laid upon the Table:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

It is Government policy to promote a system whereby members of all communities, within their means, can own and possess their own dwellings.

This policy is based on the principle that the provision of housing is the responsibility of the individual, the employer and the private sector, and that the Government will only, by way of exception, provide for indigent cases. It is also the declared policy of the Government to promote free enterprise and to encourage the private sector to become actively engaged in the provision of housing for all income groups. In this connection the Government is expected to play a supportive role, entailing briefly the provision of the legal framework without over-regulation; the identification and zoning of adequate land for development; the acquisition of land when the private or local authorities, for some reason or other, are unable to perform; and the involvement of the Government only when the private sector is unable to cope. In order to afford everybody the opportunity to obtain housing, the available funds are to be utilised effectively to ensure as many people as possible of housing; employers shall be encouraged to involve themselves in obtaining houses for employees; and prospective buyers, not in possession of the necessary funds, shall participate in self-build projects or shall be assisted to obtain loans.

The privatisation of the Government’s housing stock has been in progress for some time. The new sales conditions should create a favourable climate and prospective buyers should be encouraged to buy houses. The new conditions are, inter alia, the following: A discount of up to 65% of the calculated purchase price for structural defects; the inclusion of arrear rent in the amount borrowed; purchasing without a deposit, provided the lessee has met his obligations over the past three years; and the inclusion of transfer and other loan costs in the amount borrowed. Further improvements are that a maximum limit of costs for a dwelling and erf financed from housing funds has been raised from R27 000 to R30 000. Similarly the maximum level of income of persons qualifying for assistance has been raised from R800 to R1 000 per month.

The main object of the Housing Act of 1966 is to provide for the erection of dwellings and the implementation of housing schemes for all population groups. A commission known as the National Housing Commission, comprising experts in the field of housing, has been established. The commission has, in the course of events, been responsible for the determination of policy, norms and standards, whilst an executive committee dealt with the daily functions such as the consideration of project applications. The House of Assembly adopted its own legislation in this regard during 1984, followed by both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The Housing Act of 1966, insofar as it applied to the three population groups concerned, has therefore already been repealed. The provisions, however, remain in force in respect of the Black communities and the powers, functions and duties in terms of those provisions have been assigned to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Development Planning with effect from 20 May 1987. A new commission and an executive committee, on which members of the Black community also serve, have since been established by me. The provincial administrators are, with a few exceptions, responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the Black Communities Development Act of 1984 as from 1 October 1986.

The said Act deals mainly with township development and it is also necessary for the involvement of the administrators to be regulated in the Housing Act of 1966. The Bill contains provisions to meet these requirements. Provision is made, inter alia, for the following: Advances which are normally made to local authorities for housing schemes are being extended so as to include advances for the acquisition of material which is related to self-build projects. Secondly, the erection of dwellings with a maximum of five rooms is not practical and the limit is being waived. Thirdly, the Housing Commission is empowered, in terms of the new provision, to furnish collateral or security for loans to acquire or develop land. This is a further method of making it possible to obtain more land or to promote township development. Fourthly it is desirable that, in terms of the principle of devolution of power, the housing function be addressed at the regional level. The Bill provides for the establishment of regional committees and regulates the composition of such committees. In order to broaden regional representation, the appointment of an additional member and the designation of the chairman by the administrator are now provided for. In the fifth place, provision is also made for exemptions from measures pertaining to the erection of dwellings, including general building standards. In the sixth place, provision is made for the involvement of the administrator and provincial officials in the implementation of the provisions of the Act.

One trusts that the passing of the Bill by the various Houses of Parliament will to a significant extent serve to expedite decisions on housing and the establishment of physical infrastructural services for the Black communities.

I wish to express my appreciation to the standing committee for approving the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates objected to certain principles as set out in the committee reports of the Chairmen of the said two Houses.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I want to be brief and say that unfortunately the CP will not be supporting the Bill under discussion. To a great extent it is a technical measure which provides for the rationalisation of existing legislation.

The problem lies with clause 9 which provides for the establishment of mixed regional committees. We understand that this system is already in progress, and under those circumstances we are not prepared to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Housing Act, Act 4 of 1966, initially regulated matters with reference to housing for all population groups. When own legislation with reference to housing matters was passed by the House of Assembly in 1984 and later by the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, the Housing Act was abolished insofar as it had reference to Whites, Coloureds and Indians. It is still applicable to the Black communities, however.

The powers, duties and activities in terms of this Act have been entrusted to the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Development Planning. Since the Housing Act of 1966 now regulates housing exclusively for Black communities, the Act had to be adapted to provide for the special requirements of Black communities.

The particulars of the amending Bill under discussion were set out fully by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and I do not intend to elaborate on the details of the measures.

This amending Bill was approved by inter alia the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs and other interested bodies. In this connection I should like to refer to a letter, dated 16 September 1987, which was received from the President of Ucasa, the Urban Council’s Association of South Africa. It reads as follows:

This refers to the Housing Amendment Bill that is under consideration at present—

A similar letter, dated 21 September 1987, was also received from the United Municipalities of South Africa, and I quote:

In particular Umsa welcomes:

1. (1) the provision which will enable the National Housing Commission to invest funds with building societies as collateral;
2. (2) provisions enabling the Administrator to appoint (if he so wishes) Black persons to regional committees;
3. (3) provisions lifting restrictions on the type of house which can be built with commission funds.

There can be no doubt, therefore, about the support of this Bill by the Black communities whom it will affect.

There was no criticism of the Bill as such in the standing committee either, and I say this deliberately. The hon member for Roodepoort has actually just confirmed that, and I shall come back to the matter later. The initial objection, especially on the part of members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, and to an extent also the hon member Prof Olivier, concerned the fact that housing matters were regulated by separate legislation in respect of the various population groups. This was not caused by this Bill, however. This was done in separate legislation by all three Houses of Parliament. The Bill under consideration at present is merely the necessary consequence of what is being done in this connection by all three Houses.

That is why it would not be realistic or reasonably justified to block this measure, which provides for housing for Blacks or has reference to housing matters for Black communities because there are objections to measures which have been passed by all three Houses of this Parliament. In fact, in view of the critical need for or shortage of housing for Blacks in particular, it would hardly be fair to block legislation such as that under discussion merely in order to try to score a political point.

As chairman of the standing committee, I should therefore like to express my appreciation to the members of the standing committee for the fact that realism and reasonableness triumphed to the benefit of the Black communities in particular in this case.

In conclusion I want to say something about the hon member for Roodepoort’s standpoint. It is true that the hon members of the CP did not support the measure, for the reason given by the hon member for Roodepoort. [Interjections.] I find it a pity that hon members of the CP were not prepared to support a measure which was obviously directed at the interests of Black communities and about which everyone agreed that it was being proposed in favour of the Black communities, merely because of an ideological dispute they had about the question of communality in the committees concerned. [Interjections.] This happened despite the fact that hon members of the CP, when they were still members of this side of the House, agreed a number of times to the nomination of people from population groups other than the White group, to committees which had been entrusted with community matters. The hon members in the back benches of the CP are now trying, for convenience’ sake, to dissociate themselves from what their colleagues in the front benches have done consistently. It is very convenient for the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis to shake his head and dissociate himself from things that his leaders, who are sitting in front of him… [Interjections.]

You were talking about history…

He says it is a new party now.

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis may not make any more interjections in this speech. The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

Yes, the hon member says they are a new party now. It is convenient to shake off one’s past in that way, simply by forming a new party. [Interjections.] When the hon member speaks about a new party, there is one question that has to be asked. When did that party originate? Did that party originate when the AWB took them over? [Interjections.] That party originated when the AWB gained control of the CP. That is the new party the hon member is talking about.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask what the AWB has to do with this Bill?

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

Mr Chairman, with all due respect to the Chair the argument about the AWB ensued directly from the interjection made by the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis that the standpoint adopted by hon members of his party concerning community committees, for which, among other things, this measure provides, is no longer valid because they are supposed to be a new so-called party. The argument ensued directly from that, and it is interesting that it was the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis who spoke about this new party, since he of all people is the personification of the new party and of the AWB’s take-over of the CP.

Who is the leader of this new party? [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP did not support the measure in the standing committee, I regard that as a pity, because if their standpoint had triumphed in the standing committee, it would have been to the detriment of Black communities as regards housing. [Interjections.]

There is a critical shortage of housing for Blacks in particular, and the general opinion in the standing committee was that this Bill provides an effective method of addressing that critical shortage of housing. As far as those hon members are concerned, however, none of this matters as much as attempting to score a petty political point. I think it is a pity that we have an official opposition which is not prepared to support a measure about an important matter such as this one which affects a large part of our South African community very closely, merely to score a petty political point by which ultimately they will gain nothing anyway. [Interjections.]

I should like to support this measure, and once again I want to express my appreciation to members of the standing committee who were prepared to support the measure despite their initial objections, because as I have said, provision is being made for the housing affairs of the respective population communities on a separate basis.

Mr Chairman, I have no fault to find with the explanation given by the hon member for Mossel Bay, who is the chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this Bill, on what led to its introduction, on the problem addressed by the Bill nor the modus operandi adopted by the standing committee.

It is a fact—as the hon member indicated—that, because the three Houses had passed their own housing legislation, the Housing Act of 1966 had actually become redundant as a general Act. Because provision had to be made for Blacks, it was consequently essential to make adjustments by means of this Bill to allow it to apply to Blacks.

One should take the enormous need for housing among Blacks into account. I think the hon the Minister himself mentioned the other day that at least 500 000 housing units were required. In the course of time, and especially in view of the urbanisation of Blacks, an ever-increasing need will arise, to such a degree certainly that I do not even know whether, with all the means at our disposal, we shall be able to provide really effective and proper housing for those millions of Blacks, especially those who will move to our cities.

The problem therefore really exists and is of enormous extent. Any step we can take to provide those people with decent housing should be welcomed.

Related to this is the fact that we shall not be able to solve the problem without making proper provision for additional land on which the Government as well as Blacks and private enterprise may establish housing development schemes.

In this respect I wish to say that the provision of land for that housing remains the primary responsibility of the Government in spite of the stress laid in the hon the Minister’s speech on the role of the private entrepreneur in the provision of housing. I want to tell the hon the Minister and his department that we shall never solve this problem unless we provide land for residential purposes on a really large scale, particularly as regards the urbanisation of Blacks.

I agree with you. It is true.

Thank you very much. I merely want to say that it is a relevant problem in this connection.

In consequence of this, I associate myself with the hon member for Mossel Bay in saying it is my conviction that under these circumstances we have no alternative—I am now putting it in a negative manner but I actually wanted to express it more positively—but to take positive steps to conduct a thorough examination of this problem of the provision of adequate housing for Blacks.

As a result the obvious way is that we simply have to support the Housing Act of 1966 as adjusted to circumstances. I wish to add immediately that I take pleasure in lending my support and that of my party to this Bill.

I appreciate it that the hon member for Mossel Bay, as a right-minded and fair person, stated the objections raised against it here. As the hon member for Mossel Bay indicated, hon members of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates added a rider to the report in which they expressed their approval of this Bill. I should like to quote the following from the Report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development:

While I reacted positively in support of the Bill, I want to add at once that I associated myself with the rider added by the hon members of the other Houses to the passing of the Bill.

Let us be rational and honest now. We are faced here with the enormous problem of the provision of housing for all groups; it is self-evidently not a problem limited to Blacks alone. Each of the other groups, including the Whites, have great housing needs. The problem exists as regards all groups in our society.

I want to ask the hon the Minister, the hon the State President and the hon members of the Government whether it makes sense under these circumstances to have four separate systems, four sets of legislation, four separate administrations, four separate types of financing and four separate types of housing supply in South Africa. I want to say in all honesty and modesty that we are taking the concept of own affairs to an absolute and utter absurdity. Surely housing is not a problem limited to one of the groups in South Africa. It is a general problem and I just want to make this appeal to the Government.

There is some merit in the concept of own affairs and I have said this frequently in this House. It is absurd, however, to take it to the point of establishing four separate institutions, four separate administrations, four separate ways of financing and four separate methods of providing housing as regards a problem which is common to all population groups in South Africa. I honestly want to say that we have turned the concept of own affairs into an absolute absurdity.

I hope the hon member for Mossel Bay will understand that, despite our being bound as members of an Opposition Party, from a pragmatic and realistic point of view we accept and realise the need for machinery to provide housing for Blacks. We are nevertheless caught up in this situation of conflict which was not of our creation but which makes it possible for our support of what is being done here to be interpreted as support for the concept of own affairs in a sphere in which the concept of own affairs cannot be applied.

I want to state very clearly that, in associating myself with this rider added by the other Houses, I support the Bill because I realise that need. Nevertheless this in no way detracts from my fundamental rejection of the concept of own affairs in this sphere and as it is expressed here in practice.

Mr Chairman, as a member of the standing committee concerned, I must say I have great difficulty understanding how it is that the hon members of the CP can be petty enough not to support this excellent piece of legislation. [Interjections.] I cannot agree with the accusation the hon member for Roodepoort made yesterday that our standing committee is ineffective. I think our standing committee has produced a very effective result, for this Bill is evidence that consensus politics can work. It presents the very positive face of consensus politics.

I should like to join the hon member Prof Olivier in congratulating the hon member for Mossel Bay, the chairman of our standing committee. Although it is true, as the hon member Prof Olivier said, that the standing committee members from the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates did express a reservation about the concept of own and general affairs in relation to housing, the actual provisions of this Bill did receive immediate support from all the members of the standing committee, except the hon members from the CP.

We were almost unanimous—except for them—that housing for our underprivileged communities, particularly for the Black community—was an overriding priority in the interests of good government of our country. As the chairman of the standing committee pointed out today, both significant local government groups, Ucasa and Umsa, have given their wholehearted support to this Bill.

On three main counts, Mr Chairman, I would submit that this is a watershed piece of legislation as far as the socio-economic development of our country is concerned. In my view the counts are these: On the first count, the introduction into the Housing Act of a new section 84 which empowers the Housing Commission to invest funds with building societies as collateral for loans to acquire and develop land for housing, as the hon member for Mossel Bay has said. This should be welcomed as it is common knowledge that one of the major bottlenecks in the provision of housing is the availability of township land.

It will also encourage the private sector to invest in housing developments, and this is of overriding importance if we are ever to make up the backlog.

On the second count this Bill represents a devolution of power by allowing the problem of housing to be addressed at a regional level with the participation of the regional committees concerned, viz the representatives of those communities for whom the housing is to be built. In other words, greater Black participation in these regional committees is envisaged by the standing committee. In fact, the regional committees will have greater powers.

As a member of the Johannesburg City Council’s Housing and Utilities Committee for a number of years, I can only endorse the position which is embodied in this piece of legislation—that local and regional authorities are far better able than any central Government body to deal with the housing needs of communities and are far more effective in actually producing the housing units required.

On the third count, and most importantly, by implementing the provisions of the Venter Commission Report in exempting housing utilities from general building standards in relation to the material and the type of dwelling, for instance waiving the limit on the number of rooms that may be included in a dwelling under a housing scheme which receives financial assistance—I know the limit is five at the moment and this will be extended—and also including advances for the acquisition of materials for site and service schemes under advances which can be made available for housing schemes in this Bill, the Government recognizes that we are a developing country with an overriding need to house our Third World population, because an own urban home is the first step on the way to the First World. This Bill represents a very necessary and beneficial deregulation and a concomitant lowering of standards which I think we should be pleased about. At last we are cutting our coat according to our cloth. In addition, the policy of positive urbanisation which this Government has espoused, is getting a shot in the arm.

The provisions of the Bill should facilitate the very necessary rapid urban development which we require, even if it is on a less formal basis. I do not think that we should be dismayed by these developments, Mr Chairman. I am not in fact dismayed by such developments as Crossroads and Khayelitsha, despite the squalor and the difficulties associated with squatter developments and self-help schemes.

There is a very positive side to them. When I toured the area of Crossroads and Khayelitsha a year or two ago I was very impressed by the positive mood of these places. Crossroads and Khayelitsha represent people’s aspirations for a better standard of living and a better chance in life. The sort of enterprising Third World building contractors whom I have seen mass producing better class squatter shacks at Khayelitsha, have in fact been practising for some years what this Bill preaches now.

I would say that with the huge backlog we have in housing for the Black community, which I believe stands at present at over 500 000 units, I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to begin by extending my cordial thanks to the hon member for Mossel Bay, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, for his contribution here this afternoon, but also for the work he does as chairman of that standing committee.

After listening to the hon member for Rosettenville, I just cannot understand why this committee experienced so many problems during the past sitting. I should have thought it would have made their work much easier. Thank you very much for this legislation which they dealt with in a most competent way and which is before the House this afternoon.

I took note of the opposition of the CP to the legislation under discussion. It is a fact, however, that life goes on and it remains the duty and responsibility of the Government to accommodate the people of South Africa happily in their various communities. I say it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government of the day, Sir. Consequently it is Government policy that property rights be granted to all people as far as possible and that all people also be placed in a position to be able to possess their own homes. Obviously this can only take place within the capabilities of the people of South Africa.

Underlying this Government policy is firstly the provision of housing. In the first place this is the responsibility of the individual himself; it can never be the responsibility of the Government to provide every individual with a house. For a start the individual should come forward himself to supply that need. Together with this goes the responsibility of the employer as well as that of the private sector. That is why the Government has recently been encouraging the private sector to play an active part specifically in the provision of housing for people of all income groups.

The Government wishes to play a supporting role in this regard and does so continuously. I explained the part played by the Government in the Second Reading speech and wish to repeat it briefly.

Firstly, there is the institution of the legal framework without overregulation. That is followed by the identification and zoning of adequate land for development. Hon members referred to this. The hon member Prof Olivier, as well as the hon members for Mossel Bay and Rosettenville, referred to the identification of land. I raised this matter in another House yesterday. I wish to repeat it here this afternoon by making a special appeal to local authorities to make their contribution in this respect as well. The department and I are aware that there are local authorities who have land available but consistently refuse to put it at people’s disposal for residential purposes. We have an enormous problem in our country. Land obviously cannot increase but we have a population increase. We have people who have to be housed. It is not only the duty of the Government to make a success of this but it is true that everybody, including local authorities, will have to co-operate in the timeous allocation, identification and development of that land to be able to supply those people with accommodation.

Of course, there is also the case in which the private sector or local authorities cannot play their part in the acquisition of land for specific reasons. I accept that there are reasons why they cannot fulfil this role. Then there is also the intervention of the Government only when the capabilities of the private sector are really inadequate. The Government therefore does not evade its duty and responsibility in this respect. It is occupied daily in identifying land to satisfy people’s needs.

The hon member Prof Olivier drew the attention of the House to the objection raised in the standing committee by members of the other two Houses. In the last paragraph of the Second Reading speech I said inter alia:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning took note of this, as did our department.

The hon member Prof Olivier also expressed himself against separate systems, as he called it. He pointed out inter alia that we were dealing with four systems here. The fact is that we are dealing with various communities in South Africa, with different needs and different circumstances. I know the hon member does not want to accept this but I believe he will understand why the various systems have to exist in South Africa once this point of departure forms part of the hon member’s train of thought. I consider the advantages of an own housing commission for Black communities virtually self-evident.

We are dealing here with a community which differs totally from others and that difference is not wrong, it is merely South Africa. This is the diversity which exists in South Africa and has to be accommodated and the Government specifically wishes to do this by the institution of an own housing commission for Black communities.

In the first place, the greatest shortage is experienced in these Black communities. Hon members referred to this. Yesterday I mentioned the figure of approximately 500 000 housing units as representing the backlog for Black people. Obviously this is an enormous shortage. This commission will have to take the particular circumstances which exist into consideration. I am convinced that the institution of such a commission will mean that it will be more effective than in the case where one is dealing with a commission which has to work with the diversity of all interest groups. It is only logical that, if such a commission has to see to the interests of all the groups in the community, it cannot pay specific attention to that particular population group.

The members of the commission consist of experts from the communities and other specialists with exceptional knowledge and experience of housing and urban development. Consequently I believe this commission is capable of articulating and addressing the needs of the communities in its own right without becoming enmeshed in the standpoints and needs of other groups. I regard this as an enormous advantage of this own commission for Black communities. It does not have to become entangled in the needs and circumstances of other communities.

Other than in the past, this commission may now be unfettered in caring for all Black communities nationwide without being dominated by regional and group interests. These regional and group interests are eliminated immediately by a commission which is able to concentrate on the various Black communities in the country and to determine the needs, the backlog in housing and the shortage of land, and which will then be able to deal with these deficiencies in providing for these needs.

It is striking that only one Black member served on the former National Housing Commission. Representation has been extended to six members at this stage and further members may be appointed as more expert Black people come forward from the communities. The composition of the regional committees is being extended specifically to broaden representation by Black people.

If I have to put this all in a nutshell, I want to say this afternoon that, when I look at this legislation before the House, I find it can only be in the interests of the communities this Bill strives to serve—the Black communities.

I repeat we are aware of the shortage of land and we are conscious of the shortage of housing. Nevertheless I want to give the assurance this afternoon that the Government will honour its duty and responsibility in this respect to the best of its ability. I believe the institution of this commission will make a very important contribution.

I should also like to thank hon members sincerely for their contribution in the standing committee.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Various people, including hon members of all three Houses of Parliament and members of the judiciary have recently urged me to introduce amendments to limit or even eliminate the debating in Parliament of salary increases of judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The debating of judges’ salaries in Parliament with the accompanying publicity this receives does not appear to be in the interests of the status and dignity associated with the office of a judge. Time and again, whenever judges’ salaries are increased, the debates surrounding the increases are proclaimed boldly in the Press and the salaries are published in detail.

Increases in the salaries of the public sector, as well as those of Parliamentarians, are not normally subject to debate. Judges can therefore justifiably feel offended about their salaries being proclaimed from the housetops.

In considering a suitable mechanism to limit debating, I am very well aware of the principle laid down in our Constitution, namely the maintenance of the separation between the legislative authority, the executive authority and the judiciary, as well as the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. This is why it seems appropriate to retain the involvement of Parliament in the determination of judges’ salaries.

Accordingly it is proposed in clause 1 that the hon the State President as head of State, in consultation with the Ministers of Justice and Finance, may increase the salaries of judges by amending the Schedule to the Judges’ Remuneration Act of 1978 by means of a proclamation in the Gazette.

In addition provision is being made that such a proclamation must be tabled within a prescribed period whereafter it may be rejected by Parliament if all three Houses of Parliament were so to decide. None of the existing powers of Parliament are being taken away. If Parliament so wishes, it may still at any time adjust judges’ salaries as has been the case thus far. The only thing that is happening is that an additional mechanism is being created whereby salaries may be adjusted timeously in a more meaningful manner and with far more dignity, without Parliament’s power of keeping a watchful eye on this being impaired.

Over the years a tradition has developed that judges’ salaries are discussed beforehand with spokesmen of different Parliamentary groups. I intend continuing this tradition even if the alternative mechanism is used. This year I have had the privilege of meeting members of the standing committee on this issue and therefore it was not really necessary to discuss the ratio of the salaries beforehand. The members of the group and I all benefited from this exposure to one another.

Provision is made in clause 2 for the salaries of judges to be increased with effect from 1 July 1987. The increase is in accordance with salary increases received by the public sector and Parliamentarians on the same date.

Finally I wish to express my gratitude to all the members of the Standing Committee on Justice for the expeditious manner in which they dealt with the matter, as well as for the spirit in which they dealt with it.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this legislation. We wish to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for having initiated it and for the way in which he submitted it because we believe that control by Parliament is retained through this and that opportunity for debate will still be offered if people were to request it.

We support the Bill because we believe that judges, just like people from other professions, have the right to ask that their remuneration should not be broadcast. We greatly appreciate the hon the Minister’s undertaking, as he put it in the other Houses, to inform Opposition parties in advance as regards salary increases or adjustments. We appreciate this because we know he does not need to do this. We hope, however, that he will do it in future because, just like all of us, he believes that these persons serve the whole of South Africa and certainly stand outside politics.

I also wish to express our thanks to the hon the Minister for indicating that he would also pay attention to judges’ pensions, the period after which a person qualified for a pension as well as pensions of former judges and their dependants. We hope he will find time in the coming year to attend to this.

We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon member for Bethal for his support of this measure as well as his appreciation of the hon the Minister’s action.

The motivation behind this measure has already been explained in detail by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech made in another House so it is unnecessary to expand on it in depth. The fact is that for quite some time representations have been received from the Bench and have been made by members of all three Houses that the determining of judges’ salaries be done in a way different from that currently used. The attendant publicity when legislation is introduced and debated here is simply not conducive to promoting the dignity and status attached to the office of a judge. One may compare it with the fixing of public servants’ salaries, which is not done by law.

A further reason is that it should be possible to adjust judges’ salaries on a continuous basis when Parliament is not in session too. It has caused a great deal of trouble in the past in years when Parliament did not sit continuously and this could not be attended to.

We on this side of the House are well aware of the necessity for separation between the executive, legislative and judicial authority and for this division to be retained and extended. Consequently it is important that there be separation between the judicial authority on the one hand and the executive authority on the other and that this division be accepted per se. The same applies to the judicial authority on one side and the legislative authority on the other. It may be argued to some degree that this measure brings the judicial authority nearer to the executive authority, but equally strong arguments may be put forward that the judicial authority is currently too close to the legislature in consequence of the current system.

As a result of this, a solution is required which will provide the golden mean. I want to suggest that the solution now indicated represents such a mean. The State President may decide to issue a proclamation to increase judges’ salaries after consultation with the Ministers of Justice and of Finance. This remains subject to change by Parliament, and it is also important that it remains open to discussion in Parliament. If members of Parliament have problems with this, they may raise the matter under various Votes.

There were a few members of the standing committee who experienced difficulties with the solution although they supported the principle. Nevertheless not one of the members could come up with a solution which was in any way acceptable.

I also wish to express my thanks to the hon the Minister for indicating that he would honour the convention of consulting hon members of the Opposition in the case of such increases. He actually indicated that he would recognise the Standing Committee on Justice in this regard.

I find it significant that this remains a convention. It simply will not work to attempt to incorporate it in legislation. We examined the possibility of this in the standing committee but it appeared after investigation to be impracticable. If hon members of the Opposition were to raise objections to certain matters or be of the opinion that this convention were not being honoured, it would be their right to argue this in the open House.

This measure is aimed at the proper remuneration of judges for the great service they furnish the community without making it a contentious matter. I am pleased to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, it is the intention of the PFP to support this Bill, but there are certain reservations which I would like to express.

The Bill serves two purposes. The second clause is a de facto increase in the salary of judges in accordance with a convention which has existed for many years in this Parliament and, as in previous years, we on this side of the House are fully in support of the proposed increases which in this instance we regard as very modest. The salaries and increases are in keeping with the high office, the workload and the exceptional responsibility which the judges of our Supreme Courts have, and we certainly have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

The Bill, however, has a second purpose and in this sense the Bill deviates from every other similar Bill relating to the remuneration of judges with which this Parliament has had to deal in past years. Clause 1 of this Bill, in fact, seeks to remove the very function of the Bill. In every previous Bill it has been the role of this Parliament to determine the increase in judges’ salaries, but by passing clause 1 we will in effect be taking that role away from Parliament and vesting that function in the executive. So, henceforth, we will not have this particular piece of legislation before us in Parliament—something which has been with us since time immemorial. In future the judges’ salaries will be determined by the hon the State President—obviously in consultation with certain members of his executive but nevertheless it will be a function exercised purely by the executive.

We in the PFP believe that this is an unfortunate step, because we are taking away, a function which rightly belongs with Parliament, with the people of the country through their elected representatives, and we are now vesting that function in the executive. I would like to ask the hon the Minister—more by way of possibly drawing attention to the inappropriateness of this sort of legislation—why it is necessary to take this function away from Parliament.

I suppose this can best be answered by looking at the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister and trying to analyse precisely what he feels has happened in the past and what he feels is wrong with the existing structure, so that we now have to deviate substantially from what has been accepted parliamentary practice over the years. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister says that the purpose of this legislation is to limit, or even eliminate, the debating in Parliament of salary increases of judges. He says it is because this affects the status and dignity associated with the office of a judge.

I am the first person to say that we have enormously high regard for the status and dignity of judges. We think that they are men who deserve salaries possibly well in excess of what we are presently voting for them, but when one looks at Hansard over the years, one will see that in every single debate in this House all the parties have been in agreement and have indicated—spokesmen from this side of the House, for this party, have certainly done so—that they feel that the salaries being paid to judges are, if anything, far too much on the modest side. I have not come across one criticism in all the Hansards of the past decade or more which I have looked at. There has not been any criticism from any member of this House of the proposed salary increases. Now, I ask myself, surely that sort of debate—where one is in fact saying nice things about these gentlemen, like what a good job they are doing and that they should be paid more—can only enhance the status of judges.

If that is so, why does the hon the Minister say that the debate surrounding the increase is proclaimed boldly in the Press, their salaries are published in detail and their salaries are proclaimed from the rooftops? Once again, in these debates I have not even seen mention by any member of the actual figures of the salaries. Obviously they appear in the Bill, but that would be published in any event. They are going to appear in the proclamation which is also going to be published in any event. Yet the hon the Minister tells us that this is the reason for clause 1. If anything, the actual debate over the years has added to the status of judges. The publicity given to those debates in the Press has added to the status and dignity of judges and added reason for their getting salary increases. It has certainly not detracted from them in any way.

I want to take the matter further. If there is no reason—as would appear—for limiting debates, why are we taking this power away from Parliament? The hon the Minister concedes that the independence between the executive and the judiciary is of the utmost importance and he says in his speech that for this reason it appears to be appropriate to retain the involvement of Parliament in the determination of the salaries of judges. We cannot just gloss over that statement. The independence between the executive and the judiciary is of the utmost importance and is not to be equated as the previous speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, said, with the independence between Parliament and the judiciary. Parliament represents the people, and the people—also represented by opposition parties—can play a meaningful role in seeing to it that the government of the day does not act prejudicially against the judiciary. That is an important factor, whereas the executive consists entirely of members from the Government benches.

What this Bill proposes to do, is to vest these powers in the hon the State President.

When we look at this we see that a situation in law could arise—I am not suggesting that this is likely to happen—in which, if the executive of this country feels for some or other reason that judges should be penalised, it can in fact do so by issuing such a proclamation without the people having the right to debate the matter in this Parliament. The hon the Minister is obviously going to tell me that it can be debated ex post facto; I shall deal with that shortly.

The judiciary’s independence of the executive is so important that in future legislation—we are not opposing this Bill—this factor must not lightly be deviated from as is now happening, in my opinion, without adequate reason.

The hon the Minister is obviously going to rely on the provision which provides that, if we do not approve of the salary increases contained in such a proclamation, the three Houses of Parliament may debate the matter after proclamation and can, in fact, render the proclamation of no force or effect. There are, however, two very important aspects in this regard which have been overlooked.

Firstly, debating the matter ex post facto and thereby telling the public at large that we feel so strongly about the proclamation regarding salaries that we are now going to reject it will create far more adverse publicity than could ever be the case under the present system.

Second and equally important is the fact that this provision does not allow Parliament to initiate increases in judges’ salaries. This House will no longer have the power to tell the Minister introducing such a bill that the provisions which he is placing before it are inadequate. This House will only have the power to render a proclamation null and void. In other words, all it can say to the Minister is that the salaries he has proposed are rejected, and then one reverts to the previous salaries. We will not be able to say, by debate in all three Houses after the proclamation has been issued, that we are not satisfied with the measure of the increase, and then vote a greater increase in salary for the judges.

To suggest, as the hon the Minister does, that the existing powers of Parliament will not be affected in any way is therefore completely incorrect.

Despite what I have said, and despite these reservations, we on this side of the House regard the increase in the salaries of judges as so important and, in this instance, so equitable that we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Groote Schuur firstly for his party’s support of the Bill and then more particularly for his support of the specific provision regarding the increase of salaries as from 1 July of this year.

The hon member for Groote Schuur attacked the principle of a new method by which the Schedule to the principal Act could be amended by way of proclamation in future as if this supposedly meant that Parliament were now relinquishing its right of specifically debating these aspects in this House. I have some difficulty with his statement. In the first place, when injustice is the point at issue, I find it difficult to understand how injustice may be done to a person if one’s very intention is to increase his salary—in this case when a judge’s salary is increased.

As the salary is to be announced by means of proclamation, the hon member firstly also objected to the fact that, after it had been announced, he could argue that the salary was too high although he immediately conceded that this had not happened yet because the salary itself had never been debated. In the second place, he said that if he were of the opinion that the salary should be increased, he wanted Parliament to be able to debate this but in that case I cannot understand what negative publicity this would entail regarding judges’ salaries.

A very important aspect is the fact that in this regard requests emanated from the Bench itself in consequence of problems they experience in practice. It is an historical fact that under the Westminster system, in which the legislative and the executive authority may sometimes appear convoluted to a person not conversant with the system, there is a constant effort at least to establish the Bench as a totally separate and therefore independent structure of authority. Because of the principle of sovereignty on which Parliament depends as the representative component of authority, judges may only be dismissed by Parliament, and Parliament determines judges’ salaries.

The principle of separating these structures of authority is also endorsed by our Constitution. The present times and factors beyond our control result in the only certainty we have being uncertainty as regards the purchasing power of our money, and that is why the Judges’ Remuneration Act is adjusted continually to keep pace with the requirements of the times. The Bill before the House again amends the salaries which are to be paid and the date on which they become operative to bring them into line with current needs.

I think the hon the Minister has used his initiative, without eroding the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament in any way, to build a mechanism into clause 1 by means of which adjustment to the Schedule may be made by means of proclamation in future. Parliament does not relinquish its sovereignty nor its position of authority because it could even negative such a proclamation.

Parliament also has another inherent power which is to call the executive authority to account in the exercise of such authority. Here we have a clear manifestation of the principle of management by exception, a term perhaps clearer in its English version. I believe the hon the Minister deserves praise for his contribution by way of this measure to a more streamlined method by which this Parliament may conclude its business and also carry out its responsibilities. This is an important movement in administration, especially against the background that the Government has relaxed ties between the system we use and that of Westminster and is in the process of further severing ties with that system of which certain methods were used in the past.

I am of the opinion that the increases in the Schedule are meaningful and they are also endorsed by the Official Opposition and the PFP. I think members of the public are not always aware of the sacrifices made by members of the Bench in serving our country in this specific way. I think the hard work they do is laudable. Sometimes there is no understanding either of the hours they have to spend in chambers after they have been on the Bench to work at findings which have to be handed down on other occasions, and such work is not visible to the public. Whereas other structures of authority have political responsibilities as regards reality, the Bench creates an image of fairness and justice to us without which we could not operate. On behalf of this side of the House I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking hon members for their support even if some of them took a long time to express it.

In opening I wish to say to the hon member for Bethal that it is true that the question of judges’ pensions came up for discussion in the standing committee. As he indicated here, it is a fact that the proportional increase of the pensions of former judges and their widows possibly deserves the sympathetic attention of the hon Minister responsible. We shall undoubtedly call his attention to representations we received in this regard, so that matter will definitely receive attention.

The hon members for Pietermaritzburg North and Port Elizabeth North expressed their support in a fitting manner. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North immediately went to the heart of the question, which was whether there was proper separation between various Government powers and whether this was reflected in the Bill. I think the hon member’s argument was briefly that we should find a solution to the problem here. We did the necessary and were able to present a solution.

The same point was then subjected to wide-ranging argument by the hon member for Groote Schuur. The hon member for Groote Schuur convinced me of the merits of this Bill with his long speech this afternoon.

Then you were not listening.

The hon member is a new member and I should appreciate his listening a little, please…

All right, I shall listen.

… because that is exactly what happened. When a Bill is tabled, there has been correspondence on the proposals. Various bodies have been asked for comment on judges’ salaries. In the past—this happened over quite a number of years—hon members of the Opposition said they thought these salaries were too low. It is easy for them to say this because they do not have to balance the budget.

Later in this House we are all unanimous about the matter but then the opportunity is used to debate other matters and not the unanimity at all. Judges’ salaries are the subject again and the matter is receiving fresh publicity. That is precisely what is involved here this afternoon, which is that we are eliminating unnecessary debate because we are in agreement on the matter after all.

I see there are hon members of the PFP who agree with me. We have negotiated the matter already, nevertheless it is debated in this House at a later stage. A great variety of other matters is then dragged into the discussion of this Bill, all under cover of judges’ salaries. The question now is whether this is fair.

The hon member appealed to our feelings here and said we were detracting from a system and a convention which was as old as the hills and had withstood the test of time. Under the existing system Parliament determines the salaries. To illustrate the separation of powers clearly and physically, Parliament fixes judges’ salaries.

Because I had expected this argument, I was obliged to take a look at the British system, the mother of our own. What is the position there? Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act of 1973 reads:

1. (i) Subject to the following subsections, there shall be paid to—
   1. (a) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary;
   2. (b) judges of the Supreme Court in England and Wales other than the Lord Chancellor;
   3. (c) judges of the Court of Session;
   4. (d) judges of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland;
   5. (e) metropolitan stipendiary magistrates;
   6. (f) stipendiary magistrates appointed under this Act;

This cannot even be done by the Queen. Nevertheless the hon member attached all his arguments to that because he asked why it had to change as it had been so good for all of us and had worked so well. I then told him where it had been changed. In that case it is not even the Head of State who determines these salaries but usually only Ministers. But what do we do? We say our Head of State will determine such salaries in consultation with others. He then comes to Parliament and tables them, whereupon each House has the opportunity of lodging objections by way of introducing a motion within 14 days. They may then say they do not approve because the salaries are too low or they are not in favour of them because they are too high.

This is perfectly in accordance with our Constitution. What does the Constitution lay down? Once again this is no new principle but comes from the 1961 Constitution. In terms of section 24 of that Constitution the legislative authority is vested in Parliament which consists of the State President and a House of Assembly. In terms of section 30 of the 1983 Constitution the legislative authority is vested in the State President and Parliament. What is functioning together here? The legislative authority!

The State President then issues a proclamation, it is tabled in Parliament, and Parliament has the right of dissolution. Consequently this is far better than the British system. The hon member agrees. This is a very important round we are winning. The hon member says our system is better than that of the British because we can dissolve it if we obtain the necessary majority in each House. This is an enormous improvement and, if the hon member agrees with me—which he has just done—it is certainly true that we have won this round against him.

That is the current system.

At the end of the day we say to him that we shall continue maintaining the convention of consulting with chief spokesmen in spite of everything. I think it would only be right too for me to inform the standing committee that, if its members wish to discuss this with me before the documentation is concluded, we shall do so.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In Proclamation R110 of 29 June 1987, owing to the abolition of certain divisional councils in the Cape and the simultaneous establishment of regional services councils, the Minister responsible for local government affairs in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly is entrusted with the implementation within local areas of any Act which previously vested powers in divisional councils in those areas.

These local areas referred to are areas that were declared local government areas for the White population group in terms of the Ordinance of the Declaration of Local Government Areas, 1986—Ordinance 18 of 1986, the Cape of Good Hope. These are defined areas within the former divisional council areas, but there is no select committee performing an advisory or executive function with regard to local government matters in these particular local areas. Examples of such areas are, amongst others, Melkbos, Bloubergstrand, the Atlantis industrial area and Constantia, which was merely part of a divisional council ward prior to that. They are not always small areas; property rates which are collected in some of the abovementioned areas range from R6 million to R10 million per year.

As these areas do not have a formally elected body to take care of their interests, representation on regional services councils for the inhabitants of local areas could not be arranged.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill make it possible for a local council to be introduced for such areas. This council has been given the status of a juristic person. A properly elected management body can therefore come into being that will not only take care of the interests of its inhabitants, but can also in its own right take care of the particular community’s interests through representation on regional services councils.

It is also provided in terms of Proclamation R110 that the Minister in fact legally has to act as a local authority. The Minister therefore has to make all decisions himself and that is not desirable in the spirit of decision-making at the level close to a community. Clause 5 makes provision for powers vested in the Minister of Local Government in the House of Assembly to be delegated to local councils.

†Clause 6 of the Bill enumerates the different matters in respect of which regulations may be made to empower the local councils to handle municipal or civic matters in their areas of jurisdiction. This clause highlights the flexibility of the Bill as it will be possible to handle each and every local council according to the specific identity, needs or wishes of that community.

It must be borne in mind that in terms of existing legislation, the local areas mentioned in the Bill can be incorporated into the areas of jurisdiction of other local authorities, or develop into local authorities in their own right. Some areas will, however, remain local councils as a specific need for this form of local government was realised where a community cannot develop into a full-fledged local authority. Existing local authorities which are experiencing problems in remaining fully fledged local authorities could even opt for the type of local government as described in the Bill. Such a local council, being a juristic person, could then exercise its right to decide on its own the services it would require, which would be most beneficial for that community, and from which institution it wanted to acquire these services.

The acceptance of the Bill is necessitated by the fact that the House of Assembly has jurisdiction over the local areas as described in the Bill. It therefore rests with the House of Assembly to establish a form of local government which fulfils a need in a community and also gives such community the opportunity to be represented in a regional services council.

Mr Chairman, it would appear from the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister that this Bill before us rectifies a deficiency that arose particularly here in the Cape as a result of the abolition of the divisional councils. In his speech the hon the Minister mentioned the examples of Melkbosstrand, Bloubergstrand, the Atlantis industrial area and Constantia, which in the past were only sections of divisional council wards. The White inhabitants of these areas are now in fact without a formally elected body with the status of a juristic person to which the assets that were the responsibility of the divisional council before can now be transferred. This therefore of necessity means that such inhabitants, due to a lack of a local authority, can in no way be represented on the future regional services councils or demand such representation. We on this side of the House therefore support this legislation and let me merely by way of repetition tell the hon the Minister that although we reject the principle of mixed regional services councils, just as we reject the principle of a tricameral parliamentary system, our elected members of our local authorities will in fact serve on regional services councils for the purpose of negotiating the best for our people within the system and to counteract the opening of, for example, residential areas, beach areas and other public facilities, as is now being recommended by the President’s Council and supported and recommended by all the NP members on the President’s Council.

In clause 6 provision is being made for certain regulations which the hon the Minister can make. I just want to refer to the first three. Clause 6 (1) determines that the Minister may make regulations—

We just want to question the reference to “appointment of their members”, because we are basically opposed to any appointment of members, be they chairmen of regional services councils or at whatever level of authority. We say that people should be elected democratically. [Interjections.]

In terms of clause 6 (2) the Minister may make regulations—

This in my opinion concerns the tenure of office of members. I can understand that in the interim period, until the general municipal elections take place in 1988, the hon the Minister will have to appoint people to get the councils off the ground. We understand that this is also how it happened in the other provinces. However, I specifically want to ask the hon the Minister if this will only be the case until municipal elections are held in 1988, and whether democratically elected members will be elected after that.

The third subdivision of clause 6, relating to the qualifications required of persons in order to be eligible as members, or to be entitled to vote at the election of members of local councils, now places a large question mark against this measure as far as we are concerned. Indeed, what is also at issue here is the handling of voting regulations in possible open residential areas in these about-to-be-established local councils. Now we have the situation where the official standpoint of the NP with regard to the qualifications of voters in these areas is not spelt out clearly. Five possibilities are mentioned in the report of the President’s Council of which only the fifth excludes other population groups from the franchise in a previously White residential area.

Looking at what the hon the State President said in this regard we note the following, and I quote from the speech which he made in this House on Monday:

There are therefore various possibilities. A choice in this regard has not yet been exercised. The standpoint of the Government is therefore neither fish nor flesh. We now have five possibilities here before us. I now specifically want to ask the hon the Minister the following question. As the Minister responsible for these to-be-established councils, how does he foresee that these matters can be dealt with in the open residential areas of these councils? We surely now have to accept that this is going to be an accomplished fact in future.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister mentioned specific examples of the possible establishment of such local councils here in the Cape. I should now like to ask him whether he foresees that similar councils could, for example, come into being in the Transvaal as well. I am thinking here, for example, of communities which previously fell under the abolished Transvaal peri-urban boards. Whereas we have reservations about the implementation of certain regulations, as set out in clause 6 of the Bill under discussion, the most important principle contained in this measure continues to exist in that the legislation serves the interests of the White community and that they will be served by properly elected management bodies which will be established. This therefore complies with the most important standpoint on principle of those of us on this side of the House, namely that of a people governing itself in its own area—in the present case and then at the local government level. For this reason in particular we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg started his speech very well. It is just a pity that it then began to deteriorate. I nevertheless believe that the hon the Minister will reply appropriately to the hon member for Pietersburg’s many problems.

One of the unique characteristics of local authorities in the Cape is the large number of small rural towns. As a result of its vast size many such small towns have developed, which obviously perform a very important function. Usually there is a school, a tennis court, a church, a few small shops, a rugby field and so on—in fact, not much of anything. These small towns are also the centres where the local and rural communities carry on their cultural activities.

However, the problem is that many of these small towns are not really economically viable, and they cannot afford their own autonomous local authorities as such. I must add that there are in fact quite a number of these small towns which have municipal status, but are battling to make ends meet. The system of divisional councils in the Cape, of which I personally am very proud, was able to accommodate these little places.

In terms of section 3 of the Divisional Councils Ordinance the Administrator of the Cape may declare any area within the area of a divisional council to be a local government area, allocate a name to that area and determine the boundaries of that area. That local government area is then managed by the divisional council separately from the rural area. A separate account is kept for the local area in the books of the divisional council. The local area usually had one or two representatives who attended meetings of the divisional council and could make a contribution on behalf of their community.

In terms of the ordinance the divisional council was authorised to levy a local area tax in that area. This tax could only be utilised within the borders of a local area for the provision of infrastructure services and facilities.

I referred before to small towns with municipal status which could not make ends meet economically. A committee appointed at that stage by the Administrator of the Cape to investigate the amalgamation of divisional councils in the Cape, was instructed to investigate the viability and the future of these small towns.

It was then recommended that some of these small towns should be deprived of their municipal status and that they should change over to local areas. The provincial administration implemented this process, and municipalities such as Rossouw, Merweville—this is a small town in my constituency—Rietbron and Agulhas disappeared in the process.

As a result of the establishment of regional services councils, and actually the provisions of the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, which were aimed at abolishing divisional councils, this process has now come to a halt, because with the abolition of divisional councils the local areas continued to exist but no longer had a say. The establishment of a form of local government for these small places has now become absolutely essential, on the one hand to give these areas a form of local government, so that these communities can share in the devolution of power—ie to decide for themselves on local government matters—and on the other to give these communities the right to serve on RSCs.

The peculiar situation has now arisen, for example in the area of the RSC of the Western Cape, that every Coloured management committee area within the jurisdiction of an RSC has full-fledged representation on the RSC, and can negotiate and vote there for the interests of its community, whereas large local areas such as Melkbosstrand, Blouberg, Constantia, Hout Bay and so on do not have seats or the right to vote in a regional services council.

The Regional Services Councils Act defines a local authority and a local body, which includes a management committee, but because a local area formed such an integral part of a divisional council, and did not have its own committee, local areas were not defined in the Regional Services Councils Act.

The rural voter can of course gain representation in a regional services council, but with the abolition of divisional councils the previous representation fell away, and so did the indirect representation which the local areas could have had in the regional services councils. However, what I like most about this Bill is that it spells out that the Minister may establish a local council for one or more local government areas.

The “more” is what is important. We have the situation that, for example on the South Cape coast, there is a local area every couple of kilometres. In the divisional council of Outeniqua there are, for example, 14 local areas, all coastal towns, of which some, for example, Rhebok, Tergniet and Klein Brakrivier are right next to each other, in the divisional council area of Outeniqua. The establishment of a local council for more than one local government area will also prevent the number of representatives in a regional services council becoming unmanageably large. In the case of Outeniqua, for example, this can mean that the number of members of a regional services council will increase by at least 14 because of its own local council which in turn will place a large additional financial burden on that RSC.

I support the Bill and cannot overemphasise its necessity. I believe that this legislation will be the precursor of the House of Assembly acquiring total authority over all proclaimed local government areas for the Whites.

Mr Chairman, this Bill needs to be considered in respect of its practical implications as well as in respect of its political implications. It is in respect of the political implications that I believe both the hon the Minister and ourselves are faced with a dilemma.

Let us first consider the practical implications because in this respect there is some common ground. There is indeed, as the hon member for Beaufort West and the hon member for Pietersburg have pointed out, a very real problem in that we now have a large number of declared local areas which previously had representation but which are now unrepresented. They are completely disenfranchised. In fact, I believe it is now the only segment of society which is so disenfranchised at the local level. As was pointed out, even in the management committee areas, minimal as it is, people there do have some form of representation. In the local areas, however, people are now orphans without any representation. That is bad enough, but there are also very real practical problems that go with that lack of representation. There is the problem of development and the ongoing approval of plans, planning decisions in the normal course of events, the collection of rates and taxes etc which go on as before but now the hon the Minister’s department is left with the burden of having to approve building plans for all these local areas as a technical responsibility in terms of existing legislation. His department is not in any way in a position to exercise discretion over such matters and needs to refer to local opinion for guidance and for processing the applications on a practical level.

At the moment these local areas are left with three options. The status quo is obviously an option but it is not an option to be considered. The second option they have is incorporation into the nearest existing local authority. The third option is to start from scratch and form a new local authority under the municipal ordinance. That, however, is not an option for all the local areas that exist. In the case of a local area like Constantia where the rateable income each year exceeds that of many existing municipalities, it may well be a viable option. There are many places in the Cape Province, however, where the rateable base does not allow for a self-sufficient, independent municipality to be established. For those people the option being offered here at a practical level does have some merit. For those who could perhaps justify becoming independent this offers an opportunity to establish a municipality in embryo before deciding which way to go. So, seen from a practical point of view, there is some common ground here. However, the hon the Minister will understand that this cannot be considered at the practical level alone; there are also the political aspects and the wider implications in respect of society at large.

This Bill does not address the fundamental political issue of how best to structure local government in terms of efficiency and on a non-discriminatory basis. It does not address the political problem of how best to represent people of different population groups who live in the same geographic area and who share the same practical affairs. We can take an example here in the Cape Peninsula. I think Hout Bay would be a good example, although there are others. I believe Kommetjie is a declared local area, and right next to that, is the Coloured management committee area of Ocean View. These people share the same part of the Peninsula, they draw water in the same way, they have the same environment to consider. They do not need two councils; they do not need a management committee, a local council and the RSC all to look after them. There should be one body in each geographic area looking after all the people who live there.

From that point of view we have a problem with this Bill in its present form. We understand that the hon the Minister has a dilemma—as we have the dilemma between the practical and the political considerations—of now having the responsibility for all these local areas on his hands. In a sense he now has to pick up the pieces that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has left behind after his charge through the local authorities china shop. In the context of own affairs this hon Minister has to pick up the pieces that are left behind from those drastic changes that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had brought about. We accept that this Minister’s hands are tied; he cannot solve the problem in any other way but by own affairs because we are bound foursquare by the Constitution.

However, we as a party are not going to be bound in our political approach by the constraints of the Constitution because we believe, we have always believed, and will continue to believe in and work for the concept of non-racial local government in a given geographic area.

On that basis the hon the Minister will understand that we cannot support this matter in principle, although we recognise the practical efforts that have been made to solve the practical problem. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment:

1. (1) the representation of all persons in such local areas on a non-discriminatory basis; and
2. (2) the establishment of non-racial local government for all population groups on a geographic basis.”

Before concluding, however, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give consideration to the following points in his reply: The first is the question of nominating or electing these bodies. I can understand that there is a short-term problem in creating the representation very quickly, and that a process of nomination might be necessary, provided that nomination process is linked to some kind of community endorsement. If it is linked to a body such as a ratepayers’ association or a public meeting that could set up an interim body, that might be acceptable. But simply to impose people upon the community would be completely unacceptable. I hope the hon the Minister will just clarify that point.

The second aspect of the question of nominating these bodies, is that it would have to on an interim basis. We would be extremely unhappy if the nomination situation were to continue beyond the general election for local authorities scheduled for next October. If there is to be a nominating procedure, let it be by consent of the community in some demonstrable way and do not let it go beyond the general election for local authorities.

The second point relates to the question of the regulations. As set out in the Bill, the regulations can be very wide and they can vary from area to area. This builds in a certain flexibility, but I do believe that a core body of regulations to guide these local areas in setting up local councils needs to be circulated for consideration by the public.

Another question is the extent of the powers to be granted. The extent as set out in the Bill means that the powers can be very wide and extensive. I think some guidelines need to be established for the transfer of those powers.

The next question I would like to raise is the question of whether health committees and peri-urban councils, as established in the other provinces, would possibly find a place in terms of this Bill. This is not entirely clear to me, but I think it will be of importance to people in other provinces to know whether these other bodies could translate themselves into local councils in terms of this Bill.

Finally, the hon the Minister—if I understand him correctly—indicated in his speech that these bodies would have formal representation on the RSCs. In terms of the Regional Services Councils Act there is no formal requirement that such a body be recognised as a representative body. Has some form of arrangement been arrived at to provide for that recognition, or is it left entirely in the discretion of the Administrators?

Mr Chairman, this debate followed a pattern which we have become used to during this session. The Official Opposition fears that the different groups will not be strictly protected and strictly dealt with according to their group context. The hon members of the PFP, on the other hand, are afraid, when legislation is spoken of in a group context, that it is not the solution; they want complete multiracialism.

I listened to what the hon member for Pietersburg said and it was quite amusing to me that he placed so much emphasis on the fact that the Official Opposition has now decided to participate in regional services councils. However, this is no news to us, because we know that in practice they fall over themselves to be able to serve on those councils.

Do you really believe that?

To make this dramatic statement here now is really somewhat superfluous.

What I am worried about, however, is that we do after all live in a community—I am now speaking of the Whites—which by this time should accept all the principles of democracy. The tricameral system was brought into being after a two-thirds majority in a referendum. We have continued to elaborate on this and have proposed a new political dispensation, but the hon members of the Official Opposition are not happy with it. They say they will participate, but on the basis that they want to change it. However, more than that is at stake; they are wreckers.

I think that one should accept a system on which the majority of the people have decided in a bona fide way. They should ask themselves whether it is not perhaps mala fide to participate in these councils in a negative, destructive way in politics. One does democracy a dishonour—surely it is not the correct approach to local government or any other form of government—if that is one’s point of departure. I think the Official Opposition should adopt a sounder approach to these matters.

The hon member for Pietersburg asked the hon the Minister about the franchise and he is concerned about open areas, but as I read this legislation, it is not applicable to open areas. [Interjections.] It cannot be applicable to open areas. In terms of clause 2 it is a condition that the Act can only be applicable in a White area.

Surely there are going to be open areas.

I am discussing the legislation that has now been tabled, and to put questions about other legislation is irrelevant to this debate. The question of open areas and the right to vote and all the fears expressed by the hon member for Pietersburg are therefore not relevant at all and I think he is asking questions that do not have to be answered at this stage.

The hon member also asked if it is possible that this legislation can also be applicable in the Transvaal. I do not know the Transvaal municipal system so well, but I am certain that it can in fact be applicable in Natal, as at the moment there is a Development and Services Board.

This council was the controlling body on which the health committee served and as the council is about to be abolished and regional services councils are also to be established there, it is clear that the smaller health committees which came under the Development and Services Council will now in terms of this legislation become separate juristic persons and as such will have access to the regional service councils. This fits in very well with the Natal system, and I cannot see why the same will not be applicable to the Transvaal.

When I began I referred to the standpoint of the Official Opposition on the one hand. On the other hand I also listened to the hon member for Constantia. It really surprised me today that he raised such strong objections in this House and that his party is opposing this legislation. I would say that of everyone here, the hon member had the least reason to oppose this legislation.

I say this because on 5 August 1987 the hon member made a speech in this House in which he made a suggestion to the hon the Minister. He discussed the problem of Constantia and said the town was a stepchild which did not have a mother or a father. Constantia is not a juristic person and has no way in which it can manage its affairs.

I take it he probably gave thorough consideration to the suggestion he made to the Minister, because it was a well-thought-out plan. I should like to quote exactly what he suggested (Hansard: House of Assembly, 5 August, col 3137):

He is speaking about Constantia—

[Interjections.]

This legislation provides exactly what the hon member is asking for: Nothing more and nothing less.

He has forgotten what he asked.

On what basis can that hon member vote today against the legislation which he asked for in the clearest terms? [Interjections.] Surely this is an impossible situation. Whether one looks at the attitude of the Official Opposition on the one hand or at that of the PFP on the other, both are incomprehensible and difficult to understand and so full of contradictions that one really does not understand what they actually want.

I am of the opinion that this legislation is very important because it rectifies deficiencies, it is flexible, it includes the devolution of power and—this is important—these small councils that are now going to be established will have powers to manage and control their own affairs. This gives them the opportunity to enter into contracts with anyone who can give them the best and cheapest service, be it the regional services council or a neighbour, which could be another municipality, or even a private contractor.

It now gives smaller places, which have not had that power and until now were stepchildren, because at the most they could only act in an advisory capacity, that power which they have longed for for so long. I think this Act is an excellent solution to the problems they have come up against. With this legislation they obtain those benefits which are so important to every small community, namely to maintain its own character and to determine, extend and entrench its own future to the best of its abilities and as it sees fit.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat started his speech by giving the House a lecture on democracy and the maintenance of its principles. Hon members of the NP should be the last people in this House to lecture anybody on that subject. [Interjections.]

The hon member takes it amiss of the hon member of the CP for saying that he wanted to change that system from within the system. He says there was a two-thirds majority and that he should accept that. It is true that there was a two-thirds majority of Whites, but apart from the 70% of South Africans who were excluded, what about the Coloureds and the Indians? Were they consulted in this democratic system?

They had a choice.

No. Were they, as in the case of the Whites, asked for their approval?

They had a choice.

They had no choice. They were told to come into the system or stay out of the system. For the hon member it is democracy when Whites are asked to support a system and that system is imposed upon the members of other population groups, because he says we should accept the final decision of the Whites.

He has the mandate to…

The hon member says we should accept the mandate. Good heavens! Even the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning agree that this system is not perfect. [Interjections.] They say this is only a starting point. The NP itself wants to change the system approved in 1983. A national council is even being established for the very purpose of changing the existing system, despite the two-thirds majority. What, then, is the hon member talking about? We are living in an era of change. We of the PFP are ourselves within the system. We are here to change the system. Hon members will see this system changing in the direction of the PFP; not in the direction of the NP or that of the racist CP in South Africa. [Interjections.] We can still fight about that, but South Africa is moving in our direction, not in the direction of hon members on that side of the House. Every time the NP say they are moving away from discrimination they are admitting that the hon member for Houghton was actually right. That is what they say when they go abroad. [Interjections.] They keep saying people should look at what they have accomplished, but all the good things they refer to they have done according to the instructions they have received from the hon member for Houghton over the past 37 years. [Interjections.]

†I want to say to the hon the Minister—and I have, as he knows, a friendly relationship with him—that I feel sorry for him, because he is pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. He has admitted in his speech that he is confronted with a dilemma. He has a dilemma for part of which I will blame him; for the rest I will blame another Minister. There is a shambles at local government level for two reasons. The first is the Government’s absolute commitment to having separate racial local authorities in South Africa. That is a fundamental principle of the NP and that is one of the reasons why the hon the Minister has a dilemma. The other one is, quite frankly, the hon the Minister who should be known as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Destruction in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is his reckless haste to impose RSCs upon us against the wishes of Coloured, Indian and White people in South Africa, as well as the Black people, which is causing the shambles which we see at the moment at local government level.

This was caused by the abolition of divisional councils. We sat for months, if not for years, on the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the old Parliament, looking at RSCs. We asked what was going to happen when divisional councils went. The hon the Minister, who knows everything, said “No, we have catered for that; they will be nominated; there will be representative bodies, which are deemed to be representative bodies and the Administrator will say: ‘You are the body; you can have representation’ ”. We said it was not going to work, but the hon the Minister, who knows everything, said: “No, but I can tell you, it is going to work.” It is not going to work and the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works is now picking up the pieces. He has to administer all these territories. He is not only a Minister; he is now also a town clerk for all these local government areas. He has to handle the sewage. [Interjections.] He has to handle the garbage disposal; he has to do the tax collecting. He has to do that while the other hon Minister has said: “No, we have sorted it all out in advance.” Nothing has been sorted out in advance. [Interjections.]

I want to ask, however, what about all the other people in the rural areas when he has sorted out the Whites in these local council areas? How are they going to be represented on the RSCs? What about the people in the rural areas? I am quite sure that “slim” somebody else is going to say: “No, we have another plan for handling all that.” This is not the way to handle constitution-making or authority-making or government-making in South Africa.

I was a member of the Commission on the Constitution and I recall how seriously that commission looked at the question of local government. We said local government is an important part of the total government of South Africa and there are certain principles. One of those principles is that the structures of local government should be the same, even if one has apartheid at local government level. The rights and the powers of the various racial communities, even within the framework of apartheid, should be the same. I can remember how we withdrew the first Koornhof Bill on the Black local authorities and said: “No, it has to be redesigned on the basis of the Transvaal Administration’s local government ordinance.” Here we have a total departure. The White House is now going to create its own form of local councils without any relevance to what is happening in the other Houses or communities. We are therefore again embarking on a new form of separation, separate not only in terms of geography, but separate also in terms of the structures we are now creating for Whites as opposed to the other communities.

The second principle that was accepted by the constitutional commission was, I believe, a sound one, namely that the rights of people at local government level should not depend on regulations. The rights of people at local government level should be written into the law. There should be parity in the law and local authorities of various categories should have the same basic rights, powers and functions.

Here one has a makeshift situation where they actually start with no powers. The only powers they get are those powers that may be given to them from time to time by regulation and, in turn, taken away by the Minister from time to time by regulation. I say quite honestly to the hon the Minister that I believe that at least this legislation should have been referred to a select committee of this House.

We should have asked: Is this going to work? Is this the correct way of dealing with the problem? What about the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs? Has this matter been referred to it? Has there been a recommendation? Has there been any consideration by the United Municipal Executive of South Africa? Has there been any consultation or negotiation with people charged with the whole responsibility of administering local government in South Africa?

These bodies will have no defined powers other than those that are given to them and taken away from them. However, they will have responsibilities and in the end many of them will have permanent staff, permanent buildings and permanent equipment. They will be dealing with long-term planning on what is really a Heath Robinson makeshift system of local government. I accept the hon the Minister’s dilemma. I would hope that even if this Bill is passed against our will by this House it will only be on the Statute book for one year. I hope the dilemma is a short-term one and that we will try to get South Africa back on a reasonable and sound basis of decent local government.

The second point I wish to raise is the obsession of the Government to separate the races. I do not know why they are so concerned with this just at the level of local government.

*Good heavens! As far as the rest is concerned, our community is becoming a mixed affair under the NP Government in any case.

†This happens in almost every other field but when it comes to local government it suddenly all has to be separate. The result of that is that we must have this kind of makeshift situation. There will be local authorities and local councils that will be too small to be cost-effective or efficient and too small to provide real services. The only reason for this is because they have been separated.

I want to give the House an illustration taken from the speech of the hon the Minister. I did not realise this until he said it. He said: “Voorbeelde van sodanige gebiede is byvoorbeeld die Atlantis-nywerheidsgebied.” Atlantis, the prize city to which one takes visitors from all over the world to show what the Government and the divisional council is doing for the Coloured people, will get a management committee but the industrial area of Atlantis will have a local council for Whites. Surely that must be an integrated area? Now we will find that on the one side of the road the industrial area will fall under a local council whereas the area on the other side of the road will fall under a different Minister and different form of government. What are we talking about?

I want to give the House another example that is much more intimate to me because it involves part of my constituency, namely Hout Bay. When one looks down that beautiful valley one sees at the end of it the harbour area. This represents a predominantly Coloured community next to a predominantly White community. It also includes a significant number of farm workers. These people live in what I believe are the most beautiful and relaxed circumstances in South Africa. I want to tell the House that there is a very good, positive and sound relationship between Whites and Coloureds in that area. They resent intensely the fact that under this new system the Whites will have their own local council even though it is too small a community to be viable. The Coloured community which is also too small to be viable will likewise have its own separate management committee. I can promise that a referendum in that area will reveal that 95% of both Coloureds and Whites want a single local authority. [Interjections.]

Does it not make sense? Hon members should go and look at that valley. How can one possibly have two racially separated, non-viable local authorities operating in what is an integrated area and an integrated community? When one talks to the educationists, the people in the churches and the people in the ratepayers’ associations, one will find that they resent the fact that somebody from outside who is obsessed with racism decides on their behalf. Racism is all it is. It is not language because they speak the same language. It is not the Church, because they all belong to the Dutch Reformed Church, the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church and they attend church services together. Neither is it a question of education, because they are starting nursery schools there across the colour line on a voluntary basis. These people want to be together, they are in a single community and they want to have a single system of administration. [Interjections.] And yet under this legislation—against the wishes of that community and to the disadvantage of the people of that community—they will be forced to have two small separate local authorities—one for Coloureds under one Minister and one for Whites under another Minister.

I think that is just a microcosm of South Africa. The separation that is going to take place in terms of this Act one will find in town after town.

*I think that that hon Minister, when he gets back to Klerksdorp and sits there gazing into the future, will realise that South Africa must move away from that. Where there are, in fact, communities that belong together and would like to be part of a single local authority, why should they not be able to do so? Why should apartheid be forced on them against their will?

†I want to say to the hon the Minister that I understand his dilemma. The man who should be facing us today is not that hon Minister. It should be the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because he is the cause of this. He is the man who rushed this whole system through. However, I want to say to this hon Minister that we will oppose this measure and I hope that, even if it goes through, he will come back to this House within the next year and say that this was an experiment and we want to try something better. We want something that will at least allow those communities that share a common interest and a common geographic entity in South Africa to be able to share the responsibility of local government across the colour line.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, the hon Leader of the PFP has given another blustering performance of the kind that we have grown quite accustomed to these days. It seems that every time he speaks, he delivers exactly the same speech.

You just do not understand it!

I think he needs to change his style a little. I am quite certain that the hon the Minister will deal quite adequately with the allegations he has made with regard to this legislation. However, suffice it to say that the PFP has once again adopted a negative attitude to legislation which in fact deserves to be supported. They do not oppose it on its merits. They point out a few difficulties, but they do not oppose it on merit; they oppose it on principle because it brings with it a principle of group or own affairs. They will still have to learn that in this South Africa ethnicity and group identity are facts of life. Whatever solution is found in this country we shall have to take those factors into consideration.

This Bill stems directly from the phasing out of a unique system of local government in the Cape Province in the form of divisional councils. Before I proceed to deal specifically with the legislation, I wish to pay a very sincere tribute to the divisional councils for the great contribution they have made in the orderly third-tier system of government in the Cape. I pay tribute to their chairmen, their councillors and staff, both past and present, for the tremendous energy and time they have spent over the many years in this special sphere of local government. I also pay tribute to the Association of Divisional Councils of the Cape for their contribution. In this regard I would like to congratulate the hon member for Beaufort West on his presidency of that association for so many years.

Divisional councils have been a system and an institution of government which is foreign and something of a mystery to those who reside outside the Cape Province. However, these councils have worked very well over the years and served the geographically huge platteland in the Cape. They have rendered vital services such as roads, clinics, ambulance and fire brigade services, the monitoring of the seashore and nature conservation. One of the most important of their tasks has been that of a governmental role exercised over local areas, ie small White communities and towns which were too small to warrant a municipality of their own. Here divisional councils provided all the normal services which a municipality would be responsible for such as health regulations, planning, provision of water, sewage disposal, and so forth.

The old order is changing in South Africa and divisional councils in the Cape must make way for the process of reform and for regional services councils. The dissolution of divisional councils will result in certain White local areas being left devoid of local government supervision and services unless the legislation that is before us is passed to fill that gap.

The regional services councils have been designed essentially to provide and rationalise utility services within a region. They are not in themselves designed to be or do the work of municipalities. They are an extension of third-tier government. What is required, therefore, is that where small White communities in local government areas lack effective representation, they should be afforded the opportunity to be constituted under and represented by or on a local government body which has its own juristic nature, in order effectively to have a say over their own affairs.

Furthermore, as a representative body, for example a local council with its own legal persona, it will be in a position to secure representation on a regional services council in its area and, therefore, a democratic say in services affecting it and the region. This Bill will ensure that such local areas will not be excluded from the reform process. It will provide the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works with the machinery to establish, regulate and administer such local councils.

Clause 7 empowers the Minister to administer any local area which is devoid of representation owing to the abolition of a divisional council until a local council is established, wherever this is in the interests of the local area or of its residents. The Bill is urgent because certain divisional councils have already been dissolved, and certain local areas requiring local councils have been identified.

This legislation is a good example of a matter which is purely own affairs and which is properly dealt with by this House. Accordingly, I have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for King William’s Town. I think he spoke very effectively on this matter. He quite rightly emphasised that this Bill is one of great urgency. I think that is also, to some extent, a reply to what the hon member for Sea Point spoke about this afternoon in respect of a select committee. I should like to emphasise that this matter is indeed one of urgency, and I am thus very thankful to hon members for their attitude towards this Bill and for allowing it to be passed at this late stage of the session.

*Obviously I have limited time in which to reply, although I should like to reply comprehensively to points raised by hon members. In the first place, therefore, I want to thank hon members sincerely for their support.

I am confident that there will be positive co-operation among the councils that are to be established, the residents of the specific areas and the department in future. As far as my department and I are concerned, we intend to make a success of this specific form of local government that is being established. We regard this as exciting legislation.

Hon members, including the hon member for Pietersburg, referred to certain matters. One would like to have an ideal situation in which members of these local councils were elected. Hon members are acquainted with the indications concerning when general municipal elections will take place. As far as I am concerned, I want to point out that appointment or nomination of members to councils must only be until general municipal elections have taken place so that the respective communities involved can elect their own members to the local councils.

With reference to the other questions put by the hon member for Pietersburg concerning the regulations and the enabling clause in this connection, we are following the existing ordinances in the respective provinces. In fact, the ordinances contain extensive regulatory powers which are granted to the Administrators. This is not a new thing, therefore, as the hon member for Sea Point tried to indicate this afternoon.

This legislation not only addresses the problem experienced in local areas, but also the problem of the small existing local authority that is getting smaller. We also have a special duty to assist the people in the rural areas. By means of positive assistance provided by the Administration: House of Assembly, this form of local government can keep these communities viable for longer periods.

In this connection I want to thank the hon member for Beaufort West for his good contribution. Until recently he was president of the Association of Divisional Councils. I think hon members will agree with me that he reflected a great deal of knowledge in his speech this afternoon. The hon member referred to the rural voter. The passing of this Bill will mean, of course, that the rural voter living in a local area will be able to take part in a democratic process now and will also be represented on a regional services council. In fact, the hon member pointed out that representation and self-determination of an area will take place in its own right or on a joint basis with other local areas. I think this was a very important aspect that he broached.

†Mr Chairman, I fully understand the dilemma of the hon member for Constantia. As the hon member for Klip River quite rightly pointed out, the hon member for Constantia was pleading for representation for his people in Constantia on a representative body.

For all people in Constantia.

That was not the plea the hon member for Constantia made at the time. I have the speech he made on 5 August with me, and I would suggest that the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP read that speech.

*With reference to the speech made by the hon member for Sea Point, I understand why the hon member for Constantia found himself in a problem situation. I am not going to exploit his embarrassment in this connection. The hon member for Constantia made a plea for representation for the residents of Constantia who, as he said, live in a rural set-up and would like things to remain that way.

What we are doing with this legislation, is to bring decision-making much closer to the community. Until now that area has been represented by one member on the divisional council, and the divisional council—I should like to say this to the hon member for Sea Point—consisted of only one specific population group. This is not a step backward, because the hon member tried to indicate here this afternoon that we were involved in developing an apartheid system. I want to tell him he is not correct as far as that is concerned.

The residents of Constantia will have a much bigger say in their own affairs, those affairs that affect that community most closely, in future. In fact, we are going to consult with the residents of Constantia, with the taxpayers’ association for example, and what is more, we shall request proposals from each member of the House of Assembly when local councils have to be appointed to nominate members in this connection. The hon member for Constantia has never had that opportunity before. No hon member has ever had an opportunity to take part in nominating the members who will represent his community in this respect.

In lighter vein I want to add that the hon member for Sea Point said the direction of the country’s future was the direction of the PFP.

†He referred to the powers in terms of clause 6, and I should like to refer him to clause 6 (19) regarding the powers for regulating the establishment of cemeteries within the areas of local councils. I would suggest that we are about to proclaim a cemetery in Constantia for the burial of the PFP. I think that is the direction in which we will move in the future.

*I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Klip River for his effective contribution this afternoon. He is an expert in local government, and in my opinion he did very well in debating the matter with the hon member for Constantia.

I want to tell the hon member for Sea Point, just in general, that I should like to take this matter further with him during the discussion of the Vote next year. Unfortunately I have limited time, and have to conclude as soon as possible.

†I should like to refer to one matter in respect of the Atlantis industrial area which is under the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly at present. If a local authority is established, the boundaries will have to be investigated by the Demarcation Board. Of course, it is possible for an industrial area to be incorporated into a residential area if this is recommended by the Demarcation Board.

*A related factor is that management committees, which have representation on the regional services councils, already exist in certain other communities. In addition I want to point out to hon members—a number of hon members referred to this—that in terms of the proposed Bill, these local councils comply with the requirements stated in the Regional Services Councils Act in order to be recognised as a body, representative of a specific community, and local councils in these communities will therefore have representation on the regional services councils.

In conclusion, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members…

Mr Chairman, may I please put a question? After hearing last night that the Regional Services Councils Bill—a Bill which provides mainly for urban councils’ possible representation on regional services councils—had been withdrawn, can we take it that it may be possible that these local councils that are being created will remedy the deficiency in the regional services councils caused by the withdrawal of the urban councils?

Mr Chairman, as I see the position, and I am subject to correction, there can be the necessary representation where urban residents are living in these local areas. In certain circumstances people resident in the urban areas who are organised into an association or body which is recognised by the Administrator will obviously be able to get representation on the regional services councils.

Another aspect that I want to confirm—the hon member for Pietersburg and other hon members referred to this as well—is that in the nature of the matter this Bill also provides that local areas in other provinces, including the Transvaal, can be applicable where such local area falls outside the local management area of what we normally regard as local management areas.

In conclusion I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who took part this afternoon. This Bill was very urgent, and had to be dealt with very promptly. In this connection we had the exceptional co-operation of the Chief Government Law Adviser, Mr Dolf Rossouw, as well as that of Mr Piet Erasmus, the head of legislation in Parliament. I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the Director of Local Government in my department, Mr Koekemoer, for very effective services which were rendered in this connection. The Whips are indicating that my time has expired. I want to repeat that I have great appreciation for the participation of hon members. We in the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works look forward to administering this Bill.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Sir, it is with great pleasure that I move this Bill. I am convinced that this Bill will succeed in effectively co-ordinating fire services countrywide. Uncontrolled fires are one of the oldest and most common enemies of mankind. Daily we see on television and read in the newspapers about damage and the loss of life caused by fire.

The passing of legislation in respect of fire and fire-risk has come a long way. In South Africa, as long ago as October 1652, Jan van Riebeeck posted a Bill on fire prevention. History is filled with tragic and spectacular fires. In 1666 the Great Fire of London left 100 000 people homeless. San Francisco was ravaged by fire in 1851 and again in 1906. Then there is the story of Chicago, which was devastated in 1871 after a cow kicked over a lantern in a cowshed belonging to a Mrs O’Leary.

Unfortunately, however, devastating fires are not confined to the past or to other countries. In the Western Cape it happens virtually every year that many hectares of fynbos are destroyed by fire, and it will be remembered that Table Mountain was in flames as recently as last year.

According to the 1986 Municipal Year Book, fire services of local authorities had to handle 30 997 fire calls and 14 457 other emergency calls at a cost of approximately R73 million. That is an expense of R3,16 per person per year. For this amount a 24-hour service is rendered.

Fire even surpasses warfare as a major cause of the greatest loss of life and property on earth. From 1961 to 1972 45 925 soldiers died in the Vietnam War. During the same period 143 550 American civilians died as a result of fire at home or at work. In South Africa the loss of life is also high. The fire-related death rate is 34 per million per annum, even higher than the 25 per million of the United States of America. During 1984, 71 persons per month died as a direct result of fires.

The need for this Bill arose because the various fire services in this country were not always up to standard or fully effective. This position cannot be rectified by simply by making Government funds available. Part of the problem is the fact that fire-fighting equipment is not only sophisticated but also expensive and difficult to obtain.

Since 1970 various study groups have visited Europe and the United States in order to compare the position in South Africa to that of other Western countries. It soon became clear that co-ordination at a national level was required. During 1973 a committee, appointed by the Minister of Defence, recommended that:

1. (a) legislation be drafted compelling local authorities to manage and maintain fire services, subject to specific minimum prescribed standards and norms;
2. (b) a central advisory body be established to render advice to the responsible Government department in connection with all matters related to fire services, and
3. (c) a centralised inspectorate be formed to control the implementation and application of the prescribed standards and norms.

Notwithstanding the above recommendations it was resolved that control should not be centralised, but that it should be devolved to the provincial administrations. In 1977-78 the respective Fire Services Ordinances of the four provinces in 1977-78 accordingly attempted to achieve the goals set. The ordinances were uniform with regard to their underlying principles, but various factors inhibited their complete implementation. These factors were:

1. (a) a lack of funds to subsidise the service;
2. (b) a lack of knowledgeable staff; and
3. (c) the failure to get the provincial advisory bodies to function properly.

Following deliberations between the Minister of Defence and the four provincial Administrators the committee was appointed to investigate the overall control of fire services. In its report, this committee recommended that the Department of Development Planning be made responsible for the overall control of fire services at national level. Their investigation was restricted to the position of local authorities. Their recommendations were accepted in principle by the Government.

Because local authorities are mainly responsible for fire services, the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs decided to establish a Fire Services Advisory Committee. This committee was representative of all parties concerned with fire services. Its terms of reference were to investigate, inter alia, the desirability of national legislation and to formulate such legislation. I am satisfied that this Bill will assist in solving our fire service problems. The various provincial ordinances on fire services were taken as the point of departure. One had to take note, however, of the fact that only local authorities fell within the ambit of the various ordinances. Of necessity certain basic principles had to be considered in drafting the legislation.

Fire services are generally rendered by a local authority. The SATS and various other Government departments also maintain their own fire services, as do certain industries in the private sector. The efficient running and co-ordination of these fire services is a matter of national importance.

Even though fire prevention is conscientiously enforced wherever possible, fires are still an all-too-common occurrence. This fact can be attributed to various factors over which the owners of inflammable assets have little or no control. Certain of these factors, such as structural deficiencies, negligence, arson and sabotage, will always be with us, to the detriment of not only the individuals or organisations concerned, but also of the economy of the country. Any fire accordingly has a financial impact on all of us. Theft does not destroy property, but merely displaces it. In contrast, a fire destroys property irrevocably.

The shortage of capable and trained personnel is a serious problem, the more so as fire services are often of a highly technical nature. The establishment of training institutions are provided for in clause 7 of the Bill. Owing to the diverse activities of the State, various State departments also operate fire services in order to protect their own interests as well as those of the taxpayers. In certain instances international agreements also necessitate the operating of such services. The private sector, in particular the petro-chemical sector, and other high-risk businesses, also operate fire services. These services are unique and highly specialised in their individual fields in order to limit risks in each individual field.

While provision is made in this Bill for the protection of the interests of the community, it is necessary that the widest possible cover is afforded to the community. For this reason provision is made for mutual agreements in the Bill. Specifically where standardisation of equipment and training requirements are concerned, uniformity is essential. All fire services must conform to the norms and standards laid down. For this reason it is not only fire services of local authorities which are covered by this Bill, but also those of the State and the private sector.

Members of the standing committee are aware of the fact that the South African Fire Services Institute made important inputs and rendered support to the standing committee and to my department during the consideration of this Bill. I specifically wish to thank Mr Willem du Plessis, Chief Fire Officer of Pretoria, and Mr Frikkie Kotzé, Chief Fire Officer of Johannesburg, who are present this afternoon, for their support in this regard. I am aware that the standing committee adopted several important amendments to the Bill which are, in fact, improvements. I would like to thank members of the committee for its thorough consideration of this Bill. Members will be aware that in the process everyone had to give and take in order to make the acceptance of this Bill possible.

I wish to extend my gratitude to all parties of all three Houses for their co-operation in this regard. We are all aware of the importance of this measure.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, to start with I should like to convey the thanks of the CP to the representatives of existing fire brigade services which provided important background information concerning the matter dealt with in the Bill under discussion to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development. Without these inputs we would really have had a very difficult task, and we would probably not have gained the insight we very soon did either, after these comprehensive and very expert submissions were made to us.

In the standing committee the CP voted against clause 1 of the Bill under discussion, and abstained with regard to the subsequent clauses. Our approach to the Bill, as seen by the hon member for Parow, who was also a member of the relevant standing committee, was described in his speech in this House yesterday evening as follows. I am quoting from his unrevised Hansard:

A little further on he said:

That, Sir, is what the hon member for Parow said.

He must have been sleeping! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, next I want to enumerate some of the important standpoints my hon colleagues of the CP and I put from the very beginning of the discussion of this particular Bill in the standing committee. I also want to ask that the hon members judge for themselves on the truth or otherwise of the hon member for Parow’s remarks yesterday evening.

As regards clause 1 of the Bill we felt that in the definition in the Bill as it was originally submitted, the Minister involved in administering the provisions of this legislation should not be the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because we were of the opinion that the entire fire brigade set-up, which is an emergency service set-up, would fit in better under the jurisdiction of either the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Law and Order. The relevant officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning pointed out to us that because this measure was going to deal with the fire brigade services of local authorities, the relevant Minister had to be the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We are still of the opinion that it would fit in better under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Law and Order, because that part of the motivation given by the officials was in our opinion not as strong as the motivation that it was essentially an emergency service.

As regards the definition of “local authority” which, as far as this definition is concerned, includes a regional services council, we obviously voted against the clause. As regards the constitution of the Fire Brigade Board, in terms of clause 2 of the Bill which was initially submitted, we felt that it was not adequately shown that the relevant persons who were appointed, had the necessary merit to be appointed. We therefore specifically placed a question mark after the original clause 2 (2) (k) which provided that a maximum of two people would be appointed by the Minister. We asked about the merits of this. We also asked whether these particular people would be representative of any interests in the entire fire brigade set-up. As a result an amendment was introduced, with the support of other members of the standing committee too, so that in the Bill now before this House, provision has also been made for representation by one town clerk, and one person appointed by the four provincial secretaries, on the envisaged Fire Brigade Board.

Next we felt in respect of the original clause 8 that the functions which the chief fire officer could perform in terms of this Bill were unnecessarily restricted and that provision should be made for further actions so as to include any action which he deemed necessary in order to be able to perform his functions. Because of this standpoint, which was also supported by other members of the standing committee, in this regard an amendment was also made to the original Bill, and it now makes provision for what we originally requested.

As regards clause 10 of the original Bill we specifically pointed out in respect of clause 10 (1) (a) that the terminology…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, with reference to the changes he has just mentioned, his party voted in favour of those changes to the Bill which it proposed in the committee?

Mr Chairman, as I have already indicated, we initiated these matters, and as I have also already indicated, we abstained from voting. [Interjections.]

But you said that we voted against them! You therefore told an untruth!

Mr Chairman, if I may finish, we did not vote against these clauses, because we could see that these clauses as such had merit, apart from the first clause, which we voted against. However, that is not what the hon member for Parow alleged. He alleged that we voted against them. I am still going to get around to a further and more serious untruth he told in respect of a clause which I am supposed to have proposed and then voted against. I shall elaborate on this. [Interjections.]

Old Hendrickse has made you lot punch-drunk.

We pointed out that in respect of the terminology, and I quote, “attendance of the service”, it may possibly be police terminology to refer to attendance of the service such as attendance of the scene of an accident, etc, but that consideration should be given to using more generally accepted terminology, for example “go out to an incident”. This was unfortunately not incorporated in the amended Bill, but in view of what I have already said, we accept that in the relevant field to which this Bill is going to apply, this is probably accepted terminology.

In addition, in respect of clause 18 of the Bill, and more specifically clause 18 (4), we pointed out that the danger existed in the original wording of the clause that a person who, while acting as nothing more than an agent of the owner of premises, committed certain contraventions, namely that he did not comply with a certain instruction, could be held personally responsible if the wording of the relevant clause remained as it was. With the consent of other members of the standing committee this clause was then amended so that an agent or a curator or an executor who was merely acting in a representative capacity, would not be held personally responsible.

I now come to clause 20. In connection with this clause I moved at a late stage—it was just prior to the voting in the relevant standing committee—that the words “service of a controlling authority” should be deleted from the relevant clause because in my opinion the service of a controlling authority would not have legal personality, and this particular clause dealt with legal responsibility. As a result this amendment was agreed to. I assume this is the clause to which the hon member for Parow referred when he alleged that, when it had to be voted on, I voted against this clause. That is devoid of all truth. As was the case with the other clauses I abstained and reserved the right to express an opinion here. However, the hon member for Parow said that I voted against my own amendment. [Interjections.]

In the same clause it is also provided that persons acting under the state of emergency, are exempt from legal responsibility for damage caused by their behaviour, provided they acted bona fide. From the outset we also voiced our concern that this measure might possibly place an unfair burden on a wronged person who would then have to prove that not only negligence, but also mala fides had given rise to the damage. After assurances by experts in the fire brigade sphere and against the background of their experiences which they shared with us, we accepted that the reverse situation would probably place too heavy a burden on the fire brigade services. In view of this we were also prepared to co-operate and not oppose this clause as it was worded.

Hon members can therefore see the difference between the factual situation which prevailed in the standing committee and the allegations of the hon member for Parow. [Interjections.] However, since yesterday the hon member has not made any effort to rectify this untruth. We want to tell him that he will have to live with the consequences of his behaviour in this House, because it is reported and his voters will hear about this. I want to tell him that after yesterday evening his political credibility is nil. [Interjections.]

I want to sum up by saying that although we are in favour of the co-ordination and standardising of fire brigade services, we unfortunately cannot support this Bill owing to the fact that provision is made in clause 1 for regional services councils to be involved in this entire set-up, and our attitude on regional services councils is generally known.

Mr Chairman, if there are two things that stand out in the consideration of this Bill, one would most certainly be the brilliant submission by the SA Fire Brigade Institute and others to the committee, as mentioned by the hon member for Roodepoort. It was truly a privilege to be able to experience this and I think that with such submissions and guidance we give status to the standing committees and do justice to their aims, namely to be able to listen to public bodies of that calibre. I think this did Parliament and the standing committee system proud.

A second aspect which stood out during the discussion of this Bill is most certainly the fact that the particulars of the Bill were so thoroughly deliberated upon. It sometimes happens that due to political considerations, members dig in their heels and that the discussion does not make progress, but I think I can also honestly say that for documentation purposes the details of this Bill were considered very thoroughly throughout.

However, one should not be too oversensitive in politics. The hon member for Roodepoort objects strongly to the remarks made by the hon member for Parow. He had all his contributions here placed on record. However, the fact is that he and his colleague abstained from voting and that he has also indicated now that they are going to vote against this measure.

That is not what the hon member for Parow said.

Let us leave this matter at that and let us discuss the positive aspects of the Bill.

I think this Bill fulfills a long-felt need. If one is not opposed to this Bill, yet abstains from voting, one is in my opinion like someone who is punch-drunk, who hovers between yes and no. However, that is not what this is about. The issue here is an exciting piece of legislation which fulfils a long-felt need. The basic building blocks of the Bill are the assets it holds for South Africa, because with this material we are going to succeed in coordinating and standardising fire brigade services.

We live in troubled times. I think one merely has to take note of the terrible fires that have broken out during the past years particularly in Western countries and in places such as London, San Francisco, Chicago and so forth, to know that we live in grave times. We only have to look at our contemporary history to realise this. The only way to be able to satisfy the demands of the day is with well-trained manpower and good, modern equipment. I think we shall most certainly meet those demands with this Bill as an instrument.

Physical preparedness is often attributed to the SADF or Police. The fire brigade most certainly also plays an important role in this. In my view, said with respect, it is not justified to make an issue of whether this Bill should be administered by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or by two other Ministers, namely those of Defence and of Law and Order.

The fact of the matter is that the fire brigade services developed and grew under the auspices of local authorities. Local authorities come under the protection of these responsible Ministers. It is therefore only logical that they will continue to co-ordinate their activity and to standardise and that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will accept the responsibility for this.

I think if people paid attention to the information, as well as to the daily media reports it would be almost shocking to see how two elementary evils are responsible for unending disaster and suffering, and that is that there is no adequate co-ordination and that above all there is no clarity as to who the authority is in the particular circumstances. This legislation in my view makes provision for it that adequate co-ordination will take place as far as equipment and action is concerned, and that there will be clarity about who the responsible authority in the area is.

It is my opinion that with this legislation we are giving status and authority to a well-disciplined and very important group of people who perform an extremely essential service in this country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the positive remarks made by the hon member for Krugersdorp in connection with the work of the standing committee and the contribution made in the standing committee on this specific Bill. I want to say at once that because my party and I are fully convinced of the desirability and the necessity for this legislation, particularly in consequence of the positive amendments introduced by the standing committee, we have no reservations as regards our support for this specific Bill. I therefore also take pleasure in saying that in this connection we support the Bill.

I am therefore not going to waste the House’s time analysing the Bill; I think this has been effectively done and we know what appears in it. I merely want to say that we support the Bill in principle.

There are nevertheless three related aspects to which I do want to draw attention. In regard to the one aspect I want to object to the arrangements in this House resulting in the fact that the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister was only supplied to us after we had started discussing the Bill. [Interjections.] This is beyond my comprehension.

It is not that serious.

No, Mr Chairman, the hon member must not tell me that it is not that serious. How can this House do its work effectively if it arranges its business in such a way that we only receive the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister after we have started discussing a Bill? This has nothing to do with the merits of the Bill, but I want to record my vigorous objection to the fact that the arrangements in this House are such that we are confronted by this kind of situation. [Interjections.]

The other two aspects I want to mention, concern the insertion in clause 11 of the provision that, when the Administrator makes a subsidy available to a local authority for the maintenance and development of its fire brigade service, that subsidy is subject to the condition that there will be no discrimination in that service of the local authority. I am grateful that the NP component was eventually prepared to accept that provision. I know that my own colleagues in the CP were opposed to it and I can accept that.

I do want to say—I think the hon the Chairman of the standing committee will grant me this—that if the NP component, the Government, had been prepared to accept this amendment sooner, the standing committee would have finished dealing with this Bill long ago, because it was this specific element which led time and again to lengthy statements on standpoints and deliberations by the standing committee. Although I am grateful that it was eventually agreed to by the Government, the NP component, I do want to say that we could have saved so much time and used it more productively if that decision had been made known or taken sooner. This is not a reflection on the hon chairman of the standing committee; it is actually a reflection on a specific kind of situation, in which the Government adopted a specific standpoint for a long time and then realised that it was desirable to relinquish it.

The third point I want to mention is a minor one—I mentioned it in the standing committee—which I was not quite satisfied about, but which I did not want to pursue further. It concerns the exemption contained in clause 20 of the Bill. I stated my standpoint clearly in the standing committee. In view of the fact that the exemption not only applies to the fire-brigade but also to ambulance services and the actions of a person instructed to do certain things by the chief fire officer in terms of clause 8, I want to say that I can understand that one cannot expect more than normal care from the fire brigade when it is fighting a fire. This is an essential service, which must sometimes be rendered urgently.

However, those circumstances do not necessarily apply to an ambulance service which is part of the fire brigade service. Nor does this necessarily apply to those members of the public who are instructed by a chief fire officer to do certain things. As a matter of fact, the standpoint I adopted in the standing committee was that those persons—I am referring more specifically to the ambulance services and persons acting under instructions—are exempted in terms of clause 20, as the Bill at present reads, even if they were to act negligently. I stated my standpoint there and the standing committee gave me a hearing, but in view of the circumstances and the realities of the situation they felt that, although they acknowledged the merits of my standpoint, that clause could not be amended in such a way that it would be possible to differentiate between the ambulance services and the persons mentioned in clause 8. I want to tell hon members that I nevertheless saw fit to mention this matter on behalf of certain persons in the legal profession who approached me and made it clear that they felt unhappy about the fact that actions by those two groups were also being exempted, even if they were to act negligently in the performance of their duties.

These reservations will suffice, and I want to say that this is a good and essential piece of work which has been done here, and I hope that this new dispensation will give fire brigade services greater stability, uniformity and certainty as regards this extremely important service which must be rendered in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I have no problem in following the hon member Prof Olivier, because I think he made an honourable and a positive contribution to the standing committee’s work. For a new boy it was very interesting listening to him. There are two clauses that the hon member Prof Olivier disagrees with.

I must say that the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Mossel Bay, had a horrendous task in this committee and it was an honour to serve under him. I do not think I have served under any better chairman in my life.

I do not think that as far as clause 11 is concerned it was merely one small paragraph that we had to insert to pacify the people who were against this legislation. They were actually fighting to change the whole structure of Parliament and I think it was only the ability and the patience of our chairman that led us to compromise on the clause as we now have it.

I think all of us had our own feelings on clause 8 and I think the point is well taken. We have given a clear hand to anybody who can perhaps act indiscriminately, but we must remember that to fight a fire one needs every possible aid on one’s side. We have a very good piece of legislation here.

The limpet mine that was placed in Sasol in May 1980 crystallised a problem that the fire brigade services have when they have to work in concert in times of national crisis.

The fire services of the entire Reef rushed to Sasol and left their own towns entirely at the mercy of any forward-thinking terrorists. As last year’s second bomb outside the Carlton Hotel showed, terrorists these days often use the first strike as a feint to lead people into the main trap.

Not only did the fire engines leave their own towns unprotected, but they added to the chaos in Sasolburg rather than help solve it. Their water hoses did not all fit Sasol’s water terminals and when they ran out of foam they could not use the sort of foam that Sasol used. They spent valuable time in sorting out a chain of command because they all came from different places. Security was a problem, because they did not all have the same uniforms.

There will have to be some form of uniformity in the fire brigade services if the emergency services of the ambulances, paramedical vehicles and fire-fighting people are to deal with disasters such as the floods that we have just had in Natal, where various fire brigade services had to combine to cope with a common problem.

Unfortunately, fire brigade services are owned by various segments of our society. Most are owned by local authorities, some are owned by the Government such as those at airports, some are owned by semigovernment institutions like Sasol and Iscor, and some, like those at the Modderfontein Dynamite Factory, are in private hands.

Some of them have Dennis fire engines, some have American fire engines and some have obsolete equipment. All these bodies need some sort of umbrella organisation so that the equipment can gradually become standardised, the conditions of service can become equalised and, above all, the training of firemen throughout the country can be forced to reach a universally recognised level. Rank will have to have meaning throughout the service and, if this legislation is passed, the movement of firemen from one service to another will be facilitated in future.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of this legislation will be what is achieved to prevent emergencies. We on the standing committee were horrified by the video tapes of people jumping off the 30th floor of burning buildings, because their fire services never insisted on fire escapes. We were also horrified to see video’s of entire Australian towns burning, because they were built of wood and their fire services never insisted upon high enough standards.

The Fire Brigade Board is intended to standardise the rules pertaining to fire hazards in all formal structures and, by sharing expertise, to make buildings throughout the country as disaster-proof as possible.

If the board can bring about uniformity in fire brigade services in this country, it will be a fillip to local industry, as there might then be a market big enough to justify the design and sale of a standard fire engine. Satellite industries will then be able to supply uniforms, foam, canvas piping and fire-fighting equipment in commercially viable quantities. There must be very few hon members who can vote against this Bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation.

Mr Chairman, I was under the impression that more hon members were going to participate, but by the looks of things there are no more speeches to come. [Interjections.]

I want to thank all hon members who participated for their contributions. I particularly want to thank most sincerely those hon members who support the Bill. Several hon members mentioned the thorough work which this Bill represents. I made a study of this legislation, and I should like to confirm this. It is really a fine piece of work.

I want to apologise to the hon member Prof Olivier because the second reading speech was distributed late. It was at my disposal this morning, but I do not know precisely what went wrong. However I should like to appeal to hon members to read the speech, because it contains very interesting facts.

I was not a member of the standing committee. I therefore do not know what happened there, and I do not want to become involved in the in-fighting at this stage either. However, the hon member for Roodepoort indicated that he made a positive contribution in the standing committee. I also want to accept this fact and not dispute it, but I do find it strange that if the hon member made such a positive contribution and also moved certain amendments, he abstained from voting and was not even prepared to vote for this legislation.

As far as fire-brigade services are concerned, we must realise that this service is used to help all members of the public and the community. When a fire breaks out one does not ask to which political party people belong. A fire threatens an entire community, and everyone shares in the damage, the pain and the heartbreak. I find it very strange that the hon member for Roodepoort was not prepared to vote for this legislation. If there is one sphere in which politics should not play a role, it is fire-fighting and our fire brigade services. Politics should play absolutely no role in this. I therefore want to appeal to the hon member to reconsider this matter.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is aware that the CP is opposing this Bill because we are opposed to regional services councils, to which we object in principle, being included in the system administered by this Bill?

Mr Chairman, I accept this as the reason advanced by the CP, but I nevertheless want to argue that we are dealing here with a matter which is really not concerned with politics and which, as I have already indicated, does not deal with population groups, colour or the constitution of a mixed board. All people are affected, and all communities are threatened.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Krugersdorp, who mentioned the fine work, the physical preparedness and the necessity for this service, and emphasised co-ordination and standardisation. This is actually what this Bill is effecting, so that a fire engine from one town will not arrive in a neighbouring town and then find that its equipment cannot be used in that town. The hon member paid tribute to members of out fire brigade services. We are privileged to have the Chief of the Fire Brigade of Johannesburg, Mr Kotzé, in our midst today.

I want to thank him for the contribution which he also made in the standing committee. I am extremely grateful that he is here today. This House is not always as peaceful as it is today. Sometimes discussions become very heated, but we will not call in his services today, because we have arrived at the end of a session. We want to wish him and the fire brigade service of Johannesburg everything of the best in the service they render there.

The hon member for Roodepoort asked why the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was now taking over control. It is very interesting—and it is also mentioned in the Second Reading speech—that various study groups visited Europe and the USA to compare the position in South Africa with that applying in other Western countries. It very soon became clear that co-ordination at national level was essential. In 1973 a committee, appointed by the hon the Minister of Defence, made a few recommendations. In the first place it was recommended that legislation be drafted compelling local authorities to manage and maintain fire brigade services. In the second place it was recommended that a central advisory body be established to advise the Government departments responsible on all matters pertaining to fire brigade services, and in the third place that a centralised inspectorate be established to exercise control over the implementation of the prescribed norms and standards.

After consultation between the hon the Minister of Defence and the four provincial administrators, a committee was appointed to investigate overall control over fire brigade services. In its report this committee recommended that the Department of Development Planning should be responsible for the overall planning of fire brigade services at national level. I want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort—I think he is aware of this—that this decision was not taken lightly and that we did not simply look for a department to which to entrust fire brigade services. After thorough investigation and consultation between the hon the Minister of Defence and the four provincial administrators, it was decided that the Department of Development Planning was the proper department. That is why it was placed under the control of this department.

I want to thank the hon member Prof Olivier most sincerely for the support he pledged to the principle of the legislation. He referred inter alia to clause 20, which deals with exemptions. I think this is a valid point, but this provision has been applied for 10 years now, and it seems to have worked very well. I nevertheless want to assure the hon member that, as he requested, we will not hesitate to put the matter right if any irregularity were to arise or any incident were to take place. The hon member also referred to clause 11, which states that there must be no discrimination, and said that there was a long discussion on this. This was because this provision also appeared in the Labour Relations Act.

I most sincerely want to thank the hon member for Germiston, who emphasised that emergencies which frequently arise during large fires should be avoided. I hope that through the legislation now before us this can be eliminated and that loss of life and damage can also be kept to a minimum.

I most sincerely want to thank the standing committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Mossel Bay for the work it did. I also want to thank hon members for their contributions. In addition I want to wish all fire brigade services in South Africa well in the mammoth task they have to perform. I wish them everything of the best.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The principal Act—the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act of 1984—was submitted to Parliament after representations were received from, inter alia, the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa and the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities.

The following was said in the Second Reading speech on 5 July 1987 on the principal Act. I quote:

At the commencement of the principal Act, no uniformity existed in the remuneration package of town clerks, but the position has largely been rectified. I am convinced that if town clerks themselves had been in a position to negotiate their own remuneration package and other service benefits, there would have been some who would not have received the remuneration and service benefits they are now receiving in terms of this Act.

In the application of the Act numerous unpopular but fundamentally correct decisions had to be made. This action greatly contributed to the creation of an orderly system of remuneration in local government as it exists at present. With the support of the representatives of the advisory committee which represents all local government institutions, uniform service benefits in respect of motor-vehicle and housing schemes were introduced. The service benefits of many employees of local authorities were also improved in this respect. After consultation with all parties concerned, it was agreed to amend the principal Act on the basis of the following principles:

1. (i) That decisions in terms of the Act must be depoliticised and the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should be divested of his powers in terms of the Act;
2. (ii) decisions and determinations in terms of the Act should be made in accordance with the principle of devolution of authority by the parties involved, namely the representatives of local authorities as employers, and their employees;
3. (iii) local authorities are part of the public sector and decisions on the service benefits of town clerks should be taken within certain prescribed maximum limits.

These points are in line with the principle of the devolution of power, and the proposed amendments all give effect to the Government’s policy of transferring more power to local government. The amendment of the Act and the recommendations of all parties concerned were discussed in the advisory committee on local government. Various discussions took place between the Commission for Administration and the various employers’ and the employees’ organisations. The Cabinet Committee on Constitutional Matters discussed the proposed amendment on 3 April 1987. The committee took notice of the need for the devolution of power regarding the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act.

In the drafting of the Bill the question which was raised and considered was whether the Commission for Administration’s power should be extended to officials of local authorities as part of the public sector. The following aspects were taken into account. There are a large number of officials at central level, namely members of the South African Defence Force and the South African Police, who do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission for Administration. Various Ministers of Manpower publicly gave the assurance that municipal officials would still fall under the Labour Relations Act. It has consequently been decided that the Commission for Administration’s involvement in terms of the Act will be limited to two matters only: The appointment of a chairman of the Appeal Board and the exercising of control over exclusions in terms of section 1 (2) of the Act.

I wish to highlight a few aspects of the proposed amendments. Firstly, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as well as the administrators of the various provinces, are divested of their powers under the principal Act. Secondly, the authoritative institutions which have to decide on the service benefits of town clerks shall form a board to be known as the Board on Remuneration and Service Benefits of Town Clerks, which takes the place of the Advisory Committee. Thirdly, the board shall function as an industrial council for officials of local authorities, but within the limits set by the principal Act. Finally, the board shall consist of 20 members, 10 of whom shall be designated by the Federation of Municipal Employers’ Organisation, six by the Association of Chief Officers of Local Authorities and four by the Federation of Municipal Trade Unions. A maximum limit is determined by the principal Act within which decisions may be taken on service benefits, which also influence the regulation package of other employees of local authorities. Leave and leave schemes are now also part of the total remuneration package of town clerks.

Finally, a board of appeal shall be constituted for the hearing of an appeal under the principal Act or to decide on matters on which the said board has reached an equality of votes. The Commission for Administration shall designate the chairman of the Appeal Board.

There are various other consequential amendments, but from the above it is clear that the decisions and determinations in the principal Act will be taken in accordance with the principle of the devolution of power by the various persons involved, namely the representatives of local authorities and their employees. I have instructed my department to assist the board to ensure the proper functioning of the board when it takes over its functions.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP’s objection to this Bill is not aimed at removing the Minister from the mechanism designed to decide on the remuneration of chief executive officers. It is aimed at the principal Act itself, which once again includes regional services councils as local authorities. We want to express our opposition once again to the inclusion of regional services councils as part of third-tier government. We refuse to streamline the principal Act, against which we have this objection, with the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, the amending Bill under consideration makes provision for the establishment, constitution and functioning of the Board on Remuneration and Service Benefits of Town Clerks and a board of appeal. Once again, no fundamental objections were raised to this measure in the standing committee—not by hon members of the Official Opposition, by the hon member of the PFP or, in fact, anybody else. Clearly, the aim of this measure is only to find a more effective way to provide for the salaries and service benefits of town clerks. Nevertheless agreement could not be reached in the standing committee on the motion of desirability.

The reason for this was mainly to be found in the attitude of the hon members of the Official Opposition, who had no objection to the measure under consideration as such—I wish to emphasise as such—but who objected to the system of regional services councils, which is an accomplished fact. It is an accomplished fact. However, they wanted to undo the realities in a Bill which is not aimed at that at all. I think it is a pity that hon members of the CP tried to block this measure, which is a good one, for the sake of a political objective. Apparently that is how the hon members want to conduct their politics, however, and I suppose we shall have to live with that.

Hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates were also opposed to this measure because they adopted the standpoint that town clerks, as chief executive officers, take decisions that concern all population groups. Therefore, they argued, town clerks should be appointed with the consent of the management committees and local affairs committees.

The fact is, however, that the appointment of town clerks is not controlled by this measure at all. In fact, this measure has nothing to do with the appointment of town clerks. For that reason alone hon members of the other two Houses were totally unjustified in insisting that a provision must be included in this measure to the effect that management and local affairs committees should also agree to the appointment of a town clerk.

Another important fact is that management and local affairs committees are not authoritative bodies. They are advisory bodies. Therefore it would be totally wrong to authorise local affairs committees and management committees, being advisory committees, to participate in the appointment of town clerks.

This is why we on this side of the House were not in favour of an amendment to this effect. Since we acknowledge the fact that management and local affairs committees do indeed have an interest in the appointment of a town clerk, we on this side of the House were nevertheless willing to include the following recommendation in our report:

I am of the opinion that this was a reasonable motion on the part of this side of the House. Unfortunately this motion was not acceptable to hon members of the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates, and they voted against this measure.

We are faced here by political views which caused this measure, which is a good one and which deserved the support of all members of the standing committee, not to enjoy the support it deserved.

We on this side of the House have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, it was with respect that I listened to the hon member for Mossel Bay. I merely want to say I think there was a slight contradiction in his approach to the specific elements of the issue of the appointment of town clerks. He began by saying he objected to the fact that matters that had nothing to do with the merit of the Bill were dragged into the discussion of the Bill. Having said that, he himself mentioned the proposal made by the NP component to accommodate, in some measure, the problems stated by the hon members of the House of Representatives.

In an attempt to accommodate them.

I agree with the hon member for Mossel Bay. I also appreciate the patience he displayed as chairman of that committee. On merit alone, there is certainly very little that one can object to in this Bill. I concede that in all sincerity.

Yet I want to make it very clear that the reason I voted against this Bill was not that other hon members had put forward that standpoint, but because I really believed that the standpoint was defensible on merit. [Interjections.] In the first place, the work done by the town council and the town clerk is not restricted only to the Whites in that community, as the hon member for Mossel Bay indicated. In the second place, the sources of the White town council do not consist only of Whites. Considering the very strong position of the town clerk, I think one can justifiably say that there should be compulsory consultation with the other groups in the community when the town clerk is appointed.

We were in favour of that.

Yes, I listened respectfully to what the hon member was saying. An amendment, with which I associated myself, was proposed in the standing committee, however. That amendment read:

I want to say immediately that it is merely on the basis of my support of that proposed amendment, because I believe in its merit, that I could not support the Bill. I want to make this very clear, Sir. I think this proposal has merit.

I want to repeat, however, that I do not have a problem in principle with the merit of the Bill per se. I have a problem only in respect of these specific aspects.

Mr Chairman, I am not quite sure that I understand the hon member Prof Olivier, because he has just quoted the amendment proposed by us which was not acceptable to the members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

I speak under correction, Sir, but what I quoted to the House was the amendment proposed by Mr Richards.

No, Sir…

Order! No, the hon member for Mossel Bay cannot make a speech now. Is the hon member Prof Olivier going to resume his seat?

Yes, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Mossel Bay for a very clear explanation. The hon member Prof Olivier also thanked the hon member for Mossel Bay most sincerely. I believe the hon member for Mossel Bay had a very difficult task with this Bill, but as the hon member Prof Olivier said, the Bill was dealt with very comprehensively.

The hon member for Mossel Bay replied to certain aspects which had been raised by hon members. The hon member for Roodepoort gave his party’s reason for not supporting this Bill, viz that the regional services councils are also being included in this Bill. I fully understand the CP’s standpoint against regional services councils, but I do want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort that the chief executive officers of the regional services councils have been included to ensure that the position of the town clerks in relation to these executive officials is not detrimentally affected. This means that the remuneration of these officials is arranged on the same basis and by the same body. I think this should eliminate many problems in practice and should also eliminate dissatisfaction. I think it can work very well in practice. I understand the viewpoint of the CP and of the hon member for Roodepoort, however.

The hon member Prof Olivier said he supported the principle of the Bill, but objected to certain aspects. If we briefly go back and read the beginning of the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill, we shall see that the matter previously was dealt with by the Administrators. That was not satisfactory. Then it was referred to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. There was dissatisfaction there as well. I think the Board on Remuneration and Service Benefits of Town Clerks, which is being established by this Bill and which will function as a distinctive kind of local authority-linked “industrial council”, will lead to much greater satisfaction. We could not place town clerks under the Industrial Conciliation Board or have them function under that Act, because the town clerk often has to assist in initiating certain matters himself, and therefore cannot become involved in these matters. I believe that the board which is being proposed, and which is going to come into operation, will eliminate many of these problems. People who are dissatisfied about decisions can complain to a board of appeal where such a board exists.

I am extremely grateful that decisions and determinations in the principal Act can now be made by the representatives of local authorities and their employees in terms of the principle of devolution of authority. I am aware that we have experienced a number of problems during the past few years since the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act was instituted and that there has often been a great deal of dissatisfaction. I am convinced that this dissatisfaction can be eliminated and that the various town clerks will constitute a happy work force in future. I want to express my special thanks to them this afternoon for the great work they do in respect of local authorities, and therefore also in the interests of South Africa.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I should like to explain that the establishment of a pension fund for municipal councillors has been attended to and has been under consideration for a number of years, both at the provincial and at the central government levels. As far back as 1964 the Transvaal Municipal Association unanimously recommended that a pension fund for municipal councillors be established. It has taken a long time. Various memorandums on the legal and technical aspects of this issue have been prepared in the past, but they have not dealt with the merits of such a pension fund. On 7 July 1983 my department accordingly requested the United Municipal Executive to investigate the merits of such a fund. A subcommittee of the Permanent Finance Liaison Committee was then established at the request of the United Municipal Executive to look into the legislation that would enable local authorities to establish a pension fund, a provident fund or an annuity retirement fund for municipal councillors. The resultant investigations by the United Municipal Executive and the Permanent Finance Liaison Committees into the merits of such a pension scheme for councillors once again highlighted the necessity for such a provision.

The following aspects came to light during these investigations. Municipal councillors do not receive salaries for the selfless service rendered to their respective communities. The allowances which they do receive, and which were recently increased, are aimed at covering the expenses incurred during their term of office and cannot be regarded as remuneration. The allowances are totally inadequate for the following reasons.

Municipal councillors have to finance their own election costs. This is especially true in the case of independent councillors who receive no financial support from political parties. Councillors have to sacrifice their own personal income to tend to their responsibilities arising from their positions as councillors. Various meetings must, for instance, be attended during the evenings—for example ratepayers’ association meetings and, in some cases, council meetings.

Many councillors do this and render these services to the detriment of their own affairs and interests. No councillor can discharge his responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner without a thorough knowledge of the relevant literature, legislation, regulations and by-laws applicable to local government. This obviously necessitates the purchasing of books, periodicals and other documents in order to acquire and maintain an acceptable level of expertise in local government management.

The councillor’s involvement is not only restricted to matters pertaining to a particular local authority, but extends to participation in various other councils, institutions, association committees, congresses and meetings relating to the interests of a particular local authority.

It is an accepted fact that many councillors have to attend to official matters during office hours as well as after hours, as hon members know. Time which would otherwise be spent on professional or career activities had to be utilised to attend to community matters. It should therefore be evident that councillors make career and professional sacrifices which are often to their detriment. Direct or indirect personal financial losses may result from this dual responsibility, which could eventually have an effect on the councillor’s ability to provide an adequate pension for his dependants or for himself.

Councillors are also obliged to involve themselves in extensive, demanding social activities which are often costly. There are councillors in local government who have served their communities in this manner throughout their adult lives and who are continuing to do so. I consequently believe that councillors should be rewarded or at least be compensated, for the selfless sacrifices which are made in the interests of their respective communities. I therefore propose that legislation be passed to enable local authorities to promote the interests of their councillors as well as the interests of their respective communities by providing a form of compensation for services rendered.

This Bill authorises local authorities to compensate councillors to a certain extent subject to the provisions laid down by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and determined with the consent of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Development Aid or the Minister of Local Government, namely (a) to establish a funded pension fund to the advantage of the councillors and their dependants and to contribute to such a pension fund thus determined; or (b) to establish an unfunded pension scheme in terms of which a pension, gratuity or benefit can be paid to a councillor or his dependants, and to allocate money for this purpose. This Bill is merely enabling legislation which provides certain conditions to be enacted after its passing. The details of these conditions will be worked out in consultation with the parties concerned.

This Bill has been discussed and debated in detail in the standing committee. I personally addressed the standing committee on the Bill about a request by members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates that a clause be included demanding parity in the allowances of members of all local government bodies in defined areas of jurisdiction before the Bill becomes applicable. My point of view was, and still is, that I am in favour of parity for corporate responsibilities and that I agree that the Administrator be requested to investigate the application of this principle in practice. I was furthermore of the opinion that a clear distinction had to be drawn between allowances of councillors which are regulated by the Administrator in terms of other legislation, and those regulated by this Bill which provides for pension funds or pension schemes. We should, in all fairness, address respective issues in the relative legislation and should not refer to the allowances of councillors in this Bill. I shall, however, suggest to the respective Administrators that the issue concerning parity in allowances, as explained, be further investigated.

I am convinced of the necessity of this legislation.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, in principle the CP supports the establishment of pension funds and pension schemes by local authorities. I personally have persistently campaigned at local authority level for pensions for councillors. It is a pity that the Government makes it impossible for us, because of power-sharing politics, to support legislation such as the Bill under discussion.

We have the situation in clause 1 (i) of the Bill that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is at present a White person, needs the consent of coloured Ministers to make conditions for that particular race group for a pension fund or scheme envisaged in terms of clauses 2 or 3. This extension to non-Whites of a say in the matter, as far as the free decision-making of Whites on the highest level in the RSA is concerned, is in principal contrary to CP policy.

That’s it! Tell them, Pikkie!

In the constitutional dispensation advocated by the CP, each people will decide separately, and without subordination to others, about all matters within the boundaries of its own state.

A further disturbing aspect is the fact that according to the guidelines of the Administrator, Coloured and Indian management committees, for example in the Transvaal, receive the same remuneration as White councillors. It is an inequitable dispensation in that such management committees only represent a fraction of the number of voters represented by White councillors. This inequity will be aggravated by the establishment of pension funds and schemes based on the remuneration of councillors and members of these management committees.

A final aspect which is not clear to us, is to what extent the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill make provision for the buying back of pensions or for persons to qualify for pension benefits in terms of service rendered in the past. Without clear restrictions, this is a matter which cannot be agreed to. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to refer to the hon member for Middelburg since we are dealing with this matter first. He referred to a circular from the administrators concerning equal remuneration. The hon member objected to that. I can tell the hon member that the problem that led to there not being consensus among the three Houses on the Bill before this House resulted from the fact that the other two Houses insisted that a clause be inserted into this Bill to the effect that there would be equal remuneration. In fact they told us that those circulars from the administrator were not sufficiently effective to achieve their objective, viz equal remuneration. What the hon member said was not quite correct, therefore.

The NP Government felt that although we were in favour of equal pay for equal work, the insertion of the clause as requested by the other two Houses would not lead to parity; on the contrary, we thought that the implementation and acceptance of the amendment of the other two Houses would lead to disparity in the local government set-up.

That is because you do not understand your local policy.

There were problems… [Interjections.] No, we understand it very well; much better than that hon member does.

Most of the time it does not look as though you understand it.

We thought an investigation should be made to find a basis in terms of which one could measure parity. There are councillors who serve on smaller boards, whereas there are management committees that serve on larger boards or councils. In the same way there are municipal councils and town councils that consist of a number of councillors, and then one has three, four or five management committees which fall under that council. It would be totally unacceptable for all councillors in that geographic area, a local authority’s area of jurisdiction, to receive the same salaries. That is why we on this side of the House requested that this matter be dealt with as a matters of urgency, that it be conveyed to the administrators and that we ask the administrators to consider that and to draw up norms according to which parity can be created.

Local government has always been that tier of government closest to the man in the street. It is the tier of government one experiences directly when one opens one’s eyes in the morning. It is the first thing one experiences when one drinks water, drinks coffee, has a bath and brushes one’s teeth. That is how one experiences local government when one gets up in the morning. That is why it is extremely important that this tier of government be controlled efficiently as well as cost-effectively.

For this purpose we need proper management of the funds of local authorities, as well as proper management of their staff and so on. As a government component it consists of two branches, viz the legislative branch and the executive branch. Naturally they are equally important. The legislator is the councillor. The councillor is the man who has to promulgate the regulations on the third tier of government. The extent of councillors’ obligations—I am referring to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech—has increased tremendously during the past few years, and I venture to predict that with the Government’s policy of devolution of power to the lowest level of government, viz the third tier, the obligations, responsibilities and decision-making of third-tier councillors will increase even more. For that reason it is of cardinal importance that we attract the best people to our town councils, irrespective of where they are—in the rural areas or the city. It does not matter where they find themselves.

Unfortunately, although many demands were made in the past, town councillors were paid very little. This has improved recently. Nevertheless, as yet things are not what one would wish them to be. Unfortunately we experienced the situation in local authorities that many of the councillors—I am not being derogatory towards them at all—served on local authorities only to have something to do in their spare time. That time has passed, however. It is no longer possible to do that. Local authorities deal with budgets involving millions of rands. We must have competent people, therefore, people who are interested and participate actively in the management of their council and of their town, so that we can rely on the necessary contributions being made by elected representatives. That is why it is so important that we make the package involved in third-tier government more attractive to people. We must do so in order to attract them to this level of government. We must make it more attractive for people to participate in local government.

Mr Chairman, I maintain that the legislation under discussion, which it is hoped we shall pass here today, will induce competent people to dedicate themselves even more enthusiastically to the cause of third-tier government. At the same time the legislation also provides for service rendered by people in the past to be taken into account. People who have rendered good service over many years and in difficult circumstances, involving great sacrifices, can now have the opportunity to get a pension as a small compensation for the financial losses they have experienced over the years. There are many, many hon members in this House who previously served on town councils. They are sitting on both sides of this House; members of all the parties in this House. I maintain that everyone who has ever served on a town council is poorer than he was before. It cost everyone money to serve on a town council, a municipal council or whatever kind of council. We speak from experience, Sir.

It is also very important that the legislation provide for various categories of councils. The smaller councils will pay less, therefore, in accordance with their resources. In the same way the larger councils will pay in accordance with their resources. I want to state that by passing this piece of legislation before us, we as a Parliament will be sending a clear message to the third-tier government representatives. If we pass this measure we shall be thanking them for what they have done. We shall also be telling them we have confidence in what they are going to do in future. This Parliament is proud of, and grateful for, what councillors on the third tier of government have done for our country over the years.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by pointing out that in spite of what the hon member for Parow said, I was of the opinion that there was indeed merit in the suggestion by the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in regard to parity. For that reason I regretted that the NP component did not see their way clear to accepting that recommendation. In fact, that in itself might be reason enough not to pass this Bill.

I wish to state here and now that my party’s chief objection to the Bill—I am afraid we cannot support the Bill—is that in spite of what the hon member for Parow said, we do not believe that the creation of a pension scheme especially for councillors is justified.

I must add at once that we have the utmost appreciation for the work councillors do. Our objection is not based on any deficiency in the service these people render to the community. However, this matter must be seen in perspective.

The PFP has adopted the view that this Bill should not be supported, in spite of the fact that some of its own councillors, including councillors serving on the Johannesburg city council, have come out in favour of it. I want to make it very clear to the House that the decision of the PFP caucus not to support this Bill was not taken lightly. It was reached after profound deliberation. We were in consultation with certain councillors, our own as well as others, and we discussed the matter with them. I stress that this decision not to support this Bill was not taken lightly by the PFP.

Allow me to comment briefly on some of the points raised indirectly by the hon member for Parow and also contained in the Second Reading speech. I want to say without hesitation that I associate myself with the opinion expressed on page 3 of the relevant memorandum about there being councillors of local authorities who have already given a lifetime’s service to their councils and who have provided, and are still providing, a selfless service to their communities. However, if we go further, we find the statement—

I must say that unless there is further clarification which does not appear here, and which is not apparent to me, I cannot grasp the connection between the politicisation of council elections and the question of whether or not councillors should be paid pensions. After all, we encounter such politicisation in numerous other contexts. It is not limited to councillors. We even find it in the church and in other bodies. However, that is no reason to resort to the introduction of a pension scheme.

I now quote—I do not want to waste time, but we regard this as an important matter—from page 1:

I was under the impression—I still am—that the establishment of regional services councils had, in fact, reduced the responsibilities and duties of ordinary town councillors. [Interjections.] If I think of all the functions which are being transferred to regional services councils, I cannot reconcile this with the view that they will, in fact, create more work for ordinary town councillors.

Order! There is too much noise in the House. Hon members must converse more softly. The hon member Prof Olivier may proceed.

I merely wish to say that this kind of reasoning is quite unconvincing. Allow me to give another example. On page 2…

Another page?

Yes. If I want to make a point, surely I must be able to back it up with the correct references. On page 2 the following is stated:

In all honesty, this is true in some cases, but not in all. The hon member for Stellenbosch will concede that many academics have served on the Stellenbosch town council, and that to say that they have lagged behind their academic colleagues on account of their council membership really does not hold water. Attorneys and people in other professions often serve on town councils, and my experience is that this can indeed affect them, but I know this does not happen in many cases. It is the generalisation in that statement which is unacceptable to me. In fact, in the following paragraph the hon the Minister himself says:

In other words, it is not a full-time task.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Sitting right next to the hon member I cannot hear him. May I ask you to call for order?

Order! I must again appeal to hon members. Virtually all hon members in the House are engaged in conversation at the moment, and I cannot allow it. I shall have name hon members individually if this continues. The hon member Prof Olivier may proceed.

Let me say immediately that there are some councillors who are virtually fully occupied with council affairs. I agree entirely with the hon member for Parow and others that especially the members of management committees, and their chairmen in particular—one encounters this in the Johannesburg city council—work on a virtually full-time basis. My party and I would have no objection if a pension scheme for those people were to be considered. They are in the service of the council on a virtually full-time basis.

What about the mayor?

I am saying there are individuals, whatever their designations may be, in respect of whom it is probably justified to consider a pension scheme. However, I also know many councillors in many local authorities of whom that is not true. They can by no means be said to be in the service of the town council on a full-time basis. That is not correct. However, this does not detract from my appreciation of the work which they and other people do in town councils.

Basically it is unsound in principle—this does not apply to all councillors—if, when a person is employed by a body which already makes provision for a pension, for example a university, another body also provides for a pension for him. I find it absurd, and in my opinion it opens the door to all sorts of abnormal situations. Voluntary workers might well then say that on the basis of the precedent that Parliament has created here in respect of town councils, they also desire an additional pension from the body for which they work on a voluntary basis.

Don’t be ridiculous.

No, the hon the Minister should not say I am being ridiculous. What opposing argument does he intend to put forward?

Let me go further. My approach may be old-fashioned, but I believe that service on a city council, a town council or wherever—I have already said that I regard those who work on a full-time basis as exceptions—as in other voluntary services and in other contexts in society, can act as a training ground. People undertake these duties voluntarily in order to render a service to society and the community. This is not the only context in which people can provide voluntary service to the community. There are other contexts in which this can be done.

Order! I wish to inform the hon members for Umlazi and Parow that I really cannot allow them to converse so loudly. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I have almost finished. I merely want to add that we have always said that service performed voluntarily on a town council or in other public bodies acts as a training ground for those who aspire to higher public office. The fact that such service to the public—this does not apply to town councils alone—opens doors to higher public office should, in itself, be incentive and reward enough for people to render such voluntary service for the monthly allowance which they receive, without creating the expectation among them that a pension scheme should be established especially for them.

I have tried, in the circumstances, to explain logically why our party has adopted this standpoint. I want to repeat that this does not detract from our appreciation of the work of town councillors, but we feel that in principle we cannot support this Bill as it stands.

Mr Chairman, one could have expected the hon member Prof Olivier to come out against this Bill on behalf of his party, since the hon member indicated in the standing committee that he was opposed, in principle, to pension facilities of this kind being created for councillors.

He presented a number of statements from the Second Reading speech as his actual motivation. It soon emerged, however, upon close analysis of what the hon member had said, that he had a problem with those who may have different service conditions and who render public service. In this connection he referred to Stellenbosch in particular and said that that town council was manned primarily by professors, and that those people received remuneration from elsewhere and received their own pensions from the institutions they worked for in any case. He kept a loophole open, however, by saying that he had no problem with the establishment of a pension fund or scheme for a city council such as the Johannesburg City Council, for example. My problem is this: What happens in the case of a city councillor in Johannesburg who is also a professor at one of those universities? Must he be penalised, in contrast to the other members who would be entitled to such a pension scheme?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that I differentiated between members of a board of management and ordinary councillors?

One is aware of there being certain categories, but at some or other stage a councillor will serve in an executive capacity in a town council. We had a case recently in which one of the people who was mayor there, was also an academic and had certain associations, as is the case as far as the local authorities here in the Cape Province are concerned.

Mention was made of the fact that the politicising of town councils could also contribute to the additional workload of a town councillor.

I think this goes without saying, if one bears in mind that only a small percentage of people normally participate in local government elections. If one were to conduct these elections on the basis of party politics, however, there would be greater participation, which inevitably would broaden the democratic base in respect of that facet of our administration and government.

One must not lose sight of the fact that this piece of legislation is an enabling measure, which enables a local authority to establish such a pension scheme once the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, with the concurrence of certain other Ministers, has laid down certain conditions.

Over the years a need has arisen to remunerate councillors. Initially these people received no remuneration at all. If one is to be consistent in saying that one does this only for the sake of the cause, with a view to eventual promotion in public life—incidentally, according to the hon member’s argument, this would mean that town councillors would all have to be young men, so that they would have an opportunity to aspire to a position in public life—one must add that the need arose for these people to be remunerated because they have to make sacrifices. If one accepts the principle that they can receive remuneration, with the best will in the world, I cannot see how one cannot provide for those people to participate in pension schemes.

Inevitably this provision will also be associated with the remuneration received by these people. If a town council is so convinced in principle of its cause, and associates itself so strongly with the standpoint and the thoughts of the hon member Prof Olivier, that council will decide of its own volition not to participate; not to approach the Minister, therefore, about the establishment of a fund or scheme to provide them with pension benefits.

The hon member Prof Olivier broached another aspect concerning the whole complexity of the parity issue. The hon member tried to dismiss this as merely a simple comparison, as if one could merely say that everyone who did public service in a geographic or juridical area should receive the same remuneration and therefore the same pension, because everyone would be making the same contribution. I do not think the hon member Prof Olivier was listening, however, to what the hon member for Parow said when he indicated the complexity of this parity aspect.

The general idea is that this side of the House has no objection to parity, as long as we merely compare comparables, and not non-comparables. Quite a complex process is involved in doing so. The hon member for Parow broached certain components and said, for example, that one would be able to have a small management committee in a large town council, because perhaps those communities would be small. In contrast, just to make matters worse, there is the problem of cases in which the other communities have an economically active share in what takes place in a White municipality or local management area, and ultimately that must also be taken into account in the process in order to determine which aspects must be compared.

I think that in a certain sense the hon member Prof Olivier was assuming a somewhat wilful stand when he tried to oppose this Bill in terms of the additional arguments he put forward. He is primarily concerned with two components. He would like to see parity being maintained according to his interpretation, viz irrespective of the complications that may exist. In the second place he is, in fact, opposed to the idea of paying a pension to members who render selfless service in public life and do otherwise not get the necessary recognition. In this century in which we are living, he actually still expects people to render this enormous charitable service. On behalf of this side of the House, Mr Chairman, I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is with some sadness that I take the floor to express my regret at the PFP decision not to support the principle of the legislation, because if there is one party which should know full well how true it is that ex-councillors should receive pensions, it is surely the PFP. It is with some sadness that I take the floor to say that my prediction in the discussion of the Defence Vote, namely that the hon members for Greytown and Durban Central would quit the PFP, has been fulfilled today. [Interjections.] As we are now considering pensions for ex-councillors—while the PFP is finally disintegrating—I utter these few words with an emotion of sympathy.

Order! I just want to rule that the hon member for False Bay cannot continue his discussion of this Bill in this vein.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to the hon members for Parow and Port Elizabeth North, on this side of the House, who have replied to objections raised by the hon member for Middelburg, on behalf of the CP, and the hon member Prof Olivier, on behalf of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Since a pension fund is being established for councillors, I sat and reminisced, while the hon member for Port Elizabeth North was talking, about the first election in which I participated in Port Elizabeth in 1966. Unfortunately I lost that city council election in Port Elizabeth. If only I had won at the time, my qualifications for a pension would have been much better.

I should like to tell the hon member for Middelburg…

Order! The hon member for Nelspruit is talking so loudly that I can hear him here. I really want to appeal to the hon member to talk less in the House.

I want to tell the hon member for Middelburg that the agreement of the respective Ministers is necessary, because the finances of the respective communities within a local authority’s particular area of jurisdiction cannot be completely divorced in practice. That is the real situation at present. In addition, the pensions concern councillors of all population groups, and it is important, therefore, for this reality to be recognised in the Act. We cannot escape this fact. We have to recognise this in the Act as embodied in the Bill.

As far as equal remuneration is concerned, I must inform the hon member for Middelburg…

Order! The hon members for Overvaal and Soutpansberg must come to order now.

… that the allowances that are being paid have been investigated, over a very long period, by subcommittees of the Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs. It has been my privilege to attend almost all the meetings of the council to date, and I can attest to the thorough work done by the committees, and especially to the attention that was given to this specific matter, viz the establishment of a pension fund for members of local authorities.

The Co-ordinating Council sent out many circulars in connection with this matter and unanimously accepted the result of this investigation. In practice this means that the United Municipal Executive, the official mouthpiece of White local government, supported the matter without reservation. To tell the truth, I am reminded of a meeting of the Co-ordinating Council in Boksburg, at which I acted as chairman. On that occasion the local authorities very strongly advocated the establishment of this pension fund.

I should like to emphasise that grants and pensions should not be confused with one another. I think we would be making a big mistake if we did that. This was also the standpoint we consistently adopted in the Co-ordinating Council, that these two aspects should not be confused with each other. They are two completely different matters. Grants are not regulated in this Bill. The Bill only creates the authorisation for the establishment of a pension fund. Since a grant is already being paid, this legislation is authorising the establishment of a pension fund.

The hon member Prof Olivier said his party could not support the establishment of a pension fund. As the hon member knows, the office of councillor is a public office, which has become an extremely time-consuming matter, particularly in the larger cities. I think the hon member for Parow referred to this, emphasising it in an exceptionally effective way. I am sure we all greatly appreciate the work done by councillors. The establishment of regional services councils has increased this burden even more, because these councillors have to serve on those councils as well.

As the hon member for Port Elizabeth North said, the legislation is merely enabling legislation. This means that there will not be a pension fund for everyone and that a pension fund will not be established everywhere. This does not mean that a pension fund is being or should be made absolutely compulsory. It merely means that a pension fund can now be established.

The fact that a regional services council is made up of town councillors—I want to repeat that—emphasises the greater responsibility of town councillors. The establishment of regional services councils cannot mean, therefore, that a councillor will have less work to do or that he must spend less time on council matters.

I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that at present it is not possible to establish a pension fund even for those councillors who, in the opinion of the hon member, can lay claim one. The legislation will make it possible for those people who can lay claim to a pension fund to obtain one. All councillors are not necessarily elected at government level, as the hon member claimed. There are councillors who serve on a council for many years and are very dedicated in dealing with local affairs. They go no further in public life, but are prepared to serve on that council.

One must also remember that the legislation is applicable to all council members, including the council members of local authorities for Blacks. I have spoken to many of these members, and it is not only their time that is at stake, but often, as we know, their lives. Nevertheless, they are prepared to serve their community.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Parow for a clear explanation of the matter of parity. He spoke about the work that is done at the third tier of government. I believe that all of us want to pay tribute to those men and women.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the Second Reading speech and said it was being said here that there was politicisation. He then said that we found that in the Church today as well. I hope the synod will not be asked to establish pension funds for elders and deacons as well.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who took part in the debate for their support. I want to conclude by reiterating that the establishment of this pension fund is a matter that has been discussed for many years. The Transvaal Municipal Association decided unanimously, as early as 1964, to recommend a pension fund for municipal councillors. We have moved 23 years further, and today we have reached the point at which we can establish this pension fund.

I am sorry that consensus was not reached in the standing committee. There was absolute consensus about this matter in the Coordinating Council.

I thank the standing committee for the work it did, however. I believe the establishment of this pension fund will also mean that people will serve the community with great dedication in the future.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Earlier this year section 316 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Act was amended so that a petition, wherein application is made for leave to appeal in a criminal case, may be considered by two judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, instead of three judges. Provision was also made, in the case of a difference of opinion between the two judges, for the Chief Justice or another judge of the Appellate Division designated by him, to consider the petition, whereafter the decision of the majority of the three judges would be decisive. This amendment was promoted so as to alleviate the work-load of the Judges of Appeal. The consideration of petitions for leave to appeal in respect of civil cases apparently takes up even more of the time of the Judges of Appeal than that in respect of criminal cases. In terms of section 21 (3) (b) three Judges of Appeal must also consider such petitions.

In order to ease the work-load of Judges of Appeal even further, provision is made in clause 1 for the petitions in question to be considered by two judges of the Appellate Division as well. In the event of a difference of opinion, the Chief Justice or another judge of the Appellate Division designated by the Chief Justice, is involved in the process. As the Act reads at present, the decision of the majority of the judges will be final.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, by means of this Bill the Department of Justice is setting an example of productivity as well as time-saving and labour-saving. A single clause enables two judges, in a large percentage of cases, to do the work previously done by three judges. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he could not hand a copy of this Bill to the hon the Minister of Manpower sitting next to him so that he can see how the Department of Justice in fact achieves economy of labour.

He does other good things!

It is an exceptional privilege to support this Bill on behalf of my party.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me, too, to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House. I want to tell the hon member for Bethal that I am of the opinion that the hon the Minister of Manpower does good work and that we are very productive in that department as well.

It is also interesting to note that previously—before this legislation was on the Statute Book—it was stipulated that one could address a petition to one judge. At the time this was changed to three judges, for some reason, and I think it is a very good thing that we are able to grant approval today for this to be changed once again to only two judges. I agree with the hon member for Bethal that this is a very significant step, because it is simply impossible to appoint judges where there is a high work load. The standard of the bench is too important for that. I am therefore of the opinion that one should, for the sake of efficient judgements from the bench, consider more streamlined methods in order to alleviate the work load of the bench so that the pressure on the good judiciary of South Africa may also be alleviated.

I think that the hon the Minister would do well to examine the system adopted in America, where there is a relatively small appellate division but where researchers are often used to assist judges in their tasks. It is a pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP, which I think is a party that can claim expertise in the saving of manpower, I support the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support. The hon member for Bethal holds out the Department of Justice as an example to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower, but he is in fact very inventive, as the hon member for Swellendam said, and can keep a large number of people busy and train them to do the work, as he has already shown in practice. [Interjections.] When it was expected of him to engage the CP, he acquitted himself very well of his task in Lydenburg. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Swellendam put a stimulating idea to us, namely to see how the Americans do it. I think that the Americans would do well to come and see how we do it. I do not wish to stray from the point, but the way they have their judges investigated politically before they are appointed is really, in my opinion, extremely inappropriate for a country that makes such a fuss about the rule of law. I am prepared to examine a system if we can learn from that system, but not in every respect.

There is a good reason why our system is what it is, and I shall inform the hon member why we have moved away from the rule and why three judges instead of one read the petition. The reason is quite simple. It is a tremendously important task to decide whether a man will appeal or not, particularly when it is a matter of capital crimes and a man’s life. Instead of its depending on a single judge whether a man’s appeal will be heard or not, we felt that this was so important that three judges should decide on the matter.

By perusing statistics, and on the basis of our own experience, we concluded that if two judges reached a conclusion, that would be as good as having two out of three judges reaching the conclusion. Why then should one create the situation involving three judges if two already form a majority? Only when the two judges differ is a third required. The Chief Justice decides whether he himself will be the man or whether he will designate someone else in this regard.

I conclude that we are not going to adjourn, and therefore I wish to proceed to react positively to the hon member for Swellendam. While on the one hand I gave him something of a lecture, on the other I want to pat him on the back for having told us that we must give the matter serious thought. He is quite correct.

Something very interesting is developing. In 1985-86 there were 325 applications for leave to appeal. Only 75 were granted, while 243 were refused. Those who practice as lawyers will know that the documents on which this is based are very impressive. Although they are based on a petition in which the basic reasons for the appeal have to be set out, with the necessary references to background information, it is also true that this requires a tremendous amount of reading work on the part of the appeal judges involved. While the tendency is to sift through the applications so that only those which are entitled to go to the appeal court can do so, nevertheless a large number are refused.

The question now arises: Is it an indication of labour-saving that so many judges are in any event involved in a case which is eventually turned down? On the one hand we have the right of every person to state his case in the highest court. The right of access to the highest court is a basic right that we cannot overlook. On the other hand there is this trend. I ask whether there is not a tendency for people to be too quick to appeal. Here I am not referring to criminal cases or capital cases, but to other types of case. I ask whether we should not take another look at whether our screening process is stringent enough.

We have already made it possible to appeal to a full bench against the judgement of a single judge. In this way we are already dealing with a substantial number of appeals which would otherwise have had to go to the Appeal Court. Therefore we have already, to some extent, alleviated the pressure on the Appeal Court. The question is whether we should not take another look at the stringency of this screening process. Therefore I wish to pat the hon member for Swellendam on the back and tell him that he has moved us to say that there is a point that we must take note of.

Furthermore I just wish to say something about what we are engaged in doing. We are systematically rationalising our legal processes, if this means that we are utilising our work force economically while ensuring that every person can have his case heard in court and can have access to the highest court. If we can succeed in this way in giving every person the assurance that if an injustice is done to him or her, his case will be heard up to the highest court, then we shall be achieving legal certainty in South Africa—irrespective of a person’s colour. This ought to be our ideal. At the same time our rationalisation processes must be aimed at ensuring that no one can use our system of law against us. This is a facet that we must seriously consider in these times.

Are there people who misuse our system, or are there not? At this stage I am under the impression that a trend is developing to use our system to break down the system itself, because our system of law stands in the way of those who want to bring South Africa to its knees. We know that, and that is why I thank hon members for being sensitive to this and streamlining the system, because only a streamlined system can stand up against such an onslaught.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill now under consideration provides for the establishment of a Land Affairs Board. The board will have several functions, the most important being the determination of the amounts of compensation payable when immovable property is expropriated, purchased or leased by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. One of the functions of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is to acquire immovable property for the purposes of general state departments. This function entails the expropriation, purchase or lease of land and buildings for purposes which can be widely divergent, for instance from the acquisition of land for building of a State dam to the leasing of offices and living accommodation for personnel.

*These functions are at present being performed by the Community Development Board established in terms of the Community Development Act, 1966. The Community Development Board, however, also performed other functions which are now administered by own affairs administrations in terms of own legislation. The time is therefore ripe to consolidate, in a separate law, the only remaining functions of the Community Development Board, namely its function of determining the compensation payable when land is expropriated, purchased or leased for State purposes and its function of providing a similar advisory service to other State departments, statutory bodies and juristic persons. The Bill under consideration will fulfil this need.

The Bill provides, in the first instance, for the establishment of a board consisting of not more than five members, but allowance is made for the Minister to appoint one or more persons in the employment of the State to serve on the board. I have already dealt with the functions of the board and may just add that this body will have a responsible and difficult task to perform. The board will be have a heavy responsibility to the public to ensure that reasonable and just compensation is paid when the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs acquires property for the State. Likewise the board will be responsible to the taxpayer to ensure that the compensation paid does not exceed what is fair and reasonable in all respects. This also applies to the advisory service which will be rendered to other persons or bodies in regard to compensation. Care will therefore be taken to ensure that persons with proven experience and knowledge in the field of property valuations are appointed to the board.

†The Bill also contains certain provisions in clauses 12 and 13 which are necessary to ensure the transition from the Community Development Act, 1966, to the new Land Affairs Act.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports, in principle, the establishment of a Land Affairs Board to determine the amounts of compensation, purchase prices or rents in regard to immovable property expropriated, purchased or leased for public purposes by the State and to serve in an advisory capacity with regard to the value of land, rights to or in respect of land and purchase prices or rents in regard to certain immovable property for other departments of State, statutory bodies or bodies corporate. The Official Opposition supports the appointment of experts to such a board as well as the disqualifications for a member of the board, as set out in clause 4. We also support the remuneration and allowances of members of the board, as set out in clause 5. Nor do we have problems with the executive committee as proposed in clause 7 or the provisions in clause 8 that provide for the order of meetings of the board.

In particular we support clause 8 (1), in terms of which persons who have a direct or indirect financial interest in a matter before the board may not be present at or participate in the discussion of or vote on such a matter. Accordingly we support the prohibition on the receipt of any fee or reward by members of the board, in terms of clause 9, and the secrecy imposed on members of the board in terms of clause 10.

However, the Official Opposition opposes this Bill because in terms of clause 3 the Land Affairs Board must, in principle, include people recommended by all three Houses. This is institutionalised integration which is being imposed by the general Minister of Public Works after consultation with the three own affairs Ministers.

The amendment to the initial Bill effected by the standing committee specifically illustrates the NP’s dilemma. Initially the Bill only made provision for the appointment of the members of the board by the general Minister of Public Works. In terms of the amendment the general Minister must make the appointments after consultation with the three own affairs Ministers.

This is once again the old logic of the NP, namely self-determination through integration, or if one does not like that, then integration through self-determination. This is a weak effort by the NP to create the impression that the right to self-determination of the Whites is recognised in this important field of State administration. It is an effort to conceal or camouflage the true state of affairs.

It is ironic that it was the Coloureds and the Indians who asked, in the standing committee, for the general Minister to consult with their Ministers before these appointments to the Board were made. Nor is there anything remarkable about that, since it is the dilemma of a policy that pretends that equal participation and equal opportunities are afforded to all inhabitants of one undivided South Africa, irrespective of race, colour, creed, sex or ethnic ties.

Clearly, what we have here is a case in which the Coloureds and the Indians are insisting on representation on the board purely on the basis of their race and ethnic links. Why not, then, go the whole hog and establish an own land affairs board for the Coloureds, with jurisdiction in the Coloured area, within an own Coloured political system? Why not go the whole hog and establish an own land affairs board for the Indians, with jurisdiction over the Indians within their own political system and their own territory? Help is not excluded in this process. Mutual interaction, mutual advice, is not excluded in the process.

No, Sir, the NP approaches this Parliament with legislation proposed by the general Minister of Public Works, so-called “colourless” legislation in which provision is not made for the own White needs, the own Coloured needs and the own Indian needs. In the standing committee the Indians and the Coloureds come forward and insist, purely on the basis of their race and ethnic ties, on recognition of their needs for representation of their people on that board.

The alternative put forward by the CP is an own political order in an own territory for each of the White, Coloured, Indian and Black peoples, where each has authority over itself without interference from any of the other groups and in which each establishes its own land affairs boards if it so wishes, without the other population groups having any say in that regard or being able to intervene in the determining or otherwise of such a need, and they alone, and without any interference, appoint the people to those boards from their own ranks in order to make provision for all those matters to which I initially referred and which we support in principle.

The obsession of the NP with making integration work, despite its lack of reality, despite its being so inappropriate and in conflict with the existing realities, prompts them to combine and mix to such an extent, in an effort to equalise the inequality, to deny the differences and their own needs and values and to make of all of us in this country colourless people, when that is not what we are.

We cannot support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is astonishing to encounter once again, in regard to such an ordinary, technical piece of legislation, the pettiness of an Official Opposition that is blind to the realities of the country. [Interjections.] It is a pity to have to refer, at this late hour of this session of Parliament to the hon member for Potgietersrus and to tell him that he is still a small man in years and stature and that we can only hope that his eyes will open one day. [Interjections.]

You always descend to the personal level. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, it is quite clear to me…

Order! It is a cause of concern to me that an hon member of this House should be called “small”. I think the hon member for Caledon should withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

I can understand that, Sir. That hon member came to this Parliament only the other day, and apparently he is not yet acquainted with legislation passed in this House of Assembly in 1985 to deal with this very problem to which he referred. That hon member is apparently unaware that the Community Development Act, 1966, has become largely superfluous because the own affairs administrations of this Parliament have taken over the functions of that board. Apparently he is unaware that in 1985 this House of Assembly passed Act 103 to regulate these land affairs.

Order! I regret that I must interrupt the hon member.

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

Order! No, I regret that it is now time to suspend proceedings.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended this evening the hon member for Potgietersrus made the statement that this side of the House was engaged in—the words he used, were that it was a concealment…

That is not correct. I wanted to ask you a question when proceedings were suspended.

The hon member said that by means of this legislation we were concealing and camouflaging integration. Now I want to say to the hon member that the provisions of this Bill are very clear. They are obvious.

Obvious integration!

Nothing is being camouflaged here; nothing is concealed here. What is happening here is the open and obvious… [Interjections]… sharing of responsibility. What the hon member is so afraid of is obvious, clear power-sharing in terms of the policy of this side of the House. [Interjections.] An interesting point is…

Order! If we begin this way just after 20h00, I do not know whether we shall end by midnight tonight. Hon members must please contain themselves. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the interesting point is that section 13 of this Act refers to the Community Development Board…

Clause! Bill!

Order! My ruling applies to the hon member for Potgietersrus as well. The hon member may proceed.

Clause 13 refers to the Community Development Board. Now, hon members are aware that the Community Development Board was a board consisting of Whites only. That board also pronounces on and concerns itself with the affairs of the Coloured, Indian and Black communities. The hon member for Potgietersrus wants this dispensation to continue. That is why he is opposed to this legislation. In other words, this hon member and his party are merely confirming once again that they are in favour of the domination by Whites of all the other groups in this country. That is what this amounts to. [Interjections.]

What is also interesting is that the hon member for Potgietersrus is a member of the standing committee. In the standing committee this hon member did not utter a single word about his problems in connection with this legislation—not a word. Now he comes to this House and expresses this opinion. Surely it is very easy to be brave at a safe distance. The question is why the hon member did not state his viewpoint in the standing committee—in view of and in the presence of Indians and Coloureds. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, are hon members of the NP entitled to refer to the hon member for Potgietersrus as an “old sissy”? [Interjections.]

Order! Who said that?

Mr Chairman…

Order! What does the hon member mean by that? If he does not know, he should rather withdraw it. [Interjections.] He has withdrawn it. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, while the point of order was being raised, another hon member of the NP said the same.

Order! Who is the hon member who repeated it? I do not know. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting this legislation because it makes provision for disposal of…

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

Order! Is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir. I am not prepared to answer a question.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting this legislation because it is in accord with this side of the House…

Who is the coward now?

Order! What does the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis mean by that question?

Mr Chairman, one of the hon members opposite pointed a finger at the hon member for Potgietersrus and said that he was a coward.

Order! No, the hon member must simply withdraw it. That is all.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, it is remarkable that the hon members are so eloquent here, but lack the courage of their convictions to do so in the standing committee.

Tell them, Lampie!

I take pleasure in supporting this legislation, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must say that I have a certain sympathy with the hon member for Caledon when he refers to the attitude expressed by the party on our extreme right, because I believe that the speech delivered by the hon member for Potgietersrus was a travesty of what in fact this Bill is all about, and we certainly did not hear anything about it in the standing committee.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we are not going to oppose this Bill, although somewhat grudgingly because we are not totally satisfied with the content of the Bill. As we know, this Bill repeals the whole of the Community Development Act except section 51 (b) which provides for the various own development and housing boards. This is where I find it very strange that the hon member for Potgietersrus took the line which he in fact did, because this Bill goes much too far in providing for separation with regard to housing and development matters. This, from our point of the spectrum, is not what we desire at all. In order to create a body to handle the non-controversial aspects of the old Community Development Board, this Bill seeks to establish this Land Affairs Board, and we really can have no basic quarrel with this.

We have certain dislikes as far as the make-up of the board itself is concerned. As we know, the hon the Minister has the power to appoint members of the board. I believe that we should specify that some members of the board should come from names submitted by the SA Council of Valuers. After all, this is a board, supposedly of experts who are going to value property, and surely the SA Council of Valuers is the council that should provide this expertise. Provision is made for the payment of these members of the board and when it is totally within ministerial jurisdiction as to who they shall be, the danger of nepotism always exists.

All in all it is not a Bill that we go along with to any great extent, because we believe it entrenches the whole idea of own affairs. We cannot, however, take strong exception to it and we will vote for the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place we should like to convey our thanks to the old Community Development Board, which is now being phased out, for the work it has done up to this stage.

To begin with I want to say that this Bill envisages the appointment of a board consisting of highly skilled people. Provision is also made for this board to be able to co-opt other experts when they require such people for a specific purpose. At present the State has in its possession a great deal of State land that could be well be alienated and productively utilised. Therefore it is necessary for us to ensure that this land which is to be alienated, is realistically valued. It is also important, in this regard, for these values to be related to existing market prices and for this board also to bear in mind that it is dealing with taxpayers’ money. Therefore, where the State purchases land it must ensure that prices are paid that are not much higher than the market prices.

On the other hand this board should also ensure that when land is purchased from people, particularly when it is a matter of compulsory expropriation, the people in question will not be worse off and that they receive their rightful compensation.

Then, too, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the hon members who participated in the discussion. I thank the hon member for Caledon for his sober approach and his analysis of the measure and the purpose of the relevant amendment. I also wish to thank him for the way he disposed of the hon member for Potgietersrus, and for the contribution he made during the proceedings of the standing committee.

†The hon member for Bryanston made a short but very meaningful contribution, for which I want to thank him. I also thank him for supporting this measure.

*The hon member for Potgietersrus must please just realise that it is unnecessary for the Official Opposition to distinguish itself by only levelling criticism. Indeed, the fact that the CP is now the Official Opposition signifies that those hon members are now subject to the duty of making a positive contribution in this country and to the administration of South Africa…

That is exactly what we are doing!

… and not merely criticising for the sake of doing so. [Interjections.] The hon member began very well, as he has done in some of his previous speeches. When it came to the first obstacle that the hon member had to surmount, he stumbled and fell. Unfortunately he has continued to stagger around in the mud—the political mud, of course. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Potgietersrus referred to clause 3 (1) of the Bill. Reference is made in that clause to consultation. This does not mean that the Minister is bound by those with whom he has consulted with a view to appointing them. On the other hand…

Mr Chairman, do the words that the hon the Deputy Minister has just uttered mean that despite his consultation with the own affairs Ministers of the other Houses, he will not take their wishes into account by appointing their people to the board?

Stupid question!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member would just give me the chance to develop my argument, I shall deal with that point. [Interjections.] The statement I do, in fact, want to make is that the issue here is, after all, not one of compartmentalising people in accordance with their colour. After all, we are looking for experts. We are not dealing now with a cultural organisation in which one wishes to bring people of specific groups and cultures together. [Interjections.) We are looking for skilled people who will be able to apply scientific judgement. That is what is at issue here. [Interjections.]

Such people are certainly not CPs! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with a general affairs body and, moreover, there is nothing wrong with members of other population groups also making specific contributions so that there may be uniformity with regard to the valuation of properties that also belong to members of other population groups. [Interjections.] Our old National Housing Committee also consisted of members of all population groups for, I think, 20 years. Did that bother the hon member? I am sure the hon member was not even aware of it. [Interjections.] No, Sir, that hon member was merely making yet another attempt to put a spoke in the wheel of our sound administration of this country. [Interjections.]

I thank all the other hon members who made positive contributions to this discussion.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Since the commencement of the principal Act about 40 years ago the practice has been followed of requiring an unemployed contributor, who has received 26 weeks’ benefits in a period of up to 52 consecutive weeks, to submit a new application for benefits at the commencement of the subsequent period of 52 weeks if he wants to claim further benefits and if he still has credits.

Because doubts had been expressed on the correctness of this interpretation of section 34(5), the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for legal advice. The legal opinion indicates that at the commencement of a subsequent period of 52 weeks an unemployed contributor is not required to submit a new application for benefits. The implications of this are that an unemployed contributor is automatically entitled to the payment of a further 26 weeks’ benefits in a subsequent cycle, or until such time as his credits are exhausted.

Such an approach will severely hamper the control which is exercised to ensure that an unemployed contributor, at the commencement of a subsequent period of 52 weeks, still meets the requirements of the Act, for example that he is unemployed, capable of working and available for work in order to qualify for benefits again.

Owing to the many thousands of beneficiaries involved, seen from an administrative angle it would be an impossible task for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, if one had to operate in this way, to determine which beneficiaries who have already drawn 26 weeks’ benefits, are still unemployed at the beginning of a second cycle and desire the payment of further benefits.

This would place a heavy, unforeseen burden on the fund, as well as the obligation of tracing such beneficiaries after six months if they have not applied for extended benefits, which would be difficult to execute, particularly if they have changed their addresses.

The purpose of the amendment envisaged in clause 1 is to change the de facto position into a statutory requirement. Whereas an unemployment register had originally to be signed weekly, it now has to be signed only once a month, and payments are made by cheque and no longer in cash, because of the logistics involved in the drastic increase in the number of beneficiaries.

As the House is aware, for the past few years payments have been computerised, and between R32 and R34 million is being paid out to 115 000 beneficiaries per month, which payments, in the case of ordinary benefits, are made against a signature in the unemployment insurance register.

Because of the longer time between signing days it is particularly important, where there is a failure to sign the register and a signing day is missed, to determine afresh in such cases that all the qualifying requirements of the Act are still being complied with, inter alia by ensuring that the beneficiary was continuously unemployed. The drawing of benefits by an individual who was employed during that same period is therefore also averted.

In individual cases where an unemployed contributor, for acceptable reasons such as illness, is prevented from reporting at the place and time determined by a claims officer, the claims officer may accept satisfactory proof that the contributor was in fact unemployed and capable of working and available for work. In such cases it will not be necessary to submit a new application for benefits.

The claims officer’s decision is, of course, subject to appeal to the Unemployment Benefit Committee and ultimately to the Unemployment Insurance Board. In essence the reason for the amendment, as contained in clause 2, is to endeavour to keep a stricter check on back payments.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the amending Bill under discussion.

That cannot be! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the amendment…

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Heilbron’s voice carries very well. I should appreciate it if he would lower his voice. Perhaps there are other hon members in his vicinity whose voices are also too loud. I should like to listen to the hon member for Carletonville. I should therefore like to ask the hon member for Brentwood to lower his voice as well. The hon member for Carletonville may proceed.

The amendments in this Bill are merely aimed at bringing the legislation into line with what has been applied in practice for the past few decades. [Interjections.]

Order! Who made those remarks? Are we going to wait all night until the hon member tells us who it was? [Interjections.] It is a great pity that I do not have hon members’ co-operation. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as I said, this amending Bill is merely bringing the legislation into line with what has been applied in practice for the past three decades. This means that when someone applies for unemployment compensation, he again has to apply once his six months have expired. As I said, this was applied in practice and the Act was not very clear. The Act should always be drawn up in such a way that it can be interpreted correctly by anyone. We recently had a case in which an Act was incorrectly interpreted by the hon member for Langlaagte. He had to come and apologise shamefacedly the following day, after attacks had been made.

I was not ashamed! I was merely being honest! [Interjections.]

That is why we feel that this amendment should be drawn up in such a way that it is always open to interpretation.

This hon Minister of Justice complimented the hon the Minister of Manpower on his productivity. I want to address a friendly request to the hon the Minister of Manpower tonight. Lesser amendments were made to this Act a few weeks ago. If his department had introduced all these amendments then, we would have saved not only man-hours, but a number of man-days. I want to appeal to him to have his department examine the Act; if there are more rectifications, let us rectify the Act once and for all so that it can be in order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville was trying to get a little dig at the hon the Minister. I think it is only fair, however, to mention that a number of organisations actually control this fund. The Department of Manpower merely administers it. Those organisations—there is a long list of them in the memorandum to this Bill—were consulted, and it is very important that in most cases those are the organisations which come back to the department requesting amendments. I merely wanted to rectify the matter.

It is also very important that anyone who feels aggrieved as a result of the implementation of this Act has a right to appeal in any case.

I am sorry I have made such a long speech. I really merely wanted to say that I seconded the motion on behalf of this side of the House—but I did want to rectify a few facts.

On behalf of this side of the House we support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will support the Bill. [Interjections.] I should, however, just like to express concern in respect of one point.

The first clause is intended to insert a new subsection (10) in section 34. Subsection (10) (a) reads that:

I sincerely hope that this clause will not be interpreted in a strict, peremptory fashion so as to preclude claims for benefits where there has not been strict compliance with the Act. We do know that there are a great many cases in our courts where, because of failure to comply with the provisions of an Act such as, for instance, the Motor Vehicle Assurance Act, people who would otherwise be entitled to legitimate benefits, fail in their claim because of non-compliance with the strict provisions of the law. I think that the whole intention of this legislation is to accommodate people where they need unemployment benefits, and I sincerely hope that in the application of this law, this clause which is now being introduced will be interpreted by the courts not in a peremptory, but rather in a directory manner. With these words we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members who participated in this debate for their participation and support.

I just want to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that he need not be concerned that this measure is being enforced in an unsympathetic manner. In each case of an application for benefits being refused, the applicant has the right to appeal to the support committee, and if it does not deal with the matter to his satisfaction, he can also appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Board. The whole spirit in which the law is being implemented is, however, one of sympathy with the unemployed.

I also want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein and the hon member for Carletonville for their contributions. With that, I conclude.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

During May 1982 I requested the South African Law Commission to investigate the procedure relating to the reporting of rape cases and the medical-forensic aspects of rape. This request emanated from, inter alia, written questions which were put to me in the House of Assembly and from newspaper reports regarding the trauma which rape victims experience, the stigma which is sometimes attached to them, and the humiliation which the giving of evidence in public entails.

In its investigations into women and sexual offences in South Africa, the commission also considered related offences such as indecent assault. The investigation also absorbed a related investigation by the then Permanent Criminal Reform Committee, which was to have given particular attention to the protection of a rape victim against publicity and against cross-examination about her sexual history.

The proposals contained in the Bill emanate from the commission’s report which was tabled on 28 May 1985. In its report the commission recommended certain amendments to existing legislation and reforms to the South African common law regarding sexual offences. As I have already indicated on a previous occasion this year in the House of Assembly, certain were recommendations made by the commission, the most important being that a man may be prosecuted for raping his wife, in which regard the Government cannot give its unqualified support. On the other hand, these proposals cannot be totally rejected. These proposals have consequently already been referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for consideration in the form of the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill of 1987.

The proposals contained in the present Bill are, however, supported by the Government and the opinion is held that this Bill in itself will contribute to a large extent to the relief of the rape victim’s trauma. It is consequently being recommended that these proposals not be delayed but that they be promoted now. The Standing Committee on Justice dealt with these proposals expeditiously and for this I thank them.

In brief, the proposals amount to the following: Firstly, in our law the existence of an irrebuttable presumption is accepted, namely that a boy under the age of 14 years is not capable of having sexual intercourse and can therefore never be convicted of rape. The commission concludes that this acceptance is a mere fiction which is also apparent from evidence before our courts. In addition to other objections the commission is also of the opinion that an arbitrary and irrebuttable determination of an age regarding a person’s physical maturity is achaic and can give rise to a potentially serious miscarriage of justice. In the light of said criticism which was accepted by all interested parties the commission recommends that this presumption be abolished by the legislature. Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to this recommendation.

Secondly, the commission also found that the protection presently afforded to a complainant during a trial by means of an in camera trial is inadequate. Only when the court has made an order in terms of section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act for an in camera trial, does the complainant enjoy that protection. Such an order may only be given on application and the court does not have a free discretion to do this. The commission consequently recommends that provision be made by means of legislation for the automatic hearing of the complainant’s evidence in camera unless she prefers otherwise.

Thirdly, section 154 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, at present only offers a limited degree of protection to a small number of rape victims against the publication of their identity. With the exception of this limited protection, the Press is not obliged to withhold the identity of the complainant who reports a rape. Interested parties are unanimous that the disclosure of the complainant’s identity, besides the incident itself, is responsible for the worst trauma. The interpretation which a provincial division of the Supreme Court has given to the provisions of section 154 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act has the effect that publication of information regarding the charge in question is indeed prohibited before the appearance of an accused in court. This, however, only applies after a charge has been formulated against a specific person. From the time the rape itself occurred until a specific person is singled out for a specific charge, the complainant is unprotected against the publication of her identity. This obviously is a shortcoming. According to the commission this interpretation is not compatible with the intention that the victim be protected against the embarrassment of disclosure.

The commission accordingly recommends that the section be so amended as to prohibit publication with effect from the time of the offence until publication is prohibited in terms of section 154 (2) unless a magistrate, on application in chambers, authorises such publication, with due regard to the victim’s wishes. Clause 4 gives effect to this recommendation.

Mr Chairman, I trust that the latter amendment especially will contribute considerably to the relief of the trauma of victims of sexual offences; that it will have the effect that more of these offences will be reported and the offenders brought to book. Generally speaking, it will contribute to the combating of these reprehensible crimes.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to support this Bill on behalf of the CP.

The first clause deals with the irrebuttable presumption that existed in law that a boy under the age of 14 years was incapable of committing certain sexual offences. This presumption is being done away with. The facts of the matter will be considered in the future and if there is proof that such a boy is capable of such sexual offence, he will be just as guilty—the mitigating implications of his youth taken into account—as any other person. This clause is not the important clause of this Bill, however.

The next clause deals with the protection of people, especially complainants who have been subjected to sexual assault. This kind of case is always sensitive to everyone concerned and, with all due respect to lawyers, those people were not always treated with the necessary sympathy. Questions put to them under cross-examination were sometimes made public in the Press. In addition there was no protection from the date on which the incident had taken place until an accused had been identified. The Bill is rectifying this, and we are grateful for the protection this Bill will provide in this respect. We hope that it will also contribute to bringing to book and convicting those who are guilty of the despicable crime of raping women and sometimes older people.

We should like to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to thank the hon member for Bethal, on behalf of this side of the House, for his support of this Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition.

During its investigation into women and sexual offences, the South African Law Commission gave consideration to the irrebuttable presumption that boys under the age of 14 years were incapable of sexual intercourse. This irrebuttable presumption is based on a fiction and not on reality, however. As a result one cannot ensure that the principle of fair play and justice is applied throughout. Boys under the age of 14 years who are involved in incidents of rape, get away with it, thus making a farce of the law. The Law Commission has declared itself opposed to this and has quoted various decided cases to prove that this rule has undesirable consequences. Although clause 1 does away with the irrebuttable presumption, it remains a precondition that such a boy must be culpable and punishable for his act, and the State has to prove his culpability in such prosecutions.

The State therefore not only has to prove sexual intercourse, but also that the boy knew he was doing wrong. These amendments, as proposed in clause 1, bring both criminal and private law into line with reality. It will also be possible, in future, to hold such a boy accountable for compensation or maintenance, for example.

A second aspect that is addressed in the amending Bill involves measures to protect complainants, in rape cases and other cases of a sexual nature, from the disclosure of their identities. Apart from the criminal offence, an act of rape threatens or destroys all aspects of so-called personal rights. These include the physical integrity, good name, emotional life, privacy and identity of the victims. Complainants’ greatest problem in the hearing of rape cases is that they have to give evidence in public about an event or experience which they would be hesitant about discussing even with their best friends. The principle that, with certain exceptions, court proceedings have to take place in public, is embodied in a number of laws. Section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act contains the exceptions in terms of which the judicial officer is permitted to determine whether or not court proceedings should take place in an open court, whereas section 154 of the Act grants the court discretion to give certain instructions as far as publication of information regarding the accused and witnesses is concerned in cases in which section 153 is applied. A prohibition of this kind can be comprehensive, or may affect only a small part of the proceedings, the names of those involved, for example. In terms of section 153(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a court can, upon application, instruct that a trial take place in camera.

It is also provided that verdicts and sentences in such cases will take place in open court, provided that the court is of the opinion that the identity of the complainant will not, in doing so, be made public. Until now the complainant in a rape trial has had no assurance that her evidence would be taken in camera, since the discretion was left to the presiding officer, and could follow only on application by the complainant. The amending Bill makes provision for rape trials automatically to take place in camera, unless the complainant requests otherwise. Clause 4 contains a further protection for the complainant by imposing a prohibition on the publication of any information from the date on which the offence was committed up to and including the date of trial. A magistrate in chambers can, however, upon application, grant permission in such a case, with due allowance for the wishes of the aggrieved party.

All things considered, the position of women who are victims of sexual offences is being improved by this measure, and I should like to support the envisaged legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the PFP I should like to say that I support this Bill. I think enough has been said by hon members on both the Government and the Official Opposition sides as to why this is a good piece of legislation, and I do not intend to repeat the merits of the Bill, save to emphasise that I think this is a milestone in legislation concerning the protection of rape victims.

Certainly, I believe it will encourage people who have been wronged in this way to feel more secure in reporting cases and in going through with the prosecution, which is really necessary in order to see to it that the criminals involved are brought to book. It may come as a surprise to the hon the Minister to hear me say that in this instance, since we have no reservations, we will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, it is my special privilege to deal with this, the last Bill of the 1987 session.

Hear, hear!

Of course, it is also very pleasant for me to thank those parties that have supported this Bill.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House has just informed me that the next item on the Order Paper will also come under consideration this evening. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker… [Interjections.] In that case, Mr Speaker, it is a special privilege for me to submit a few clever ideas… [Interjections]… with regard to this, the second-last measure of this session. [Interjections.] I should therefore like to extend my sincere thanks to those parties, in particular, which have lent their support to this Bill.

Of course, the CP discussed this very delicate matter very cogently and with exceptional insight. Their approach bore witness to their insight. Of course, one would also like to see their insight into this delicate matter being extended to other delicate matters as well.

Then there is the PFP, which likewise supported the measure before us, and which did so in the shortest possible time. This type of approach is, of course, very conducive to the efficient dispatch of the business of this House. However, we note that a certain other political party is not present here this evening. We note that a certain other political party, which should also have supported this legislation, is not present here this evening. That party is the United Democratic Movement. [Interjections.]

Order!

We truly miss the United Democratic Movement. If that party had been present, we would all have been in unanimous agreement. [Interjections.] Furthermore, it appears to me that the hon member for Groote Schuur will have to work that much harder in future whenever Bills of this nature are discussed. In dealing with the legislation before us, he stands alone this evening. In the normal course of events he would have been able to rely on the new executive committee member of the United Democratic Movement, the hon member for Durban Central. [Interjections.] Now, alas, the hon member for Groote Schuur will no longer be able to rely on the hon member for Durban Central because that hon member associated himself with the hon member for Randburg at the…

Mr Speaker, I should just like to know from the hon the Minister whether his terminology is correct. Is it the United Democratic Movement or the National Democratic Movement? I merely want us to be clear at this early stage as to the name of that thing. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, to my mind the concepts “Conservative” and “Democratic” are very closely related; I do not see any difference between the two. [Interjections.] I believe the PFP will definitely miss the hon member for Durban Central, but in future he will be active in that other political party. We shall therefore have more political parties that are able to support Bills. Then, of course, there is also the hon member for Greytown. I can well understand why he has joined forces with those who are quicker to clench their fists, so to speak. How on earth the hon member for Greytown’s presence will serve to strengthen that party, however, only time will tell. To tell the truth, if a stone in a man’s belly could serve to strengthen him, I could, of course, understand it. [Interjections.] Yes, then I would, in fact, be better able to understand it. [Interjections.]

There are, of course, certain injustices in politics which I believe we should address in dealing with legislation of this nature. One such injustice, which ought not to arise, amounts to the fact that one ought not to take off a horse’s harness halfway through the stream. When a horse has served one well—when a party has spent money on one and obtained votes for one and when it has reaped a certain measure of glory for one—and one nevertheless takes off the harness halfway through the stream, I must say I find it objectionable. I also note that Dr Denis Worrall is conspicuous by his absence from the executive of this new political party, which would, of course, have supported the Bill before us. [Interjections.] I think that is extremely unfair. After all, he could—at least outside this House—have expressed his support for this legislation as well. It appears to me that in view of the executive structure of this new party, the unemployment insurance legislation which the hon the Minister of Manpower dealt with here earlier on could very well serve those few hon members who joined forces with the hon member for Randburg in the near future. [Interjections.]

In view of the tremendous support I have received with regard to the Bill before the House, as well as the support I had envisaged but which, alas, did not materialise as a result of the absence of our new political party outside this House, I propose that we have the measure before us placed on the Statute Books as soon as possible.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has asked to be permitted to say a few words before I move my motion for the adjournment of the House in the customary fashion, and I should like to ask you to afford him the opportunity of doing so.

Mr Speaker, I had prepared myself to follow up very ably on the hon the Leader of the House’s speech this evening, but if I am to have the honour of his following up my speech, this may be a prelude to further honours of the same nature in the future.

Order! I do not think the House should adjourn on too optimistic a note. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, surely you would not like us to leave on a despondent note. One can live without joy, but not without hope.

I should like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to you—I think everyone on this side of the House will agree with me on this—for the way in which you and the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the House have led us and have, firmly but fairly, maintained order and discipline. We want to extend our sincere gratitude to you for that. Likewise we also express our sincere gratitude to the Secretary and all those officials who assisted you in making the business of Parliament flow as smoothly as possible. We should like to express our sincere gratitude for that.

This is not the occasion on which to sound a discordant note, but we are aware of the fact that the Government has not quite succeeded in piloting through its entire legislative programme. It is also true to say that politics entered a certain state of flux as the proceedings of Parliament drew to a close. It is probably also true to say that this state of flux will not necessarily end on 7 October. One may expect a number of further developments in this regard.

I think that with a few minor exceptions here and there, this side of the House has done its best to promote the smooth flow of the proceedings and not to make things difficult for the presiding officer.

I think we have made a contribution, and the Official Opposition faces the future boldly. Moreover, we should like to share that boldness with other hon members of the House if they have the same reasonable sentiments towards us.

Mr Speaker, the reason why I opted for this order of speeches at the end of the proceedings was precisely because I wanted the House to adjourn on a hopeful note and not on a despondent one. [Interjections.] More particularly, on behalf of all the hon members on this side of the House, but also on behalf of that segment of the Opposition which did not take part in the concluding discussion this evening, I should like to express our sincere gratitude to you and to all the presiding officers; to the Secretary to Parliament, Mr De Villiers, and all his staff; to all the service officers, and to everyone else who, as active members of the parliamentary team, helped to make things run so smoothly during the past session.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Whips on this side of the House, particularly the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, the hon the Chief Whip of the NP and the other NP Whips, as well as to the hon Chief Whips of the Official Opposition and the PFP and their other Whips, for the responsible manner in which they were able to rise above the deep-rooted differences which separate us in the political arena and to ensure that the business of the House was dealt with in an efficient and orderly fashion, and for upholding the esteem of the House.

We are about to go our separate ways, but very few of us are likely to have an opportunity to have a real rest. We have been away from our constituencies for a long time and many demands will be made on hon members. I want to express the hope that they will nevertheless find the time to rest as well, so that they may return revitalised after the holiday. I also want to wish you, Sir, and everyone else, including all hon members, a merry Christmas and a very prosperous 1988.

I want to remind hon members, Sir, that unless you see fit to advance or postpone the date in question, when I now move for an adjournment, it will be until Friday, 5 February 1988.

I move:

Order! Before I put the question, I should just like to thank both the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for their kind words. I should like to thank all hon members for their co-operation during the session. It has been a pleasant session. I am very grateful that we were able to dispose of it in such a fine spirit and I am very grateful for the particularly high standard of debate which prevailed in the House throughout the session.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order! Earlier this evening, when I contemplated what I should say, I decided not to go into detail! [Interjections.]

I should like to wish all hon members of the House, together with their families, a safe journey back to their constituencies. I should like to wish them all the best of health, as well as a very merry Christmas. May we all find each other in good health next year at the opening of Parliament. I wish all of you everything of the best, and my thanks to you all for your friendship during the past session.

Question agreed to.

Order! I must inform the House that by virtue of the power vested in him by a resolution adopted by the House of Assembly on 5 October 1987, Mr Speaker accelerated the business of the House of Assembly to Monday, 1 February 1988.

Please allow me, too, to welcome all hon members back and to wish them a very fruitful year.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on a Question of Privilege, dated 1 February 1988, as follows:

1. 1. By resolution of the House of Assembly your Committee was appointed on 21 May 1987 with as its terms of reference “to enquire into and report upon a breach of privilege allegedly committed by Mr D J Dalling in that he reflected on the Honourable Mr Justice Munnik in his judicial capacity and on his honour and personal conduct, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers”.
2. 2. Your Committee’s enquiry arose from a speech delivered by Mr D J Dalling in the House of Assembly on 20 May 1987, in which he referred inter alia to the Honourable Mr Justice G G A Munnik, Judge President of the Supreme Court of South Africa (Cape Division), and his actions in relation to a commission of enquiry appointed by the State President following upon certain advertisements regarding the African National Congress appearing in certain newspapers, of which Judge President Munnik was appointed as sole member and chairman and which produced its report on 27 April 1987.
3. 3. Your Committee met on various occasions to give consideration to the papers before it and to deliberate. The Hansard transcript of the speech of Mr Dalling in the House of Assembly on 20 May 1987, a memorandum prepared by Advocates D P de Villiers, QC, and F D J Brand for Mr Dalling, correspondence from Mr Dalling and a written submission by Dr F J van Heerden, MP, were submitted to your Committee.
4. 4. Your Committee is of the opinion that the basis of its enquiry was the action, conduct and words of Mr Dalling during his above-mentioned speech of 20 May 1987 in the House of Assembly. The question before your Committee was therefore whether the allegations made by Mr Dalling in the course of his said speech constitute a breach of privilege.
5. 5. Your Committee’s task was made considerably more difficult by a lack of legal rules, rules of procedure or precedents having a direct bearing on the question as to whether the allegations made by Mr Dalling in the course of his speech concerned constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege or not.
6. 6. In its deliberations your Committee therefore had to avail itself of and be led by general legal rules, rules of procedure, practices and precedents and could not come to a final conclusion as regards the applicability thereof to the case in question.
7. 7. As regards the said allegations by Mr D J Dalling, your Committee in view of the aforegoing resolved to confine itself to the following finding, about which there is no doubt, namely that—
   1. (i) it is an established and recognized parliamentary practice that no attack other than by way of a substantive motion may be made in Parliament on a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa in his judicial capacity, or regarding his honour or personal conduct;
   2. (ii) Mr D J Dalling in the course of his said speech failed to abide by this practice and acted in conflict therewith; and
   3. (iii) Mr D J Dalling should present his apologies for the aforesaid breach in writing to Mr Speaker.
8. 8. In view of the lack of legal and procedural rules and precedents which have a direct bearing on a case such as the one in question your Committee is of the opinion that there is a need for a comprehensive inquiry into the matter of parliamentary privilege in all its facets, and your Committee submits that a joint committee, representative of all three Houses of Parliament, be constituted for this purpose, with the instruction to propose appropriate amendments or additions to the Standing Rules and Orders and related legislation if and where necessary.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Order! I must announce that vacancies have occurred in the representation in the House of Assembly of the following electoral divisions:

1. (a) Randfontein, owing to the death of Dr the Hon C P Mulder on 12 January 1988.
2. (b) Schweizer-Reneke, with effect from 27 November 1987, owing to the dis-qualification for membership of Mr J M Beyers in terms of section 54(b) of the Constitution; and
3. (c) Standerton, with effect from 15 October 1987, owing to the disqualification for membership of Mr J R de Ville in terms of section 54(e) of the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, the purpose of this afternoon’s sitting is not to discuss the Order Paper, as printed in terms of the rules.

On 13 November 1987, the State President referred the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill and the Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill to the President’s Council for its decision, in terms of section 32 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. Last week the President’s Council came to a decision on both Bills.

†In terms of section 78(8) of the Constitution such a decision of the President’s Council must be laid upon the Table in the respective Houses of Parliament within 14 days after its receipt by the State President.

In the light of the specific wording of section 78(8), in contrast with section 78(7) of the Constitution, it is clear that such tabling must take place during the same session in which the relevant Bills were introduced in Parliament and referred to the President’s Council.

The main purpose of the sitting this afternoon is therefore to comply with the above-mentioned provisions before the prorogation of Parliament later this week.

While we are here, I intend to move a motion of condolence shortly in consequence of the death recently of the late Dr the Hon C P Mulder, the former hon member for Randfontein.

After that I shall move the adjournment of the House until Friday, 5 February 1988.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

The late Dr Mulder died on 12 January of this year at the relatively early age of 62 years. He was born in Potchefstroom on 5 June 1925, went to school in Potchefstroom and Krugersdorp and subsequently, in 1945, obtained his BA and HOD degrees at Potchefstroom University. Whilst a teacher in Randfontein, he obtained his doctor’s degree at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1957 with his thesis Die invloed van die Bybel op die Vorming van die Afrikaner. During this period he was also a town councillor and mayor of Randfontein.

On 16 April 1958 he was elected MP for Randfontein and on 12 December 1968 became a member of the Cabinet. As a Minister he held various portfolios, including that of Immigration. He was also Minister of Information, of the Interior and of Social Welfare and Pensions from 1 August 1972 to 29 January 1978, and then of Bantu Administration and Development from 30 January 1978 to 30 February 1978, after which the relevant Ministry came to be known as the Ministry of Plural Relations and Development, a portfolio he held until 7 November 1978.

In 1974 he became the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, a post he held for just over four years.

He then served in the President’s Council from 1 September 1984 to 5 May 1987, being elected MP for Randfontein on 6 May 1987, a position he occupied until the time of his death on 12 January 1988.

We shall remember the late Dr Connie Mulder as a politician of stature, a friendly and approachable person and a hard worker. During the long years that many of us on this side of the House had him as a colleague in the same party, served with him in the Cabinet, in the same caucus and executive committees of the party, very warm ties of friendship developed. He was indeed a valued colleague.

After our ways parted, politically speaking, we found him to be a formidable opponent, but one with whom one could always communicate on a friendly basis, man to man, regardless of the fact that one opposed him and that one was his political opponent.

If I must single out a particularly striking aspect of the late Dr Mulder, let me say at the outset that he displayed exceptional enthusiasm in every task he carried out. He could give himself, with great enthusiasm and commitment, to any matter he tackled in whatever sphere. A further typical characteristic was an exceptionally warm-hearted friendliness towards both friend and foe at all times. I particularly came to know him as someone who could always make time for one.

As a result he was frequently late for a meeting, because en route he could not say ‘no’ to anyone because of his constant willingness to discuss matters with people and to listen to what they had to say. One truly felt that he was a great fellow human being, and we on this side of the House had great appreciation for that fact. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to convey our deepest sympathy to his wife, Mrs Suzanne Mulder, and her family.

Mr Chairman, as members of the Official Opposition we most sincerely endorse the motion of the hon Leader of the House. For South Africa the death of Dr Mulder is an acute loss. For those of us in this party who have, particularly during virtually the past six years, co-operated with him intimately in the political sphere, his passing has taken from us a devout, loved and inspired leader imbued with a far-sighted vision for his people whom he loved sincerely. It should be emphasised that in the efforts he made to obtain and preserve for his people their fundamental rights, he did not begrudge those same rights to other peoples. For his wife, Suzanne, his children and his grandchildren he was a model of loyalty and heartfelt love. One of Dr Mulder’s exceptional characteristics in public life was pre-eminently his loyalty to his leaders and his colleagues, his unswerving adherence to principles and his unassuming courtesy. He did not seek personal glory.

In all his conduct, even that for which he had to endure criticism, his motives were unsullied. He acted in accordance with his own lights, serving the highest interests of his country and his people. He was no tragic figure; with commitment he helped assure his people of a place among the nations of the world.

Dr Mulder was a relentless fighter. After having failed, by a few votes, to gain the highest rung in public life, he made a valiant return to politics, firstly to the Randfontein town council and then back to this highest Chamber. During his last, harrowing illness, Dr Mulder again showed his mettle. A man of lesser character and endurance would long since have given up the struggle, but he fought to the very last breath.

He was not destined to achieve all his ideals, and we can merely join in the cry of the psalmist: “Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children. ”

We lament the passing of a great Afrikaner, a comrade in arms and a friend, and in deep commiseration our hearts go out to his wife and his other loved ones.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate the members of the PFP with this motion and the tribute which has been paid to the late Dr Connie Mulder. I want to add something of a personal nature because many hon members in opposition did not get to know Connie well as he had not been back here for very long. I was one of those who joined him in these benches in 1958 and so, together with some of my colleagues, was associated with him as a political opponent for over 30 years. I think that at that time he entered Parliament with such personalities as the late Dr Hilgard Muller, Fanie Botha, Blaar Coetzee and Frans Cronjé of the old United Party, and one recalls in almost sentimental terms that class of 1958.

One remembers Connie Mulder in particular as an outgoing, almost gregarious personality, someone who was not only prepared but almost eager to engage people in conversation, discussion and debate. It was very difficult to get away from Connie Mulder at the end of a dinner party when he was on one of his particular political hobby-horses.

While we in these benches differed sharply from Dr Mulder on his political philosophy and the management of his administration, we found that he was always friendly and affable by nature, and that his style was not to allow sharp political differences to sour his personal relationships with his colleagues across the floor of this House.

It is against that background that we will remember him, and we associate ourselves with the House in conveying our sympathy to his next of kin.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the NDM I should also like to endorse the motion which has been moved. It was my privilege to have known Dr Mulder for many years—also when I was a member of the NP, even before I ventured into politics at this level, but nevertheless took an active interest in party matters. There were few people as dynamic as Dr Mulder. The practical patriotism with which he was imbued frequently bordered on the chauvinistic. Particularly during the years we were both here in Parliament, when he was my Transvaal leader, I came to know him as a person who sought a basis for justice—a principle underlying what he believed in. I frequently asked myself whether there was not indeed something in his political moves that accorded with this search. His death, amidst reports of recovery, came as a great shock, and our sympathy goes out to his wife and family.

Mr Chairman, while it was not possible for me to know the late Dr Connie Mulder for any length of time, I can only just record our condolences on behalf of those ex-collegues of mine who knew him well and who had great respect for him as a man of integrity and as a man of great ability. In the short time I knew him those sentiments held by my ex-colleagues were soon passed on to me and I too wish to pay great respect to the late Dr Connie Mulder and to express my sympathies to his family.

Question agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am under the impression that we may still give notice of motions and I would like to do so. Secondly, I should like to take a point of order. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I am not waiting until Monday; I want to do so today.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House said that we would not follow the Order Paper, but the hon member is right; we did not vote on it. Therefore we have to follow the normal procedure. Notices of motion may now be given.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I give notice that I shall move tomorrow:

I now wish to raise the following point of order: I listened to the hon the Leader of the House say that the purpose of calling this sitting today was to receive the reports which had been submitted by the President’s Council in respect of two measures. I have previously raised the issue of what is meant by tabling a report in this House and, when that announcement was made, I accordingly asked that I should be allowed to see where on the Table these reports were and that I should be allowed to see these reports. As a result I was shown a document which appeared to be a photostat of a report by the Chairman of the President’s Council to the hon the State President in respect of the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill and nothing in respect of the other measure at all. I would like to raise with you this point of order: Where on the Table are these reports for which we are here? If we have come to have these reports tabled, we have come here for nothing because they are not on the Table.

Either they are on the Table or they are not on the Table. [Interjections.] According to the information I received… [Interjections.]

They are under wraps!

Clearly, Sir, there is an hon member here who is under the table, but I do not want to deal with that for the moment.

May I therefore ask you, Sir, whether you would show me where on the Table these reports are and whether you will allow me to see them, as I have been called here today in order that these reports may be put on the Table.

Mr Chairman, exhaustive discussions were held during the preparation for today’s proceedings. I was satisfied—also on the basis of advice we received from the Secretariat of Parliament—that tabling, by way of convention, only occurs physically on a few exceptional occasions, for example in respect of the Budget and certain facets thereof. In the ordinary sense of the word however “tabling”, as numerous documents are tabled here, does not mean that a physical deed as such takes place. Since we convened here the tabling of the documents concerned has therefore been disposed of according to convention, and I have the assurance that, in that way, all the required formalities have been complied with.

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond briefly to the hon the Leader of the House. Whatever happens outside of this House in any office cannot be called the tabling of documents in this House, because certain procedures could follow when documents have been tabled and certain steps have to be taken. It is actually impossible to table a document which hon members of this House cannot see. Either a document is able to be seen by hon members of the House, in which case it has been tabled or, alternatively, it has not been tabled.

I would therefore like to suggest to you, Sir, that, as we sit here the reality is that these reports have not been tabled. If that is so and the hon the Leader of the House moves the adjournment of the House and the motion is agreed to, we shall have come here for nothing because the documents have not been tabled.

What the hon Leader of the House is going to have to do, therefore, is to withdraw his motion for the adjournment of the House and we shall have to come back tomorrow so that the documents may be tabled.

Order! I am informed that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders took a decision on this point many years ago. I am also informed that usually the tabling of documents is not a physical act but is merely recorded in the Minutes of this House. That may not correspond to what the hon member defines as tabling but that is the convention as I understand it and as I am informed. I do not wish lightly to deviate from that convention. I will follow that convention but if there is any argument in this regard I suggest that the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders should perhaps look at the matter more fully. However, that is my ruling according to my information regarding the convention.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If that were the case—and with respect, Sir, I submit that that cannot be the case—when are hon members of this House who have come here today to receive the report, going to receive it? Are they going to receive it after we have adjourned? There are procedures that can follow when documents are tabled because hon members are entitled to ask to debate them. In this case, however, it is not possible to debate anything because we have not seen the report. With great respect, therefore, while I have to accept it when you say that we shall follow the convention, I wish to dispute it, as we do not have the opportunity of dealing with the document.

Order! The hon member may dispute the convention. He is quite entitled to do. The fact of the matter is, however, that I will not lightly depart from the convention. That is my ruling. If I am misinformed, I shall look into this matter and then we can take it further.

As regards the question of when the hon member will be able to peruse the documents, it is for him to consult with the clerk of the papers and then take up the matter with his caucus. I cannot take it any further. I feel myself bound by the convention and therefore I cannot lightly depart from it. That is my ruling.

Mr Chairman, the CP takes the strongest exception to this proposed adjournment. We heard for the first time today, officially, why we are assembled here. In December 1987 all hon members of Parliament received notification from Mr Speaker in which we were told to be present in Parliament today. The Government did not inform any of the hon members what matters were going to appear on the Order Paper; what the purpose of this meeting was. What is more, we communicated with the officials and subsequently with the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, but he was not available. We also approached the hon Chief Whip of the NP, but nowhere were we able to ascertain why he had to assemble here on 1 February 1988.

That is not true!

That is another indication of the arrogance with which this Government treats the country. It is an indication of how they deal with orderly, meaningful administration and how frequently they act in an ad hoc manner. Now we do not know whether we are to proceed with the matters appearing on the Order Paper or whether the Government is once again sitting with its hands folded so that no one must know why we had to assemble here on 1 February.

This caused us to advance our caucus meeting to Thursday, 28 January 1988, whereas we would have held our caucus meeting on this coming Wednesday. We did so because we would have expected, in the normal course of business, that the programme of Parliament would have been proceeded with normally during these sittings. We expected that we would have known by 28 January why we were being called to meet on 1 February. I myself came to Cape Town on 19 January and once again tried to get in touch with the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, which I then succeeded in doing. I then got in touch with the hon Chief Whip of the NP as well. Yet no one was able to tell me why we were going to meet.

When was that?

On 19 January in the lobbies.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon Chief Whip wants it that way, I shall tell him what he told me when I asked him why we had to meet. [Interjections.] Not one of them was able to give me an indication of what we could expect this week. We were not even able to establish whether we would hold the customary meeting with the hon Leader of the House on 28 January 1988. After all, it is the practice to meet on Thursday to discuss the next week’s programme.

That is not the practice.

The hon Chief Whip says it is not the practice; but it is in fact the practice. Surely this is the continuation of last year’s session. [Interjections.] No one knew to what matters on the Order Paper precedence would be given or whether the amended Rules and Orders and the consequential amendment of the Constitution would be debated. We do not know whether boss Hendrickse has perhaps stated that it would be in order.

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

We do not know whether the Leader of the Labour Party has perhaps consented to our now being able to meet in the large Chamber… [Interjections.]… or whether we would have been able to discuss the Bills that had been referred to the President’s Council. We were not even given an indication in confidence of what we were supposed to do this week. Only on 26 January, during a meeting convened by the hon Chief Whip of Parliament for the Whips of the various parties, did we ascertain that no discussion of legislation or normal business was being envisaged for this week.

Surely that is not true.

The hon Chief Whip must tell me in what respect I am not telling the truth. I am speaking according to the notes I made in my own diary in connection with this matter. Wherever I have presented the facts incorrectly, he must set me straight.

The result of this late notification was that we in turn had to notify our caucus members that it was not necessary for them to return. Some had already departed, and could not be reached in time. This is just not good enough, Mr Chairman. Can you imagine what this ill-considered and thoughtless behaviour is costing the taxpayer in this overtaxed country?

These 308 hon members have once again assembled for the session. Only seven standing committees are sitting this week. Only 23 members serve on such a standing committee, and 161 hon members are therefore involved. The other hon members—slightly fewer than half of them—are sitting and waiting unproductively for the opening of Parliament on Friday, 5 February. [Interjections.] This is the behaviour of a Government that gives us to understand, in season and out of season, that it is governing this country in an orderly way and with vision. Could it not have foreseen that the President’s Council’s report would be tabled today during this session? Could it not have foreseen that we would have been able to stay on for a few days for the orderly business of this House? There are many Bills on the Order Paper and many hon Ministers tried last year to have some of these Bills piloted through Parliament. Here we have 308 hon members ready to proceed. But this is a Government which governs in an ad hoc way—as is the case with its entire political point of departure as well. This Government is without direction, seeking the ever-elusive consensus, without plan, without enthusiasm, without inspiration, worn by the tides of 40 years, punch-drunk and now, more than ever, resorting to autocratic methods and arrogant ways of governing this country. We oppose this proposed adjournment.

Order! I am not exactly sure whether the hon member for Brakpan is opposing this proposed adjournment by virtue of the fact that it was made without notice or whether he is opposing the adjournment until Friday.

Mr Chairman, I am opposing the adjournment of the House at this moment, but not the fact that it occurred without notice.

Mr Chairman, when one listens to the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, it becomes exceptionally clear what has been going on in the background during the short recess. What basically happened was that a House of Parliament had refused to pass two Bills which were then handed to the President’s Council for apparent judgment as to whether these Bills should be passed or not. Our system—as I have said before—is one of deceit and dictatorship. It is deceitful in that it pretends to be a democracy. In what is happening here today we have a clear indication that it is in fact not democratic.

We have been called together to receive a President’s Council’s report on two Bills which will now go through and become laws of this land despite the fact that one of the Houses and hon members of the opposition in the other two Houses had voted against those particular Bills. They have therefore not been passed by Parliament. They had to go to the President’s Council.

Why has the Government not been able to tell us why we were called here today in regard to these Bills. They were not able to do so, because the President’s Council had not yet debated those Bills. They could not say we had to come together to have the Bills tabled when the President’s Council had not even met, so they could not tell us why we were being called to Parliament, because they would then be seen to be pre-empting or prejudging the decision that the President’s Council was going to make. They did not do it with words, but with deeds. They did it by advising us long before the President’s Council had debated these two Bills that we were going to be called together in this House today. By calling Parliament together in mid-December in order to receive the reports of the President’s Council, they were therefore taking the decision that they knew the way the President’s Council was going to vote.

Therefore it is absolutely clear that the hon the State President’s boys in the President’s Council had their instructions as to what action they had to take, which is why I go as far as to call this tricameral Parliament system with the President’s Council a dictatorship.

This is the clearest indication that we in this Parliament have ever had of the reality of the situation in South Africa and that is that the White majority party in the House of Assembly have total control of the legislative system in this country and will continue to force through the legislation that they believe should be passed, in spite of the objections of the other two Houses.

The hon member for Brakpan mentioned the question of cost. We must not forget that we had many adjournments towards the end of the last session to which both the opposition parties objected strongly, because of the tremendous cost to the electorate. At that stage I said in the House that it was costing the electorate some R6 million a week. Now we are going to be wasting the best part of another week. We shall be gathered here at great expense for perhaps an hour today and it is now proposed that we should only reconvene on Friday for the official opening of the new session.

There are many Bills on the Order Paper that we could debate. No fewer than 41 Bills have been referred to committees before Second Reading. If the standing committees were doing their job in the recess surely a number of those Bills should have been passed by the standing committees. Could we not have debated them this week in order to get them out of the way? No, Sir, we are going to waste the taxpayers’ money by having an additional three days of adjournment this week.

When this tricameral Parliament was originally started it was mooted that the official opening should be on the Friday following 15 January. If we had gone ahead on that basis we should have been starting the second week of debate in the 1988 session of Parliament today. We have all had an additional holiday as members of Parliament and wasted several weeks because we could not be called together in January. The reason for that is that the Government were not ready for us to get together, because the legislation was not prepared and they had nothing for us to do.

I believe that this is one of the causes of the horrific inflation we have in this country today, because with a Government like this, one must expect double digit inflation in South Africa.

We know that the hon the State President has called a conference with the private sector leaders to be held later this week—I think on Thursday. I believe the hon the State President should have that conference with the public sector leaders such as the heads of departments, Cabinet Ministers and the heads of the State bodies such as the South African Transport Services.

Order! Perhaps the hon member should return to the point under discussion.

With pleasure, Sir; I am talking about the inflation caused by the Government, brought about by the additional expense involved in this extra sitting, and I am indicating that it is the bureaucracy and the Government which are, in this manner, creating double digit inflation.

I therefore recommend that the hon the State President’s conference, which we understand will be largely concerned with inflation, should be held with Cabinet Ministers of this Government and the departments of this Government and with State bodies such as the SATS, because they are the people in whose hands inflation lies, and they are the people who can do the most to stop inflation in this country.

With all these things in mind, we have absolutely no intention to do anything other than voting against the proposed adjournment of this House.

Mr Chairman, a great deal of dust has been raised in regard to this matter. The entire case of both opposition parties falls flat if I refer them to a Press statement which the hon Chief Whip of Parliament issued on 11 January—because it was published—in which he gave the exact reason for our having convened here. They may therefore complain that the statement was rather late, but to create the impression that they were brought here under false pretences and that the reason for it was not made known, is simply not correct. The statement reads as follows:

According to my information the statement was also made on television. Now these two responsible hon members are trying to imply that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament and this side kept everything under wraps, and that they only became aware of what was happening a few days ago. Sir, I think that that is absolutely shocking. [Interjections.]

Let us go a little further, Sir. It is being said that we are wasting vast amounts of taxpayers’ money. We could have convened the three Houses earlier, but we made arrangements closer to the time we would have had to be here in any case, in order to save money.

Why not Thursday?

The hon member wants to know why we did not arrange it for Thursday. The reason is that the day or two prior to the opening of Parliament are traditionally used by the parties for important caucus meetings, and if I look at the opposition, it would seem that they need more than a day or two for their caucus meetings. [Interjections.] Hon members of the Official Opposition must decide who the boss is in their party, and those hon members of the PFP must decide who is undermining who in their party. [Interjections.]

In this way hon members of the various parties are allowed plenty of time, according to their normal practices, to arrange their affairs. This date could have been tomorrow if we could have been sure, beforehand, that there would be no technical objection which might have meant sitting for two days. That is why we are sitting today. It was calculated to keep costs to a minimum and in compliance with the Constitution.

I now come to the Constitution. According to our legal advice, the legal validity of legislation considered by the President’s Council in this manner is not affected by our convening or not convening.

[Inaudible.]

No, I had this advice confirmed by several sources. The fact is, however, that when the hon the State President took his official oath, he undertook to comply with the provisions of the Constitution and section 78(8), read in conjunction with sections 32(1) and 32(4), specifically requires that Parliament must be consulted in the manner in which we are now doing.

Therefore, whilst the tabling of the decision of the President’s Council that the Bill be submitted for consent can no longer influence the course of the legislation in question, it nevertheless represents a gesture of courtesy towards Parliament.

A gesture of courtesy? We are not even able to see the document! [Interjections.]

In the case of the decision of the President’s Council the legislative function of Parliament is transferred, for practical purposes, to the President’s Council and is fitting that this matter is again tabled, during the relevant session of Parliament, in the latter institution, as the place of origin of that legislation.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central discerned in these procedures an effort to deceive, although he phrased it in such a manner that you, Sir, could not call him to order. Whether the President’s Council had approved of this legislation or not, we would in any event have had to meet here in terms of section 78 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say “only if the President’s Council should approve”. There is also an option. The President’s Council need not approve. Instead of approving or disapproving they can formulate advice, in which event—that is if they should refrain from taking a decision—they could recommend either a reconsideration of or amendments to the legislation in question. It falls within their power to do so. If such advice had been given the necessity for such a debate here could have arisen. This would also be the right place to debate such advice.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Leader of the House please tell us how it is possible for anybody to discuss and debate any document if they do not know what its contents are? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the President’s Council had refrained from taking a decision, I am sure the hon member would certainly have known about it. I am sure he knows what the President’s Council decided. His party has members on that council. Or do they not communicate with each other? [Interjections.] He must not come and argue here on the basis of being totally uninformed—unless, of course, he is the only hon member of the PFP who no longer communicates with his colleagues! [Interjections.] The hon member knows—he has known all along—what the President’s Council decided. What I am saying is that if the President’s Council had decided differently, if they had exercised their option rather to formulate advice, we would have had a totally different situation here today, which might have necessitated a debate in this House. Because, however, the President’s Council approved there is absolutely no need for a debate. [Interjections.]

*I wish to raise a final point, Mr Chairman. Hon members opposite maintain that they are sitting here now and that nothing is happening. On top of that the hon Chief Whip of the CP maintains that more than half of the hon members are occupied with committee affairs. However, that does not signify. The hon member acts as though those are not activities of Parliament. During the session last year we heard the argument ad nauseam that when the three Houses of Parliament were not sitting, it did not mean that Parliament was not engaged in its activities. When more than half the hon members are occupied with the committees in which they are active at the moment, what would these hon members have said if we had decided to continue to deal with legislation? They seem to want us to proceed to deal with legislation today. [Interjections.] Would they not then have objected strenuously? Would they not then have wished to know how we could then have proceeded to deal with legislation whilst the standing committees were in progress? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, this is petty politics in which they are engaging. We regret that we find ourselves in this situation. It is a result of the dispute which arose in connection with this legislation at the end of the session last year. Therefore it was not possible to consider it in the usual manner. If we were to defer to the Constitution—which we on this side should like to do—we had to find a way of complying with the requirements of the Constitution without wasting any money or time and with minimal disruption to hon members. I believe that this sitting today, as well as the manner in which it was organised, duly complies with all the requirements I have just mentioned. I believe that in this manner we have managed the taxpayers’ money with the utmost responsibility; that the convenience of hon members was duly taken into account, and that they should be grateful instead of kicking up a fuss. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman…

Order! I cannot allow the hon member to speak now. The debate has already been concluded by the mover’s reply.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: To my mind there is no provision that prohibits the continuation of the debate owing to the fact that the hon the Leader of the House has stood up to reply to it.

Sir, I waited for an hon member to rise. [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question before I called upon the hon the Leader of the House to speak. I then waited to see whether an hon member would rise, and when no one addressed me…

At that point the hon the Leader of the House rose…

Order! My ruling is that the debate is closed.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—127: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, PTC; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, DP A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

Noes—33: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Question agreed to.