laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill [B 72—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).
2. (2) Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Amendment Bill [B 73—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Trade and Industry).

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned on Friday afternoon, I was just beginning to reply to the speeches made by various hon members who had taken part in the debate. I believe I can rightly say that the general impression which any objective observer would gain of this debate, would be that this is an appropriation which addresses the problems we are faced with at the moment in a balanced and reasonable manner.

I now want to deal more specifically with the individual contributions made by hon members. In the first instance I shall refer to the hon member for Soutpansberg—the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman in this regard. However, before I deal with the economic and financial arguments which the hon member put forward, I should like to refer to two political aspects of the hon member’s argument.

First and foremost, however, I should very much like to congratulate the hon member on the special position he occupies as the Official Opposition’s official spokesman on Transport Affairs. Moreover, I want to express the hope that the two of us will get along well with each other; that we shall criticise each other, but that our criticism will always be fair and positive.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that he had discerned a decline in the SATS, and went on to give the reason for this. He said that we were on the road to socialism. I find it strange that the CP of all parties should accuse us of socialism. That party, or rather the Official Opposition’s political partner, the AWB, is to the far right of any socialism. [Interjections.]

Although he denies his membership of the AWB, the hon member for Ermelo made an impassioned plea a few days ago for the ideology of that movement. [Interjections.] He condoned it here in this House, although he maintains that he is not a member of that movement. He immediately defended that movement and its ideology in glowing terms.

Since this side of the House is being accused of socialism, I assume that the hon member for Soutpansberg would also say that he and his party are supporters of private enterprise. Would the hon member care to tell me whether I am correct? [Interjections.] There you have it. I want to ask the hon member, if he is a supporter of free enterprise, why he does not now address the principle of deregulation and privatization. You see, Sir, the hon member does not want to answer that question because he wants to play it both ways, as that party is accustomed to doing.

The hon member also made another political remark. With reference to the strike he said that the way in which we dealt with it, gave the anarchists the recipe. I ask the hon member whether he remembers saying that. [Interjections.] In one respect the hon member was in fact correct. That was when he said that the instigators had tried to find a reason for the strike. In that regard I agree with him. Why did they look for a reason? In the first place, they wanted to arrange strikes in sympathy with theirs. [Interjections.] Secondly, they wanted to paralyse the country economically.

The instigators of this strike made one important mistake: They chose the weakest possible reason for the strike, namely a fine of R80. They were unable to evoke any significant sympathy. If the SATS—and therefore I myself—had dismissed people from the outset, we would thereby have replaced a weak reason, namely a fine of R80, with a good, emotional reason for strikes in sympathy with theirs.

That is why I say that the dismissals, which eventually did take place, took place at the right time, psychologically speaking, because by that time the SATS had already displayed the fairness of its attitude. The SATS had by that time already shown that it was sympathetic to the fate of the workers, their children and their homes, even after the workers, or those people who were involved—whether or not they were members of the work-force, makes no difference— resorted to violence.

For that reason I was able to announce on Friday last that we had achieved a negotiated settlement after this whole matter had been dealt with with a minimum degree of violence and minimal loss of life and property.

The CP’s comment on this was that negotiation gets one nowhere. I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is in the House. In the first of a series of articles in the Cape Times, he asked: “Who are the real Rip van Winkels?” He objected to the fact that he had been labelled the Rip van Winkel of South African politics, and eventually came to the following conclusion: “Our vision is fair, uncomplicated, honest and natural.” That is partition he is extolling to such a degree.

I should like to comment on this. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is of the opinion that one can, in this day and age—in the year 1987—divide up South Africa geographically among the various peoples and population groups without negotiating with them, he is the greatest Rip van Winkel of all time. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg said he was sorry to have to point out that he could not find what he was looking for in this Budget. I am not sure—I am referring to the arguments the hon member raised here—that he knows precisely what he is looking for.

You only had to listen.

I analysed his speech with a fine-tooth comb, and I shall indicate at a later stage why I am not sure. He said he found in the Budget a lack of counter-inflationary measures and of stimulation of consumer spending, stimulation of economic development and stimulation in order to promote decentralization.

A positive contribution towards the combating of inflation has been made in the SATS Budget. This is clearly evident from the tariff increases, which amount to approximately 6,7% calculated on an annual basis, whilst the inflation rate is running at 16%. This was made possible by improving efficiency in all areas. The SATS is a major user of a wide variety of commodities. For example, approximately R2 500 million is to be spent on materials and energy, which will provide a large stimulus to consumer spending.

Consumer spending is being further stimulated due to the fact that the major portion of employees’ earnings, namely R3 700 million—one may add to this the total amount of R500 million we pay out of the pension funds annually in the form of pensions, and then the total is far in excess of R4 000 million—will end up in the pockets of consumers and will be spent primarily on consumer goods. Does the hon member really mean to say that he finds no stimulation in the Budget? Although the SATS’ capital programme has been reduced to approximately R750 million— there is a very good reason for this, namely that we wish to place more capital at the disposal of the private sector—it is still a tidy sum, and this is important for local undertakings, whose work in some instances consists entirely of SATS contracts. Furthermore, I should like to point out to the hon member that we shall only be withdrawing approximately 10% of this capital programme from the local capital market. There will consequently be no significant pressure on interest rates. By bringing the goods tariff structures more closely into line with costs, we are in fact promoting decentralization, because this means that relatively lower tariffs are being paid on high-value goods. This promotes decentralization.

The hon member also referred to the fact that traffic volumes had decreased, whilst tariffs were still increasing. He proposed that private consultants be appointed to determine clients’ requirements. Goods traffic decreased by only 0,3% in 1986-87. Why did this happen? The reason for this was that the economy showed a downward swing in relation to the position during the previous year, whilst the SATS’ market share increased from 37% to 45%. This is certainly not a sign that there is something wrong with the SATS. The fact that its market share is increasing is an indication that its prices remain highly competitive, and hence that its tariffs are not pricing it out of the market.

From time to time, however, use is in fact made of private consultants in order to determine clients’ requirements. The most recent instance of this, to which everyone is referring, is the report of Dr Wim de Villiers, who is a private consultant.

Adjustments that have already resulted from this, are mini-containers, fastfreight services, the PX services, as well as beer-tanker services, special timber-wagon services and many more.

As far as passengers are concerned, the consultants’ finding was that there was a decrease in demand for rail-passenger services. As a matter of fact, there is a tendency throughout the world to move away from train services or rail services as far as long distances are concerned. That is why, here in the Republic of South Africa, one finds inter-city bus services which, in truth, are cheaper than train services.

The hon member also lodged a plea for lower tariffs in respect of inter-city train services. A larger volume being transported at lower tariffs does not necessarily mean there will be a profit. One may reduce prices and obtain a larger turnover, but this must take place on a profit-basis. Experiments such as Transit and the YAY train, ie the train we tested which had more comfortable seats, are proof of the fact that this sort of approach does not work. This has also been confirmed by market research. I can tell the hon member that we have really made an effort. We give a 40% discount to people over 60 and a 15% discount to other passengers outside peak periods, but even this has had no significant effect on peak demand.

It is a simple fact that if one is to break even on a passenger service, one has to increase those tariffs by as much as 150%. That includes the current contribution which the State makes in this regard.

Which is not enough.

Which is not enough. That is quite correct. It is not enough, but it is all the economy can bear.

The hon member also asked us to ensure that the narrowing of the wage gap was linked to productivity. That is precisely what the SATS has in mind. These salaries were adjusted on the basis that certain prescribed conditions, such as equal qualifications, training and service, be met.

The hon member alleged that the Government failed to protect workers against intimidation at the time of the strike. I must honestly say that I think this is a scandalous charge against the Defence Force and the SA Police. They were the people who attended to security for us. I want to place on record here today that the security forces acquitted themselves of their task in an extremely able and effective manner.

Yes, after you had made a mess of things.

The hon member maintains that the SATS is losing its lustre and gloss. Of course, it is the SATS’ management and employees who are responsible for its having this lustre and gloss. Therefore, what the hon member is really saying is that these people have neglected their duty.

Look how he is trying to hide his face.

That, however, is not my experience of the SATS’ personnel. I still remember the glowing terms in which the hon member described the personnel of the SATS. When the Part Appropriation was debated, there were even some CP members who stood up here and said we should erect a monument to the SATS workers. Viewed against this background, the CP members’ tribute to and praise for the staff of the SATS constitute mere lip service. Now that these people have voted for the CP, as the hon member maintains they have done, they are kicking them in the teeth, as the hon member has done here. I shall convey his message.

That is nonsense!

Even during this strike, letters were received from the public expressing appreciation for the high quality of service we rendered under those circumstances.

I should like to congratulate the hon member for Primrose on his nomination as chairman of the standing committee. I do not think there is anyone who could occupy this special position with more knowledge and competence than he can.

The hon member asked me a direct question. He wanted to know when Transmed’s dispensing services were to be privatized. I can tell the hon member that that aspect will be dealt with when we consider the privatization of Transmed’s support services. I can also tell the hon member that this will involve certain financial benefits for the employees. I shall therefore not do it blindly; I shall first have it thoroughly investigated before we make a start on it. I thank the hon member, however, for having posed the question.

The hon member referred to the reduction in the State subsidization of uneconomical socio-economic services, and said that this was a retrogressive step. I now want to tell the hon member that I fully agree with him. Had I been able to obtain a larger contribution from the central Treasury, it would not have been necessary for me to do this. I would have been able to announce a considerably smaller tariff increase if I had been able to obtain that contribution. On the other hand, this is precisely the amount the Treasury can afford at this stage. I want to thank the hon member very sincerely for his contribution, and I look forward to some sound and productive co-operation in this regard.

I should also like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister, who participated in this debate, for the effective and characteristic manner in which he took the wind out of certain hon members’ sails.

†He also gave the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central a hearty meal of humble pie to consume.

*I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for the very substantial contribution he made, as well as for the services which he renders to the department in general.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has moved an amendment to the effect that the passing of the SATS Appropriation Bill be subject to the SATS being properly compensated from State revenue for socioeconomic services. I have already dealt with that. Racial discrimination has been almost completely phased out of the service benefits offered to the staff of the SATS. With reference to discrimination, a lot has already been said in this debate on the implementation of the parity programme. With the exception of Transmed benefits and travelling facilities, all service conditions will be at par as from 1 July 1987.

Racial segregation has been almost abolished in most facets of the SATS operations. The hon member will appreciate the fact that this is not a short-term process, but largely one of education and of mutual acceptance. It is necessary, especially in a business concern, to avoid friction as far as possible. Constant monitoring is being applied, however, and the situation will be adapted to suit the changing circumstances.

Privatization is another of the points mentioned by the hon member. That is one of the aspects covered in the De Villiers Report. I indicated in my Budget Speech that these recommendations were receiving attention. I must emphasize, however, that no one should expect me to act overhastily or prematurely in this respect.

The hon member also suggested a differentiated salary structure. I am afraid that this is not possible. All salary increases are properly negotiated with our unions and, for the hon member’s information, a recent survey by various private management consultants found that the gap between the remuneration in SA Transport Service and that applicable to the private sector, is wider in the case of top executives than in the lower grades. In other words, what the hon member is suggesting is just the reverse of the factual position.

The hon member also referred to antedating of pensionable service.

Such an employee is responsible for the payment of his own contribution, for contributions, by the employer and also for the interest on a compounded monthly basis. I think that is a reasonable labour practice.

The hon member also referred to the abuse of tickets for the SA Airways. I can assure the hon member that those instances are being properly investigated and that severe disciplinary steps will be taken if necessary. I can give the hon member that assurance.

The hon member also referred to the landing of the Cape Town-London flight at Abidjan. I can give the hon member the assurance that this was properly investigated beforehand and that the step was in fact an economical one.

The hon member also referred to the fact that the fare from Cape Town to London is R310 more than the fare from Johannesburg to London although the distance is less on the Cape Town-London route. I want to tell the hon member that all international fares are calculated on the principle of the most direct route. Apart from the fact that Johannesburg is considered to be the gateway to South Africa the fare is calculated on the route over Africa and on this route Cape Town is further from London than Johannesburg—hence the additional fare. [Interjections.]

*Many questions were asked during the debate, and the time allotted to me in which to reply to them is very limited. I want to tell hon members in advance that it will not be at all possible for me to get around to all their questions, but that I shall definitely deal with all the questions that were raised here, even if I have to do so in writing after the debate.

The hon member for Parktown referred to equal medical benefits, and advocated this. I believe I have already given him a satisfactory answer in that regard, namely that we are investigating the matter. Ultimately everyone will have equal benefits. [Interjections.] We have agreed on this with the trade unions and I can give the hon member the assurance that we would like to have parity in this regard as soon as possible.

The hon member went on to request that we no longer allow cigarette advertisements in our magazines. I think the hon member is taking things much too far. This would apparently mean that before too long I should also not transport tobacco or cigarettes. I simply cannot adopt such a moral standpoint in a business situation. The hon member requested us to prohibit smoking on airline flights. I find that to be a more acceptable request. The other suggestions the hon member made were impractical.

I myself am not averse to smoking. I was once no mean pipe-smoker and even now I still enjoy seeing a man smoke a pipe as it should be smoked. We have smoke-free theatres and cinemas in this country. If one were to purchase an air ticket for a flight on Namaqualand Airways, one would discover that there was indeed a smoke-free aircraft. I do not think I would be doing any smoker any harm if I were to ask him kindly not to smoke for the next one and a half to two hours on a domestic flight. [Interjections.] As I have received numerous representations in this regard—they have been made to me over a long period—I intend to institute smoke-free flights on the domestic services. [Interjections.]

The Barnards win again!

I am convinced that I am not doing any smoker a disservice by making him wait an hour or two before he can enjoy his next pipe or cigarette with great relish. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Bryanston said that we handled the strike in an outdated way, unsympathetically and incompetently, and that our communications channels were inadequate. Management negotiated with personnel representatives from the outset of the strike in order to resolve the initial issues. The handling of the strike by the SATS conforms with the views of experts in the labour field. Satisfaction was also expressed by organised commerce and industry with the methods employed and in particular with the sympathetic and tolerant attitude displayed towards strikers. I have grave doubts about the hon member’s knowledge of strike matters, however. Sound communication between management and the workforce at various levels and along well-established channels has existed for many years. Had it not been for alleged dissatisfaction inflamed by activists, the SATS would still have been free from labour unrest today.

The hon member also stated that the SATS refused to negotiate with Sarhwu and did not believe in freedom of association. He enquired into the membership of Sarwhu, ie the number of workers belonging to the union. Let me say this straightaway: We did not have a dispute with Sarwhu at all. Right from the beginning of the strike Sarwhu emphatically stated that they were not involved and that representations on behalf of Andrew Nedzamba were not a call for recognition. However, as the hon member knows, this stance was later changed.

Blatu is a duly registered trade union, recognised by the SATS and has a membership of no less than 61 000 out of 90 000 workers. What the membership of Sarwhu is I do not know. I can tell the hon member that I have no problems with the question of the freedom of association of workers. If any other union wishes to seek recognition it should do so using the proper channels. I cannot negotiate with just any union that alleges that it represents the SATS workers. That would lead to absolute chaos. If I were to have to negotiate with every union that alleged that it represented the SATS workers the situation would become completely impossible to handle.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to any questions now.

The hon member is naive if he thinks certain powerful unions have prima facie political rights in mind. I believe the hon member is naive if he thinks they would fight for the upholding of democratic rights. An umbrella union such as Cosatu wants to overthrow the economic system. Mr Speaker, I have here in my hand a publication issued by Cosatu, entitled Workers’ Unity. Let me just inform the hon member about some of the viewpoints contained in this publication. It says among other things:

Workers in socialist countries never face the threat of unemployment and insecurity. They are guaranteed the right to work.

That is what Cosatu makes workers believe. It is of course an absolute untruth. We only need to look at the countries to the north of our borders to realise that this is untrue. It is not simply a matter of people not being able to work. They also have no food. What is more, in the very next paragraph the following is stated:

That, Mr Speaker, is the crux of their whole argument. While there is an open invitation to all who are prepared to renounce violence to come forward and to have a share in political reform, this is what Cosatu advocates. I did not hear the hon member say anything in connection with that.

Furthermore, the hon member asked whether training courses in industrial relations and the handling of staff existed in the SATS. He also wanted to know what grades of workers attended such courses. Yes, we do have such courses. For full particulars the hon member is free to contact my office.

The hon member also alleged that I personally inflamed the strikers instead of calming them. That is utter nonsense and the hon member knows it. I challenge him to produce anything on record which will substantiate his allegation against me. He cannot do so. He simply made a vague general statement without producing any proof whatsoever of the truth of what he was saying.

You should have seen yourself on television! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umfolozi referred to the bulk transportation of sugar, timber and coal. Unprocessed timber and sugar cane are exempted products, and in the case of shorter distances untreated timber is transported by road to the saw-mills because in many instances this is cheaper and more convenient. I am aware of the fact that this causes tremendous deterioration of our roads. However, this is precisely the point that is being addressed in the White Paper on Transport so that an appropriate contribution may be made by those vehicle owners and contractors towards maintaining the roads in a proper condition.

The plea the hon member made in relation to the bulk handling of coal through Richards Bay is, in fact, receiving attention at the moment. An investigation is being conducted into the rendering of financial assistance in order to make this possible. The cost-coverage of this traffic was, in any event, so low that we could not do otherwise than to increase tariffs on 1 April 1987. However, attention is being given to that aspect at the moment.

I also want to give the hon member the assurance that there will be no discrimination against those SATS employees who put their problems either to their member of Parliament or directly to the Ministry.

I should very much like to thank the hon member for Uitenhage for the suggestion he made in regard to the rail and harbour tariff packages he mentioned here. The hon member also made a positive suggestion here regarding the question of property development, and I thank him for that. He also referred to the Burggraaff Commission, which is investigating the utilization of harbours. That commission has not yet submitted a report, but I look forward to it with interest. I am convinced that it will have to do with private involvement in harbour development. Like the hon member, I too look forward to receiving it.

I should also very much like to thank the hon member for Worcester for his participation. He referred to one of our personalities here in the House as far as the SATS are concerned, namely Mr Sporie van Rensburg, who is now no longer here. I want to tell the hon member that since Oom Sporie has now gone, I am relying heavily upon him to bring out the humorous, human and nostalgic elements of the SATS as an industry. I thank the hon member most heartily for his contribution in this regard.

I should like to compliment the hon member for South Coast on his vision of the wider implications of the strike which he put forward here. He also dealt effectively with the hon member for Bryanston.

The hon member for Maraisburg proposed that police reservists be employed in the policing of trains. He said that a free pass could be used as an inducement. The use of police reservists is an SA Police matter. We would have no problem with it if it could be done.

As a temporary measure, until the end of June 1987, policemen will be travelling free of charge on all suburban trains, and consideration is being given to making this a permanent arrangement. We shall therefore be acceding to the hon member’s request. We are giving consideration to telling the policemen that they may travel by train free of charge on a permanent basis because we know that their presence will have a stabilizing influence.

The hon member also referred to the safety of women and children in subways and so forth. I can tell him that this is a great problem all over the world, and that is why we are moving away from the building of subways. Meanwhile, we are doing our level best to make the subways as safe as possible.

It appears that my time has expired, Sir, and I therefore only have time to react to one more speech. I want to congratulate the hon member for Beaufort West on his maiden speech which he made here. He made a well-considered speech on free competition and the SATS’ right to exist. He said that the CPs made his blood pressure rise. I might tell him that he should get used to this quickly, because it is not at all necessary. Both of us, who come from the Karoo, know what these warm berg winds mean. They are warm and they raise the temperature, but they can never bring rain. [Interjections.] Therefore, he need not allow them to raise his blood pressure.

There are still many things I could mention, but I shall content myself with also extending my hearty congratulations to the hon member for Germiston on his maiden speech. I shall have to reply at a later stage to all the questions he raised here, because my time has unfortunately expired.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I am very proud to be able to represent Koedoespoort in this House.

Order! Will the hon member wait a moment? Order! Hon members must take their seats or leave the Chamber. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, it is a constituency with a very proud record, because since 1948 it has returned a Nationalist to this House after every election.

Order! I must point out to hon members that if I am not mistaken, the hon member is making his maiden speech. I would appreciate it if the hon member was accorded the necessary respect. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that this constituency had the proud record that since 1948 it has sent a Nationalist to this House after every election, and it has done so again.

Hear, hear!

Along the way they have had a few disappointments, but this time they again expressed themselves very clearly in favour of a Nationalist. It is a good constituency in which 15 000 of the 21 000 voters voted, and 8 200 of them voted for the NP. According to the hon member for Overvaal’s recipe this is a constituency which will always send a member to this side of the House in future.

I should like to make my contribution as regards the legislation on sorghum beer. We have now heard that sorghum beer is the traditional and ceremonial drink of the Black population of our country. It is the only home industry which has developed to such an extent that it has grown into a large industry with a big turnover in money. In 1984 this industry used sorghum grain to the value of R30 million and maize to the value of R34 million for the supply of sorghum beer. It employs approximately 8 000 people, according to the information for 1984, but various figures are given in this connection. The industry also spends R5 million annually on promoting participation in sport among the Black people.

As a beverage it is not only an alcoholic beverage, but also a food supplement which is rich in carbohydrates, proteins and vitamin B, the vitamin which calms one’s nerves naturally, and if we were to drink it here, we would sometimes fare far better.

The low alcohol content, together with the solids present in this product, have also resulted in there being very few alcoholics among the people who drink sorghum beer. If we also take into account that this liquor production has become an industry, I should like to pay tribute today to the people and the organisations that ensured that it became a respected industry in the country.

I want to mention the names of a few people who I know did a great deal to promote the product. Their era passed a while ago, but I think hon members will not take it amiss if I mention a few names here. I am thinking, for example, of the Johannesburg City Council with Mr Carr and his people who were in control of his brewery. In Boksburg there was Mr Marais and in Krugersdorp, Mr Fanie van der Walt. Then there was Mr Koen Kotzé of the Peri-urban Health Board; Dr Riekert of Potchefstroom; Dr Mathewson of Benoni; Mr Buitendacht of Germiston; Messrs Kingsley, Marinus and a certain Mr Kruger of Pretoria. I am also thinking of Mr I P Ferreira of Vereniging, who saw to it that a research fund was established which was used by the local authorities and the CSIR to standardise the product. The acid content of the product is relatively high, and for that reason all the equipment used must be of stainless steel. The local authorities and the CSIR specialised the equipment used as well as the process for the production of the beer.

I do not know if there are many hon members who know how the process works. The beer is produced in very large quantities. The usual recipe is used to produce 6 500 litres of beer at a time. Then it must be soured, and that is what the sorghum malt is used for. This is malt which has been allowed to germinate and is then minced. That souring process must last for 5 hours at 50°C. If this is not done, it produces all kinds of by-products which can cause all the beer being made, all 6 500 liters of it, to go off. This is a fairly big loss to suffer.

After the souring process has been completed, that large quantity of beer, the 6 500 litres, is boiled up with 10 bags of crushed maize. It must boil for 60 minutes. Then it is cooled to 60°C and then the sorghum malt is again added to it which turns the starch into sugar.

I am mentioning all these facts to hon members so that they can realise that this is a complex process, because to keep 6 500 litres of this beverage at that temperature requires constant supervision and also good training of the people involved. After it has been kept at this temperature for an hour it is cooled down to 30°C. Then the coarse solids are removed. In the industry we always used to say that the liquor was “strained”. Once these solids have been removed the yeast is added and then the fermentation process takes place so that the sugar which has built up is converted into alcohol. The liquor must be kept at a constant temperature of 30°C, because while it is fermenting it is inclined to heat up. If one does not control the temperature throughout the alcohol content rises to 8% or 9%, which is very dangerous for the consumer.

Before the fermentation process starts the beer is placed in containers and also packed in smaller containers so that it can be transported to the various distribution points—including liquor stores in White areas—so that the liquor is available to everyone. After 12 hours this beer is ready for consumption and can be transported to the distribution points.

This brings me to the staff in this industry. The staff in these breweries must work 24 hours a day. We quarrelled a great deal with the hon the Minister of Manpower regarding this continuous process; he never wanted to recognise it as such. But I do not want to pursue this matter. The people who control this process must be very well trained. In co-operation with the CSIR and these local authorities an examination board was also established to ensure that brewers’ certificates were issued to these people. With such a certificate in one’s possession one can control all these processes.

At the distribution points there are also people in control who are well acquainted with this beer and its equipment. But they must be particularly familiar with the principles of human relations. I just want to give hon members an example of how they must be trained to handle human relations.

At certain beer halls in Pretoria there is a “lead drinker” who, when the beer hall opens in the morning, arrives first and has the first drink. If that beer is not to his taste, in some or other way he conveys the message that the beer is no good. The man in control must keep a close eye on that person, because if he does not drink that beer no beer will be sold all day. For that reason he must try to mix it in such a way that it is acceptable to that lead drinker. If people come and complain he must also very quickly take up their complaints so that he does not lose his market there.

I now want to refer to the officials who are going to be phased out, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to look after them well. This is the second time these officials have been subjected to this state of affairs. The first time was when they were transferred from the local authorities to the administration boards. That was an easy transition process. As far as I know they are all in favour of privatisation, but this time the transition process is a little different to what it was before, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister to look after these people well. They have worked for a long time and have rendered a very good service for which they must receive recognition. At the stage when they were transferred from the local authorities to the administration boards, which later became the development boards, the Government treated all those people very well. We therefore hope that they will be equally well treated this time, but we are nevertheless asking that they be well looked after.

I just want to mention that I, who was involved in this industry for a long time, take pleasure in supporting the Bill before the House.

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to be speaking after the hon member for Koedoespoort. The hon member, who knows the industry, made an interesting speech. At one stage, especially when he was speaking about the production process, I almost acquired a taste for the product but then I remembered what it was. I could never acquire a taste for it and so I quickly restrained myself. He spoke very succinctly. He need not have told us because we could hear that he knew what he was talking about.

At the beginning of his speech he also said that the constituency he represented had a proud record in that it had always returned a Nationalist to this House. A while ago I would probably have agreed with him that it was a proud record; it definitely is some kind of record.

I want to congratulate the hon member on a well-delivered speech. It was a speech in which he spoke to us in a relaxed manner. I know the hon member from an earlier party association and I know that he certainly has the ability to make a major contribution in this House. I hope he will spend a happy time here.

The legislation before the House has been extensively debated. I do not want to take up much of the House’s time but I do want to express a certain concern. The hon member Prof Olivier dealt extensively with the memorandum submitted by the committee, in which guidelines with regard to the proposed privatization process were laid down.

In his Second Reading speech which was delivered in another House, the hon the Minister made mention of the fact that he had taken cognizance of the memorandum with the guidelines and then added that it would be thoroughly considered when privatization was implemented. It is in this regard that I should like to express my concern because the guidelines were unanimously accepted by all the hon members of the standing committee, with the exception of the former member for Kuruman, Mr Jan Hoon. That includes all the hon members of the NP as well as those of other parties. That occurred after detailed evidence had been heard and various contributions by the Black interests in particular had been made, the committee having felt strongly concerning the guidelines it had laid down. At one stage there was even talk of the acceptance by the hon the Minister of the guidelines being a prerequisite for our support for the legislation. In that regard as well, however, we came to the unanimous decision in the light of the impressions which we received concerning the attitude of the officials—who incidentally were very helpful and for that I am very grateful—that serious consideration would be given to this matter.

The final guideline which was laid down, guideline No 10, stated that consideration should be given to contracting with at least two or three different merchant banks so that various aspects could be investigated, namely the general process of privatization, the protection of the industry, specifically the management aspect, as well as the personnel position.

Thus far in the debate, there has been no indication of whether any attention has in fact been paid to this recommendation; on the contrary, it would appear that the approach is that this interdepartmental project team will continue to investigate this privatization process. Since we are engaged in privatization, I want to suggest that we give serious consideration to the philosophy which has consistently emanated from those benches, namely that privatization is not merely a question of transferring assets to the private sector but also means that services should be contracted out to the private sector.

We are also aware of the fact that negotiations have taken place with a merchant bank to investigate this approach. When the legislation came before us it was very clear, however, that the approach was one of getting rid of the assets as quickly as possible at the highest possible price. The committee took a strong stand against that. In fact, one of the guidelines stipulated that the social, economic and political consequences should be accorded a higher priority than merely one of price; that the entire process, the approach and the philosophy in accordance with which privatization is taking place should be accorded a higher priority than any determination of price as such.

There is no indication as to whether the recommendation has received any attention. In his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister referred to the highest possible price being paid and at the same time he spoke of taking the approach into consideration, that Black individuals or Black communities be given an interest in the industry. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister please to react to this in his reply. One gets the impression that the approach is one of: “We have taken cognizance of this; there are certain recommendations and guidelines and they will be considered.” I respectfully submit that the Government should already have considered these guidelines, that the hon the Minister should have considered them and given an indication of whether these guidelines are supported or not.

Privatisation should take place with this philosophy as premise.

In the speech mention is made of brochures being made available “in due course”—I think those are the words and that the speech was made in English. In other words it will happen soon. Tenders will be called for from persons or bodies that have the capital to buy these assets.

A very important guideline was that institutions well-endowed with capital should as far as possible be prevented from gaining control over this industry. In the evidence which was given it was also mentioned that five bodies, If I remember correctly, were interested as well as two other organizations that had already spoken to the department. A that stage we knew that the bodies from the private sector that had shown an interest in it were controlled by one company. Afterwards it became apparent, however, that there were two large companies that controlled all the associated companies who were interested in the purchase.

For years I have been advocating, and have spoken about it in the House, an economic set-up in South Africa in which there is a fair distribution of wealth. I and other members have pointed out the dangers of the imbalance of economic power in this country. The Minister of Finance has also referred to this. I want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to the guideline which was laid down by the committee, namely that the industry be privatised by transferring it to individuals to the maximum extent possible.

Reference was made to making shares available and that the entity should not be sold to the highest bidder. That means that privatisation is going to take a long time and that more research will have to be done. More companies—I am now referring to merchant banks—should be involved. It should not merely be left to one body to investigate all the separate aspects.

These aspects have been discussed on innumerable occasions in this House. The hon member for Swellendam, in his maiden speech, spoke about the principle of privatisation as well as the idea of involving the maximum number of bodies. I am not referring to this industry only but to privatisation in general. Privatisation does not merely mean the transfer of a State monopoly to a private sector monopoly.

Hear, hear!

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider the method of privatisation. The project team should urgently consider the implementation of recommendation No 10.

Almost every hon member who participated in this debate said that the sorghum beer product was a tradition in the culture of the Black community. There was overwhelming evidence that these people consider it to be their product which has been placed in the hands of State-controlled bodies by means of regulations. Their fear is that in the process of privatisation it will be placed in the hands of Whites. This traditional asset of the Black culture has been placed in the hands of the public sector by means of regulation, control and persecution—that is the way in which they have experienced it—and now they fear that it will be placed in the hands of large White-owned companies. If that were to happen, it would cause tremendous problems. The hon the Minister should please give this matter serious consideration.

One gets the impression from the speeches that it is intended to deal with this matter quickly. The standing committee said that action should not be taken over hastily. It said that a cautious procedure should be adopted and that consideration should be given to the entire process before it was finalised. The hon the Minister said in his speech that we were now in the final phases of the privatisation process. That worries me.

After having listened to the evidence the standing committee reported that the transfer of the interests could not commence before approximately two years had lapsed.

Are you saying we are moving too quickly? …

The NP does move too quickly when it should be moving slowly and usually moves too slowly when it should moving more quickly. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randfontein, who was unable to be present at the moment, touched on two points in his speech. I merely want to tell the hon member that I do not share his problems in terms of his approach to the outlets. I am really not concerned about that because the Government’s policy over the years has been very clear in that regard. There is no indication that it will change, nor that the outlets namely the retail trade, will be placed in the hands of the Black entrepreneur who traditionally is also associated with the product. I am more concerned about the production process and the large and expensive assets on which production really depends.

Secondly, the hon member for Randfontein put forward the standpoint that this was a case of putting the cart before the horse. It is, however, a matter to which the committee gave thorough consideration and discussed at length. This legislation should, however, be there in order to proceed with the process and to transfer it to an agent—such as the IDC, which was recommended—so that it can proceed on the basis of a trusteeship in order to ensure the proper development of the various production units as separate companies. These companies should each have their own balance sheets, revenue statements and management structure. If this legislation were not to exist, it would be very difficult to privatise at all in any other way other than by the sale of assets, plus the possible “goodwill”, to the highest tender. It is an approach which we want to avoid at all costs.

I hope the hon the Minister will avail himself of the opportunity of reacting to this and, if possible, please give us the assurance that they are not only aware of the fact that there is a memorandum but also that they are aware of the contents of that memorandum. I also hope that they will then pledge their support to the approach which the committee proposed in the memorandum, even if it is only to the general tenets.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: During the course of the speech of the hon member who has just resumed his seat an incident occurred. I did not wish to interrupt the hon member’s speech but I wish to bring it to your attention that, as we are all aware, it is permissible to wear a hat in the House. During the hon member’s speech a hat was worn in this House—if indeed one can dignify that particular article by calling it a hat. I think we are expected to wear clothing of a certain standard in this House and I believe we should seek a ruling from you as to whether the hat concerned was worthy of that name and worthy of being worn in this House. Maybe we should ask the hon member for Langlaagte to model his hat for your adjudication.

Order! May I just point out that when I took over the Chair from Mr Speaker I did not notice the hon member wearing any headgear.

Mr Chairman, may I just enquire whether it is the material or the colour that the hon member objects to.

Mr Chairman, I find the whole article rather unworthy of being called a hat.

Order! The Chair is now being requested to rule whether a particular headgear is in fact a hat. I shall rule as follows: It is permissible to wear a hat in this House as long as a member does not move from his bench while wearing it. As to whether this hat was permissible or not, I did not see it. Perhaps the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will draw my attention to it should the hon member for Langlaagte wear it again. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the discussion of this Bill has been interrupted a few times and therefore the arguments for or against the Bill which were put forward last week are perhaps no longer that clear in our memories. We were able, however, to at least find time to discuss sorghum beer among all the Budget speeches and I am grateful that we have now come to the end of the debate on this Bill. I want to thank all the hon members who participated in the debate, for their contribution. There were three hon members who made speeches for the first time in this House and I want to congratulate these three hon members sincerely.

In his speech the hon member for Swellendam referred to privatisation, especially in the rural areas. He mentioned very interesting facts concerning the history of the old Republic of Swellendam. He also mentioned inter alia that the first farmers’ association was established in 1832 in the region of Swellendam. I hope and trust that the hon member will serve that beautiful old constituency, where the Badenhorst family originated, with great dignity. We hope that privatisation will be of great value for the region and as he put it, for the platteland in general.

The hon member for Meyerton also spoke for the first time in this House. He gave his full support to the idea of privatisation. In the course of his speech he mentioned that sorghum beer could be brewed in any kitchen and he expressed the hope that a myriad of little breweries would not spring up now. I want to support the hon member in that and I trust that the large breweries which have come into existence and which are going to be placed under Black control will continue in this way. I also trust that the hon member will have a very successful career in this House.

The hon member for Koedoespoort showed us in his first speech in this House that he a connoisseur of sorghum beer. He said that it was not only an alcoholic beverage but a traditional and ceremonial beverage as well. While he was speaking about the lead drinker (voordrinker) I wondered whether one would in these times receive many tenders if one called for tenders for the position of lead drinker. He also expressed his concern about officials who were going to be phased out. I want to put the hon member’s mind at rest by assuring him that the position of officials will be given full consideration and that they will in no way be placed in a disadvantageous or difficult position.

While the hon member for Koedoespoort was speaking about sorghum beer, I was thinking that a lovely white wine surely has a more pleasant taste than sorghum beer—at least as far as I am concerned. You know, Mr Chairman, I tend to prefer Bellingham’s Grand Cru. As it happens it is the drink which one associates with the president of the Western Province Rugby Union. In the past—until Saturday afternoon—I always tasted the Currie Cup in Bellingham’s Grand Cru. I must say that after Saturday afternoon I only tasted a bitter defeat in it. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I think that it …

Order! I really do not understand what the hon Deputy Minister is referring to now. Would he please inform the House who won on Saturday afternoon? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall rather confine myself to sorghum beer now. I think I can be a winner at least as far as that is concerned. [Interjections.] Furthermore I also want to say thank you very much to the hon members on this side of the House who participated in the debate. The hon member for Umhlanga, quite correctly, referred to the guidelines. The hon member tendered his apologies for not being able to be present here this afternoon. He made mention of the guidelines which were drawn up by the standing committee and which seemed to be very valuable. I shall return to them later in my reply because the hon member for Randburg also referred to them.

The hon member for Nelspruit told us what the underlying motivation for privatisation was, also as far as the industry was concerned. I want to thank the hon member very much for his contribution. The hon member for Heilbron told us that the National Sorghum Committee had said that there should be no delay with the legislation in question and that the privatisation of this industry should be implemented immediately. As the hon member can see, we are in the process of doing so. I am neither able nor willing to go about it in an over-hasty manner and in the process wreck this sound industry which has been built up over the years.

The hon member for Springs dealt very thoroughly with certain matters which were raised by the hon member for Randfontein. He placed special emphasis on the rotating fund which has been established and into which the revenue, income derived from the sales at the various outlets and breweries will be deposited. He also referred to the personnel and pointed out that approximately 10% of the personnel were Whites—approximately 500 in number. Once again I want to repeat that great care will be taken in regard to this personnel.

A very important point which the hon member for Springs raised was that the Black communities should develop soundly. It therefore means that that development should not merely be one of giving and receiving but also one of participation. That is exactly what we want to achieve by means of the privatisation of the sorghum beer industry.

The hon member Prof Olivier made a very important contribution on behalf of the PFP. I want to congratulate the hon member on his speech. While I was listening to his speech it was very clear to me that he had had the full advantage of being a member of the standing committee. It indicated to me once again that the standing committee system makes a very significant contribution to the presentation of good legislation in this House. I therefore want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier for his positive contribution to this debate and especially for his valuable contribution to the activities of the standing committee. The hon member quite correctly indicated that the former Department of Constitutional Development and Planning had done everything in its power to be of assistance to the standing committee so that this matter could be thoroughly scrutinized.

The standing committee did not merely perform its task of discussing the legislation but went a step further, as the hon member for Randburg, who was also a member of the standing committee pointed out. It also proposed the guidelines in regard to the method of privatisation.

As I mentioned in my second reading speech—I want to repeat it—thorough regard will have to be had for these guidelines. However, I shall come back to the guidelines later. The hon member Prof Olivier subsequently pointed out that the standing committee virtually had an free hand and that it was not confronted by the hon Minister or by the department with any fait accomplit, having been able to hear what interested parties had to say. The standing committee also listened to all these bodies and inter alia effected ten amendments from the previous legislation, and therefore we have the Bill as it is here before us. I want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier sincerely for his contribution on the standing committee and also for his speech in this House.

The hon member for Randburg expressed his concern at the possibility that we would not confine ourselves fully to the guidelines as compiled in a memorandum by the standing committee. Right from the outset I want to set the hon member’s mind at rest, by saying that the interdepartmental project team will give very serious attention to these guidelines so that it will not merely be a memorandum with certain guidelines—a memorandum which would simply be put on a shelf to collect dust—but that these guidelines will be valuable not only in terms of the privatisation of this industry but also in terms of the entire privatisation process as well. I also want to tell the hon member that, taking the socio-political circumstances into consideration, the aim will not merely be to obtain the highest possible revenue. One would like to do that very much and recoup the highest possible income from the industry but it will not be the only consideration. The interdepartmental project team will therefore study the guidelines intensively and through the method being adopted care will be taken to distribute the industry so that Blacks will be given a very fair opportunity to become fully involved in this industry.

The hon member said that we must not adopt an overhasty approach. He said I had said in the Second Reading speech that we were in the last phase and that that worried him. The period will necessarily vary according to the progress we make with privatisation. Obviously one would very much like to set a deadline. However it will only be possible to determine this deadline in consultation with people who are involved in this industry. Thorough cognisance has been taken and continues to be taken of the memorandum and I wish to assure the hon member for Randburg that in this privatisation process proper regard will be given to the philosophy as laid down in guideline No 10 in particular, as the hon member referred to it.

The Official Opposition has intimated that it will be voting against this Bill. I am sorry, and I understand fully that the hon member for Randfontein cannot be in the House, but I should like to furnish a complete reply for the purposes of Hansard. When I was listening to the hon member for Randfontein it was very clear to me that the hon member had not had the advantage as was the case with the hon member Prof Olivier of having been able to be a member of the standing committee. I am convinced that if the hon member for Randfontein had been able to be a member of the standing committee, where he would have listened to all the contributions, he would certainly have persuaded his party to reach another decision.

The hon member for Randfontein has now stated, however, that a farce is being made of Parliament by the introduction of this Bill. When I was listening to the hon member for Randfontein’s speech it was clear to me that he himself had never referred to either the Bill under discussion or to the principal Act which is being amended. The fact of the matter is that the principal Act, the Sorghum Beer Act of 1962 created a monopoly as far as the production, sale and delivery of sorghum beer was concerned. I repeat: A monopoly was created by the Sorghum Beer Act, 1962. Under the 1962 Act the thirteen development boards which were abolished as from 1 July 1986 and whose assets from that date onwards were transferred to the provincial administrations have been exclusively monopolising the sorghum beer industry.

Therefore if the Government wants to privatise the sorghum beer industry it must first come to this Parliament to amend the 1962 Act which creates the monopoly. The Government would therefore have made a farce of Parliament if it had not come to Parliament with this 1962 Actin the first place.

The Bill under discussion is therefore necessary so that Parliament can amend the principal Act in order to empower the private purchaser of the sorghum beer interests of the former development boards to produce, sell or deliver sorghum beer. Therefore we first have to promulgate an Act according to which the industry is taken away from the development boards and an opportunity is granted to the purchaser which enables him to produce, sell or deliver sorghum beer. It was therefore not legally possible to do what the hon member for Randfontein suggested. The Government could not first have disposed of all the privatisation actvities and subsequently amended the Act because it not would then have, I believe, have been acting correctly.

The authority to privatise first has to be obtained by this amending legislation which is now before the House. Only then can further negotiations be effected.

It is interesting to note that the former member for Kuruman, Mr Hoon, suggested on the standing committee that until such time as the final method for privatisation had been worked out, State co-operatives should be established to take over the interests. Instead of establishing a series of temporary State-owned co-operatives we have transferred the industry in terms of the provisions of the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, No 75 of 1986, to the Industrial Development Corporation—the IDC—which will henceforth be dealing with privatisation.

The hon member for Randfontein asked how one could ensure that the interests would be transferred to Black entrepeneurs. I am of the opinion that the hon member Prof Olivier has already given a partial reply to this by pointing out that as far as outlets are concerned 230 of the 260 are to be found in Black areas where it is legally impossible for other communities to acquire property rights. It is therefore not possible for people belonging to other communities to acquire these outlets which are located in Black communities or residential areas.

The IDC as well as the Small Business Development Corporation is therefore by definition, I believe, in the most favourable position to be of assistance to Black entrepreneurs in acquiring the interests in this industry. This is consequently the Government’s policy, as stated in the Second Reading speech and in accordance with the standing committee’s guidelines for privatisation.

This afternoon I want to repeat and emphasise in the strongest possible terms that the object of privatising this industry is, to place it in the hands of the Black entrepeneur or businessman. The concern expressed by the hon member for Randfontein that large liquor interests might acquire the monopoly—the hon member for Randburg also expressed this concern—is therefore unfounded. I think the matter has been sorted out very thoroughly with the Department of Trade and Industry. We should also remember that the Competition Board with all the legal powers at its disposal, will be keeping a watchful eye on this matter.

The hon member for Randfontein maintained that the officials who are involved in this industry only have the Government’s word as stated in the Second Reading speech. I do not think the hon member has taken into consideration that this Bill should be read in conjunction with the Abolition of Development Bodies Act. In section 4 of that Act which was passed last year it is specified in detail which conditions of service the officials are assured of. When that Bill was considered the standing committee even listened to the White trade union which is generally known as Saame and sorted out the matter thoroughly with them.

I think the hon member for Koedoespoort referred to the satisfaction which prevails among the officials concerning the deal they have received. I therefore wish to give him and the other hon members—the hon member for Randfontein as well—the assurance that these officials in the sorghum beer industry will in no way be treated in an indifferent way and that their interests will be taken into consideration very thoroughly.

The hon member for Randfontein also expressed his concern about the profits which will now be forfeited by the Black communities. The profits from the sorghum beer industry during the 1985-86 financial year were R24 million, of which approximately R3,68 million was made available to 250 Black local authorities. The remainder of the funds were used by the former development boards mainly to support themselves and their activities. The development of Black towns are therefore not dependent upon the income and the profit from the sorghum beer industry, but are financed mainly from obtained inter alia from the National Housing Fund and other funds which the authorities made available, as well as external loans.

The important point which the hon member for Nelspruit raised in this regard was that the profits the private sector make are taxable and that the tax base is therefore being broadened by privatisation.

The hon member for Ermelo asked whether it was desirable to privatise this industry. I believe that the hon member Prof N J J Olivier has already explained what the aim is in privatising this industry. I want to repeat that explanation for the edification of the hon member for Ermelo.

In the first place we find that a monopoly which really existed and which was in the hands of 13 development boards is now being broken in favour of the private sector. In this case the private sector consists of the Black community, Black businessmen and Black entrepeneurs. That is our first aim: A monopoly must be broken here and an industry must be put in the hands of the private sector.

The second aim which I should like to mention to the hon member for Ermelo is that this traditional beverage of the Black population which at the moment is under the control of Whites, is being put back under the control of the Blacks. Virtually all hon members emphasised that we were dealing here with a traditional beverage of the Blacks. The acceptance of this amendment will cause this traditional beverage—the whole industry; its production as well—to be placed once again under the control of the Blacks.

Thirdly the share of the State in the country’s economy is being diminished by means of privatisation. After the Budget the hon member for Barberton amongst others said in his criticism that the State expenditure was not being reduced in the Budget. Here, however, we are dealing with an industry which is being transferred from the public sector to the private sector and in which public sector expenditure is therefore being reduced.

The hon member for Losberg attacked the legislation because according to him, there were no security measures built into the Bill in order to ensure that the sorghum beer interests were sold solely to the Blacks. He then referred to clause 5—I think the hon member for Randfontein did so as well— which states that the sorghum beer interests can be sold to any person. As I already pointed out to the hon member for Randfontein, 230 of the 260 outlets are located in Black areas where it is legally impossible for any non-Black persons to acquire property rights. In fact I want to point out to him that the disqualification in terms of being able to purchase and own property in Black areas can be found in other legislation and not in this legislation.

The hon member for Losberg as well as other hon members of the CP also said that they did not support the legislation because it did not specifically specify that Blacks alone would be able to acquire the interests. In contrast with what he said and with what the Official Opposition says it is nevertheless significant that Ucasa—that is the association of local authorities for Black communities—stated unequivocally in a written document which was addressed to the standing committee that they welcomed and supported the legislation. They even proposed an amendment which was accepted by the standing committee.

I think I have replied to all the hon members’ speeches and given the assurance that we will take the philosophy of the guidelines thoroughly into consideration. I have also given the assurance that we want to see this industry being placed in the hands of Black entrepreneurs and Black businessmen, and that we do not in this way want to favour big business, nor will we go about this in an overshasty way. I believe and I wish to express the hope that this industry, the sorghum beer industry, will have a prosperous future in the hands of the Black community and that the Black community, Black businessmen and Black entrepeneurs will benefit greatly by the privatisation of this industry.

In conclusion I also want to say that it certainly does not happen every day that an ex-clergyman speaks about sorghum beer.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

During division:

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: May I point out that we believe that the Whips of the governing party have counted wrongly? I am not sure whether they included the hon member for Randburg and the hon members on this side of the House, the PFP, who voted with the Government on this matter. I think the Whips have slipped up and I call for a recount of the AYES.

Order! The hon member for Sandton has requested a recount and under standing order No 152, I grant his request.

The result of the division was accordingly:

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

When one examines the Bill and the published explanatory memorandum superficially, the impression might be created that the Bill only amends various provisions of more than 12 different Acts.

This Bill, however, deals with matters which explicitly concern the political reform process which we are experiencing in our country. The divergent provisions of this Bill provide for the adaptation of constitutional structures and processes to changing circumstances. Such adaptations are necessary at all levels of government and the amendments contained in this Bill give effect to these adaptations.

The Bill deals with government at both local and regional levels. The changes and adaptations in this Bill mainly concern members of the Black communities where changes and adjustments are the most urgent.

With the promulgation by Parliament of an Act to enable Black people to obtain full ownership rights, the Government intended to make the advantage of property ownership available to all Black persons in the quickest possible way. The Black Administration Act, 1927, is therefore being amended to enable Black women also to obtain ownership.

To facilitate the registration of leasehold rights, to promote home-ownership in Black communities and to involve the private sector to a greater extent, the Black Communities Development Act, 1984, is being amended by this Bill. The responsibility of issuing certificates with regard to identified plots is given to private surveyors where it is at present the responsibility of an official in the Public Service.

Some provisions in the last-mentioned Act, which still form part of the already abolished influx-control system, are also being repealed in order to ensure that the Act will not have any impeding effect on development in Black urban areas.

When the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959, was enacted, it made provision for the gradual development of self-governing Black national units. As the result of constitutional development all of the various national units have now progressed to de facto and de jure self-governing territories. The repeal of the preamble to the Act concerned is therefore a recognition of the higher status attained by the self-governing territories. The distinction on the basis of national units has also become outdated and this Bill therefore makes provision for reference to the various self-governing territories. The long and the short titles of the Act are also being adapted in order to reflect the amendments to the most important sections of the Act.

Section 3 of the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1059, at present stipulates that a commissioner-general represents the Government with the national unit concerned and it in addition contains a list of functions that he must perform. The functions listed create the impression that the commissioners-general have authority over the administration of the self-governing territories, for example the promotion of the judicature and the courts.

The self-governing territories are in complete control of the functions transferred to them. Interference by the commissioners-general may lead to confusion and negative feelings. In accordance with present policy the Government wants the commissioners-general to be its representatives in the fullest sense of the word. In particular it must be possible for the Minister to entrust specific functions to them.

To confirm the political development of the self-governing territories the proposed amendments clearly state that a commissioner-general for such a territory is appointed as the representative of the central Government with those powers entrusted to him by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning from time to time.

To accommodate this approach the short title of the Act is also being changed to place the emphasis on the reciprocal nature of the representation between the Governments concerned.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development was instituted under the Black Affairs Act, 1959. Matters which concern the Black communities are general affairs in terms of the 1983 Constitution. Therefore section 2(4) of the first-mentioned Act is being amended so that not only members of the House of Assembly, but other members of Parliament also, can be appointed as members of the Commission. By this step the Government affirms the principle that the three Houses of Parliament are jointly responsible for dealing with general affairs.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development has already made valuable recommendations to facilitate the management of matters which concern Black communities, and in my opinion it would be premature to abolish the Commission at this stage. Effective administration with regard to matters which concern Black communities is of special importance to the Government and is a subject that enjoys ongoing attention.

It is of course closely linked to the future constitutional accommodation of the Black communities and therefore the composition and functions of the Commission have to fit in with further reform in this area.

According to the Constitution of the Republic, the State President has the authority to withhold his assent in respect of a Bill of Parliament if he is satisfied that the Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution. According to the the National States Constitution Act of 1971, the State President cannot exercise a similar authority with regard to the legislation of the self-governing territories. As no reason exists for differentiation in this regard, clause 19 of this Bill invests the State President with such authority.

In this Bill a real beginning is also made with the transfer of more powers to the self-governing territories. The Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959, still provides for the appointment of persons by the Governments of the self-governing territories as urban representatives with respect to the areas of jurisdiction of Black local authorities only. Such appointments are also subject to prior consultation with the Minister concerned, as well as approval by the State President.

Since the Government has full confidence in the governments of the self-governing territories they may, in terms of this Bill, appoint representatives outside the self-governing territories. In addition the requirements of consultation with the responsible Minister and approval by the State President are regarded as paternalistic and are therefore being dropped.

At present the executive authority of a self-governing territory consists only of ministers. The governments of various self-governing territories requested the Government to make provision for the appointment of deputy ministers. As the Government does not want to interfere in any way with such appointments, this Bill will enable a Chief Minister of a self-governing territory to appoint deputy ministers without any restriction on such authority. The Government is confident that this authority will be exercised with great responsibility and that it will contribute to more effective administration in the territories concerned.

It became evident that a legislative assembly of a self-governing territory may only legislate with regard to pension funds for the officials employed by a self-governing territory and not with regard to pension funds for the members of a legislative assembly as well. This Bill amends the the National States Constitution Act in order to invest a legislative assembly with such authority.

The Government has repeatedly committed itself to the principle of the execution of functions at the lowest possible level of government, where they can be performed in an efficient and effective manner.

This policy has already been implemented to such an extent that in the past few months a considerable number of functions have been entrusted to the respective administrators under section 15 of the Provincial Government Act, 1986.

With the amendments embodied in clause 31 of this Bill it is intended to make the consequential provisions contained in section 10(5) and 10(5A) of the Interpretation Act, 1957, which apply to the transfer of functions from one Minister of State to another, also applicable to the transfer of functions from a Minister to an administrator. Provision is also made for local governments to delegate authority with less prescriptive control.

At present the local government affairs of each population group are regulated by an own law or ordinance. My department is currently undertaking research in order to draw up one piece of legislation applying to all local governments. In the interim the Government is endeavouring to replace differences in existing legislation as far as possible with uniform provisions. This Bill therefore amends provisions and terminology in the Black Local Authorities Act in order to make it correspond with that of the other population groups.

The Provincial Affairs Act of 1965 contained an enabling provision that allowed a local authority to delegate any power conferred upon the local authority by or under any Act of Parliament, to a committee of or an official in the service of a local authority, subject to the provisions of any law which deals with the delegation of any power by a local authority in any particular case. The provisions did not apply to all local authorities and was repealed. In this Bill provision is being made for the insertion of a similar provision into the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, as the comprehensive definition of local government in the said Act will make the provision applicable 6to local authorities of all population groups. The Bill in addition ensures that the repealed provision will apply until the new provision comes into effect.

To achieve more flexibility with regard to the activities of the Training Board for Local Government Bodies, the local Government Training Act, 1985, is also being amended by this Bill to provide for the designation of any officer of my department as a member of the training board.

The Government also wants to ensure that as many institutions as possible can take part at the different levels of government. Therefore this Bill also amends the Regional Services Councils Act to allow existing nominated bodies, that perform local government functions, to serve temporarily as voting members on Regional Services Councils until the local government elections in 1988.

On 28 August 1979 the Cabinet, as part of the Government’s rationalisation policy, decided that all legislation must be examined with the objective of repealing or amending all outdated legislation. During December 1985 I assigned senior officers of my department to work on the rationalisation of legislation on a full-time basis. Persons from outside the public sector were also appointed to assist with this task.

The administration of most legislation that specifically concerns Black communities has been entrusted to me since 1 November 1985. During 1986 I introduced legislation that was subsequently enacted by Parliament and in terms of which a number of laws or parts of laws were repealed. In terms of the Abolition of Influx Control Act, 1986, 34 laws were repealed. In this Bill the process continues. Examples include the following:

Section 14 of the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959, empowers the State President to issue regulations with regard to various matters. Since the adoption of the Act in 1959 no such regulations have been issued. The section is being repealed as it is evidently unnecessary.

The Black Affairs Act, 1959, provides for a system of local councils. All the councils were absorbed into authorities that were created under the Black Authorities Act, 1951. With regard to the Black Affairs Act, the definition of “local council”, sections 4 to 14, a part of section 15 that deals with these councils, and section 16A are therefore inter alia being repealed.

In the process of rationalisation some instances were found in proclamations and ordinances that give rise to interpretation problems, or in terms of which powers were possibly exceeded. As the actions taken were to the advantage of the subjects of the State, the deficiencies of such proclamations or ordinances are being rectified by this Bill with retrospective effect.

In each of the amendments of the various Acts that are addressed by this Bill, one can clearly see the continuous reform efforts, such as the transfer of powers to other government bodies and the removal of unnecessary, antiquated and unequal provisions. Although it may seem minor in some cases, it is an indication of the Government’s commitment to ongoing constitutional reform.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Standing Committee for their excellent work. My department also brought certain representations, made by the committee, to my attention and all these representations enjoyed the necessary attention.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this Bill amends a variety of provisions and various Acts “which explicitly concern the political reform process which we are experiencing in our country”, as the hon the Minister himself expressed it in his Second Reading speech. I believe there are approximately 12 Acts being amended. We obviously oppose the Government’s so-called reform process, which we know in our heart of hearts will ultimately lead to the political abdication of the White in South Africa, because we on this side of the House have to resist every measure endangering the freedom and right to self-determination of our people. That is why we shall vote against this Bill.

We on this side of the House accept the ethnic diversity of South Africa and we strive for the separate continued existence of the Whites in their own fatherland and their right to self-preservation alongside other peoples. This is frequently spelt out loudly and clearly in our programme of principles. The policy regarding self-determination states explicitly:

That is the CP’s standpoint. It was also the standpoint of that side of the House. Perhaps it is á good thing, especially at this stage when there are many new faces on that side of the House—new members who have entered Parliament—to remind them what the standpoint of that side of the House was for many years.

Order! I want to give the hon member an opportunity to put the standpoint of his party in general but this is not a situation in which we can have a general discussion. This is an amending Bill and, according to the rules, discussion should be confined to the clauses and matters contained in this Bill. We cannot permit a completely wide discussion now and I want to give the hon member an opportunity to state his party’s policy.

Mr Chairman, with respect, the hon the Minister specifically mentioned in his Second Reading speech that this Bill and this amendment was concerned with the political reform process that was taking place in our country. I am quoting the hon the Minister’s speech.

Order! No, the rules are very clear. There is no doubt about the rules; the hon member must discuss the clauses of the Bill.

I am discussing clause 1 in particular, which provides for the ownership rights of Black women.

Order! The hon member may discuss that and ownership rights but it may not become a general discussion on broad policy. In the past concessions were made to the first speaker. I certainly do this and I have already done so but the situation is very clear according to the rules. The hon member must now confine himself to the clauses of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter?

Can the hon member tell me whether I am acting incorrectly regarding the rules?

No, Mr Chairman, I wish to indicate to you that this is not an amending Bill to a single Act. It is a Bill in which in nearly every clause one or more sections of various Acts are being amended. It is an omnibus Bill so it is not an amending Bill to a single Act and that is why I respectfully submit that what applies to an amending Bill in general does not hold for this Bill to my mind. This Bill in fact ranges from Black affairs to provincial matters to shark control. I therefore state with respect that drastic changes of principle have to be made here. I should myself have liked to speak on the omnibus nature of this Bill in another speech. I have to suggest respectfully that that general ruling with which we are acquainted does not apply in this case.

Order! If this is not an amending Bill with the same principles throughout, it is all the more reason why hon members should confine themselves to the clauses. This would otherwise mean, if there were no principles open to specific discussion, hon members could really make a type of budget speech in which anything could be discussed. I therefore want to tell the hon member I appreciate his argument but I cannot accept. He must confine himself to the clauses of the Bill as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, may I discuss this point with you further? As the new Standing Orders do not provide for a Committee Stage, I wish to ask whether you as Chairman took into account that a person might perhaps be a little more expansive in his Second Reading speech than would normally be the case?

I understand the hon member for Brakpan’s argument. I want to tell him, however, that as Chairman I am bound by the rules of this House and, if there is a problem with any rule, the committee determining Standing Orders has to propose the necessary change. Until such time as that happens, the Chair is bound by the rules. The hon member will also appreciate that this is not the first time this argument has been raised; it has been broached before and the rules have not yet been amended regardless of this so I am bound by them. I have no option in that respect and I have to ask the hon member to confine himself to the clauses. Quite a number of Acts are in fact to be amended by the Bill, but within those relevant clauses there are certain specific aspects which the hon member should discuss. The hon member would do well to look up the rules; they provide very clearly that an hon member shall confine himself only to what is stated in this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. I merely wish to add that, as clause 1 of this Bill provides for property rights for Black women, it has very definite constitutional implications. To be able to explain in this regard, one has to draw attention to the difference between the ethnic standpoints of the two sides of the House.

Order! The hon member is trying but I do not believe it has more constitutional implications than would have been the case if a person had conferred ownership rights on Black men and that matter has already been discussed in this House. I know the hon member wishes to discuss the matter a little more broadly but he should appreciate the Chair’s position too. I do not believe he is putting forward a very strong argument. The hon member may proceed.

I shall confine myself to clause 1 and wish to quote from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech in which he said the following:

Consequently in terms of clause 1 of this Bill the Government is in a great hurry to effect these changes, as the hon the Minister so aptly mentioned in his speech, as it wishes to get to the negotiating table. That is why it wishes to remove all possible restrictions on Blacks so that it may be justified in saying to them round the negotiating table: “There is no more legal discrimination in your way. All inequitable treatment of individuals or groups based on certain characteristics of category such as race, creed, culture or sex, as in this case, has now been removed.” It wants to be able to tell them that all citizens of this undivided country may now also obtain property rights, for the time being in their own group areas or possibly in other areas where the Group Areas Act no longer applies. It wants to be able to tell them, as the hon member for Helderkruin stated in the Press last weekend, that the stumbling-blocks—such as section 16 of the Immorality Act, pass laws, restrictions on citizenship and property rights—have been removed.

And then they can sit negotiating the whole time.

And then they can negotiate, as the hon member for Lichtenburg so aptly remarked. Then they can negotiate, even with the UDF.

The Government wants to tell these people at that negotiating table that all citizens in this undivided land should be represented at the very highest level by their own people—here in Parliament and in the Cabinet, as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated categorically in the censure debate.

The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development argued with me in a later debate and alleged that there would be no unitary state. I want to read him something in a while. The urbanisation process definitely has to be touched upon in this Bill. I wish to indicate to him that the Government decidedly mentions an “undivided South Africa” in that White Paper—which is nothing but a unitary state to my mind. I should like the hon the Minister to prove the contrary to me.

Willie, do you agree?

Mr Chairman, can the hon member tell us exactly how he partitions the Coloured homeland?

Order! The hon member will unfortunately not be able to do it under this Bill. [Interjections.]

I shall reply to the hon the Minister’s question on a subsequent occasion.

Saved by the gong!

On a point of order: Mr Chairman, is an hon member permitted to refer to the Chairman as a “gong”? The hon the Minister said my colleague “was saved by the gong”.

Order! I accept the comment as good imagery. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to point out that a Babel of confusion apparently exists among Cabinet members on this unitary state or undivided South Africa—or the dispensation they foresee under this new constitutional structure.

Order! If the hon member does not revert to the Bill, I shall ask him to resume his seat. I have warned the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. If a clause exists here which I can employ to assist me in dealing with this question, I shall discuss it. [Interjections.] There are many different aspects. I think, in consequence, that those people should first obtain consensus before venturing to a negotiating table.

To revert to the Bill before us, there are certain clauses in this Bill we would not have opposed if there had still been Committee Stages. Clauses 3, 4 and 5, for instance, actually give substance to a greater degree of independence and recognition of the autonomy of self-governing regions. These areas have actually attained a greater measure of self-government. This is in accordance with the ethnic policy of this side of the House. There is reference in the legislation before us to the respective national states as “states” instead of to various national units, such as the North Sotho national unit and so on. There is reference to Lebowa, for example. We on this side of the House have no fault to find with that.

Against this, however, in clauses 12 and 14 we find the appointment of a Commission for Constitutional Development instead of the old Commission for Co-operation and Development which was instituted in terms of the Black Affairs Act, 1959.

Section 2 (4) of that Act is now being amended to enable not only members of the House of Assembly but members of all three Houses of Parliament to be appointed to the commission. Members of the House of Representatives are therefore being appointed to assist in making recommendations on the consolidation of Zululand, for instance. Members of those two Houses, as members of this commission, may in addition be requested to make recommendations on the further consolidation of White farmers’ land. They will have to make recommendations on facilitating the management of affairs affecting Black communities, as the hon the Minister said in his speech.

If the hon the Minister foresees this type of composition for the Commission for Constitutional Development in the light of the duties it will have to perform, the hon the Minister is looking for problems we could have done without.

In his Second Reading speech on this Bill the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated with justification that the duty of this commission could change as the course of the reform process progressed. The hon the Minister added, and I am quoting from page 3 of the duplicated copy:

I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister: If Black people themselves are to be represented in the Parliament and the Cabinet of South Africa as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated categorically on the last day of the censure debate, what will the duty of the Commission for Constitutional Development be in future? Will it retain any duties whatsoever or will its function lapse entirely? I consider it necessary for the hon the Deputy Minister to spell out clearly to us what he sees as the duty of this commission in future under a new dispensation in which Black people are involved in the central governing process of this country. Clause 33 provides for the temporary representation of non-elected management bodies on regional services councils. I assume this will be until such time as fully elected town councils can be established at a date determined by the Administrator.

We on this side of the House are totally opposed to this type of representation. We said it at the time in the debates on the Constitution. We said it when the principle of regional services councils was dealt with here. We were opposed for instance to the appointment of chairmen of those councils as nominated members. We said it on the abolition of provincial councils when multiracial executive committees were appointed in their stead. This committee consists entirely of appointees and is in no way accountable to any taxpayer.

We repeat it in this case where there are to be even more appointed members who are to serve at the third tier of government, that is on regional services councils. We say it erodes the essence of democracy and we on this side of the House cannot approve it. We shall put an end to this when we come to power, even to the indirect election and nomination of members in this House. Members are appointed instead of being democratically elected.

Just don’t look behind you!

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis will have a seat by that time in any case. The hon member for Boksburg need not concern himself about that hon member.

I shall now put our problem regarding these appointed members as at present non-elected members will serve on regional services councils in this way. Sir, permit me to illustrate the unacceptable, foolish situation which may arise in consequence of appointed members in general at each level of government. I wish to make specific mention to you of a situation which arose just after the recent election.

We held an election in the Northern Transvaal. The hon member for Potgietersrus was democratically elected. We now see an interview reported in the Noord-Transvaler, given that newspaper by the hon nominated member, Dr Golden, in which it was stated:

While they distrust him!

I shall continue to quote:

While they reject him! [Interjections.]

Now I ask who the representative for Potgietersrus is. Is it the hon member Dr Golden or is it the hon member for Potgietersrus on this side of the House? I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, if he has to approach the member of Parliament for recommendations for the licensing or other boards, whom he will approach? Whom does he regard as the representative of the Potgietersrus constituency? [Interjections.]

It is a crying shame!

Mr Chairman, you now hear on that side of the House … [Interjections.]

He will obviously approach the Nationalist.

Order! The hon member has made his point. Perhaps he would return to clause 33.

Clause 33 is definitely related to this, Mr Chairman. I merely wish to say in closing that we could hear by means of interjections the nominated member who will have only one voter to whom he is accountable, that is the hon the State President …

I live in the constituency.

That hon member is regarded as the representative of a constituency like Potgietersrus. I regard it as a disgrace and an erosion of democracy in South Africa that something like this is possible.

They are running a dictatorship!

Sampie should stand in Houghton!

This reform process the Government talks about and which the hon the Minister discussed in his Second Reading speech we consider to be far more of a “remodelling” process in which the Government is involved in this country. Expectations are being created and the scene is being set in this way for a protracted power struggle between the various peoples, in the same territory, because complete power-sharing in an undivided South Africa with self-determination for each participating people is a total impossibility. As the hon member for Losberg put it very clearly and effectively in a recent article:

We on this side of the House undoubtedly choose self-determination. We choose partition and we choose national survival for the people we represent in this House and that is why we on this side of the House are voting against this legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is very clear that the hon member for Pietersburg merely misused the measure currently under consideration to unburden himself of a lot of political rhetoric. The very fact that you had to call him to order repeatedly and that he time and again attempted to circumvent your ruling, as he did to the very end of his speech, demonstrates clearly that the hon member has no notion of the measure being considered. He merely saw it as a useful peg to which to hang the old hackneyed CP standpoint on power-sharing and self-determination.

It emerged very clearly in the process that the hon member for Pietersburg was not at all well-informed on the facts about the measure before the House. This measure came before the standing committee and obviously the hon member acquainted himself with the Bill as originally submitted to the standing committee. He obviously took no cognizance of the fact that the standing committee had added several amendments to the Bill because he alleged the name of the Commission for Co-operation and Development had been or would be changed. The name was not changed; the committee decided against this. The hon member was apparently referring to the original Bill which contained a proposal that the name be changed. If hon members take up the time of the House with arguments without in any way informing themselves of the facts, they should not expect us on this side of the House to view those arguments seriously at all. They are merely frittering away the time of this House.

The hon member also made certain other peculiar comments. He alleged that there were clauses in the Bill for which his party would have voted. Those clauses were very clearly aimed, as he put it, at broadening the autonomy of the self-governing national states. In spite of this the hon member made the amazing statement that the measure under discussion was doing nothing but bringing about a unitary state in South Africa. The Lord alone knows how one reconciles these two points.

The hon member complained about property rights for Black women for which provision is now being made. I can inform the hon member and the House that when the Select Committee on Matrimonial Property Rights examined these rights, the problem was pointed out that Black women could not acquire ownership rights to land in South Africa. The hon member for Houghton made an earnest appeal that the committee make a recommendation regarding this in its report.

For reasons it regarded as well founded and not in any way connected with party-political considerations but certainly because of factors relating to Black law, the committee decided, however, to include an amending motion in its report. The committee nevertheless recommended very strongly that the Law Commission examine this problem area. To the best of my knowledge this commission turned its attention to the subject so this provision in the Bill before us is to be welcomed today because it removes the inability of Black women to acquire property rights in South Africa. It was a great stumbling-block in the provision of housing to Black people in this country that Black women could not obtain loans for building houses because they could not acquire property rights to land and bonds not be passed in consequence. That is why I find it reprehensible that the hon member for Pietersburg attacked this particular clause here today for the sake of petty party-political gain which he sought to derive from it. I find it quite reprehensible, since the motivation for this far exceeds mere party-political considerations which are at stake here according to the hon member for Pietersburg.

As the hon member for Pietersburg said, we are dealing with a measure here which amends about 12 existing Acts. There are 36 clauses in the Bill under discussion so this is actually a measure which could well be dealt with at a Committee Stage. This measure received the concentrated attention of the select committee and this committee proposed quite a number of amendments to the measure.

On studying those amendments, one has to agree that they are improvements on the original legislation as introduced. For that reason it is actually difficult to treat the measure on merit in a debate of this nature. Nevertheless it does not justify the conduct of the hon member for Pietersburg who, when he had established that there was little fault to be found with the Bill on merit, attempted to politicise it.

By way of summary one may state in general that the Bill comprises the following matters. Firstly, it is a continuation of the Government reform programme and, secondly, it grants greater powers and authority to self-governing areas, something which in turn takes them a step further on the road to their independence. Thirdly, the Bill includes the removal of a number of outdated references and terminology. In conclusion there are a number of consequential amendments as a result of the provisions of the Bill itself or of other legislation already passed by this House.

Let it therefore suffice for me to say that we on this side support the measure and express our thanks to the select committee—I was not a member and am therefore free to say this— for the competent work …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether I heard him correctly when he said that these were also measures to help the self-governing states further along the road to independence? Did he make such a statement?

Yes, to help the self-governing national states further along the road to independence by granting them greater powers …

Like Venda, Ciskei and Transkei? [Interjections.]

Like Venda? [Interjections.] Venda is an independent state already. The hon member should do his homework first then he will not make such blunders.

… on the road to independence such as Venda already has.

The object is complete independence. There are various interim phases on the way to complete independence and the hon member is now trying to put trick questions to me by asking “Like Venda?”. I do not wish to draw comparisons with Venda or any other independent state. We are on the way to complete independence with the national states but, until that stage is reached, there is an unending variety of interim stages which one may visualise. The fact remains, however, that we are moving in the direction of granting these self-governing national states their independence.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? He is saying now that it is still his party’s policy to permit these communities to develop to full independence. I merely want to ask him whether it would also be his policy for a so-called minority group, such as the Afrikaners, to be able to retain the choice for those communities to develop to independence as well? This is stated in the White Paper.

Order! I cannot permit that by question and answer the debate be broadened and so enlarged in scope as to allow the members replying to it subsequently to say they have unlimited scope. This will not be permitted in any case. The hon member can tell me which clause he is discussing now because I also find that what he is saying is not completely covered in the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

With all due respect to the Chair, Sir, I indicated in conclusion what the Bill encompassed, and the questions to which I replied arose from that. I accept I shall have to reply to the hon member for Pietersburg on another occasion.

I conclude by expressing my thanks and appreciation to the standing committee which considered this Bill. I thank them for their very good recommendations and I am pleased to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Mossel Bay, and also to your ruling in this regard. However, Sir, let me say at once that the problem is that both the hon the Minister, in delivering his Second Reading speech, and the hon member for Mossel Bay, in referring at the end of his speech to the independence towards which the self-governing territories must now supposedly move, tried a different tack, because what they said had very little to do with the Bill. That, in all honesty, is my opinion. To be frank, if I were to support this Bill—as I in fact do—on the basis of what the hon member for Mossel Bay said, I should have to violate my own conscience. [Interjections.] This party—the hon member knows what our standpoint is—does not believe that independence is the direction in which these self-governing territories should be developing. [Interjections.] I just want to say that the hon member is making it unnecessarily difficult for us, just as the hon the Minister complicated matters with his Second Reading speech. [Interjections.] It is with great appreciation that I think back to our discussion of this Bill on the standing committee. The hon member for Mossel Bay said quite rightly that the standing committee had considered this Bill very carefully and had in fact effected quite a number of amendments of the utmost importance. I shall turn to the Bill a little later, but please allow me first to explain just a few of the amendments to the Bill effected by the standing committee.

Firstly, I think it is important that the concept “national state” which we have thus far used so loosely in our discussion of these self-governing territories, has now been formally dropped as far as the legislation is concerned. The standing committee therefore omitted every reference to “national state” in the original Bill and substituted the expression “self-governing territory”. This was done for the simple reason that to speak about territories such as Qwaqwa, kwaZulu or Ka-Ngwane as being “states” is in conflict with any intellectual appreciation of the concept “state”. These territories are not states and will remain an inseparable part of the RSA until they possibly become independent one day. Therefore, the use of the word “state” is actually an intellectual and an academic absurdity. We therefore welcome the amendment that has been effected.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member Professor Olivier has just said about these self-governing territories which could perhaps become independent in the future, may I enquire of the hon member whether he then accepts that these states could perhaps be on the road to independence? [Interjections.]

I cannot become involved in a theoretical discussion with the hon member for Mossel Bay here. Most of those self-governing territories have made it very clear that they are part of the Republic and that they will remain part of it. [Interjections.] I accept that, and I do not want to become involved in a discussion here with the hon member for Mossel Bay about what could happen in 10, 20 or 100 years’ time. That would be totally futile and unproductive. The deletion of the term “national state” in the original Bill is indeed an important one.

I should like to point out further that another important amendment by the standing committee dealt with the criminal jurisdiction of chiefs and headmen. It was proposed that their jurisdiction be extended considerably. On the basis of information furnished to it, the standing committee felt that it could not consider or approve that amendment at this stage, and it was therefore omitted.

The hon member for Mossel Bay drew attention to an important proposal in the original Bill, and that is that the Commission for Co-operation and Development be renamed the Commission for Constitutional Development. This proposal was also rejected by the standing committee for the simple reason that the designation “Commission for Constitutional Development” in itself bore no relation to the real functions of the Commission for Co-operation and Development as originally embodied in the legislation and as it has functioned over the years. The designation “Commission for Constitutional Development ” covers a far wider area than the functions and activities of this Commission for Co-operation and Development, and therefore the standing committee felt that it could not agree to the proposed amendment.

Another important amendment which the standing committee effected, deals with the question of consent by the government of a self-governing territory to alterations to its borders. Hon members will recall the In gwavuma case in which it became apparent that if the borders of one of the self-governing territories were to be altered, this would have to take place after consultation with the authorities of the territory concerned. It was proposed in the original Bill that that provision should remain in force whenever land was to be excised from those areas. After consultation with the authorities of several of these self-governing territories, it was decided that the proposal was not good enough. They did not want to be saddled with land and large numbers of people, which would impose additional obligations upon them, without being consulted in the matter. For this reason, the provision which was embodied in the original Bill was also rejected by the Committee.

I just want to mention a final example of something which unfortunately went wrong. This relates to the rejection of the concept of “Assistant Ministers”. The original Bill sought to amend the Constitution of the RSA by making provision for the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I think the standing committee was unanimous in its view that we were not interested in further extending these areas of patronage. Accordingly, that provision was not included in the Bill by the standing committee. Unfortunately, the hon the Minister saw fit to introduce another Bill at the beginning of this year in which he actually gave effect to what the standing committee had rejected. He simply no longer called them “Assistant Ministers”, but “Ministerial Representatives”. On that occasion I expressed my dissatisfaction, on behalf of this party, at the fact that something which had in fact been rejected by the standing committee, was being done in this way. The principle is exactly the same, but I shall leave the matter at that.

I now want to refer to clause 1 of the Bill. In this regard, I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg something. In terms of traditional law among the Blacks, a Black woman is a perpetual minor. The hon member knows, however, that we have already developed way beyond that stage. It is no longer possible to subject a Black woman to the provisions which existed in Black traditional law. This Parliament has introduced amendments on numerous occasions because there has been a realisation that this provision of Black law cannot, in fact, be maintained in the times in which we are living. That was the reason for the provision in section 11A of the Black Administration Act, which in fact stated that irrespective of all other provisions, a Black woman’s rights would not be viewed as being subject to Black law or custom, particularly in the case of Black women in our urban areas. There the situation became totally untenable because Black women were not permitted to obtain or have any rights. The changes began when we introduced the 99-year leasehold system and realised that this privilege had to be made available to Black women as well.

In this regard I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg—this is not an amendment that has been included in the legislation—that having gone so far as to make it possible for Black women to acquire leasehold, there is surely no rational reason why Black women may not also acquire freehold rights.

Hon members will understand that a totally impossible situation could arise if a man who possessed leasehold or freehold rights were to die. What would his wife’s position be then? Because she is a woman, she would not be able to transfer those rights into her own name.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether in terms of Black law, as it exists at the moment, a Black woman in the self-governing territories or in the independent states may acquire freehold rights?

I can immediately tell the hon member that it would depend on the provisions of the Black law in a particular territory. At this stage, as far as the KwaZulu Statute Book is concerned—the latest edition that has been adopted by the government of KwaZulu—they have deleted the provision that a woman is a perpetual minor. Therefore, even in the Statute Book of KwaZulu, this provision is essentially implemented in a different way. The other states do not have such a provision because they do not have statute books. It is only in the case of KwaZulu that a statute book does exist. I want to say at once that I have no doubt that there is also a tendency, on the part of the authorities in the other self-governing territories, to accept that the concept that women are perpetual minors, simply cannot be retained. We took the trouble to submit this Bill to various authorities in the self-governing territories, and I want to indicate at a later stage which aspects of it they agreed with and which they did not. In general, they agreed with all these provisions in the Bill.

I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that on the strength of the reaction from several of the authorities—we sent the Bill to all of them and asked for their comments—there was a stage at which they said that they did not wish to proceed with the original Bill. However, they could find no fault with these provisions.

I just want to say, however, that common sense tells us that we cannot continue to deny Black women these fundamental rights. As far as clause 1 is concerned it is therefore essential that it be adapted, due to the simple fact that provision was made only last year for Blacks to obtain freehold rights in urban areas. It therefore goes without saying that these adjustments must be made to section 11 of the Black Administration Act in respect of Black women.

Clause 2 contains provisions relating to the repeal of the preamble to the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959. When one looks at that preamble, one must surely immediately acknowledge that it was written in a totally paternalistic tone. For that reason, I have no fault to find with the repeal of that preamble, as provided for in clause 2 of the Bill before us.

The provisions of clause 3 actually flow from the alteration of the definition of “national state” to that of “self-governing territory”. This must be made very clear, particularly when we look at clauses 6 and 7, in which mention is made of the appointment of representatives. It therefore goes without saying that a distinction must be drawn in the definition between a republic and a self-governing territory. Clause 3 is therefore an essential consequence of that distinction. I shall turn to that particular clause of the Bill at a later stage.

Clause 4 is very important from an ideological point of view because leave is thereby finally taken—whether or not the CP members like it, I do not know—of the association with ethnic units. In this regard, therefore, the territorial principle is upheld.

Thus far the point of departure in the promotion of laws pertaining to Black self-government has been that the self-government applies to the ethnic units. That viewpoint, however, has proved to be unworkable. It was on the strength of that principle that it was said that the ethnic unit should have representation in the self-governing territory, and the entire policy revolved around that principle. It was very clear that that policy had failed, because it did not work.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? He is talking, by scientific definition, about “ a self-governing territory”. To what does the “self” refer? Does it refer to “territory”? I now want to make the statement that a territory cannot govern itself. It pertains to people, but to whom does the “self” refer?

To me it is very clear. When we speak of a “self-governing territory”, the emphasis falls on the territory. It is therefore a territorial unit. There would be no problem, for example, if one were to say that everyone living in a certain territory could participate in the political decision-making and other processes in that territory. That, after all, is what makes for a self-governing territory. It is therefore very clear that this association, this primary connection which existed previously, namely that of the point of departure being the ethnic unit, is actually being amended by this Bill, the accent now falling on the territorial aspect of the self-governing territory, something which we welcome of course.

The hon member for Mossel Bay has nothing to say.

The hon member for Mossel Bay may hold a view different to mine; I grant him that right. To my mind, it is nevertheless an important shift that has taken place here, namely a shift of emphasis away from the ethnic to the territorial unit. In this way we shall, in fact, also be able to incorporate other constitutional reforms into the pattern more easily in future than was previously the case.

As to clause 4, and the question of the commissioner-general which is also mentioned in it, one may state broadly that we are satisfied with it. It is a good amendment that has been introduced.

Clause 5 substitutes the following for clause 3 of the Act:

The commissioner-general now no longer represents the Government with the national unit. This is being carried through consistently. He is the representative of the Government of the Republic in the self-governing territory, and not with the national unit. There is an important difference involved here.

Clauses 6 and 7 speak for themselves. Clause 6 substitutes inter alia the following for section 4:

The government of a self-governing territory may—

The hon member for Mossel Bay said that another interpretation could be placed upon this, namely that it could lead to further independence or whatever. I do not attach that interpretation to clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, but I most certainly do acknowledge the prerogative of a self-governing authority to appoint someone to represent the interests of that self-governing authority with the citizens of that self-governing territory.

In this regard I should also like to refer to the legislation which was adopted in this Parliament last year on the question of citizenship. The situation is now no longer the same as it was before. Previously, all Zulus were citizens of KwaZulu, irrespective of where they might live. Some Zulus are now South African citizens, although they are of course also citizens of KwaZulu. That now applies to all four independent territories as well. Therefore, I do not regard those clauses as being essential steps for the implementation of independence.

They are not essential, but they certainly seem to have features or elements of independence.

We welcome clause 8. It deals with the question of the regulations which may be promulgated by the hon the State President in respect of the commissioner-general. In terms of development, as was rightly pointed out by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, this is totally unnecessary in the light of section 2 (4) of the Act, which in fact is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. It is no longer necessary for the hon the State President to possess or exercise those powers in order to prescribe to the commissioner-general what his functions are to be, because the commissioner-general’s functions have in fact changed. He is now a representative of the Republican Government in the self-governing territory, and no longer a representative of the ethnic unit.

The danger existed, and in fact it sometimes happened—you, Mr Chairman, and I know of such instances—that the commissionergeneral acted in such a way that the legitimate authority in a self-governing territory felt that it was interfering unnecessarily in the affairs of that territory. This happened as a result of the powers that were vested in him by way of those regulations. That possibility has now been excluded. This Bill can, in fact, help to create a better understanding between the commissioner-general and the authorities in a self-governing territory.

In this regard I have certain problems in relation to those representatives. It is indeed true that this is an improvement on the previous legislation. The previous legislation provided for the appointment of representatives of a self-governing territory in the urban areas. This was so due to an original ideological connection which existed in the legislation between the people in the urban areas and the self-governing territory, and the authorities of the self-governing territory. This has now been changed—there is no longer any question of such a representative in an urban area. Nevertheless, I still have my doubts regarding the representation with the citizens of that self-governing territory.

Clause 10 comprises a name change which the standing committee saw fit to introduce, one which, in my opinion, represents an improvement.

Clause 11 interprets the present situation, namely that it is the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, together with the provincial executive authorities, who has the most control over legislation pertaining to Blacks these days, and no longer the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

As far as clause 12 is concerned, I have already indicated that the Bill originally provided that this commission was to be called the Commission for Constitutional Development, but that that proposal was rejected by the standing committee. I just want to say that clause 12 is an important clause, as the hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, because all hon members of Parliament may become members of that commission. It is therefore no longer restricted to the House of Assembly. This is simply a logical extension of the fact that the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa no longer consists of Whites only. In that sense this amendment is most certainly to be welcomed. I want to add, however, that despite what the hon the Minister and the hon member for Mossel Bay have said, I have serious doubts as to whether this commission still has a right to exist.

I do not want to delve into the history of the commission, but it was originally brought into being by the Act of 1920 after this Parliament had found that it was not in a position to give effect to all the recommendations made by the Beaumont Commission and the local committees. The original intention behind the establishment of that commission was actually that it should consist of experts, who would have to advise the Government, and not primarily of members of Parliament. That Parliament later became the House of Assembly, and still later the tricameral Parliament.

In my view it is a tragedy that effect has not in fact been given to that original intention, namely that it should be a commission of experts from outside the ranks of officialdom, ie the legislative and public service ranks. I want to say that I truly have serious doubts as to whether the continued existence of this commission is still justified under the present circumstances. We discussed this matter in the standing committee, and this question was very clearly asked there.

I do not believe it is adequate for the hon the Minister simply to say that he regards its abolition as being premature. I expect the hon the Minister to indicate to us why that particular body cannot be abolished, and on which grounds its further existence may still be justified.

Clause 13 repeals sections 4 to 14 of the Black Affairs Act. Those sections no longer have any function, because they make provision for the establishment of local councils and general councils which have already fallen away altogether. I must say, however, that I had to ask myself whether the repeal of section 4 was necessarily a good thing. Section 4 of the Act provides that in the event of conflict between the commission and the Minister or the State President, or in the event of internal conflict between members of the commission, the commission may appeal to Parliament. That provision is now being repealed.

To the best of my knowledge the commission has never exercised that right, precisely because that commission consisted of members of Parliament. The commission consists of members of the majority party. There would have been no sense at all in the commission giving effect to this provision embodied in section 4 of the Act by appealing to Parliament in the case of conflict with the Minister. It would surely not have committed the blunder of turning against its own Minister!

The repeal of the other clauses of the Act is self-explanatory because there is no longer any rightful place for local councils and general councils as envisaged in the original Act.

Clause 15 merely represents the further application of an increase in fines which we already had in the repealed clause 2, and which is now being extended not only to the preservation of secrecy, but also to the contravention of all regulations pertaining to the commission.

The repeal of section 16A in clause 16 is likewise self-explanatory, because section 16A of the Black Affairs Act provided that the provisions of the Act would also apply to South West Africa. Apparently it is accepted that this Parliament no longer has the authority to make this sort of provision applicable to South West Africa. The deletion of the section is therefore actually self-explanatory.

It is also self-evident that clause 17 is being introduced as a consequential amendment.

With reference to clause 18, the standing committee reflected at length on whether this blanket provision should be made in respect of the appointment of deputy ministers in the self-governing territories. The question arose, in the light of other circumstances, and because we know that it could easily lead to an unnecessary increase in expenditure, as to whether that sort of power should be granted to the chief minister in a self-governing territory. Initially I personally had serious objections to the question of the appointment of deputy ministers. We were then informed that this was to happen at the request of the authorities in the self-governing territories, and more specifically at the request of the chief minister of KwaZulu. Under those circumstances the standing committee felt, because the motivation that had been given appeared to be a justifiable request on the part of the chief minister of KwaZulu, that he should be given the right to appoint deputy ministers.

As far as clause 19 is concerned, the hon the Minister has given a full explanation as to why it is essential for the hon the State President to have the power to approve legislation that is accepted by Parliament. In terms of the provisions of the Constitution, he must approve it unless the legislation has not been passed in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is very little regarding which we on this side of the House can quarrel with the hon member Prof Olivier. In the main he explained what appeared in the Bill, and we listened appredatively. There were a few occasions when he wanted to steal a march on someone and wanted to make a few remarks about the Government regarding changes we want to introduce and shifts in emphasis which exist. I suppose we can debate this.

Even if the hon member does not support the concept of possible independence for the self-governing territories, he at least supports the orderly development of self-governing territories in South Africa. I believe that if there is a change in approach it is more from the side of the PFP than from our side.

This measure concerns the realities of the reform process to bring about an orderly constitutional dispensation in this country. Unfortunately the CP has lagged behind in this process, and for that reason they find it very difficult to debate the amendments which have resulted from specific changed circumstances. They therefore fall back on the old philosophical political arguments.

They have also very clearly changed direction. I do not think the hon CP members can say that they stand by the NP’s policy as it was in the past.

The other day the hon member for Brakpan said that the CP’s policy was separate development and partition but that is not true. The hon member for Ermelo—he is new here— proposed at their congress that the concept separate development should disappear from the terminology of the CP, because this must indicate the difference between the CP and the NP. If the NP is in the process of evolving, developing and adjusting separate development in its natural form to changed circumstances, the hon members must not turn around and say that they also stand for separate development. They rejected it at their own congress. They stand for partition, and they must make a choice between separate development and partition. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that the application of the Government’s policy of separate development takes place according to the realities which are seen outside. The TBVC countries have become independent, the six self-governing states …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know what clause the hon member is discussing at the moment.

I am listening to the hon member. I just want to point out that hon members must confine themselves to the clauses in this Bill. The hon member may proceed.

It is the tradition in this House for the first speaker on the Government side to be given a little leeway and I am merely reacting to a few remarks made by the hon member. [Interjections.]

In clause 4 form is really given to the concept of separate development by the recognition of self-governing territories and there is a move away from the old purely ethnic approach to the homelands. A territory is being created for the North Sothos named Lebowa, a territory is being created for the Ndebeles named kwaNdebele, and we can read on down the list in terms of clause 4, where it is clearly spelled out that the Government is giving recognition to the existence of self-governing territories which have gained a status in South Africa which is very close to independence or whatever they want to do in future. These are the products of separate development. To allege that the CP is sticking to that policy does not make sense as I have already said.

The realities of South Africa are confronting us and this Government is handling the realities in consultation and with responsibility. That is why it is necessary to look at this legislation from time to time. It is necessary to look at changes in names and better definitions. This is the object of this legislation in most cases.

The Black Administration Act, 1927, deals with a new situation in which we find ourselves with regard to the rights of Black women and in particular Black women outside the national states. It concerns the principle of ownership being given to those Black women who are living outside the self-governing territories of South Africa. I think this is an evolutionary process which is also under way in South Africa and which has also become a part of the historic development of South Africa.

One must look at the rights of women, not only Black women, because the hon member Prof Olivier explained this to us very clearly and I do not want to pursue this matter. The rights of women per se in the world, not only in South Africa, have always lagged behind and adjustments have had to be made. The question which the CP must answer for us is whether they are prepared to support such a clause which, because the principle of ownership for Black people in White areas has already been accepted, merely extends that ownership to Black women too.

As regards the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, 1959, I just want to repeat that separate development is responsible for orderly self-government and the creation of these self-governing territories. Instead of sticking to the narrow racial units or racial ethnicity, the Government has seen fit to refer to these areas as full-fledged self-governing territories.

I was rather surprised when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also leapt to his feet here, while the hon member Prof Olivier was speaking, to ask him a question concerning the principle of self-governing territories and what precisely that meant. The problems one is facing here can be illustrated by means of an example. If one looks at the situation in the Northern Transvaal among the Shangaans, the North Sothos and the Vendas, one sees that there is intermarrying and that members of the one ethnic group are residing in the area of jurisdiction of another self-governing territory.

Fewer than 2% of them.

It does not matter. Those 2% are causing problems for the Government. All that is now being done is to give recognition to those people too. If they prefer to exercise their political rights in that self-governing territory and that self-governing territory is prepared to accept them, provision must be made for this. It does not matter whether it is 2% or 20%. These are people who are being affected and that is what I want to bring home to the hon member for Lichtenburg.

The hon member Prof Olivier made a big fuss about the concept of national states which are now being called self-governing territories. The hon member for Mossel Bay asked him a question about this to which he gave a very vague reply. The question which the PFP must answer for us is what happens when one establishes such self-governing territories in South Africa and in due course the territories develop constitutionally so that they are ripe for independence and ask for it. Members of the PFP are going to speak in this debate again and then they can tell us whether they would give independence to such people. That is the principle. It is not true that we are forcing the self-governing territories to accept independence. The hon member Prof Olivier and I were both in the old UP where we had to face up to that factual situation. The then leader of the UP, Sir De Villiers Graaff, said that if a territory were to ask for independence, we would grant it. That is what was decided and to an increasing extent the PFP is finding itself in a position similar to that of the old UP.

In terms of this legislation the Government is giving recognition to the status of people in the self-governing territories.

Mr Chairman, would he make his granting of independence dependent on a referendum in which all the people in that area could express themselves on the matter?

Order! I do not see a reference anywhere in this Bill to independence.

The hon member spoke about that, Sir.

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

I shall get back to the Bill, but you are making things a little difficult for me, Mr Chairman. I had better not answer him, because you may say that I am out of order. [Interjections.]

The argument is as follows. I just want to reply briefly to the hon member. There were elections in the self-governing territories, and those territories …

Order!

… decided overwhelmingly in favour of the Government which gave them independence.

Order! The Chair is talking to the hon member. He would do well to pay attention when the Chair calls for order. Unfortunately the Chair will declare the hon member out of order if he continues in this vein. The hon member may proceed with his speech.

I apologise, Mr Chairman. I merely replied in passing to the question the hon member put to me.

The functions of the Commission for Cooperation and Development were also raised here in the debate. The hon member Prof Olivier singled out historic facts regarding the origin of the commission and what its responsibilities were. I must tell you that, as a member of the commission, I do not care what the commission’s name is, and whether the standing committee wants to change it or does not want to change it. The point is that the Commission for Co-operation and Development, as the hon the Minister said in his second reading speech, has done very good work over the years—before I was a member of it—in implementing the Government’s policy with regard to consolidation in particular. Mr Chairman, you yourself were the chairman of that commission for a long time. That commission’s task has almost been completed. There are two self-governing territories that are in the process of final consolidation. That proposal is with the Cabinet, and we will deal with it in due course. I do not think the hon member Prof Olivier need worry that the commission is still going to discuss those matters a great deal. Perhaps the Government has other tasks for the commission in future, which will be closer to what the hon member expects of the commission.

As regards the National States Constitution Act, 1971, we on this side of the House welcome the authority being given to the Chief Minister to make extentions to his Cabinet and to appoint Deputy Ministers, as the case may be. This is yet again recognition of the existence of those self-governing territories. We respect their standpoint, and we respect the responsibility they show in governing their territories as they see fit.

As regards the Black Local Authorities Act, we on this side of the House are also gratified to see that real recognition is being given to the status of the town clerk in those Black local authorities. The town clerk is the person around whom every local authority revolves, and to give that position in the local authority a different name in the case of Black local authorities to that applying in ordinary local authorities in South Africa would not be fair.

With these few words, Sir, I want to tell you that we on this side of the House support this measure. All these amendments are positive and in agreement with the Government’s policy. They are keeping pace with changed circumstances and they incorporate the application of separate development. For that reasons we take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I found it interesting during this debate to observe how the PFP and the NP were trying to score points off one another concerning interpretations, explanations, and so on with regard to a Bill on which they agree. It is a reflection of developments in the politics of this country at present, Sir, that people hide their true standpoints behind terminology so that one party can tell another that a specific policy is theirs and that they interpret it in a specific way, and so on.

The hon member for Mossel Bay stated here that my colleague, the hon member for Pietersburg, was guilty of reprehensible politicking. However, I want to tell the hon member that in that process he himself was guilty of that kind of argument. The hon member Prof Olivier derived malicious pleasure from the fact that clause 4 did away with ethnicity in respect of national states and replaced it with territorial identification of an area. To a certain extent the hon member for Turffontein agreed with him on that score.

The hon member Prof Olivier may know more about it than I do, but two centuries ago Edmund Burke objected to the atomistic view of territory and a number of people in it as a disregard for the ethnic character and the community. The hon member was very pleased about his joint triumph with others, but I should like to know the following from him. Who is the majority group in Zululand, KwaZulu, KwaNdebele, Lebowa, KaNgwane and Gazankulu? Who is the majority and who governs there?

And in the RSA?

I am coming to that point soon. That is the paving of the way that is going to take place by passing this Bill. That is the crux of the matter. I shall discuss it further soon. [Interjections.]

Who governs there? What language applies there? It is also very important to know who gets the concessions there. In my opinion there is more nationalism and economic nationalism in those—what I continue to call—national states, than in White South Africa. As an ethnologist, the hon member knows that the Zulus, more than anyone else, govern in KwaZulu. The Zulus are dominant in Inkatha, although they proclaim loudly that membership is open to all. The same applies to all these areas about which the hon member Prof Olivier derived so much pleasure and thought he could score a point.

We now come to the point that is really important. Hon members of the NP are now establishing the territorial idea, whilst just like the hon member Prof Olivier, they will one day want to pass a further extension, an amendment to the constitutional legislation. They want to smuggle in the same principle in respect of White South Africa one day in the future, as they have done here now. [Interjections.]

Yes, Helgard, you will still come and condone and approve it, too.

Yes, the hon member for Mossel Bay will come and condone it, too, just as he is condoning all these things he once fought against tooth and nail.

I want to say—I am speaking to the hon member for Mossel Bay in particular—that of course we oppose clause 1 of this Bill. In principle we have taken the line that we do not grant Black peoples freehold rights to land in the White part of South Africa; they can obtain these in their own territory. That is why we are objecting to it. Furthermore, we say that the Government is now granting a Black woman a specific right which she does not have in her own fatherland, national, ethnic or territorial area.

In this regard I want to tell the hon member for Houghton that I do not object to the Zulus granting Zulu women the rights they wish to grant them in their own time and in the way they prefer. The same applies to the Venda. However, we object in principle to the fact that freehold rights are being extended in White South Africa. We did so in the caucus of the NP when we were still members of the NP and we did so again later here in the House of Assembly. It is our right, and we shall continue to do so for the sake of the continued existence of the Whites in this country.

I just want to come back for a moment to the argument of the hon members for Mossel Bay and Turffontein, as well as the hon member Prof Olivier. They are rejoicing now because they are giving territorial substance to Lebowa, KwaNdebele, Qwaqwa, Ka-Ngwane, Gazankulu, and KwaZulu. But surely it was fundamental to the philosophy of the old NP that we could grant a Black people in South Africa political rights geographically in its traditional area and could tell it to become a people there and govern itself. That was the case. That is why we have a Transkei, a Venda, a Ciskei and a Bophuthatswana.

I now want to ask the hon member for Mossel Bay something. Today he stated categorically that these peoples could also develop towards complete independence. But now he sees a tremendous number of stumbling-blocks on the road ahead.

They are a reality.

Then what was the 1936 Act all about?

The stumbling blocks, or the independence, which one is the reality? For if the stumbling blocks are such that they can never attain independence, surely it is dishonest of him to speak of complete independence for the sake of political expediency, because the State President says that he believes in an indivisible South Africa because after the Government had given them free rein, they conditioned the leaders of the Black peoples. Now they are no longer in favour of complete independence, of course not, because they have an eye on the whole of South Africa, where they have white milch cows. That is what they have an eye on. They are being encouraged by Whites from elsewhere. They are being encouraged by Whites in this House. They will never get it.

This situation is created when one comes up with political liberalism, as is being manifested by the NP now.

I want to ask the hon member for Mossel Bay, as well as the hon member Prof Olivier the following question. They have made provision for these peoples, these embryo states which are going to become completely independent one day. Now I want to ask them whether they have also made some sort of provision for the White people of South Africa, where it can be sovereignly and completely independent. Have they made provision for such a people?

No, they are not interested!

No, they are not interested in doing so. [Interjections.] My grandfather told me that during the Boer War certain Boer generals were each given a tickey and fourpence per head for every burger when they surrendered. I wonder what the White people of South Africa are being sold for these days.

Who is this White people, then?

Are you not part of it?

I am part of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon members want to ask one another questions, there are ways of doing so. Furthermore, Mr Speaker has repeatedly ruled that hon members shall not call one another by their Christian names across the floor.

As my colleague the hon member for Pietersburg has said, we are specifically opposed to certain clauses in this Bill, viz clauses 1, 4, 12, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33.

I do not know why the hon member Prof Olivier got so excited about clause 9, because clause 9 in fact brings very strongly to the fore what we in the CP advocate, viz linking a member of a Black ethnic group, in White South Africa, to its national state. This will take place through people’s representatives, the appointment of commissioners-general and representatives in White South Africa. This brings one very close to the principle of the high commissioner, which was well known in the days of the Commonwealth.

I want to come to another point, however, viz the fact that a Member of Parliament can now be appointed by the State President to serve on the commission. We shall discuss this again later, but there is one thing I want to say now. I think it is incorrect terminology to speak of a Member of Parliament. The constituent members of this Parliament are the three Chambers, and the elected and other members of the three Chambers are in turn the constituent members of each Chamber concerned. However, the constituent components of Parliament are the three Chambers. I therefore think it is incorrect terminology to speak of a Member of Parliament.

We now find another principle here, however. It is a dangerous and sensitive matter being touched on here. I do not know to what extent the Black peoples where consulted in this regard. Members of a commission which has to decide on matters pertaining to Blacks, can now also be members of the Indian and Coloured population groups. The Whites, who have thus far always governed the Black peoples alone, and who were in the process of handing over that power over the Black peoples, and consequently emancipating them, now want to share the power that Whites had as custodians with Coloureds and Indians this year by way of this Bill. It is a dreadful principle which is under discussion here. Surely we know—if hon members do not know, it shows how ignorant they are— what sentiments the Black peoples of South Africa display towards the Coloureds and Indians. Now this Parliament is saying to the Coloureds and Indians: “Come and decide with me about the Zulus, the Sothos, the Swazis and the others.” Are the Zulus going to allow this? Are the Sothos going to allow it? Are the Swazis going to allow it? No, definitely not. Do these hon members not know what the Blacks call a Coloured person and an Indian; what the Blacks think of them?

Now the Government is allowing the Coloureds and Indians to have a joint say with the Whites over the Blacks. Then they still ask why there is unrest in this country. They still ask what the cause of the riots and unrest in this country is. Of course we know that it is the new reform policy of the hon the State President. Mr P W Botha, and his Government causing all this in South Africa. [Interjections.] We are very strongly opposed to this principle. We reject it because we see that it is dangerous, and we want to warn against it.

We are opposed to this Bill. It is an omnibus measure. A moment ago when I spoke in support of my hon colleague, I said that I thought it was wrong that legislation like this be contained in a single Bill because, as I pointed out, it ranges from shark control to provincial matters, although it is concerned mainly with Black affairs. We are opposed to this Bill because it is just another step in the process whereby the Government is dismantling what has been laboriously built up and developed over 30 years in the interests of all the peoples of South Africa to bring us to where we were seven or eight years ago in the field of constitutional law. We shall therefore continue to oppose it, and when the CP comes to power, it will have to renew some of these measures.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg has given us an example here of the way in which his party fought the election over the past few months. They set up targets here and then they shoot them down themselves.

The hon member asked the PFP whether it was still the standpoint of this Parliament that the Zulus govern in KwaZulu. It is not even necessary to reply to a question like that. He tried to sow doubt as to whether the self-governing areas were still on the road to independence. There is no need for the hon member to tell this side of the House what steps have to be taken on the road to independence for the Black communities. After all, this side of the House has already been the guardian of four independent states, and is still in the process of negotiating further emancipation for Black areas.

The hon member probably thought he was putting forward an exceptionally clever standpoint when he asked whether any provision had been made for a White homeland. There is nothing preventing anyone in this country from striving for the establishment of a White homeland. The hon member knows that. There are people who support his party, who are actively working, who have dedicated themselves to the dream of creating a White homeland, a White heartland. We on this side of the House do not deny them the right to try to realise that ideal. Our only serious doubts are whether they have any hope of succeeding. Meanwhile the NP still has to act as the Government of the country, and the NP still has to take into consideration the fact that the reality of South African society at present tells it that there is not even an embryo of a White homeland in South Africa, that there is no area where the White man is in the majority. As soon as one recognises that fact—and it is not necessary to make a concession in that regard; one need only accept the facts around one—…

Then you are capitulating!

No, the hon member is well aware that it is not necessary to capitulate before facts. [Interjections.]

The moment one starts speaking against that background of a White heartland, one is speaking of the creation of homelands, and one is treading on extremely dangerous ground. The hon members on the opposite side of the House take great pleasure in telling the NP how many dangers it is creating for the country, but I wonder whether hon members opposite have ever discovered precisely how dangerous the idea of creating homelands, which they are toying with, is. The leaders of the NP whom they are still emulating today …

Order! I am listening to the hon member, but I am not aware that a White homeland is really an issue in this Bill. The hon member must confine himself a little more closely to the Bill.

With respect, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg put a specific question …

Order! If the hon member for Soutpansberg mentioned it, the hon member can reply, but I think he has replied to it long enough now. He can come back to the Bill now.

Very well, Mr Chairman. I am sure we will have the opportunity to reply to that again at a later stage.

This Bill is a deceptive measure. As the hon member for Soutpansberg said, it creates the impression that it is an omnibus measure and a vacuum cleaner. It creates the impression that it is simply a general Bill to remove anomalies from the Statute Book and to modernise outdated regulations.

It is not that simple, however. If one takes a closer look at this amending Bill, it is clear that it is more than simply an omnibus Bill. The anomalies are in fact being removed, but the Bill as a whole is part of the Government’s whole reform process. Although a number of laws are involved here, all the amendments have the common characteristic that it boils down to removing restrictions applicable to Black people and Black communities.

The sheer number of laws being amended by this Bill, once again go to prove that the reform process is not a one-off occurrence, but that it is a process taking place over a long period and over a wide spectrum of fields. This idea has been emphasised repeatedly by the hon the State President. We would be mistaken to pursue the simplistic Nkrumah approach, viz that one should first seek the political kingdom and everything else will come to you later. We must bear in mind that reform in South Africa affects the whole pattern of life of South Africans. On the one hand this Bill gives an indication of how wide the field is to which adjustments are necessary.

I want to confine my thoughts more specifically to the provision of clause 18, which makes provision for the power of chief ministers in self-governing areas to appoint deputy ministers. When the Republican Parliament empowered the then Prime Minister of South Africa to appoint deputy ministers, it was argued that this office would be an ideal training ground for candidates who could be considered for political promotion at a later stage. That prediction has been proved correct repeatedly in the approximately 20 years the office has existed, as has in fact been proved in many other parts of the world as well. It has been so successful, that in the government set-up here in South Africa it has become the exception rather than the rule today if someone is appointed as Minister straight without having done an “apprenticeship” as deputy minister. If this is true of communities steeped in Western democratic traditon, how much more useful would such a period of apprenticeship not be in communities who have only come to know Western forms of management and structures during the lifetime of the younger generation?