as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Rent Control, as follows:

1. (1) the combating of inflation should be continued unceasingly;
2. (2) it is essential to reduce the unit price of housing; and
3. (3) an adequate supply of housing should be ensured so that aged persons with limited incomes may be suitably accommodated.

P CRONJÉ, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

7 May 1984.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, as follows:

1. (1) Your Committee’s terms of reference were to enquire into and report upon the necessity, the possibility and the desirability of amending the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, and section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, without prejudicing the fundamental objectives with which they were enacted and the principles contained in other existing laws which may be directly or indirectly connected with the said Act and the said section 16.
2. (2) Your Committee, having taken evidence, which it submits herewith, and having considered the matter referred to it, begs to report as follows:
   1. (a) The combating of immorality is the duty of the community as a whole. Any provision of law in this regard should apply to all persons, irrespective of race or colour.
   2. (b) The objective of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, and section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, is to combat marital as well as extra-marital miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites, by means of statutory prohibitions. For this purpose the two measures form an entity.
   3. (c) The said two measures are not capable of being amended to bring about an improvement. It is in fact the retention or repeal of the measures which is at issue.
   4. (d) Evidence in favour of the retention as well as in favour of the repeal of the two measures was submitted to your Committee. In view of the fact that the preponderance of the evidence before your Committee points to the desirability of the repeal of the two measures as they cannot be justified on Scriptural or other grounds, your Committee wishes to consider such repeal in conjunction with other related legislation. This, however, falls outside the terms of reference of your Committee.
3. (3) In the circumstances your Committee begs to recommend that its terms of reference be widened in order to enable it to enquire into and report upon the desirability of repealing the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, and section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, and of adapting other related legislation consequent upon such repeal.

P J BADENHORST, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

28 June 1984.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land, as follows:

1. (1) The granting in terms of section 9 (1) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), of a permanent right for additional portions of land required for the deviation and widening of provincial road P2-10, in favour of the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal, on a portion of the farm Waterval 269JT, being a component of the Uitsoek State Forest, situate in the administrative district of Nelspruit, Province of the Transvaal.
2. (2) The granting in terms of section 9 (1) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), of a servitudinal right of water storage in favour of Mr W R Elliot, on a portion of component 4 of the Blueliliesbush State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Hu mansdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.
3. (3) The withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 8 (2) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), for handing back to the Department of Community Development for further disposal, of a portion of the farm Malgaskraal 142 and lot 290 George, in extent approximately 172,8 hectares, being a portion of component 4 of the Witfontein State Forest, situate in the administrative division of George, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.
4. (4) The withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 8 (2) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), for handing back to the Department of Community Development for further disposal, of portions of the farm Paardekraal 67, being components 18, 20 and 21 and a portion of component 19 of the Ruiterspos State Forest, in extent approximately 410,0 hectares, situate in the administrative division of Mossel Bay, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.
5. (5) The withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 8 (2) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), for transfer to the National Parks Board, of seven properties, being components 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 of the Suurberg State Forest, in extent approximately 20 778, 0548 hectares, situate in the administrative divisions of Alexandria and Uitenhage, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.
6. (6) The granting in terms of section 9 (1) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act No 72 of 1968), in favour of the Municipality of Port Alfred of a permanent right of abutment, water storage and aqueduct, as well as such additional rights directly connected with the water scheme, on and over the Waters Meeting Nature Reserve, being a portion of the Bathurst State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Bathurst, Province of the Cape of Good Hope only if the Municipality of Port Alfred should on account of certain considerations decide not to proceed with the exercising of the right already granted to it by Parliament in 1983, and subject to the standard conditions in respect of applications of this nature, as well as the following conditions being complied with:
   1. (a) The right of water storage over the State Forest shall not include control over the water surface for recreational and other purposes; and
   2. (b) construction of the works shall not be commenced with until the design specifications have been approved by the Department of Environment Affairs: Provided that this right lapses in the event of the right granted by Parliament in 1983 being exercised, and vice versa.

J C VAN DEN BERG, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

22 June 1984.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development, as follows:

SCHEDULE

1. (a) Edendale area:

   The area in the district of Pietermaritzburg, Province of Natal, comprising Released Areas 25, 58 and 59 and the following portions of Released Area 55:

   • Subdivision A of Wilgefontein 869; and Subdivision A and Subdivision 13 (a subdivision of The Range), both of New Politique 861.

2. (b) Clermont area:

   The area situated within Released Area, 52, District of Pinetown, Province of Natal, bounded as follows:

   1. (1) Beginning at the northernmost corner of Clermont Township; thence along the boundaries of the following properties so as to include them in this area: Clermont Township, Clermont Township Extension 2, Clermont Township Extension 1, Subdivision 1 of W of the farm Clermont 838, Clermont Township, Subdivision 2 of H and Subdivision 1 of H (both of the farm Clermont 838) and Clermont Township to the point of beginning.
   2. (2) The confirmation of the description of Areas 4 (a) and (b) District of East London, as described in the First and Second Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development (SC 7—’83) and the exclusion of the properties known as Silverdale Pineries and the D’Olivieri Pineapple factory situated east of the Kidds Beach/Fort Pato Road, in the description of areas which may be declared Released Areas in terms of the provisions of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act 18 of 1936).
   3. (3) The sale, in accordance with the provisions of section 18 (3) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act 18 of 1936), of subdivisions 15 (of 14) and 12 (of 7) of the farm Hermanus Kraal 1186 and subdivision 12 (of 1) of the farm Brakfontein Settlement 12840, jointly in extent 905,3754 hectares, being the property of the South African Development Trust in the District of Klip River, Province of Natal, to Mr L G G Adendorff for an amount to be determined by the Trustee after consultation with the Community Development Board and subject to the following specific conditions:
      1. (a) That any Black families resident on the said property shall as a first requisite be resettled on a suitable site as determined by the Department of Co-operation and development;
      2. (b) that Mr L G G Adendorff agrees to sell to the South African Development Trust at a price to be fixed by the Trustee after consultation with the Community Development Board, Portion 3 of the farm Davels Hoek 1080, District of Klip River, in extent 24,7718 hectares; and
      3. (c) that Mr L G G Adendorff shall be responsible for the cost in connection with the survey of the said properties, as well as the cost involved in the transfer to him of Subdivisions 15 (of 14) and 12 (of 7) of the farm Hermanus Kraal 1186 and Subdivision 12 (of 1) of the farm Brakfontein Settlement 12840.
   4. (4) The description of the area mentioned in Schedule A in terms of section 2 (4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development, as follows:

Z P LE ROUX, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

22 June 1984.

Report and proceedings to the printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. 1. For the purpose of the Military Pensions Act, 1976 (Act No 84 of 1976), Rachel H Human, widow of the Late Rifleman A P Human, No 65383390, 1 Parachute Battalion, shall, with effect from 2 March 1983, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in that Act contained, be deemed to be a widow referred to section 4(d) of that Act and there shall be paid to her a pension of R3 477,60 per annum with effect from the said date.
2. 2. There shall be paid, with effect from 1 January 1981 as a special case, to E Masters, formerly Control Technician, Department of Posts and Telecommunications, from the Post Office Fund as an annual pension an amount equal to the difference between the amount of the annuity to which he would have been entitled to on that date in terms of the laws on the Government Service Pension Fund had he antedated his pensionable service to 16 October 1936 and the amount of the annuity which was payable to him on the first-mentioned date in terms of the said laws.
3. 3. For the purposes of section 6(l)(b) of the Government Service Pension Act, 1973 (Act No 57 of 1973) Salome L Breetzke, a teacher in the service of the Natal Provincial Administration, shall be deemed to have retained the right to retire from service on pension on attaining the age prescribed by or under any law regulating the conditions of her service with the said Administration and which was in force on 31 March 1969.
4. 4. There shall be paid, with effect from 1 July 1984, as a special case, to L C Marais, formerly Port Steward, South African Transport Services, an annuity equal to the difference between the annuity which would have been payable in terms of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No 35 of 1971), to him on 1 July 1984 had he retired from service on that date as contemplated in that Act and the annuity which was paid to him on that date in terms of that Act.

DR J P GROBLER

Chairman.

Committee Rooms House of Assembly

6 July 1984.

Report to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. I. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained: Ackermann, F C; Godfrey, Ann A; Greybe, G; Le Roux, A M; Nel, D U.
2. II. That it has been unable to complete its enquiries into the petition of Durrant, J T, and recommends that it be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions at an early stage in the next session.

DR J P GROBLER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms House of Assembly

6 July 1984.

Report to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Forest Amendment Bill B 76—83], as follows:

P L MARÉ, Chairman.

Committee Rooms House of Assembly

3 July 1984.

Forest Bill [B 128—84 (Select Committee)] read a First Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the Standing Order which the hon the Minister moves should be suspended, as all hon members know, provides that the stages of Bills cannot be taken in succession if three hon members of this House object to it. We do of course appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister, and most hon members as well, are keen on getting this session of Parliament over and done with. At the same time, however, we must also appreciate the fact that we have urgent work to do in this House. Right now there are various important measures on the Order Paper, some of which are highly contentious. In this respect I should refer, for instance, to measure dealing with local government, regional services councils, and other measures affecting the constitutional structure of this country.

It may well happen, as it often does, during the course of a debate that certain questions arise, which require consideration, and also amendments, during Committee Stage. If we are then expected to take a Committee Stage or a Third Reading directly after a Second Reading stage, it denies hon members of this House the opportunity of proper discussion and proper consideration of measures, and also of drafting proper amendments for consideration during Committee Stage. I believe this House should be very slow to act when it affects the rights and privileges, particularly of minority parties. This applies even more at this particular stage, while we are discussing extremely important legislation. In these circumstances, Mr Speaker, we regret that we shall have to oppose this motion.

Mr Speaker, we in the CP are also by no means happy about the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House. During this session it has sometimes happened that we have had too little legislation before us. Accordingly, we have sometimes had to idle along and make longer speeches than were really necessary. [Interjections.] It is true that it has sometimes been necessary for us to speak for longer than was really necessary, merely to keep Parliament going. Now, towards the end of the session, when some of the most important legislation thus far is to be discussed here, the hon the Leader of the House is trying to restrict us. As minority parties we are simply being bulldozed by him, and we are expected to deal with all the stages of Bills one after the other.

However, what happens when speeches by hon members of the CP are replied to? The other day I noticed that a certain hon Minister replied for 45 minutes to a speech by an hon member of the CP which has lasted only 10 minutes. [Interjections.] Then too, Mr Speaker, hon members of the smaller parties are compelled to make the best of the arrangements that the hon the Leader of the House is now trying to make by way of this motion, and this when important legislation is still to be discussed, legislation that we as Opposition parties have not been able to study at sufficient length to enable us to move proper amendments to it. Therefore we request the opportunity to be able to do so. Accordingly we oppose the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, it is utterly impossible to do justice to the important legislation before this House at the moment and still proceed with Committee Stages immediately after Second Reading. While it could well be desirable in order to achieve an end of the parliamentary session, I believe that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would do this House a service if he were to agree that measures introduced by him, and which are the ones that are causing a tremendous bur den and an extreme measure of overwork to the smaller Opposition parties, could have their Committee Stages taken the day following on the day of Second Reading. We could then probably think in terms of the Third Reading immediately after the Committee Stage. It is, however, completely un reasonable to expect, particularly the smaller Opposition parties, to follow a Second Reading with the Committee Stage immediately thereafter in respect of legislation which is as highly contentious, as highly involved and as technical as that which the hon the Minister placed on the Order Paper late last week.

I believe the hon the Leader of the House should take note of what I am saying. As far as statutory Bills are concerned—by that I mean the Taxation Bills as well as the Pensions Amendment Bill—we will always be reasonable; but please not in respect of the legislation with which we are dealing here today. I therefore ask that reconsideration be given to this motion.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I wish to con cede—and I make no secret of it—that the hon member for Kuruman is right. Right at the start of the session we asked for every one’s co-operation. However, legislation was not always ready in time to be introduced in this House. Therefore we idled along. How ever, much of the legislation that had to be dealt with here entailed a tremendous amount of work. Sometimes Bills were refer red back to the law advisers, and in addition there was consultation with interested bodies. Often hon Ministers had to refer legislation hither and thither. Accordingly, at one stage we did not have enough legislation to keep the House busy as it should have been. At that stage, however, I enjoyed the co-operation of all the Opposition parties.

However, no party is being prejudiced by this motion. We circulated memoranda. Hon members can still draw up and move their amendments at any time. Over the years it has always happened that towards the end of a session we have suspended the stages of Bills. Moreover, that is all I am asking by way of my motion today. Surely there is still ample opportunity for hon members to move their amendments. Last week, too, there was sufficient time to move amendments. Therefore we are not depriving hon members of a single privilege.

Last night a large number of hon members arrived at D F Malan airport after midnight. Even on the aeroplane some hon members of the Opposition parties asked me whether we could not sit through on Wednesday night. That request did not come from hon members of the NP but from hon members of the Opposition parties. I shall not mention their names. However, there are hon members who have appointments, people with children at school. There are hon members whose families are waiting for them to come home. Personally, I … [Interjections.] Give a chap a chance. [Interjections.] After all, Sir, the angel Gabriel could do no better than I am doing. [Interjections.] Therefore I say to hon members that they must not be dissatisfied with me. We are wasting time now. I ask that we do not divide on this, because a division takes up eight minutes. We shall win the division in any event. We take note of the hon members’ objection and we shall discuss tomorrow night’s sitting tomorrow. If hon members can persuade me in that regard, then we might drop tomorrow night’s sitting. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move:

That—

1. (1) the Select Committee on the Constituion be instructed, with a view to the successful functioning of the new constitutional dispensation, to enquire into the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968 (Act No 51 of 1968), and related legislation affecting the composition of political parties and similar organizations and their participation in elections, and to make recommendations in regard to the revision, amendment or repeal of the legislation, due regard being had to the spirit and principles of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983; and
2. (2) the order for the Second Reading of the Second Electoral Act Amendment Bill be discharged and the subject of the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution for enquiry and report.

Mr Speaker, we in these benches support the motion because we see it as an opportunity for the re-investigation of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, something which we believe ought to have taken place a long time ago.

Apart from the opposition which members on this side of the House have registered against this piece of legislation over the years, the hon member for Pinelands in fact specifically moved a private member’s motion very recently—I think it was at the beginning of last year—that the Government should re-investigate the Act and have it repealed because it would not fit in with the new dispensation. It was argued very specifically by the hon member for Pinelands and other hon members who supported him that this piece of legislation would be in conflict with the spirit of the new dispensation. As happened so often, the hon members on the other side dug in their heels and refused even to consider such a course of action.

The motion which the hon the Minister has moved is also the culmination, for the time being at least, of a saga of political bungling of the worst sort. Where did it start? It started when hon members time and again over the last session and even before that asked the Government to reconsider the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Although noises were even made by hon members on the Government side that we would have to take another look at the Act, the Government dug in their heels and would have nothing of the kind. In fact, the Government painted itself into a corner to such an extent that more than one hon member of the Cabinet today find themselves extremely embarrassed and in an extremely embarrassing situation. There were, very clearly, contraventions of this Act. This was referred to by the hon member for Bezuidenhout and myself earlier this year and the Government then felt itself forced to say that it will look at certain aspects of the Act. However, at the same time it recommitted itself to the objectionable principle of the Act. It was clear at that stage that the Coloured Labour Party was going to contravene this Act by admitting Indians to their ranks as full members and by appointing some of those Indians at the highest level of their party and by announcing that Indians are going to stand as candidates for the House of Delegates. Thereupon talks took place with the hon the Minister. Of course we do not know what transpired during these talks, but one can guess. There was no give and take from the Government during those talks. Talks like these are held so that the Government can tell people, people whom they regard as politically their inferiors, what the Government thinks they ought to know instead of listening to their views and giving serious consideration to it. So it is clear to me that the talks that were held did not lead to anything much.

Then came an application from the Coloured Labour Party to register as a political party in terms of the Electoral Act and to put up candidates for election to the House of Delegates. This was a very interesting move, and to me it seemed that it would have been difficult for the chief electoral officer to have refused the application in terms of the law as it reads at the moment. It was interesting also from the point of view that it would have given a certain official sanction to the Labour Party’s attempt to put up Indian candidates. It would have meant official sanction, legal sanction on the one hand to something which on the other hand amounted to a contravention of the Political Interference Act. So once more the Government was placed in a awkward and very embarrassing situation. What was its reaction? Its reaction was to produce a nasty piece of legislation, the Second Electoral Amendment Act of this year, a nasty piece of legislation, a piece of legislation in the classic style of old apartheid. The intention was to specifically prohibit any political party fighting elections for more than one House. There was no generosity at all in terms of that. It forced the Labour Party into a position where it had to compromise, and what that compromise was we do not know. All that we know is that the Labour Party as a consequence has withdrawn its application for registration which, had it been approved, would have given them a perfectly legal sanction to put up candidates for the House of Delegates. In other words, they have been forced to withdraw a perfectly legal application, legal in terms of the Electoral Act. Presumably the Government had to give them certain undertakings, but what these were we once again do not know.

Mr Speaker, the Government has not come out of this whole saga looking good. In fact I think it looks terrible. It has been seen to having been forced into an awkward situation, a situation where a political party representing the Coloured people at the eleventh hour threatened to withdraw from participation in the new constitutional dispensation. I think the Government has probably learnt a lesson here and we hope that they will learn more lessons. One lesson is that one has to show a little more generosity in any process of negotiation and that when one talks of a system of consensus in terms of your constitution, you will have to show a lot more generosity and a lot less of the kind of meanness, political meanness, which the Government exhibited in the course of the last few weeks. In expressing this hope we will give our support to this motion.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether we are right in saying that the present Select Committee on the Constitution will report to this Parliament. Or will it report to the new Parliament?

Make your speech.

I am putting a very reasonable question to the hon the Minister. My speech is based on the fact that when we asked the hon member’s long winded colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, for another Act to be referred to the select committee, he said that we said that the new Parliament had to pass judgment on that. However, if he does not wish to reply to me, then I am not interested in that reply.

This notice of motion of the hon the Minister sets in motion a process whereby to repeal measures of separation, particularly measures of political separation, and this is taking place in the spirit of the new constitutional dispensation that we as a party are opposed to. We are acquainted with the style of the Government. The Government first refers a matter to a select committee and then applies the salami theory, with the result that before you know where you are, something is summarily abolished. The Government is committed to abolishing this and other measures of separation in the political sphere as a result of blackmail by its new leftwing allies. Moreover, in recent times this Act is not even being implemented. We contend that the Government wants to repeal the Act, but does not wish to do so openly. It is therefore appointing a select committee in order to appease its leftwing allies.

We will have not part in any process aimed at promoting political integration. As far as we are concerned, this motion marks the beginning of a process of further dismantling of separate development and promoting integration. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the situation is with regard to Black people. Does this new approach with regard to the Act now apply to Black people as well? In terms of the policy statement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the principle of self determination on own affairs and co-responsibility concerning general affairs also applies with regard to Blacks. In other words, the Government is committed. It is its new policy that power-sharing with Black people is also its policy. These are the danger signals that we perceive, and we shall not be taking part in a process of further undermining separate development in the political sphere and promoting the integration policy of the new leftwing NP. We shall therefore oppose the motion.

Mr Speaker, I really do not intend getting involved in a long debate on the merits of the matter at this juncture. The very purpose of the motion is that the whole matter may be given calm consideration by the Select Committee on the Constitution, and my reply to the first question by the hon member for Jeppe is, of course, that when the new constitutional dispensation is implemented in practice, such a select committee will be converted into a joint committee, and therefore select committees will also be appointed by the other two Houses, and those committees will be appointed as provided for in the proposed new rules that are to be discussed tomorrow.

I say that I am not prepared to argue about the merits. However, what is the actual situation on the basis of the motion before us? The actual situation is, firstly, that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act remains on the Statute Book until repealed by Parliament. This motion—and this is also my reply to the hon member for Jeppe—does not suspend that Act and it remains part of our legislation. Secondly, an order for the Second Reading of a Bill which is at present still on the Order Paper is now also being referred to that select committee in terms of the motion. It is a Bill embodying the Government’s standpoint in regard to one facet of the problem. To argue at this point that these two Bills are now being repealed is simply not correct.

I did not say that.

The hon member said that we were dismantling separate development, etc.

Why did the hon member for Green Point take part in the discussion? He spoke about bungling, but the same motion was already before the House. At that time we were to have referred it to a different select committee. The only difference between the two is that we are now referring it to the Select Committee on the Constitution. I want to say to the hon member, in the light of his party’s continued refusal to appeal to people to participate in the new dispensation, and in the light of the attitude adopted by the Press that supports them with regard to this entire matter, that his party is disappointed that there has been no confrontation and no explosion as far as this matter is concerned. [Interjections.] They wanted to make petty political capital out of this. They wanted the new constitutional dispensation to fail. Their faces drop, their ears drop, because we have succeeded at this stage in achieving consensus in a difficult situation. I can tell the hon member that the motion at present before us entails no concession in principle whatsoever.

How many prosecutions are there going to be?

The hon member has had legal training and therefore he knows that I cannot speak on behalf of the Attorney-General. Surely he knows that it is the prerogative of the Attorney-General to decide whether he is going to prosecute or not when a dossier is put before him. The hon member had better obtain a legal opinion himself if he cannot think it out for himself, but we may differ as to what the precise effect of this motion will be with regard to decisions taken by the Attorney-General. In any event, I cannot speak on behalf of the Attorney-General.

It is still the standpoint of the Government, as we intimated early in this session, that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, which actually falls under my hon colleague, must be reviewed. Secondly, it is clear that within the spirit and principles of the new constitution, we shall also have to see to it that the electoral laws are brought into line with it. Legislation in that regard has already been introduced in this House. In view of the times and the circumstances, however, it is better that we deliberate jointly on this issue with the parties involved who will be affected by this, that is to say, ourselves as well as the representatives who are to be elected to the two additional Houses.

In the meantime—and this is the important issue that neither of the two speakers recognized or raised—the statutory situation stays exactly as it is. The Acts at present on the Statute Book remain on the Statute Book, and no amendments are being effected. In effect, therefore, this means that we are entering the new dispensation without the rules of the game having been changed before the new dispensation came into effect. In the new dispensation itself we shall have to investigate all this because it is also the standpoint of the Government that it will be necessary to effect amendments. At that stage we shall have to consider how the rules of the game are to be amended with a view to the successful implementation of the new constitutional dispensation in the future, as is also stated in the motion. A mere repeal would create a vacuum which, in turn, would be at variance with the spirit and principles in this regard. The existing provisions will have to be amended to really fit in with the spirit and principles of the new constitution. That is the reason for this motion. It really does not befit the hon members to try to make petty political capital out of this.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, clause 1(2) reads, and I quote:

I am not quite sure what is meant by this. It could be construed as a golden handshake clause or it may be for some other purpose. If it is a golden handshake clause, I do not believe it should be incorporated in the Bill.

I therefore move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, clause 1(1)(xii) deals with the position of town clerks. Once again I want to state the standpoint of the Conservative Party with regard to the position of town clerks very clearly and beyond all doubt.

We are concerned about the position of town clerks and we are in favour of co-ordination and proper ordering. What we are opposed to, is that the position of town clerks, and their remuneration in particular, may be made subordinate to a Coloured or Indian Minister in the new dispensation.

Oh, no, not the same old story again.

But it is, after all, true that a Coloured or an Indian may become a Minister in the new dispensation.

Are you afraid of that?

I am not afraid. May I not state my standpoint or is it only hon members on that side of the House who may state their standpoints? Is that how they want to reach consensus? I am entitled to state my standpoint here in this House and I shall not hesitate to do so.

The Conservative Party is opposed to a Coloured or an Indian becoming a Minister and in this case it may happen that a Coloured or Indian Minister will control the salaries of the top-level officials of local authorities in South Africa.

We are also opposed to a multiracial advisory council, to which town clerks will be subordinate, being established.

In view of the appeal by the hon leader of the House for us to be brief, I shall content myself with these few remarks.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to react to the hon member for Jeppe. The standpoint of the Government in this connection is quite clear and the hon member’s statements do not merit any further replies.

†The amendment of the hon member for Umbilo is not acceptable, and I will explain why.

*The hon member will note that in addition to the housing and motor-car benefits excluded from remuneration in terms of clause 1(1)(xi)(a), the Minister may exclude other benefits after consultation with the advisory committee in terms of clause 1(2). That is what this clause refers to.

†It is anticipated that benefits such as pension fund contributions, medical fund contributions, group insurance contributions, will be excluded. This clause can therefore not be deleted, and I hope the hon member will accept my explanation.

In the circumstances I am prepared, with leave of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, in the definition of “remuneration” in clause 1 “service benefits” is excluded. In fact, the definition is very specific about that. However, clause 2(1), which deals with the establishment of the advisory committee, reads:

This body is established to look after remuneration. Surely it should also be responsible for service benefits? I therefore wish to move as an amendment:

I would just like to illustrate one of the difficulties when Committee Stage follows fairly quickly after the Second Reading. Although there has been a weekend in between we unfortunately did not have time to get the amendment on the Order Paper for hon members to study the issue. This, of course, is going to be the problem with the other Bills as well, even if we do have an additional day. However, we are prepared to take a chance on that situation. This does illustrate the difficulty in a complex Bill in having the Committee Stage too soon after the Second Reading.

We believe the words “and service benefits” should be inserted because it is a very specific part of the function of that particular body.

Mr Chairman, clause 2(1) reads as follows:

I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the word “otherwise” in particular. What does he foresee may “otherwise” be referred? Why can this not be specified in the legislation? The second point I want to make is that we oppose the establishment of this advisory committee on grounds which become more apparent in clause 3. We are giving notice now that we shall oppose it. We should also like the word “otherwise” to be clarified.

Mr Chairman, if I accept the amendment of the hon member for Umbilo the name of that committee is going to be a very long one. Quite apart from that, however, I am prepared to accept the amendment. It does make the position more clear.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the hon the Minister’s remark I just want to point out that it seems to me that it would be better to bring the English designation into line with the Afrikaans designation since “Advieskomitee” appears first. Basically I agree with the amendment, but I do feel the word order could be changed.

Mr Chairman, that is interesting. We may just as well accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, I am afraid I have a number of amendments to this clause, the clause dealing with the constitution of the committee. During the Second Reading I indicated that although we all accept the great importance of Town Clerks in local government, I felt that to establish a committee of such magnitude and such a level was unreasonable. I also enquired whether the composition of the committee would be regarded as a principle and was told that the composition was not regarded as a principle and that it could therefore changed.

In so far as the composition of the committee is concerned, the only way one can deal with it is virtually seriatim, and therefore I am going to suggest in my amendments that the Director-General of a department such as this should not be chairman of it. All Public Service employees are handled by the Commission for Administration, and it would seem to me to be more reasonable that a person who understood staff matters to a very wide degree would be the chief officer of the Commission for Administration. He would be the logical person to act as chairman of the committee.

I therefore move the following amendments:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 38, to omit paragraph (a).
2. 2. On page 5, in line 51, to omit “two persons as the representatives” and to substitute “one person as the representative”.
3. 3. On page 5, in line 53, to omit “two persons as the representatives” and to substitute “one person as the representative”.
4. 4. On page 5, in line 58, to omit “two persons as the representatives” and to substitute “one person as the representative”.
5. 5. On page 5, in line 61, to omit “two persons as the representatives” and to substitute “one person as the representative”.
6. 6. On page 5, from line 64, to omit paragraph (k).
7. 7. On page 7, from line 18, to omit “(other than for a member referred to in subsection (l)(k))”.
8. 8. On page 7 from line 21, to omit all the words after the second “member” to the end of the Clause.

Are you referring to 3(l)(g)?

Yes, I am referring to clause 3(g). Town Clerks constitute a relatively small body of people. They have two organizations, namely the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa, referred to in paragraph (g), and the SA Association of Municipal Employees, mentioned in paragraph (i). It seems to me that to have four people on this committee representing a body of this nature is far too much. I cannot help but feel that two from each of these two societies for this small body—and one cannot dictate whether they should have one or two societies—seems to be a case of overloading and that there should in fact be only one from each society, hence my amendment.

My next amendment deals with paragraph (h), the representatives of and designated by an employer’s organization referred to in the Labour Relations Act. Here again one feels that two people are not really necessary. Surely one should be sufficient if he knows his job.

I am suggesting that the commitee to be set up on which 22 people could serve, is excessively large, and in my view we should try to reduce the number.

According to paragraph (f) two persons as the representatives of the SA Association of Municipal Employees shall serve on the committee. Here again I feel that one representative should be sufficient, and this is why I moved an amendment in this regard.

My next amendment deals with paragraph (k), which relates to the four additional members designated by the Minister. I realize that the Minister may want additional people on the committee, but for what reason does he want those additional people? Surely this is a fairly representative body, and should he retain this paragraph, he could in fact be accused of overloading it to ensure that he will achieve his own objectives. Naturally, I would not ascribe such a motive to the hon the Minister at all. It would be quite wrong to do so. He is after all a very moral person but it could be ascribed to him that if what he had in mind was overridden, it could come to the order paper of the meeting again with four additional people serving in the committee to ensure that he achieves his objective.

Apart from that, however, there will be four extra people on the committee, which, I believe, is unnecessary.

Clause 3(3) reads as follows:

Here, of course, should subsection (1)(k) be deleted, this would of course not apply. That is also why I move the deletion of line 21 to the end of the clause, on page 7 of the Bill.

The whole balance of clause 3 provides that a person who is appointed to substitute someone else will do so in a certain capacity. This seems to me to be entirely superfluous. It does really seem as though it is only there in order to load the Bill as it were with a lot of unnecessary verbiage.

I must state, however, that I do have considerable sympathy with the hon the Minister in this regard because it is rather difficult to follow what this clause is all about. That is of course since the hon the Minister has also not had a full opportunity of studying it in detail. That is of course one of the problems that arises with the precipitation of one stage of a Bill upon the other without allowing for sufficient time to study a measure properly. As I have already said, I am at a loss to suggest anything other than this myself.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to confirm what the hon member for Umbilo has just said, namely that it is extremely difficult, in view of the limited time at our disposal, to consider the proposed amendments properly and assess their true worth. But I want to add at once that his first amendment seems unacceptable to us. This is the amendment relating to the Director-General of the department. I think there is a need to involve the Director-General of the department in this committee.

In my speech during the Second Reading stage I referred to the size of this body. We think the relevant body is far too large. Consequently we support the second, third, fourth and fifth amendments of the hon member for Umbilo. This involves, inter alia, the reduction of the number from two to one. As far as his sixth amendment is concerned, there would seem to be a need for a degree of discretion to be vested in the Minister to appoint additional persons. I have already advocated this. I argued more specifically that the private sector should have representation on this advisory committee. I also expressed the hope that the hon the Minister—because it was within his power to appoint those additional persons—would ensure that the private sector was included in this way. The hon the Minister’s argument that the private sector was automatically being included because representation was being given to all people or all groups of people, was not necessarily valid because the persons representing those other bodies need not necessarily be from the private sector. Consequently I should like to give the hon the Minister that discretion, and make another serious appeal to him to consider giving the private sector representation in this way.

In this regard I should like to refer the hon the Minister to the sixth amendment of the hon member for Umbilo. Of course this means—in view of what I have just said—that we cannot support the seventh amendment of the hon member either.

I realize what the hon member for Umbilo is envisaging with his eighth amendment. It seems to me that all he is envisaging is that there should be an indication of who will have to appoint the alternate. For that reason it seems to me that the amendment of the hon member for Umbilo is unnecessary.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister did not reply to a very fair question I put to him on the previous clause. The hon the Minister would appear to have been implying that he was not going to reply to questions I asked, for in a previous debate he said he was not interested in reaching consensus with me. Consequently I want to ask the hon the Minister specifically whether he is going to reply to my questions or not. You see, Sir, now the hon the Minister is not listening. I just want to say that I consider the fact that the hon the Minister has refused to reply to my questions and the fact that he submitted this Bill at a very late stage is a disgraceful dereliction of his parliamentary duties. I insist on the hon the Minister replying to my questions. [Interjections.] Yes, but at least I went further than Std 8. [Interjections.]

Order! We are now in the last week of this session and hon members can make it very unpleasant for each other if they continue to make personal remarks across the floor of the House. I therefore appeal to all hon members to stop doing so. If there are hon members who wish to continue doing so, steps will be taken against them. The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, it deals with the establishment of a multiracial advisory committee. We object to that because it is in conflict with the fundamental policy of separate development of our party. In the past there were multiracial advisory bodies, but there is an important difference in this regard. In the past a multiracial advisory body advised a White Government. Now it will advise a multiracial Government and we are opposed to that.

There is another problem we have as far as these innocent advisory bodies are concerned. We do not believe the Government when it gives us the assurance that these are only advisory committees. We had the experience with the President’s Council which was supposed to be a multiracial advisory council but which was later given sovereignty over Parliament in certain respects. Consequently we oppose the fact that this is a multiracial advisory committee because this erodes the structure of separate development.

If the hon the Minister is interested in replying to this—I shall continue to ask him questions in any case—clause 3(l)(k) refers to the appointment of four additional members. I should like to hear the opinion of the hon the Minister in connection with the race of these additional members.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member for Umbilo this is, of course, a case where we did not take the Committee Stage immediately after Second Reading. I draw his attention to this fact in all fairness. In the second instance, I want to say immediately that I would like to co-operate with all hon members in this House in the passing of legislation. Therefore, with the assistance of hon members, I am quite prepared to complete the Second Reading stages of the other Bills today provided we can then take the Committee stages and the Third Reading stages of the Bills on the same day. Perhaps that may be a basis on which we can work together in finding a solution to what is an obvious problem that hon members have. I should like to co-operate with hon members in that regard.

I cannot accept the amendments of the hon member for Umbilo. Quite obviously, the intention of the amendments of the hon member is firstly to reduce the number on the advisory committee because the hon member feels that on account of its size it may be ineffective. He also seeks to replace the Director-General as chairman with the senior official of the Commission for Administration. I want to say immediately that I do not think that there is a difference in principle between us in this regard because we accept the necessity for an advisory committee. The difference of opinion revolves simply around one aspect and that is the size of the committee in numerical terms.

I explained during the Second Reading debate, and I do not intend reiterating those arguments, that it was a sensitive measure. We had to seek the co-operation of the institute and also of the workers’ unions. We had to seek the co-operation of the institute of the town clerks as well as the co-operation of the South African Association of Municipal Employees. Therefore I should not like to deviate at this stage from what has been agreed upon. I do not believe that to reduce this body from a possible 22 members to a possible 18 members will make much difference.

Fifteen.

Yes, even to 15 members for that matter. It will not make much difference to the effectiveness of the body. I believe that when one deals with the subject matter of the Bill, namely the determination of remuneration, one should consult as widely as possible because so many parties will be affected. I therefore want to suggest to hon members that we should give the proposed composition of this body a chance to see how it works. If we find that it is ineffective because the body is too large, then we can come back to deal with the issue at that stage, but I do not believe we should do it now. This is to a large extent an agreed measure between the workers and their employers, and I do not think we ought to deviate from what we have agreed upon in this particular regard.

As far as the question of the chairman is concerned, there is only one reason why the Director-General of this department should be the chairman, and that is for the purposes of reporting back to whoever is going to be the Minister concerned when it comes to handling this issue. He is the chief officer of the department, and therefore the daily personal contact will be there to expedite the working and the implementation of the legislation. For that reason I should like to ask the hon member not to proceed with his amendment in this regard.

I think the last point which the hon member has made is a bit unfair. He says that irrespective of my high morals, he has the suspicion that I might want to use the provisions of clause 3(l)(k) in terms of which the right is reserved to the Minister to appoint four people, to appoint four “yes” men. That will obviously not be the case, but since we may find, as this is proceeded with, that certain people ought to be represented, I think that that right must be there. Whether one uses that right is something which will depend on how effective this body will be without the nominees of the Minister.

I should further like to make the point that this is an advisory committee the advice of which may be ignored, accepted or changed. Therefore there is not much point in the Minister appointing his own representatives on such a body with the view to ensuring that his views prevail in that body. In any event that is not how I see an advisory committee should function. I should therefore like the hon member to accept this explanation.

*The hon member Prof Olivier advanced some arguments to show why some of these proposals were not acceptable, and I do not intend to repeat his remarks.

I take cognizance of the standpoint of the hon member for Jeppe, ie that this is a multiracial committee. I also take cognizance of the fact that he does not really object to multiracial committees as long as they advise only White governments. I have no comment to make on that, just as I have no comment to make on the choice of the four members who may be nominated by the Minister. It will depend on the particular need that is identified, and if a need is identified for White, Coloured or Asian members, the Minister will appoint members in accordance with that need.

All the amendments are unacceptable, therefore.

Mr Chairman, I just want to thank the hon the Minister for replying to my question. He has proved one thing to himself, and that is that he can reach consensus even with me if only he wants to.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to refer to the hon the Minister’s sensitivity in his reaction to my motivation. He had no necessity to be sensitive because I genuinely meant that I do not subscribe ulterior motives to him.

I accept that.

The point I wanted to make was that other people could do so if he had this additional authority. It is not my normal manner to be insulting, and it was certainly not my intention.

I accept that too.

Thank you.

One of my reasons for objecting to the Director-General being chairman of this advisory committee is that the committee’s functions are not constitutional once we have accepted the principle that town clerks will become part of the government’s scheme. Thereafter it is no longer a constitutional matter. The question of their salaries can by no stretch of the imagination be called a constitutional matter. Therefore I feel that chairman of this committee should not be a constitutional man, a constitutional expert. That will be the wrong person.

In regard to the size of the committee, it is my view that it is desirable to have committees as small as is compatible with competence to perform a job. My own experience is that large committees are not as efficient as small committees provided of course there is the necessary coverage. Committees are expensive. Several years ago in the United Kingdom they got themselves so bogged down with committees and commissions that, believe it or not, they set up another commission to find out what commissions they had. This commission ended up by disbanding about three-quarters of them. So that was one commission that was really worthwhile. The point is that committees and commissions can be terribly expensive, and if one can reduce their size by one-third then there will be a corresponding reduction in costs.

There is another aspect on which I should like to comment now because I have amendments on the Order Paper on this issue. The Minister says this is an advisory committee and that its advice can be accepted, rejected or amended. That is so. I wonder whether having such a high calibre committee, such a large committee and such an expensive committee, it is justified to minimize the work it has done by rejecting its advice out of hand and putting something else in its place. I accept that it is normal for a Minister to have discretionary powers in these matters but I do believe that in respect of a committee such as this, a high-class committee, when the Minister wants to amend he should do it after it has been considered by the committee. As I have said, I have amendments on this issue, and it might save time if the Minister would be good enough to give an indication now of his attitude towards providing that any amendment should be after consultation with and on the recommendation of the committee itself.

Sir, I shall be brief. I am not suggesting that the determination of the remuneration of town clerks, or any other group for that matter, is a constitutional matter. But if this Bill becomes law the responsibility to determine the salaries of town clerks is that of the Minister dealing with constitutional affairs. The hon member will recall that the President’s Council recommended that a ministry of local government be created. The Government, however, did not feel inclined to create such a ministry. Its attitude was that local government affairs in so far as it affects all groups should be the responsbility of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Secondly, the ministry responsible for the provinces under whose jurisdiction local government falls, is also the ministry responsible for constitutional development and therefore the appropriate department to deal with that matter is this department. Because the effectiveness of advice, and the hon member has been in an executive position himself and will know that this is so, will require continuous discussion with the chairman of the bodies that advise the Minister, it is quite obvious that the Director General should, from that point of view, be the chairman and should act as the liaison officer between this body and the Minister he is supposed to advise. I would therefore like to suggest that it would be wrong to deviate from this particular principle in the Bill.

The hon member also referred to the size of the committee and the fact that it might be expensive. It need not be expensive, because quite obviously the various institutions, organizations and bodies represented on this advisory body would submit memoranda for discussion beforehand. I want to stress that I would like any advice in this regard to be as representative as possible of the views of the affected parties and groups. After all, town clerks will be represented on the committee by four people, and I think that is just and fair. It is their livelihood and position that are going to be affected by the decisions of that committee.

The next point I would like to make, is that because the determination of the salaries or remuneration of town clerks does not only affect them, but also affects thousands of other local government officials, I believe that the organizations representing the other officials should equally be well represented on the committee. What we are trying to seek with this sort of committee, is to bring about the greatest degree of co-operation, to seek consensus and to bring about acceptance of the determinations as far as possible. Although from a purely management point of view the body is large, I would still prefer to work with that “disadvantage” than to reduce the number on that body. I would therefore ask the hon member to accept my explanations on these points.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell us what his attitude is towards the advisory committee’s recommendation?

At this stage I would say that we should leave the situation as it is. I have not seen the amendment the hon member wishes to move, but if I understood him correctly he want to put in the words “after consultation and on the recommendation”. If that recommendation is going to be binding on the Minister, I cannot accept such an amendment. If that were to be the case, we may as well say that the salaries of town clerks must be determined by that body, because it then makes a rubber stamp of the hon the Minister’s approval and I do not think that should be done.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendments 2 to 5 dropped.

Amendments 6 to 8 negatived.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, I intended moving an amendment to clause 4(l)(b), in which reference is made to “a member referred to in section 3(l)(k)”. However, in view of the relevant amendment which I moved to clause 3 not having been accepted, I shall obviously not proceed with my amendment to this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr Chairman, I shall not proceed with my amendments to this clause because, as the hon the Minister has indicated clearly, I would be wasting my time. There is therefore not much point in my moving my amendments.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

1. 1. On page 9, in line 6, after “(1)” to insert:
   • , unless made prior to the promulgation of this Act

With reference to any agreement in connection with the salary, remuneration or benefits payable to a town clerk, clause 7(2) provides that—

I am not querying decisions taken by the commission but, quite obviously, if a town clerk is under contract to a local authority before this Bill becomes an Act and the town clerk concerned has a real right in terms of his contract, the application of this provision in the Bill would be quite wrong. Therefore, I am suggesting in my amendment that this provision should read:

This seems to me to be very reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr Chairman, I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon member for Umbilo. I intend moving a similar amendment to clause 12, and that amendment deals with exactly the same issue. I should like to remind the hon the Minister that in his Second Reading speech he said:

In view of the very clear statement or promise made by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, I would say that there is every reason for him to accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Umbilo.

I must say, with due regard to the hon member for Umbilo, that I think that the wording of my amendment to clause 12, as he will see if he cares to look at it, is perhaps somewhat preferable to the wording of his amendment. However, if he wants to retain the amendment as formulated by him, I shall support it.

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that the amendment of the principle in clause 12 to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred is not acceptable. I have also explained why, in my opinion, it is not necessary. The amendment to clause 7 moved by the hon member for Umbilo is exactly the same, in principle, as the amendment to clause 12 which the hon member Prof Olivier wishes to move at a later stage. In the first place, it is only one particular part of the service contract between the employer and the employee which is affected by this clause and by clause 12, namely the salary determination. The second point I want to make is that the determination which is made is a general determination, and provision is made—I should prefer not to discuss this now, but to wait until we come to clauses 12 and 13—for people who have been or allege that they have been aggrieved or prejudiced, to make use of a particular mechanism. It seems to me that we should rather make use of that mechanism.

We have here a measure which has been agreed on by an employers’ association, the UME, the South African Association of Municipal Employees, as well as the people who are affected by this, namely the town clerks. They agree with the wording of this legislation. As far as they are concerned, therefore, this is an agreed measure.

†I would like to give the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Umbilo the assurance that ample provision is made to cover the situation to which the hon member for Umbilo’s amendment relates. In terms of clause 13, parties aggrieved with a determination are entitled to take steps to argue their case on an individual basis and to have it rectified if it is found just and fair. However, in view of the fact that interested parties have found each other on the wording and the principles in this clause, as well as in the other clauses, I would suggest that we do not amend the clauses now. I can give the undertaking that if this leads to an unjust and unfair situation in practice, it will be amended. I hesitate to accept amendments to provisions which have been cleared by the interested parties and organizations.

Mr Chairman, I want to reiterate the standpoint of the CP briefly. I did so in the Second Reading of this Bill and the hon the Minister replied to it. We oppose this clause, because in our opinion it places unfair restrictions on the authority of the third tier of government. We consider this to be an unsatisfactory extension of the authority of the first tier of government, and in the process provincial councils are being eroded.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to have the hon the Minister’s assurance in this regard, but my amendment is so simple that I can assure him that it will not deleteriously affect the intent of the Bill. It is going to forestall problems in the future. That is why I moved it. It makes the intention absolutely clear and will forestall the necessity of reconsideration at some later date. I therefore cannot see the difficulty which the hon the Minister foresees.

Mr Chairman, if we exclude the past agreements from the provisions of this Bill…

Which agreements?

The past agreements. The hon member’s amendment relates to existing agreements. Let us assume for the moment that a general determination is made for the salary structure of town clerks in a particular category and the town council refuses to pay it. The position of a town clerk will then be jeopardized. It therefore works both ways, because if we accept the hon member’s amendment, a town council will not be legally bound to pay to the town clerk the salary according to the general determination. What we now say is: Make all agreements subject to the law but let aggrieved parties go to the other authorities if they feel so aggrieved so as to rectify individual situations. I do not believe anything can be more fair than that.

Mr Chairman, as I have indicated, the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that it was not the intention to prejudice anyone. With all due respect, if words have their ordinary meaning it seems to me it is essential for protection to be afforded in terms of existing contracts. Any new determination entered into must not therefore prejudice a person.

The remark the hon the Minister made that movement was possible in terms of clause 13, or whatever, applies equally to the other case. In other words, if we consider existing determinations as valid and either the local authority or the relevant employees feel aggrieved because the agreement makes provision for remuneration or service benefits which differ from those in terms of the binding determination, the procedures in terms of clause 11 and clause 13 may after all be resorted to. I feel a far stronger principle is at stake here. When agreements have been entered into it is the duty of the law to protect those agreements and we may not take steps in this House which simply declare those agreements invalid, which is the case here. I am saying this particularly in view of the fact that clause 11 and clause 13 are available to rectify the matter and bring it into line with the binding determination.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I argued that it was a general principle that one did not want to prejudice anyone. This legislation deals with providing people with benefits. That is the spirit of the legislation. I explained this in detail in the Second Reading. In the first place it is concerned with career security for this specific group of staff. In the second place it is concerned a mechanism for their salaries being determined by an impartial authority. This is basically what is involved. I do not want to go into this at length, but it is very easy for a local authority to terminate the period of service of an official by giving him notice. As far as I know—I am now speaking under correction—there are no long-term contracts between local authorities and officials. Their services may be terminated by way of notice. This legislation is aimed at a general improvement in the position of town clerks, but there may be cases of town clerks who are on different salary scales in terms of the classification of local authorities and the determination of the remuneration on the basis of that classification.

For that reason the legislation makes specific provision for two ways in which individual adjustments may be made. One is by the Minister in terms of clause 10, if I remember correctly, and the other is by the Administrator in terms of clause 11. We did foresee the eventuality to which the hon member referred. All I am asking is that we should not make this as inflexible as the hon member is now proposing. I want to say at once that if people were to be prejudiced by this application their trade unions or employee organizations would immediately inform the advisory committee, that they were opposed to it. For that reason I am asking that we accept the legislation as it reads at present and try it out first. The legislation will quite possibly be amended later, but we should not anticipate this now. We must first wait and see what growing pains there are in the new situation.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 8:

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

1. 1. On page 9, in line 11, after “fit” to insert:
   • (except a basis of race or colour)

The hon the Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment. Consequently I need not elaborate on it further.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I merely want our opposition to this clause placed on record again. In our opinion this is an unfair extension of the authority of the hon the Minister’s department at the expense of provincial councils.

I take cognizance of the standpoint of the CP but the best custodians of the rights of the provincial administrations are the administrations themselves and they have consented to this legislation.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr Chairman, the CP adopts the same standpoint on this clause. In our opinion this is part of a process of unnecessary erosion of the authority of the provincial councils.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendments:

1. 1. On page 11, in line 16, to omit the second “the” and to substitute “general”.
2. 2. On page 11, in line 17, to omit “after consultation with the advisory committee”.
3. 3. On page 11, from line 18, to omit subsection (3).
4. 4. On page 11, in line 29, to omit “or by the Minister on appeal under subsection (3)”.
5. 5. On page 11, in line 32, to omit “or the Minister, as the case may be,”.

My first amendment in effect means that the Administrator will investigate cases put forward by the local authorities and will be able to proceed in terms of general directives as opposed to a specific directive that has to be considered in each case. In line 15 it is stated that:

I cannot help but feel that this is again an affront to the Administrator to give him an authority to investigate whether they can pay other salaries, etc, to town clerks and then to take it to the advisory committee. It is fair enough if it is taken to the Minister should there be an appeal in this regard, but to take an Administrator’s decision to representatives of SAAME and the others on the committee, is in my opinion quite wrong. This is why I am suggesting in my amendments 1 and 2 that the word “the” be omitted and be substituted by the word “general”, while the words “after consultation with the advisory committee” are also to be omitted. The effect of this will be that the Minister will make the decision and not people from various other organizations, for instance the Institute of Town Clerks. It just does not seem right that a man holding the position of Administrator should have his decisions queried by the members of a committee such as this. This is one of the rare cases where I say the Minister should have full say in this regard.

My next amendment deals with clause 11(3). I believe that this subsection is unnecessary and should be deleted. I also suggest that the words “or by the Minister on appeal under subsection (3)” in line 29 should be omitted. That, of course, would be consequential on subsection (3) being deleted. Again, in line 32, the same ommission will apply. I cannot really understand why it should be necessary for the Minister to become involved in this. I must reiterate, however, that to expect the hon the Minister to be able to give proper appreciation to these amendments under the present circumstances is quite unreasonable. I can understand the difficulties the hon the Minister is experiencing because I am also experiencing the same sort of difficulties.

Mr Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon member for Umbilo are not acceptable to me. Allow me to explain why not.

In terms of clause 10, which also relates to clause 11, a distinction is being made between a general determination and an individual one. Furthermore, a distinction is also being drawn between an individual determination by the Minister and an individual determination by the Administrator. The hon member for Umbilo will appreciate that.

In this particular instance I want to point out immediately that an aggrieved party—in terms of clause 13—if it is an employee, can approach either the Administrator or an industrial court. The guidelines for a determination in an individual case, in my opinion, should not be of as general a nature as suggested by the hon member in his amendment. Therefore his amendment is not acceptable.

Secondly, I would like to explain that the Administrator’s decisions in individual cases are not considered by the Minister. He only issues the guidelines, which, I submit, cannot be too general. Therefore, if the industrial court should be bound the Administrator, I believe, should also be bound by those guidelines. In the application of the guidelines, however, such a decision cannot be vetoed or rescinded by the Minister in this particular regard.

Amendments 1 and 2 negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment 3 negatived and amendment

4 dropped.

Amendment 5 negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has indicated that the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper is unacceptable to him. Consequently it is unnecessary for me to repeat my motivation with regard to the relevant amendment. But because I consider this amendment to be important, and should also like it placed on record, I shall nevertheless move it, as follows:

1. 1. On page 13, from line 1, to omit “in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1) shall be null and void” and to substitute:
   • entered into after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1)

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Prof Olivier for moving his amendment without motivating it. I think we have already heard the hon member’s motivation and he has already heard my reply to it. Without having a long debate on this, I want to state that I understand what the hon member has in mind with his amendment. I think he also understands what my reaction to it will be.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment, namely:

Mr Chairman, I move this amendment because there is one aspect here which I find most surprising and unusual in the sense of local government practice. As far as the provisions of clause 13(l)(a) are concerned, it is not normal for a local authority employee to contact the Administrator of a province direct. That is totally foreign and contrary to procedure because it must be done through official channels, and that is the intent of my amendment.

How do you define “official channels”?

Well, if it is the town clerk himself, it must be done with the approval of the council before going to the Administrator and, if it is any other employee, it must be done through the town clerk. That is the correct procedure to follow. I feel it is rather a dangerous precedent to set under any circumstances that officials can bypass their councils and own senior officials in the council in a direct approach to the Administrator. That is the reason why I feel it is highly desirable to effect this particular amendment.

Mr Chairman, I support the amendment moved by the hon member for Umbilo. From my experience of local government I feel it is highly undesirable that an employee make a direct appeal to the Administrator. The local authority salary structure is based upon the salary of the town clerk which at the moment in the Tranvaal is 10% higher than that of other town clerks. If an official is dissatisfied with that structure and wishes to appeal in that regard to the Administrator, then I think it would be highly undesirable for him to approach the Administrator direct because it may be contrary to the wishes of the entire council. As the hon member for Umbilo said, such representations must go through the proper channels.

Mr Chairman, I concede immediately that this may not be normal practice. However, this clause makes it possible to deviate from the 7½% difference in the salary of a town clerk and any other official. It gives both a local authority and an employee the right to approach the Administrator.

I have stated previously that this measure is an agreed measure. I am sure hon members will understand that it is not always easy to obtain consensus among the persons and bodies involved in this particularly sensitive field namely labour relations. The only way we could get Saame to accept the situation was to include clause 13 as it is presently worded, the wording which the hon member for Umbilo now proposes to amend.

*I should like to quote from a letter from Saame dated 25 June 1984. In that letter the following is stated:

That is the point the hon member made:

Subsequently the 90% was changed to 92,5%. The letter went on to state:

†The hon member will appreciate the probleminthisregard, and because of this problem, we have agreed to change the provision as the clause now reads. Therefore I ask hon members to accept that I cannot, at this stage, deviate from an agreement which has been reached between us and Saame.

Mr Chairman, this is a very dangerous precedent put into the Bill because it will be quoted from time to time, not only in respect of local government personnel but it may well be quoted in future also in respect of Public Service personnel since the principle is now established that a person of one category can go over the head of the people who are responsible for his conditions of employment and his employment. I feel so strongly about this particular aspect that I am afraid we cannot support the clause at all. It is a dangerous clause. Everybody who knows the problems that have in fact developed through people trying to contract Administrators over the years on bypassing their senior officials and councils, will realize how hazardous it is to leave this clause unamended because it means quite clearly that any person can go directly to the administrator without consultation with the council, without consultation with the town clerk and without either of them having the faintest idea about it. The first thing they would know about it, would be that the Administrator of the province would be coming down upon them saying: Look, we have had this, that or the other problem and I want an answer to it. They would not even have had a chance to prepare an answer. This is a very, very bad principle.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion to the hon the Minister because I think the hon member for Umbilo has a very valid problem here. The difficulty which the hon the Minister quoted was that such an application might not be forwarded. It would be very simple to introduce an amendment that an application shall be through the official channels and shall be transmitted to the Administrator. In terms of such a provision it will not be possible to block an application. It will go through the channels of the council, they will be aware of it but they cannot prevent it going to the Administrator. I think if the words “channels which shall be forwarded” are added, the problem will be solved.

Mr Chairman, the circumstances which the hon member for Umbilo anticipates cannot occur because if he would refer to clause 13(1)(b) he would find that an aggrieved employee would have to notify the local author ity of the situation. It is therefore not a question of ignoring the local authority and just writing to the Administrator and the Administrator then jumping down somebody’s neck. The fact is that the local authority will have knowledge of the intention of the employee to submit his case to the Administrator. If the hon member will accept that, then we are all agreed.

I think clause 13(1)(b) covers it.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we indicated at Second Reading that we support the Bill. It is quite clear that the machinery being created by the Bill is being created to fill a specific loophole that existed, and in that sense I believe that it is essential legislation. The hon the Minister also indicated that this was a measure which had the general approval of bodies involved in this matter and that he was not free to accept certain amendments. I respect his attitude that if he accepted certain amendments in respect of which he lacked the approval of the bodies involved in the matter, it would place him in a difficult situation.

I want to reiterate that this side of the House appreciates the exceptionally import ant work done by town clerks in the interests of public administration. We hope that this measure will give rise to considerable satisfaction among town clerks. I am convinced that in terms of clause 10 the hon the Minister will be flooded with a large number of applications, and we shall be watching with considerable interest to see how the hon the Minister, the Administrators and the advisory committee are going to implement this legislation. We wish the advisory committee everything of the best in the important work they are going to be doing.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Prof Olivier expressed the hope that this legislation would give rise to great satisfaction among town clerks and I have not the slightest doubt that this will in fact be the case. Over the years efforts have been made by town clerks to negotiate a uniform system with regard to their remuneration, but these efforts have come to grief time and again because it has never been possible to achieve unanimity among the provinces with regard to a uniform system of this kind. I think that praise is due to the State department with responsibility for local government for the way in which they negotiated, within a question of months, this agreement for which town clerks have been asking over a period of years. I think it is cause for gratitude that there will now be a uniform system of remuneration. This will stabilize the position of the town clerk and prevent the phenomenon of town clerks be ing lured away by other provinces. This will also put an end to the phenomenon of town clerks being lured away to towns within the same province, since their remuneration will now be determined in terms of a grading system.

I think one can support the legislation because this is a fine example of legislation which has been agreed to by way of negotiation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to agree with all the fine things that have been said not only by the hon member who has just resumed his seat, but also by other hon members, concerning town clerks. The CP, too, believes that there must be a uniform system in terms of which their conditions of service and position are regulated. However, our objection is that this should be regulated at provincial level and not at central Government level. The fact that the four Administrators were unable to succeed in negotiating an own mechanism proves my standpoint that there is very little hope for their consensus policy in terms of the new dispensation.

I should also just like to refer to what the hon member for Standerton said good naturedly about me—I hope he said it good naturedly—viz that I was simply sour about the outcome in Rosettenville. I want to tell him—in the same good-natured spirit—that he need only read his own newspapers, because then he would reach the conclusion…

You and your father-in law were given a good thrashing.

The hon member mentioned something about my father-in-law, but he need only read what is stated in the newspaper about what happened in Stellenbosch, where an MPC of the NP had to pay admission of guilt of R450 due to irregularities in regard to postal votes. Scandalous remarks have also been made here by the hon member for Kimberley South about what my father-in-law supposedly did. I want to challenge the entire NP today, as I have done before, to charge him accordingly.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member how to cheat with postal votes without getting caught? Could he not give us that tip? [Interjections.]

Sir, there are things I know a great deal about, and other things I know nothing about. That is one of the things I know nothing about. However, I suggest that the hon member asks the hon the Prime Minister, who is the biggest NP organizer in the country, about that. He must go and learn from an expert.

As I have said, the hon member for Standerton referred good-naturedly to the outcome in Rosettenville. The official Opposition did not stand in that seat and the NRP obtained 15% to 16% of the votes. Seventy per cent of the voters of that seat, situated in the city of Johannesburg, and with one of its boundaries no further than 200 yards from the Carlton, consist of English-speaking people. In that seat my party obtained 30% of the votes while the NP—Sir, I shall dispose of this matter without delay—with 4 000 more voters, obtained 350 fewer votes.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill immediately.

As you wish, Sir.

As far as the Bill is concerned we intimated that we opposed it in principle due to the undermining of the authority of the provincial councils, due to the establishment of a disturbing position of power with regard to the position of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and because this lends impetus to the concept of mixed government. We have already discussed this and the hon the Minister has already replied in this regard. I am merely mentioning this briefly at this stage. Before I resume my seat I just wish to say something about the select committee. The hon the Minister put up a fine straw doll in that regard by implying that because we request that the matter be referred to a select committee, we want the new multiracial Government to pass judgment on this. Surely he knows that that is just what we are opposed to. After all, the select committee sat in the recess in July last year. When is this Parliament going to be officially dissolved? Will it not perhaps convene before 3 September to consider certain reports? There is one thing that is the truth and there is another that is a straw doll. As far as we are concerned, we at no stage had in mind that these Bills should be subjected to the authority of a multiracial Parliament. Whether there is q straw doll or not, that is our actual intention. It is also a pity that such short notice was given. This makes it difficult to consider legislation, and we trust that this will not happen again soon.

With these few words—we have already stated our standpoints as regards the principle—we oppose the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, in my Second Reading speech on this Bill I referred to the undertaking by the hon member for Jeppe with regard to the election in Rosettenville. The outcome proved that he lost. I refer to him because in the campaign that was waged there, he was quite unpleasant towards the hon member for Rosettenville, who is here in our midst. The pamphlets and brochures distributed contained vicious allegations about the hon member for Rosettenville. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the legislation. The hon member for Rosettenville has the right posture for a town clerk: Able, neat, courteous and correct. [Interjections.] However, the hon member for Jeppe looks like an animal who ought to be taken to the abattoirs of a municipality.

We support the Bill.

Order! The hon member for Standerton must withdraw the statement that another hon member looks like an animal.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister will appreciate it that we in these benches are still rather unhappy about the removal of this function from provincial administrations. However, we are sufficiently realistic to accept the inevitable and we will therefore be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

We still consider the proposed committee to be excessively large for this particular purpose. However, in spite of the large committee and the very wise decisions which I am sure they will be making, I still anticipate the Minister having a few headaches as regards the Indian and Coloured town clerks who may well be appointed in the near future.

As the hon the Minister knows perfectly well, there are no standards laid down for town clerks. This is a very important aspect and it should be put in hand at some stage. Town clerks of local authorities have an enormous amount of authority and power. To have a situation where a person of any standard of education but with no legal qualifications in a job which is largely legal, and with no financial qualifications when he needs to have a good knowledge of the financial affairs of a local authority, is quite wrong. I believe that one of the matters which should receive attention is that a minimum standard should at least be laid down for town clerks. I hope that the department will give consideration to this. This is something which worried me when I still had something to do with local authorities. I often had the biggest trouble with town clerks who did not know their jobs, the reason being that there is basically no standards laid down for town clerks. They learn their jobs by first becoming committee clerks, etc. So I hope that this will be an important aspect of the new set-up.

Before concluding, I want to apologize to the hon the Minister for the inadequacy of time which we had to consider these Bills. I hope he will apologize to me for not accepting a few more of amendments. But that is the way the cookie crumbles. I hope that in future, with important Bills such as these, we will have time properly to appraise the amendments.

With these few words we will be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to engage in a long discussion on this occasion. I want to begin by thanking those hon members who conveyed their appreciation to the officials of my department as well as officials of other institutions that were involved in the negotiations. I believe that this was a well-earned tribute and I want to associate myself with it by recording my appreciation in this particular connection.

At the recent congress of the Institute of Town Clerks in Windhoek, there was great appreciation for this Bill. Mr A P Burger, the retired town clerk of Johannesburg, played a leading role in this connection, and I believe that hon members will agree with me that he is probably one of the greatest authorities on local government among the top officials at this level. When the Institute of Town Clerks first came to see us, he was a member of the deputation.

This Bill does not take any powers away from anyone. What has in fact happened is that under the existing system in the provinces, certain dispensations have developed for historic and other reasons. Naturally, it is extremely difficult, in a situation of this nature, to arrive at an agreement which is binding upon everyone by way of purely informal arrangements. Because this is the case and because it has not been possible so far to achieve uniformity in respect of the remuneration of town clerks, the attempt to bring about uniformity by way of legislation is not motivated by any desire to remove any powers from the second tier of government, but rather to create a mechanism which would remove that omission. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would really like to act as arbitrator when it comes to the remuneration of these particular officials.

Apart from the basic problem of uniformity among the four provinces in respect of the remuneration and conditions of employment of these officials, yet a further problem has arisen. This is the problem which I mentioned at the start, namely that this tier of government forms part of the country’s forms of government on the third level. Naturally, it is essential that there should be coordination with regard to the determination of the salaries of the various levels of government in this country. I need not go into this. Hon members know how often criticism has been expressed against the fact that the remuneration of town clerks is higher than that of officials on a higher level of government. I am not saying that the argument was valid; all I want to say is the fact that the argument was advanced made it essential that a person or body should intervene to resolve the situation if possible.

I want to tell the hon member for Jeppe at once that we are not concerned here with the erosion of provincial powers. We are basically concerned here with the effective administration of the country, which has certain implications which are being provided for in this legislation. The hon member for Jeppe said that I had created Aunt Sallys. I do not want to argue about that any longer. I specifically and courteously asked the hon member whether he accepted that we would not be able to finalize the work, to which he replied in the affirmative. From this, the inference was drawn that we would then work with a joint select committee. The hon member should not have reacted so quickly to the question which was put to him; then he would not have found himself in this specific dilemma.

I learn quickly.

Of course. But not many things at the same time; that is the hon member’s problem.

†I now come to the hon member for Umbilo. Let me say immediately that I anticipate that the function of the determination of salaries is going to be a difficult one. However, if the spirit that prevailed between the negotiating parties will also prevail in the advisory committee then I am much more optimistic in this regard that we would be able to determine the salary scales for the chief officials of local authorities, maybe on an agreed basis.

The hon member also referred to the question of the standard of training of town clerks. It is true that to a large extent in the past the training of town clerks had in fact been in-service training, where officials had come through the ranks to the chief position in the local government. It is also true to say that the Institute of Town Clerks has achieved a proud record in terms of the education and training of town clerks in our country. Intended town clerks can now follow courses and write examinations according to prescribed curricula. That is in fact what the hon member is pleading for. Having said this, I do not believe that this subject matter is closed as it stands today. Therefore we have accepted that there should be much more effective training of town clerks. A committee of the co-ordinating council has given specific attention to this matter and has made recommendations in this regard. I am quite confident that flowing from that investigation and from any decisions that could be taken in this regard, the position will be further improved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third time.

Mr Chairman, clause 1 deals with section 17 and inserts section 17A. I just want to point out that section 17 of the Act has three parts. In the first place the Minister may, in consultation with the Administrator of any province, make regulations to bring about co-ordination between the different authorities. In the second place it authorizes the Administrator to apply any measure himself if the local authority is tardy about doing so, and to recover the costs of such action from the local authority. Subsection (3) provides that in the event of a conflict between a regulation under this section and an ordinance the regulation will apply. This clause is now proposing that section 17A be inserted indicating additional matters over which the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has the most important power. In our opinion this is wrong in principle and for that reason we shall vote against this clause.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

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

My first amendment suggests that in line 21 the word “general” should be inserted after the word “such”. I think I explained the object of this amendment in the Second Reading, namely that a set of general directives be prepared by the Minister in respect of the setting up of local authorities, and provided that the Administrator concerned worked within those directives, he would not have to be going back to the Minister all the time to get his decisions approved. We believe that the setting up, the amalgamating, the adding to and taking from local government are functions that should be handled by the Administrators. The Minister did in fact indicate in the Second Reading that it was not his intention that the decisions of the Administrator should continuously be interfered with and that he would have to submit every amendment in regard to a local authority to the Minister for approval. This being the case, I believe that my amendment achieves the objective of the Minister without in any way diminishing the effectiveness of the clause.

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

The hon the Minister will realize that I am moving this amendment in order to try to help him, and that it does not detract in any way from our overall approach to the way in which this legislation is being rushed through the House.

You have made that point already. It is not necessary to repeat it.

Mr Chairman, I merely say this because I do not want the hon the Minister to misunderstand us. What we actually want to do is help the hon the Minister because as the clause is worded now the word “directives” is totally unqualified. It does not indicate in respect of what the said directives will be issued or where, or even whether they will be general or specific. In drafting this amendment I was guided by the explanatory memorandum that was issued to us.

*In regard to the words “criteria”, “norms” and “standards in the explanatory memorandum, we were of the opinion that the word “directives” should at least be restricted to its meaning, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, and that it should therefore merely relate to criteria, norms and standards. We therefore believe that they should not bear any relation to specific delimitations of specific towns. They must merely serve as a general guideline with regard to criteria, norms and standards.

If this amendment were accepted, the clause under discussion would, I think, be more acceptable than it would be without it. Under these circumstances I am therefore moving my amendment, and I also hope that the hon the Minister will accept it as he did, in fact, indicate he would two days ago.

Mr Chairman, as I have indicated, the amendment under discussion is not unacceptable to me. As a matter of fact, what we submitted to the legal draftsmen amounted to exactly what the hon member for Sea Point now wants. According to the interpretation of the legal draftsmen, the word “directives” has the meaning of norms, criteria and standards. The reason I said that I was prepared to agree to an amendment in this regard was because I had nothing in mind but what appears in the amendment under discussion now. I am consequently prepared to agree to both the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point and the amendment of the hon member for Umbilo, because the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point serves as a further qualification of the motion contained in the amendment of the hon member for Umbilo.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

I also want to refer briefly to the fact that I am aware that owing to the limited time at their disposal, hon members have experienced difficulties in studying the legislation under discussion. I do not want to pursue this matter now. But that is why I have indicated that when considering the other Bills I must still move, I shall not expect hon members to debate the Second Reading and the Committee Stage on the same day. If we can complete the Second Reading stages of the aforementioned Bills today, we can proceed to deal with the Committee Stages tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister, when he introduced this Bill at Second Reading, indicated that this was one of what he called a trilogy of Bills. This the Bill which constitutes local government. The next one is going to stipulate who is going to vote while the third one will be dealing with the rearrangement of services. These three Bills have therefore to be seen together. While this one is in a sense not as critically important as the other two, I do think the three have to be read together. While one does not wish to make a meal of a speech in regard to this Bill, we must record our opposition to it because we want to emphasize to the hon the Minister that we think it is quite wrong to deal with legislation of a critically important nature such as this, the constitution of the third tier of government in South Africa, with the kind of shotgun approach that is being adopted in regard to these measures.

In the second instance we believe that it is totally wrong for us to pass a general law which is going to deprive Coloureds and indians of the right to have a say in regard to their own local government seven weeks before they become members of Parliament. We do not say it in a partisan political way, but we feel that the best thing from the country’s point of view would be for these three pieces of legislation to have been referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution under the new dispensation so that Coloureds and Indians and Whites could together have reshaped this trilogy of Bills.

In the circumstances we shall not be able to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we, too, think that these different pieces of legislation should be seen as a whole. There are various matters involved here that this side of the House cannot agree with. This Bill provides for the appointment of a multiracial co-ordinating council that is going to play a very important role. In the second instance there are various functions which in our opinion ought to be exercised by provincial administrations, that are now being shifted to the first level of government and some to the third level of government. This gives us the impression that we are here moving in the direction of the abolition of provincial administrations.

Nor can I allow the opportunity to pass to say to the hon the Minister during this Third Reading debate that I am by no means happy about the way in which the hon the Minister replied to statements I made last year and during the discussion of this legislation. In the course of my speech I want to point out that what the hon the Minister accuses me of, could with equal force be applied to him.

In his unrevised speech the hon the Minister said (Hansard, 6 July):

I want to ask the hon the Minister in what part of my speech I violated the truth.

The standpoint concerning the TMA.

I shall deal with the TMA standpoint. I made specific reference in the course of my speech to the report of the TMA.

You referred to it and did not say it was an old one.

I shall prove that there was nothing untrue in what I said. The hon the Minister went on to say:

That is just our objection, viz that the Minister will determine those directives. Surely that used to be a function of the provincial authority.

Referring to me the hon the Minister also said:

And so on. Later in his speech the hon the Minister goes on to say:

I specifically stated in my speech that this was the first report of the TMA. I just wish to say to hon members opposite that if it is true, as the hon member for Barberton indicated the other day, that in terms of a Cabinet minute in respect of which there was a leak, it was quite evident that the Cabinet had used its influence with the President’s Council to make certain guidelines a resolution of the President’s Council, then I can only say that I find it very strange that all of a sudden, after adopting these standpoints—I want to repeat that this was the original TMA report, which corresponded 100% with the standpoint of the CP—the TMA altered their standpoint a short time later and adopted a totally contradictory standpoint. I ask myself whether there are not perhaps certain lackeys in those ranks that are influenced by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

In the third place the hon the Minister said with reference to me:

That was the original plan, but the hon the Minister said that that is not true.

Did you not say so?

I am quoting from the unrevised edition of the hon the Minister’s speech. I want to refer the hon the Minister to the Report of the Constitution Committee of the President’s Council, PC 3/1982, in which the following appears in paragraph 7.31 on page 71:

Further on the report reads:

That is just our argument. In terms of this evidence of the President’s Council itself this was at first the case.

In the fourth place the hon the Minister said, again referring to me:

I want to say to the hon the Minister that the people to which I belong agree for the most part with what I say, and this has been proved by the recent by-elections. That hon Minister makes a caricature of the people to which he belongs when he offers the sovereignty and freedom of that people to other peoples.

Fifthly, the hon the Minister said:

The hon the Minister then went on to point out that we co-operated with other ethnic groups in other fields under the same roof but that they were not good enough to sit with us in this Parliament under the same roof. If that argument holds water I want to ask the hon the Minister what about the Black people who also work with us under the same roof; is that an argument that they too should work here? In the past and in previous debates the hon the Minister himself, some of his colleagues and also the hon the Prime Minister, specifically said that if the Coloureds were to come and sit with us in this highest House of the land, then they could surely enter our residential areas and schools as well.

We on this side of the House are therefore unable to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietersburg referred for the umpteenth time to the so-called TMA document that was submitted to the President’s Council. I think we must get our reference right, namely that the document dated 31 August 1981 and entitled “Memorandum oor ’n voorgestelde nuwe grondwetlike bedeling vir plaaslike owerhede” is the document from which the hon member has quoted so many times now. What the hon member has done again today is to quote selectively from the document. I want to quote one paragraph from this document from which the hon member has quoted so frequently already, as follows:

I do not intend to elaborate on the proposals of the UME in this Third Reading debate today. I am continuing to quote:

This is the standpoint of the TMA which supports the standpoint of the UME in all respects. Consequently I do not know why the hon member for Pietersburg is persisting in quoting certain specific sections from the TMA document.

I do not intend to take up any more of the time of this House’s with the standpoint of the UME because it is well-known what their standpoints are and I referred to them during the Second Reading debate.

Here we are dealing with a Bill which seeks to lay down criteria to determine the viability and to weight up the potential degree of autonomy of individual communities and lay down norms in this regard. To sum up one could therefore say that here one is dealing with the development of communities within the existing local government structures. We are entering a very exciting period and it is a great pleasure for me to support the legislation as part of this side of the House. It will give communities the opportunity, and now I am thinking specifically of the Coloured and Indian communities, to develop according to the norms and concept of viability that are being laid down in this measure. It is a great privilege for me to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, this measure is of course another of the Bills which is diminishing the authority of the provinces. In this instance it is done with the purpose of ensuring that provincial administrations either will get cracking with setting up non-White local authorities or will not get cracking with setting up non-White local authorities in such a manner that the Minister would disapprove.

At Third Reading it is usually the intention to give an indication of what one sees emanating from a measure. In respect of this Bill I want to suggest that the big problem is going to be setting up these local authorities which, in order to comply with the policy of the Government, are going to have to be set up. It will be necessary to set up viable independent local authorities for different race groups. We in this party who are pluralists have no quarrel with that as a concept, because it runs in conformity with our thinking in any case, but the question of what constitutes viability is going to be a very tricky problem. If somebody asks you what is viability, it is almost the same as asking you what it the length of a piece of string. That is the sort of question it is. In other words, viability can mean different things to different people. This is where one is going to have a problem, because, if one believes that an independent local authority cannot be set up for a community unless they can afford from their rates income to provide every amenity and facility which exists in an established local authority of 50 to 100 years’ standing, then of course an independent local authority is never going to be set up unless an enormous capital infrastructure is put in before one starts. This, I believe, is going to present quite a problem for the department. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it could well be seen in a large number of instances as being just impossible to achieve. This is where we believe that the hard-line attitude of only going in for totally independent local authorities is going to present the Government with a problem. It may be a nice ideal, but it will not work. It is a question of unscrambling an egg which has already been scrambled. Unless the Government is going to indulge to a greater degree in that iniquitous pastime we have in this country of removing people from one place and putting them in another, it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that all ratepayers of the Indian, Coloured and White communities will, within the foreseeable future, have a genuine say in setting up local government and in establishing a genuine local authority in which they will have full and not advisory only say.

The two amendments which were accepted in the Committee Stage have made this Bill more acceptable to us in that at least the Administrator will not now have to obtain permission for every amendment affecting a local authority, but will have specific general directives which will enable him to get on with the job. I should imagine that those directives will definitively include something to the effect that, if any amendment involves members of race goups other than that of the majority of the local authority itself, it will in all respects have to be with the consent of the Minister. I thank the hon the Minister for his acceptance earlier on of those amendments—I did not get a chance to thank him at the time. I know, however, that he does have one problem here. I am very sorry that this Bill has been rushed to the extent it has and I am also sorry that he could not get better consensus with us on a Bill such as this.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Newcastle for supporting the Bill.

I have one observation to make in regard to the comments of the hon member for Sea Point. His main objection was that this Bill should have gone to the Select Committee on the Constitution. It is quite obvious. I am not going to debate the point now—that the Act we are proposing to amend by the addition of section 17A was not referred to the select committee. There was no request from the hon member’s party at that stage for it to be so referred, as far as I can recall.

The principal Act actually led to the Constitution.

Of course not. This Bill changes the Act in respect of the co-ordinating council and that was not discussed by the select committee. There was no request that it should be so discussed. Therefore I do not understand the hon member’s attitude. All this Bill proposes to do is to determine guidelines for the Administrator to follow when he determines the area of jurisdiction of local authorities. I leave the hon member there.

This brings me to the hon member for Pietersburg. His objection to a multiracial approach is a recent one, but he has every right to object. He is prepared to accept a dispensation that he himself propagated, in fact a dispensation in terms of which he was elected to this House, being prepared to accept the concept of a multiracial approach in a council of cabinets, the functions of which were defined in draft legislation passed in 1979. [Interjections.] The hon member also accepted that there would be mixed standing committees. So the hon member must not come along with this recent standpoint of his. It is simply another indication of his view of what is correct debating practice and what is not.

Surely the hon member knows what he did, and I therefore do not have to expose that to the light of day any further. When the principal Act was discussed, the hon member adopted a specific standpoint. At the time the hon member alleged that the Bill had not been submitted to the executive of the TMA. It is recorded in his Hansard of 22 June 1983. That was not factually correct. If the hon member did not have any way of finding that out, one could still have forgiven him, but according to him he telephoned the MPC for Waterberg who had a seat on the TMA.

That does not have any bearing on this debate.

We are now speaking about what is true and what is not. The hon member should have gone and listened to the MPC for Waterberg in the provincial council. The MPC for Waterberg supported this legislation in the provincial municipal association. So the hon member must not wrongly level accusations at me.

The hon member also alleged that he knew what the standpoint of the TMA was. He said he knew. It is recorded in his Hansard of 22 June 1983. Knowing what the standpoint of the TMA was, he comes along here and quotes from the first report of the TMA, without referring to the amended standpoint that he was aware of. That is surely no way of embracing the truth. If that is the way the hon member sees things, I shall leave him at that. Then he himself must be the judge.

The hon member also contended that the powers of provincial administrations were being fragmented. What are the functions of the provincial administrations when it comes to local authorities? They must establish local authorities, and that function is not being encroached upon. For the sake of uniformity amongst the various provinces, and amongst the various colour groups, there is a need for an overall guideline. There is only one body that can do so, and that is the body that is responsible for the constitutional development of the country, including the four provinces themselves. So there is nothing sinister in this measure.

The hon member knows that in 1977 Parliament did, in many respects, relinquish its sovereignty in regard to the sharing of functions. Why do we have to argue that point again?

That is untrue.

The hon member for Jeppe must not provoke me now. I do not think he is the best judge of the truth.

†I now want to refer to the remarks made by the hon member for Umbilo. I understand the problems to which the hon member referred. Most of these problems exist today, but the real problem to which we want to address ourselves in this Bill is the question of determining guidelines for the Administrators to apply to all local authorities. That is all with which this measure concerns itself. Finally, this need was identified, and the solution to that need was negotiated on various occasions with the co-ordinating council, the action committee of the co-ordinating council, the Administrators of the provinces, the MECs in charge of local government and after that with the enlarged action committee of the co-ordinating council. We are therefore dealing with a measure about which there were negotiations with interested parties.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch I was rounding off the Third Reading and was in the process of replying to the hon member for Pietersburg. I was dealing with the hon member’s objections to the multiracial nature of the dispensation. I told him that he had supported a concept of a constitutional dispensation with a multiracial component at the executive level and in standing committees.

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

No, I do not have time to reply to questions now.

The hon member also said that I had given the House incorrect information in regard to the sovereignty of the White Parliament in a new dispensation. He knows that the facts I gave were correct. If the hon member was referring, however, to the draft constitution which was published and which constituted the NP’s evidence to the Schlebusch Commission, let me point out to him that that draft legislation was, according to the hon member’s own leader, the NP’s evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. Clause 26 of that draft legislation described the legislative authority. In the very first sentence reference is made to the fact that the sovereignty of the White Parliament was being affected. I quote:

Then comes the qualification:

I then quote further from subsection (2):

In other words, a mixed Council of Cabinets would, in terms of this draft Constitution, qualify the powers of the White House of Assembly in this context. The hon member argues, however, that I made incorrect statements.

That draft Bill was never before the caucus!

Would the hon member please keep quiet now? [Interjections.] The hon member said that I was making allegations that did not accord with the truth. In the light of the facts, that is untrue.

I also specifically want to refer to clause 26(1)(b). In subparagraph (1)(v) provision is made for the position in the case of conflicting views. In paragraph (b) provision is made for what would then happen. I quote:

Then the hon member still contends that in terms of these proposals the White Parliament would be the absolutely sovereign legislative authority. That is surely factually incorrect.

The hon member also knows that when he was still a Nationalist, and was supposed to accept that policy, the standpoint that was adopted was that in the case of a conflict between a White and a Coloured or Asian Parliament a specific arrangement would apply. I quote from the publication he made use of to come to this House:

In other words, a decision about conflicting legislative institutions rests with the Council of Cabinets and not with the White House of Assembly. On what basis does the hon member have the right to accuse me of not having given the House the correct facts? [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member that he should not judge others by his own standards.

The hon member says that we began with three Parliaments and that now we have gone as far as having two Houses in the new dispensation meeting under the same roof. On the basis of my reaction to that, he wanted to know why I objected to the fact of Black people also meeting under the same roof. Surely that is not a comparable case. Surely the referendum agreed to having one Parliament with three Chambers for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. We did not, after all, gain approval for provision to be made for Black people within the same institution. The answer is therefore obvious. The Black people are therefore not being accommodated within the same pattern. That is why physical accommodation is not at issue. Surely the hon member ought to be able to understand that. If he cannot do so, I cannot explain it to him.

†I want to conclude by thanking the hon member for Umbilo for his thoughts and opinions. I have indicated that I could not accommodate all the amendments which the hon member would have liked to introduce to the Bill; so I can understand his concern in this regard. Let me say this quite candidly. People who have been dealing with local government would naturally understand the issues to which the hon member has referred but I believe that this Bill, after it has become law, will make it possible for guidelines to be determined that could be followed by the Administrators of the various provinces in the demarcation of the boundaries of local authorities, and also the re-allocation of boundaries, should they need to be changed at a later stage.

Mr Speaker, as I indicated when I commenced my address at the end of the last sitting day, this is an extremely important Bill, and should be proceeded with with extreme caution, and also with the maximum of acceptance because this measure goes to the very heart of what local government is all about.

In the discussion of the previous Bill the hon the Minister seemed to indicate that because other people, who had been on the consultative committee had approved of this measure, we, in this House should also approve of it and give it our extra appreciation and attention in view of the opinions those people had expressed. As far as we are concerned, however, I want it to be clearly understood that any NRP representatives who were on that standing committee do not have the party authority for decisions. I want to make that very clear. If they did therefore support anything they did so in their private and personal capacities. This is not the party’s decision, however.

[Inaudible.]

I am talking about any MEC that was involved.

[Inaudible.]

That is correct. They are there in their personal capacity; not as representatives of the NRP. Therefore, if we do not agree with the decisons emanating from that consultative body, it does not amount to contradicting a party decision taken there.

Furthermore I wish to make it clear that the most important part of this Bill is the aspect of the general municipal franchise in respect of all Coloured, Indian and White citizens of South Africa. As I also pointed out on the last sitting day, this aspect is already well catered for in Natal; to the full extent of this Bill, and, as far I know, I believe this point is also covered to a large extent in the other provinces.

The next principle of the Bill in terms of which property owners have an extra vote is a new concept in South Africa as far as I am aware, and has a great deal to commend it. However, there are a number of problems in accepting what is before us. Firstly, the generalities of local authorities have not been consulted and their opinions assessed. Once again, I know that there were representatives of local authorities on that commission but they did not express views that had been put to the various councils and the resolutions of those councils taken into account. Secondly, there are some categories of owners who will be discriminated against namely those on leasehold land and those with share-block ownership, as indicated by the hon member for Maitland. As the hon member for Maitland also pointed out, people with sectional title in respect of a time-sharing project will also be entitled to a vote, and this would create quite a silly sort of situation.

The third aspect of this Bill of change which is of great importance to most provinces is the concept of the juristic vote. Personally, I have always been opposed to a plutocratic system being superimposed upon a democratic system. However, it must be accepted that there is an argument for a corporate vote system in that companies and the like have to pay rates. Therefore, a fair argument exists that they should have a say in the spending of that tax money. However, in this Bill the vote is confined to juristic owners and is not extended to other juristic ratepayers. I am referring specifically to lessees who are the real ratepayers in many instances, especially when they have long leases on whole properties. Another contentious aspect is that in a deceased estate a vote still exists in terms of clause 3(1). In my opinion this is so open to dispute as to who shall exercise that vote if the estate has not already been wound up that it is rather poor legislation. Again, should juristic persons owning huge properties in central business districts—they can be of any race group—be confined to voting for local affairs committees and not councillors merely because the majority shareholding may be Coloured or Indian? Indeed, one presumed that a board of directors’ decision would be taken. White board members would then have a say in voting for local affairs committee members and, in other cases, Coloured and Indian members of the board would have a say in voting for councillors.

This is such a thoroughly half-baked piece of legislation that in our opinion even if one accepts the principle of multiple and corporate votes, the legislation should be referred to a select committee before Second Reading so that a Bill can be presented to Parliament covering the principles more adequately and certainly going into far more detail than is included in this Bill. In the first instance, should there be a full re-registration of juristic voters before every election? Secondly, can a juristic voter stand as a councillor in a municipal election? Every other voter can. Thirdly, the question of differential values provided for in clause 1(2)(c) is quite a dangerous concept. I know that it is suggested that there are different criteria in the urban areas to those that obtain in the rural areas. However, this should not apply simply on the grounds of their being either urban or rural areas because the values are there in any case. Fourthly, should there be a time period before which juristically registered voters can exercise their votes as is the case of ordinary residents? For instance, in terms of, let us say, the Natal Local Authorities Ordinance, if a person is purely a lessee, he has to be registered for three months before he can exercise his vote whereas, if he is a registered owner, he has to be registered as such for a period of one month. Again there is a system of appeal against ordinary voters; there should be some system of appeal against juristic voters that should be included in a Bill of this nature.

Frankly, I consider this to be about the worst piece of legislation that has been presented to the House this session. It has been poorly constructed, it is too incomplete to be usable and it does a job poorly by the Government that the provincial administrations are perfectly capable of doing well. I believe that it is being put through Parliament to ensure that it is law before the Coloured and Indian members of Parliament are on the scene. In this connection I may say that it is obvious from reports in the Press that the Coloured and Indian people who have had anything to say and to do with this matter are very, very clearly opposed to this legislation.

While we do not believe that procrastination in these matters is good, we do believe that proper, fair and informed consideration in any Bill is needed, and in a Franchise Bill in particular, it is vital. Therefore I move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo indicated that he did not agree that the Bill should be proceeded with before being referred to a select committee. It is a fact, however, that this legislation was not merely produced in an offhand way; thorough preparatory work was done before this Bill was submitted in this form. Actually, it had its origins in the Schlebusch Commission. At least two years ago the hon the Minister held talks with the management committees of the Coloureds and the Indians and also with White representatives, and on that occasion it was already being requested that there should be uniformity in respect of the voting qualifications for local authorities. In this Bill there is one aspect to which attention is being given, and that is to give uniform franchise qualifications to everyone on the level of local authorities and for all four provinces in respect of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians who will have the franchise in the new constitutional dispensation on the level of local authorities on the basis of these provisions.

As the hon member for Umbilo indicated, there is basically very little change in respect of the position in Natal, because in Natal we already have the position that those who qualify for parliamentary franchise, also qualify for municipal franchise. Here that aspect is being applied uniformly to all four provinces. In Natal we also have the position, as the hon member for Umbilo said, that those who are owners of ratable property, may also apply to be placed on the voters’ lists for possible elections, even if these are in areas in which the person concerned is not necessarily resident. This aspect is now being made uniform throughout in respect of all the local authorities.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether it is the position in Natal that a registered voter may acquire a second vote, or whether he has a choice between the place he is registered and the place where he owns the property? Does he have a second vote or not?

I live in Ladysmith. If I own ratable property in another local authority area, I may, even though I do not live there, apply to be registered there as a voter, and then in practice I have a second municipal vote. Naturally I may also vote there. All I need do is to be present there on the date of the election. In the town in which I live I need not own property in order to be registered as a voter. I must simply be permanently resident there. If I own ratable property in another local authority area, I may be registered there as a voter at local authority level. Of course if I own property in Ladysmith I will not be able to register for a second vote in Ladysmith because I can only cast one vote there. However, if I own land in another local authority area, I may also register there as a voter.

After long talks had been held, it was concluded that juristic persons could also receive a voting right provided they were otherwise qualified to have a voting right. In other words, a non-South African citizen cannot qualify for a voting right because he is a juristic person. A South African citizen who qualifies for a voting right may, however, acquire a voting right as the nominee of such a juristic person. This is a uniform practice which will be applied by local authorities in all four provinces. It is fair and equitable, because juristic persons who own land and have an interest in the provision of services, the levying of taxation and so on, should also come into consideration for a voting right. Consequently no new concept is being introduced with this measure. All that is happening is that a uniform system will now come into operation throughout the country as a result of this Bill.

There is also a provision which reads that no person who now has a voting right may be deprived of that right. All persons who at present have voting rights, retain the right to exercise those voting rights at local government level.

Since we are now discussing the question of exercising voting rights, the qualifications for voting rights, etc, I want to dwell on another matter in connection with exercising voting rights at local government level. I want to talk about the holding of local authority elections on a party-political basis. I strongly advocate that we in South Africa should also move in the direction of responsible, and I emphasize the word “responsible”, participation in local authority elections on a party-political basis. I want to make it clear at once that I am not endorsing the introduction of confrontation politics, on the basis of dog-eats-dog in party politics. I am of the opinion that for the sake of orderly decision-making disciplines and for the sake of the stabilization of democracy on the basis of joint responsibility, party politics should be introduced as the basis on the level of local authorities. I am of the opinion that the participation of so-called independents at local authority level entails that the discipline of responsibility cannot be carried through to that level on the basis of the acceptance of joint responsibility. That is why I am in favour of the introduction of party-politics in a responsible way. In every country in Europe, local government elections are conducted on a party-political basis. This means that joint responsibility on the basis of policy approach is carried through to local authority level in that the party caucus will deliberate jointly on matters and it is possible to take joint decisions in this connection on a responsible basis. The party caucus system in itself is not a system which compels people to take certain decisions against their will. It is not a system which compels uniformity on a irresponsible basis. It is a system which brings about an ordering of responsibility and therefore I am in favour of party-politics being introduced at local authority level in a responsible way.

I am of the opinion that we in South Africa have in too many spheres reduced politics to a non-responsible level by moving away completely from differences in policy and approach with the kind of argumentation that is now associated with party-politics. I am of the opinion that we have introduced negative politics, personal attacks and personal quarrels, to too great an extent at the Parliamentary level. We are doing infinite harm to party politics by conducting politics on that level. Politics is a matter which entails responsibility. Exercising the franchise does not inevitably entail an expansion of democracy. Exercising the franchise on a responsible basis is absolutely essential, and I am of the opinion that we should now introduce responsible party-politics at local Government level as well. This Bill is not concerned with party-politics as such, but covers the field of the allocation of political rights at local government level. I am advocating that we should conduct our party-politics on the first, second and third levels on a far more responsible basis in order to impart greater status to politics, because I am afraid that we are being criticized in many quarters and that politicians have become the butt of all and sundry in public life. To a great extent we as public representatives and as politicians have ourselves been responsible for the status of the politican diminishing to the level where many people thing that they can make a doormat of a politician. That is not necessary, however and I am therefore advocating that we should conduct politics on a far more responsible level.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Klip River has indicated that there was wide consultation between the Minister and his department and the Coloured and Indian communities. He indicated that those two communities had insisted that there should be uniformity in regard to the method by which the franchise was to be granted to them. I do not deny that there was consultation, but I doubt whether the hon member for Klip River would assert that in fact there was agreement on the part of members of those communities with the details in this Bill of how franchise is being extended. Already we have seen a reaction from sections of the Coloured community indicated rejection of the Bill. Already one is ware of a great deal of disquiet even among White local authorities, not to mention the Indian and Coloured communities, in regard to the details of this Bill as it affects the granting of franchise, I am not going to comment on the the plea of hon member for Klip River for more party politics in local government affairs. I do not think that that is a matter for debate during the discussion of this Bill. That can perhaps be debated later on in South Africa if developments take that sort of course.

I also want to refer to comments made by the hon member for Maitland in his response to the speech made on Friday by my colleague the hon member for Sea Point. He was the first Government member to speak after the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member, who is not in the House this afternoon, indicated his disappointment at the fact that the official Opposition had stated that it was going to oppose this measure. The hon member said that we had been looking for solutions in South Africa for a long time and where one was dealing with an important matter such as the extension of local government franchise rights to other groups, he expressed his disappointment at the fact that we would not be supporting this Bill in its present form. The hon member referred to this Bill as a “hallowed” document dealing with franchise. When one is dealing with franchise rights and voting rights, one is certainly dealing with something which should be hallowed. One is dealing with the granting of voting rights, and people have fought for voting rights and have died in the process so it certainly is a vital principle when one is dealing with franchise rights at third-tier government. However, I believe that nobody can under any circumstances refer to this Bill as being a “hallowed” document.

This is our disappointment, because we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with a vital matter relating to the granting of franchise rights at local government level to other population groups. One would have hoped to have a measure which is far more perfect than this. But as it is we are concerned about some of the patent defects which exist in this legislation.

The hon member for Maitland also chided us for saying that we should not move too fast in matters of this kind. He asked what our purpose was in suggesting that this should be considered in the first instance by a select committee. He said that a select committee “would make no substantial contribution to the issue which is addressed in this measure”. But that does not square with the attitude of the Government in other respects. Only today the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was referred to a select committee. There is nothing wrong with a select committee and that instance; so why can a select committee not investigate a measure of this kind, affecting as it does the vital matter of local government franchise rights?

The hon member for Maitland and others have stated that the intention of this Bill is to give every voter a right to vote at local government level. If that is the intention this Bill does not meet that intention, as the hon Minister will concede. The hon member for Klip River made a similar statement and said that it was right—when he defended the dual vote principle—that people who owned property should be entitled to the franchise. However, we know that the practical effect of this Bill will still be that thousands of South Africa who actually own property and who pay taxes on those properties, do so without an effective local government franchise, whatever else the Bill purports to do.

We are looking at a Bill this afternoon which regulates voting rights in respect of local government bodies for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa. However, we know that Whites have enjoyed local government franchise rights through the years, and their situation, in terms of this legislation, is hardly at issue, except that their situation is undoubtedly strengthened by the dual vote system for which this Bill provides. The Coloured and Indian communities have for the most part not enjoyed local government franchise rights, and this Bill sets out a framework …

Their rights will not come into conflict with each other.

I am not suggesting that there will be a conflict, but one is dealing here with a situation where, for the first time, we are trying to give local government franchise rights to the Indian and Coloured communities, while the Whites have enjoyed those rights throughout.

One should therefore look at the background against which the Government is trying to extend these rights to these other two communities in South Africa. The framework as set out in this Bill is totally rigid because it decrees that those rights must be given to groups on a strictly separate basis. Even in its object to regulate and grant franchise rights to the Indian and Coloured groups, the Bill is strictly and slavishly an apartheid measure. It determines that there will be White local authorities, Indian local authorities and Coloured local authorities and these will be totally separate, separate I believe against the background of the realities of the situation in South Africa. In terms of clause 1 it is clearly prescribed that as far as Indians and Coloureds are concerned, they will be granted franchise rights if they live in areas which are exclusively used and occupied by their particular race group. That is the meaning of the wording of the definition clause. It refers to local authorities established exclusively for an area designed for occupation by members of the Indian or Coloured groups, as the case may be. In other words, the municipal franchise is regulated by the operation of the Group Areas Act. There is no flexibility. If they are not in an area exclusively for occupation by their own group that franchise right is not granted to them. That is part of the grand plan. When the Government and the Minister sat down, perhaps with the best of intentions, to draw up a grand plan they decided that if Coloureds and Indians live in exclusive areas for their own groups they will be given rights in those areas. However, that is against the reality of the situation in South Africa. That sort of thing may work in principle where one has large groups of people living in areas which after the application of the Group Areas Act and Government policy are totally separate entities. I want to ask the hon the Minister: What about the rights of people who live in areas which are not so clearly identifiable, which are not so clearly separate in terms of Government thinking? All over South Africa there are such communities and such areas. Where is the flexibility in this legislation to meet those needs? Let us take, for example, the situation in Durban, with the Grey Street complex, where there are expensive properties owned by the Indian community. What franchise rights do those owners of property, those ratepayer, receive in terms of this Bill?

Let me cite another example, one which the hon the Minister may or may not be aware of. In the municipal area of Westville there is a group of the Indian community owning expensive properties. There are some 1 200 people, of whom some 400 are voters who participate in local government affairs at a lower level. They live at Westville in a White municipal area. What are they getting out of this Bill? What franchise rights are they going to get? The hon member for Klip River said that anybody who pays rates is entitled to municipal franchise. However, those people will not have municipal franchise in terms of this Bill. In terms of Government policy one would have hoped to have seen some sort of flexibility in order to meet a situation of that kind where one has a group of people who are paying rates and receiving services from a White municipality but who are going to be denied municipal franchise rights in terms of this legislation. They could have been accommodated—the White local authority would like to accommodate them—on the basis of a separate ward within the Westville municipality. Will they be allowed to do that in terms of this legislation? In terms of the definition they cannot.

This legislation does not make provision for that.

I know it does not. This is the very point.

[Inaudible.]

This is my point of criticism. The hon the Minister need not get irritable. I want the hon the Minister instead of getting irritable to give us a reply and to say how he is going to accommodate those people when he talks about extending franchise rights to all groups in South Africa at local government level.

The same also applies to the people referred to by my hon colleague for Sea Point the other day, namely people in Cape Town and See Point who are going to be on the parliamentary voters’ roll but who will not live in an area exclusively for Coloureds in that part of the Cape. How is the hon the Minister going to accommodate those people when it comes to local government franchise? These are some of the questions which I believe the hon the Minister has to answer. How does he accommodate those groups?

There is another group which is seemingly totally excluded from this legislation. When one looks at the definition clause it only deals with Coloureds and Indians. What about the Chinese community? Can the hon the Minister indicate what will happen to the Chinese people when it comes to local government franchise? They are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill, and they are not part of the Coloured community. Nor are they part of the White group. One wonders what sort of franchise is envisaged for members of the Chinese community.

Whatever the intentions may have been there are far too many defects in the Bill to encourage the thought that it is going to work as an effective instrument in meeting the franchise aspirations of these sections of our community.

The hon the Minister must also indicate why it was thought necessary at this stage to introduce the dual vote system when that has not operated in South Africa all the time that the Whites have exercised municipal franchise. Why wake now and make an attempt to include some of the Indians and some of the Coloureds into the franchise system in order to introduce a dual franchise system?

These are some of the questions that need an answer, and until one gets the answers or until one sees a better instrument, one is left with the conclusion that this Bill in its present form is impractical. I believe it is going to be expensive and it is also going to be an offensive apartheid structure in municipal franchise that we cannot afford in South Africa. I believe that the matter could have been more properly regulated had there been far wider consultation and had a select committee been appointed to consider the vital matter of extending franchise. This, however, has not been evident and in my view these are good reasons for us to oppose the Bill at this stage.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea referred to a number of matters. In particular he confined himself to aspects which in his opinion were not appropriate in the content of the Bill, and then, on the other hand, he referred to other aspects which according to the policy of his party should in fact have been included in the legislation, in contrast to the basic premises of the Bill. I am afraid we cannot help him there. As for his problem in connection with people living in Westville and other similar places who are not members of the group in question, I must point out to him that the legislation provides that basic rights will be retained. He went on to say that one group could not form a ward in the municipality of another group, but according to the framework of the premises of the Government, which is also supported by this party, this will be the case, and therefore I cannot help him any further on that score either.

The hon member, and other hon members as well, referred to the question of voting qualifications, and in particular to their uniformity, and asked why there should be uniformity of qualifications. I want to advance a few arguments in this connection, because it is something that will crop up again in this debate. Firstly, if we had started with a local government system today, we would have started on the basis of uniform voting qualifications. Secondly, if forms of government are supposed to be the same from place to place, it is unthinkable that those who participate in those forms of government, may differ from place to place. Consequently one must also have a uniform substructure if one really wants to lay claim to a uniform system of government on a specific level.

What about the Black community?

I shall deal with that later.

Why uniform?

Apparently the hon member for Durban Point only woke up with a start when the hon member for Bryanston made an interjection. I am discussing uniformity now, and the hon member may as well listen.

More important than the fact that one expects uniformity between provinces, is the question of uniformity between the various population groups. We must ensure that we do not have a discriminatory basis for local government as a result of which a group in one province feels that it is being wronged by another majority group, while what is being experienced in another province is just the opposite. I therefore believe that it is extremely important that uniformity of qualifications should also exist as far as groups are concerned.

A fourth and final argument in this connection is the question of confusion which may arise among various systems, particularly in respect of migration from one place to another in the country. As far as this point is concerned, I want to refer briefly to a debate which took place here between the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Witbank. The hon member for Brakpan said at one stage that there could easily be 12 votes in one family. I am quoting from his unrevised Hansard:

If he is correct in his assumption, his arithmetic is at least correct. An hon member then asked him to explain his statement, and then he advanced the argument that a person over the age of 18 years owning immovable property in a ward, had a second vote on the basis of that property, that is to say if we assumed that it exceeded the qualifying value. He went on to say that if such a person controlled a company, he had a third vote as well. Up to that point he was quite correct. He then took his analogy too far, however, and alleged that the same applied in regard to such a person’s wife. According to him this already amounted to six votes. The hon member went on to allege that that person’s two children over the age of 18 years also had the same number of votes. [Interjections.]

Those are all possibilities of course. [Interjections.]

The aspect which the hon member for Witbank pointed out, however, was that the hon member took his analogy too far. It is not all that easy to qualify …

Of course one can do so.

In the first place one must be a voter. He and his wife and his two children must, in the first place, be registered voters. In the second place each of them must be the owner of a property exceeding the qualifying value within the ward in question. In the third place each of them must be able to cast a representative vote on behalf of a juristic person. That is not easy.

A company for example.

Mr Speaker, then surely the hon member need not talk about 12 votes. On that basis, therefore, he can now …

And then there is always granny’s estate, in terms of which they will be able to acquire even more votes. [Interjections.]

Order! I have only called upon the hon member for Randburg to speak; no other hon member.

Mr Speaker, allow me to make it easier for hon members of the CP. In terms of the Bill it is possible at present, arguing on the basis of these theories, that one person may even cast 300 votes in a specific ward. He may cast his vote as a registered voter. Furthermore he may cast a vote on the basis of his ownership of his property. Then of course he may cast votes in his capacity of the representative of companies, on condition that he is a shareholder or a director, member or employee of such companies. It may even be more than 300 companies, if he exercises control over them of course. The hon members could rather have used an example of this nature.

Well, we are still going to! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, there is something I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister because, I think this is something which really deserves his attention. The Cape ordinance in question—I think it is in section 12(1)—provides that a person may not cast more than one vote as representative. I therefore want to suggest that we consider effecting an amendment to this Bill on this basis. This would prevent large conglomerates, for example, in the central business district of Johannesburg, casting a whole series of votes via one person, or even a developer of properties, perhaps transferring the stands he is developing to companies, all controlled by himself, with a view to subsequently selling the shares in those companies, while in the meantime he himself may perhaps be able to cast 300 votes in a specific election. I want to concede that this is possible. However, it is only possible in isolated cases. Cases of this nature were experienced at an earlier stage in the Cape. At a specific junture the relevant Cape ordinance was amended in order to prevent something like this from happening.

This brings me back to the hon member for Brakpan. He then argued with the hon member for Witbank when that hon member tried to say that the principle also existed in the Transvaal that a person could cast his vote on the basis of his proprietary rights, and not merely on the basis of his parliamentary vote. Hon members need only look at the Hansard of the hon member for Witbank to establish how frequently he was interrupted by interjections during the course of his speech. At one stage he did say, however, that a person could in fact have two votes. He went on to say that the real issue was in fact the principle itself, the principle of the basis of proprietary rights in terms of which a person did in fact have a vote.

In that respect the attention of the hon member was drawn to the provisions of section 18 of the relevant ordinance. What the hon member for Witbank did not point out, however, was the provisions of sections 18 of the same ordinance, which read that if a person is registered on the basis of his proprietary rights in the ward concerned, the town clerk should notify the town clerk in the municipal area in which the person concerned is regsistered as a voter so that his name may be eliminated from the voter’s list there. In the Transvaal, therefore, only the possibility of a single vote exists. But this is not the case in the other provinces, as the hon member for Klip River indeed indicated.

The hon member for Brakpan did not refer to that.

Very well, the hon member for Brakpan did not refer to that. The hon member for Brakpan did, however, quarrel with the hon member for Witbank in regard to a statement which the latter hon member did not make at all. The statement which he did make was in connection with the principle that a person could in fact cast a vote in the Transvaal on the basis of his proprietary rights.

Then he should have made a fuller statement, however, and should not have said that other people were talking nonsense.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Koedoespoort is saying that the hon member for Witbank should say what he means and say it in full. Since we are talking about fuller statements, surely it is clear that the person who should make fuller statements is in fact the hon member for Brakpan. He said that we should multiply three by four, but did not inform us of the basis on which he made his statement.

I do not wish to take up very much more of the time of this House. I do however wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to a few provisions in the Bill which I believe deserve our attention. We can discuss them again during the Committee Stage. Amendments printed in my name already appear on the Order Paper. I also evisage moving further amendments. In the first place these are concerned with the qualifying value. This is announced. A person may only qualify, however, if he is the owner of property the value of which exceeds the qualifying value. This sounds wrong, and in this connection I should like to move an amendment when we are discussing this particular clause during the Committee Stage.

The second point which I want to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister, and in regard to which I have not yet placed an amendment on the order Paper, occurs in clause 3 which makes provision for the casting of a vote on the basis of proprietary rights. As the Bill reads at present, is it possible for a non-citizen to cast a vote as well? Reference is made here to a person who belongs to the population group to which a member of the group belongs. That is not only a person who is a member of this select little group. The same problem arises in respect of the representative vote on behalf of a company, and in this case I just wish to suggest that we should link this to the Parliamentary voting right.

By way of summary I just want to tell the hon member for Jeppe, who is going to be the next speaker, that he should bear in mind that this legislation now seeks to allocate a first vote to every South African citizen who is registered as a parliamentary voter on the basis of his residential address. A second vote is allocated per ward in the municiaplity, or per vacancy in the ward if more than one candidate has to be elected for a ward, on the basis of immovable property owned by such person which is equal to or exceeds the qualifying value. In the third place a juristic person also received the right to vote if he owns property, but a person exercising that vote, has to be a director, a shareholder, an employee or the representative of a deceased estate or a trust. In this case I want to suggest that we should also introduce the restriction that not more than one representative vote may be cast.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Randburg for the lecture he has given us, and the goodwill and expertise he displayed. In particular I want to thank him for work he did on my behalf when he so neatly proved the hon member for Brakpan’s case to be correct.

The hon member for Brakpan raised two points. Firstly he said that in a family of four in the Transvaal it was possible that there could be 12 votes.

There could be 300 votes.

I want to thank the hon member very much for saying there could be 300 votes, because in that way he proved the hon member for Brakpan to be correct. In the second place the hon member for Brakpan argued the point of whether, at this stage, there were one or two votes in the Transvaal; and in this connection too the hon member for Randburg said the hon member for Brakpan was correct.

It is a pity that the hon member for Witbank is not present here, because he made a very noisy contribution. I tried to establish what his argument was, and it seemed to me he had two objectives. In the first place he tired his best to make the hon member for Brakpan out to be a liar. He also displayed a slsight inferiority complex here by frequently referring to the hon member for Brakpan as a senior member. He also accused him of being a liar and of telling untruths, and then proved nothing.

The hon member for Witbank also did his best to blow his own trumpet. It is a pity that he is not present here, because I thought he would be. I just want to say that it was not necessary for him to tell us about his many experiences. We know about his ambition to become Administrator of the Transvaal, and one can understand his being frustrated because this did not happen. [Interjections.]

You are becoming personal now.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Co Operation is a past master in the art of becoming personal. I can take lessons from him.

The hon member for Umbilo referred to the fact that this legislation was in reality poorly drafted legislation. Without casting a reflection on the officials. I want to agree with him and say that it is really unfair to submit such fundamental legislation to Opposition parties at the last minute and expect them to make a proper contribution.

It is difficult to understand

It is difficult to understand. Even for a great intellectual like myself, it takes a little time to master it. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the hon member for Klip River who I think made a good contribution. I think that what he did, basically, was to advocate the need for clean politics in this country. Owing to the position which he occupies in the House, I think it behoved him to make that wonderful speech. It is necessary for our politics to become clearer and more responsible, and if it would make him feel better, I want to give him the assurance that even I will do my best to heed his appeal. [Interjections.]

The Bill deals in effect with the franchise, which is the foundation of democracy. We have here an extension of the franchise, an extension of that principle. It simply means now, in simple language, that one person can, if he is rich enough, acquire another vote or two. It means that non-natural persons, for example companies, estates, trusts and so on, that are wealthy enough, are also receiving voting rights now. That is the basis of this Bill: The franchise is being extended to the rich and the privileged. This is a drastic intervention in the system of democracy.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is of the opinion that a person who owns property in a town or who has a company operating there and who has interests there should not have any say whatsoever in the election of members of that local authority?

That is a valid point. I think it is a good question, and the reply I would suggest is the following: In the Transvaal there is at present a choice as to whether a person wishes to exercise his voting rights where he lives or where his interests are, where he perhaps owns a block of flats. He has to decide. If it is more important to him to have his voting rights in the Strand where he owns a block of flats, he must vote there. That is not his only remedy, however, for surely he can also, by means of the natural processes of political parties, en sure that the right candidates are elected elsewhere. I do not see any need, simply because he is a rich man, for him to receive additional votes.

Whereas the basis for franchise in the past was citizenship, wealth is now becoming the effective basis. The principle of the franchise is therefore no longer merely democracy, but also how much money a person has. This Bill implies a tragic diminution of the value of a vote in favour of big business. Here the Government is introducing an old PFP principle which the PFP abandoned, viz qualified franchise.

What does that word mean?

I can understand that hon member not knowing what it means; he can come and talk to me later, and I shall explain to him what it means.

At the present rate at which the Government is moving to the left, the NP is now becoming the natural home of former PFP and NRP members, and this Bill is a further demonstration of that fact. The NP is shifting the democratic emphasis away from citizenship towards big business. The people who are rich, buy their security, and no longer the citizen.

Are you speaking on behalf of S P?

It is well known that the hon member for Langlaagte perhaps has more money than the rest of the CP put together, but I am satisfied, and he is satisfied, to have only one vote. [Interjections.]

The vote of the ordinary worker, the young married man, the senior citizen, is now at most worth only half that of his rich neighbour. The NP has now produced un equivocable and conclusive proof that it has become the “fat cat” party. The question now is why the government has taken this drastic step. Why?

Firstly I ask whether it is because of sound constitutional principles. Is that why? Consequently an improvement of the status quo? It cannot be for that reason for then one would certainly except such al healthy system to have been extended to the provincial and the parliamentary systems. Is there perhaps some other reason? Is pressure being exerted on the government on the part of big business? Has big business now called in its IOU’s for the millions of rands which big business has poured into the Government? Is that why this extension is being made to big business? I want to know how many hundreds of companies in the central business district of Johannesburg, for example, are able to exert great influence on the election of city councillors in Johannesburg. It is alleged that big business in the central business district of Johannesburg could probably prove to be the decisive factor in the election of city councillors. They can do this merely on the basis of their wealth. I know those people because the central business district of Johannesburg is situated in my constituency . [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein has repeatedly received a challenge from me to appear with him on a public platform, but he does not have the courage to do so.

Stand for re-election in Jeppe. You will lose.

Come and give me a hiding on the platform. The hon member always has a big mouth until I challenge him.

Order! Hon members must now give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

I thank you for your support, Mr Speaker, but the interjections of the hon member for Turffontein are not worth much.

I was talking about big business in Johannesburg and to what extent they will be able to exercise their voting power in Johannesburg. One need only go to companies’ offices in Johannesburg to see that between 100 and 300 companies may easily be registered in respect of one head office. These companies own property in the central part of Johannesburg, which means that there are now going to be hundreds and perhaps thousands of extra votes. Right at the top one now finds Mr Big Business himself who, by means of his subsidiary companies, will be able to cast hundreds of votes. Who will then govern the central area of Johannesburg? Is it the person who does so on the basis of his citizenship, or is it the person who does so on the basis of his money?

Or is there perhaps another reason? Is this system a diabolical mechanism for cheating the Whites, Coloures and Indians who are poor out of their effective franchise? Is that not the real intention? Is the real intention not to cheat the Coloureds and Indians? In the Cape there are many municipalities and divisional council areas in which the Coloureds are in the majority. At the moment we are democratic and our franchise is on the basis of citizenship, but now the Coloureds and the Indians are going to be cheated. Because they are rich extra votes are being added to those of the Whites by means of property. I hope that Coloureds and Indians take cognizance of this swindle. Apart from that, the White person who does not have a lot of money is also being done out of his vote. Just because a young man does not have a house and does not have the money to own an extra property, he only has a vote, while a rich man who owns property elsewhere has two or three votes. I think that the voters should take cognizance of this. The NP is demonstrating, with this undemocratic step, that it has become the real “fat cat” party, and that the interests of the ordinary person who has no money, no longer count as far as the NP is concerned.

I come now to a final point. The hon member for Berea mentioned the position of Blacks. Someone put a question to the hon member for Randburg. He was going to deal with this, but he never got round to doing so. On 27 May the hon the Minister set out the NP’s new policy in regard to Blacks in Rapport, namely that Blacks also shared in the effective decision-making process in regard to everything that affected them. He said that self-determination in regard to own affairs and co-responsibility in regard to general affairs also applied to Blacks. In other words, healthy power-sharing as it applies in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians also applies in regard to the Blacks. I should now like to put a question in this regard to the hon the Minister. Is that his own standpoint or is it also the standpoint of the Cabinet? The hon the Minister is dropping his head now.

Go and jump in the lake, man.

No, I am not going to jump in the lake. It is winter and very cold. If the hon the Minister would give me a heated swimming pool, I would jump into that. I want to tell the hon the Minister bluntly that this matter has not been cleared with the Cabinet. The Cabinet did not give him authority to say that Black people would also share in the decision-making processes as he set it out. I also want to say that he did not clear it with his caucus either. There are hon members on his side who tell me that the new policy that there will also be power-sharing with the Blacks does not apply because it has not been approved by the caucus. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister …

Order! Is the hon member still discussing the Bill?

I have made a wide detour, Sir, but I am now dealing with the Bill. I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. His policy statement was, and Rapport put it very aptly.

Is it the intention of the hon the Minister to bring them into the municipal dispensation as well? The hon the Minister has a very useful mannerism of simply starting at one when he is in a corner.

I want to conclude. The principle contained in this measure boils down to this: Simply because one is a rich person—an ordinary company does not have a vote if it is not rich—one gets a vote. The franchise is now being extended to the rich, and we reject this. We are also concerned about the position of Black people. We ask the hon the Minister, when he replies, to try to get away from his normal style and please give us just a few answers.

What kind of style do you have?

I could tell hon members again what the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said in my lounge.

Sir, I just want to say in conclusion that we shall be supporting the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Speaker during the course of what has already been a rather long discussion on this Bill, and also on previous legislation dealing with some of the matters, no really meaningful reason has yet been advanced as to why this legislation should be forced through with so much haste at the end of a long parliamentary session. The real grounds for it are at this stage still a matter of conjecture on our part, and various hon members will probably still do so, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I find it astonishing, however, that the very hon Minister who is directly involved in the interesting constitutional period we have been passing through during the past year or two, who talks to political leaders and other people from the other population groups in South Africa and has heard their opinions, should try to deal with this kind of legislation in this way. Mention has already been made of all the interest groups that did not participate properly in the creation of this legislation. One can talk about consultation and negotiation, and use just as many words in this connection as one likes, but surely we are past the stage where we deem it sufficient to obtain the opinions of a few people and perhaps submit a few ideas to them and ask them what they think about it. Surely we have by now reached the stage where we really understand the need for people to participate in a real sense in the creation of new legislation, and particularly in the creation of new structures such as those we are dealing with here.

In point of fact I want to say that this legislation is quite probably going to have a very negative effect on the coming general elections for the Indian and Coloured groups, for surely it cannot be acceptable to the political leaders and voters of those communities that, at this highly sensitive stage, such fundamental constitutional matters should be proceeded with so unilaterally and with so much haste, without there being any real or sound reason for such conduct. At this stage it is very necessary for political leaders among the Coloured and Indian population groups to be able to indicate to their voters that they have an important contribution to make within the structures created for them in South Africa. I need not tell hon members what pressure is being exerted on those people and the unenviable position in which some of them find themselves. Some of them may genuinely believe that they can really make a contribution by making themselves eligible for election and participating in the new dispensation, but they are doing so under great pressure, and at a time when the new dispensation is being rejected by a large number of their people.

To force legislation through Parliament at this stage, legislation which obviously should have been dealt with by them as well, and which should therefore wait for the new dispensation, cannot do them any good, because it is important for those people to’indicate that they are not only able to make an important and meaningful contribution, but also important for them to to be able to indicate that the Government is prepared to listen to them to a greater extent today than was the case in the past. This is tremendously important, because everyone knows that the central constitutional system has been constructed in such a way that neither the Coloured population, nor the Indian population, nor both of them together, nor either of them plus a White opposition, will be able to accomplish anything simply by means of a majority vote in the new system. We all know that the system cannot work like that because the National Party still has the upper hand in such a way that while they retain the support of 51% of this House, they will still be able to do whatever they please. Under these circumstances it is important that Coloured and Indian leaders be able to indicate that in spite of the purely legal aspects of the Constitution, the Government is prepared to listen and that their minds are more open than they were in the past. The legislation now before this House gives anything but that impression to the Coloured and Indian population or to their leaders, and can only cause them problems. As I have already said, it is strange that it is in fact the hon the Minister of Constitutional development and Planning who is trying to foist this legislation on these people. He is the person who has succeeded, beyond the expectations of many people, in obtaining the co-operation of the various groups.

If one takes cognisance of matters which have created problems for Coloured and Indian leaders during the past few months and weeks, then the whole fiasco with the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was the worst. The mere fact that this legislation is now before Parliament is probably one of the other big mistakes.

It is interesting to note the reasons furnished by some of the hon members for the haste behind this Bill. When the hon member for Sea Point mentioned that it was important that this legislation should come before a joint committee of the new dispensation, with representation on that committee for Coloured and Indian leaders as well, the reaction of the hon member for Maitland to that statement was that the new Parliament would have matters of greater priority than that to attend than that. How absurd! Can there be matters of greater priority than constitutional matters of this kind? These people are under no illusions that constitutional matters on central level have provisionally been dealt with and that the constitutional handling of the local authorities situation is in fact still pending at this stage. What could have greater priority for those people than their participation in this type of legislation? It therefore astounds me that an hon member can advance such an argument.

What is the nature of the consultation conducted by the hon the Minister and his department on the legislation before us? Mention was made of the fact that 10 000 man-hours were spent on it. If there was ever a useless statistic, it is probably this one in regard to 10 000 man-hours.

It is a useless speech you are now making.

The hon the Minister is welcome to his own opinion on this matter. I just want to assure him that 10 000 man-hours mean absolutely nothing. If he thinks he can impress anyone with that, he must really think he is talking to idiots. [Interjections.]

What really happened? The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs was probably responsible for considerable number of these man-hours. There were limits set to the terms of reference given to that council which were so narrow that in that way very little confidence was placed in the council. Time and again during the course of the discussions those people were made aware of their having been given extremely limited terms of reference, and that the fundamental decisions has all been taken by the Government before the matter had been entrusted to them for them to set out their standpoints in regard to it or to work out the details of the matter. In point of fact that council was therefore used as a body to draft legislation, as a kind of glorified body of officials working on behalf of the Government. It is rather insulting for a council consisting of the most prominent figures in regard to local government matters in South Africa to receive terms of reference of that nature.

Furthermore, there was also the question of the time limit which was imposed on those people. How could a council function with that time limit that was imposed on it? Once again it is a completely ridiculous situation. I should like to know how many individual members of that council are really satisfied that this legislation now before us represents their feelings on local government in South Africa. I should like to know how many of those individuals are satisfied that for the present this legislation represents what is as close as possible to the ideal local government system. I think there are very few of them who do. As I have already indicated, these people were not empowered to have a wide-ranging, meaningful and probing discussion on what the real solution ought to be.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

It is definitely true. It was made very clear to those people what the guidelines and the limitations were within which they had to take their decisions. The hon the Minister knows that this is correct. One is actually wasting the time of such a body if one imposes on it terms of reference of that kind, containing political and other limitations. There was a tremendous wealth of experience and skill among those who served on that council. But then one must afford them the means of performing the task and not treat them in the way they were in fact treated.

You should rather sit down.

That hon member will just have to listen for a little while longer.

Let us consider the system, the entire voting system, which is being created in the legislation now before us. I honestly believe that if the hon the Minister had availed himself of more time and had allocated a wider basis of participation to people, he would at least have made certain aspects of the conflict more acceptable to people, if it had not been possible to eliminate them. Considerable mention was made of the principle of uniformity. In addition a great deal of criticism was levelled at the idea that people owning property within the area of a particular local authority will have an extra vote. This is something I can understand, although it may perhaps sound unacceptable to many people in the Transvaal or the other provinces. In the Cape, where this system has applied for a long time now, there is a little more sympathy for this matter. I do not want to say that this is being done for the right reasons, but I do think it is important that these matters should be discussed properly and thoroughly and that certain people should at least be able to explain their standpoints. For example, there is the racial aspect. Strong criticism was levelled at Mr David Curry by the Association of Management Committees. They recorded vehement objection to the fact that a person, over and above his democratic vote, should also acquire a vote as a result of the fact that he owns property. What is strange, however, is that as far as the Cape Town municipality is concerned, and the fact that Coloureds were owners of property in the past, that argument was in fact used in the past to justify the Coloureds being retained on the voters’ roll of the Cape Town municipality. That was an argument which was advanced to get away from the apartheid idea. I am not implying that it was a sound argument, but I am convinced that there would be far more sympathy and understanding for the existence of that system if it had been discussed and explained in that way; in other words, if there had been real participation in the creation of legislation of this nature. One can hold strongly idealistic and ideological standpoints, but this is a technical question, and I am convinced that it could have been solved by way of consensus if people had really been given an opportunity to co-operate. Unfortunately the hon the Minister preferred not to do it in that way, and we are now arguing in a classic conflict situation, about a voting system that had in fact been in existence.

The hon member for Sea Point has already mentioned that in many areas of Cape Town no Indian or Coloured living there will have a vote owing to the fact that the residential areas are so intermingled. Furthermore, I could also refer to industrial areas. These areas do not have a group character and in terms of this legislation they must be subject to White local authorities. It is to be hoped that the central urban areas will to an increasing extent be thrown open for commercial purposes in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act. Those areas which have up to now fallen mainly under the control of White local authorities will, after they have been thrown open for trading purposes, still continue to fall under a White governmental authority, and that will certainly not be acceptable to Coloureds and Indians when it comes to their local government system. Consequently I am convinced that this issue is still going to lead to great conflict in future.

In the nature of the case it is very difficult to avoid this problem completely if one should insist that there has to be separate local authorities. It simply means that as far as the tax base is concerned, which is situated mainly in the industrial and commercial areas, and which must be divided up to give viability to the respective local authorities of the various population groups, one will inevitable find oneself in difficulties. In spite of that, however, I think that we could have come forward with a better system if the hon the Minister had given himself the time, and had given other people the say they ought to have had in this matter.

For those reasons we have no option but to support the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point devoted the greater part of his speech to his objections to the procedure preceding the introduction of the Bill, and I am convinced that the hon the Minister will refute the hon member’s objections. In my opinion, particularly his objection about the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs not being able to make meaningful inputs, was devoid of all truth. The hon member also alleged that the leaders of the Coloureds and of the other population groups were actually participating in the new constitutional dispensation under great pressure and ran the risk of being rejected by their own people. In my opinion the hon member for Green Point should wait until after 22 August before making such an allegation.

In present-day politics it has become fashionable to oversimplify things in regard to specific matters and then to broadcast an emotional slogan based on this over-simplification.

This afternoon, when the hon member for Jeppe was speaking, we saw a very good example of this. On Friday the hon member for Brakpan was also guilty of this dubious method of debating. Consequently I want to deal with this phenomenon we witnessed here this afternoon. I am now referring to this over-simplification of a matter, on which an emotional argument is then based. This is exactly what happened with regard to this Local Government Bodies Franchise Bill. In a very simplified way the argument is advanced that a voting qualification is now applying for the first time. This argument is followed by the emotional dragging in of the argument that now only the rich man will be able to vote; that the rich are now being benefitted at the expense of the poor. The hon member for Jeppe also alleged that this was the best example of the fact that the NP had become a “fat cat” party. But this accusation is not true. It is not true at all. The fact that the franchise qualification is being linked to ownership of property is after all aimed, inter alia, at encouraging home ownership particularly, as far as local government affairs are concerned. We are all aware that home ownership forms the basis for stability in any community. The point of departure is therefore to encourage home ownership. [Interjections.]

One cannot argue one-sidedly that all home owners are rich people, and that all people who are not home owners are poor people. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I want to take this argument further. The fact that this Bill provides that a juristic person in a specific ward will only be allocated one vote per ward per candidate, indicates that preference is being given to a single voting right and not to a multiplicity of voting rights. After all, if this Bill were aimed at benefiting rich people, a person would have been given as many votes as he had properties in a particular ward. This is not true either. It would also be true that the number of votes would be linked to the value of man’s property, apart from its qualifying value. This is not true with regard to this Bill either. What my argument therefore actually amounts to is that the statement that rich people are being benefitted, while poor people are being prejudiced, is devoid of all truth.

I should also like to make a remark in connection with the qualifying amount. In terms of the Bill under discussion, a distinction is being drawn between rural and urban communities, and local authorities are also being divided into categories on this basis. This is the case because of this variation; a matter I understand, but I would like to ask whether the hon the Minister foresees the possibility of this variation also being taken into account in the area of jurisdiction of a specific local authority where there is also a great variation with regard to properties and the value of properties, and whether consideration could be given to applying further categorizing within the area of jurisdiction of a specific local authority.

In conclusion I just want to express the hope that the fact that voting rights are now being linked to proprietary rights will lead to an increase in interest in the election of local authorities. It is an alarming phenomenon that the percentage poll, when candidates are nominated for the election of local authorities, is relatively low. In this regard I need only refer to my own constituency, the town of Randfontein, where the relevant percentage poll was only 45% in 1977 and only 47% in 1982. This is relatively low. Consequently one can only hope that this Bill will lead to an increased interest in local government affairs.

Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Fat cat!

Mr Speaker, I really do hope that a few hon members of this House will clearly learn one lesson, and that is that it is unseemly to make personal attacks on other hon members of this House, particularly with regard to what they do and do not own. I think such behaviour is extremely childish. [Interjections.] I think it is childish of hon members to refer to another hon member’s prosperity or otherwise in this way. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, those hon members must now take their medicine. [Interjections.]

Today we have legislation before us which has had a very tragic history in the Cape in years gone by. I cannot undertand why, bearing in mind everything that has happened in the Transvaal and the Free State, the hon the Minister, who used to be a Cape MEC, now want to extent this qualified franchise to those two provinces. Even at the Peace of Vereniging there were certain provisos in regard to coloured vote. I do not want to discuss the rights of people of colour today. It hurts me when certain things are broached in debates in this House because it is not pleasant to talk about the rights of other people. I represent Whites in this Parliament, and for that reason I shall confine myself to the rights and provileges of Whites.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has now succeeded in gaining total control over all local authorities and their voters in this country right under the nose of the Transvaal leader of his party. [Interjections.] Without his realizing it, the hon leader of that party in the Transvaal has handed over all the rights of the local government bodies and their votes in the Transvaal to a Cape Minister. This is one of the matters that is upsetting me because we have never been in favour of ownership of property being a qualification for voting rights for the Whites in the Transvaal.

Today I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he is giving an inferior vote to 60% of pensioners. If that man does not own property he only has one vote, whereas his neighbour who owns a piece of land will have two votes. This hon Minister is also discriminating against the young men fighting on the border who do not yet own property. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh. I know they are laughing about the rights of the Whites. [Interjections.] I say the young White soldier does not have a second vote. He does have a vote, an inferior vote compared to the man who did not go and fight and who now owns a house. The hon the Minister is also discriminating against 98% of the women of South Africa because land has not been registered in their names. Consequently they only have one vote, compared with their husbands in whose names their homes are registered and who have two votes. We have introduced legislation on matrimonial property and so on into this House, but here we are discriminating against the women of South Africa where local authorities exercise control over us every day of our lives. I therefore say that this legislation discriminates against pensioners, less well-to-do whites and women.

You have already said that.

Yes, but I am repeating it for the edification of that hon member. There is one problem with a medical man. He looks for a disease, and when he finds it…

Order! The hon member must now get back to the legislation.

Yes, Sir, you are quite right. I must not pursue this matter any further because I may do the hon member an injustice. [Interjections.] I say pensioners, the poorer Whites, the men fighting on the border who have not yet been able to purchase property and the women of South Africa who are not the registered owners of property are being discriminated against.

Everything being done here reminds one—one could vertically put it like this—of a disgusting old Act of days gone by which was used to do an injustice o other people by giving them a qualified vote, something which is cause for lamentation today because the soles in their very souls, in their consciences, people are so disturbed about what they did in those days that today they are going too far in the opposite direction, and so much so that their consciences far outstrips their common sense.

I want to ask the Government to consider what it is dealing with as regards this qualified vote. I would not like to refer to the companies, but for a controlling company in Johannesburg it is nothing to have 250 smaller companies. Why do I say that? If one registers a single building in a company, one receives certain tax benefits. I wonder whether the Government has ever consulted the register to ascertain what happens with regard to the registration of companies. The hon member for Randburg raised a very good point, but I am not going to elaborate on that because I do think it was dealt with very thoroughly.

The hon the Minister has not foreseen the problems he is going to create with this legislation. I do not want to elaborate on the different qualifications; in principle we are opposed to this legislation, even to the definitions contained in it. Is it not dreadful that one has to look to the dead for votes? Here we are dealing with deceased estates and a qualification is attached to the deceased to ascertain to whom the voting right can be given. It is amazing what people will do who, in wanting to escape the problems of race and colour, entrench such absolutely absurd proposals in legislation.

Mr Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon member for Langlaagte, but what struck me about him was that he said that the legislation discriminated against poor Whites, White pensioners and so on, whereas the voting qualifications are exactly the same for the different population groups. So in this legislation Whites are not being discriminated against in any way. One simply cannot read any such meaning into this. That is all I want to say regarding this point raised by the hon member for Langlaagte.

I should now like to discuss, for a moment, the basic idea behind the Bill. In the first place I think it is a generally accepted fact that mere residence in a town should entitle a person to qualify for a vote, with due regard to other facts of course. As regards local affairs it is a fact that one’s property is very much subject to the actions of local authorities in the sense that a local authority can cause one’s property to increase or decrease in value relative to that of other properties. Consequently the composition of a local authority is a very sensitive matter for everyone who owns property in the area of jurisdiction of that local authority. For that reason it is appropriate for us to have this double-barrelled franchise in the sense that a person who is merely a resident of a town has one kind of interest in the town, as against the further interest of a person who also owns property in that town.

I want to get back to the hon member for Jeppe, whom I see has now disappeared. It is very interesting to note that the hon member for Jeppe said that as the NP moved towards the left it was beginning to introduce monstrocities such as the qualified vote. He is, after all, a person who has studied political history a little. If he takes another look at his political history he will see that it was in fact the left-wing parties who campaigned for the abolition of the qualified franchise and pleaded the cause of a universal franchise. Consequently I cannot see how the hon member can say that the further left this party moves, the more measures of this kind it introduces. This simply does not make sense, like so many of their other arguments. He is of the opinion that we are trying to take the interests of Big Business into account here. The hon member for Randfontein very effectively indicated that this had nothing to do with it and that it was actually aimed at the person who owned a modest property in a specific ward, otherwise we would not have had the qualification that a specific juristic person received only one vote per ward on the basis of ownership of property.

I should like to get back to the argument of the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Green Point about why the legislation has been introduced now. The hon member for Sea Point alleged that the legislation was being introduced seven weeks before the Coloureds and the Indians were being given the opportunity to have a say in the drafting of the Bill. This is not really the case. The hon member for Sea Point, and the hon member for Green Point who supported his argument, should know that although it is now approximately seven weeks before the elections for those Houses, it is going to be a number of months before the new Parliament will begin functioning effectively. As a matter of fact, if we were to refer this Bill to a select committee of the new Parliament, and if everything went smoothly, the earliest one could expect the Bill to see the light of day would be in eight or 10 months time. This would virtually be the first opportunity for dealing with the Bill in this House.

In view of the earliest date on which the next election for local authorities is to take place, would there be any problem if this legislation were to take a few more months?

That is not my opinion. Even after this legislation has been agreed to, quite a number of steps must be taken to introduce this system effectively. In the meanwhile a large number of Coloured and Indian local authorities must be established. If we were to begin with this now, they might be functioning smoothly by the time the next election at local government level takes place. Consequently it is essential for us to have this legislation passed as soon as possible so that we can get the new system under way. We simply do not have time to want and see what happens. We are in a process of change and we must now continue with that process.

I want to get back to another argument of the hon member for Green Point. He said that the 10 000 man-hours spent by the coordinating council on the drafting of the respective pieces of legislation were actually worthless. I should like to state the opposite. I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the co-ordinating council did its work. I want to express my appreciation to the people who had to put in many man-hours, within a short period of time, to analyse the matter in depth and come up with a workable Bill. It goes without saying that if we had spent two or three more years in refining the measure, we would probably have had better legislation at the end of that period. This is always true of any legislation we deal with, but we have to have something on the Statute Book with which to make a start. Consequently I want to express my appreciation for the quality of the work done in so short a space of time. The same applies to the officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Even after the great demands made on them by the new Constitution Act last year, they have continued to work extremely hard on this legislation during the past few months under difficult circumstances. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to them.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Helderkruin covered a number of topics. One of the points he made was that he felt it was a matter of considerable urgency for Indian and Coloured local authorities to be established in the near future and that any delay of a few months would be highly undesirable.

What he did not tell us is that, as I am sure he knows, the Association of Management committees—Assomac—has rejected this Bill and, I may add, the other two Bills as they stand and has asked that further discussions should take place and that these Bills should not be passed through this Parliament. I think that the hon member will agree that, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, if there is any body or group of persons which can be taken as representative of local authority opinion and which is going to participate in the new Constitution, it is the people involved with the Association of Management Committees. If they do not feel that this matter is so urgent and if they would rather have further discussions, I do not think that the hon member’s arguments hold any water whatsoever. We may, as White legislators, think that something is urgent, but, if the people to whom we purport to be giving something or whose situation we purport to be improving say “No, hold on; let us discuss it further”, I think there is no case whatsoever for claiming that the matter is urgent.

This Bill essentially has to do with local government franchise and I believe it is important for us to keep in mind what we are trying to achieve with this Bill in respect of this franchise. What principles are involved when we are looking at local government franchise? The joint report of two committees of the President’s Council, issued some while back, states on page 101 under the heading “Basic points of agreement”:

Paragraph 10.4 states:

At the beginning of paragraph 10.5 we read:

I think that if there is one thing this Bill lacks, it is flexibility. Elsewhere in the report, under “Representation and franchise”, in paragraph 10.18, we read:

That was one set of recommendations.

The hon the Minister himself in his Second Reading speech enunciated as three principles: Firstly, that what one needed was something that provided for effective political participation and representation, which are cardinal in the process of democratization; secondly, that public accountability and popular support are the basis for political representation at local authority level; and, thirdly, that the granting of the franchise is an acceptable democratic practice through which frustration and dissatisfaction are diffused. I have no problem with those principles. I think that all three are good principles. However, this Bill does not incorporate them.

I should like to refer to two basic categories of persons. Firstly, in respect of separate local authorities it has been stated that these will be established only if they are viable financially and in other respects. Generally, Coloured communities do not meet those requirements . Any municipality relies on industrial and commercial areas as well as high income, well-developed residential areas as the basis for providing the bulk of their rates to provide services, particularly for the lower income areas. I would suggest that there are few Coloured areas that qualify in this way. The result will be that many Coloured areas will remain part of exclusively White-con trolled municipalities.

The second category is the tens of thousands of Coloureds who live in areas which are too small ever to become municipalities. In my own constituency there is Schotschekloof and in the Woodstock/Salt River area there is Walmer Estate. These communities are often settled communities with well developed community structures. They used to have a full municipal franchise and had councillors of their own as well. Both these categories will have no effective participation. In fact, the objective which the hon the Minister has set, will not be achieved in either, namely effective political participation and representation. There will be no public accountability because these people will have no franchise, and the element of public support will obviously also not be there because they obviously cannot support if they cannot vote. The objective of granting a franchise to defuse frustration and dissatisfaction will also not be achieved.

Therefore, for these communities—in this regard we are talking of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people—the objectives which the hon the Minister has set himself will not be achieved. This is not a new dispensation for Coloureds and Indians. It is in conflict with the central concept of the new Constitution, namely co-responsibility over matters of common concern. It also conflicts with the Government’s concept that where separation is impractical, sharing should be allowed.

I now want to return to the question of consultation. What consultation has taken place and why all the haste with this Bill?

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens and representatives of his party had a great deal to say about it, particularly as far as Coloured franchise was concerned. Are the hon member and his party going to encourage the Coloureds to participate in the August elections? [Interjections.]

I do not believe that the hon member for Witbank’s question has anything to do with this Bill, but I am quite happy to answer it. As far as I am concerned, Coloured people are quite adult and intelligent enough to decide for themselves whether they will participate in the new dispensation or not. Every Coloured individual can decide for himself and he does not need this party or any White politician to tell him what to do. As the hon member raised this subject, I would like to remind him that the PFP used to have Coloured members and that they were officebearers and part and parcel of this party. It was that hon member’s party which stepped in and prevented those people from remaining members of our party. In that case we would have advised members of our party …

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Speaker, I think this is relevant as it is in response to the question of the hon member. I believe that in terms of local government or central Government, where people are treated as equals, they should be encouraged to vote. However, the Government passed laws preventing us from being a multiracial political party.

Do not run away from the issue.

I am answering the hon member’s question. I have said I believe that Coloureds are intelligent enough to make up their own minds and that they do not need White politicians or White political parties to become involved.

I want now to refer to the question of consultation. The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs was heavily involved in drafting and discussing this Bill. The hon member for Maitland has mentioned before—it has again been mentioned here today—the thousands of hours of work that they apparently put into this. I do not doubt that they spent those thousands of hours, but there are certain key questions that need to be asked. I should like to ask the hon the Minister directly—he seemed to get rather cross when reference was made to it earlier—within what parameters the co-ordinating council was operating in terms of its brief. Presumably the hon the Minister put a request to them to make recommendations in relation to, among other things, local government franchise. I think he owes it to us to give us an idea of what the range of that brief was. Were they given an open-ended brief to make any recommendation that they considered advisable, or was it prescribed in certain respects and, if so, in what respects? I think I am correct in saying that at least some members of Assomac, the Association of Management Committees, formed part of that co-ordinating council. However, they have rejected this Bill, and also some of the others, which would indicate quite clearly that consensus was not achieved on this matter.

Secondly, in respect of consultation, it has been mentioned that the Administrators were consulted in the consultations with the second tier, the provincial level of government. I think the House needs to remember that the Administrators represent the central Government, not the provinces. Nobody in the provinces elects Administrators. They are appointed by the Prime Minister. They are not even elected by their provincial councils. They are appointed. They are representatitves at provincial level of the central Government. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us whether the provincial councillors, who are the elected provincial representatives, have been given an opportunity to study and debate this Bill and to make recommendations as elected representatives, as opposed to an Administrator who is a central Government appointee? I suspect it is not so, but I may be wrong.

The question of haste I believe is of cardinal importance. I cannot think of a measure that is better suited to be referred to a standing, select or joint committee of the new Parliament than this measure. What could be of more common concern than investigating local government, which is a very complex matter to unravel? The hon member for Maitland said—the hon member for Green Point also referred to it—that there would be other higher priorities in the next session and that therefore it could not stand over. Seeing that the hon member for Maitland seems to know that there are higher priorities, I should like the hon the Minister to let us know, what these higher priorities are that are going to take up the time of the Houses and the standing committees next year.

This legislation will not and cannot be implemented in a couple of months. The hon member for Helderkruin has said as much. There is therefore no great rush. There is no municipal election that has to be organized by the end of this year. If this legislation is held back for a few months, even six months or eight months, it is neither here nor there if one looks at constitutional and local authority development over a long period. One cannot escape the impression that the objective is to rush this through a Whites-only parliament before Coloured and Indian MPs arrive and have an opportunity to make an input in this regard. The effect of this Bill will be that tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Coloureds and Indians will have a vote at central Government level but not at local government level. Even a Coloured Cabinet Minister living on the Groote Schuur estate will not have a municipal vote. In fact it is possible that a future Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—not this hon Minister—who is in charge of local government and will have enomous power, may not have a municipal vote anywhere in South Africa merely because he happens to be Coloured. This is the type of thing that can result from this measure.

This Bill does not represent reform and it does not comply with the hon the Minister’s own principles that he has laid down. It does not deserve to be supported, and therefore I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Speaker, it is obviously not possible to reply to a long debate in the time available now, and under these circumstances I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I should like to start by thanking the chairman of this select committee for the very pleasant and courteous way in which he handled the affairs of the committee. Although we had differences of opinion on some of the aspects, I am quite sure that we found him—and I speak also on behalf of the hon member for Constantia—to be very courteous and fair in his dealings, and I hope that he found us equally obliging.

We had no problems with paragraph 1 of the actual report, because I think there was unanimity in the committee that anything we disclosed should not harm South Africa’s oil procurement activities or indicate in any way whatsoever the sources of our oil supplies. Consequently we also had no problem with paragraph 3 because obviously, if one wanted to carry out paragraph 1, one had to accept paragraph 3 and have two sets of minutes, otherwise one would be able to determine what we had taken out. Our major difference of opinion with our colleagues related to the way in which the evidence placed before the committee was handled. The evidence did not accompany the report, and the committee consequently decided interms of section 5(6) of the Advocate-General Act to ask for the evidence to be forwarded to the committee. I believe that that was the correct decision, and we on these benches supported it because section 5(6) specifically states that although the Advocate-General can withhold certain information, he has to produce it if he is required to do so by the select committee. The evidence which we had requested arrived at about midday on Thursday, 5 July. It should be noted, however, that not all the evidence was submitted, despite the provisions of section 5(6) of the Advocate-General Act. The committee noted that this section of the Act had not been complied with but did not condone it.

The evidence that was submitted to the committee was extensive, consisting, if my memory serves me right—and I may be wrong here—of approximately 16 files. Clearly, this evidence is of considerable importance as it forms the basis for the Advocate-General’s report. It is even more important because, as the Advocate-General’s report itself states, the method of investigation was informal. We believe that if justice is to be seen to be done, the evidence which accompanied this report should have been examined. For example, the basis of the allegation should have been examined and, if necessary, after the required changes had been made public.

Obviously, if the evidence arrived at about luch-time on Thursday, and we had to report to this House by Friday, there was insufficient time for the committee to consider that evidence. With the exception of the hon member for Constantia and myself the members of the committee did not deem it necessary to examine the evidence on which the Advocate-General’s report is based. Consequently we moved an amendment to the effect that we believed that the committee could not properly complete its work unless it considered fully all the evidence given before the Advocate-General, and that such consideration would not be completed by Friday, 6 July 1984, and therefore the committee requested permission to continue its work until it could complete the full examination of the evidence.

We believe there was no need for this indecent rush to meet the deadline of 6 July 1984. After all, how long have many other committees taken to complete their tasks? If that committee could not complete the examination of the evidence before the end of this parliamentary session the Advocate General Act specifically provides for such a contingency. That provision is made in section 5(3) of the Act, which stipulates:

In conclusion I should like to state that this was not the sort of committee which we in these benches had requested. We wanted a parliamentary select committee, which could call and question witnesses and receive unexamined evidence. What we were given was a committee which did not even deem it necessary to examine the evidence. Therefore I move as an amendment to the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House:

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in associating myself with the congratulations and words of gratitude the hon member for Edenvale expressed to the hon member for Ermelo. The hon member for Ermelo was indeed a very competent and calm chairman, and as a result the select committee could dispose of its business very quickly and efficiently.

In view of the short time at my disposal, I should like to confine myself to the amendment moved by the hon member for Edenvale. I believe that this amendment is unacceptable because it is based on an incorrect assumption, viz that the select committee has to investigate the merits of the report of the Advocate-General. Of course, that was not the case. The select committee was specifically instructed to give its attention to the recommendations contained in the report of the Advocate-General. The terms of reference of the select committee were to conduct an investigation into the recommendation of the Advocate-General that the report should not be published in full.

That was the specific instruction to the select committee; no more and no less. The select committee had to make recommendations about that. What, specifically, was recommendation of the Advocate-General? We find this in paragraph 17.2 on page 46 of the report, and I quote:

This recommendation was referred to the select committee; not the findings of the Advocate-General; not the merits of the report of the Advocate-General. I would suggest that it was not necessary to consider the record of evidence as so to carry the terms of reference of the select committee into effect. The hon member for Edenvale concedes that, after all. There is therefore no dispute as far as this matter is concerned. That is not what the PFP is saying either. The PFP is not saying that the select committee should consider the record of evidence to ascertain whether or not the recommendation of the Advocate-General is in jeopardy as regards confidentiality. That is not what the PFP is saying. What is the PFP saying in reality? What is the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale questioning? It is in fact questioning the right of the Advocate-General to decide, which I would suggest is a very serious matter. By way of their amendment the official Opposition wants to make all reports and findings of the Advocate-General subject to the approval of this Parliament. I would suggest that it simply does not make sense. When the security of the State is not involved, the report of the Advocate-General is released and published almost immediately in temrs of section 5(1) of the Advocate-General Act. Then there is no investigation into its merits, and it is released without appointing a select committee. That is right, since what is the use of having an Advocate-General whose findings are still subject to Parliament? Then one may as well do without an Advocate-General. All of a sudden when the security of the State is involved, however, when it is relevant, the merits of the decision of the Advocate-General are questioned. Suddenly Parliament is given testing rights, which is certainly not the intention of the Act.

Furthermore, the PFP often pleads for the Advocate-General to play the role of an independent ombudsman who should not be subject to the decisions of Parliament. However , when he published a report which does not support the allegations of that side of the House, they suddenly want to make that right of his to decide subject to a parliamentary testing right.

I am afraid that the inevitable inference is that the PFP is afraid of the finding of the Advocate-General. [Interjections.] Because it does not suit them, they are making this unacceptable and deplorable attempt at attacking the decision of the Advocate-General. The amendment of the hon member for Edenvale cannot be supported.

Mr Speaker, I should also like to associate myself with previous speakers who expressed their gratitude to the hon member for Ermelo for the way in which he handled the select committee, for the calm and reasoned way in which he acted, and his competence in the time we had at our disposal to study this report.

As far as the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale is concerned, it is mainly just a legal technical decision that was taken in this regard which this House is now being asked to consider. I agree with the hon member Mr Schutte that it was not the task of the select committee to act as a court of review in respect of the decision of the Advocate-General. It was very clear that the select committee had to decide which of the recommendations should be published in addition to the recommendations the Advocate-General himself recommended be published.

There is another important aspect that should be considered, viz the provisions of section 5(2) and (6) of the Advocate-General Act, No 118 of 1979. Section 5(6) provides that the record of evidence should be submitted together with the report. I can well understand why this is the case, since it enables the select committee to look at the record to determine whether there is something in the report which is possibly not quite clear, and whether or not it is desirable to publish one or more paragraphs in the report. However, no reference whatsoever is made to the record in section 5(2). It is provided that the report be submitted and that the Advocate-General can then make certain recommendations after which the select committee undertakes an investigation in such cases for submission to, and consideration of the said recommendations and the making of a report to the House of Assembly. The select committee will therefore investigate the recommendations of the Advocate-General and report to the House of Assembly. The select committee is therefore limited, as the Act reads at present, only to determine which part of the report will be published or not. It is not its task to determine which part of the records should be published or not. That is not its instruction, nor is that expected of it in terms of Act 118 of 1979.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize that it is an insult to the Advocate-General, who did a competent job in this regard, if we, the ordinary hon members of this House, want to see whether the decision the Advocate General made in this regard is the correct decision. Consequently, I cannot vote for the amendment. The CP will therefore not be voting for it.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the other speakers in respect of the chairman of the select committee. I found him a very cautious and a very patient chairman, and we on this side of the House should like to thank him for the attributes which he has shown during the deliberations of the select committee.

We have here a typical case of a political party that was so sure of its allegations, based on anonymous information, so sure of its case that now that the findings are tabled, it is reluctant to have the report debated. Why? The reason is obvious. They are going to be shown to have been completely wrong in all their assumptions and allegations by the report of the Advocate-General. The official Opposition are desperately trying to use as many red herrings as possible in order to …

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

Sir, since I have exactly five minutes at my disposal the answer is “no”.

Surely, they try to avoid their embarrassment. The imputation of this amendment…

Have you read the Order Paper?

I am getting reaction; therefore, I must be cutting near the bone. [Interjections.]

The imputation of this amendment is very obvious. What is patently clear is that the official Opposition are saying: We have no confidence in the investigation of the Advocate-General because it did not go our way. I should like to remind the hon the Leader of the Opposition and the hon members of his party that he in fact asked for the allegations to be referred to the Auditor-General, and his report to be referred to a select committee. I refer to col 5215 of Hansard dated Thursday, 26 April 1984, where the hon the Prime Minister said:

That is a repetition of what the hon the Leader of the Opposition asked for, but the hon the Prime Minister went one further. He in fact referred the allegations to the Advocate-General, a judge of the Supreme Court, for investigation. It is important to note that at that stage the official Opposition were aware that the Advocate-General was investigating the alleged irregularities, and there was no objection from them at that time; on the contrary, they welcomed it.

The report of the Advocate-General was submitted to a select committee as requested by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Yet, the official Opposition are still not satisfied. The question must be asked whether it is because the investigation was detrimental to their preconceived ideas. Of course, the movers of this amendment clearly put a question mark against the findings and also the integrity of the Advocate-General. They question whether his findings are borne out by the evidence submitted. This does not say much for the independent judiciary in their opinion, or alternatively they have such a conceited opinion of themselves that they consider they can do a far better investigation than the Advocate-General, notwithstanding his judicial experience.

In my opinion this amendment is merely a political ploy to delay the discussion of the Advocate-General’s report. The official Opposition find themselves in an untenable position, hoisted by their own petard, and they are desperate to avoid any further embarrassment. Hence this attempt to delay any immediate discussion of the Advocate-General’s report. I wonder why they just do not accept the position they find themselves in with good grace and realize they have made a boo-boo.

We in the NRP cannot accept or support the amendment moved by the official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to repeat what the hon member Mr Schutte, the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for South Coast had to say. To me, the hon member for South Coast summed up the situation very well, however, when he said that the official Opposition was moving the motion because the investigation did not go well for them. A tense situation had arisen with regard to this matter and it was decided to appoint someone with the highest judicial authority, a judge, to investigate the matter. They were invited to go and give evidence. However, now hon members are saying that the matter should be referred to a select committee. It is outrageous. The whole matter is embarrassing for them. They have to kick up a lot of dust now, since they cannot simply capitulate. They thought that they had made a tremendous discovery, but now, after evidence has been given before him, the Advocate-General finds that the allegations have no substantiation. This is an embarrassment to any Opposition Party. We are simply wasting our time with this kind of action.

That is what you said during the Information scandal as well.

The hon member could have given evidence. Why did he not uncover the so-called scandal? No, Sir, this is simply a matter of kicking up dust. I feel extremely sorry for the Opposition, because they have made fools of themselves.

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

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the report which we are considering arose from information which was sent to the hon the Leader of the Opposition anonymously. The information contained in it related to the Salem affair and alleged overpayments on two oil contracts.

When we received this information, there were three things which we could have done. Firstly, we could have ignored it, which I believe would have been a gross dereliction of our duty as the official Opposition. Moreover, it seemed to us that the information came from a source which was knowledgeable and which had access to highly confidential information. This is in fact borne out by the report of the Advocate-General. In paragraph 5.2 of the report, it is pointed out that of the 22 photocopies, 16 are of highly confidential official documents and that the original documents were presumably under the control of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. In paragraph 5.4 the point is made that the relevant documents reveal an intimate knowledge of oil deliveries to South Africa.

Secondly, we would have raised the matter in the House and that we had the opportunity to do so during the Second Reading of the Budget. However, the hon the Leader of the Opposition and I felt that the information related to an area of strategic importance to South Africa and that it could jeopardize some of the sources of our oil supply. Consequently, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for the Auditor-General, the financial watchdog of Parliament, to investigate the matter. The Leader of the Opposition also asked for the report of the Auditor-General to be submitted to a committee of Parliament for investigation.

I would now like to refer to some of the issues raised in the report of the Advocate General. There is, firstly, the question of the Salem affair. This is covered by a single paragraph in the report, namely paragraph 13.1, and I quote:

I want to make it very clear that we in these benches hold the Government accountable for any loss which may have occurred as a result of the Salem affair. They cannot pass the buck. I believe that the Advocate-General’s report makes it quite clear that the Minister concerned must have been informed of what was happening at all times. Paragraph 9.2 of the report states that there was a ministerial committee charged with decisions concerning crude oil purchases in consultation with the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who in turn liaised with the Minister of Finance. Paragraph 4.12.5 of the report states that members of the purchasing committee and the Minister concerned communicated daily and often more than once daily during that period as regards purchases and decisions in that regard.

The report also clarifies what has been a bone of contention between the PFP and the Government. We have consistently argued that the moneys controlled by the SFF and the SOF are State moneys. Hon members will recall that when the Salem affair was raised in the House in 1983, the Minister of Finance according to column 1715 of Hansard said:

Paragraph 1.7 of the Advocate-General’s report is quite explicit and I quote:

It has been the view of the PFP that since we are dealing with State moneys, these funds should have been audited by the Auditor General. Until recently this viewpoint has been consistently rejected by the Government. As a result I believe that there has been a serious breakdown in the system of parliamentary control over State moneys.

In paragraph 9.6 of the report the point is made that the expenditure of the money under the control of the purchasing committee was under their exclusive discretion, and the authorization and expenditure of those State moneys were never explicitly accounted for to Parliament as controller of the expenditure of State moneys either directly or to the Auditor-General whose usual task it is to control the expenditure and its authorization and to report thereon to Parliament. Moreover, as paragraph 9.7 points out, from the reports of the auditors Hoek and Wiehahn it appears that they accepted the authority for the expenditure on crude oil purchases as a given fact and that it was never part of their function to verify the contracts and the prices as determined from time to time. [Interjections.] This had given rise to problems for the Auditor-General as early as 1969 in accounting for funds paid over from the National Supplies Procurement Fund because the SFF’s books and records were not open to his inspection.

From 1971, according to paragraph 9.8.1, there was a mutual agreement that a certificate in this regard would be placed before the Auditor-General by the auditors Hoek and Wiehahn and would be accepted by him. In other words, we had a system whereby the Auditor-General had to rely on a certificate given by a firm of auditors who had not been able to verify the contracts and the prices. A remarkable system of financial control over State money! [Interjections.]

The findings of the report in this regard on the control of these funds are illuminating. In paragraph 16.2 of the report the Advocate-General states:

In paragraph 9.16 the point is made even more forcibly in the following comment:

From the report it is clear that the system of accounting for the expenditure of these funds was undesirable. We have consistently pointed this out. The report of the Advocate-General confirms this viewpoint.

Other aspects of this report will be covered by my hon colleague, but before I sit down I move as an amendment:

1. (1) supports the Advocate-General’s recommendation that a fresh look should be taken at South Africa’s crude oil purchasing set-up and its financial control;
2. (2) demands that the Government place the relevant funds under Parliamentary control;
3. (3) insists that the relevant funds be audited by the Auditor-General;
4. (4) resolves that a Parliamentary Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon the evidence submitted to the Advocate-General, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.”.

Mr Speaker, by way of commencement I wish to say thank you very much for the kind words addressed to me by the hon member for Edenvale, the hon member for Brakpan, the hon member for South Coast and the hon member Mr Schutte. I want to express my appreciation to every hon member of the select committee for their particular contributions and assistance in enabling us to be able to report to this House within the time set for us to carry out our instruction. At the same time, on behalf of the Committee I should like to express our appreciation to two officials who assisted us in our task, viz Mr S J P du Plessis, former Director-General of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and Mr L P van den Berg of that department. Nor can I neglect to pay tribute on behalf of all the members of the select committee, to the secretariat of Parliament, who acquitted themselves superbly of their task. [Interjections.]

Sir, if you were the presiding judge in a court who had to decide on this matter, we have the situation that the plaintiff in this case, the hon the Leader of the Opposition, is not here. The investigating officer, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has been venting his spleen about this matter for quite a while now, is not here either. Apart from that, the advocate for the defence came in here to ascertain what was going on, and he then excused himself. [Interjections.] In fact, it is a tragedy that this House has to occupy itself with this kind of thing today. We could have put our time and that of many other people to much better use.

How did this matter arise? The basis of the complaint is that certain documents were handed to the hon the Leader of the Opposition under cover of an anonymous memorandum. In turn, he sent them to the hon the Prime Minister, but with one very significant omission. The Advocate-General also mentioned that the anonymous covering memorandum was not handed to the hon the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

These documents, which were supposed to form the basis of the complaint, could indicate that certain persons had been enriched at the expense of the State by way of crude oil purchases. The hon the Leader of the Opposition went on to state in his letter to the hon the Prime Minister—this is also quoted by the Advocate-General—that more was paid for our oil than provision had been made for in the contracts, and he then says: “We believe this was done without Ministerial approval”, and here he was referring to the John Deuss contract.

What was the finding of the Advocate General as regards this statement of the hon the Leader of the Opposition? In paragraph 15.1 he says that he could find no substantiation in it. He could not find anything that indicated that anyone had been improperly enriched in relation to the contracts at the expense of the State, or that prices were paid contrary to the contract.

There were also allegations of irregularities in the documents the hon the Leader of the Opposition received concerning the Marc Rich contract. Here, too, the Advocate-General found that there was no substantiation. I now want to quote what he had to say about the matter in paragraph 6.12 on page 32, viz:

We are faced with the situation that these allegations were found to be completely unfounded by the Advocate-General.

However, one must also refer to another matter the Advocate-General quotes, and that is the findings in paragraph 15.4 of his report concerning the ulterior motives of the person who drew up the anonymous memorandum. In that paragraph the Advocate General says:

That is what we are dealing with today. I maintain that the motives not only of this person, but also of the other persons involved in this, are reprehensible, for what are their motives? The Advocate-General says that the first motive was to try to force an investigation. The Advocate-General says the second motive was to support unfounded allegations which had been spread throughout the entire country with regard to alleged enrichment. For that purpose a false document was drawn up and handed to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. What does the Advocate-General have to say about this whole situation? In his report he says that it is a lot of gossip. The hon the Leader of the Opposition fell for that gossip, however. He fell for it, or he had his own ulterior motives.

The question to which the hon the Leader of the Opposition therefore has to reply—he owes this House and the country a reply—is whether this is how a responsible Opposition party and a responsible Leader of the official Opposition ought to act.

I just want to look at another aspect briefly, Mr Speaker. That is the Advocate General’s finding in regard to the alleged enrichment of officials. In this regard I refer to paragraph 15.3 of the report, in which it is stated:

I should like to read another quotation as well. In paragraph 11 on page 41 of the report we read the following statement by the Advocate-General:

This is, allegations that officials enriched themselves:

That is why I find it so odd, yet so predictable, Mr Speaker, that the hon member for Edenvale did not discuss a single finding in the report of the Advocate-General in his speech. What did he confine himself to? He was not interested in the findings, but in the recommendations. The hon member for Edenvale did not say a word about a single finding in the report of the Advocate-General, however. [Interjections.] I think it would be a good thing for the public of South Africa to see this report as we have published it. It would be a very good thing. What is happening here now, however? There were four Cabinet Ministers involved here. Each one of them, as they succeeded one another in this particular portfolio, emerged from the investigation absolutely unsullied; according to the report. Not only that; all the officials who were so grievously insulted in that their unimpeachability and integrity were called into question, also emerged from this investigation absolutely unsullied. I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House are proud of our hon Ministers who have dealt with this portfolio. We are also proud of the officials who assisted them in this matter.

This whole scandal-mongering story—it was a story after, all—and it has been proved to be such—has exploded very badly in the face of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, as well as that of his party by the publication of this report. In view of this report, he and his party owe the country and this House quite a number of answers. We can assure them that we are going to ask them for those answers. They will have to give us those answers. [Interjections.]

Not to a Government with such a record of corruption!

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the thanks and appreciation conveyed by the hon member for Ermelo to …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Bryanston say “Not a Government with such a record of corruption”? Can he refer to the Government in that way, Mr Speaker?

Order! Did the hon member for Bryanston utter those words?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

What did the hon member mean?

Mr Speaker, I meant that the record of this Government included a great many examples of corruption. That is on record, and they know it, too. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member have any hon member on the Government side in mind when he made that remark in connection with corruption?

No, Mr Speaker, I was not referring to a single hon member on the Government side. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I respectfully suggest that when the hon member for Bryanston refers to the “Government”, that refers in particular to the Cabinet, who are members of this House. Therefore, for the hon member calmly to say that he is not referring to hon members on this side of the House is not acceptable to us.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the remark of the hon member for Mossel Bay, I want to say that there are already Speaker’s rulings on record to the effect that a general attack on the Government is not directed at individual members and is therefore permissible. The remark of the hon member for Bryanston referred to the Government in general and, as I say, such remarks have already been permitted by the Chair.

It has been ruled in the past that hon members may refer to “the Government” in terms which, if applied to an hon member, would be unparliamentary. I do not necessarily agree with that. Personally, I think it was a mistake, but this has been ruled in the past.

Mr Speaker, may I then say that the official Opposition are sly?

Yes.

They are sly. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, does your ruling mean that I can say that the Opposition are a lot of crooks? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want this matter to get out of hand now because that is totally unnecessary. This is not a ruling that I have given. It is a ruling which has been given in the past. I indicated to hon members that I did not agree with it but nevertheless it is a ruling which has been given in the past.

Mr Speaker, with all respect to you: The Speaker recently made an appeal here with regard to the maintenance of the dignity of this House. I put it to you for your consideration, in all courtesy, that to say that this Government is a Government of corruption casts a reflection on the Prime Minister and on every member of the Cabinet. I request your ruling in that regard.

Mr Speaker, I said that the record of this Government included a great many examples…

No!

… of corruption. [Interjections.] The record of the Government is a record of corruption. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must afford the hon member for Bryanston an opportunity to provide an explanation.

To support my standpoint I could mention that the Government has dismissed several Cabinet Ministers due to corrupt dealings in the past. In the course of the Information Scandal the Minister of Internal Affairs was dismissed for corruption.

Order! The hon member for Bryanston has just confirmed what the hon the Prime Minister said, viz that the hon member is casting a reflection on Cabinet Ministers.

No, it confirms…

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words now.

No, Mr Speaker, may I address you in that regard?

Order! That is my ruling. The hon member has now stated in his own words that Cabinet Ministers in “the Government”, and there can be no dealings. This is a reflection on hon members sitting here. There are Cabinet Ministers have been dismissed due to corrupt other Cabinet Ministers here who are not hon members and therefore the hon member must now withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I was referring to former Cabinet Ministers.

No!

Order!

I was.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, may I address you in that regard?

The hon member may address me, but my ruling is that the hon member must withdraw those words. [Interjections.]

You should take your medicine like a man.

Shut up, you idiot.

*Mr Speaker, I am not referring to a single sitting member of the Cabinet. I also stated very clearly that I was referring to former members … [Interjections.] … who, due to corruption, had been dismissed by the Government. I was not referring to a single sitting member of the Cabinet.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, may I please address you on this point? There appear to be two issues involved here at the moment. The first issue on which you gave a ruling was in regard to the general allegation made by the hon member for Bryanston in regard to corruption on the part of the Government generally. I think that falls within the scope of the general allegation and I feel your ruling was correct in that regard. When the hon member for Bryanston made the remark to which the hon the Prime Minister took exception, he was referring to past members of the Cabinet who had resigned, and that is entirely separate from the main issue. Perhaps you would like to reflect upon it and give us some other ruling.

Order! I am sorry, but I have given my ruling. I listened carefully to the hon member for Bryanston, and he said that members of the Cabinet had been dismissed due to corrupt dealings. Those were the hon member’s words and on that basis I ruled that he had to withdraw them.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on this?

Order! I shall allow only one further hon member to address me on this point. We are wasting the time of the hon member for Brakpan.

Sir, I shall be very brief. You based your decision to ask the hon member for Bryanston to withdraw his remarks on the fact that he had referred to Cabinet Ministers and hon members who were still members of the House, but by definition, if someone had retired—“afge dank”—he cannot be here. He cannot be present and therefore the hon member for Bryanston had made it clear that he was not referring to anyone in the House. I am therefore asking you to reconsider your ruling.

Order! I stand by my ruling that the hon member for Bryanston must withdraw his allegation.

Sir, I am not prepared to withdraw it.

Order! Because the hon member disregarded the authority of the Chair, I must order him to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(Whereupon the hon member withdrew from the Chamber.)

Mr Speaker, I hope that after this little problem that has now been solved, I shall be given a little injury time. I view this in the light of the fact that for the most part, this was really a lover’s quarrel between the two parties, and accordingly I do not think it is so terribly serious. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the appreciation conveyed by the hon member for Ermelo to the officials, Mr Du Plessis and others, of the department, who were at our disposal at short notice to submit evidence to assist us in our activities. I also wish to express appreciation to the Advocate General. It must have been frustrating for him to investigate a complaint about which no evidence had been submitted by the complainant. In the process he had to study documents in cases which are at present sub judice and what is more, are being heard in camera. Nevertheless he has submitted a thorough and comprehensive report.

However I want to differ with the hon member for Ermelo on this point because I do not think that the Government has been shown by the Advocate-General to be quite as “scarlet” white as the hon member wants to make out. I shall make further reference to that in the course of my speech.

There was a touch of mauve as well.

There is the Salem Case which has not yet been fully investigated. There are the two cases being heard in camera which have not yet been finalized. Then, too, there are the findings of the auditors concerning the fact that the funds of these private companies are not audited by the Auditor-General and investigated by the select committee of Parliament. I shall make further reference to that as well.

The first aspect which in my opinion is of real importance is that the complaints were anonymous. The complainant or complainants, after having sent the complaints to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, did not come forward to submit evidence. Section 7(5) of the Advocate-General Act even provides that such a person may be assisted by an advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa or an attorney. Such a complainant is given the opportunity to protect his identity. Section 6(3) of the Act provides that such a person enjoys the same privilege as a witness in a criminal case. Indeed, the complainant did not in any way comply with the provisions of section 4(2). He had to sign a sworn statement. He also had to comply with certain other aspects mentioned in section 4(2) relating to the allegations that he bases his statements on. Had it not been for section 5(5) the matter would never have come before the Advocate-General. It is reasonable to infer that had it not been for the fact that the complaint came via the hon the Leader of the Opposition and was passed on to the hon the Prime Minister, the Advocate-General could in my opinion have felt free to throw the whole document in the wastepaper basket. It is disturbing that an anonymous person, hiding behind his anonymity, could succeed in taking up the precious time of the Advocate-General and the ten members of the House who served on the select committee, without submitting any further evidence to the Advocate-General apart from the original charge. It would have been fair to have given him an opportunity of, say, one month to prove his allegations through the media and to specify that on his failure to do so, the file could be closed. I also wish to point out that officials of this hon House have spent valuable time working on this matter and had to work overtime and at night to finalize this matter before Friday.

What has happened now? In pargarphs 2.1 to 12 the Advocate-General indicates who was approached and who approached him to clear the matter up. There was the department and its officials, Sasol, SFF, the legal representatives of Chiavelli, Mr Katzin of the Sunday Express, the Auditor-General, representatives of the IDC and certain MPs. Then too there was the evidence, pleadings and records in the two cases being heard in camera to which reference is made in paragraph 2.11. What else could he do? No one else offered to submit evidence. There is one person who did not offer to come and submit evidence and I find that a little strange. A name which does not appear here is that of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. After all, he too was involved in some capacity in Fontana Holdings, Mr Xenopoulos’s case. Why did he not offer to give evidence before the Advocate-General? Could he not perhaps have cast some light on the problem?

What has now happened is that the full explanations of the defendants have been submitted but that not a grain of evidence has been submitted by the complainant to support his allegations. What, then, is the necessary conclusion to be reached by a reasonable judge in this connection? It is simply that no case has been proved. He finds quite rightly in paragraph 10 that no enrichment occurred. I think that the hon member for Ermelo referred to this, but I do wish to quote paragraph 11.3, as follows:

Then there was the allegation that the State had paid too much for oil during this period. However, in paragraph 12.5 the Advocate General found as follows:

It is quite clear that oil was being purchased under difficult circumstances. It is quite clear that there ought to have been term contracts. If spot prices were cheaper, it is true that oil could have been bought in that way, but then one cannot judge the purchases in the light of circumstances prevailing at that stage.

I now turn to the question of the auditing. It would be as well for all members of the NP to consider paragraphs 9.8 to 9.16 of the report, because they are very important. This points a finger at the Government and indicates that it should consider matters of this nature with greater circumspection. This applies in particular to paragraph 9.16 which reads:

That is very important. I hope that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will give attention to this highly important matter.

Then, too, there is the question of the Salem. No finding has been reached in respect of the Salem events. At this stage it is in the hands of the Attorney-General. Therefore this matter has certainly not been finally disposed of. I refer hon members to paragraph 13.1 in this regard.

A most important aspect to which the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs ought to give attention is the allegation in paragraph 5.2. To be specific, there are indications that the photocopies in the complainant’s documents were copies of documents under the control of the department in question. Paragraph 8.2 mentions that it is evident from the available information that person with ulterior motives may have obtained the documents in question from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and made copies of them. Some of these copies were sent to the hon the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to force an investigation. This is a serious finding. Once again important State documents have come to the hands of unauthorized persons. How did this happen? What has the hon the Minister done about it? What does he intend doing in this connection? If he orders an investigation with regard to the disappearance of these documents or the fact that they were photostated, what became of that investigation? If he has not carried out an investigation in this regard I should like to know from him why he has not done so.

As far as the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale is concerned, I want to say that the CP has no objection to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. However, we cannot vote for paragraph (4) because, as we have already mentioned in discussions during previous debates, it was not our task to investigate the decisions of the Advocate-General. It is only our task to decide what may be published.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, not so?

But that will be dealt with in the normal course. If that does not happen the CP will see to it that it is at tented to. The hon member can therefore leave it to the CP. [Interjections.] After all, we have said that the Salem incident has not yet been finalized. Nor have the two civil cases yet been finalized. The Advocate-General himself states that further evidence may come out in this regard. When that happens we shall consider it.

Then there is the question of the publication. I regard this as an anomaly in the Advocate-General Act and Act No 120 of 1979. The Select Committee was instructed to consider the report of the Advocate-General. This does not mean that it has permission to have it published, because in terms of Act No 120 of 1979 it first has to obtain the permission of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The Advocate-General Act was proclaimed on 18 July 1979 and is therefore the more recent Act. This Act permits the publication of the report of the Advocate-General in certain circumstances. In my opinion it is meaningless that after the Advocate-General has issued a finding and that finding has been referred to a select committee which, in terms of section 5(2) of the Advocate-General Act, has decided what may be published, it is still necessary to obtain the permission of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in this regard. It makes no sense, and therefore it would be as well if the Government would consider this aspect. Then, too, it is necessary to consider sections 5(2) and (6) because there was talk in the select committee of its being necessary for the record to be investigated by the select committee—this was also further debated here this afternoon. This matter is not clear; there is a difference of opinion in this regard. It would be as well if the Government were to take cognizance of these aspects, viz sections 5(2) and (6) of the Act.

In these circumstances, and subject to aspects to which I have already referred, viz the recommendation that the Auditor-General should go into these matters, that the Salem incident is still open and that further matters could arise out of the civil case, the Conservative Party is satisfied with the report of the Advocate-General and we wish to thank him for it.

Order! I wish to inform this House that I have had the admissibility of the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale investigated. The amendment seeks to amend a motion moved in accordance with an established procedure which was instituted in terms of a resolution adopted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on 16 April 1956 in order to afford the House an opportunity to discuss a matter of public importance in Government time without adopting a resolution. I therefore regret that on reconsideration I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon member for Edenvale and put it to a vote at the end of the debate.

Mr Speaker, considering all the background circumstances I regret that I cannot accept that this report is the last word on the subject. There are four main reasons which lead me to this attitude.

Firstly, how can anybody test the validity of this 47 page report if one is not permitted to read the full founding charges which started this inquiry and if we cannot examine the more than 16 thick volumes of evidence which led to these findings? This is a basic principle, and I believe that the charges and the evidence are inseparable from the findings. I greatly regret the fact that the select committee did not follow through with the principle of maximum exposure as regards the evidence as well as the report. I can see no grounds for covering up the evidence in this way.

My second reason relates to the informal and limited method of investigation which the Advocate-General pursued in this case. He combined the roles of investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge, and this without the benefit of an independent team of auditors which I would have thought would be essential in a complicated financial matter such as this. The investigations apparently also proceeded without the benefit of a formal, tape recorded cross-examination of the key persons involved. Furthermore, obvious star witnesses such as the then Minister in charge of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the relevant oil dealers involved, and independent dealers in the oil industry who might have been able to give a useful commercial perspective to this matter, were not examined. There also does not seem to have been any attempt to follow the money which was paid after it had been paid to the dealers, which is the obvious point from which to trace kickbacks or illicit laundering, if any such occurred. Such information would, of course, not be kept on the department’s files.

In view of the staggering amounts of money involved, I believe that a much more formal and comprehensive investigation would have been more than justified. In saying this, I am mindful of the fact that it was only after a persistent Judge Mostert cross examined key persons in the Information affair, that the full facts eventually came out.

Thirdly, this report raises very important questions. There are, for example, the contracts themselves. We have information on one contract out of the 69 at issue. I choose it because I raised a question on this in the House. The allegation was that we paid $40,20 per barrel instead of $34,50 per barrel and thereby paid $10,23 million too much for the cargo. This report from the Advocate-General now confirms that we in fact paid $41,117 cif for that cargo. This means our informant was very close in calculating the total payment against this shipment. The key question is whether he was correct that it should only have been based on $34,50. In view of the Wiggett note dated 15 August 1980—paragraph 6.4.17 refers—where he says “We will never pay more than the marker price plus $2,50”, which note was an interpretation of the contract signed three days later on 18 August, and since I believe that the marker price at the time this was loaded was in fact $32 per barrel, it is therefore not crystal clear to me from the Advocate-General’s report why we paid as much as $41,117 per barrel for this specific shipment less than six months after the contract had been signed.

Another question that arises is the question of rake-offs. In paragraph 6.4.11.1 Mr Deuss is quoted in a Wiggett memo concerning discussions on 21 July 1980 as having said “that part of the premium would go into the pockets of some of the persons involved and they would like to make it worth their while”. On the face of it this is a rather unsavoury sounding comment. What was its full meaning? Was it followed up? Who were the persons involved referred to here?

Thirdly, there is the role of hon Minister De Klerk who was in charge at the time. The report is strangely silent on his role. It is clear from paragraphs 4.12.4, 4.12.5 and 4.12.6 that the SFFA, its board and Sasol were mere fronts who were told of oil purchases “in broad outline”. It is clear that throughout the critical period at issue the ministerial purchasing committee, which consisted of three persons—the hon Minister De Klerk, Director-General Du Plessis, and Mr Wiggett up to December 1980 and thereafter Dr P F Mostert—were in fact the day to-day operating oil purchasing committee. They sometimes met more than once a day, it is stated. It seems then to bring the burden of responsibility foursquare back to the door of hon Minister De Klerk who held office for that whole period. I find it strange that the hon the Minister was not interviewed by the Advocate-General. The hon the Minister’s burden of responsibility for the whole affair is further highlighted by paragraph 6.11, which seems to make it clear that all payments were to receive the Minister’s authorization. I wonder too about the reference in paragraph 12.5, which deals with the discretion of officials. Can it be inferred from this that there were specific ministerial directives to deal with these specific dealers? If so, we must be told.

Another paragraph with intriguing implications is paragraph 12.8. It seems from that that there may not have been detailed oil procurement procedures laid down in the reign of Minister De Klerk. When considering the role of the responsible Minister it must be borne in mind that apart from the question of whether there has been clean administration there is also the question of whether there has been good administration.

The fourth query that comes out here is the question of auditing. My hon colleague has referred to it. It is clear here that one auditor was auditing the other man’s nothing. To permit this as an auditing procedure to ensure the proper expenditure of countless millions of rands of public money is an absolute disgrace.

Another query concerns Mr Chiavelli. He is cleared here of having supplied, or purchased on South Africa’s behalf, any crude oil. In view of the fact that there is a massive case pending right now which turns on this point, and in view of the Advocate-General’s own comments in paragraphs 10.6, 10.8 and 10.10, I find these findings surprising. Obviously the credibility of this whole report will suffer greatly if it is subsequently shown that Mr Chiavelli has indeed profited from supplying oil to the RS A, even if only indirectly via a daisy chain.

Sixthly, there is the question of Salem. This has been mentioned already. I should like to know what persons the Advocate General believes have profited from this matter, and why we are still waiting for anyone to be prosecuted in this country years after the event when at present in three overseas countries there are cases being heard at the moment. These are burning questions, and the Government refuses to give adequate answers. Furthermore, all five of the unanswered questions in the anonymous covering memo remain unanswered after this report.

Finally, there are still some important loose ends in this matter that need to be cleared up. The report refers to a telephone call which the Advocate-General made to me in which he requested my assistance. I responded to the Advocate-General’s telephone call in a letter dated 27 June, after I had put certain questions in the House. Unfortunately, this report is also dated 27 June, and therefore the Advocate-General did not have an opportunity to consider these points. In my letter I said, firstly, that I had been told that a certain high-ranking police officer—I have given his name to the Government—undertook a secret report on oil procurement matters, that this officer’s full name appears on the report, and that the issues covered in the report were discussed by the Cabinet Security Committee during 1983. I suggested that if there was any truth in this, it would be worth taking evidence from this officer. Incidentally, his name is not listed in this report. Secondly, I was informed very firmly that a certain Brig Johan P D Blaauw, who is a well-known figure, last year approached the former Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Mr P T C du Plessis, with information relating to oil procurement irregularities. I attempted to confirm this in question No 19 of 27 June, and it will be seen from the wording that the hon the Minister’s reply does not exclude the possibility that the alleged meeting did indeed take place. I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Manpower is not in the House now because I should like to ask him whether he did in fact meet this Brig Blaauw and what ensured thereafter. I was also told that a certain Mr Frans Whelpton of Pretoria probably also had some information that might be useful in this regard.

To summarize, therefore, I believe that there are more than enough unanswered questions and areas of concern about the whole subject of the RSA’s oil procurement activities during the past few years to more than justify the appointment of a select committee to investigate the matter in depth, and to report when it has had ample opportunity to complete its work. Only such a full-ranging, multi-party inquiry that considers all evidence available and has the power to take further evidence, can finally put this matter to rest and satisfy the public that there has been no wrongdoing. This House cannot afford to be accused of supporting a whitewash.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer in a few sentences to hon members who have already spoken on this subject, and I shall come back to the report subsequently. I really do not envy the hon member for Edenvale his task today. He is acting as the chief spokesman for the official Opposition, but he first has to move that the report should not be accepted, a motion which is the brainchild of the hon member for Yeoville. The hon member for Yeoville came in, and when he heard what the division was about, he immediately turned around and walked out again. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Edenvale that I really sympathise with him.

The hon member for Edenvale, and the hon member for Constantia as well, spent almost 50% of their time discussing something that appears in one paragraph, viz the Salem affair, which is sub judice. [Interjections.] However, they at least have to relate something to some matter or another, and I do not blame them either, since what else must they say? What else can they criticize? Where must they find something to criticize, since they cannot find anything in the report?

I should like to tell the hon member for Brakpan that I appreciate the attitude he adopted in the select committee and again here in the House today. His reference to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs was a little bit of spiteful politicking, since, after all, he agrees that it is an anonymous document before the Advocate-General. Must the hon the Deputy Minister go and give evidence on an anonymous document? However, I agree with the hon member for Brakpan about two things. I agree with him that another look must be taken at the provisions of the Petroleum Products Act where secrecy applies. It must also be determined whether a select committee should not specifically be mentioned in the legislation. I think it is necessary that from time to time, when a problem of this nature arises, one should once again investigate the machinery that exists, and how it could be used. It also comes as a shock to me that documents of this nature—highly sensitive documents—could be photocopied and then be distributed countrywide.

As far as the hon member for Constantia is concerned, I just want to say the following. He spoke of a “cover-up”. In the thoughts I am going to express now, I also want to dwell for a moment on the so-called “cover-up”. However, I do not want to refer to the Government’s alleged “cover-up”. There is an old English proverb which goes: “It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good”. However, the wind that is blowing today in dealing with this report is a wind that is not going to blow the PFP any good.

The official Opposition has a very strange record as regards select committees. Let us look at what they do. We had the Select Committee on the Toll Financing of Roads at one time. On that occasion two hon members of the PFP were sacrificed on the altar of serviceability to the caucus of the PFP. Having agreed in the select committee, they no longer agreed with the Bill in this House. You should have been there, however, Mr Speaker, when that particular select committee commenced with its business. The hon member for Yeoville entered the committee room with a pile of books and regulations and summarily wanted to address the chairman. Meanwhile, he was not even a member of the committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bezuidenhout, on the other hand, simply ran directly to the clerk of the Papers and tried to obtain a copy of this document which was marked top secret. He simply tried to obtain a copy to take to his office or to his home; I do not know where. Or perhaps for the Press. That is the way in which hon members of the official Opposition behave.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Roodeplaat say in so many words that the hon member for Bezuidenhout, who is not present in the House now, took a copy of a secret, private and confidential document with the sole object of perhaps giving it to the Press? I believe that this is a very slanderous statement, and the hon member should be asked to withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I never made such an allegation. I said that the hon member for Bezuidenhout tried to obtain a copy of the document concerned. What he wanted to do with it, I do not know. Perhaps he even wanted to give it to the Press. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: I maintain that the hon member for Roodeplaat specifically said: … with the purpose of possibly giving it to the Press”. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, if that is the impression I created, I withdraw those words. I please just want to continue with my speech. I therefore withdraw them.

Did the hon member for Roodeplaat say that the hon member for Bezuidenhout perhaps wanted to give it to the Press?

If that was the impression I created, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Then the hon member must indeed withdraw it.

I therefore withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

However, I briefly want to come back to the report now. The hon member for Wynberg must therefore listen carefully. Perhaps the acting hon leader of the PFP, the hon member for Pinelands, could give me a few answers to this. The hon the leader of the PFP is not present now. I therefore think the hon member for Pinelands is the acting leader of that party now. I noticed that he was listening very carefully to certain things. I would also like him to reply to the questions I am going to put now. In paragraph 1.4 of the report it is very expressly stated that the covering memorandum—a very important document—was not handed to the hon the Prime Minister. The relevant paragraph goes on to say:

Now the following question arises. The PFP is the party that claims that “the people have the right to know.” I therefore believe that the hon member of the PFP who is going to speak after me must tell this House, and the public as well, why that document was not sent to the hon the Prime Minister. Why did the Advocate-General have to rake it out? The excuse had better be a very good one. Therefore, when we speak of “cover-up”, the hon member for Constantia must listen very carefully. Where did the Press get hold of the contents of these documents? To whom did the hon the Leader of the Opposition give the documents concerned for perusal? Did he give them to his caucus? Did he give them to the Press? Of course, one man to whom he did, in fact, give them can be identified. It is stated on page 6 of the report that a letter was received from Mr Malcomess, MP; a letter containing names and other particulars which, according to him—and this is important—he obtained from more than one source. He said that these people could possibly have been the ones who could have been enriched. The Advocate-General says that this did not prove anything, since there were no connotations attached to the names; no proof. The learned Advocate-General went on to say:

That is the memorandum that was omitted, the concealed document, the document that disappeared:

Why?

Well, now we have to decide who is being protected and why people are being protected. How do we protect people? What do we want to “cover-up”? I do not know whether there are hon members in the Opposition who perhaps have interests in oil. How would I know? If the hon member for Yeoville were here. I would have asked him since he is an hon member who has a great deal of knowledge about business undertakings and so on, and perhaps he could tell us, but now the hon member has left. I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition, or rather, the acting leader, owes it to us to tell this House today why the document—it is the charge sheet, after all—did not get to the hon the Prime Minister I shall tell you why I am asking that. Look, if I receive a lot of documents, and I regard them as being so important that I have to refer them to the hon the Prime Minister—I am the receiver, as well as the sender of such documents—surely I must know what I received and what I send out, or do I do it selectively because it is perhaps identifiable or because someone could perhaps be identified?

And the Press? Where does the Press get all these things? Once again it appeared in the Sunday Tribune with reference to the R338,085 million paid in excess and which the Advocate-General said was a completely fictitious amount—and on top of that there are incorrect sums:

The reference here is to Annexure A in which two paragraphs are released by the Advocate-General and which he says need not necessarily be kept secret.

The editor of the newspaper did not even take the trouble of looking at the terms of reference of the select committee, since he would never have written something like that if he had. However, it is a calculated way of spreading an untruth, an untruth to the effect that we can only discuss two paragraphs, and not the rest.

I wish to conclude with the following: Since it has now been proved that there was nothing suggestive in the document or in the negotiations, I want the hon the Minister to consider that the time has now come for us to think of a corporation in respect of energy, excluding nuclear energy, which will entail the control, and so on, of petroleum purchases, the liquifying of coal, the development of gas resources and so on.

Mr Speaker, this debate heralds an end to a very long, subtle campaign, all with innuendoes and half-truths, about oil procurement for the Republic. These half-truths and innuendoes were aimed at possible corrupt officials and/or companies entrusted with the purchase of crude oil for this country. Of course, the source of these so-called factual allegations was the official Opposition, and particularly certain members within its ranks. More recently, the hon the Leader of the Opposition in his wisdom accepted a letter with certain documents, now proved to have been unlawfully obtained, from an anonymous source in respect of oil contracts and prices paid for such oil. History tells us that he forwarded this letter to the hon the Prime Minister for investigation. That investigation has now been completed by the Advocate-General, and his report is now the subject of this debate.

One must say at the outset after reading this report and taking into consideration what certain hon members of the official Opposition have said in this House recently that they, the official Opposition, have emerged from this matter, I am sorry to say, with egg on their faces. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that at all. I wish to quote from the report on page 44, paragraph 15.1, as follows:

Paragraph 15.5 reads as follows:

In their eagerness to show the Government a point or two, and what a good Opposition they are, they have been caught offsides; in fact, they have been caught with their pants down to their ankles. [Interjections.] One would have thought that the official Opposition would have been a little more circumspect when it came to such delicate matters as oil procurement, considering our sensitive position and world boycotts. I would have thought that a more responsible attitude on the part of the official Opposition would have been the order of the day, but no. Their conceit has made them oh so gullible, so terribly gullible! they remind me of a saying I once heard namely:

[Interjections.] Their affectation of always being right has cast doubt on the integrity of a section of public servants, directors of companies and indeed the entire Cabinet. One is reminded of the saying of Oliver Wendell Holmes namely:

I wonder how apt that is?

I believe that the official Opposition assisted by the Press has done itself a disservice and that it has also done South Africa a disservice. Not only has it deceived itself but it has also sown doubt in may South African minds without first checking sources of information, especially from anonymous people alleging irregularities in regard to oil purchases.

However, they went even further. Having been given notice that their allegations were being investigated by the Advocate-General, they were not prepared to await the outcome. Indeed, they were so confident of their case that they proceeded with their allegations. I want to quote in this regard from the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs of 4 May 1984, col 50, where an hon member had this to say:

The second important point which arises directly from this matter is the question of who must sign the approval when a price is paid in excess of a contract price. I presume this is a matter of departmental policy and we should like to know who must sign to authorize a payment in excess of the contract price. Is it an official of the SFF, the department or is it the Minister?

Then there is an interjection namely:

The hon member then goes on to say:

The hon member then goes on to say at col 51:

So the point was accepted.

These hon members are so sanctimonious in accusing the Government of smear tactics that one of them—the same one previously quoted—says the following (Hansard, 2 February 1984, col 347):

These members are in fact guilty of the very thing they accuse the Government of doing, only they do it on a much bigger scale. The attitude appears to be: Give them a fair trial and hang them. [Interjections.] It was Joyce Cary who said:

The Advocate-General’s findings after his investigation into the allegations of personal enrichment or corruption in crude oil procurement are very detailed and precise. The report has without doubt dispelled any fears of any corruption or self-enrichment taking place by any sector involved. From the report before us it is quite clear, taking into account the variables in the two contracts, that the correct prices were being paid, and I refer here to paragraphs 6. 6.9, 10,11 and 12, and 7.2.14. Be that as it may, I sense a reluctance on the part of the official Opposition to accept these findings. In fact, they seem to have doubts about the report, and this is evident from previous debates and the report of the select committee which was not unanimous. However, some members in the official Opposition seem to have accepted the findings. One may ask whether the hon member for Yeoville accepts them because he walked through the Chamber while the division bells were ringing, yet he failed to support his party when the vote came. For those who have not accepted the findings in the report it may be as well to remind them of what St Augustine said, namely:

What has really given rise to this debate today? Which events leading up to it have cast aspersions on certain individuals both in and outside the Government? What has really caused this debate is the authoritarian approach to sensitive matters in respect of oil procurement by the Government. The blame therefore lies at their door, and at nobody else’s. The Government could have circumvented this entire episode had they stuck to the basic tenets of free democracy, namely accountability and responsibility to the legislature. This should have been accepted when the legislation was introduced so that the Auditor-General could control these accounts. This is what we as a party have consistently asked for since 1979, and we are on record in this regard. Our approach has always been based on accountability and responsbilility to Parliament. In this regard the Advocate-general makes it very clear in paragraph 16 that he agrees with the concept that the Auditor-general control all State funds. We as a party again request the hon the Minister in charge of this portfolio to reassess his position and to come back to this House with amending legislation to put into effect the recommendations of the Advocate-General and the NRP.

Mr Speaker, in the very few minutes I have at my disposal I want to say to the hon member for South Coast that he has spent about 90% of his time trying to have a go at the official Opposition and about one minute of his time discussing the actual report.

The hon member for Ermelo also made the point and in fact insulted the hon the Leader of the Opposition by saying that this whole matter was a waste of time. He was supported by the hon member for Brakpan who said that the whole thing should have been thrown into the wastepaper basket. What he seems to overlook is that in insulting the hon the Leader of the Opposition for the course of action he took, he has actually insulted his own Prime Minister as well. [Interjections.] It is no good getting worried about it. The hon member for Ermelo says that the hon the Leader of the Opposition fell for this anonymous statement. So what happens? He sends it to the hon the Prime Minister and the hon the Prime Minister does not dismiss it. What does he do? He considers it worthy of sending it to the Advocate-General. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister pertinently: Did he or did he not refer it to the Advocate-General?

Yes.

And what does the Advocate-General say about it? What does the hon member for Roodeplaat say? They say that these are sensitive documents, copies of documents that come from the department of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

Where is the memorandum?

That is the point: They are again ducking the issue. The fact of the matter is that, if the hon the Leader of the Opposition had received that and done nothing about it, if he had said “This is an anonymous document; it is a waste of time; I am going to throw it into the wast-paper basket” and it then turned out that it contained some facts, this Government would have been the first to crucify him and to say “What sort of Opposition are you, disregarding important information? You do not know the meaning of the word ‘opposition’”. [Interjections.] No, Sir, no one can deny that the hon the Leader of the Opposition did exactly the right thing in referring a sensitive document, to use the words of an hon member opposite, to the hon the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sent it to the Advocate-General. We had no quarrel with that at all. However, as my colleague, the hon member for Constantia, has made very clear, there are many questions which remain unanswered, the method of investigation was luke-warm to say the least and the matter needs further investigation.

Sir, what is at stake in this debate is the fact that Parliament has had no control over public funds, a point we have raised again and again. If nothing else flows from this investigation other than that this position is changed, I would say that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has done a great service to this House and to this country. What is at stake here, secondly, is the role of an Opposition in South Africa. I want to say to the hon the Prime Minister, every member of his Cabinet and every member on that side of the House that, if the same thing were to happen again tomorrow, we would follow exactly the same course. We would send those documents to the Prime Minister and say to him …

All the documents; not some of them.

Yes, we would send all the documents if the hon the Deputy Minister likes. [Interjections.] The Government got them. They got them all. The hon the Deputy Minister says the hon the Leader of the Opposition should have sent every single item. This was a covering letter. The moment the Advocate-General said “Can I also have that?”, it was sent to him. So that is absolute nonsense! What is at stake here, finally, is not only the role of an Opposition and parliamentary control over public funds, but also a Government that is drunk with power so that they do not want anybody to ask any questions or to probe any further. [Interjections.] I want to say that we will go on asking questions, we will go on investigating and we will go on confronting the Government because we are the only Opposition in this House who are prepared to do it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have never in my life seen such a flutter in the dovecote. It is quite clear that through his findings concerning the so-called request of the hon the Leader of the Opposition, who is the complainant and who is conspicuous by his absence, the Advocate-General has set the proverbial cat among the pigeons and the pigeons do not know how to escape. As far as I am concerned the efforts of the three speakers on the Opposition side were absolutely pathetic. I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Roodeplaat because I, too, greatly sympathize with the hon member for Edenvale. The hon member for Edenvale does not sympathize with the slander that is here being published on the basis of anonymous documents. After all, it is not true that he sympathizes with them. I want to say that if the hon member for Edenvale had had the opportunity, he would have done exactly what the hon member for Yeoville did. He would have walked in on one side of the House and walked out the other. But the poor hon member has to bite the bullet. [Interjections.] The other hon members of the PFP failed entirely to deal with the actual chargesheet before the Advocate-General. It is difficult to believe what the hon member for Constantia said. He contends that he did not see the charge sheet. In the letter written to the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition he states that he discussed the matter with members of his party. The hon member for Constantia now states that he would have liked to see the chargesheet.

I never said that. I said the public will not see it.

The hon member did say that. He must go and read his Hansard. The hon member brought this gossip up again. He probably spoke to a reporter of the Sunday Tribune because what he said this afternoon was exactly the same as appeared in that newspaper on Sunday.

Worst of all is that the hon member again asked a series of questions about several matters that are not clear to him and that, as far as he is concerned, point to corruption. However, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Prime Minister he gave the undertaking—this is on record and in Hansard—that he would make available to the Advocate-General every item of information available to him and his party. Why did the hon member for Constantia not make his information, too, available to the Advocate General? Why is he again asking me these questions? He does so because he wants to gossip, since he has no substantive information whatsoever to submit to the Advocate General to substantiate that charge sheet.

The hon member also made a reprehensible personal attack on the Advocate-General. He questioned the investigation by the Advocate-General, the methods he adopted and the people he spoke to, and then dragged in several new names. If he had such grave misgivings about the then Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, why did he not submit that to the Advocate-General, or did he only find that out on Sunday? I contend that the hon member has cast doubt on the integrity of the Advocate-General in a scandalous fashion and I believe that the hon member and his party owe the Advocate-General an apology.

You are trying very hard.

The hon member for Pinelands should rather say nothing at all. He was so far removed from the report of the Advocate-General that he did not even get a whiff of it.

I now turn to the report of the Advocate General, which the hon member for Ermelo also discussed. He states that the Ministers in question came out of this scotfree. The Ministers concerned with the supply of oil obtained oil for South Africa in difficult circumstances and in the face of a world boycott, and emerged from the struggle with great success and honour so that hon members on that side, too, could gad about on the petrol they were able to purchase. I think it is a shame that the name of the present Minister of Internal Affairs should be dragged in here at this late stage.

I want to refer to the way in which the hon member concluded his speech. He concluded it with a sign, so that not everyone could understand what it meant. He contended that this was an effort to whitewash the whole gossip story. In reality, therefore, he is saying that the Advocate-General tried to whitewash this charge. What a scandalous and sickly charge against an instrument of this Parliament, because the Advocate-General is an instrument of this Parliament. I think that that is a scandalous remark and it deserves to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I now turn to the remarks of the hon member for Pinelands. It is odd how the hon member develops the ability, when he is painted into a corner, to make such a noise that he can hear no one except himself, apart from his conscience, of course. What did the hon member do? He tried to defend his hon Leader, who is conspicuous by his absence. He also tried to make an attack on the hon the Prime Minister. Let us consider the true facts. After all, they are extremely simple. What appears in paragraph 1.4 of the document? It is stated that the hon the Leader of the Opposition handed to the hon the Prime Minister a document—I do not want to go into the details of the document—in which certain charges were made. Let us take a very careful look at that document and at the letter written to the hon the Prime Minister by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He writes to the hon the Prime Minister that he is sending him a document in which certain allegations are made which point to illegal or unlawful enrichment in respect of certain individuals. He then states that what the summary of this document amounts to is that some of the contracts were entered into without ministerial approval. If one looks at the document—I have all the information here but owing to lack of time I shall not use it now—one finds a clear telex, No 2127 of 21 October 1980, in which it is clear that the contract was entered into with the permission of the Minister. Now I ask: where does the hon the Leader of the Opposition obtain the information to say that this was entered into without ministerial approval?

Let us go further. The hon the Leader of the Opposition drags in Dr Chiavelli’s name. I challenge any of those hon members to find the name of Dr Chiavelli anywhere in the documents. Where does the hon the Leader of the Opposition find that name? [Interjections.]

Let us go further. The hon the Leader of the Opposition drags in the name of John Deuss. Nowhere in the documents emanating from the department—I am not referring to the false processing of the data added by the anonymous person—is there a single reference to Deuss. Incidentally, I have a big question mark as far as that anonymous person is concerned. I shall come back to that in a moment. There is not a single reference to Deuss in those documents. I again ask: Why is he dragging Deuss’ name in here.

I now turn to paragraph 1.4 [Interjections.] Now those hon members had better be quiet and listen. The hon member for Pinelands attacks the hon the Prime Minister and says that he is the culprit now because he referred the matter to the Advocate General. However let us consider what the hon the Leader of the Opposition did. A document consisting of two or three sheets—it must have been complete for the hon the Leader of the Opposition to be able to make that inference—was also there, but the hon the leader of the Opposition removed it. It was part of the document. He sent all the false, incorrect gossip emanating from the anoymous person together with it—he had no objection to that—but he did not send the same false inferences that the anonymous person made in a typed document—or perhaps it was handwritten; I do not know—to the hon the Prime Minister. I contend that the hon the Leader of the Opposition deliberately removed that document in order to mislead the hon the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the minister allowed to make the allegation that the hon the Leader of the Opposition falsely withheld a document?

Sir, I withdraw it. Let me put it like this: Can we not at this point ask whether the hon the Leader of the Opposition deliberately removed that document? If he did so, then he is the one who misled the hon Prime Minister. Then he created a false impression in the mind of the hon the Prime Minister.

That is an infamous lie.

Now I ask myself: Why did the hon the Leader of the Opposition remove that document containing information that did not appear in the State document? Who is he protecting? [Interjections.] That hon member must not ask who says that he removed it. The document was not with the others. The Advocate-General had to call for it, and the hon member for Edenvale thereupon sent it to him. There for I repeat my question: Who is the hon the Leader of the Opposition protecting? Why is he protecting an anonymous gossip? [Interjections.] He tried to protect him by withholding that specific document. I am not referring to the hon member for Edenvale, but to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, and I repeat that he is protecting an anonymous gossip. With what aim? Now I ask a very serious question: Did he withhold that document because the anonymous author requested him to do so in that document? I ask this question, because it is a pertinent question since I believe the public has the right to know the facts, and I trust that the Press will furnish the facts. The public has the right to ask why the hon the Leader of the Opposition removed that document, and whom he is protecting. Or does he perhaps know who the anonymous writer is? [Interjections.] After all, one would not protect a gossip with top secret State documents in his possession if one did not know who he was, if he acted anoymously. [Interjections.] However, let us take it that the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not know who this anonymous person is. Is is conduct here part of his pattern, part of his ulterior motives, with a view to imposing certain decisions? That is the finding of the Advocate-General, and I can prove it with chapter and verse on the basis of his report. The reading public has the right to know whether the hon the Leader of the Opposition was asked to destroy the document that he removed. He would do well to give the Press an answer to that question. If not, we shall continue to ask the question because one only protects a person if one knows who he is or if one agrees with his objectives and motives.

However, there is another very important aspect. There are highly secret documents here which, according to the Advocate-General, were illegally removed from the files of a Government department or SFF. However, the hon the Leader of the Opposition is by no means concerned about these documents, that are important for the security of the State, getting into the hands of anonymous people. He does not even convey to the hon the Prime Minister his concern in that regard.

You are talking absolute nonsense! Why do you think he sent them to him?

That hon member would do well to remain silent. It is clear that he knows nothing about what is going on here. Not only did the hon the Leader of the Opposition send the documents to the Prime Minister; he also wrote him a letter in which he intimated that in his opinion the matter was so sensitive that it ought to be investigated before it became a public debate. He also said that in this House, according to Hansard. However, what happened subsequently? The hon members on that side conducted a public debate on the matter at every opportunity. They took every opportunity to make a public debate out of this in the Press.

While I am speaking about the Press, I have a few things to add in this regard as well. However, my time is running out and unfortunately I shall not be able to deal with everything I wanted to say. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, however, the question we must ask is the following: Why does the hon the Leader of the Opposition not regard this sensitive information as being of such importance as to cause him to make a request in his letter to the hon the Prime Minister that the problem of leakage be urgently investigated as far as this matter is concerned. That, after all, is what the hon member for Brakpan, quite rightly, did today. I thank him for doing so. Incidentally, I may just mention that the investigation into this matter has almost been completed. We hope to know exactly what is going on there one of these days. We have not been letting the grass grow under our feet. Immediately after he received this letter, the hon the Prime Minister issued certain instructions.

However, what is the major, the most important thing as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned? This nameless man, a man who hides behind a shield of cowardly unanimity, is besmirching the names of very important people, senior officials and hon members of this House, he is casting a cloud of suspicion on their integrity, without taking any account of their families, of the organizations for which they work or their colleagues who co-operate with them. Why? Purely for ulterior motives. The whole issue concerns a conspiracy on the basis of certain ulterior motives. Therefore the question that arises—and I ask this question with the utmost responsibility—is whether the privilege of this House has not been abused for the sake of the ulterior motives of anonymous people. [Interjections.] That is the question in regard to which hon members of the official Opposition will have to furnish a reply to the public at large. They will have to state clearly whether this is not the case. [Interjections.]

What is also very important, of course, is the fact that there are certain people that we must clearly exempt in this regard. These are the people whose names have been besmirched by this man who operates so anonymously. What does the Advocate General have to say about this? I believe that hon members of this House and the public at large should take due cognizance of the findings of the Advocate-General in this connection. According to the Advocate General, the only possibility of such an enrichment would have been if the suppliers had given officials compensation or bribes. The Advocate-General states that in view of the calibre of the officials of the State and of Sasol with whom he conducted interviews, he would regard such a possibility as a gross insult to their high integrity as people and as officials. [Interjections.] This, then, is the statement of the Advocate-General which the hon member for Constantia referred to as white-washing. These are people who have performed a very difficult and sensitive task with great success and skill on behalf of the State and in the interests of the country. We therefore reject this gossip and these allegations by hon members of the Opposition in respect of these people with the contempt they deserve. Moreover, that is the message we wish to convey to the public of South Africa.

We also wish to convey our sincere thanks to the Press for their responsible conduct in this regard. Moreover, we are in the process of conducting further discussions with the Press in this connection. Therefore, in conveying my thanks to the Press, I do so from the heart. However, there are also two exceptions in this regard. In their handling of this matter The Sunday Tribune and The Sunday Express showed not a trace of responsibility. I therefore contend that those two newspapers are hand-in-glove with these anonymous people who are besmirching the names of other people.

Motion withdrawn.