laid upon the Table:

Mr Speaker, during the course of this debate we have had a few maiden speeches as well as quite a number of farewell speeches. I wanted to mention this right at the outset, and I think I am speaking on behalf of the entire House when I welcome and congratulate the three new hon members who made their maiden speeches. The hon member Mr Danie van Gend made a very instructive speech on utility companies and the role they play in housing. He will certainly be able to make a very important contribution during his period of service in this House. We listened with great enjoyment to the hon member for Klip River, who spoke with affection and with knowledge of his part of the world—it is certainly one of the most important regions in our country. We also look forward to his contribution.

†The hon member for Pinelands made a valuable contribution in his first speech in Parliament in which he specifically covered the question of the development of manpower. We listened with great interest to his contribution.

*We also took leave of the hon member for East London North. I also want to express my deepest sympathy at what inflation did to his pants. But I want to differ with him on his standpoint in respect of the payment of our foreign debt. We can discuss that a little further at a later stage.

The hon members for Middelburg, Welkom and Bezuidenhout also took their leave of us. This side of the House did not find the farewell speech of the hon member for Bezuidenhout all that pleasant to listen to. It was an exceptionally bitter speech. However, we shall certainly miss the hon members for Middelburg and Welkom in this House.

Others who also spoke indicated that they were going to retire, but would probably participate again. I am not going to refer to them any further.

I should like to thank hon members on this side of the House who made valuable and illuminating contributions during this debate. Unfortunately the hon member for Smith-field is indisposed and cannot be here today, but he made his usual very thorough contribution. When such a person becomes the chief spokesman on a specific matter on your side of the House and he rises to his feet to reply, it is very pleasant to be able to relax and know that it is going to be a good contribution. One can then give attention to one’s other notes, secure in the knowledge that he will put the opposition in its place. I want to thank him in his absence.

I also want to thank other hon members who spoke on economic matters for their support. They are the hon members for Newcastle, Heilbron, Gezina and Witbank. I want to support the latter hon member in his plea that we in South Africa, certainly on the part of the private sector, can see a very far stronger movement—in German it is known as “Mitbestimmung”—towards allowing workers to share in the profits made by companies. This is a major incentive, but it is something which has to be managed very skilfully. I think his plea is certainly going to receive far more attention in future.

In particular I want to convey my sincere thanks to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, who is at this moment probably carrying out his duties in one of the other Houses. I think he made an extremely valuable contribution to a discussion, on a high level, of the entire issue of inflation. In his absence I want to tell him that I am very grateful to have a person like him pulling in the team. I can state quite candidly that both these Deputy Ministers make a very valuable contribution to the formulation, and particularly to the analysis, of policy in the department. It is very pleasant indeed to operate in a team with the two of them and the other officials of the Department of Finance.

I want to content myself with a collective thank you to all other hon members on this side who participated, but I do at least want to say a very special word about the hon the Minister in the Office of the State President. It was quite an experience to hear him, and those on the opposite side of the House who clashed with him, must now know what it feels like to come up against a man who stands as firmly as the rock of Gibraltar.

†Mr Speaker, before I refer to anything specific with regard to contributions by individual hon members, I should like to deal with a few topics which formed a general theme in much of the criticism levelled at us.

Firstly, very brief word on the whole question of inflation. We are so often compared with countries like the USA, Germany, the UK etc, as if it were possible to manage in our economy the kind of rapid adjustments— also as far as inflation is concerned—which some of these countries have been able to make.

However, I should like to refer to an objective body like the International Monetary Fund, because they classify countries according to their stage of development. I wish to quote from official figures and statements of the International Monetary Fund. South Africa has been put in the subgroup called “Market Borrowers” which falls within the main group of capital importing developing countries. Right now we are not really a capital-importing developing country; we have been forced into being a capital-exporting developing country, which is a rather akward position for us to be in. [Interjections.]

Why?

Hopefully this will only be a temporary status for us.

However, the market borrowers are a mixed bag and include important countries. I wish to point out to hon members that among these countries we do not necessarily find tin-pot countries—small insignificant countries; we find countries which, although they have relatively high or sometimes exorbitantly high inflation rates, have a per capita real income that is significantly higher than ours. I refer to countries such as—in general now—Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Portugal and Yugoslavia. The International Monetary Fund calculated an average inflation rate on a weighted basis; in other words, they took into account the size and other particulars of these countries. The average inflation rate of this important group of countries of which South Africa forms a part was 38,7% in 1982, 56% in 1983, 66,8% in 1984 and 70,8% in 1985.

Now, I am not arguing for a single moment that we are doing well because of our inflation rate compared with these. All I am trying to indicate is that all of these countries, being broadly in the same category as South Africa are, grappling with the same kind of problems of adjustment that we have. In the process something had to give. In all of these countries we find, among other things, not a very well-developed social security system which makes it possible for these countries to apply absolutely stringent fiscal and monetary policies to the extent where they virtually kill the economy and suffer exploding unemployment figures. In these cases, inflation obviously bore the brunt of it.

In our case, I am only trying to argue that in our adjustment period—over the past five years particularly—we did not do too bad a job of managing our economy to stay at least within reasonable limits.

*The hon members for Edenvale, Sasolburg and Lichtenburg, as well as other hon members, chose 1980, in some cases 1981, as their base year. That was an outstanding year in South African history. The gold price was incredibly high, and we had record agricultural harvests. They chose that year, and compared it with the present. It is true what they say, with statistics one can prove anything. When one listens to hon members conjuring with figures, one is reminded of the story, about the chap who said: For many people statistics are like a lamppost to a drunk; they are more useful for the support they provide than the light they cast on the subject. [Interjections.]

If we have to be criticised by opposition members on the basis of figures, it would pay them to examine these matters with a little more insight over a slightly longer period and with a little more “figure integrity” and “trend integrity”. They should not, in a short period of one to three years, simply reverse a tremendously important trend.

†Mr Speaker, the question of Government expenditure also came under fire—as if this Government is absolutely exceeding all normal limits as far as the percentage of GDP represented by Government expenditure is concerned. I have in my hand a table which shows that South Africa is by no means an example of Government prodigality. I do not want to tire hon members by reading the entire table. It is there to read. Any hon member of the opposition can obtain this table—it is available free of charge.

All that I am saying is that in the case of South Africa, we are doing our utmost to reduce our Government expenditure to such a level as to provide room for expansion for the private sector.

*In connection with another matter I just want to convey a general item of information to hon members. In the Part Appropriation speech it was announced that R200 million was being appropriated for increases in social pensions and allowances. Various Press reports on this information unfortunately contained incorrect statements as to the date on which the increases would take effect. As usual increases in social and civil pensions take effect during October of every year. The amount appropriated this year will in the same way be applied for increases in pensions and grants with effect from 1 October 1987. Further particulars on these amounts will be furnished next week during the part appropriations of the respective administrations for own affairs.

So why the hurry to announce it?

The hon member for Yeoville’s remark now—“Why the hurry to announce it?”—shows a complete ignorance of how Government operates. We announce…

[Inaudible.]

I want to deal with that hon member now! [Interjections.] He must just give me an opportunity. I have a throat problem and I want to spare my voice if I can.

Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon the Minister a fair chance to speak this afternoon. He has a serious throat ailment, and it is therefore very difficult for him to speak loudly. If we give him an opportunity to speak a little more softly, it will be easier for him and for all of us. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Whisper! [Interjections.]

The specialist told me that if one whispers one in fact inflicts more damage on one’s vocal chords than one would if one were to speak up. So I am not going to whisper at all. [Interjections.]

I say the hon member for Yeoville displayed ignorance because, after an announcement by the Minister of Finance regarding the amount of money the country can afford to spend at a particular stage, the various Ministers responsible for pensions activate their ministries and departments who then enter into a process of negotiation as to the distribution of the particular amount of money available. They do this completely independently of the Treasury, and it takes some time. The hon member for Yeoville, however …

May I ask you a question?

No, the hon member must please not ask me any questions now. If I have some time over at the end of my reply, the hon member may put his questions to me then. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville accused me of unethical conduct because I announced some concessions on behalf of the Government. In fact, he went so far as to call me a “selective quoter”. Then, referring to Hansard, he quoted what one of our esteemed predecessors in the Ministry of Finance, Dr Diederichs had said during the debate on the 1974 mini budget, just before the 1974 election. The hon member reminded me that Dr Diederichs, had said then that the National Party did not need to announce any concessions. The hon member went on to say that the NP seems obviously to be in desperate need now of announcing some concessions so as to woo the voters. He went further and said that I—on behalf of the Government obviously—was underestimating the intelligence of the voters. That, by the way, was a quote of himself because he said the same to Dr Diederichs in 1974. [Interjections.] Of course, Dr Diederichs did not underestimate the intelligence of the voters because we came back with an increased majority!

Having called me a “selective quoter”, the hon member went on to quote Dr Diederichs very selectively himself. The hon member quoted from Dr Diederichs’s reply. When he delivered his mini budget speech, however, Dr Diederichs announced concessions in social pensions. Does that ring a bell with the hon member? He announced the earlier repayment of the 1968 loan levy; he announced two concessions in respect of income tax, and he announced concessions in respect of the then sales duty. [Interjections.] Yet the hon member calls me a “selective quoter”! The hon member created the impression that Dr Diederichs, on that occasion, did not announce any concessions. [Interjections.] What Dr Diederichs did say was that it was unethical to announce major concessions.

That was what I read!

Yes, the hon member did indeed. Dr Diederichs, however, announced mild concessions. The concessions I announced on behalf of the Government in my mini-budget speech the other day were also deemed to be mild. At least, this was how they were perceived by all fair-minded and well-informed people.

What was the amount of his concessions and what was the amount of yours? [Interjections.]

That, then, is what I have to say as far as the hon member’s “selective quoting” is concerned.

Answer my question: What was the amount of his concessions and what was the amount of yours? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may not continue to ask questions while sitting in his bench.

Then, Mr Speaker, I shall get up and ask the question.

Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to answer that question. So will the hon member please resume his seat.

He has not said that, so how can you say, Sir …

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat.

May I please address you then, Sir?

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat. Is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

Mr Speaker, I have heard the hon member’s question, but I do not want to reply to any questions while I am making my reply. After I have finished my reply, I will answer the questions with pleasure.

The hon member has now asked what value that has, but surely he did not tell me that I was unethical about the amount. Surely he was talking about how unethical the principle of the matter was. Surely the issue is not whether it is a large or a small amount; I am not interested in the amount. I have no doubt that if we were to calculate the amount in real terms, it would amount to very nearly the same.

For once in his life at least the hon member for Yeoville was right. [Interjections.] A short while ago he accused the Progs of harbouring a leftist power clique. [Interjections.] The party leadership then leaned on him a little and he withdrew it.

You are so obvious…

He was so right about the leftist power clique. Where is the hon member for Bryanston? [Interjections.] There sits the hon member for Yeoville. He is the next victim of the leftist power clique. [Interjections.] What does the hon member for Bryanston have to say? He says there is a leftist power clique which has taken the PFP in tow. I just wonder how the other remaining Afrikaans-speaking members in those benches feel. There sits the hon member Prof Olivier. What does he feel like sitting among a lot of Boerehaters? [Interjections.] I wonder what he feels like; and he is a person for whom we have great appreciation because of the quality of his contributions. I wonder what he feels like sitting among people who, according to the hon member for Bryanston, are soft on communism and the ANC.

Do you think I am soft on communism?

No, no.

Come on, I challenge you to say that outside this House, and you will get a summons five minutes later. [Interjections.]

I think we must give the hon member for Yeoville a chance to tell us whether he agrees with the hon member for Bryanston that the PFP is soft on communism. [Interjections.] I think we should ask him. He has the whole of the Press at his disposal, and he can give us his reply to that question any time.

Now he has nothing to say. [Interjections.]

At least he was right about that one thing in his life.

In his criticism of the mini-budget, that hon member represented a voice crying in the wilderness. Politically speaking, he will also soon be a voice crying in the wilderness when the rest of the leftist clique in the PFP have dealt with him as they have dealt with the hon member for Bryanston.

Who are the leftist clique?

If you do not know, you are not in it. [Interjections.]

After all, the mini-budget featured in a leading article in Business Day under the heading “Mild applause”, which gave numerous quotations by noted economists to the effect that under the circumstances, it was a good job of work. [Interjections.] Yet, the hon member for Yeoville stood up and criticised the budget as if it were a complete failure in that it had not been designed to achieve certain objectives.

I would like to challenge that hon member once again, as I have done before. He told me that I was not right as regards the growth rate and the inflation rate.

You have never been right on anything. [Interjections.]

I have challenged that hon member before, and I do so again now. I challenge that hon member to take a piece of paper and to jot down for us what his estimate is for the next 12 months of the following variables which we have to take into account when we make our estimates in regard to the economic scene and to the budget. Firstly, there is the average rand-dollar exchange rate. [Interjections.]

You must do the same!

We have been doing it all the time.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville may not keep up a running commentary while the hon the Minister is speaking.

But I am being challenged, Sir!

Order! The hon member for Yeoville is challenging the Chair. [Interjections.] The hon member must not do so. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member need not react now. I shall just give him a list. He must give us the average gold price in dollars; the average dollar-Deutsche Mark exchange rate; his estimate of the inflation rate on all three levels at which it is normally given; and any other variables he would like to predict for us. Let the hon member write these on a piece of paper and have them kept in Mr Speaker’s office. Let us then look at them during the next no-confidence debate. I shall do the same. [Interjections.]

If I am right and you are wrong, will you resign?

You have nothing to resign, Harry!

The hon members for Sasolburg and Lichtenburg also made certain statements about the growth rate. Last year, for the first time, we furnished target figures for the money supply, which one pegs in order to make provision for the possibility of a specific economic growth rate and a specific inflation rate. We estimated the growth rate of the money supply at between 16% and 20% to make provision for an economic growth rate of 3%, and for a growing money supply for the equilibrium point of those two targets.

I have now, on two occasions in this House already, described the course of the South African economy extensively. It is just not possible, if an economy progresses in a specific way—even though one has made provision for a certain growth rate in every possible way—to achieve that growth rate if all the operators and actors in the economy are not prepared to do their share to give the economy that specific growth rate.

An economic growth rate derives from a few sources, namely Government spending, an export-led revival, a consumer spending revival, and a fixed investment revival. In not one of these four spheres was there really any margin for the State to do more than we did.

†The hon member for Yeoville told me that I had had the audacity to say that exchange control had been reimposed for only one reason, namely to stop the loan money from going out through the share market. He said that every economist in South Africa to whom he had shown that statement had said that it was absolute nonsense.

Let us look at the facts. In September 1985 I issued the following statement:

Who allowed that?

I quote further from my statement:

What are the facts? During the 1984 calendar year South Africa experienced an inflow of capital of R958 million through the Stock Exchange and an outflow of R1 772 million through the withdrawal of short-term credits. During the first nine months of 1985— until the standstill—Stock Exchange transactions resulted in a small net outflow of R121 million, while the withdrawal of short-term credits absorbed another R4 611 million. Therefore, in the 21 months before the introduction of the standstill, Stock Exchange transactions resulted in a net inflow of R837 million and a withdrawal of short-term credits in an outflow of R6 383 million.

I fail to understand how any responsible economist can laugh away these facts, as the hon member said they did. As regards exchange control the Stock Exchange transactions were needed to close an obvious loophole in respect of restrictions on the repayment of foreign debt otherwise lenders would have been able to convert their claims on South Africa into listed shares which they could then have exported out of the country.

*I want to content myself by simply saying this to the hon member for Yeoville: If he says something, it must be a fact. It is only he who can state the facts. I have proved on numerous occasions that his facts were wrong. When we on this side of the House come forward with a good effort, which meets with general approval in this country, his is a voice in the wilderness condemning it as though it was something terrible. At one stage we had appreciation for his criticism, but of the emotional and unfounded criticism he is now producing, we cannot take any notice.

†The hon member for Umbilo spoke about interest rates and I just want to refer to one point that he raised. He said salary notches helped public servants to keep up with people in the open market. What, in his mind, is a public servant? Does he realise that from director level upwards—the engine of the Public Service, the management corps—do not have salary notches.

I am aware of that.

If he is aware of that, how can he make such a silly statement?

I said many, not all.

That is not what Hansard says. At any rate, the notches are designed to remunerate those public servants who are learning—people who are in the early stages of their careers and are learning new skills in the course of one year’s service. They are rewarded for that. So when one looks at the market as he suggested, one sees that one cannot rely on salary notches to keep public servants abreast of the market. Therefore, special adjustments are needed from time to time.

*I must make haste, but I should just like to say that whereas it is a piece of cake to reply to the hon member for Sasolburg, it is extremely difficult for a Minister of Finance to reply to the hon member for Sunnyside. It is terribly difficult to make out what the hon member is actually trying to say to one. [Interjections.] Consequently I only want to make one comment on what he said. He mentioned me by name and blamed me for certain things. He also associated those things with dates from a period long before I took over this position. He said the following of me personally:

The fact is that the marginal tax rate has recently declined from 53,5% to 45%. If that is taxing people to death, then I say to him “What a way to go!” Surely that is a nonsensical statement.

What about GST and the rest? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik cannot make his own speech while the hon the Minister is making his.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said the following:

He was referring to the Minister of Finance—

That is a disgraceful remark. What is more, it is devoid of all truth. We did not crawl to countries abroad. We did not apologise for South Africa. We did not appoint a curator. A curator is a person who disposes of one’s assets, and who is charged with the administration of a bankrupt estate. If he was perhaps referring to Dr Leutwiler, I want to tell him that I feel sorry for him if he does not understand the difference between a curator and a mediator.

In this connection, too, there is a problem which I have repeatedly explained in this House—I shall simply have to do it again. Dr Leutwiler was necessary as a mediator because at that stage, owing to the international political circumstances, not a single major bank in the world saw its way clear to acting as mediator between South Africa and its creditor banks, that had called in their credit lines. Not one of them was prepared to do so.

You are playing with words.

The hon member for Rissik can in his foolishness tell me that I am playing with words if he likes, but it is I who have to work with South Africa’s foreign obligation situation. We are working with quantifiable facts, and we cannot sit on our behinds and do nothing. We got moving when we saw that there was trouble brewing for us, and we obtained the services of Dr Leutwiler. We reached an agreement which was accepted internationally by the banks, and as a result we have up to now had the minimum of difficulty in regard to our international situation.

The reason why the hon member for Rissik made such a frivolous remark was that they do not understand these matters. In addition they go from one platform to another and tell the people forcefully that they will do this, that and the other with the international banks if they were to come into power.

I want to mention only one simple fact to the hon members in this House who are responsible for doing that, and then they will understand how delicate this situation is. South Africa has an exceptionally “open” economy because almost 60% of the GDP of our country relates to imports and exports. Imports and exports mean that money enters and leaves this country. Foreign banks are involved in every import and export transaction. When international banks tell a country that they want to recover their money, and that country states, as we did, that it is going to peg their assets in that country and that it will negotiate with them on what it is going to give back to them, the following is going to happen if the delicate situation is not arranged by means of an international agreement: When the country exports something and the importer in the other country pays for those exports abroad in a bank which is itself a creditor or which is associated with a creditor, the bank in question will go to its local court to get writ of attachment on money to the value of that export transaction.

When one imports something and sends one’s money away to pay for those imported commodities, precisely the same thing will happen to one unless one has an international agreement arranging the matter in an orderly way. However, when one goes from one platform to another in a forceful way, employing the noisy politics of the right wing parties instead of thoughtful politics, one is treading with hobnailed boots over this delicate ground and bedevilling South Africa’s entire situation abroad.

Dr Leutwiler does not deserve to be insulted by saying that he is a country’s “curator”—a person administrating a bankrupt country’s estate. He deserves the appreciation of every right-minded and sensible South African, and he ought not to be insulted in this way across the floor of this House. In that way South Africa is being besmirched.

In his tirade the hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to our work creation programmes, which ostensibly mean nothing. According to him we could have saved a billion rands. Would the hon member have abolished the work creation programmes, if he had had the power to do so?

I would have applied them in a far better way. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member is backpedalling.

I would have applied them productively.

The hon member said that nothing had been accomplished.

Yes, nothing.

I am not going to repeat the details here; my hon colleague who is responsible for them can do so. This work creation programme would be a credit to any civilised government because it came to the assistance of people who would otherwise have suffered severe hardships and would have been without any income. Countrywide co-operation was achieved in a very spectacular way in order to keep people productively busy earning a little money for themselves, instead of merely having a soup kitchen or something similar.

The training programmes made a further drastic contribution which will in future produce measurable results in the informal sector. If one learns, intensively, to lay bricks for three or four weeks and during the period one is paid a small subsistance allowance, then one is able to enter the informal sector afterwards and earn a living.

I now want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he has visited one of the training centres that form part of this programme.

No.

He says “no”. I am pleased that he has given me an honest reply.

I did so myself, and I want to invite the hon member to pay a visit to one of these training centres. He must ask the people there, who are learning to become plasterers, bricklayers or whatever, what would have become of them if they had not had that opportunity. He must also ask those people what they are going to do with their skills. They will tell him of their plans to build themselves a house and then to build houses for other people. That is the kind of programme which, according to the hon member, is not productive.

You could have utilized it better.

That hon member talks so easily about unemployment, but I want to point to him something which Mr Vorster said in the past. After all, the CP believes that everything Mr Vorster said was right. The words of Mr Vorster I am now going to quote come from Hansard of 14 September 1970, col 4085. I have great appreciation for these words of his—

Mr Vorster said this when he was still Prime Minister.

Mr Marais Steyn then asked him: “What do you mean by “coloured’ people?” Mr Vorster replied: “The Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu”.

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

No, Mr Speaker.

To make such a reckless remark about the work creation programmes ill befits a person who was himself a member of this Government and who knows the problems of a government. While I am talking about this, I want to mention that the hon member for Lichtenburg accused us again yesterday of closing the wage gap without ensuring an accompanying increase in productivity. Why does that hon member not rise to his feet and tell us how many Black teacher’s salaries he, when he was responsible for Black education, placed on a par with the salaries of Whites without his assessing any salary according to productivity? [Interjections.] No what, I really think he ought to be reminded of his past a little.

Here in my hand I have a pamphlet which depicts a small White man carrying a large Black man. This is a CP pamphlet and the caption states: “Dis ons wat nou en verder die las dra”. It also states:

Then one finds the following statement: “Dokumentêre bewys kan vir alle feite en statistiek gegee word”. [Interjections.] I want to bring one of the so-called “facts” of this pamphlet to the attention of hon members. Hon members must please listen to every word:

The findings of the Margo Commission have not yet been published. Nevertheless they allege that the Margo Commission found, not that so much tax is being evaded, but that the “groot geldmag” (moneyed interests) had evaded that tax. If one evades tax, one is committing a criminal offence. Nevertheless it is the finding of the Margo Commission, according to this “feiteblad” … [Interjections.]

Is that this party’s pamphlet?

It is the CP’s pamphlet.

Where is that stated?

It is stated in the pamphlet.

Read it!

Surely I said so a moment ago. I am not going to waste any more time on it, but I shall let the hon member have it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to proceed.

The chairman of the Margo Commission, Mr Justice Margo, once…

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

No, Mr Speaker, not now.

Mr Justice Margo informed us that a reporter mutilated a speech which he had made at a meeting of Sapoa, and had published it in a report in The Star and Pretoria News. After Mr Justice Margo had spoken to the editors, an apology and a withdrawal of the report was published the next day. Nevertheless the CP not only continues to repeat a false statement, but also gives an additional twist to it by alleging that the Margo Commission had found, and by implication alleged that the Government had allowed, that moneyed interests had evaded R10,5 billion in tax in 1984 alone. That is a party that tells us it has an honest policy …

It is a false statement if you say the CP published that pamphlet.

Order!

We take cognisance of the fact that the Chief Whip of the CP says that it is a false statement that the CP published this pamphlet, which appeared under their name and which was compiled by a Mr Swart, p/a Post Box 1301, Bloemfontein, and was printed by Unique-drukkers, P O Box 2678, Bloemfontein. [Interjections.] The pamphlet also states:

I want to make a second point. In this pamphlet it is again stated that large mining companies pay nothing. Once again it is this Government which is allegedly allowing moneyed interests to evade tax. They say there are four mining companies that pay nothing.

According to information I was able to obtain, most of these companies are no longer in the mining industry. Two of them have, according to our best available information, converted their activities to those of holding companies, which therefore receive revenue from dividends only. As I have explained repeatedly to the hon members on that side of the House, a company which receive its revenue from dividends does not pay tax on that revenue because the companies from which it obtained those dividends have already paid tax on it. The holding company sends the revenue it receives to its shareholders in the form of dividends, and each shareholder pays income tax or tax on the dividends he or she receives in this way. [Interjections.]

Once again it is being insinuated in this pamphlet that moneyed interests are being allowed by this Government to refrain from paying tax and to get away with it.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made a disgraceful remark here about the Government’s attitude to the farmers. I reject it with the contempt it deserves. In my hand I have the reports of the department of my hon colleague which indicate how many hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of rands this Government has poured into agriculture, and is going to continue to pour into agriculture in an effort to get it back on its feet again. I leave it to him to furnish hon members with the facts.

As usually the hon member for Sasolburg was the cherry on the top. [Interjections.] I think he should change his name from “Stofberg” to “Stofberk”. The person who gives him his information is well known to me. He came to my office and told me that he was now writing the HNP’s stuff for them. [Interjections.] Oh, Sir, I do not know who provides a Dr X, whose name I shall not mention here, with this information, but perhaps the hon member should verify his facts a little somewhere else.

The hon member accused me of furnishing false information in regard to forex in the Appropriation. I am not going to repeat it here; there is no time. I have the Hansard cuttings of the previous two Budgets here, in which I dealt at length with the forex losses that were suffered.

According to the Act, this is a matter that must be sorted out between the Minister of Finance and the President of the Reserve Bank. This is not something which needs to be addressed on every single occasion. I have made it clear how we deal with the matter. I am not going to read it out to the hon member again, but I shall send it to him. We do not consider it to be in the interests of the country to give any more money now, over and above the R654 million we have already paid and on which I have elaborated in detail. Sir, we now need the money to keep this economy going. I shall leave it at that. The hon member told me I was false; all I want to say to him is that he should read his Hansard and verify his information.

Sir, the hon member is completely confused. He said we had a negative GDP. If he looks at his Hansard, he will see that the “last year” to which he referred, was the year before last. [Interjections.] We know that they live in the past, but he is completely at sixes and sevens with his times. He spoke about “last year”, and about “this year”. He said we were going to have a growth of 0,8% this year. Sir, last year our growth was just below 1%. He said that we had had a negative GDP last year, but I want to tell him that we had a negative growth rate in the GDP the year before last.

He made another mistake as well. I want to teach him some simple arithmetic. He told me that I had been Minister of Finance for three and a half years, and asked me what I had done. I was ostensibly billions out in my Budget. I was given this position in August 1984. One year elapsed between August 1984 and August 1985; another year elapsed from 1985 to 1986. One and one is two. [Interjections.] From August 1986 to February 1987 is a half. That is two and a half; not three and a half. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg told me I should read Die Afrikaner, that I would then find out what was happening in the economy. [Interjections.] In the first place we were not able to get hold of the thing here in the Cape; it is not even available. We eventually found it in Pretoria, and here I am standing with the stuff. It is the same old story: White taxes must be spent on White people, and Black taxes on Black people. Not a cent of White money should go to the Blacks. Is that what the hon member said?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

In fact, the hon member went further. He said a law should be enacted to ensure that White taxes were spent only on White peoples’ affairs.

No, nonsense!

He did say that, yes! [Interjections.]

It is true, Sir, he did say that. [Interjections.] If that is not true, why do we speak about a law? Surely one cannot make a law if one says that one should really try, but one need not try all that hard. Surely one does not make a law for that purpose; surely that is stupid.

I want to quote something to the hon member for Sasolburg on very good authority, from which it is apparent that the Whites obviously have to make a contribution to the development of Black people. The hon member is continuously adopting a standpoint against that. He said White money should only be spent on White people, and the Blacks must take care of themselves. I want to quote something to him in this regard from a good authority. According to him it is an “impeccable source” if I may also use the same words as he used yesterday. [Interjections.] Someone is being asked here how he is going to cause his homeland policy to succeed. This person then said:

What sacrifices? Financial sacrifices, Sir. Perhaps we should pay more taxes to make that homeland policy possible. I shall show the hon member a photograph of the man who said this. It was Mr Jaap Marais. [Interjections.]

Do you recognize him? [Interjections.]

Here are the graphs. He said that what was stated here was the unvarnished truth, the simple truth. Here calculations were made in regard to how much White money there was in the economy, and how much Black money; how much was being spent on White services, and how much on Black services. Then he says it is this Government that is causing the Whites to become impoverished. It was Die Afrikaner that said so. In the meantime, the leader of the HNP says that the Whites should simply be allowed to become a little impoverished in order to implement his homeland policy. Nevertheless the article goes on to say that the figures pertaining to how much is being spent on Black people are in fact far higher—and we must remember that he maintains that this is the truth—when it is borne in mind that certain White institutions, for example hospitals, render services to Blacks on an agency basis. In point of fact, therefore, he was conceding that he was not entirely certain of his figures when it came to the expenditure side. On the revenue side, however, I want to ask him again in what way his argument is valid.

When one has a company which employs Black workers almost exclusively, how is the income tax paid by that company distributed? Surely it cannot then be said that it is White money.

Of course you can! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I concede that one can. One can do so if one is stupid. [Interjections.] If one is stupid, one can do anything. [Interjections.] However, it is not possible. I put it to the hon member for Sasolburg that he does not base it on the shareholding in the company either. Surely that would be madness. One would then have a frantic flurry every time that legislation which the hon member advocated has to be implemented—legislation in terms of which he wants one to determine which money is White and which money is Black.

This country has an irretrievably integrated economy, and what must happen in the interests of this country is that the people who are lagging behind must be uplifted by way of the provision of infrastructure, physically, intellectually and educationally. The hon member for Edenvale accused us of not doing enough for Black education. The truth of the matter is that the education budget for Black people has increased eightfold during the past eight years. We cannot make any apology for that. That is the maximum that can be absorbed. How can one make an apology for that? That is where South Africa’s future lies—in the fact that we are working with civilized and trained people.

But not at the expense of the Whites, who have to become impoverished in the process! Surely that is not right! [Interjections.]

Stoffies, what does Jaap say?

Mr Speaker, what takes the cake in this article? The value of the rand—Die Afrikaner now proves it here to its readers—will continue to diminish uninterruptedly between 1970 and 1990. Yes, they even venture into the sphere of prophesy! That newspaper proclaimed that the value of the rand would decline, between 1970 and 1990, from R1 to 21 cents. But what are the facts? When one has made provision for inflation, as well as population growth, the real gross domestic product grew per capita between 1970 and 1985. Even though the value of the rand declined, the real income per capita grew. Why? Because salaries more than kept pace with the inflation rate. This fact Die Afrikaner omitted to mention, however. Here this newspaper states that this happened as a result of the deliberate inflation policy of the Government. This was stated in a report which, the hon member claims, is the absolute truth. Here it says so, Sir. [Interjections.] But surely this is a blatant untruth!

So we can continue, Sir. Here we have another headline: “Waterige Margarien”. Watery margarine? Mr Speaker, these are certainly watery arguments. Honestly, I have endless problems advancing the necessary counterarguments in language which is simple enough to counteract propaganda of this nature. It achieves nothing. In the first place it is untrue. In the second place it arouses people’s emotions. In the third place it results in people sitting here in Parliament on the basis of untruthful information which they furnished—people who should never have been in Parliament.

You will not repeat that outside! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the only reason I would not venture to say that outside is because I might perhaps find my features being rearranged. However, there is nothing wrong with the integrity of the statement I made.

You are too much of a coward to repeat that outside this House!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Sasolburg said the hon the Minister was too much of a coward to repeat his statement outside this House.

Order! What did the hon member for Sasolburg say?

I used the words the hon member for Kimberley said I used, Mr Speaker.

Order! Surely the hon member for Sasolburg should know better. He must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw them. The hon the Minister does not have the courage to repeat his statement outside this House.

Order! The hon member will withdraw that statement unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to ascertain from you whether it is parliamentary to allege that an hon member is sitting in this House on the basis of untruthful information he disseminated.

Order! I listened to that. It is entirely in order. The hon member for Rissik must resume his seat.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Section 28 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, provides inter alia that the State President may appoint “persons in the service of the Republic.”

However, except with regard to Deputy Ministers and employees in the Public Service, there is at present no provision for the assignment by a Minister of his powers, functions or duties to such persons. In terms of the proposed Bill section 28 is therefore supplemented by inserting clause 28(2) to provide for a Minister to assign his powers, functions or duties to a person apointed in terms of section 28, subject to the directions of the State President.

The proposed amendment states very clearly that such appointed persons can exercise those powers et cetera, assigned to them on behalf of the Minister concerned.

This wording is virtually the same as that contained in section 27(1) of the Constitution in respect of the assignment of powers to Deputy Ministers.

Although the proposed amendment amounts to a general authorization of delegation, there can be no doubt that the Minister who assigns a power to a person appointed in terms of section 28, in the final instance remains the person accountable for the execution of that power.

Should the State President therefore in terms of section 28 appoint a person who is not part of the parliamentary system, it in no way affects the principle of accountability of the Executive Authority vis-à-vis Parliament. The actions of persons appointed in terms of section 28 therefore remain, via the Minister concerned, subject to the established principle of accountability. In addition, all the normal principles of delegation apply.

The Government’s policy of devolution of power and decentralization of functions is based on the conviction that effective Government is promoted by bringing decisionmaking and the implementation of policy as close as possible to the grass-roots level.

This policy also ensures that local conditions, which may differ from region to region, can be duly taken into account.

†A need has also developed for the administration and management of particularly the own affairs of the various communities on a more decentralized basis. To cater for this need, it is envisaged that the State President will appoint persons as ministerial representatives in terms of the general power entrusted to him by section 28 of the Constitution.

In terms of the proposed amendment, Ministers will be able to assign ministerial powers, functions or duties to such ministerial representatives. Ministerial representatives will basically execute those powers, functions and duties assigned to them by Ministers of either the Ministers’ Councils or the Cabinet. According to the proposed amendment, such appoinments must be made subject to the direction of the State President. This arrangement will ensure legal certainty and uniformity. According to the provisions of the Constitution the appointment of ministerial representatives by the State President will be made, in the case of general affairs, in consultation with the Cabinet, and in the case of own affairs, on the advice of the respective Ministers’ Councils. This, of course, also applies to the determination of the status and remuneration packages of ministerial representatives.

I am convinced that the appointment of ministerial representatives will in many ways positively contribute towards more effective administration, closer contact and more trust between the Government and the local population.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I trust that you will use your discretion to allow me to react very briefly to questions that have been put directly to me. I shall certainly not occupy the attention of this House with the matter for longer than two or three minutes. I am referring to the questions which the hon the Minister of Finance put to me in the previous debate—I shall return within two or three minutes to the Bill before this House— with reference to the resignation of the hon member for Bryanston.

I do not want to become involved here in a dispute with the hon member for Bryanston. In fact, hon members of the House know—that is, as far as I can recall—that I have never been guilty of personal reactions or attacks in this House. With reference to the questions put by the hon the Minister, I want to make it very clear that within the framework of my overall and general South Africanism I am and remain an Afrikaner. I am proud of that fact. I make no apology for it. As far as my Afrikanerism is concerned, I need not play second fiddle to the hon member for Bryanston or to any other hon member of this House. I want to make it very clear that I, as an Afrikaner, have always felt at home within the PFP, and that in that sense I wish in all honesty and modesty to dissociate myself from those remarks made by the hon member for Bryanston. [Interjections.] In this connection, if I may give a piece of advice …

Order! Certain hon members are really making unnecessary interjections. They must stop doing so immediately.

I just want to give hon members on that side of the House a piece of advice. I do not think they should use the resignation of the hon member for Bryanston to try to conceal the profound and serious division in ideology, philosophy and vision which exists in the NP. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, thank you for your forbearance in this connection.

I now want to return to this Bill. The hon the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear that we are going to oppose this Bill. I want to sketch the background to this Bill for hon members of this House. I think it is important. Last year a Bill, the Constitutional Laws Amendment Bill, was before the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planing. That Bill made provision in clause 29 for the appointment of so-called “assistant ministers”. I shall come to the details in a moment.

At the first meeting of that standing committee, when this Bill was discussed, it was very clear that there was general oppostion on the standing committee to this provision for the appointment of assistant ministers. It was very clear that the standing committee would not accept this clause.

At the second meeting of that standing committee, when this matter was raised again, but this time formally, the standing committee once again made it apparent that it had serious misgivings. On that occasion the hon members of the House of Representatives in particular, but also the hon members of the House of Delegates, as a tactical step, initially said that they were now going to support that provision, that clause in the Bill. They did this because the hon the State President had not seen fit to appoint a member of the Coloured or Indian community as Deputy Minister. This was just after the hon the State President had appointed that group of deputy ministers. They stated that they were extremely dissatisfied, and regarded it as an insult that not a single member of the Coloured or Indian community had been considered good enough by the hon the State President to be appointed Deputy Minister.

They were then appointed.

As deputy ministers?

Yes, Deputy Ministers were appointed.

No, I am talking about those appointments at that specific stage by the hon the State President.

Yes, but they were appointed.

I am simply reiterating what occurred on that standing committee. It was apparent that they were opposed to it for tactical reasons; and when the matter was raised, that standing committee rejected this clause in the Bill unanimously. The committee refused to accept it. We consequently assumed that the matter was closed.

Can hon members therefore imagine my astonishment, my incredulity, when we received a Bill last week containing essentially the same provision, except that this matter had now been referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs of which the hon the Minister is Chairman? This committee has a completely different structure as regards its membership. Completely different interests are represented on that committee. Furthermore we must remember that while essentially the same thing is being done, it is now being done in terms of a proposed amendment to section 28 of the Constitution, as opposed to the amendment of section 27 of the Constitution, for which that other Bill made provision.

Hon members will also understand my astonishment and bewilderment at the fact that, with the exception of two hon members, those same hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates who had voted against this provision last year, supported the provisions contained in this Bill during the meeting of this standing committee. Of course I cannot speak on behalf of those hon members; they will have to live with their own consciences as regards political integrity. I shall leave it at that. However, I just want to tell hon members that it was rather difficult for me to understand on a rational and ethical basis, why individuals who were in fact not in favour, in principle, of the appointment of these people last year, had in the meantime changed their mind.

I listened carefully to the speech of the hon the Minister, and I compared it with the explanation given last week to members of the standing committee. This afternoon the hon the Minister said that essentially the measure was not in conflict with the principles of parliamentary responsibility and accountability. But I want to state here that I differ seriously with the hon the Minister in this regard. What this Bill envisages, after all, is to fragment parliamentary responsibility and accountability in an unprecedented way— unprecedented at least up to this stage in the history of this Parliament as far as I know. On page 2 of his speech, the hon the Minister referred specifically to this matter. I quote:

He went on to say:

What is the situation as it appears from the discussions we held and the information we were furnished with? That information is not being furnished here in full, but as we understand it, no fewer than twelve additional persons will be appointed in terms of this provision as so-called representatives of Ministers. There will be six in respect of the White Ministers of Own Affairs, four in respect of the Coloured Ministers of Own Affairs and two in respect of the Indians.

It was a little distasteful to observe the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates becoming involved in an argument on the issue of whether there should be three of two representatives but I shall say nothing further about that either. One can understand, however, that because new political channels for preferential treatment are being created here, it is in fact important whether there should be two or three of them.

What is the situation? According to what we have been told, those ministerial representatives will not be allocated to a specific Minister of Own Affairs, but will do the work of various ministers of own affairs in accordance with the delegation for which section 28 makes provision. It was a surprise to learn from the hon the Minister’s speech this afternoon that the possibility even exists that they may also act on behalf of ministers of general affairs, as I have just quoted from the hon the Minister’s speech. So what is the situation?

Take the case of Natal for example where one of these ministerial representatives is now going to be appointed. As I understand it—if I am wrong the hon the Minister must set me straight—the possibility exists that all five of the White Ministers of Own Affairs may delegate powers to that one person, because as I understand it, there are not going to be five of these people in Natal. The possibility therefore exists that the powers and functions of the five White Ministers of Own Affairs in Natal can be delegated to that one person. [Interjections.] The possibility also exists that powers falling under general affairs and therefore entrusted to members of the Cabinet may be entrusted to that person.

How on earth can we speak of the ordinary principles of parliamentary accountability when that person is not sitting here, but is in fact accountable via five Ministers of Own Affairs and possibly, too, by Ministers of General Affairs to this House, and can be called to account by this House? Surely it is nonsensical to say then that the normal principles of parliamentary accountability and responsibility are not being violated in this way. It is completely nonsensical, because it is very clear that those representatives will in fact be political appointments, although they will not be members of Parliament, because the idea is in fact that they will have to remain in those regions while Parliament is in session.

How the hon Minister can say that the ordinary principles of political and parliamentary accountability and responsibility still continue to apply as always under these circumstances, is completely beyond me. Surely it cannot work. This is the first time in my parliamentary career that we can call people to account for what other people have done, people who were appointed for political purposes, in this completely indirect manner. Solely on that ground alone, we cannot accept this Bill.

Secondly I want to say something about the cost aspect. I hoped in vain that the hon the Minister would give us an indiction in his Second Reading Speech of the financial implications of these appointments. We must consider what we already have. There are 18 Cabinet Ministers, 20 Deputy Ministers, five Ministers for White Own Affairs, four Ministers for Coloured Own Affairs and four Ministers for Indian Own Affairs. As I understand it, provision is being made here for at least 12 other posts.

We have not been told how many are going to be appointed, on what scale they are going to be remunerated, whether, for example they are going to receive the same salaries as Deputy Ministers and, apart from the fact that they may join the medical scheme, what the implications are going to be in respect of pensions, or what other privileges or fringe benefits will be payable to these people. We have been told nothing at all. It has all been left to the discretion of the appointment by the hon the State President.

Some of us in this House are being expected to give our approval to expenditure which is completely unspecified. I do not know how hon members and particularly the hon the Minister of Finance, can expect this House, under these circumstances, to give is approval to essential expenditure in terms of this Bill if we do not know the final outcome. As I understand it, the specified total of 12 people can be increased. In fact we can subsequently, in each province, have one local ministerial representative for each Minister for Own Affairs.

If we find that the Deputy Ministers cannot do their work properly, more ministerial representatives can be appointed to assist Deputy Ministers in the various provinces. The door is therefore being opened in this way— acceptance of this measure by this House would be extremely irresponsible—for entrusting such powers to the Government, the hon the State President and the hon the Ministers.

I cannot imagine that a House such as this one can, in a responsible way, give this unspecified, unwritten authorisation to do these things in terms of this Bill. I find it astonishing that in the economic situation in which we find ourselves, in which there are already so many problems with Government expenditure and in which so many misgivings exist as to how the Appropriation should be applied, we can go even further and place an additional burden on the Exchequer on the extent of which we have not as yet been furnished with any details and in regard to which, at this stage, no assurance can be given as to what the maximum extent of the expenditure is going to be.

How the hon members opposite can reconcile this kind of thing with their own consciences and how they can justify this matter to the general public, in view of our economic situation, I honestly cannot understand.

We trust ourselves!

Is that a logical answer to logical objections? [Interjections.] If people cannot think for themselves I do not know what they are doing here in Parliament, but I shall leave it at that. Theoretically one could still say that if a good case could be made out for this, I could perhaps still overlook the shortcomings I have mentioned. I waited for the hon the Minister to clarify the matter for us, but listen to what he said:

Just before that he had said:

Honestly, Sir, these generalities mean less than nothing. I expected the hon the Minister to indicate specifically to us how this would bring administration closer to the basic level and how it would promote effectiveness. It is easy to say this, but I am still waiting for that information. The only example mentioned to us was that mentioned by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House, the hon the Minister of National Education. He said that in White education there had formerly been four MECs who were in charge of it. That is why it was fair that the Minister responsible for White education could receive assistance to help him. My reaction to that is that this House did not ask for the abolition of the provincial councils, in fact we were opposed to it.

This House agreed to the measure. Surely you are part of this House.

Of course the House agreed to it. What does the hon the Minister expect if there is an NP majority. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must address the hon member as “hon member”, and not as “you” and “your”. The hon member may proceed.

I waited in vain for an indication of what these people were going to be used for. How is the effectiveness of the Government of this country going to be promoted? When all is said and done, section 27 makes provision for the appointment of Deputy Ministers. If it is necessary to make further political appointments, more Deputy Ministers will simply have to be appointed. The work previously done by MECs, however, would be done just as well by officials. As regards the delegation of powers and functions of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, these may just as well be delegated to officials. I mentioned the example of that colossal Department of Education and Training, which had only one Minister and one Deputy Minister. There was nothing that was allocated to any of the Ministers in the Ministers’ Council which is comparable in extent and complexity to the workload and respon siblity of the Department of Education and Training. I was then told that in terms of section 28 people could be appointed there as well. Of course they can. But that is not the point. The point is that, in spite of the fact that that department is so colossal, there is only one Minister and Deputy Minister to control it. Now, no one can tell me that the same cannot happen in respect of any of the functions allocated to hon members of the respective Ministers” Councils. Not at all. Where the effectiveness is going to come from—it is essential to promote effectiveness—I cannot understand.

We have other objections too of course. I am referring for example to the wide discretionary power of delegation for which this Bill makes provision. I am aware of the fact that this is of course subject to the directions of the hon the State President. In their representations to the standing committee, the association of Chambers of Commerce made that point very clear. I should like to quote a paragraph interpreting their objections— these are also the material objections that we have:

No limit is being placed on the wide discretionary power. It is in fact stated “subject to the directions of the State President”. I just want to point out one thing. In clause 29 of the Bill, which was rejected last year, specific conditions were stated. Why section 27 of the Constitution was used on that occasion for the appointment of Assistant Ministers, but section 28 is now being amended to make provision for these appointments, is in itself a different story which most certainly requires an explanation. What I am saying with this, is that I believe that it unfortunately enhances the possibility of political favourable treatment even further. I am speaking with a degree of knowledge of this matter. It is nothing, to use the English expression, but a “gravy train”. It is nothing but the possibility of “political patronage” that can be meted out here. Whether it will be utilised in tis way, I shall say nothing about. Because this possibility exists in view of the objection I have just mentioned—the absence of proper parliamentary responsibility and proper financial particulars—we cannot but oppose this Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier regaled us here this afternoon with a speech which was both unfortunate and irrelevant and in the course of which he had a number of astounding things to say.

He referred to the fact that there was legislation before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning last year, which was rejected by this standing committee. He then said that essentially similar legislation had been brought before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. He then made this astounding statement:

Which other interest groups were represented on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs than on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning? This standing committee represented exactly the same interest groups as were represented on the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning. This was an astounding assertion coming from the hon member Prof Olivier.

In addition the hon member asked why one has to use section 28 of the Constitution Act for the appointment of what he claims will be assistant ministers, whereas the Deputy Ministers are appointed in terms of section 27 of the Constitution Act. Surely the answer is obvious. Section 27 provides specifically for the appointment of Deputy Ministers. It goes without saying that section 27 must be used in the appointment of Deputy Ministers. To ask why section 27 is used, is absurd. It is obvious that it must be so and the hon member should know that.

As far as astounding statements made by the hon member are concerned, the cherry on the top was his saying that the work that is intended to be entrusted to the assistant ministers might as well be done by officials. Then the hon member complained about responsibility, however. Now I ask him: If the work were done by officials, who would account to Parliament for what is done?

The Minister!

The Minister! If the Minister intends to account for the work of assistant ministers, however, the hon member says no one will be held accountable for the exercising of those powers. What nonsense! One really does not expect an hon member such as Prof Olivier to present the House with such half-baked arguments.

The hon member is a lawyer and should be acquainted with the legal rule: “Qui facit per alium facit per se.” When a Minister acts through an assistant minister, he is acting himself and he himself is responsible for the actions of that person acting on his behalf.

That is an elementary legal rule, but apparently the hon member Prof Olivier has forgotten it. It seems the hon member has been in this House too long to remember it.

The hon member Prof Olivier did not talk about what the measure said and about the legislation serving before the House; he spoke throughout about opinions he had concerning what was going to be done with the legislation and how it was going to be applied. He spoke, therefore, about what he had heard here and there, and in terms of “what he understood”. The hon member was not reasoning, therefore, but was going on a fishing expedition. He was trying to fish out what exactly the Government intends with this measure and how it is going to be applied.

That is the point.

Yes, there the hon member for Hillbrow has confirmed it! He said “that is the point”. The reason for their opposition to the measure, also in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, was very clear. They were not opposed to the measure, because the measure is really very obvious. No fault can be found with it, but they have a hidden political motive for their opposition to this measure.

I want to draw the attention of the House briefly to what this measure does in fact involve. I am not talking about what people fear it involves, but about what it involves in reality. I am referring to section 28 of the Constitution Act, which grants the State President the authority to appoint and remove persons in service of the RSA, except in the case, firstly, where the appointment or removal is delegated by the hon the State President to another authority, or secondly, where the appointment or removal is vested in any other authority in terms of the Constitution Act or any other law. Subject to these two restrictions, the hon the State President has the authority in terms of section 28 to appoint persons in service of the RSA. In the measure under consideration, therefore, granting the hon the State President this or greater authority of appointment or discharge is not the issue.

In addition, public servants are appointed in terms of the Public Service Act and that is why by definition they are not under discussion here. This measure is not about the appointment of public servants, therefore.

Section 28 does not provide, however, for the delegation or allocation of powers and duties to persons appointed by the hon the State President in terms of this section. The hon the State President can appoint the persons, but section 28 does not provide for a mechanism to determine the duties and powers of these persons. It is this deficiency that the measure under consideration is trying to remedy by granting Ministers the power, subject to the State President’s regulations, to grant and entrust powers, duties and functions to persons appointed by the State President in terms of section 28.

It is important to note that the person or persons appointed in this way will exercise the powers granted to him and perform the duties and functions entrusted to him, on behalf of the Minister who has granted him the relevant authority and entrusted him with the relevant duties and responsibilities. The specific Minister therefore remains responsible to the hon the State President, to Parliament, and eventually to the electorate, for the way in which the appointed person exercises his powers and performs his functions and duties.

The question was raised in the standing committee, and the hon member referred to it this afternoon, as to what would happen if more than one Minister were to grant powers and entrust duties to the same person? It is very clear that the Minister who grants the relevant powers, or entrusts this person with the relevant duties, will remain responsible for the carrying out of the duties granted or entrusted to that particular person by him.

There is no question, therefore, of powers being granted and duties and functions being entrusted to persons appointed in terms of section 28 without having to account to Parliament inter alia for the exercising and performance thereof. I put it in this way because that responsibility is due to the hon the State President in the first place, and in the last place, to the electorate.

Which State President and which electorate?

Sir, if the party of the hon member for Rissik were to succeed—but that will never happen—in winning the election …

Then it will be a White State President. What does your State President look like?

I am replying to the question put by the hon member for Rissik. If that ever happens, it will be a State President appointed by his party. Until that day it will be a State President appointed by this side of the House. [Interjections.]

For that reason it is wrong and unfounded to maintain that the measure under consideration is in conflict with the democratic principle that only those elected by the public should be able to take decisions which affect the public. I say this because the people who have been elected by the public, viz the Ministers, remain responsible for exercising the relevant powers and performing the relevant functions and duties, just as in the case of public servants. The hon member Prof Olivier said the work could be done just as well by public servants and he himself conceded that the Minister was also responsible for the way in which they exercise their duties. Exactly the same principle applies. In which respect is there any difference? [Interjections.]

It is also wrong and unfounded to maintain that it is the objective of the proposed amendment to create a constitutional provision which will make the unlimited delegation of ministerial powers possible. I find confirmation for this statement in the first place in the fact that the delegation of powers has to take place through the Minister, subject to the provisions of the State President.

Secondly it is a basic rule of law—and the hon member Prof Olivier should know that— that no one can grant or transfer more rights or powers to another person than he himself has. Surely that is basic. [Interjections.]

In the third place, if the hon member cannot apply the mentioned rule of law here himself, the measure serving before the House makes it clear to him in so many words. It determines that the Minister can transfer some of the powers he has to that person. In other words …

But that is not the point I made.

The point made by the hon member Prof Olivier was that this measure makes provision for an unlimited delegation of powers.

An unlimited number of people.

No, that was another point made by the hon member; he must go and read his Hansard. He did make that point, but he also stated that we were dealing here with an unlimited delegation of powers. That is what I am referring to.

The content of the assignments can vary in accordance with the need. That is what the measure determines. It is no unlimited discretion that has been granted to Ministers, however, for the reasons I have just given. The measure under consideration does not involve any infringement of the powers of Parliament or of the courts. I do not claim that that was what the hon member Prof Olivier claimed, but it is another argument that is presented. It is said that even the courts’ control is coming into question. There is no grain of evidence which points to that, however. That is why I am making this statement, to refute this unfounded assertion.

There is nothing at all sinister in the measure. The criticism levelled at it, like the criticism levelled by the hon member Prof Olivier this afternoon, is based on mere conjecture. These are mere presumptions and fears that are being conjured up about what is going to be done in terms of this measure and how it is going to be applied. I maintain it is a bona fide effort to remedy a deficiency that emerged in section 28 of the Constitution Act—a deficiency that has been remedied in that provision is being made for the powers, duties and functions of those appointed in terms of section 28 by the State President, to be determined and defined.

There is no justification whatsoever for the statement that those appointed to exercise powers and perform functions and duties on orders from Ministers will come either from the ranks of the Public Service or the ranks of members of Parliament. The hon member Prof Olivier merely made a wild statement. I ask him where he came by it. Where did he read it in the measure?

What about the retired MPCs?

Where does the measure say—explicitly or by implication—that those persons cannot come from the ranks of the Public Service or from the sitting members of this House or from one of the other two Houses?

But they are not members of Parliament; nor are they public servants! That is what I meant. You know that was what I meant.

No, Sir, the hon member must not run away and try to hide behind what he now says he meant. He made the explicit statement that these appointments would not come from the ranks of Parliament or from the Public Service. I ask him how he knows that. After all, it is not his prerogative to make those appointments. How does he know who is going to be appointed? [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, that is so typical of the hon member’s whole argument. It is all merely based on …

The word is “conjecture”.

Conjecture, yes. Suspicions and suppositions. I thought the hon members of the Conservative Party were masters in that sphere. I have had to realize today, however, that the hon member Prof Olivier can surpass them in that sphere.

What is important to me, is that the measure under discussion Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs enjoyed the support of all three majority parties in all three Houses of this Parliament. What is interesting is that the hon member referred to the standpoint of members of the other two Houses on a prior occasion. I do not want to enter into that now. The fact is, however, that when this measure was considered in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs a few days ago, they were almost unanimous … Very well, the hon member Prof Olivier is shaking his head. The members of the Opposition in the House of Delegates were opposed to it. The members of the House of Representatives were unanimously in favour of it. The majority party in the House of Delegates was in favour of it. The majority party in this House was in favour of it. It was really only the representatives of the opposition parties in this House who were opposed to it.

The hon member for Durban Point gave me the impression that he was rather reluctantly opposed to it. I do not want to disregard the rule of anticipation, but when we discussed the next measure on today’s Order Paper in the standing committee, the hon member for Durban Point said he accepted that of necessity it was a consequential measure if the one under discussion were to be passed.

That is absurd!

No, it is not absurd.

There is no logic in that!

No, the hon member must not run away from the standpoint he assumed in the standing committee. I am just saying that I got the impression the hon member was being a little scornful.

Mr Speaker, I support the measure under discussion with confidence because it is a measure which has more effective administration as its purpose. The hon member also waxed lyrical about the cost entailed. Really, Sir, in view of the total cost of the country’s administration, surely the additional cost implied by this is not even a drop in the ocean. I claim, therefore, that to try to make an argument out of that does not even amount to a proper election argument or a debating point. I do not think we need even elaborate. That is why I have confidence in supporting the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, together with the hon the State President, South Africa now has 50 Ministers and Deputy Ministers, and at the moment there are exactly eight in the House of Assembly—3 Ministers and 5 Deputy Ministers. This Bill now seeks to have further ministerial representatives appointed. That hon member says that that shows how busy these people are. In what way are these people busy? Parliament is, after all, in session. When this Bill is put to the vote in due course, they will come out of their offices to be present here.

I move as a amendment:

The CP wants to express its strongest possible opposition to this amending Bill. Prior to the referendum, and until recently, it was said that separate development was a very expensive policy and that South Africa could not afford it. I should now like to quote from Die Vaderland of 10 March 1986. Mr J S Liebenberg, at that stage the editor of Die Vaderland, wrote the following:

This Bill we now have here before us, a Bill which provides for the appointment of ministerial representatives, gives effect to this Government’s expensive policy of powersharing. [Interjections.] I have already told you that Mr John Vorster governed this country with 26 Ministers and Deputy Ministers. The hon the State President now has 49 Ministers and Deputy Ministers. Now the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is requesting the additional appointment of ministerial representatives. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister said that the proposed amendment very clearly provided that such an appointed person would, on behalf of the relevant Minister, implement the powers, etc, entrusted to him. This is virtually the very same wording adopted in section 27(1) of the Constitution in regard to the entrusting of powers to Deputy Ministers. Last year the Constitutional Laws Amendment Bill came before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development. In clause 29 of this Bill there is an amendment of section 27 of the Constitution which reads:

This Bill was unanimously rejected by all the interest groups in that standing committee.

Now, in his argument against the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Mossel Bay says it is the same interest groups that served in these two standing committees. That is so. The only difference is that in the standing committee which met last Wednesday, the NP, the Labour Party and the NPP did a complete somersault in regard to their standpoint. In the standing committee we were agreed that it was ridiculous to make provision for an additional 48 assistant ministers for this massive Cabinet which already fills the debating chamber. We said unanimously that it was ridiculous to do so, but the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not allow standing committees to stop him.

Is that so?

That will only be the case until after 6 May, because I do not think the hon the Minister will then still be in a position to do so. [Interjections.] I now want to tell the hon the Minister that he is making provision for the appointment of these ministerial representatives, but he will also have to make provision for the possible appointment of the defeated NP candidate in the Kuruman constituency to a ministerial post. [Interjections.]

Order! In the amending Bill I see nothing about 6 May. The hon member may continue.

The hon the Minister does not allow himself to be blocked, because after the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning had rejected the principle of assistant ministers, the hon the Minister simply takes another tack and does precisely the same thing. These ministerial appointments are surely nothing more than the assistant ministers in the Bill we unanimously shot down in flames. [Interjections.] That is why I again want to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay that the interest groups in these committees remain the same. The only difference is that they—the members of the NP—have done a volte face. The NP has done a somersault, as it does from day to day in regard to its political policy. [Interjections.]

At the moment we have 49 Ministers and Deputy Ministers, all people who are appointed by the hon the State President. We have four Administrators appointed by the hon the State President. They have also been appointed in the past. Now, however, we have four executive committees which are larger than executive committees were in the past. They must now deal with general affairs, and they all consist of people appointed by the hon the State President—all “kripvreters” of the hon the State President, all his appointees.

Order! In his recapitulation the hon member also referred to hon members of this House as “kripvreters”. The hon member must withdraw that.

No, Sir, I said the executive committees.

Order! I understood the hon member to have said that the Ministers, the Deputy Ministers, etc, were all “kripvreters”. If the hon member says that that is not what he meant, I shall accept it.

You will have to look at my Hansard, Mr Chairman, because I said that these executive committee members were all appointees, whilst in the past they were always elected by MPCs. Now they are all the State President’s “kripvreters”. They are appointees. [Interjections.]

In terms of last year’s Bill, which was rejected, 48 assistant ministers would be appointed. At the moment we have, in the three Houses, 28 Ministers who are responsible for own and general affairs, and therefore in terms of this Bill before the House 28 members can be appointed.

From what “krip” do you eat? [Interjections.]

After this election that hon Deputy Minister will quite probably be getting a pension … [Interjections.]

Order! I think the implication of the use of the word “kripvreter” by the hon the Deputy Minister is that the hon member for Kuruman is an animal. I think the hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Twenty-eight times 4 ministerial representatives can be appointed. We really do feel that at the moment this Government is governing by means of appointments—no longer by means of the democratic designation of representatives. They want to govern the country by way of appointees.

The hon member for Mossel Bay made a great fuss here about the hon member Prof Olivier saying that these ministerial representatives could be appointed from the House of Assembly. I am convinced that these posts are going to be filled by ex-provincial councillors. They accepted their own political death sentence with the abolition of provincial councils. They were satisfied about accepting it. Some of them will now get a little consolation prize. It is also possible that members such as the hon member for Mossel Bay—whose position in this House is not a very safe one—could possibly also qualify.

It is very clear that these ministerial appointments are going to be political appointments. Only the Ministers who are involved and the hon the State President are going to designate these people. It has been put to us that this Bill is there to create specific positions for own affairs in certain geographic areas. These ministerial representatives must now do the work which was done in the past by members of the executive committees in the respective provinces. After the provincial councils and the executive committees which dealt with own affairs had disappeared there was a vacuum. That vacuum must now be filled by these ministerial appointments.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture is not empowered to co-ordinate education throughout the country. He must now have ministerial representation throughout the country. The Minister of Black education in this country, however, has one Deputy Minister and deals with many more children than does that hon Minister. That hon Minister of Education and Culture, however, can now have a ministerial assistant in each province to assist him.

Because educational matters now fall within the ambit of the House of Assembly we have, up to now, not found it necessary to consult the hon the Minister. We have obtained excellent service from the provincial heads of education in the department. I think they are equally good representatives to act as a sounding board, people to whom we have to go to put our case.

Mr Chairman, I have already said that these ministerial representatives will be political appointments, not elected members.

We are also going to appoint you.

In this Bill provision is chiefly being made for ministerial appointments for own affairs. In regard to general affairs appointments of Black people have already been made to each executive committee dealing with general affairs. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell us: Are there also going to be ministerial appointments for the Black people in the respective provinces, as far as their own affairs are concerned— people who can deal with own affairs on behalf of certain ministers? We should like to know if that can be done.

In the standing committee there were certain representations from certain bodies to give evidence. It was proposed that we hear their evidence. We received representations from the Federated Chamber of Industries, from Assocom and from the Association of Law Societies. It was only the CP and the PFP who said that we should hear their evidence, that they should be given an opportunity to give evidence before the committee. The governing party, the majority parties in the three Houses, did not, however, see their way clear to giving these people an opportunity to give evidence. [Interjections.]

The Law Society of South Africa writes:

[Interjections.] Why is the hon the Minister laughing? Is he laughing at the standpoint of …

I am laughing at the strange language.

Quickly say it like that again, Jan.

The hon Chief Whip cannot even understand Afrikaans; how would he be able to understand this language of the Romans. [Interjections.]

Order! It seems to me Latin is now becoming a very difficult language to understand. The hon member should please continue.

The Law Society goes on to state:

They also say—we should like the hon the Minister to spell out his standpoint about this for us:

The Law Society asks that this Bill be withdrawn, but without the Law Society having had an opportunity to put its case, this Bill has been bulldozed through Parliament. Now we have a situation in which the yes-men who said unanimously last year, when the hon the Minister was not present, that there was no room for assistant ministers, are now clapping their hands and saying there can, in fact, be ministerial representatives. So they now agree to basically the same people being appointed.

What we are saying is that this Government has become a very expensive Government, and South Africa certainly cannot afford this Government.

Hear, hear!

This step is one of the further steps taken by this Government to make it even more impossible for South Africa to afford them.

A short while ago the hon the Minister of Finance quoted here from a pamphlet. The pamphlet read:

The hon the Minister mentioned that. I quote further:

Then it is stated …

Is that your publication, Jan?

I am now going to tell hon members what the truth is. The person who drafted this document says he can furnish documentary proof of all facts and statistics contained in the document. The hon the Minister of Finance, however, stands up here and says that it is a CP pamphlet which is being distributed.

Order! We cannot conduct that debate all over again.

I should just like to mention, Sir, that a moment ago, when the hon the Minister flung this accusation at the CP, there was no hon member who, by way of a question or a statement, could refute what he accused us of.

Order! That is not relevant either. What is important is that the rules prohibit a debate on this issue. I am therefore asking the hon member to abide by the rules. The hon member may proceed.

I gladly abide by the rules, Sir. All I want to say is that the hon the Minister is telling an untruth in this House if he alleges that the CP is responsible for this pamphlet. [Interjections.]

The CP cannot support this Bill. We are saying that the country is being governed by appointees and that the White taxpayers must fork up for that. That is why I moved the amendment.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to refer briefly to the hon member Prof Olivier and his introduction to this debate. I believe every one of us in this House is under the impression, after listening to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member Prof Olivier, that their arguments against this measure are rather unconvincing and carry little weight.

The hon member Prof Olivier mentioned a number of points which one really cannot understand. He has problems with the fact that the envisaged ministerial representatives can perform various functions on behalf of various Ministers. I can really not see why the hon member finds that a problem, because if the delegated powers are performed by the ministerial representative on behalf of Minister X, the representative is doing so on the instructions of that Minister and is acting on behalf of that Minister. Surely there is no reason why the same person cannot perform the same functions in the same way and to the same extent on behalf of another Minister.

Can the Ministers not do their work themselves? [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier asked why the work that was done by MECs in the past cannot be done by officials. We all know that it is imperative in any public administration for there to be political office-bearers who can stand at the head of departments, and political office-bearers who can perform political functions which involve political decisions which cannot be taken by officials.

I now want to come to the argument raised by the hon member Prof Olivier about the question of decentralization of authority. The problem of the South African community resides in the diversity of our population; in the fact that we have so many population groups that have to be managed, controlled and administered. The Government has committed itself to the devolution of power, after all. It has committed itself to bringing political power and political decision-making closer to the people. I cannot see, therefore, what problem the hon member has with this further decentralization.

Are the Ministers too far away from the people? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman must keep quiet just for a moment. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon member now. He has a question to reply to, but I shall come to him now. [Interjections.]

Effectiveness is promoted by means of this measure. I want to cite the example of people in the Eastern Cape who have to deal with a school matter. At present they have to approach the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in Cape Town.

Why do they not go to their MP?

They go to the hon the Minister through their MP. More effective administration is being made possible now, however, in that a ministerial representative can take decisions on a decentralized basis, in the Eastern Cape for example.

I now want to come to the hon member for Kuruman.

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member must resume his seat. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman spoke about this expensive Government and about the expensive policy of separate development. [Interjections.]

The expensive policy of integration.

The hon member was part of this side of the House when the policy of separate development was applied and developed. [Interjections.] He never spoke about the cost involved then. [Interjections.] The hon member must say what his party’s alternative is going to cost.

It will be much cheaper than integration.

The hon member is wasting his breath. He says it will be cheaper than integration.

I have just quoted from your own newspaper …

The hon member must tell the House now what his party’s partition policy is going to cost.

Order! The hon member must return to the Bill.

I am talking about the Bill, Sir. It deals with the cost of administration. [Interjections.] The hon member objects to the so-called high cost of this administration and of appointing additional ministerial representatives. Can the hon member give us an indication of the cost that will be entailed in implementing the chequered partition policy of his party?

It is cheaper than integration.

Can he tell us what this is going to cost? Can he indicate a policy to us?

It is much cheaper than integration.

That is an absurd statement. [Interjections.] The hon member is not in a position to indicate what it is going to cost to administer his party’s proposed number of homelands and separate states and parliaments. [Interjections.]

The hon member said the Government wants to govern by means of appointments instead of governing by means of elected members. Apparently the hon member did not understand in the past, and still does not understand, the responsibility of delegated powers. A Minister of this House or of the Government who delegates his powers to a representative is responsible to this House. Those hon members do not keep in mind the fact that we have had a system of provincial administration for years, of which the budget is voted largely by this House. What is the difference between that and a Minister who delegates powers to a representative and is accountable to this House for those powers?

I think it is senseless to try to elaborate any further on the arguments of these hon members. [Interjections.] I think it will suffice to say that this measure will contribute to the effective administration of the country, and I should like to support it.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I merely want to point out that it has been the normal courtesy in this House for the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech to be distributed to the spokesmen of the various parties. That has not happened on this occasion, and I feel that sort of courtesy should be observed.

I wish to turn briefly to the hon members who have participated in this debate. I sensed a note of pique as the hon member Prof Olivier began his speech, but I can understand his sensitivity. I go along with his line of argument and we shall support his amendment as well as that moved by the hon member for Kuruman because we believe that this Bill should not be passed.

Before dealing with the Bill, I wish to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay that it is no wonder that this country is in such a mess when it has hon members who think as il logically as he does. He accused me of opposing the next measure with tongue in cheek and could not understand the simple logic that once one has created these positions, once there are paid people in the service of the State, it is logical that one has to give them pension and medical benefits. For that reason I did not oppose the second measure but abstained because I did not like this Bill. I did not like this measure and therefore voted against it. However, when a committee has already taken a decision and there are going to be these ministerial ghosts or whatever they are going to be called floating around in the shadows doing whatever job they are told to do without anybody knowing what these are, then, if one is paying them, one has to give them medical and pension benefits. That is why I said that I would not vote against that measure. One would simply then be denying a right to the people appointed in terms of this measure before us.

The second measure we are facing also establishes the level of these positions that are going to be created. It is going to be the level of the Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme and the Parliamentary Pension Scheme. So there is no guessing. The hon member for Mossel Bay asked how we knew who were going to be appointed. The next Bill tells us. They are going to be political appointees on the level of parliamentary and provincial government.

Parmed applies to provincial councils and judges as well.

The indication of where they are going to get their pension makes it clear that they will be political appointments.

I tend to agree with the hon member for Mossel Bay when he disagreed with the hon member Prof Olivier. The hon member for Mossel Bay asked how we could say that members of Parliament would not be appointed to these posts. Oh no! They will not be able to afford to appoint members of Parliament, they are going to have so many ex-members of Parliament as well as ex-MPCs looking for jobs that this will be the traditional golden handshake for those who have lost their positions. I therefore agree with the hon member for Mossel Bay that they will not be members of the House but ex-members of the House getting a little extra.

The hon member for Caledon was equally up the creek—maybe the Caledon River!— when he said with great emphasis that we voted an enormous budget for the provinces but have no control over it. Yes, that is the case now but before last year those provincial councils were elected bodies responsible to the electorate, and we opposed the change. We have always said that second-tier government should be elected government. Those MPCs and MECs were responsible to an electorate.

I want to associate myself with the other speakers who took exception to the fact that these measures were steamrollered through the standing committee without an opportunity for those who wanted to give evidence before us to be heard. The whole purpose of standing committees is to enable the public to make their representations on a measure before it comes to Parliament. I do not believe that it would have been impossible to arrange one more meeting where we could have given these important bodies—Assocom, the FCI and the Association of Law Societies—time to come and state their case which we could then have considered; but no! This legislation had to go through. I can understand why we did not get copies of the hon the Minister’s speech—there was so little in it to justify this measure! Yet, we have just been told it must go through because, as the hon the Minister says, it is part of their ideal of decentralisation. The Government is now decentralising by taking powers away from the provinces, giving them to a Minister in Parliament—part of the central Government—and telling him to use those powers while giving him a “ghost assistant”—somebody down at a lower level of government. That is what they call decentralisation!

When we talk of getting government back closer to the people, we mean the devolution of authority down to the lowest level. However, it is something totally different to delegate authority to a Minister’s pet whom he appoints, who is responsible to him, who does not appear before Parliament, whom we cannot criticise and who is not subject to the rules of the public service. The Public Service operates under clearly defined rules and public servants are obliged to follow those rules. These people will not be subject to those rules. A member of Parliament functions under the authority and procedures of Parliament and is responsible to Parliament. These “goggas” are not going to be responsible to Parliament; they are not going to be bound by the rules of parliamentary procedure—they are not going to be bound by any rules except for the fact that they are responsible to the Minister who has delegated those powers to them. We are not prepared to vote for a measure which enables shadowy figures to be appointed down at the level of secondtier government—shadowy because we will not know what authority has been delegated to them. There is no provision for it to be gazetted or Tabled in this House so that Parliament knows what authority has been delegated to them. They will therefore be functioning in the dark as far as Parliament is concerned.

The hon the Minister says, yes, but they will still be responsible to the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. Let us now look at one of these Ministers’ representatives— this is perhaps the clearest term because they are only going to be representative of a Minister and nobody else. They will receive from all own affairs Ministers the delegation of power to deal with certain matters. The Minister of Education and Culture can therefore delegate tasks to them to perform—political tasks. The Ministers responsible for housing and community development will also be able to delegate—each Minister will be able to delegate certain matters. The poor man who has been appointed at a lower level to be a sounding board of the Ministers, to represent them and to take political decisions, is going to be dealing with an unspecified, unadvertised and undisclosed number of tasks and he will be responsible in each case to a different Minister. Which Minister are we going to attack if we do not even know what the task is supposed to be and whether his representative is carrying it out? How does Parliament deal in practice with those people when it comes to a debate? We do not know what they are supposed to be doing and unless they are found to be doing something wrong we will not know about it.

Then we hear the facile argument that they can be brought to book through the Minister concerned. It simply does not make sense to have a person with multiple responsibilities— he will be responsible to various Ministers— and then say that Parliament will be able to deal with those delegations here. What we want to see is devolution and an elective second-tier form of government.

Our second and major objection—I said this yesterday in another debate—is that we are already totally top-heavy in our political structures in this country. We are top-heavy politically and in some cases also administratively. I believe there is room for real rationalisation in many administrative positions.

However, when it comes to these forms of ministers—representatives, assistants, shadow ministers, whatever they may be— we have just had a doubling of the number of deputy ministers. As I said yesterday, they are running around all over the place and one is continually falling over them. An hon member of this House phoned a Government department the other day and the person who answered asked: “Excuse me, but of what are you the Deputy Minister?” He answered: “No, I am not a Deputy Minister; I am an ordinary member of Parliament.” The man said: “Thank goodness! That is a much shorter list to trace these people.” [Interjections.] Now we are going to add another category of top-heavy public servants for whom the taxpayer will have to pay.

I have dealt with accountability—I do not believe there will be accountability. It is simply giving the Minister a governor, a Gauleiter or whatever one wants to call it who acts for him in a different sphere over which Parliament will have no control.

For all those reasons we will oppose this Bill. We believe it is unnecessary and we do not believe it will lead to better administration or bring the public closer to government. We believe it will simply be more jobs for pals, carrying out the wishes of Ministers in the Cabinet. We oppose this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to what the hon member Prof Olivier said. He referred to what had happened in the standing committee in connection with the alleged change of standpoint of the representatives of the other two Houses. It appears that when one changes one’s standpoint, the hon member regards one as being someone without integrity. The hon member is a former member of the NP, but now he belongs to the PFP. We do not doubt his integrity for that reason, however.

The hon member for Kuruman waxed lyrical about somersaults that had supposedly been made here. He also referred to the members of the standing committee. If that hon member accuses people of making somersaults, however, surely he is a pot calling a kettle black. If ever there were hon members who suddenly made somersaults, they were the hon member for Kuruman and his whole party. [Interjections.] Would the hon member for Rissik like to say something?

I cannot accept, therefore, that because a change of standpoint has taken place, it must necessarily be wrong; on the contrary, we have a completely new political system now. We have a completely new political style, viz that of politics of negotiation. When one negotiates, one does not do so only formally around conference tables, but also outside the Chambers. Those negotiations are often finalised in the relevant standing committee.

The hon member Prof Olivier had a great deal to say about the fact that there is no accountability. I really do not know the difference between an official whose actions the Minister is accountable for, and someone who is appointed by the hon the State President and to whom the Minister has delegated powers, and for whom the Minister bears that same responsibility. I really do not know the difference between those two kinds of responsibility the Minister has to accept. After all, he delegates some of his powers to the officials. In this case he is delegating some of his powers to someone who has been appointed politically. The Minister is responsible for the actions of both.

The hon member Prof Olivier objected because the remuneration packet of the persons involved was not spelt out by the hon the Minister in this measure or contained in the legislation. I want to point out to the hon member that the only person to whose salary reference is made in the Constitution Act— and we are dealing with an amendment of the Constitution Act—is the State President. The salaries of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of Parliament are not mentioned in the Constitution Act. I do not think it is fair criticism to say that the salaries of these people appointed in terms of this section must be determined legally.

The hon member Prof Olivier also referred to what he called “certain generalities”. I want to point out to the hon member that there is a true need for these people on a decentralised level. They will deal largely with own affairs.

Once again I want to take education as an example. Someone who is experiencing problems with an education department wants to go to the political man who deals with that matter. That is what South Africans are like. [Interjections.] There is no point in telling him he must go to the Minister in Pretoria if he is down here in the Cape, nor is there any point, while Parliament is in session, in telling a Transvaler he must come to the Cape to see the Minister. This also applies to local government. It is the case in every facet of own affairs, for example in the case of health services, that the public want the people responsible for decision-making where they, the public, are. A decentralised administration which does not have a political head at that administration who can take a decision on a political basis, is a post office for the head office.

I really want to submit to the hon member that this matter is on the purely practical level of public administration. Nothing that is in any way sinister is involved. [Interjections.]

You listen too much to the Transvaal …

Who do I listen to too much?

To the Transvaal …

I really do not know what I can learn from that hon member. [Interjections.] I shall do my best.

The hon member Prof Olivier is my former professor, and therefore I find it difficult to respond to his speech. [Interjections.] No, that is true. The hon member did something, however, which was not worthy of him in my opinion. He said these appointments would lead to political favouritism. In saying that, the hon member insinuated that the appointments of people on this side of the House to positions of this nature can lead to political favouritism.

That is not an insinuation; it’s a statement.

That has nuances of dishonesty. I want to tell the hon member I do not think he has grounds for saying that. He insinuated that he does have reason for saying that, but if that is true, there is a channel through which he can clear up the matter, and that is via the Advocate-General. If he wants to maintain that hon members on this side of the House …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether or not he can give me the assurance that the Government will consider appointing someone who is not a supporter of the Government or of the majority party in that capacity?

I do not make the appointments; the hon the State President does so. Let me put it this way, however: If I were the State President, I would not appoint anyone but a Nationalist in that capacity. [Interjections.] Not at all, because that person has to carry out the policy of the Government of the day, and one is not going to appoint a Prog to carry out NP policy. Surely that is obvious. The hon member has asked better questions in this House than that one. [Interjections.]

In addition there were complaints about the fact that evidence was not heard. I want to tell you, Sir, that one of my many sins is that I was also an attorney. That document of the Law Society is not a well-considered document. Just listen to what they say:

Are you repudiating the Law Society?

I say it is not a well-considered document. How can I repudiate the Law Society? After all, I have nothing to do with them, and I am not even an advocate anymore. [Interjections.]

According to the Law Society, only persons who have been elected should take decisions that affect the public. Sir, surely hundreds of decisions that affect the public are taken by officials daily—by officials who are not elected members. Daily! It is absolutely absurd to make that a requirement. I want to make the statement that there is no reason for evidence to have been heard. I say that because the documentation was clear, as were the standpoints stated by those bodies, and because I cannot agree with those standpoints.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has just spoken about people who do somersaults. If the hon member wants to speak about people who have changed their political viewpoints, and as a result have done a somersault, let me just tell him that at the moment I am looking at more than 120 whirligigs in this House who have remained in the same party but who are political whirligigs. [Interjections.]

In one speech the hon member for Parow has just contradicted himself for a whole five minutes. Firstly, in justification of the Bill, he contended that in the rural areas an official, without a political head, was only a post office for his head office. When he wanted to repudiate his own Law Society, however, he said that there were thousands of officials who made decisions in this country every day. [Interjections.] Sir, that is this hon gentleman’s logic, and then one has to take notice of that.

I want to link up with certain things this hon member said. He said that what Prof Olivier had suggested, ie that political favouratism could hold sway in these appointments, was not worthy of the hon member Prof Olivier. I want to ask the hon member for Parow—or simply any one of those hon members—how many appointments to boards, for example road boards, to committees, for example agricultural credit committees, and also to other boards—there is still the SABC Board, the Agricultural Credit Board and so on—have been made from the ranks of people who are Nationalists. What percentage of those appointments represents non-Nationalists?

Zero per cent!

Not one per cent!

Not one per cent! Zero per cent! [Interjections.] In its choice of appointees to boards of that nature merit is of no significance whatsoever to the National Party. The only qualification is whether someone is a Nationalist, Sir. [Interjections.] That is the only qualification.

Order! I think the hon member has now clearly made his point. The fact of appointments is not at issue now in the amending Bill. This has already been approved in principle in that portion of section 28 which is not being amended now.

Mr Chairman, I am replying to the hon member for Parow.

Order! The hon member for Parow touched upon that point. The hon member for Sout-pansberg has now replied to it. He must now continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, I want to quote the Government’s past deeds to illustrate why, in the Bill under review, I notice extremely alarming trends in regard to the politicising of this country, from the very top to the very bottom, without the electorate being granted any say at all in this matter.

Dictatorial powers! [Interjections.]

In that context, Mr Speaker, I must honestly say that what I am now saying here … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, it seems to me as if, in the case in question, we are aiming for the appointment of ministerial “backroom boys”[Interjections.]. One who has powers thus delegated must surely become part of the ministry from which he receives his powers. If they do not want to call these people assistant ministers or under ministers, it seems to me that the idea here is something similar to what are termed political secretaries in the West German system. In West Germany, however, the political secretaries are members of the Bundestag. So they are, in fact, responsible for their activities.

The trend here—the parallel in this case— by virtue of the fact that there can be non-elected appointees, and that this can be done ad libitum, is in my opinion more of an indication that they could be political commissioners rather than political secretaries. In my view it is an alarming trend towards our having the power in this country increasingly vested administratively, in a bureaucratic fashion, within the ranks of the party’s political clique …

In the Politburo!

… without representation or accountability to the elected representatives of the people.

In addition, this Government is thus engaged in shrouding in secrecy its ministerial parallels to civil government and administration in this country. Sir, let us begin with regional development associations, regional development advisory committees, regional protection systems and mini-regional protection systems. And there are also all kinds of security committees and other committees— all committees and all sorts of things of that nature. And so it goes on, to such an extent that in time this country would have become so over-bureaucratic that, when all was said and done, no one would ever be responsible to the public any more. The only Minister who probably still does need it is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and then it is probably necessary in order to obtain permission for the reopening of abattoirs. The system in which the hon the Minister finds himself has such an appetite that if one wanted to satisfy it as far as Deputy Ministers and now Assistant Ministers, Under Ministers and Secretaries are concerned, one would have to establish a second public service.

I should like to substantiate what I have said. In 1985 one of my voters applied to have the abattoir at Soekmekaar, which had just been closed down, reopened. He applied to the Abattoir Commission in the normal manner. In the process the State veterinarian and the Abattoir Commission’s doctor came to him and said that they were informing him that he could continue his business there but would, however, have to effect certain improvements. He then spent R9 000 on improvements, but did not obtain the permission of the Abattoir Commission to reopen the abattoir.

Eventually I wrote to the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Supply, Mr Greyling Wentzel, on 24 June 1986. I asked whether he could not possibly do something to help this man to get the abattoir back into operation, because Lebowa was right next door and in Lebowa the health legislation was not that strict. Now the people have to go and buy meat in Lebowa.

I wrote to the hon the Minister, in any event, and asked whether he could not help. Exactly one month later, on 24 July 1986, the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Supply wrote to me saying he had heard from the Abattoir Commission that this man’s application for the reopening of the abattoir at Soekmekaar had already been dealt with by the commission, but that they were still awaiting comment from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning before a final recommendation could be submitted to the Deputy Minister.

Would you believe it!

Yes, they were waiting for the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning for the reopening of the abattoir. And here is the cherry on the top. [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. Hon members will hear it in a minute. The letter goes on to state:

The request was made as far back as 20 December 1985, and this letter is dated 27 July 1986:

Old Chris has now gone to the Abattoir Commission.

And that is not all. I received that letter in July. One is ashamed to face one’s voters. This gentleman had a R9 000 capital outlay more than 18 months previously.

We then came here for that abortive session of this House, and on 4 September I wrote to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. On 18 September 1986 the Minister wrote to me saying:

That was in September 1986, and today is already 11 February 1987.

Order! The hon member has, for some time now, been engaged in a discussion of abattoirs. I think he is now going to relate that to the Bill.

No, with respect, Sir. I must deal with this point very fully. I must do so step by step, because you know the hon the Minister. Once he takes the floor I am not allowed to say another word and then he …

Order! I have given the hon member ample time and I think he can now link up his argument to the Bill.

I shall gladly do so. The hon the Minister will need so many of these appointments—that is the point I was making—and still have to make a special appointment for the reopening of abattoirs. [Interjections.]

This country is already bowed down by over-administration, and all the costs of this are siphoned off to the poor taxpayers of South Africa. On the basis of existing examples, one can ask oneself: If this “commissar”, or whatever they are called—the name “Minister” is now being avoided—is appointed, what would the position be in regard to an official motorcar, a private secretary or a personal clerk, administrative staff, typists, telephonists, offices, desks, the size and quality of the carpets …

No, he would get a “commissar” to do it.

For that purpose he would also have to appoint a political “commissar”. So where is one going to stop in the allocation of sections to those officials? If one thinks how few hon members have remained on that side of the House, and one bears in mind that a small number of them are also going to be blended into the system, one asks oneself who is eventually going to conduct the debates in the House whilst the hon the Ministers, Deputy Ministers and these other individuals are not here to do that work. [Interjections.]

This puts me in mind of the joke about the English law firm of Turnbull, Turnbull, Turnbull, Turnbull and Turnbull. There were five Turnbulls.

A lot of bulls.

One day a young lady phoned the firm and asked to speak to Mr Turnbull. The reply was: “I am sorry, Mr Turnbull is not in.” She then asked, for the second time, to speak to Mr Turnbull, but the reply was: “I am sorry, Mr Turnbull is ill.” When she asked to speak to Mr Turnbull for the third time, the reply was: “I am sorry, Mr Turnbull has gone to court.” She then asked the fourth time. “May I speak to Mr Turnbull, please?” but was given the reply: “No, I am sorry, Mr Turnbull is at the Deeds Office.” And the fifth time: “May I speak to Mr Turnbull, please?” Eventually she was told: “Yes, I am putting you through to Mr Turnbull.” [Interjections.] That is what it is going to be like with this administration. [Interjections.] We shall have to have a look at this.

Rather than to restrict oneself, and in the process fail to broaden the base of democracy, restricting it and not having room to breath when it comes to the administration of the country, merely sweating things out, I want to ask whether one should not think of helping all ordinary members in the House to serve their voters and members of the public more efficiently in their constituencies and to make help available to them there. It must take place, in each specific spot, on a member basis. This proposal was made a year or so ago in the Schlebusch Commission Report—Mr Schlebusch is now the Minister in the Office of the State President. That is a question I am putting to the hon the Minister. Let us consider it, rather than to allow the administrative tentacles of this Government to get a firmer grip on the throats of the country’s citizens.

Mr Chairman, I rise at this late stage in order to express our very strong opposition to the Bill before us today. We feel as strongly about it as the CP and we will support them in asking that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

I for one did not have the opportunity of serving on the standing committee and I think we must rely on those members of ours who serve on the standing committees to advise us of the attitude that we should take in regard to Bills that come before us. One shining piece of good that has come out of the tricameral system—and not very much good has come out of it—is the standing commmittees. I think we all agree that those standing committees have performed a useful task in this Parliament. They have been able to consult with people, and other people who have an interest in certain matters can consult with the standing committees. If, as we have learnt today from the statements of members of the standing committee, three very important organisations which could have had a bearing and could have guided Parliament and the standing committee on the proposed Bill were refused the right to make their representations, to be heard and examined, then there is something wrong. Perhaps the hon the Minister has a hidden agenda. Perhaps the hon the Minister does not want to brook interference, or perhaps he does not want to hear anyone who is against it. Perhaps the hon the Minister has got the instruction to go ahead with the Bill come hell or high water.

What amazes me is that the hon State President himself when he took office promised this House and this country that he would cut down on administration. However, what has he done? Apart from 20 Deputy Ministers who have been appointed, we now have a Bill in terms of which a large number of people have to be appointed. We are asked to approve a Bill to give a blank cheque to the hon the Minister while at this stage we do not know how many people are going to be appointed, where they are going to be appointed and what their functions are to be. That we have not been told.

I want to point out a slight contradiction in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. Perhaps the hon the Minister can clear this up. I quote from his speech:

So we are being told that the ministerial representatives will be appointed for own affairs. However, a litle further in his speech the hon the Minister says:

Perhaps the Minister can clear this up: Is it intended now that these representatives will be appointed not only for own affairs but will also be appointed in relation to Ministers and Deputy Ministers on general affairs? This does give the necessary effect.

Most important of all, we have no information at this stage what the financial implications are to the State with regard to the appointment of all these ministerial representatives. I think this Parliament should know because these appointments do have financial implications.

The following questions should also be answered. Are they going to have the same status as a Deputy Minister? Are they going to be given a house? Are they going to be given a staff? Are they going to be given an administration? Are they getting motorcars? Are they going to get all those benefits? We do not know what they are going to get and what the financial implications are. We would very much like to know. We also do not know how many of these representatives there are going to be.

We are being asked merely to sign a blank cheque for things we do not know about. I do not know whether the standing committee was satisfied …

Order! There is an undertone of conversation which is much too loud. Will hon members kindly lower their voices.

The point I am making is that the financial implications have not been spelt out to this House. We do not know what they are, and I think we are entitled to know. After all, these appointments hold obvious financial implications for the public since the taxpayers are now going to have to pay for all these additional people. With great respect, we cannot just stand here and write out a blank cheque for all this to take place. We are entitled to know, and the public are entitled to know.

Unless these points are cleared up the implication remains very clear that this is being done for political purposes. It is being done in order to accommodate a lot of people who are no longer holding positions within the Government, for instance, the people who are no longer serving on provincial councils. These appointments will merely add a few more coaches to the already big gravy train that is making its way across the country today.

In the light of these circumstances we stand by our rigid opposition to this Bill. We will oppose it accordingly.

Mr Chairman, the only worthwhile reason that has been given for the introduction of this Bill was that given by the hon member for Caledon when he said it was needed for effective administration.

I think most people on this side of the House will agree that we do in fact need effective administration.

Hear, hear!

I am afraid, however, that we do not need it quite this way.

You know, Sir, when I was very young— that was perhaps a long time ago!—I remember somebody telling me a little jingle which I found rather interesting. It went something like this: “Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em; and little fleas have smaller fleas and so on ad infinitum”. [Interjections.] This seems to be the situation we are confronted with here. [Interjections.] The Ministers now have a whole plethora of Deputy Ministers; and, as if that were not good enough, we are now going to have a whole whack of assistant ministers. [Interjections.]

The position is of course that one does not know how far this is going to go. In the jingle it says “ad infinitum”, and I am sure it is not beyond the imagination of the hon the Minister to go on and find further ministerial posts at a lower level. The position as I see it is quite bluntly—this has been said by a number of hon members in this House—that this is part of the job creation process for failed politicians. That is the whole crux of it. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is it!

I am not the only one who has said this. Others have said it in different ways. In the past couple of years a quite extraordinary number of jobs—plush jobs!—have been found. As has been said, only recently a whole batch of Deputy Ministers were appointed. I am terribly sorry, but we do not have any more NRP members to lend the Government …

Not lend, donate!

… sorry, donate to the Government. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but we do not have any more at the present moment, but never mind; perhaps after the election we will be able to find the Government a few more! [Interjections.] Then again, there are all these regional services councils that are coming into being, and the jobs of chairmen are going to be …

R96 000 a year.

Yes, and they are going to be jobs that will be available to friends of the party in one way or another. There are also all the jobs on Exco that will become available. There are really a lot of jobs that are available as patronage today. I believe that it is worthwhile bearing in mind that in the old days the question of royal patronage was in fact very important. In France it reached the ultimate degree just before the revolution when the kings got their heads chopped off. [Interjections.] I just mention that in passing! They also provided many of their people to whom they wished to give this patronage with sinecure jobs.

Now, here again, as has been indicated, we do not know how many of these assistant ministers there are going to be. Nobody has given us a clear cut indication of how many of them will be appointed. I have been given to understand that about 13 of them may be appointed initially. Until fairly recently, however, if there had to be an increase in the number of Ministers at all, the matter had to be brought before this Parliament for a decision to be made as to whether there would be an increase in the number of Ministers. Some while ago that stricture was removed and the hon the State President was given the authority to appoint Ministers virtually at will. [Interjections.] At the time certain people, myself included, indicated a certain degree of concern about this in that there would be no limit to the number of people who could be appointed and, sure enough, this is the start of that sort of situation.

I would like to remind hon members that when the late Gen Smuts was Prime Minister of South Africa, he ran this country with 11 Ministers and no Deputy Ministers. [Interjections.] We know how many we have so far but the Lord alone knows how many are to come in the future. I am afraid that the NP is going to have to ensure that they achieve enormous majorities in order to be able to find enough people within their parliamentary group to fill all the positions that have to be filled. [Interjections.] As things stand now, what with all the Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Whips, Speaker, Chairmen of Parliament and all the chairmen of committees, they are going to have a devil of a job in doing so if they do not have at least a hundred or so members. That is going to be very, very difficult.

No Indians!

In other words, as my friend the hon member for Umhlanga indicates, there are so many chiefs nowadays that they have very few Indians left at all! [Interjections.]

The thing that perturbs me is the principle of appointing these people who have absolutely no responsibility to anyone other than the plethora of Ministers who are going to give them instructions. That does worry me because they are going to have enormous power owing to the fact that the Minister can devolve any power upon them. It is not restricted; there are no restrictions at all. Therefore, these people, one of whom could be the chairman of one or other of the NP branches who is a good fellow and who has worked hard for the party …

And whose wife sings well … [Interjections.]

… will have no responsibility to this Parliament.

When it comes to arguing whether he has done a good, bad or indifferent job, he has a whole bunch of Ministers giving him orders and instructions who might disagree among themselves. If he has done something wrong, one Minister might hold him responsible and say, “Kick him out”. Another Minister might say, “He is a marvellous fellow; he has done a wonderful job”. One is going to find this sort of stupidity being perpetrated.

The concept of the collective responsibility of a Cabinet will no longer exist. [Interjections.] That is a facet which, I believe, has to be borne in mind. One cannot have a situation in which a person with ministerial status and authority is not responsible specifically to the Cabinet and ultimately to Parliament, so that one can get him in here and tear him to shreds if that is considered necessary or desirable.

As far as I understand it, the intention is to appoint these gentlemen—I suppose ladies could be appointed too, but I shall assume they will be gentlemen—to look after provincial affairs. This seems to be the primary purpose. I really am intrigued. From the start of Union right up until last year, we had a provincial council system that worked beautifully. Admittedly it did not bring in the Coloured and Indian communities, but we in Natal have indicated very clearly that we could conceive of an adaptation of the existing system that would operate equally effectively—I have spoken in this House to this effect on several occasions—but no; the Government got rid of an elective system in which there was, of course, no patronage, and then they replaced the executive with the patronage boys. They have found, however, that those people can only handle general affairs, and this, of course, does not fit into their convoluted thinking, so now they have to appoint another group of people to handle own affairs. They already have a whole battery of Ministers—White, Coloured and Asiatic—to deal with own affairs, so I cannot for the life of me see the purpose of this lot.

It seems to me that the more people we have in jobs the less work they have to do; and the less work they have to do, the more assistance they require to do the work that does not exist. This is actually what is happening. [Interjections.] I believe that as France fell because of this kind of nonsense and as the Roman Empire fell because of this kind of nonsense, it will not be long before the National Party empire will fall because of the same nonsense.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start off by referring to an observation made by the hon member for Durban Point.

The hon member considered it wise, without establishing what the facts were, to launch an attack on me because—so he said—he did not receive a copy of the Second Reading speech. The hon member made no attempt whatsoever to establish what the truth was.

Instead of trying to establish the truth he launched a personal attack.

What are the facts? The facts are that, as is required, four copies of the speech were given to the messengers to be delivered to the Whips. I would suggest, therefore, that the attack was unwarranted, unjustified and unfair.

What surprised me even more was that I brought this to the notice of the Whip of that party. Some time elapsed between my bringing it to the notice of the Whip of that party and the hon member for Umbilo rising to speak. I suggest, therefore, that that party had the opportunity to establish what the facts were.

This party did not receive a copy of that speech—that is a fact.

In contrast to the courtesy that should be afforded to hon members of this House there was a failure just to correct that attack. I submit that that was unfair. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister has already indicated that he does not want to reply to any questions and the hon member for Durban Point persists in asking them. He must please not do so.

Mr Chairman, I was making interjections.

Order! The hon member must please not do so in future! The hon the Minister may proceed.

I come now to the hon member Prof Olivier. Will he agree with me that when we apply criteria to the behaviour or conduct of other hon members, we should be prepared to make these same standards and criteria applicable to ourselves? I am asking him that.

Continue, I am listening.

Is the hon member prepared to concede that if we make standards applicable to other members’ conduct and behaviour, we should be prepared to assess our own conduct according to precisely the same criteria?

It seems to be a sound principle.

The hon member says it seems to be a sound principle, but I should like him to tell me that it is a sound principle.

It is a sound principle.

Now we are making progress because he says it is a sound principle.

Let us now take a look at what the hon member does. He passes a judgment on the ethical codes of hon members of other Houses of Parliament in respect of their alleged behaviour which according to him is unethical because at a specific time they adopted a specific standpoint and subsequently adopted a different standpoint. The basis of his argument is therefore that if people adopt a certain standpoint at a specific stage and amend it on another occasion, their ethical codes are suspect. That is the gravamen of the hon member’s argument.

Now I should like to ask the hon member whether his party—this serves as an example now—supported the 1982 legislation as far as local authorities for Black communities was concerned.

Yes, of course.

The hon member replies in the affirmative. He says his party supported that legislation in 1982. But when the legislation on regional services councils was introduced, the hon member’s party opposed it inter alia on the grounds that it was based on separate local authorities for specific communities. Is that correct? [Interjections.] In 1982 the hon member’s party supported the principle of local authorities for Black communities, but in 1984 they rejected that principle.

On the basis of the hon member’s own definition of what is ethically correct or incorrect, he himself is guilty of an offence which he accused other people of committing.

[Inaudible.]

No, we do not have to go into that. It is the purest logic one can think of. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member went on to say that he left those hon members to their consciences. On the basis of his own definition I want to suggest that the hon member has an appointment with his own conscience. He knows his own history in respect of changing standpoints. I want to tell him that I have never questioned his ethical codes because he changed his standpoint. I think it is arrogant and unfair to speak in this specific vein about other hon members and their conduct.

I want to go further. Nowhere in his entire argument—this also applies to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon NRP members—did the hon member address the subject of the legislation.

Ninety per cent of the debate was completely irrelevant. It astounds one that we were able to conduct a debate for an entire afternoon on a premise which is not contained in the legislation. When we take a look at the legislation, we find that the only principle which is at issue in the legislation, and therefore relevant to the debate we are conducting, is that the power to delegate should be incorporated in the legislation so that Ministers may transfer certain powers, duties and responsibilities to other functionaries. [Interjections.] Those are the facts, but the debate was conducted on the basis that the legislation we were debating, should make provision for the appointment of specific functionaries. Yet, the factual, as well as the legal situation is that section 28 of the Constitution already makes provision for the appointment of such functionaries by the State President.

Furthermore the legislation already provides that the State President may transfer certain duties, responsibilities and powers to the functionaries whom he himself may appoint in terms of section 28.

All that is happening here, is that provision is also being made for Ministers, within the definition which applies to the State President, to be able to delegate their responsibilities to specific functionaries. I therefore want to suggest that the questions in respect of numbers, status and conditions of service were relevant in the discussion of section 28, which is now contained in the Statute Book of this country. [Interjections.] I therefore suggest, with all due respect, that we have retired behind a smoke-screen of debate.

Behind that smoke-screen it is possible for quite a few …

If the hurdy-gurdy would only stop playing, other people would also be able to hear what I was saying.

Do they want to? [Interjections.]

Sir, I am talking to the hon member Prof Olivier, because he participated in this debate. I listened to him, and he is entitled to receive a reply from me. [Interjections.] He is entitled to a reply, and whether that windmill of an hon member likes it or not, it is nevertheless my responsibility to reply to him. [Interjections.]

The second argument which the hon member Prof Olivier advanced dealt with the financial implications. Once again it was not concerned with the financial implications of the legislation we have before us, but with the financial implications of a section which is already a law of this country. In terms of the envisaged new section no one is being appointed whose appointment would entail financial implications for the State. If there are financial implications they are the result of the power of appointment already included in the Act.

Once again I want to ask the hon member whether he is prepared to make the test of the total accountability of financial implications a norm for what he and his party want to do. There is an important aspect of this which I should like to discuss with him. The hon member and his party—I am now using it as substantiation for my argument—reached an agreement with the hon members of the NRP, or rather a few of the hon members of the NRP, in Natal with regard to the election. I do not want to discuss the merits of that agreement; I merely want to say that it does imply the acceptance of certain proposals for a future dispensation in Natal.

If the hon member were now to go and read what the financial implications of the proposals which his party have elevated to the subject of an election pact with the hon members of the NRP, he will find that the financial implications have not been discussed. [Interjections.] Nor have they been addressed. In fact the economic committee says that they have not yet been calculated. They go further, however, and say that the one thing they do know is that it has such enormous financial implications that they will have to obtain the necessary funds from the central government.