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

Mr Chairman, I move the following as an amendment to the printed draft resolution:

Parliament has been summoned to meet here today in order to constitute the President’s Council. Sixty members must be designated to serve on this council. For many of the 60 members who are going to be elected to the President’s Council it is very important to know what the future holds for them, particularly now that they have had to take note of a press statement by the hon the State President about the future of the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

Great confusion and uncertainty prevail at the moment in regard to this matter. According to the statement made by the hon the State President only four members will be full-time members of the President’s Council. The other 56 will be part-time members. In addition the salaries of members will be drastically reduced, and instead of three there will now be only two functioning committees of the President’s Council.

In 1988 the President’s Council instituted an investigation into its own composition, after the previous State President had suggested that Black people be included in the President’s Council. The President’s Council recommended that its membership be increased to 65 to make provision for Black people as well. That was at the beginning of last year.

The report had hardly been published when the previous State President did a complete about-face and issued a new instruction to the President’s Council, which I should like to repeat. On 2 July 1988 the State President requested the President’s Council, in terms of section 78(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, to institute an investigation into and advise him on the composition of the President’s Council in respect of the rationalisation of the advisory function rendered by the council in terms of the Constitution in order to make provision for the re-organisation of the present President’s Council, converting it into a part-time council consisting of skilled and experienced persons. The State President also issued other instructions.

On 29 April, after an ad-hoc committee of the President’s Council under the chairmanship of Mr Pen Kotzé had investigated this matter, the President’s Council met. They debated the report of the ad-hoc committee and decided, with opposition from the CP only, to submit its report for recommendation to the State President.

I should now like to quote what the President’s Council recommended. It must be borne in mind that this was its second recommendation in one year in regard to its own composition. The President’s Council recommended on page 19, paragraph 5.1, that there should be no drastic change, at that stage, to the full-time nature of the council, but that the membership of the council should be reduced. Furthermore the Council proposed that reducing the membership was justified from a cost-saving point of view, as well as from the point of view of improved functionality. A smaller number of council members would result in smaller committees. With opposition only from the CP, this recommendation of the President’s Council was adopted.

This report of the President’s Council was still hot off the press— the printer’s ink on its pages was hardly dry—when the present hon State President made another announcement. [Interjections.] He said that apart from the four members, all the other members of the President’s Council would function on a part-time basis. He said there would be only two committees, not three.

Is the NP’s prevarication about the composition and functioning of the President’s Council not the absolute pinnacle of inconsistency? Is this not the pinnacle of political bungling? Is this inconsistent and contradictory approach not a manifestation of the total uncertainty in which the NP finds itself? It is very clear to me that this self-contradiction and prevarication on the part of the NP and its State Presidents is a manifestation of the uncertainty prevailing within that party at the moment. [Interjections.]

It is against this background of uncertainty which I have indicated and which prevails in the Government today, that this Parliament must appoint members to serve on the President’s Council. It is against this confused background that members must relinquish their professions to make themselves available to serve their party in the President’s Council as appointed or elected members.

I think it is the Government’s duty, before members are elected to the President’s Council, to spell out to aspiring members of the President’s Council and political parties in Parliament who have to elect these members, what is in store for them during their term of office. [Interjections.] I think Parliament owes it to the members of the President’s Council to spell out to them what is in store for them in the coming year. [Interjections.]

Apart from the fact that hon members are confused, an atmosphere of great frivolity is still prevailing in this place. [Interjections.] I also want to say—and two of my former President’s Council colleagues are present who will bear me out—that we never experienced this kind of frivolity in that council, but I suppose this should be overlooked. [Interjections.]

The CP is, in principle, opposed to the policy of political power-sharing. We are therefore opposed, in principle, to all the constitutional structures as defined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1983, and we are therefore also opposed to the President’s Council. [Interjections]

Because the CP is not a boycott party, and because it wants to serve the interests of the White voter in every constitutional structure, it has nominated three candidates to be appointed to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] As far as I know, the hon the State President did not inform the leaders of the political parties beforehand about his envisaged plans with regard to the President’s Council and its members. [Interjections.] The hon the State President did not inform the political parties about what he intended doing with the Constitution. To me this looks very like an impulsive step taken by the hon the State President in an effort to appear to be economising after the CP had hounded him during the election about wasting money in South Africa. [Interjections.] Now he wants to save money, after the NP has been driving South Africa to bankruptcy for the past five years; now he impulsively says that he wants to economise. Before political parties chose their candidates for the President’s Council, they informed aspiring candidates about the modus operandi of the council.

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

No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Before the election of President’s Council members, the political parties informed their aspiring members about the modus operandi of the President’s Council. We told our people that the President's Council sits for 14 days every month. [Interjections.] We were able to tell these members what their privileges and remuneration would be. I take it the NP has also appointed its aspiring members. There were many aspiring members after the election. [Interjections.] There were many aspiring members for the NP. [Interjections.] There were many of them who were available for nomination. The hon the State President has an obligation to all prospective members of the President’s Council to inform them fully about his envisaged plans before Parliament proceeds to elect these members.

What is the future of the President’s Council under the present Government? In May 1989 the President’s Council recommended that the full-time nature of the council should not be changed. The then Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, who is present in the House today, says that the full-time nature should not be changed. After an investigation was undertaken into the possibility of re-organising the President’s Council, it was proposed that it remain a full-time body. With his statement the hon the State President is rejecting the recommendation of his own President’s Council. He has announced that members will function on a part-time basis. I am saying that the hon State President is not taking any notice of the so-called expert advice given to him. The question now is whether the President’s Council has any right to exist at all if the Government so blatantly discards its advice. [Interjections.] Before members are elected, the hon the State President should spell out his envisaged plan for the President’s Council and make it clear to this House whether the President’s Council still has a right to exist.

The former President’s Council recommended that the number of members should be reduced to 36. Their reasoning was that this would save on costs and result in increased functionality. The argument was that smaller committees would function better. Hon members can ask the former chairman of the Constitutional Committee. He is in this House at the moment. The hon the State President now proposes that the President’s Council should consist of 60 members and that there should be two committees instead of three. The old President’s Council found that three committees with 20 members each was too large, and recommended that they be reduced in size. It also recommended that the number of President’s Council members be reduced from 60 to 36 so that the committees could be smaller and function more effectively. [Interjections.]

However, the hon the State President now says that there should be only two committees. These committees will consist of 30 members each. They are therefore larger. [Interjections.] The hon the State President is therefore also discarding this advice given by the President’s Council. The question is now whether the hon the State President intends amending the composition of the President’s Council during this session of Parliament in order to reduce its size and to make provision for Blacks.

If the hon the State President is going to uphold the recommendation of the President’s Council, namely that of reducing the number of members to 36, we expect him to indicate whether he is also going to make provision for Black people to be brought in, because the NP has accepted this in principle.

The CP has nominated three members and the DP has nominated three members.

Where is Clive?

Where is the hon member Mr Swanepoel? [Interjections.] Where is the hon member Mr Swanepoel? [Interjections.]

At the moment the CP and the DP each have three members in the President’s Council. If the President’s Council is reduced to 36 members, this means that in accordance with their recommendation there would be only one representative for each of the opposition parties in the new President’s Council. The NP is obliged to tell the official opposition where they stand now.

By appointing members to the President’s Council on a part-time basis, the Government is also acknowledging that it has wasted the taxpayer’s money for more than five years with a full-time President’s Council. [Interjections.] Why does the Government not accept the advice of the former State President? He said that the decision-making function could be entrusted to 10 or 12 people. That is, 10 or 12 people who could be appointed on a part-time basis and who would be responsible for the decision-making function if there were a clash between the Houses.

If the NP wants to save money it should heed the advice of the former State President and not only that of the present hon State President who says there should be 60 members. They could really save money if they did that. They could abolish the President’s Council and put it in the hands of 10 people who could perform the decision-making function. Then they would really effect a saving for South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the point of departure of the hon member for Kuruman was not quite correct when he said that the opposition parties had to discover by way of a press statement what the decisions were going to be.

The President’s Council published a report which is well-known and which is being read by everyone. The hon member for Kuruman himself also quoted from the report. Let us take a brief look at the request that was made to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] It reads as follows:

Read on page 19 what the recommendations are!

I can briefly read all the recommendations to the hon member for Kuruman. The recommendations are, inter alia, the following:

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

A further recommendation reads as follows:

Consequently they recommend that it be reduced. That is the recommendation of the President’s Council of which the hon member was a member. Furthermore, the President’s Council also recommended the following:

I think this is really the crux of the CP’s fears. They are prepared to serve on committees and commissions on which power is shared and on which consensus politics between Coloureds, Asians and Whites is practised, but they have a mortal fear of the Black man. [Interjections.] This is the basis of all their fears, owing to that single sentence in this report.

Let us take a look— the hon member for Kuruman referred to it—at what the hon the State President said on 21 April 1988 (Hansard, 1988, col 6818):

This is nothing new. It was said in 1988. However, if we are able to succeed in incorporating all these various facets in a reconstituted President’s Council and if we can constitute the council in such a way that we need not ask in the first instance whether a potential member is White or Coloured, but what expertise he is able to place at the disposal of that council, we shall have solved one of the greatest problems in relations politics.

What expert is worth R15 000 per annum?

Let us take a look at the hon the State President’s press statement, which was released on 22 September 1989. It reads as follows:

The hon member talks about remuneration, but during the recent election the hon member’s party was the first to exclaim that the moment they came to power, they would reduce the salaries of Ministers. However, they knew that they would never be able to come to power. [Interjections.] Now, when it comes to ordinary members of the President’s Council, they do not want to do this. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has had his turn to speak. The hon member for Kimberley South may continue.

The hon the State President went on to say the following in the press statement:

That is precisely what the Constitution says. When one reads section 73 of the of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, one finds that it says the following:

The hon the State President went on to say the following in the press statement:

That is the President’s Council itself!

Once again this is directly in line with section 76(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Once again, I shall quote it:

The hon the State President went on to say the following in the press statement:

The Government is therefore going to introduce constitutional amendments in this regard.

What are they going to be? [Interjections.]

Let us be honest with the hon member for Kuruman. They do not relate to what he said his fears were, or to the ambiguity under which the President’s Council will continue to exist. Their deep-seated fear is that of Black participation. They are afraid of the challenges of the day, and afraid that this new hon State President, Mr F W de Klerk, will succeed with his new South Africa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that it is not parliamentary for one hon member to tell another that he is afraid.

Order! I am aware that the word “afraid” (bang) is a somewhat loaded word, but judging from the context, it is very clear that no insulting connotation can be ascribed to it. The hon member may continue.

Keppies may feel free to say that I am afraid. I do not mind.

I am pleased that the hon member for Kuruman also says that I may feel free to say that he is afraid. [Interjections.] I refrained from saying how afraid he was. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not go too far now.

Very well, I shall not qualify it by saying how afraid the hon member is. [Interjections.]

The basis of all the CP’s fears is the fact that we are now moving along the road to a new South Africa in which everyone will have a say in this legislative body of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I wish to move as a further amendment:

If I may, I wish to begin this, in a sense, third maiden speech with a few general remarks. It is certainly a pleasure to be back in this place after a holiday away from it. [Interjections.] It is a pleasure, naturally, to represent the constituency of Berea. [Interjections.] The NP said it was not a safe seat. They fought very hard for it and they put in a very high-profile candidate, as the hon member for Umlazi knows. The majority in that constituency was increased.

However, as we come out of an election, this particular proposal of the Government must be seen against that election and the mandate which the hon the State President quite correctly said he had received. The hon the State President, in one of his first public statements following his inauguration, said that more than 70% of White South Africa supported change. That is indeed the case. It is indeed true that it was contested on clearly reformist lines, largely as a result of the contribution and the role of this particular party in that election. It was possible—this party takes credit for that fact—when he emerged for the new hon State President to adopt a highly reformist approach. It was this party that said very clearly that the White electorate must send this message to the international community and more importantly to our fellow Black South Africans: “Goodbye, good riddance to apartheid; we are ready to build a future together”. [Interjections.]

Let me make it very plain that this party will support every move of the NP and the Government in bringing about an apartheid-free, democratic—in the traditional Western sense of the word—and free-enterprise South Africa. [Interjections.] We will support the Government in that. [Interjections.] We recognise also something that the former Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning understood. He was the genuine “verligte” of that bunch.

*He admitted that the future of this country would have to be negotiated.

†We hear the NP Government talking about negotiation, and yet the very first measure that it comes along with, which affects the institutions and the very Government of South Africa, is one about which, in the first place, there was no consultation whatever with party leaders in the tricameral system.

All of us as political parties make certain assumptions. We put certain people into the field as candidates. We make assumptions about people going to the President’s Council. I want to make it very plain that the three nominees of this party, Mr James Rennie, Mr David Gant and Mr James Selfe, are all persons eminently suited to make a major contribution to the President’s Council and to public life. [Interjections.] We are committed to those people. We believe that they will make a fine contribution to public life.

However, there was no consultation with respect to this matter. In the first place, the futures of individuals were affected. In the second place, however—this is critically important— the Government has spoken of the importance of new vision. As a matter of fact, it was a pleasing aspect of the NP’s campaign that it focused on the idea of new vision, new action and new leadership. [Interjections.]

†We appreciated it, because this was where the NP was lacking, and we are in search of concreteness and a specific vision. We are in search of indications of where this Government wants to go. [Interjections.]

This is why I am now referring to these proposed changes to the President’s Council. In the first place we want to know what the President’s Council will look like. [Interjections.] There have been two President’s Councils. The one was not party political. That was the old President’s Council.

†We accepted that specialists should be appointed, that it was a policy advisory body and that it was fundamentally based on consensus. If one looks at the report of the old President’s Council, which dealt with the question of the future of the President’s Council under the new Constitution, one will see that we defined the functions very clearly. We said it should be policy advisory and that it should have a logjambreaking role in the legislature, or could play such a role, but throughout we stressed the importance of consensus. In particular, as we envisaged it, it would be a body like the old President’s Council.

Who are “we”?

The members of the President’s Council who prepared the report recommended—the President’s Council itself said so—that that body should be a non-party-political body. Unfortunately what has happened in the interim is that the President’s Council has become a politicised body.

We ask the Government, in the first place, what the role of the President’s Council is going to be in terms of the overall constitutional future of South Africa. How does the Government see it? How does the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development see this new body? He is the person who should have been speaking on behalf of the Government today. He had an opportunity to spell out the Government’s vision to the country and the world. Mrs Thatcher, who is going off on 18 October to a major Commonwealth heads of government meeting, wants some answers. [Interjections.]

Here was an opportunity for specifics. Here was an opportunity for the Government to spell out in specific terms just where it was going, because up till now we have had nothing but rhetoric. Here was the opportunity, but yet, meaning no disrespect to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, it was handled at that particular level. Here was a chance for a statesmanlike speech spelling out the Government’s vision and the concrete form which it will take. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow this running commentary to continue.

There are other aspects to this. Aside from enabling it to spell out how it sees the President’s Council, this was an opportunity for the Government on the threshold of negotiation. We accept that this country is out of apartheid and that it has entered a new era. That was the significance of the election. We are in a new era, and we have to work it out together. It is critically important that we do so, and the Government will get the support of this party in all their efforts in that respect. [Interjections.]

Here was an opportunity for the NP to indicate to the general population what its intentions were with respect to the composition of the new President’s Council. Is it its intention to include the whole population? We would have liked to have heard. After all, if the Government was thinking about narrowing it down, restricting the membership and making it a part-time organisation, it must have had some ideas about its role in developing the new South Africa. Here was the chance to do this.

The Government’s whole approach to negotiation and the constitutional future is another aspect which concerns this party. That is another reason why we introduce the reservations which we do this afternoon.

*It refers to the fact that there is a tremendous alienation between the people of South Africa and their government institutions.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, that is quite incorrect. The hon member’s time has not expired.

Order! I am sorry. The hon member may continue.

Thank you. I think I can continue from where I was.

The fact is that one of the great sadnesses or misfortunes of constitutional change over the fast decade has been the fact that it has occurred on a piecemeal sort of basis. In the old days White South Africans, in particular, had a very clear relationship to Government—there were provincial administrations, municipalities, an Assembly and a Senate. It was a relatively easy system to which people could relate, but Government in this country has become increasingly complex, difficult and…

Confused!

… confusing to the ordinary South African—the hon member is correct—with the introduction of regional councils. With the introduction of different levels of Government it is becoming extremely difficult for the ordinary person—hon members on that side of the House know it because very few of them can actually explain how regional services councils work—to in fact relate to these institutions. Here one has another example.

*I want to say to hon members that many people in this country, when they read that there is another change to the President’s Council, doubt the future and the true role of government institutions. That is why we say that instead of raising the minor argument that they want to cut the public sector expenditure with a few million rands when tremendous cuts are necessary, the Government should rather have waited and made their recommendations with regard to the President’s Council in terms of the whole.

†We wanted to see just what the overall constitutional future of this country is, what the vision of this Government and the new hon State President is. We say that constitutional changes must now include all South Africans. The President’s Council is part of the existing institution which could quite easily be expanded to reflect the interests of all South Africans.

I conclude therefore by saying that while we have introduced reservations on this particular point—they are principled reservations—I want to repeat what we have said before, seeing that the hon the State President is present. Since his inauguration this is the first opportunity we have had to address him and I say to him on behalf of the DP that we wish him well—sincerely. [Interjections.]

*We mean well with him, and he will enjoy our support in all the steps that he takes in the direction of a South Africa that is free of apartheid; a democratic South Africa—from a Western point of view—and a South Africa where the economy is based on free enterprise. We promise him that. I want to say to him and the Government, though, that this was a poor start. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea surprised us today with his speech. I want to remind the hon member that at one stage he was part of the left wing of the old NP which developed this tricameral Parliament as well as the President’s Council for us. I find it surprising that the hon member for Berea is so impatient with his old friends sitting opposite him today.

He was a UP supporter!

Where was he during those years when he served on the Constitutional Committee and had to discuss these matters? Why did he not speak to his friends when he and Dr De Crespigny sat to develop a so-called tricameral Parliament for South Africa? Today he is very irritable about it. We want to tell the hon member for Berea that we shall speak to one another again at a later stage.

I wish to give the hon the State President some sound advice. He must call in Mr Chris Heunis. At one point we told the House that if a bus should run over Mr Heunis, the NP would be in trouble because they did not understand the Constitution as they had compiled it at the time. Therefore I wish to tell the hon the State President that he must call in Mr Chris Heunis so that he can explain to them what is going on in the Constitution. The hon the State President and I are sitting as close to one another as we shall ever do. We shall have to discuss a few matters with one another a great deal.

I wish to say that just as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and he ousted the previous State President, he is also trying to get rid of the President’s Council now—one of his own creations! I remember very well how…

Your absence has not done you any good! [Interjections.]

Well, I want to tell him that the fact that I am back and that we have gained 17 seats, must make the hon the State President feel very anxious. If they hold another election, they will lose at least another 17 seats to this side of the House. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon the State President that he kicked up a great fuss a few years ago when we developed this Constitution. He told us what he was going to do with regard to the new tricameral system and the special part which the President’s Council was going to play, and now he comes forward and announces these things without having had any discussions with those people with whom he especially wishes to have consensus.

Has he spoken to the Coloured people about this? Has he spoken to Indian affairs? Has he spoken to the DP or to us? [Interjections.] It is typical. The hon the State President is the one who wants to achieve consensus, but he only seeks consensus with the Coloured and Indian people and as far as the Whites are concerned, he did not seek consensus! He came…

I did not ask anyone’s permission. I exercised my own discretion! [Interjections.]

Yes, he exercised his own discretion! He wants us to succeed with a tricameral system, but he does not speak to the members of the Opposition in order to inform us of what he wishes to do.

You were informed beforehand!

No, who did the hon the State President inform?

Yesterday. [Interjections.]

Yesterday! Who did the hon the State President inform yesterday?

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor of the House.

Yes, Mr Chairman, you must speak to the hon the new State President. You will have to speak to him, because we are going to speak to him. This is an extremely serious matter. We must obtain a speaking turn for the hon the State President so that he can answer the questions we put to him. The hon the Chief Whip of the NP says that we are afraid of the Blacks; that we do not want to have Blacks in the constitutional dispensation. What, then, does he say to the DP? Surely they are not afraid of the Blacks.

We said it from the beginning and that is why we broke away. When we broke away from the NP in 1982 and they kicked us out, I told the hon the State President and the other hon members that as soon as they included the Coloureds and Indians in so-called healthy power-sharing, they would ultimately have to include the Blacks as well. At the time, a month or so later, the hon the State President addressed the students of the University of Pretoria and said that the people in South Africa who said that we were going to include Black people in this dispensation, were malicious. [Interjections.]

When I look at and listen to the hon the State President, I think about the old hymn verse which goes: “Hoe dieper ek poog te delwe, hoe meer verderf ek vind”. This holds good for the NP and its policy.

The President’s Council was appointed to advise the hon the State President. At the time the President’s Council was appointed to use its own initiative and to give advice.

The other extremely important matter was that it had to decide the issue when differences arose between the three Houses. In other words it is now being changed. The hon the State President says that they receive too much money; too much money is being wasted. There are a few reasons which he has to inform us about. Firstly, the President’s Council was established a few years ago. They said that they wanted knowledgeable people. They went further—they should go and read the speeches they made at that time—and said that those people had to give advice and do their work on as full-time a basis as was possible because they would be dealing with extremely important matters.

Now they must simply be appointed on an ad hoc and temporary basis. They must suddenly get together and advise the hon the State President.

He takes no notice of their advice. He uses his own discretion.

This President’s Council—I remember what the hon members said at the time—must carry out this important task by means of people who are simply convened for a week or two or for a few days per month, and then they must still take final decisions on important matters.

On a temporary basis.

On a temporary basis. How do they do it?

They can sit the whole year if there is a need for that.

For R15 000?

I wish to say that we are digging deeper today and are finding only further perdition with regard to the hon the State President.

I do not want the hon the Leader of the House to reply today; the hon the State President must stand up.

It is his council!

Of course, the hon the State President must stand up because he must explain to us what is happening to this country.

It is his President’s Council!

He has a new five-year plan—a new left-wing drive. He also sits on the left-hand side of the bench. This is a new left-wing drive which he has come up with. This is the first of the things he has come up with. I now wish to ask the hon the State President something. He keeps his country in the dark about the constitutional planning and the future of South Africa. In 1983 the electorate had to vote “yes” for a referendum of which the Constitution was ill-considered, and now they had to vote for a five-year plan while nobody knows what the plan is. [Interjections.] Nobody knows what the plan is. All I know is that the hon the Minister who is sitting here—he is a great Broederbonder, the chairman of the Broeder-bond—has changed his principles. If he has changed his principles surely he should go and sit with the Democrats, because what, then, is the difference between him and the Democrats?

I wish to say that it is very obvious to the whole South Africa that we, the CP, who were written off in 1982 as a small splinter group, have returned stronger than ever. The hon the Minister of Defence said at the time that we were the lesser lights; we were the people who did not count.

What was your majority? *Mr H D K VAN DER MERWE: Well, I must say that I have a much better chance of winning the next round than that hon the Minister has. [Interjections.] The important point is that I am a member of a team which returned with 17 more seats than before. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, we are back in this House and I wish to say that South Africa is on the road to disaster with this policy of the Government. We are heading for the precipice. [Interjections.] The CP will use every available minute to fight those things with which the Government is trying to destroy the White man, the Afrikaner people, and the other peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.] We are back and stronger than before and also more inspired to fight for those principles and ideals which Afrikanerdom has fought for all these years. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, having listened to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member Mr Van der Merwe, as well as the hon member for Berea, I am inclined to believe the proverb which states that the more things change the more they stay the same. This is also true of Parliament. The more Parliament changes, the more it stays the same. [Interjections.]

Time would seem to have stood still since we last listened to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member Mr Van der Merwe. [Interjections.] Perhaps this is also typical of the CP. After all, they are standing still. They are standing so still that we can only see them in the rear-view mirror of history. [Interjections.] No matter what the hon members say about the growth of the CP, this party will in due course sink below the horizon of history. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman is debating as if he is still a member of the President’s Council. He is debating on the proposals and the recommendations of the President’s Council. However, the future of the President’s Council is not at issue today in terms of the draft resolution under discussion.

Good grief, Dawie!

The nature and the composition of the President’s Council is not at issue here now. What is at issue is the functioning of the President’s Council—the appointment of members in accordance with the provisions of the present Constitution. The hon members did not raise one relevant argument as to why this motion of the hon the Chief Whip of the NP should not be agreed to today.

Then you were not listening!

Mr Chairman, the motion of the hon member was introduced under the Constitution. [Interjections.] If the hon members oppose this motion, this must be interpreted as contempt for the Constitution. [Interjections.] Yes, a specific number of members must be appointed to the President’s Council by Parliament. This is the motion before the House today. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must realise that making interjections is subject to the discretion of the presiding officer. If hon members are going to abuse the Chair’s considerateness in this connection, we will be compelled to take far stricter action against interjections. We simply cannot go on like this. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The motion before the House today, does not concern the nature or the character of the President’s Council, but its functioning—functioning in the sense of whether members must serve on this council on a full-time or part-time basis. As far as the part-time character of the President’s Council is concerned, the hon the State President acted totally in accordance with his powers. Section 73, to which the hon the Chief Whip has already referred, authorises the State President to determine whether members may be appointed on a full-time and/or part-time basis, and also to determine what the remuneration of such members shall be.

The hon member for Kuruman is suggesting that the hon the State President may simply determine the composition as well as the nature and function of the President’s Council on his own. This is determined by the Constitution, and every amendment to the Constitution requires a procedure. The hon member for Kuruman, as a former member of the President’s Council, knows that after the discussion and acceptance of the report of the President’s Council towards the end of April of this year there was no time to give consideration to those proposals with a view to possible statutory amendments. Consequently it is not the hon the State President, as the hon member for Kuruman suggested, who is deciding that there must be 60 members. Every change to the present composition of the President’s Council must be effected by means of statutory amendments.

What is more it is important to note that this motion before the House involves a cut in expenses. Hon members should not conduct an election campaign on the basis of economising and then when it becomes apparent here that the Government is serious about cutting expenses, oppose it. Several million rands per year can be saved by agreeing to this motion. What is more important is that the efficiency of the President’s Council can be improved by this motion.

You know that is not true!

But of course it is true! Now people are being paid for the services they render, and if the services of members of the President’s Council are required for the greater part of a year, they can be employed for the greater part of that year of even for the entire year.

May I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

Sir, may I first finish what I am doing? I have limited time. The hon member has had his time.

It is also true that there are experts in South Africa who do not wish to serve on such a council on a full-time basis.

And who want to work for R250 per day.

Their expertise can now be utilised in that they serve on the President’s Council on a part-time basis and they can be used when it is possible for them to make their time available. That is why I submit that the hon members are trying to debate the nature and the composition of the President’s Council and that is not what is at issue.

What has become of the motion? When are you going to spell out to us the function of the members?

The motion before the House is simply the appointment of members to the President’s Council under the Constitution. This compels us to nominate a number of members as members of the President’s Council within a specified time. The hon members are therefore debating something which can be debated at a later date.

I want to tell the hon member for Berea that we welcome him here today as the member for Berea. I really want to tell him that we did not expect him to opt for a safe seat, but thought that he would win a more marginal seat to represent here in the House. The hon member also wants to discuss constitutional amendments here today.

Why did you not go back to Cape Town Gardens?

The hon member knows that there will be constitutional amendments. The Government has committed itself to constitutional amendments. They will be negotiated, and they will then be debated in this House in an orderly fashion.

The hon member made a speech here which sounded as if he was conducting an election campaign. The hon member must bear in mind that they came third in this election campaign. The voters have entrusted the NP with leading the way as regards the changes which must be introduced in South Africa. Let me tell the hon members of the CP that there are going to be changes. We are definitely moving towards a new future. The hon member for Kuruman spoke about uncertainty. If there is one certainty it is that we are moving towards a new future and that the NP has been called by the voters of South Africa to lead them to the new South Africa.

The future is always new!

The composition of the President’s Council also attests to a new future. If all 60 members were to be appointed on a permanent basis today, this would have made further amendments difficult; then one would have been committed to the composition of a President’s Council for five years.

We have committed ourselves to a process of constitutional change, and this implies that there will be changes; not only to the President’s Council, but also to other Government institutions. We do not want to commit ourselves to stagnation for a period of five years. As far as the future is concerned we are prepared to look, with an open mind, at the changes which are necessary to establish other Government institutions.

The fact is that we are moving towards a future in which all the inhabitants of South Africa are going to participate in decisions affecting their lives. That is why the Government—the NP— has committed itself to reform and this step not only attests to economising and efficiency, but also reflects the spirit of reform which is going to be proceeded with under the guidance of our hon State President in the next five years.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That all the words after “That” form part of the Question.

The House divided:

AYES—91: Ackermann, C; Alant, T G; Babb, G R W; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Blaas, A; Blanche, J P I; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Clase, P J; Cloete, A C; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, S J; De Jager, A J; De Jager, C L; De Villiers, D J; De Villiers, J; Delport, J T; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Gunning, T; Jacobsz, F P; Jooste, J A; King, R J; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J van R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E; Louw, E van der M; Louw, I; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, J A; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, W H; Niemann, J J; Odendaal W A; Oosthuizen, A J G; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, I J; Pretorius, J F; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schnetler, J; Schoeman, E A; Schoeman, R S; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Steenkamp, P J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Van der Merwe, C J; Van Deventer, F J; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, J A; Venter, A A; Venter, E H; Viljoen, G van N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L. Tellers: Fismer, C L; Jordaan, A L; Maree, J W; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J; Steyn, P T.

NOES—40: Andrew, K M; Botha, J J C; Botha, W A; Chiolé, J; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De la Rey, P H; De Ville, J R; Du Plessis, D P; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Gous, P J; Hoon, J H; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Jordaan, E J; Le Roux, F J; Mentz, M J; Momberg, J H; Nolte, D G H; Oosthuizen, A P; Paulus, P J; Pauw, F H; Pienaar, C H; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Smuts, M; Stofberg, L F; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, H D K; Van der Merwe, W L; Van Eck, J; Van Rhijn, P H; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J; Worrall, D J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

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

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.