciously and strongly in favour of clause 3 were the Department of Manpower, the Motor Industry Employers’ Association of South Africa, the Motor Transport Owners’ Association, the Mineworkers’ Union, the National Trade Union of Furniture and allied Workers of South Africa, the Industrial Council for the Clothing Industry of the Cape, the Sigma Corporation, the South African Federation of Printing and Allied Industries, the Textile Workers’ Industrial Union, the SA Confederation of Labour, and the SA Police. Those bodies all said that they supported it. Let us now look at the organizations that said they want nothing to do with it and that they are vehemently opposed to it. It is an impressive list which includes the following institutions and bodies: the Federation of South African Steel and Engineering Industries; the General Workers’ Union; Leyland South Africa; Natal Chamber of Industries; the SA Federated Chamber of Industries; the Transvaal Chamber of Industries the Association of Surface Mine Officials of South Africa; Assocom; Food and Canning Workers’ Union; The Graduate School of Business of the University of Cape Town; The Industrial Relations Unit of the University of Port Elizabeth; the Midland Chamber of Industries; Premier Group Holdings; SA Bus Employers Association; The SA Labour and Development Research Unit, which falls under the University of Cape Town; the Law Society, as well as other institutions. This is an impressive list of institutions and bodies that want nothing to do with this. This applies to other controversial clauses in the Bill where there is the same extensive dissension. In view of these objections and the serious dissension which does not come from frivolous institutions, or institutions that do not have any influence in the field of labour relations, I cannot see how we can go ahead with this measure. I have thought about the matter logically, and I really cannot see how this legislation can be placed on the Statute Book.

Consequently, I associate myself wholeheartedly with the amendment moved by the hon member for Pinelands.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to hon members who took part in this debate. One thing that struck me was the ingenuity with which the hon member for Pinelands, the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Durban North made known their opposition. It struck me that if I had been ignorant in this regard, they would have convinced me. I think they made a good impression on those who do not properly understand the essense or the fundamental aspects of the whole question involving labour and collective bargaining. If one takes a balanced view, one realizes that they would have impressed such people.

What is involved here, however, is the essence of collective bargaining in this country. [Interjections.] The question at issue is in what manner we, in this House, want collective bargaining to be dealt with in future. That is the question we must reflect on.

Pietie, you should have been on the stage.

I also did well there. I did some acting when I was young.

The question on which we must reflect here is in what direction or in what way we want to have collective bargaining development. There are two ways. The one is permissive, by letting go of everything and allowing virtually anyone to negotiate for virtually anything, without any responsbility on the part of the people wanting to negotiate. If I wanted to open a shop or a cafe in Church Street, for example, I could not imply stand on a street corner and sell my wares. If I wanted to open a cafe, I could not simply rent a building, open up a shop and sell anything from coffins to pins, or simply slaughter chickens or goats in my back-yard. Could I, for example, simply get into a car and drive on the right-hand side of the road? If I want to have the privilege of driving a car, I must obtain a driver’s licence. That driver’s licence imposes on me certain conditions which discipline me so that I do not disrupt the social order. I cannot simply start slaughtering goats here in Parliament Street, because I must have it done hygienically at an abattoir. [Interjections.] I must have a licence to do so. What it amounts to is whether we want an ordered society or not, whether we want ordered bargaining or not. That is what it is all about.

The hon member for Pinelands tried to imply that previously everything was done by way of consensus and excessive consultation—almost in a kind of apologetic fashion. That is the impression I gained. He said matters were previously handled very carefully, and that is why he now held it against me for having come to the House with this legislation, because he and his party do not agree with it. Let me indicate to the hon member what the background to this recommendation was. When I agreed to the appointment of a select committee I said, in my speech, that I did not want any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the intentions of the legislation. I also hoped that certain hon members would become better informed so as to see the rationale behind the legislation. I increasingly gain the impression, however, that some hon members have grown more confused.

What have all today’s arguments been about? They involved the laying down of certain extremely reasonable legal requirements to which trade unions and employer organizations must comply when they enter the field of collective bargaining and we legally want to acknowledge the agreements they have negotiated. That is what it is all about. The hon member for Pinelands, however, advocated that we should not implement this because it would lead to discord. There are, however, approximately six trade unions in the country that do not comply with these basic legal requirements. It is apparently on their behalf that the hon member for Pinelands is furnishing his plea. He is afraid that we will offend those undisciplined individuals who do not, at this stage, want to comply with the legal requirements. Surely that is not a sound argument. It is surely an unsound argument. Surely that promotes, not order in the labour field, but rather permissiveness.

Not one of the hon members who opposed the legislation touched upon the very gist of the matter. The very essence of this matter is: What about the almost 250 existing trade unions? Some of them, approximately 200, are registered and a large number of them comply with the basic requirements of the Act. These people regularly ask me why they have to comply with the Act, why they must meet certain obligations, why they must keep certain books, why they must hold annual meetings, etc, whilst the other group is allowed to do what it wants to, without any discipline, for example collectively negotiating certain agreements, whilst the former group is expected to comply with the legal requirements.

But you do not know what is going on.

The hon member is the one who has no idea of what is going on. He must not tell me that I do not know.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon member does not know what he is talking about. What is the alternative? What taust one do with those who do not in any way comply with the basic legal requirements. One would then have to prosecute them. That seems to me to be the alternative the hon member wants us to adopt. We cannot simply allow someone a free hand in collective bargaining and in negotiating contracts when he does not comply with the basic requirements of the legislation. Surely that is the gist of the matter, Sir.

That is not the gist of the matter.

Of course it is the gist of the matter. The hon member, however, is lodging a plea for bodies who do not want to subject themselves to any discipline whatsoever in the labour field. That is the gist of the matter.

If action is taken against them, he starts a hue and cry.

Yes, then he starts a hue and cry. Let us determine where this matter has its origins. The choice is, as the hon member for Barberton argued—and I also want to thank him for his support—one of merely allowing the registered trade unions. That is the course we are adopting, but it is not something we want to implement all at once, because it is, after all, a gradual process. On the other hand, we cannot allow permissiveness either. The memorandum submitted to the select committee dates back to part I of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation—the Wiehahn Commission. In part I of the report the commission recommends that registration of the relevant parties be a prerequisite for the legality and enforceability of agreements negotiated between employers and employees. That was the first recommendation.

The recommendation was accepted by the Government, but was not immediately implemented because of an awareness of various implications resulting from a system of compulsory registration. It was therefore decided rather to wait for the final report of the commission.

In part 5 of its report the commission, the so-called Wiehahn Commission, slightly amended its earlier views by recommending that the existing voluntary basis for the registration of employer and employee organizations be retained in the Act. The Government also accepted this recommendation, but then the commission went further and recommended that certain statutory requirements, with which registered organization had to comply, should also be made applicable to unregistered labour organizations. The recommendation reads as follows:

It was recommended that the Department of Manpower be empowered, when it wished to do so or when requested to do so by an interested person or a party having a direct interest in the matter, to issue a request for the constitution, annual report, financial statements or any other relevant information from an unregistered organization. The recommendation went on to state:

The Government also accepted that recommendation and amended the Act accordingly.

The point is that the requirements a trade union must comply with are firstly in the interests of the two parties involved in the dispute being settled. The employer does, after all, want to know whom he is dealing with. There must be somewhere he can make inquiries to determine whom he is actually dealing with. He must be able to determine whether they are people who are organized, what their status is, whether they are people actually involved with labour or whether they occupy their time with other matters. The employer must surely know who it is he is dealing with. What is more, those people collect funds, do they not? Do hon members not think that the members of that trade union are at least entitled to know how their funds are being spent, to know that the statements are being audited, etc? We are therefore taking these steps to render powerless those organizations which do not want to comply with the requirements of the Act. They can negotiate agreements, but they cannot make use of the privileges of a system in any law if they do not meet the requirements imposed by that law as well. That is the gist of the matter.

The Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation also said that necessary changes in the registration process should be done by the department on the advice of the National Manpower Commission. What did the National Manpower Commission recommend in this connection? Their recommendation was the following:

That is specifically what the NMC found. It says the existing measure is not powerful enough. It is inadequate. The fact remains that we are not prohibiting anyone from negotiating agreements. We are, however, now facilitating matters for employers and protecting the members of the trade unions by introducing a measure of discipline, as far as trade unions or employer organizations are concerned, as a prerequisite for sharing in the privileges of collective bargaining. The hon member for Pinelands spoke of the “big stick”. Then one must take these people to court and prosecute them. [Interjections.] Everyone says the labour situation is a sensitive one. What is the least harmful: taking people to court, prosecuting them and making a tremendous fuss because those people do not want to meet the requirements, or drawing their teeth, thereby actually rendering them powerless? That is the gist of the whole matter. It is surely obvious that the alternative we are adopting here is the sensible, one.

Mr Speaker, may I please put a question? If the unions which do not wish to comply with these provisions and are therefore not able to take their contracts in dispute to court resort to illegal strike action, will the hon the Minister then take them to court on the grounds of taking illegal strike action?

But an illegal strike is illegal.

That is correct, but will the Minister take them to court?

That is just the point. If people take part in an illegal strike, they know beforehand that they are heading for trouble. If they then take action which is illegal then that action is punishable.

*What the hon member is now advocating is that those people should be prosecuted because they are not complying with all the legal requirements. What I am telling the hon member is that the least damaging and most convincing manner to have people participate in a system, within the context of the rules, is to deprive them of the the benefits of the system. Then they will realize the value of those benefits and then one will have an orderly dispensation.

If they strike, the Minister must also prosecute all the employees.

If they strike, it is an illegal strike they are participating in, and that is punishable, and that goes for everyone. One does not, however, take a strike as one’s point of departure. One must first make the system more attractive to them. That is how we feel about the matter.

A great deal was said about clause 5 and the discretion of the Minister. I think the hon member for Durban North said that in principle he was opposed to Ministerial discretion in any law. Hon members did indeed argue against the principles already embodied in legislation.

But then it was Fanie.

Sir, it is not worth reacting to that hon member. If one looks at section 51, one sees that subsection (12) reads as follows:

Here the Minister is obtaining the discretion to make concessions and to exclude persons from the conditions of an industrial agreement or a conciliation board agreement. All this legislation is now doing is extending this. If one looks at how subsection (12) is being extended, one sees that in addition to “of persons residing within any area described by him by notice in the Gazette, one also sees the following words used “or in the interests of employers or employees, or in the public of national interest, that all or any of the provisions of any agreement, notice, award or order should not be operative within an area or part of an area described by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, or in respect of any particular class of work in that area or part of that area”. In other words, it is merely an extension of the description of where and how the Minister can use his discretion. Again, however, the fundamental argument was not touched upon here. When an industrial council negotiates an agreement, when the two parties in an industrial council negotiate an agreement, in the majority of cases the position is such that a large number of those employers are not members of that industrial council. They are therefore not party to that agreement negotiated between employers and employees. That industrial council then asks the Minister: Make this agreement, negotiated by a section of the employers, applicable to all employers in that area. In other words, the Minister is expected to make an agreement applicable to people who had no part whatsoever in negotiating that agreement. Surely it is a very drastic step to make an agreement applicable to people who had no part in it. If that is expected of the Minister, as contained in the Act at present, and if it is regarded as fair to make an agreement binding on the parties to that agreement, then it is only fair to say that those people who are not members of the industrial council should at least be able to appeal in the same way they would in the case of an agreement having been made applicable to them. For them, going to an industrial court is an expensive procedure. It is a lengthy procedure, and it is difficult for a small entrepreneur to adhere to that procedure. Apart from his discretion, which is now being extended somewhat, in this connection the Minister also has the discretion, for example, to alter a Wage Board Agreement or to exempt people from the terms of a Wage Board Agreement. The powers the Minister has are existing discretionary powers. The Minister can exempt people in certain areas. This can be done in terms of existing powers that he has.

Hon members said that exemptions from Industrial Council agreements—several people raised this point of criticism, from outside this House as well—were merely an instrument that might be used by the Government to promote its ideology of decentralization in the remaining areas, and with some political objective in mind too. What hon members do not realize, however, is that the Small Business Development Corporation also made representations stating that the Minister should have that discretion because several of the small businesses could not remain in existence if they were bound by certain requirements arising from industrial council agreements that had been negotiated. The standards of the wages are simply too high for the beginner. We have numerous such representations.

Here is a White Paper in which it is recommended that it should specifically be made possible for the small undertaking to get off the ground. Here we are dealing with the informal sector, and we do not only find this informal sector in remote areas, because one comes across it throughout the country. How can an informal small industry, a one-man business, afford it, because appealing to the industrial court is too expensive and too complicated and too long a process for such a business? It should be remembered that the industrial council agreement has specifically been made applicable to that same small businessman by the Minister and is binding on him. That is why we are saying that it is fair, after all, for that person to have direct access to the Minister to request exemption. The Minister is, in any event, still compelled to consult that industrial council and to request it to furnish its reasons why it arrived at such an agreement and why it should be binding on all members. I think that is a very fair arrangement.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister how he deals with the problem of wanting to grant exemption in respect of an area which is part of an industrial council area. Let us take the example of Johannesburg and Soweto where one has in the first place an undercutting in respect of wage rates and in the second place unfair competition in respect of the employer. We have the existing employers in the area, where they are subject to the agreement, opposing that agreement while the trade union concerned finds that their wage rates are being undercut where an exemption is granted. On the other hand they may say: Because you are trying to help the informal sector, you have to give them exemption. How does one deal with that real dilemma?

I am very glad the hon member asked that question. The hon member for Yeoville has asked a very topical question. For all of us who have an interest in this matter it is a very topical question. [Interjections.] Now hon members of the PFP are laughing about this. They think it is a joke. I just hope the entrepreneurs out there can hear them laughing. That is what they think of the problems of the industrialist.

You are taking up a great deal of time answering.

The hon member for Bryanston should rather go back to fighting municipal by-elections. He does better in losing municipal by-elections than in making interjections in the House.

The hon member for Yeoville wants to know what one would do if the small informal sector were to ask one, for argument’s sake, for an exemption from a wage determination in terms of an industrial council agreement. In that regard the Minister and his department are far better able to answer the question than the industrial court, because they are firstly better acquainted with the local conditions. They are better acquainted with the more general conditions in that region. If a very small entrepeneur states his case and says that wages have it in a death-grip—it simply cannot make the grade—the Minister can use his discretion and grant an exemption or determine a wage. He merely grants it for a certain time and not ad infinitum. When the exemption is granted, for example, the condition can be imposed that it be reviewed every six months. If one sees that that small undertaking is beginning to grow and virtually gets to the point where it is beginning to make things hot for existing undertakings—the norm being when it gets to the point of being able to pay the existing wages—that exemption will be withdrawn. I want to make it clear that it is a decision that frequently has to be taken fairly arbitrarily. That is, however, the general guideline I shall be adopting in this connection. I want to reassure the hon member for Yeoville that the idea is not to make an entrepreneur newly entering the informal sector into a giant by granting him an exemption so that he can, as it were, plough existing undertakings into the ground. In the final analysis he must compete with his competitors on an equal footing. I just wanted to emphasize this point.

It has been asked why we do not first wait for the comments on the National Manpower Commission’s report, take those comments into account, draw up a White Paper and then come along with legislation. The hon member for Pinelands said we should come along with the legislation after having completed this whole process. I have received representations from a very wide spectrum of interested parties, stating that the period for comment—up to 30 June—was too short and that exemption should be granted. I subsequently decided—this was announced yesterday—that people would be given up to 31 August to furnish comment. There were bodies who asked for an exemption up to 31 July, but we have now granted an adequate amount of time. The fundamental point I want to state is that the provisions in this Bill are, in my opinion, a correct interpretation of the feelings of the overall majority of people who want to act responsibly in the labour field. These provisions are welcomed, in particular by the people most affected by them, ie the existing trade unions. I find it a pity that there were no people on the Opposition side today who paid tribute to our existing trade unions who adhere to the letter and the spirit of our legislation, negotiating in an orderly fashion within that context. I want to pay tribute to those trade unions today. Those are people who have, for many years now, helped the workers of South Africa out of their difficulties. Some of those people feel themselves threatened today because they comply with the requirements of the Act, whilst other people make use of many privileges without any discipline being exercised over them. That is why I want to pay tribute today to all existing trade unions which, in a responsible manner, adhere to the spirit and the letter of the law and who negotiate in a responsible fashion. That is what brings about labour peace in the country. If we simply leave the matter there and allow everybody to negotiate on behalf of whatever party he wishes to, we are specifically going to have chaos in the labour field. I can asssure hon members of that. [Interjections.] Sir, I think it is nice to hear the hon member for Green Point laughing in his ignorance.

Let me go further. The hon member for Pinelands alleged that if this legislation were accepted, there would be a great deal of confusion about the existing agreements. It is expressly stated in the Bill, however, that existing agreements already negotiated would be acknowledged and respected, but that all agreements negotiated after the commencement of this Bill would not be valid. How can one be more reasonable than to say that after the commencement of the Bill we shall not be acknowledging the agreements negotiated by trade unions if the fundamental requirements of the legislation are not met? So there is no reason whatsoever for any confusion on the part of anyone who simply reads the legislation intelligently.

Now the hon member is saying that the department does not have sufficient manpower to handle all the data received in connection with the agreements. Good Lord, we do not want to correct those agreements and give marks for them. Just as we computerize data on all the registered trade unions and on agreements complying with the legal requirements and keep a record of them at present, and were able to give hon members the annual report even before the debate on the Vote took place this year, the department likewise has the capacity to process and make available the statistics in regard to the additional handful of contracts, regardless of whether there be 50 or 200 or 300 of them.

We do not want to examine or change the contracts. Let me indicate what it is we envisage. It is said we want to interfere and prescribe to trade unions. What information do we want? We do not want to prescribe to the trade unions or to the employers. What do we want to know? Let us now argue logically. What objection could there be to the content of a negotiated agreement being made known? We do not, however, even want to have the content made known. We only want to know what it is about. In the case of an industrial council the agreement is submitted to the Minister who must have it published in the Gazette. Then there can be no valid argument about why people should not be aware of the content of an agreement. What are we asking for? We are asking for the name of the employer; the name of the trade union; the address; the nature of the undertaking; the geographic area; and the nature of the agreement, for example a wage agreement, a conditions of service agreement, a grievance procedure agreement, a dismissal agreement, a disciplinary procedure agreement, acknowledgment agreement or productivity agreement. We do not need to know the percentages involved or the amount changed in rands per month. We just want to know whether it concerns wages or whatever so that we can keep proper statistics. We also want to know what classes of employees are covered. Those are important statistics that one needs in the manpower field. Then we want to know the date on which the agreement was negotiated, the period for which it will be binding and the number of employees affected. If an industrial council has jurisdiction in that connection, we also want to know which industrial council is involved. Those are the simple kinds of things we want to know in order to keep our statistics up to date. It is not a question of wanting to prescribe to trade unions or employers. It is merely a question of the department needing to have those vital statistics.

Let me go further. The hon member for Pinelands said “only a handful of unions are affected”. If only a handful of little unions are affected, why is the hon member coming to light with such fierce opposition in regard to those few small unions? Why is the hon member carrying on like that if he says “only a handful of small unions are affected”? Then surely such tremendous opposition to this is unnecessary. Then the hon member should think of all the other unions, almost 250 of them, who comply with these legal requirements and who come along and ask me daily: “Why can those people do what they want to, whilst we have to comply with the legal requirements?” That is the point about which the hon member should concern himself. This legislation will contribute, not to labour discord or unrest, but to labour peace.

I want to thank the hon member for Overvaal very sincerely for his fine contribution. When he speaks, one can hear that he is someone who knows his subject and therefore makes a positive contribution each time.

The hon member for Barberton also referred to clause 3 and said the understood the object of the legislation. I want to thank the hon member for that understanding and recommended to him very strongly that he and his party support the Second Reading of this Bill.

But we said we would be supporting it.

Do you support the Second Reading?

Yes.

Oh, thank you very much. [Interjections.]

I also want to thank the hon member Mr Van Staden for his contribution. The road the hon member has travelled is a long one, particularly when it comes to matters involving manpower, and on each occasion he makes a positive contribution to such a debate.

I have previously referred to the remarks of the hon member for Durban North and have reacted to certain of them. I have also previously given an adequate reply to the question of the right of appeal to the Minister.

I now come to the remarks of the hon member for Benoni. That hon member made the very valid point that if people were compelled to register, one would specifically be applying the “big stick” policy mentioned by the hon member for Pinelands. Specifically because people are not being compelled to register in this case, we have here a sophisticated way of promoting the system.

In referring again to the hon member for Pinelands, I do not want to steal a march on him, but on 6 June a report appeared in The Cape Times under the heading “PFP big-stick labour Bill”. When a Bill is before Parliament or when it is before a Select Committee, I think it evidences disregard for Parliament if a debate about it is conducted in the Press. It would therefore be better for the hon member to have made his “attack” here in the House and not personally by way of public Press statements. Otherwise we could just as well do away with this institution, talk to the newspapers and conduct a debate there. [Interjections.] What I cannot understand about the hon member either is an unfair remark that he made. He said:

Here the hon member’s language is slightly excessive. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I thank you for being allowed to make this point. I have already thanked the hon member for Benoni for his contribution.

The hon member Prof Olivier asked for minimum state interference at this stage. I do not disagree with him about that, because there is no state interference in the negotiation mechanism. It is not prescribed how negotiations should take place, whether negotiations may take place and how far such negotiations may go. If one wants to have negotiation succeed in the field of manpower, a certain basic framework of discipline must be set up within which this must take place, otherwise it would get out of hand; only when disorder sets in, would the Government intervene. So to have this system work, to have absolutely the minimum or no State interference, it is the state’s function to merely regulate matters and establish the machinery, the overall rules, after which the system will work well.

I have tried to reply as fully as possible to the speeches of as many hon members as possible. I do not think I have omitted any hon member. That is all I want to say about that.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill amends several laws implemented by the Department of Co-operation and Development. It deals with subjects which are not related to one another, with the result that it is necessary to say a few words about every amendment.

Clauses 1 and 12 were occasioned by the judgment given by the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of South Africa and Another v Government of kwaZulu 1983(1) 164(A), which dealt with the excision of certain parts of the district of Ingwavuma. The circumstances which gave rise to this court case were the following: On 18 June 1982, the State President promulgated proclamation R 109 of 1982. The proclamation excised certain parts of the district of Ingwavuma from the area for which the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly had been instituted. The kwaZulu Government responded by lodging an urgent application with the Supreme Court to declare this proclamation invalid. On 25 June 1982, Mr Justice Shearer issued a rule nisi in which the Government of South Africa was requested to furnish reasons why proclamation R 109 of 1982 should not be declared invalid.

On 28 June 1982, the State President, by virture of his legislative power in terms of section 25(1) of the Black Administration Act of 1927, promulgated Proclamation R 121 of 1982, which repealed Proclamation R 109 of 1982 with effect from 18 June 1982. Proclamation R 121 of 1982 excised the same parts from the Ingwavuma district which had initially been excised by Proclamation R 109 of 1982 from the area for which the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly had been instituted.

The court a quo and the Appeal Division declared Proclamation R 121 of 1982 invalid. The court found that in providing in the 1971 Act that any change to an area for which a legislative assembly had been instituted must be preceded by consultation, Parliament had by implication restricted the power of the State President to act in terms of section 25(1) of the Black Administration Act and to effect any change to such areas.

The present position in respect of Ingwavuma is the same as it was before Proclamations R 109 of 1982 and R 121 of 1982 were promulgated. After careful consideration, the Government decided not to introduce legislation which would nullify the court decision. Clauses 1 and 12 are merely intended to create certainty in law by confirming the validity of proclamations issued by the State President in terms of the Black Administration Act, 1927, and the National States Constitution Act, 1971, before Proclamations R109 amd R 121 of 1982.

The proclamations mentioned in clause 1 deal, inter alia, with regulations for the control of the occupation of private or tribal property in Black territories, the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 in self-governing territories, regulations for the administration of Qwaqwa, Lebowa and Gazankulu, and the levying of special taxes. The proclamations confirmed by clause 12 are proclamations which give effect to consolidation proposals as approved by Parliament and which were also promulgated before 18 June 1982.

Another important provision is contained in clause 2, which replaces section 30 of the Black Administration Act, 1927, so that the Towns Regulations promulgated by Proclamation R293 of 1962 may be replaced by regulations which conform to the spirit of the provisions of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982.

Proclamation R 293 of 1961 is comprehensive and regulates the legal position of towns in and adjoining national states. The local authorities established in terms of this do not have the same degree of sophistication or autonomy as their counterparts established in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, will have. For development to take place in a meaningful way, it is necessary that Proclamation R 293 of 1962 be rewritten to conform to the spirit of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982.

Clause 2 gives the State President the power to set apart land as a town for occupation by or for the residential or business purposes of Black persons on land belonging to the Trust, while the Minister is given the power to make regulations for the establishment of local government bodies or councils for the control of towns, to provide, inter alia, for the participation of the private sector in the development of towns, and to protect the financial interests of the private sector by the granting of leasehold rights.

Another Act which is being amended by this Bill is the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, the relevant provisions being section 4bis and section 10 of this Act. The South African Development Trust granted loans to certain Blacks before Bophuthatswana and Transkei became independent, and had mortgages registered against the immovable property of such Blacks. The property is situated in Bophuthatswana and in Transkei. The Trust intends to cede the mortgages to the governments of Bophuthatswana and Transkei. However, these mortgages cannot be transferred in terms of section Abis of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, since section Abis only provides for the transfer of land belonging to the Trust to the government of a territory which is or was a self-governing territory. Land or interests in land belonging to Blacks cannot be transferred in terms of section 4bis, therefore. Clause 3 now makes provision for this.

Clause 4 provides for the provincial land quotas as laid down in section 10(1) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, to be exceeded. The provincial land quotas in terms of which the consolidation of the national states and the independent states which used to form part of the RSA has to be carried out are being exceeded at the moment. This state of affairs is due to the fact that, as a result of decisions that have been taken, certain poorly situated Black areas are no longer going to become White areas, while the compensatory land for those poorly situated areas has already been bought. In addition, there is land which still remains to be purchased in terms of the 1975 and 1979 proposals of the Commission for Co-operation and Development in order to keep the promises made to the national and independent states in this connection, and this will necessitate a further exceeding of the respective quotas.

Clause 5 amends section 31 of the Black Laws Amendment Act, 1963. Section 31 of the Black Laws Amendment Act, 1963, enables a partner to a customary union to claim damages from any person who has unlawfully caused the death of the other partner. However, the claim for damages cannot be enforced unless the plaintiff produces a certificate issued by a commissioner on stating the names of the plaintiff and of the partner or partners.

The Cape Division of the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dlikilili v Federated Insurance Co Ltd, 1983 (2) 275, that the certificate referred to in section 31(2) of the relevant Act had to be an extract from a register of customary unions.

The result of this is that partners to customary unions that are not registered cannot enforce a claim for damages. This clause now makes it clear that a certificate issued by a commissioner is conclusive proof of the existence of such a customary union.

†Clauses 6 to 11 amend the provisions of the Act for the Promotion of Economic Development of the National States, 1968. Provision is made for the dissolution of the Economic Development Corporation Limited and for the disposal of its assets, rights, liabilities and obligations. The Economic Development Corporation was established during 1959 with the specific purpose to plan, finance and promote industrial development and to establish business areas in the national states. During 1982 the Government decided that the development functions in the national states should be rationalized. In the process of rationalization the Development Bank for Southern Africa came into being with the object of financing projects related to the establishment of infrastructures in the national and independent states.

The Development corporations in the national states have utilized, apart from share capital provided by the SA Development Trust, also loan capital obtained on their behalf by the Economic Development Corporation on the capital market for the financing of its development programmes. In so far as the provisions of loan capital is concerned the Economic Development Corporation will be replaced by the Development Bank for Southern Africa.

The development functions of the Economic Development Corporation will be decentralized to the National Development Corporations of the national states. Certain functions, such as passenger transport and the management and maintenance of Trust farms which not yet been transferred to the national states will, on a temporary basis, still be exercised by the South African Development Trust.

In clauses 6 to 11 provision is made for the following:

1. (i) the adjustment of powers of development corporations and corporations;
2. (ii) the transfer of the assets, rights and obligations of the Economic Development Corporation by the State President;
3. (iii) the provision of financing to development corporations and corporations by the Development Bank for Southern Africa;
4. (iv) the dissolution and liquidation of the Economic Development Corporation; and
5. (v) the transfer of obligations regarding the exemptions given by the Economic Development Corporation to industrialists to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

*The next clause deals with the town of Evaton and provides for the area of Evaton as defined in Proclamation 54 of 1959 to be deemed to have been set apart as a town. The Government established a town council for Evaton in terms of Government Notice 2040 of 16 September 1983, on the assumption that Evaton had already been set apart as a “town”. In the light of the fact that Evaton had not been set apart as a “town” for the purposes of the Act, the validity of the abovementioned Government Notice was questioned. By deeming Evaton to have been set apart as a town as from 15 September 1983, the validity of this Government Notice is therefore confirmed.

The final clause amends the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982. Section 36(1) of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, provides that development boards may transfer persons in their service to the service of Black local authorities with the concurrence of the Black local authorities and with the approval of the Minister.

Certain functions which have hitherto been performed by White local authorities will henceforth be the responsibility of the new Black local authorities. The most important one in this connection is the rendering of health services—item 16 in the Schedule to the Act. In most cases, the White authorities have Black staff who are doing the work at the moment, but there is no provision in the Act for the transfer of these workers to the Black local authorities.

In terms of the provisions of section 35(1) of the Act, the Minister may give his approval for such workers to do work for or on behalf of the Black local authority with their concurrence and that of the White authority. However, the workers remain the employees of the White authority and it is in this capacity that they perform these tasks for and on behalf of the Black local authority. This arrangement is not acceptable to the Johannesburg City Council, for example.

However, the intention is that the Black local authorities should perform these functions themselves. The White authority has Black employees who are performing these tasks at present, while the local authorities do not have the employees to perform these tasks themselves. Because the Act does not provide for the transfer of Black employees from White authorities to Black local authorities, Black employees who are prepared to enter the service of the Black local authorities have to resign from their present positions, as a result of which they lose considerable pension and other benefits. If these workers do not resign, the White authorities will have to declare them redundant and dismiss them, because White authorities will no longer perform these functions from now on.

Clause 14 also amends section 36(1) to provide for the transfer of the employees of any body established by any law to a Black local authority.

I trust that the need for and the usefulness of the proposed amendments will be clear to all the hon members of this House and that they will readily give their support to it.

Mr Speaker, as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, this is amending legislation which seeks to amend a fair variety of existing laws relating to the affairs of the Black people of South Africa. It contains a variety of provisions, as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, and from our point of view some of these provisions we believe are good, are an improvement while others we believe are bad. Perhaps it would be convenient to deal first with some of the provisions which we consider improvements. Other hon members on this side will deal with other aspects of the Bill in due course.

Clause 3 of the Bill amends the provisions of the existing law relating to the transfer of Trust property to self-governing territories by extending it beyond merely directing that the State President may transfer any right or obligation of the Trustee in respect of any land or other property of the Trust. It is extended now to include firstly any right or obligation of the Trustee in respect of land of which a Black person is the registered owner. Secondly it is extended to include land which is registered in the name of the Minister or any other person in trust for a Black person, a Black tribe or a Black community, and which is situated, of course, in an area which is or was in a self-governing territory. This land shall now vest in that territory if a proclamation is issued by the State President accordingly.

The hon the Deputy Minister has given some examples of the intention of this provision. It is clearly to provide for the transfer of the rights and obligations of the Trust to self-governing states in respect of such affected land. So it is merely transferring the rights of the Trust to the self-governing states and it will presumably facilitate the transfer of responsibility for such land to the state concerned without affecting the rights of individuals in and to the land concerned. It is important, when one is dealing with land owned individually by Blacks, to note that here we are merely transferring the rights of the Trust or the obligations in respect of such land to the self-governing states but there are no effects here on the rights of the individual who owns that land. If it is to do so, if it is to facilitate the transfer of such rights to self-governing states, then we find that this is something which can be welcomed.

While debating this aspect of the Bill, it does raise the issue which has been raised before in other debates, namely the tardiness of the Trust to transfer Trust land to these states. It is a constant complaint that in many parts of South Africa where the Trust has acquired land from Whites, there is considerable delay in handing over control of such land to the Black States concerned. In fact, there are many examples where such land is simply leased by the Trust to White lessees for years on end. I want to deal with a specific example in a few minutes and other speakers on this side will deal with other examples. I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister what the Government’s policy is in this respect. We recognize the need to protect good farming and agricultural land and to ensure that it is used in the most productive manner, but what purpose is served by the Trust acquiring land and then either sitting on it or letting it out to White farmers? Who benefits? There is certainly very little benefit to the Black states and the delays are a cause of considerable irritation and anger amongst Blacks themselves. On 2 May I put a question to the hon the Minister relating to farms in what is known as the Eshowe/Gingindhlovu corridor on the north coast of Natal where a number of farms were bought by the Trust almost 10 years ago. There is considerable anxiety as to what the future of these farms is going to be. In his reply the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs said that the whole issue was awaiting the finalization of consolidation in Natal, although these farms were acquired and taken over by the Trust round about 1975. I asked whether he would make a statement on the matter and his reply was:

Here we are dealing with a group of farms, which is just one example because in other areas of South Africa the same delay is experienced, which was taken over nearly 10 years ago. The hon the Deputy Minister, however, says that it is Government policy that such land should be handed over as soon as possible. Concern has been expressed about this particular aspect, especially in kwaZulu where about 18 farms are involved in an area of about 2 800 ha. There is still doubt about what the future of these farms is to be. There is evidence that the farms are not being farmed very productively at present, that the sugar cane production in the area has dropped and that jobs have been lost as a result. When asked about this particular matter, the kwaZulu Minister of the Interior replied as follows in a recent statement in the Natal Daily News:

One had a similar reaction a little later when the Chief Minister of kwaZulu said the following about a week ago:

These are examples of what people are saying and what is happening in respect of this land. What is the purpose of this long delay in the Trust acquiring farms and then not handling them over to the self-governing states concerned?

Then I wish to deal with clause 4 of the Bill which, as the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned in his introductory speech, provides for exceeding the quota of land for acquisition by the Trust in terms of the 1936 legislation. In the light of the realities in South Africa, we believe this is a sensible provision which is, of course, in line with the Prime Minister’s statement some months ago that the quota in terms of the 1936 Act was not to be regarded as a holy cow. We in these benches believe that this is a sensible approach and we believe that there is merit in having such flexibility. It has always been the point of view held by us in these benches. So we welcome this show of flexibility on the part of the Government.

Clause 5 of the Bill relates to the provision in the existing law in connection with the right of a partner in a customary union to claim damages against a person who unlawfully causes the death of the other partner. As indicated, the existing law provides that no such claim shall be enforceable by such person without such person producing a certificate from the Commissioner stating the name of the partner or, in the case of more than one partner, the names of the partners. The new amendment, as the hon the Deputy Minister has explained, simply adds greater clarity and greater certainty as a result, I gather, of court actions which have taken place. The new amendment states that such certificates shall be accepted as conclusive proof of the existence of a customary union of a deceased partner and the partner or partners in cases of this kind. Clearly, this is a provision that can also be welcomed.

The other provisions in the Bill relating to the regulations for the setting up of Black townships in specified areas are mostly of a technical nature and meet with our general approval.

Having dealt with some of the aspects of the Bill of which we approve, viz the question of allowing the Trust to acquire land in excess of the quota land and the provision of allowing the State President to transfer rights and obligations of the trustees to self-governing states—those are the good provisions—I want to turn to a clause in the Bill which we find totally obnoxious and bad in principle. We will vote against it in the Committee Stage and it must also cause us to vote against the Bill at Second Reading. I refer of course to clause 12, and then also clause 1. Clause 1 is not as bad as clause 12, because at least in clause 1 proclamations are identified. Clause 12 of the Bill can be described as the “Ingwavuma clause”, not because it affects the Appeal Court’s ruling on the Ingwavuma dispute—in fact, it neatly and specifically dodges that—but because it is a direct result of the Government’s Ingwavuma debacle. The hon the Minister has set out the legal history of this matter in his introductory speech. The history of the Ingwavuma debacle is well known but the Government cannot, of course, escape being reminded of its reckless and ham-handed handling of the whole affair at the time and this Bill is a further reminder of that very unfortunate episode.

We know that with indecent haste, apparently in order to satisfy some clandestine diplomatic deal with the Swaziland Government, the Government in June 1982 issued a proclamation, to come into effect on 18 June 1982, in terms of which the district of Ingwavuma was to be excised from the control and administration of the kwaZulu Government.

The result is well known. The validity of the proclamation and a succeeding proclamation were effectively challenged in the courts by the kwaZulu Government and other interested parties, resulting in an Appeal Court judgment upholding the findings of the lower courts and finding that the proclamations were ultra vires, inter alia because there had not been prior consultation with the kwaZulu Government as required by the National States Constitution Act of 1971.

The Government burnt its fingers badly, not only because of what it intended to do, but also because of the inept and reckless manner in which it went about it. It suffered a series of humiliating defeats in the courts, involved the State in high legal costs and did very considerable damage indeed to relations with the people and Government of kwaZulu. Now it comes to the House with a Bill containing a provision, couched in the most general terms—here I am referring specifically to clause 12—in an attempt to protect itself from similar debacles in the event of similar proclamations having been issued prior to 18 June 1982 without consultation in terms of the law. We are asked in this Bill to provide in law that any proclamation issued in terms of Act 21 of 1971 and which according to the requirements of that or any other Act had to be preceded by consultation, shall now be deemed to have been preceded by consultation. That is what clause 12 asks us to do. I believe this is a totally vague and cynical provision to cover the Government in the event of its having issued proclamations without compliance with the law.

The Department has been good enough to furnish me with a list of proclamations which they fear might have been issued without prior consultation in terms of the 1971 Act, and I am grateful to the Department for that. These proclamations appear to be innocuous enough, but that is not the issue. I do not doubt the bona fides of the departmental officials who enumerate these particular proclamations, but they are not specified in the Bill. There is no specification in clause 12 of what proclamations we are dealing with. There may well be others. We are in other words asked to negate the requirements that there should be consultation in respect of any proclamation promulgated under Act 21 of 1971 before 18 June, which according to any Act had to be preceded by consultation. We are asked to say in law that there will be deemed to have been consultation. I believe this makes cynical nonsense of the whole principle of prior consultation in matters of this kind. In principle it means that Parliament is being asked to legislate for a lie because we are being asked to say that there was consultation when there was not. We are also asked to say that notwithstanding the requirement in law that there should be consultation, if there was no consultation, we will deem that there had been.

We in these benches are not prepared to be party to that sort of strategem and certainly not in the general terms of this particular clause. If there have been irregularities in regard to proclamations in the past, these must at least be identified and then, if necessary, Parliament must consider in what manner these irregularities can be rectified, having regard to the rights of all the people concerned or who maybe concerned. However, in this Bill we are being asked to give the Government carte blanche to regularize any such proclamations—unspecified in the Bill—by the deeming strategem relating to consultation. I believe it is bad law and a totally bad principle.

Legalized fraud.

Yes, one can put it that way as well.

The question of consultation with homeland governments on issues of land and boundaries in relation to the self-governing states, was a very important principle in the 1971 Act which I believe cannot be lightly disregarded.

While still on the subject of consultation, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether, apart from any other consultation, there has been any consultation with self-governing states on this particular clause in the Bill, because judging from the reaction from the Press and from some of those states, they have not been consulted about clause 12 of the Bill. I believe the whole principle of consultation is important. It is one which we find makes this Bill in its present form repugnant to us despite some of the good things in the Bill to which I have referred.

I therefore wish to move the following amendment:

Mr Speaker, I should like to start by saying that I support this legislation wholeheartedly. This is an example of what friendly and positive nationalism can be understood to mean. We are being very positive in this regard in order to protect certain rights, and we are being very friendly because we have kept our word, as I shall point out in a moment.

Clause 1 actually refers to proclamations promulgated under the 1927 Act. There is a difference between clause 1 and clause 12 with regard to the Act in terms of which the relevant proclamations were promulgated. The proclamations promulgated in terms of clause 1 are proclamations of a kind which in actual fact amount to administrative aspects. It is also in the interests of all the relevant states that these proclamations remain in force. They deal, inter alia, as the hon the Deputy Minister rightly pointed out, with the bringing into operation of the Criminal Procedure Act in certain areas. One could just imagine what would happen if there were to be uncertainty in certain areas with regard to any one of these proclamations and there were to be an appeal owing to procedural matters not being complied with in a court.

The proclamations mentioned in clause 1 date back as far as 1976. The first proclamation, that of 1976, refers to the Ciskei and is concerned with the residence on and occupation of privately or tribally-owned land. The 1977 proclamation deals with the application of the Criminal Procedure Act. One could continue in that vein. Proclamation R 62 of 1980 deals, for example, with game reserves in Gazankulu. I honestly think the hon member for Berea should not merely look at these matters with a view to short-term politics and to stir up emotion. He should rather consider what is in the interests of the persons affected by the relevant proclamation. This therefore does not mean that the proclamations are not valid, and ex abundanti cautela, to make doubly sure that problems do not arise here, they are being promulgated in this clause.

At this stage I want to refer briefly to clause 12, which in actual fact deals with the Ngwavuma affairs. The Ngwavuma issue is a particularly interesting one and I think that once I have dealt with it here hon members will realize what firm resolve the Government is displaying in not effecting amendments to those proclamations. I should like to quote from the court decision on this case. There were actually two questions in this connection. I am therefore quoting from Government of the Republic of South Africa vs Government of kwaZulu 1983 (1) SA Law Reports, p 197, paragraph E:

This refers to clause 1:

That was the question. I quote further:

That is kwaZulu:

Whereas kwaZulu as an organ of the State:

Those were the two questions. I want to say at once that this Government does not act by licking its finger and holding it up to feel which way the wind is blowing. Legal advice was obtained from our most competent advocates.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member does not have any idea of what competence means, let alone that of an advocate. [Interjections.] This Government does not enter into anything haphazardly. The advocates who acted on behalf of the State and advised it were among the most competent advocates in the Republic of South Africa. They used this argument, and the State acted on that legal advice with absolute confidence. It was not a case of the Government or the hon the Minister suddenly wanting to take action against kwaZulu. It is also the duty of the Government to enforce and to maintain the law in a country. It was with that attitude and that standpoint in mind that the proceedings were instituted. [Interjections.]