laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 28 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the half hour.

Mr Chairman, please allow me right at the outset to address the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. To begin with, I want to tell him that the P W Botha factor is clearly in evidence in these proposed Rules, but I detect little of the Naas Botha factor. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I want to tell him that I can find more than 24 reasons why these new Rules should be rejected and cannot find 18 reasons why they should be accepted. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to tell the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that he alone—only someone of his calibre—is capable of getting this complex and pernicious system to work. In the situation in which this new dispensation now finds itself, the attempt to find and give direction is only made possible by a person with the exceptional competence required to be able to cope with something of this sort and still stay on his feet.

As we have discovered during the past few weeks—it is clear at this stage—this House cannot function, because the hon members of a certain other House have put a spoke in the wheel of the functioning of Parliament, with the result that we are adjourning. A “stop-go” situation is developing here.

Furthermore, I wish to make the point that this is yet another severe blow to the credibility of the governing party. It is yet another chapter in the process of reform by stealth and fraudulent methods in which the NP has been engaged since the days of so-called “healthy power sharing” in February 1982. I do not think Huntington in his wildest dreams could have devised such a classic example of reform by fraud as that which the Government is implementing in this new dispensation. As far as their credibility is concerned, I have before me an example…

Order! The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition used the word “fraud”. It is a strongly loaded term, and I would rather the hon member used another word.

Mr Chairman, that is why I began by saying it was political fraud. The hon the Leader of the House…

Order! I know the hon member probably does not mean fraud in the ordinary sense of the word, but even if he is referring to political fraud, I would rather he used another word.

Then I say it is base political deceit and double-dealing.

I have before me the opening speech of the Hon P W Botha, Prime Minister, at the NP’s Federal Congress at Bloemfontein on 30 and 31 July 1982, and I quote from page 13:

That is where we began. They would take place for symbolic purposes.

However, the PFP was not very happy with the fact that we would not sit jointly. At the end of August 1983 they moved a motion. Mr Horace van Rensburg, who was still a member of the PFP then, proposed that the Houses should sit together, but the NP said that such a thing could not be contemplated. We in the CP told the PFP: “You are just a couple of years ahead of the NP”. Was that not a most accurate prediction? [Interjections.]

The Daily News stated the following on 3 June 1983:

That was in June 1984, when the Bill which later became Act 105 of 1984 was before this House. It was also predicted then that debates would eventually take place jointly. Mr John Scott of the Cape Times commented on the debate at that time and, among other things, quoted the hon member for Mossel Bay as follows:

[Interjections.]

†The hon member for Mossel Bay went on to say:

*That was on 3 June 1984—

Those were John Scott’s words.

What do the Nats say about that?

Sir, we say it is a severe blow to the credibility of the governing party. Steps first had to be planned for quite a while to reassure those who felt threatened. Thus we read concerning the national executive meeting of the NP of Transvaal on 20 June 1987, in the document which so upset the hon the Leader of the House and which he says is a confidential document—I see nothing confidential about it—on page 7, paragraph 6.8, “Vaagheid oor NP-beleid”—this is Mr Huntington talking:

My paraphrase of that is: “Whatever it may be.”

And this is the Government which wants the help of a majority of Blacks in order to survive. [Interjections.]

This, Sir, is then the concretisation of their policy, or so they allege. What they are in the process of doing today…

That is nonsense.

… is not concretisation; it is reform by deception and it renders their credibility laughable.

Sir, do you remember the referendum campaign? Joint sittings—never. They would take place on ceremonial occasions only, as I have just indicated.

Do you remember the result?

Who asked if I remembered the result? [Interjections.] Does he remember what we voted for?

What for?

We voted on Act 110 of 1983. It was stated that the State President would call joint sittings of Parliament on ceremonial occasions only. [Interjections.] Before the Act came into effect, but after it had been voted on in the referendum, the Government amended it so that joint sittings could be called by the Speaker as well, but in heaven’s name not for the purpose of joint debates. Anyone who suggested that had, it seemed, taken leave of his senses. We would just listen to Second Reading speeches… [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not want to argue the fact that this decision in respect of joint debates had already been made in 1986, and that we have had a general election since then? [Interjections.]

That was one of the reasons why 555 000 people voted for the CP. [Interjections.] That message has not yet been carried to the broad spectrum of the people, because the TV, which is controlled by the hon the State President, has ensured that it has not yet gone through. [Interjections.] The newspapers controlled by the hon the Leader of the House have not yet allowed that message to filter through to the various levels of the population. [Interjections.] That is the reason.

Now follows the third tragic phase in this objectionable process of deception, namely joint debate, leading to joint voting. It is the inexorable, irresistible path of integration being followed by the Government. In 1986 they argued that joint discussions were taking place in standing committees and that things there were going perfectly smoothly. So now, they say, we can go further and move on to joint debate in a joint Parliament.

In that debate, Mr Jan Hoon, an hon member of the CP, argued this matter. Before his turn came to speak, the hon the Leader of the House addressed the House as follows (Hansard: Assembly, 27 August 1986, col 10946):

The hon the Leader of the House said it was part of the flexibility, but according to this report we will have joint debates on financial measures too; that is not excluded.

I think the inflexibility built into the proposed amendment will have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of the proceedings of Parliament.

I quote from a speech by Mr Hoon (Hansard, 27 August 1986, col 10951) in which he referred to a previous speech of his (Hansard, vol 115, col 11544):

Do hon members know what the hon Chief Whip of Parliament then said by way of interjection?

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

First I want to finish this point.

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament then asked Mr Hoon if he was a prophet. Was Mr Hoon not a prophet par excellence at that stage? He went on to say (Hansard: Assembly, vol 115, col 11544):

Do you think that is correct?

It is up to the hon Chief Whip of Parliament to tell us whether or not Mr Hoon was correct. In these rules, provision is made for joint debate and for extended standing committees in which joint debate will to take place. This is something which was considered shocking in 1984 and the years thereafter.

Our first charge against the Government therefore concerns their lack of credibility. Secondly, we condemn them for proceeding on their doomed integrationist path. Thirdly, this proposal is another threat to the right of self-determination of peoples.

If one looks at the proposal as a whole, one finds that its entire spirit and tenor implies a movement towards either joint sittings or extended standing committees, and that dust will settle on these time-honoured green benches, here in the former seat of the sovereign power of White South Africa. After all, we know that in the past few years more than 100 Acts concerning general affairs have been passed by Parliament every year. Only a few financial measures, a few Bills on own affairs and a few Budget Votes have related to own affairs. The tendency will therefore be entirely in the direction of joint debate, joint sittings and extended standing committees.

The Assembly Chamber in which we are gathered today is going to become one of the four meeting places where members of Parliament will sit jointly. Furthermore, it is largely going to be left to the discretion of the Chief Whip of Parliament to decide what will become of proposed legislation.

It is in good hands.

The question is not whether it is in good hands or not. The question is whether this is the manner in which democracy will be seen to take place, in the sense that one person with exceptional abilities will be entitled, admittedly after consultation with the Leader of the House and the Whips of the opposition parties, to refer a matter either to a joint sitting, an extended public committee or one of the Houses.

Order! I regret to have to inform the hon member that it now appears that the Rules do not make provision for a member to speak for half an hour. Of course, the hon member is in fact entitled to speak three times for 10 minutes each.

Mr Chairman, I shall continue in a moment.

Mr Chairman, I find it hard to believe that the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition’s half hour is over, unless he…

Order! The half hour is not over, but there is no provision for a half hour speech.

That is just as well, because if you had given him that much time, Mr Chairman, he would have moved very far beyond the parameters of paragraph 1 which, as I understood it, you did in fact put. [Interjections.]

Order! The paragraphs were in fact put separately and the hon member was confined to paragraph 1.

However, he took the matter a little further, Mr Chairman, and you will understand that I may sometime be tempted to reply, although I want to confine myself mainly to paragraph 1.

I want to start by saying that one could scarcely have another useful debate on the matter of joint sittings with the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition because we already had a comprehensive debate here on this topic on 27 August of last year and we agreed to that principle on that day. All that we are therefore doing here today is implementing those decisions of 1986. Without arguing with the hon member, I want to take a slightly more philosophical look at his argument, and in order to do this, yesterday I happened to look at my own horoscope for the week ahead—not that I am a person who pays much attention to the stars. [Interjections.] I just want to read it out to hon members:

[Interjections.] Sir, I shall stick with this attitude and see if we cannot find a solution.

It is important to remember that the principles contained in this report, which we are trying to have accepted, sever our links with the Westminster system once and for all. Now I find it so ironic that it is the CP of all parties that is clinging to the Westminster system. [Interjections.] It is ironic that it is these patriotic Afrikaners who want to remain tied to the apron-strings of the Queen’s system. [Interjections.] Really, Sir, they still have the mentality of colonialists and monarchists. What is more I see that under those circumstances the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition claimed last weekend that he alone had the right to celebrate the Great Trek!

The custom of holding joint sittings only for the delivery of Second Reading speeches by Ministers has really fallen into disuse, with the exception of Budget speeches. After all, experience has taught us that in practice this is no longer an adequate arrangement. Because we want to implement the principle of joint debating, the need for Mr Speaker to be able to convene such meetings as those to which I have referred has obviously fallen away. This paragraph refers to this in particular.

While I am referring to Mr Speaker, Sir, you will again allow me to convey the Committee’s particular thanks and pay tribute to Mr Speaker for the investigation into the Rules, which he made possible and which he also participated in enthusiastically, because he enabled us to take the best from the European systems and reconcile them with what was good in our own system. I want to say at once that the South African system of standing committees is one of the best, if one were to assess it with reference to comparable systems.

It is in fact the successful experience of joint consultation in our standing committees, to which the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition rightly referred, which made its development into joint debating not only possible but even desirable.

Obviously joint debating will initially have elements of danger and conflict. The fear of those persons who do not have courage and who do not realise the urgency of our situation, will of course be so great that they will prefer to avoid the truth rather than put it to the test. After all it is already clear from the speech of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that fear was the undertone of his debate.

I therefore want to pay tribute to the chairmen of our standing committees who have made such a wonderful success of that particular responsibility which was entrusted to them. It was chairmen of standing committees who laid the foundation and created the exciting possibility of joint debating.

I am convinced that at this stage all three of our Houses are mature enough to enter this exercise fully realising the responsibility resting on their shoulders. In the same way that there is no place for the faint-hearted in our system, there is no place for the foolhardy either. With this process Parliament as a whole now comes under public scrutiny. In due course the public will decide for itself who are destroyers and who are builders.

If a charge of artificiality could have been laid against us, we have now removed the last vestige of artificiality from the tricameral system. I am really looking forward with confidence to our also being able to make progress through these joint sittings for the good of the system.

Mr Chairman, the one thing we should understand is that we are not debating the principle of joint sittings. The principle of a joint sitting is written into the Constitution, in section 67 (1), which reads as follows:

The principle of joint sittings has been accepted. This is a set of regulations which are to regulate the joint sittings provision for which has always been in the Constitution.

However, I wonder whether hon members who, I think, must be proud of themselves as members of Parliament, understand what they will be doing to themselves and to this institution of Parliament if they accept the regulations as recommended by the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders.

*Sir, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament says the last of the three artificial aspects of the tricameral system is now being eliminated. The greatest artificiality is, however, that decisions cannot even be taken at joint sittings. That is the crux of the absurdity of this tricameral system. [Interjections.]

†I believe that because the Government remains committed to three racially separated chambers—even if they meet and talk together—and because they remain committed to three racially segregated decisions—even when they have debated together—we are confronted today with a complicated, contorted set of make-shift regulations which would do credit to Heath Robinson. That is what it is! I believe it is going to do tremendous harm to Parliament.

The committee did remove one of the archaic stupidities of its own regulations, namely that one cannot talk together. That they have eliminated. However, they failed to eliminate the obvious corollary, and that is that one cannot decide together. Therefore, we are going to meet and debate, and then go off to our separate Chambers and make separate decisions. Sir, the committee has failed to recommend that the Constitution be amended so as to make the adoption of resolutions at joint sittings possible, which is absolutely fundamental.

One reads further in these regulations—we will deal with them paragraph by paragraph—that they make serious inroads into the rights of the opposition parties and of individual members of Parliament. Make no mistake about that! These regulations will place vast regulatory powers in the hands of the Chief Whip of Parliament, an official who is appointed by the majority party in this Parliament.

Finally, this will provide procedures which we believe are so cumbersome and involved that they will inevitably detract from the status of Parliament as the supreme legislature in South Africa. I believe that hon members will be embarrassed by having to endure the procedures which have been outlined in this set of regulations.

It shows that there is no democracy.

Mr Chairman, the crux of the matter is that the fact that joint decisions cannot be taken will have a whole range of consequences.

Order! We are not debating the matter of joint decisions now. I have allowed the hon member to refer to joint decisions by way of comparison, but he must not dwell on the subject.

No, I shall not dwell on it, Mr Chairman, but I move the following amendment:

Mr Chairman, there is a recommendation under paragraph 1. 2. 2 for an amendment to the Constitution insofar as the procedure for calling joint sittings is concerned, and I move this amendment as a further amendment to permit the taking of joint decisions at joint sittings of Parliament.

Because of the defect of not being able to take joint decisions, all the contortions in the rest of the regulations arise. Because one cannot take joint decisions, one cannot have motions. So, for the first time in the history of this Parliament, one will now no longer be able to move a motion. One will not be able to move an amendment, because an amendment may result in a joint decision. One will not be able to vote; one will have to have deferred voting. The proposals impinge on the right of private members to move private members’ motions. They impinge on the whole issue of how one can debate matters of urgent public importance. They deal with the whole question of legislation no longer being moved by the Minister in charge. Opposition parties will no longer have the right in joint sittings to call for no-confidence debates. The question of the punishment of members, which was always on a resolution of a House, now has to become a decision of Mr Speaker, because members cannot take decisions at joint sittings. The question of the adjournment of the joint sittings cannot be the decision of the members of the joint sittings; Mr Speaker has to do it, because one cannot even resolve to adjourn at a joint sitting for that would involve a decision.

Regarding the question as to whether or not a Minister may withdraw a Bill, the situation previously was that he had to obtain the permission of members to do so. Now, because it will require a decision, he can withdraw a Bill without the permission of the Houses. The vast powers given to the Chief Whip of Parliament, the inroads made on the rights of the opposition, the restrictions on time, the contortions of deferred voting and the scrapping of the motions of no-confidence all flow from the very simple fact that this Government, while it recognises that joint decisions have to be taken, does not have the courage to change the Constitution and make it possible for Parliament to do so. In these circumstances, we will vote for our amendment, because we believe it is critical to these regulations. If that amendment is rejected, then we must also say that the various consequential paragraphs would make it quite impossible for us to sit through this charade of talking and talking in the time allowed to us by the NP-appointed Chief Whip of Parliament, but in the end, having debated with our colleagues in the other Houses, all retiring to our separate Houses to make separate, racial decisions. This is totally unacceptable to us.

Order! I am not completely convinced that this amendment is in order…

Oh?

… inasmuch as we are now dealing with joint sittings, and the proposed amendment deals with joint voting. Because I am not sure, however, that there will be another opportunity for the hon member to move his amendment, I will allow it although I have certain reservations about it.

Mr Chairman, while this amendment was not moved in this form in the committee, an amendment similar in concept was moved, and Mr Speaker was in the Chair. He accepted that as a valid amendment to the report which was before that committee.

Order! I have already indicated that I have my reservations in this respect. Nevertheless, I will allow the amendment.

Mr Chairman, if you allow the amendment of the hon the leader of the PFP, it is obvious that we on this side of the House will not support that amendment. As the hon member for Sea Point said, it is in fact true that the principle of joint sittings has already been accepted. A new element is being added here now, however. The element of joint meetings is coming in now, which of course also implies joint debating. Since the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has consulted a horoscope concerning what the future holds for him, one wonders what indications the horoscope would give of the future awaiting his people in this system which is unfolding.

He does not know what a people is! [Interjections.]

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said that we were opposed to the abolition of the Westminster System. He argued that we want to cling to it. We on this side of the House stand for government by the people—democratic government by the people. This is something we do not see at all in this new system being adopted here now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, please allow me to tell the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that we on this side will not exchange without a fight our birthright of self-determination for the mess of pottage of power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have indicated with regard to the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point, a distinction is now being drawn between joint sittings, as provided in section 67 of the Constitution, and joint meetings of the Houses, where business can be dealt with jointly, in a specifically prescribed manner.

Section 67 of the Constitution reads as follows:

1. (1) A joint sitting of the Houses shall be called by the State President by message to the Houses or, in terms and for the purposes of the joint rules and orders contemplated in section 64, by the Speaker of Parliament.
2. (2) The State President may call such a joint sitting whenever he deems it desirable, and shall call such a joint sitting if requested to do so by all three Houses.
3. (3) The Speaker of Parliament shall preside at such a joint sitting.
4. (4) The Speaker shall determine the rules and orders for the order and conduct of the proceedings of such a joint sitting.
5. (5) No resolution shall be adopted at any such joint sitting.

Mr Chairman, joint debating can now take place on any general affair, in terms of the amendment in paragraph 1, but only the final voting will still take place separately in the various Houses. This forms part of the evolutionary process, step by step, of the sovereign legislative and executive powers of the Whites of South Africa, which were vested in the House of Assembly as the highest legislative authority and the Cabinet as the executive authority, falling just short of the creation of a fully-fledged unicameral Parliament as far as general affairs are concerned, as we see in this proposed amendment.

When the principle of a tricameral Parliament was adopted, initially—as the hon the Chief Whip of the CP indicated—there were only to be occasions for joint sittings on ceremonial occasions or for symbolic purposes. This was later extended to certain other occasions, such as budget speeches and certain second readings of amending Bills on general affairs—but without joint debating. Now this amendment to the Standing Orders makes provision for joint debate in the case of what is probably the vast majority of debates during the course of a session of Parliament. Only the voting, as I have indicated, will be done separately.

As we are nearing the end of this session, we need only look at the Order Paper. During this session, 123 pieces of legislation on general affairs appeared on the Order Paper. Only 17 measures were dealt with as own affairs in the separate Houses of Parliament—an extremely small proportion of the total debating. From the outset we on this side of the Committee argued that if one establishes a tricameral Parliament, the pressure to knock down those inner walls will increase. That is precisely what is happening now. The walls are now being replaced by curtains. The pressure is there, as we see from the amendment of the hon the leader of the PFP. It has already been stated that the logical conclusion of joint debating must be joint decision-making, by way of divisions which have to take place at the end of debates. That is the next step, or are there still conservative hon members opposite who want to argue with me about this and say that that will never happen?

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he can give us the assurance this afternoon that it will end here and that joint voting and divisions will not take place in a year or two. [Interjections.] I am putting that question to the hon the Leader of the House in particular, because he has a very poor record when it comes to assurances. We still remember Bangmaakstories No 5 of 1977. Later, in 1983, at a youth congress, the hon the Leader of the House held forth—that speech of his was regarded as one of his best—on the blatant lies that were being put about in that it was said that this Government was in favour of mixed government and power-sharing. I quote his own words:

But that is still the case. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House says that that is still the case. [Interjections.] I just want to ask him this. He wanted to postpone an election of this House of Assembly. Did he have the sole right to decide about that? No, Sir.

Boss Allan says no.

Of course he could not. Similarly, in terms of this system he will not have the sole right to decide on other very important rights of self-determination of this people.

This side of the Committee cannot support this change, since it will simply culminate in the total right of self-determination of a people being destroyed. We shall therefore be voting against it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg has asked what guarantee we have that in due course the rules will not be changed so that there are decisions taken in joint sittings so that the majority will might prevail. I would say to him that he has an absolute guarantee on that, because the moment we have joint sittings and joint voting, the NP will no longer have control.

I do not believe that if all three Houses of Parliament were able to vote jointly, the NP would any longer have the total control of the system which they currently have, and I do not believe they are prepared to give that up under any circumstances.

Don’t you worry, they will give it up.

They are prepared to draw a cloak of secrecy, a veil, across the whole situation to try to deceive people into thinking that they actually are in favour of a democratic system. However they are going to leave no stone unturned—whether it be in this House or in any other, whether it be in this Parliament and under this Constitution, whether it be on the SABC or anywhere else—to ensure that the ultimate power rests in their own hands.

Nat domination!

Can you trust them?

Not I!

I come now to the speech made by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. He sought to equate this new system with moving away from the Westminster system.

That is ridiculous! He is setting false parameters and basing a whole argument on a false premise because he knows that there is a general feeling in this country that we should move away from the Westminster system.

With respect, the party that I have the honour to represent in this House was probably the first party to suggest that we should move away from a winner-takes-all Westminster system. [Interjections.] That is why this party is called the Progressive Federal Party. We find it so important to move away from the Westminster system that we even called the party after a system of government, namely a federal system, which is a totally different system from the Westminster system.

So I reject the thought that in going for these rules and orders we are actually moving away from the Westminster System. What we are moving away from, is a democratic system.

Of course!

That is what we are moving away from. We are moving away from a democratic system to a far more autocratic system. That autocratic system has its roots and its origin in the building next door to this one, viz that one in which the hon the State President has his office. That is ultimately the office which decides what is going to happen here. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament who is getting such formidable powers under this new system of joint sittings is, as the hon leader of my party has said, an appointment of the NP; and who runs the NP but the occupant of Tuynhuys, the hon the State President.

So I reject the thought that we are moving away from the Westminster system if we adopt these rules and orders. What we are moving away from is a democratic system, a system which gives the opposition parties in all three Houses of Parliament something of a say, some ability to express their anger, dismay or opposition to what this Government is doing. I was astonished when during the debate on these Standing Rules and Orders in the standing committee it was suggested that we should do away with motions of no confidence because, it was said, that started Parliament off every year on a negative note. [Interjections.] As far as the opposition is concerned the most positive note that can be struck in South Africa in the current circumstances is to be able to vote against the Government in a no-confidence debate.

Order! The no-confidence debate does not form part of what is being debated at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I am attempting to motivate my support of the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

There is something else that I want to react to briefly. As my hon leader has said, he moved a similar amendment in the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and we debated it fairly extensively on that occasion.

And what happened?

I am coming to that if the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will just possess his soul in patience for a little longer. We debated that fairly extensively so it became quite apparent that what my hon leader was seeking to do was to create a system whereby we could vote jointly; in other words, to create a system whereby a vote of a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the House of Delegates would be worth as much as a vote of a member of the House of Assembly. That is the effect of debating and voting jointly. To my utter astonishment the Labour Party representatives as well as the representatives of the National Peoples’ Party voted against a system which would have given their own members an equal vote in Parliament with those of the White members of the House of Assembly.

They did not agree.

Obviously they did not agree. That is the whole point I am making. I find it an extraordinary state of affairs that those members, in fact, voted to extend their own lack of power in this tricameral Parliament. I do not think that was a very well-judged decision.

I will certainly be supporting the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Chairman, it is very seldom that I agree with points made by the hon members of the PFP, but two points were made by the hon Chief Whip of the PFP today with which I naturally agree wholeheartedly.

The first one is that the NP in fact has a domination model. Who determines the destinies of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks today? The NP. They are in the middle of a domination model. If one says one is moving away from the Westminster System, I agree with the hon member. With this whole report one is in fact moving further and further in the direction of autocracy.

I want to tell the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament that I have a horoscope for him here which appeared in a newspaper. I know when his birthday is. It says:

[Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Chief Whip where his speakers are. One opposition member after another is standing up here, and the NP is lying there, deflated and worn out. It is probably still the aftereffects of 6 May, and one can understand that. [Interjections.]

If, then, they are moving away from the Westminster system in principle, can they tell us where they are going? That is precisely the problem. I should like to make the contribution I want to make today, from the point of view of the White man, since I represent White voters in this House.

Looking at this report, I would say it is an artificial lifebuoy for a Government which is in the process of sinking.

Order! I must focus the attention of the hon member for Overvaal on the fact that in my opinion, he has not yet got around to paragraph 1.

Sir, I was merely reacting to what other speakers have said.

Order! That is correct. The hon member may proceed.

This report is an important act of desperation for a Government which has lost control of the course of events, since we are now moving in the direction not of joint sittings, but of joint debating, and this came as a result of pressure. This is an act of panic by a Government which realises that it can no longer continue to govern on purely democratic principles. This measure is another definite step away from democracy, and I want to say to the hon the Leader of the House that later, in five or ten years’ time, he will realise that this was an important step in the direction of a Black government in this country.

Today is a clear beacon on South Africa’s path. It is a beacon which indicates that the Government is deliberately moving away from democracy in order to retain political power in South Africa. That is what they are doing. Now we have joint debates; later we shall also have joint voting. The Government realises that it is moving in the direction of a Black government, as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says, and now they are trying to retain political power through all this methodology and manipulation.

What a failure this experiment is! The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning admits that the tricameral Parliament is not perfect. He says that the NP has changed, and that it is going to change further.

That is true.

Now I am telling hon members the following. The 10 years of the hon the State President is a decade of hit and run, and one failed experiment after another. I maintain that this is another experiment. In yesterday’s Sunday Times—it also contains the horoscope—under the heading “Pulse Check”—we checked its pulse a little—a very interesting article appeared about how the NP Government is doing and how methodical they are. The Office of the State President was a department at first, then it became an office and then they changed it…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You decided that we could discuss the report paragraph by paragraph, and I can see absolutely no relation between that approach and how the Public Service is divided up and the other things to which the hon member referred.

Sir, may I address you on that score?

Order! The hon the Leader of the House simply anticipated what I was going to say. I was on the point of bringing it to the hon member’s attention.

I want to make my point very clear, viz that it is an experiment. It is an experiment by the NP, and I want to indicate by way of concrete examples that over the past 10 years one experiment after another has failed, it has cost millions of rand and that we are now once again tackling an experiment which is also going to fail. That is my point. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may make that point, but I cannot allow him to go into detail about other experiments. The hon member may proceed.

I simply have to point out a few mentioned in yesterday’s Sunday Times. You must permit me to mention only one or two examples; I will not mention any more. With reference to the lack of methodicalness and the experiments that fail one after another, I shall mention the example—I going to mention only one example—of Economic Affairs. In 1979 it was known as Economic Affairs and Commerce and Consumer Affairs; in 1980—that was also an experiment—it became Industries, Commerce and Tourism; in 1984. Industries and Commerce; in 1985, Commerce and Industry; and now, Economic Affairs and Technology. [Interjections.]

Order! On that basis one could take the debate to any lengths. I cannot permit that.

I shall let that suffice, Sir.

I want to make my point by saying that this is another experiment by the Government in the constitutional development of this country, and like its tricameral Parliament, it will also be a failure. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has admitted it. He says that this Parliament is not perfect, and we want to point out to them that the direction in which this thing is going, is going to culminate in an undemocratic system. [Interjections.] The point is that democracy is being broken down systematically, and this is another example.

First the sovereign White Parliament was abolished. The White man no longer has a parliament of his own.

That has already been said.

The hon the Minister says that has already been said. Before the split he was one of those who had so much to say about what would happen, that he must rather keep quiet; otherwise I will reveal more about him. [Interjections.]

What happened further, apart from the fact that the White Parliament was abolished in its entirety, was that the White man lost his sole say over general affairs. We alone no longer have a say over general affairs. The hon the Leader of the House says that the White man still has self-determination. However, we cannot decide alone and unimpeded about our foreign affairs, about whether or not we want to hold an election, or about whether we want to dismiss our State President, and about an amendment to the Constitution. [Interjections.] We cannot amend our Constitution or dismiss our State President. This is an increasing movement away from democracy. Provincial councils have been abolished with the purpose of broadening democracy, and people are then appointed to govern in it.

We no longer have our own Parliament, and the simple truth is that we are moving in a direction in which the White man—and this is happening again today—is being stripped of the little power he may have left.

The House of Assembly was to have retained its nature and character, and at the moment it is being broken down into an insignificant talking shop where one will have to speak in accordance with specific Government rules. [Interjections.] Democracy is being systematically sliced up in accordance with the salami theory, and today we are moving towards joint debating. One people after another has fallen in this way.

I want the hon the Minister to answer the following question when he rises to reply in a moment. What is the future of the White man in this country? I want to know from him, who spoke about theories of succumbing a while ago, and who set the most important requirement that we must begin debating jointly now—that is something we would never do—what is to become of the White man. Where will it all end?

Unless the election is held in two years’ time so that the CP can take over, it will end with the White man an insignificant minority in his own fatherland that he bought with blood. The NP will have to take the joint blame for that, because they are pushing things increasingly in that direction. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament commenced with the statement that today we are finally breaking the ties with the Westminster system. Since that term, namely that we must move away from the Westminster system, was used for the first time in the days of the Erika Theron Commission, I do not think there have been many other statements by commissions that have been twisted and distorted as this one has to serve the political motives of the government of the day. The original idea behind moving away from the Westminster system was to get away from the idea that everyone can elect a government on the basis of one man, one vote in one country. That was the original idea and the driving force behind moving away from the Westminster system.

Today the Government has turned that term into a peg on which to hang each of its integration ideas. It is also interesting that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament commenced with that idea, but at the same time the only other Parliament he mentions by name in this report by way of justification of a particular standpoint to which he adheres, is the Westminster system. When it suits him to use the Westminster system as an example, he embraces the Westminster system, but otherwise he moves away from this system. I now refer to paragraph 12.4 of this report, in which the Westminster system is used to justify getting away from the problem with the quorum.

When there is talk of ceremonies such as the “Changing of the Guard”, etc, the Westminster system is the ideal to follow.

Will you be our queen?

No thank you. No, you have a king on the other side of the House to start with, with his own throne. We are getting a throne, a speech from the throne and that kind of thing.

The public of South Africa, particularly those who sit here in the public galleries, are the witnesses to another sod on the coffin of White self-determination in South Africa. This is one of the last of this kind of sod. In addition, they have also witnessed how the NP has broken each of its promises it has made in past years concerning the reform process. We all remember that, and we have all told one another more than once how former Minister Hendrik Schoeman said how he would laugh one day when the House of Assembly meets here, the House of Representatives on the Foreshore, and the House of Delegates in Durban.

We have also read Jan Hoon’s speech…

That is right. I said that too, but I shall repeat it because we are dealing with that matter now. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will not tell me what to say and what not to say in this place. [Interjections.]

In this way every bit of “CP gossip”—that is the monotonous refrain of the hon the Leader of the House, for whom everything the CP says in the rural areas is gossip—has come true. We told the public of South Africa that what we are doing here now, would happen, and the hon the Leader of the House said it was “CP gossip”.

Now I, too, am going to prophesy today. I am going to tell the hon the Leader of the House that the next step is that, just as there is joint debating now, there is also going to be joint voting on a second reading debate.

What do you mean by joint voting?

I mean that voting is going to take place on a one man, one vote basis in that mixed Chamber that has been built up the road. [Interjections.] Now I am telling the hon the Leader of the House that he will not be able to make me a categoric promise that that is not going to happen. If he does so, I would say that it is another one of the promises that is going to be broken. [Interjections.] That is what I say. The hon the Leader of the House will not give me that reply.

You can’t win!

No matter what I say, you will say what you want! [Interjections.]

The answers of the hon the Leader of the House do not wash.

They do not stand up.

His answers do not stand up. That is what I want to say. The stories of the hon the Leader of the House, his rejection of the CP’s “gossip”, have become charges against him.

I want to anticipate what the hon the Leader of the House is probably going to say in his speech today. Either he is going to say that I or one of the other speakers are speaking like we spoke when the CP was still a small, inferior party, or he is going to say we are speaking like the HNP. That is probably another of the things he is going to say. [Interjections.] Perhaps he will say we are bitter. That is another thing he usually says, whether or not he is going to say that today. We will not be surprised if he says it. In any case, it is like water off a duck’s back. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said they were not afraid. Well, it is the old story of the bridegroom who says, “Stand still, pants, your master is not afraid.” [Interjections.] I will not say that to him today, however. I do want to tell him that it is tragic that the Chief Whip of Parliament says he is not afraid. I concede that, because I want to tell him that we do not know how it happened, but it seems to us that the members of the NP have all undergone sensitivity treatment at some stage, just as they underwent it immediately after they drove us out of the NP. [Interjections.] Hon members will recall that Koos Roelofse wrote about how they all underwent sensitivity treatment. It is tragic. If I were the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, I would not make such a fuss about how he had in fact become so far removed from the foundations of the NP, that he has become a hero in the battle for integration.

Order! The hon member’s argument must at least bear some relevance to the subject of debate.

With the greatest pleasure, Mr Chairman. I am dealing with paragraph 1 of the report. [Interjections.] Paragraph 1 of the report deals with the calling of joint sittings by a joint meeting.

We are therefore moving in the direction of a joint meeting, and in this regard the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, by implication, boasted about his party’s courage and our fear. However, I want to say that the hon the Chief Whip is so conditioned that he is no longer afraid or ashamed to capitulate. [Interjections.] He is no longer afraid or ashamed to turn his back on everything the NP stood for and on the basis of which he came to this place. I therefore want to ask the hon Chief Whip, as well as the hon the Leader of the House, why they do not have the courage—perhaps they could then regain our respect and that of the public—to tell the public blatantly: “We are integrationists; we are moving towards a totally integrated parliament; we are also going to bring the Blacks into the system; and in the process we are going to sell all of you out.” Why do they not tell the public that?

They would do well to show a little courage.

Yes, I, too, say to them: Be intrepid! Be brave! Be the heroes you pretend to be. [Interjections.]

I wish to conclude now, Sir. [Interjections.] Yes, we are limited to speaking for 10 minutes, but we are going to use our turns to speak for a long time yet!

These joint meetings are not going to streamline the process. They are not going to facilitate this process. Since these rules concern joint sittings—I have tried to study these recommendations—there is one thing I expect to come out of this, and that is that the parliamentary debate to which we have become accustomed, and which has an openness in respect of the public, is going to die out in this process. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must say I find the silence on the part of the hon members of the Government to be perhaps the most revealing part of this debate. We have had five speakers from the two opposition parties so far, yet the only response from the Government benches has been the short speech of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament which hardly touched on the real issues before the Committee.

One wonders about this, Sir. After all, here we are dealing with a fundamental change in the rules of debate as we know them in this Parliament, and one wonders whether this is not another example of the contempt in which the Government holds the whole parliamentary system in South Africa. [Interjections.] Where are the speakers then? Surely they must have some views on the matter before us. [Interjections.] There are fundamental rules relating to the future conduct of debates in this Parliament.

We are talking about one only.

Yes, of course we are talking about one only; but with respect to the hon the Leader of the House, this is a very basic principle relating to the entire set of rules before the House!

The leader of my party, the hon member for Sea Point, has moved an amendment which is also a matter of vital interest and concern to the rules of debate in this Parliament. He has suggested that the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa should be further amended in order to remove the provision which makes it impossible for there to be joint voting at a joint sitting, and there has not been a single response from hon members of the Government to that proposal.

The hon the Leader of the House is obviously going to enter this debate, and it will not be before time that another hon member from the governing party enters the debate, but we are now left with the situation in which we have ringing in our ears the rather fatuous comments of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament regarding our departure from the Westminster system. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has dealt with our reaction to the remarks made by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament on our departure from the Westminster system. Certainly it has been common cause for a long time in South Africa that we needed to move away from the Westminster system by way of adaptation. That does not mean, however, that we have to abandon every aspect of the Westminster system. It does not mean that we have to abandon the principle relating to parliamentary opposition and the protection of minorities in Parliament, which we are tending to do in the amendments which are before the House at the present time. That does not mean we must abandon what is accepted in Westminster, viz that all members of Parliament are equal.

This is what is happening in the South African Parliament and according to this principle all members of Parliament are not equal. They are divided in terms of race so that members of Parliament are either Indians, Coloureds or Whites. This inequality is stressed again in this House when there is no response from Government members when we suggest moving away from the constitutional proposal that the three Houses may not vote together in a joint sitting but have to vote separately. It is quite correct, as we have ascertained, that as long as one starts from that premise one will have to go through the whole tortuous nonsense which is represented by the new rules before this House. One will have to talk about deferred voting. One will have to talk about a limitation on the moving of amendments. The whole system of no-confidence debates will have to be changed, because the premise is that this Government is afraid to face a situation of voting at a joint sitting of the three Houses. They are afraid to do so for obvious reasons—they want to see that control is retained in the White House in order to exercise that control.

I think it is time that we had some response from other hon members on the Government benches to what is a fundamental change in the whole debating procedure as we have known it in the South African Parliament.

Mr Chairman, we have really had a wonderfully wide-ranging debate this afternoon, as though we were establishing a new constitution. In the meantime we are amending certain rules in order to apply the existing Constitution. I think it is a basic error of reasoning—which I think, too, is a rather deliberate error of reasoning—the opposition parties are making in trying to read all kinds of new things into this report, as though it were a substantial and fundamental deviation from the principles contained in the Constitution.

The best proof I have of this is the arguments coming from the hon members of the PFP. The hon members of the PFP are saying that we are not changing anything with these amended rules. They are asking us to effect a material change. They say that we are changing the appearance of the system, but they are correct when they say that we are not changing the essence of the system. They are advocating that we change the essence of the system. [Interjections.] The hon members of the CP are going overboard, in the most exaggerated terms, to illustrate how we are ostensibly in the process of changing the essence of the system.

Both cannot be right!

No. I am not going to say that both cannot be right; the hon member has said that on my behalf. Thank you very much.

You are so predictable!

Sir, I should like to say a few words about the background to this report. I think we are indebted to the hon Speaker, the hon Chief Whip of Parliament and the Secretariat, who went to a great deal of trouble to incorporate in our rules good elements—keep politics out of this for now; we shall come to that later—from other systems in a meaningful way. These are elements which enable us to develop better practical procedures allowing the business of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa to proceed more efficiently. After we have debated the respective paragraphs, we can debate on whether or not specific proposals are improvements on old, established measures which we inherited from the Westminster system. I think those people deserve our thanks in respect of this report, and for the hard work and the thought that went into it.

First of all I want to deal with the arguments of hon members of the CP. Oh please, Sir, there was the terrible terminology of the hon member for Brakpan. First he spoke about reform through fraud, and I pulled him up about that, Sir. Then, again, it was “base political deceit”.

Surely you are also constantly using “fraud”!

Then there was the question of stop-go. I just want to tell that hon member that we are not dealing with a stop-go system; all we are doing is putting a new, sophisticated gearbox into the parliamentary machine.

And it is going to seize up! [Interjections.]

Firstly the hon member relied throughout in his argument, in which he tried to indicate how far we had progressed down the slippery slope to ultimate joint voting and a system of one man, one vote—that was his party’s theme—on statements that were made during the referendum. However, he omitted—he could not reply when I put a question to him in this connection—to say that we conducted a debate on this principle last year in August. [Interjections.] It was a public debate widely reported in the Press. Subsequently we held an election. No one had any reason to be deluded about the fact that the principle of joint debating had already been accepted last year.

I want to go further. Surely this is not a new principle. The principle of joint debates and joint deliberation was incorporated in the Constitution from the first moment this Constitution was placed on the Statute Book. What difference does it make whether one sits together on the standing committee…

Are you not ashamed of yourself, FW?

No, I am not ashamed of myself, Sir. One should feel ashamed of oneself when one misleads the voters, as the CP do. The CP must feel ashamed of themselves because they do not perceive this simple, fundamental distinction, or keep quiet about it if they do perceive it. [Interjections.]

From the first moment the Constitution came into operation, we did privately precisely what we shall now do in public in terms of this paragraph. [Interjections.] Precisely the same! Those hon members sat on every mixed committee, and debated the same matters which are now going to be debated in public. [Interjections.]

Just the same as your Council-of-Cabinets story. It is the same argument. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, we are not introducing any new principle. All that is going to happen now is that we are also going to debate in public now, as we have up to now debated on the standing committees.

I am not surprised hon members are so concerned about this, because what they say in Kimberley and all over, they will in future have to say in the presence of these people in public. [Interjections.]

We have been doing so in public for a long time!

They will now have to stand up in public and say that the Coloureds must become a people, and must accept a country they have never had. When they then resume their seats, a Coloured will rise to his feet, and say what their standpoint on the matter is. [Interjections.] This is going to introduce a new dimension in debating for them because they will now be held accountable in a public debate for what they say, in which people about whom they are saying things, will themselves have an opportunity to say how they feel. [Interjections.]

It is for the same reason that the PFP is so concerned. They are going to have nothing left to say. They base virtually their entire existence on expressing the standpoint of these other people, and if these other people are present during a joint debate, they will speak on their own behalf. Then the members of the PFP will have to say what they say on behalf of the voters who sent them here, and not on behalf of the voters who did not send them here. [Interjections.]

No new principle of public debating or joint sitting is emerging. Hon members of the CP and the PFP are quite correct when they say that the fundamental question which could rightly beat issue in this debate is that if the system is changed so that one can vote together—not on the same occasion, as we have on the standing committees, but if one were to put all the votes together in one hat—it would mean a fundamental change of the basic principles of the Constitution. That is what the PFP wants. They state it in their amendment. And let us now clear up our terminology in this debate.

Give us a categorical reply.

There are two ways in which one can have joint votes. The one way is the established practice that is adopted on the standing committees, namely that the chairman gives the representatives of each of the three Houses an opportunity, on the same occasion, to state as a House their standpoint by way of a vote—the House of Assembly on its own, but in the presence of the others; the House of Representatives on its own, in the presence of the others; and the same with the House of Delegates.

It would be practicable to have such a system of simultaneous voting in public on the same occasion, but by House. This possibility was considered, and it was decided that we would rather not include this in the rules. However that would not change the principle. If we were at any time to say that, when we take joint decisions, we were to put all the votes in the same hat and then simply establish who says yes and who says no, regardless of what House is represented…

We would then be one nation.

… it would be a fundamental amendment, for then we would be moving away…

Do you guarantee that it will never happen?

… from the guarantees which the Constitution wants to incorporate for each population group in respect of self-determination and in respect of an own power base within which that population group—in our case the Whites—advances its majority opinion on all matters, including general affairs. It is not the policy of the NP that there should be joint votes on the basis of one man, one vote—all the votes in one hat.

How long will that still be the case?

It is fundamental to NP policy and philosophy that every population group, on all levels, must have a power base from whence its elected leaders emerge, and that joint decision-making must occur in such a way that one group does not dominate another.

Tell us how.

Hon members on the opposition side can kick up as much dust as they like now, but it is not a sound argument to try to establish any kind of link between the contents of this report and a fundamental amendment of the policy, principles and the basis of the Constitution, for it has nothing to do with that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he agrees with me that domination by the NP is still an integral part of the system, as it works at present?

The hon member must please go back and read the speech made by the hon member for Over-vaal carefully. He will then see that in the same speech the hon member began by saying that we Whites dominate everything, and ended with a heart-rending plea on how little power the Whites in South Africa have left. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He must read it. [Interjections.] It reads exactly like a story book, and the hon member must stop having his bread buttered on both sides. Does he stand for White domination in what he calls White South Africa?

An own Government in an own country.

Yes, Sir—an own Government in an own country, and if one is sharing a country with others? [Interjections.] Then his “own” is Whites only, and the others are declared to be aliens.

Politically speaking, yes!

The others are declared to be aliens, and they are given work permits to be in the country of their birth. [Interjections.] Oh please, Sir, let us settle this debate on some other occasion; I think I am testing your patience.

The CP cannot have its cake and eat it. They cannot, on the one hand, want to shoot down the system in flames because it allegedly incorporates domination, while on the other hand they also want to shoot it down because it supposedly means the total surrender of White self-determination and because the Whites ostensibly have so little power left in their own fatherland. They must choose between the two. [Interjections.] That is exactly what I am asking, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to request the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to read the speech made by the hon member for Overvaal.

I am simply asking where you are going!

For once he must be politically honest and admit that there is a total contradiction within one and the same speech made by one of the hon members of his party. We have this regularly from hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is how they confuse the public and bluff uninformed voters.

What was your majority?

My majority was substantially greater…

1 500?

… larger than that of most hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

Next time I am going…

Order! No, we are not fighting the election now, nor are we anticipating the next election.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg is looking for sinister ulterior motives in the new concept we are using here—the concept of joint meetings as compared with joint sittings. This means to differentiate between a joint—if I can call it that—meeting, which in terms of the Constitution is convened by the State President in a new form, which will have precisely the same appearance—the same people will be represented there—but which is convened in accordance with ordinary parliamentary procedure. It is a mere functional distinction, which has no sinister undertones.

Furthermore, the hon member for Pietersburg also used rather extremist terms. I refer, for example, to his emotional reference to the “mess of pottage of power sharing”. In the meantime they are sitting there—replete with the mess of pottage concocted by the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member mentioned the large proportion of joint legislation on general matters, and the paucity of legislation on own affairs. He did so to indicate that part of our system that makes provision for self-determination, in terms of which we always meet alone when we pass legislation on own affairs, is supposedly so extremely negligible.

But surely it is!

Surely we have a finely developed system of legislation, which has been carried over for utilisation by the House of Assembly, in the case of the Whites, as far as own affairs are concerned. However we are engaged in reform. We are engaged in effecting change. We are engaged in a new system of communal affairs. Consequently this necessitates adjustments to legislation. It necessitates new, creative legislation. That is why I tell hon members that it will continue in this way.

Up to what point?

It will continue in this way, and a considerable amount of amending legislation will have to be passed to keep on adjusting the system to the new demands as a result of the new direction we have taken. We have taken a new direction.

A fatal direction!

Hon members must make this new direction their own now.

That will be the day!

It is no use comparing what we have now with what we had in the past. What we have now is something new. It has replaced what used to be. Besides, the CP will never be able to turn the clock back. [Interjections.] It is a fait accompli. [Interjections.]

The hon member also wanted to know whether we would have joint voting. I think I have indicated the fundamental difference to him clearly, and have also made the fundamental standpoint of this side of the House clear to him.

Furthermore, reference was made to the right to decide in regard to an own election. When the hon members of this House supported the new Constitution with a majority, after the voters had supported it with a majority in the referendum, we decided voluntarily and without coercion what sections of the Constitution we would entrench, and what sections we would not entrench. We are therefore co-responsible for the Constitution as it exists at present. It was an act of self-determination when we committed ourselves to that Constitution. Consequently it was the implementation of the mandate which we obtained in a democratic way.

Voluntary imprisonment!

No, it is not voluntary imprisonment. We have caused South Africa to set foot on the path of hope because the status quo at the time was not satisfactory. The status quo is still not satisfactory. I agree that this Parliament is still not perfect. We shall in future have to change these Rules again—definitely after we have acquired practical experience in this connection.

When I talk about these Rules, I am satisfied about one thing, and that is that with the experience we now have since we began to apply the new Constitution, fundamental improvements to the system have been incorporated here which will put all hon members of this House in a better position to play a meaningful role.

Today the hon member for Soutpansberg chose to launch a relatively acrimonious personal attack.

It was not an acrimonious personal attack.

Oh please, Sir, I do not feel like replying to him. However there is one thing he should know: Nothing he says can hurt me any more.

[Inaudible.]

He cannot even make me angry. As far as I am concerned, every time he attacks me it proves to me that I am on the right road. That is how concerned I am about the way he thinks!

What did I say to you?

The hon member waxed lyrical about Westminster. The Westminster system is not a single model; it has many facets. Of course it is to a large extent in terms of the Westminster system that effect has been given to Western democracy as we know it. It incorporates sound elements. However we have already altered numerous facets of the Westminster system, and there is a tendency among hon members who had been used to the old system to cling to it. We ourselves must frequently resist the temptation to think merely in terms of the old established ideas when we think about the parliamentary system. There is a tendency in each of us to cling to the known and shrink from the unknown. The fundamental error of the Westminster system, however, is twofold, and I think we are in the process of rectifying it.

Firstly, the fundamental parliamentary style which is an integral part of the Western system is that, except by way of exception, one begins to discuss legislation by means of a confrontation debate. This we have already eliminated by means of the committee system, in terms of which we begin with all legislation by means of consultation in a closed circle in which co-responsibility can be accepted. I believe that this leads to better legislation.

Once again the winner-takes-all is fundamentally incorporated into the Westminster system. That is why the hon members of the PFP are pleading for the amendment they have moved. They want us to throw everyone together and then say that the winners are 50% plus one. That is what they are seeking—on a mixed voters’ roll, elected jointly. After all, that is their policy. They are entitled to it, but they are not able to sell their policy to the power base who sent them to this House.

I do not know what you are talking about.

We also say that we must divide power. We must recognise own power bases. In regard to own affairs there is full-fledged self-determination, while, as regards matters of common concern, there is an opportunity to form an own majority opinion, to test a majority opinion in the system against other majority opinions and to try there to reach consensus and agreement when there are divergent majority opinions of the various population groups whose interests and problems differ from one another. This is far removed from the Westminster system, and therefore it is a substantial movement away from it.

I now turn to the hon members of the PFP.

†The hon the leader of the PFP firstly made a snide remark about the so-called almost dictatorial position—that is my word; he did not use it, but it is my interpretation of what he said—which the Chief Whip of Parliament will now hold.

He used the word.

It is true that the Chief Whip is charged in this report and the draft rules with a tremendous amount of responsibility, and he will have to work very hard. However, he is in no dictatorial position. The convention is deeply rooted that…

Is it a Westminster convention? [Interjections.]

Yes, we have also taken it over. The hon member must go and read the Constitution. There is a specific provision in our Constitution which says that those conventions will continue to be applied inasmuch as they are not amended. [Interjections.] It is part of our system and it has been specifically included in the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House referred to a convention of the past. As I understand it, under the Westminster system which we had, there was no such person as a Chief Whip of Parliament. He is a creature of the non-Westminster system. How can he therefore say that a Westminster convention applies to a Chief Whip of Parliament which does not exist in the Westminster system?

We have at no stage announced the public execution of all the elements of the Westminster system. The hon member must read the Constitution. There is a provision which refers specifically to the conventions. Obviously, however, insofar as those conventions cannot be married to the new system they cannot apply. Because of our three-Chamber system, we had to institute the position of Chief Whip of Parliament. In the short time he has been there he has built up an admirable record which is laying the foundation for new conventions with regard to negotiation as the basis for organising the business of the three Houses. [Interjections.] Since the introduction of the system I have never heard any public or private criticism from any Whip of the way in which this Chief Whip of Parliament has done the job. One might have differed with certain conclusions that he came to or with his points of view but he has at all times gone out of his way to afford all parties in all Houses the most ample opportunity possible within the time limits laid down to state their requirements. This is the only way in which he will be able to exercise the functions delegated to him by the new rules. If he does not do that he will be out of his job within three months because then there will be a crisis.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House said that we would keep the conventions until such time as we amended them. He also said that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has already amended a number of conventions. May I ask him how one goes about amending a convention? Does one seek the co-operation of the opposition parties or does one simply amend it?

There are many ways in which a convention can be amended. I think we will be amending certain conventions when we adopt these amendments to the rules. In doing so a specific procedure has been followed. A report was submitted, a discussion was held in the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and we are now having a debate. If a decision is taken it will be an amendment of a convention insofar as that convention is being changed. In other situations, however, one often finds that a convention is amended by a new practice taking root by agreement between people. Slowly but surely a new pattern is set. This quite often happens and maybe it is the best way to amend a convention because one obtains the support of everyone all along. So I do not see the point of the hon member’s question.

There is nothing sinister in this. Within the framework of the Constitution, we are proposing a new set of rules which we think will ensure that the activities of all members of Parliament, including the executive, will be more productive. We also think it will make for more meaningful debate by avoiding unnecessary repetition—I refer specifically to paragraph 1. I think therefore that we should stop making politics out of this and concentrate on making these rules as effective as possible. [Interjections.]

Both the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon member for Sea Point tried to create the impression that with these new rules we will be moving away from a democratic system.

Mr Chairman, I do not know of anything in these rules which is taking away any existing rights of Parliament or any party in Parliament. It is changing the manner in which those rights are exercised. It is true that one may move an amendment at a different time. The time when one votes is being changed. However, the right to vote and the right to move an amendment, if I may mention two examples, are not being taken away.

When can we move an amendment?

We are changing procedure, therefore; we are not changing the heart of Parliament, the meaning of Parliament, the role of Parliament or the rights of Parliament in any fundamental way in these rules.

Can we move an amendment to a motion for Second Reading?

Yes, just read the rules. One can move it after the discussion and before it goes to the House for voting.

It cannot be debated.

It is being provided for now. The hon member for Berea did not really make a contribution, but rather repeated what other hon members had said. I think I have already dealt with that. However, he asked why we did not discuss this matter.

Why the silence?

We have decided only to react in this debate once a clear-cut picture has emerged as to the point of view of the opposition. If we were to rise in reaction to every speech, even if it is meaningless, we should be wasting the time of Parliament. Nothing much has really been presented in this debate. Only two basic points were made. One was the question whether this was going to lead to a change in the fundamental principle of the Constitution, and I have dealt with that. The other point that was made was that the rights of parliamentarians and of parties were being negatively affected, and I have tried to deal with that too. I am waiting to hear in what way the new rules will have a fundamentally negative effect on the rights of parties or parliamentarians.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House—forgetting about the technicalities and accepting for the moment his concept that each House must vote separately as an entity—whether he has any objection in principle which would explain why there is a distinction between people voting in the same room when they sit on a standing committee and voting in the same room when they are in a joint sitting? Is there a principle involved, in the submission of the hon the Leader of the House, or is it purely a technicality?

I suggest that we debate that when we come to deferred voting. There is a specific paragraph dealing with that. However, there is an argument in that regard.

Is it a matter of principle?

No, it is a practical situation. It is a question of the right to move amendments. If one is to vote, one must first be afforded the right to move amendments. Within the system of each House voting on its own in the final analysis, when it has considered the report of a standing committee, there must be the right to move amendments. Now one would have three sets of amendments in one Chamber.

All of us would be listening while one House was moving its amendments and having its vote. Then all of them would be sitting around and watching while we were moving our amendments and having our vote. From a practical point of view, therefore, the deferred system will avoid unnecessary sitting around and wasting time.

It has an additional advantage for parties, however. This is that they will move their amendments and will then have the right to make a declaration on why they are doing so and why they have decided to vote in a certain way, which they do not have under the present system.

In other words, it is a practicality that you are talking about.

It is really a question of practicality. The question of principle concerns the way in which the votes are counted and whether they are counted together or separately for each House. There a principle is involved and there we differ in principle.

Mr Chairman, it has been a long time since I have seen such an egg-dance on the part of the hon the Leader of the House as was the case today. [Interjections.] He is usually a clear and logical debater, but today he is enmeshed in a problem from which he cannot escape.

I just want to single out a few of the misapprehensions of the hon the Leader of the House. Firstly, he says that the rules are being amended to fit in with the existing Constitution, or words to that effect, but the next item on the Order Paper is an amendment to the Constitution.

It is a formal amendment, and you know it.

No, it is a consequential amendment. However, the fact is that we are now deciding to move away from undertakings the NP gave in the past. If the hon the Leader of the House says that it has always been the idea that joint consultation was going to take place, since we are already able to consult jointly in the standing committees, that is not what the hon the State President said at the NP’s Federal Congress in Bloemfontein when he was still Prime Minister. It was stated very dearly then that joint sittings could take place for symbolic purposes. Surely this is not in accordance with the guarantees and undertakings given by the NP over the years. How can he come and tell us now that consultation has always taken place jointly, but it was only there in the standing committees?

But has there not always been joint consultation in the standing committees?

Then it should have been openly stated in that speech in Bloemfontein. The following should have been said: “People, I am actually lying to you. We are not going to meet only for symbolic reasons; we are going to meet in the standing committees, and in the future we are also going to have joint consultation, but are only going to vote separately.” Why was it not spelt out like that to the voters at the Federal Congress? Why was a point made of saying we were only going to meet jointly for symbolic purposes?

In the same breath the hon the Leader of the House is trying to create the impression that we are afraid of joint debating because we will have to say in front of those people what we say behind their backs. We are not afraid of saying those things.

[Inaudible.]

Now he must also remember what else he said. He says he wants to move away from an aspect of Westminster practices, viz confrontation politics. Does he foresee that we will be moving away from confrontation politics in that enormous chamber we will be sitting in? Does he think we are not going to have confrontation between the LP or the NPP and the CP? Does he think all will be absolutely peaceful there? If he thinks there is going to be no confrontation, he is living in a dream world. The kind of confrontation we have had, and still have here, is between people with the same traditions, background and historical and cultural values. I can therefore say what I wish to my friend the hon member for Sea Point. I could say many things that would not necessarily hurt him, because we come from the same cultural background and we move in the same circles. We are going to have confrontation par excellence in those joint sittings. That is why the hon the Chief Whip is speaking of a rigid time schedule for speeches and says that Mr Speaker should have special powers to try and keep peace and order there. The NP foresees confrontation politics in that new dispensation. How can he say now that we are moving away from Westminster in respect of this aspect? Surely that is not correct.

You are twisting my words now. [Interjections.]

I am not twisting them.

I said that the committee system we have introduced…

He must go and read his Hansard. He said that one of the aspects in respect of which we are going to move away from the Westminster system is to try to eliminate confrontation debates. I say that we are going to have greater confrontation there. [Interjections.] We are also going to have more frustration there. The three Houses consist of 178, 85 and 45 members respectively, but all three have equal weight in the constitutional process. Are all the Houses going to have equal time to speak in those joint sittings, or is it going to be worked out according to the number of members in each party? Let us assume that time to speak is to be allotted only according to the number of members. In the present separate debates…

You must not anticipate these things. [Interjections.]

Very well, we shall refer to this again, but I want to say right now that the allocation of time to speak in a week-long debate which is now going to follow in a joint sitting, is going to give the CP and the PFP less time than is the case now. The hon the Chief Whip must just think about that, because we are coming to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

There is another aspect I want to mention. The hon the Leader of the House says that we cannot have our bread buttered on both sides, but at the same time he does not answer our question. It sounds fine to say that we are going to make joint decisions and protect groups and that there will be no domination. How is the hon the Leader of the House going to prevent it? That is the question my hon friend asked him.

Our charge against the hon the Leader of the House and his party is precisely that whilst they are preaching that there is going to be no domination of one group by another group, there is domination by the NP, and that is the present fact.

The problem arising now with which the hon the Deputy Minister in the Office of the State President is wrestling, is how we are going to find the formula to prevent domination. He says that if we do not find it, “then the future is very bleak indeed”. The future is in fact “very bleak indeed”. See what it looks like in the NP ranks nowadays. On Friday we did not have a quorum. [Interjections.]

He must tell us how he is going to get away from these stories he is always presenting to his voters. He says they have a fantastic policy and there will be no domination of one group by another, but the NP dominates the whole parliamentary system on the quiet and in public. [Interjections.]

There is another point about the Westminster system I should like to emphasise. The hon member for Soutpansberg said that when it suits them, they move away from the Westminster system, and when it does not suit them, the system is fine. We shall come to the question of the no-confidence debate later. In that regard the British system is being presented to us. The speech from the Throne is discussed in the British system, and therefore we must also discuss the State President’s address. For that reason I say that this is an egg-dance and equivocation, and it certainly does not convince us.

I want to make another point, and that is that the Black people are also going to participate in the decision-making processes in this system. The Black people are also going to be brought into a joint decision-making process in some way. Already we are going to sit and consult together in this joint meeting, and later there will also be Black people. Can hon members imagine how this is going to focus on how few Whites are going to be in that joint meeting?

Order! I think the hon member for Brakpan is really anticipating matters to a great extent now. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament must now give us an indication of how he is going to arrange for time to be set aside for all political parties and independents to be able to participate in debates in a joint sitting.

As far as we are concerned, we reject paragraph 1 of this Report of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders, and we are going to vote against it.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply in respect of the confrontation issue immediately. The hon member for Brakpan paid no attention to what I said after my reference to confrontation. I said we had tried to get away from the typical confrontation model by doing something that was not done in the Westminster system, namely by referring all legislation to a standing committee first, thus diminishing the possibility of confrontation to a great extent. We know that one is often successful—not always, but sometimes.

Bills that are discussed by a standing committee first, often end up with the general support of at least the majority parties, whereas if one were to do this in the typical Westminster way and not refer these Bills to a standing committee first, the chances of real confrontation would be increased immediately. Naturally confrontation will still take place in debates about Bills. Debate means confrontation.

Really, F W?

There is nothing new in that. The hon member is not a Minister.

Are you going to stop debating then?

I often speak in the other Houses. Does the hon member think I do not reply to the debates that take place there? Does he think we do not enter into debate with one another in those Houses? We are used to doing so. One can get a long way by being decent and sincere.

Then you will not go far.

I do not think debates at which Coloureds and Indians are present are more explosive than debates in which hon members use the kind of terminology often used by hon members of the CP.

Mr Chairman, in a sense the hon Leader of the House broadened the debate. I do not wish to take what he said too far, but he did raise a few points of major substance which are relevant to the debate and which need to be dealt with.

The first is that he said that we should move away from “die styl van konfrontasie” as under the Westminster system. I would agree, except that I believe as long as the Government insists that people have to be represented on a racial basis, the process of confrontation is going to continue. Let us, however, leave that to one side.

The other point that he mentioned was that we must get away from the concept of “wenner vat alles”, and he said that “elke groep moet sy eie magsbasis hê”.

*He went on to speak about own affairs in respect of which decisions could be taken. I leave own affairs aside. They are minor affairs. We are discussing general affairs, such as financial affairs, defence, labour, foreign affairs and security. These are general affairs. The hon the Leader of the House said they had to express their views on these matters separately.

This happens every time…

Who makes the decisions? Who makes the decisions on general affairs?

One reaches consensus among the majority parties.

What is the value of a power base if one cannot use it to exercise legislative power?

Order! I really fail to see how this is relevant to the paragraph under discussion.

I wondered about that while the hon Leader of the House was speaking, Mr Chairman. However, he spoke for half an hour and he made this the crux of his whole argument, namely that there has to be “aparte magsbasisse”. I say that under the present system and under the system as amended by these Rules, it is going to be a case of “winner take all”, provided one is the NP. Can anybody tell me of any legislation which either of the other two Houses on its own, or those two Houses together, can pass? The only legislation they can pass is legislation of the NP endorsed by this House and subsequently the President’s Council. There is no “magsbasis” for them in that sense. They can talk and vote negatively, but there is no way by which they can assert themselves in the legislative field.

Order! The amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point does not entail the creation in that sense of “magsbasisse”, as he puts it. For that reason I do not see how his argument is relevant to the debate.

Mr Chairman, may I put it to you this way: The hon the Leader of the House argued that by voting jointly, the “magsbasisse” would be destroyed. His reason for rejecting my amendment was that one would in fact be destroying the separate “magsbasisse” of the various groups. The reason why he rejected voting together was that, he said, one has to vote separately in order to retain one’s own separate power identity. [Interjections] I can understand his argument. However, I wish to give him two illustrations of where there is joint voting under the present system.

The first one is that of the President’s Council which, in the end, is the body which makes the decisions—it is the deadlock-breaking mechanism. There is joint voting, whether one is Coloured, Indian or White—and one day, I presume, Black. There is therefore already an example in the President’s Council where the Government has conceded that when one has to make a final decision, one actually has to destroy the separate voting system and that one has to have a collective voting system. The reason why it is tolerated is that the Government is in control there.

Correct!

The Government has control; in other words, this is “Winner take all Westminster Deluxe”. [Interjections.] It is a Westminster Deluxe system, as long as the NP is in control. That is therefore an illustration of joint voting under a system approved by the NP.

I wish to give hon members another illustration. The hon Leader of the House can reply and tell me how he is going to deal with it.

The electoral college.

No, not at all. I am referring to the regional services councils dealing with general affairs. There is a non-racial franchise on those regional services councils. The vote is not related to the colour of a person’s skin, but to the cost of the services which the various voting blocs use. They do not vote separately. They sit there—Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites—and they are all going to vote collectively and not on the basis of racial proportions. They are going to vote on the basis of the value of the services which they have received from the regional services councils. [Interjections.]

How does each maintain its own separate “magsbasis”? I mention this, because here are two practical illustrations where the Government itself believes one can have joint voting, and yet says that one needs to have a separate “magsbasis”.

We argue that it is imperative for South Africa that we move away from the stultified, archaic concept that the only groups that exist in South Africa are colour groups.

Secondly, we believe that people elected to this House—be they Indians, Coloured or Whites—are members of Parliament and they should have the same rights. They should not be discounted by a ratio of 4:2:1 provided the NP wins.

Furthermore—and I support the hon members of the Official Opposition to this extent—we will come back to this House and the Government will have to change. It will have to change because this country can no longer afford to be saddled in the field of general affairs with the archaic concept of apartheid which the hon the Minister typifies.

Then they are not general affairs.

One cannot compromise. If one is going to have general affairs, all the people affected by general affairs must have an equal say in the determination of their future. [Interjections.]

Of course one can have other restrictions. One can have a decentralisation of power so that one does not have only one “magsbasis” at central Government level but a whole range of them. One could have a limitation of power through a bill of rights [Interjections.] One could have constitutional entrenchments but as long as the Government maintains the situation in which, as the hon the Minister said, the “magsbasis” is the vote in a joint sitting on a separate basis, we shall not escape the problem we have in South Africa, namely that of the increasing polarisation of our society.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to know whether the hon member realises that we are not talking about the Constitution but about the rules for joint sittings. [Interjections.]

I had actually anticipated that you, Mr Chairman, would say that in due course. However, I raised those points because the hon the Minister used them as the key reasons for rejecting my amendment. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Minister will reply. I should like his attention for one moment. Could the hon the Minister furnish me with a reply in which he indicates whether joint voting in the President’s Council in fact leads to a winner-takes-all situation and whether joint voting leads to a winner-takes-all situation in respect of the regional services councils?

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House referred to hon members on this side of the Committee and said that he had a considerably larger majority than we got. [Interjections.] The fact that I am speaking after him, is pure coincidence and not because I had a considerably larger majority than he had. [Interjections.]

To come back to what the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament had to say about what the stars say, I want to say that my recollection of what the stars say is really a little vague, since I last read that in my puberty… [Interjections.]… but my recollection of it is that those horoscopes offer something for everyone. That is in fact what the NP is trying to offer today—something for everyone, but nothing for anyone. The horoscopes are nice to read, but no-one takes much notice of them, precisely because of the fact that they try to offer everyone something.

I want to come back to the report. In it they speak about joint meetings. If I understand this correctly, a meeting is a gathering of two or more people. That is one kind of meeting one can have. In other words, we are dealing with a number of individuals who come together as members of a meeting. Such a meeting then votes according to its members. However, I can also foresee that there could be joint meetings of Houses. Two or more Houses therefore gather to hold a meeting, and then the Houses vote. The question now is just whether in these circumstances in which we find ourselves, we are dealing with a joint meeting of a number of people, that is a number of individual members of different parties, or with joint meetings of three Houses. If only one House turns up, we shall not have a meeting, because at least two Houses or people would be needed to have a meeting. [Interjections.]

If this is the case, quorums, which come up for discussion later, will not be used with regard to how many members of a House participate in a decision, because since we are working with the concept of Houses holding a meeting, there will be three Houses and three votes. As has already been said, we are working throughout with three Houses with equal rights, in terms of the Constitution. Irrespective of how many members each House has, the three Houses as such have equal rights. Therefore, when one speaks of votes in those meetings, there could probably be a vote of two to one, since we are then speaking about Houses that have voted and a meeting of Houses and not of individuals. That is one aspect about which I would like to have a little more clarity.

Even the PFP’s amendment, viz:

is not clear. They therefore want the Houses to have the power to make decisions—they do not say the members of the Houses. Does the PFP foresee that the various Houses will vote as Houses, or that the members of the Houses will vote as individuals, or that a member of a House, in spite of being a member of a particular House—it is the Houses that make the decisions—can vote with members of another House? If the latter is possible, it can no longer be a question of a House which makes decisions, because they say:

They are therefore moving an amendment to the effect that the Houses must make the decisions, and not the individual members. The hon members of the PFP must therefore just tell us what they really mean. Do they mean that the Houses as such vote, or do they mean that members of a particular House can exercise a voting block with members of other Houses, or are they also just saying in the end that all three Houses should vote separately? [Interjections].

These, then, are the aspects about which I should like clarity. I hope, Sir, that I have confined myself to the paragraph you asked us to discuss. I should like us to have a clear definition of what a meeting is and who constitutes those meetings. Is it a meeting of members, or is it a meeting of the three Houses?

Mr Chairman, let me commence with the hon member for Bethal. Apparently the hon member has a problem with finding a definition for a joint meeting. I want to give him one to consider. A joint meeting is what he and Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche held in Standerton when he said that he really represents the AWB here. [Interjections.]

We did not vote there.

Surely it is true that it took place. Is it not true? The hon member shared a platform with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche in Standerton, did he not?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I did.

Thank you very much. The hon member also said that he is really here on behalf of the AWB?

No, that is not true!

Well, the hon member created that impression. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is a rule of this House that if an hon member has made a statement, the hon member who is speaking must accept it and not derive an implication from it.

Order! I am not sure what the hon member is referring to.

Mr Chairman, this concerns the denial by the hon member for Bethal of what the hon the Leader of the House said.

What did he deny?

He denied that he had said that he represents the AWB in Parliament, and the hon the Leader of the House said that that was not how he understood it.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House said that a particular impression had been created. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member and I are both lawyers, and I seek elucidation in the Schedule, for example the proposed rule 7 (2). If he looks at that, he will see:

I think there is little doubt that when we sit in standing committees, we sit there as representatives of a particular House, and when we sit jointly, we each sit there as representatives of our own House. I therefore think it is a joint meeting of Houses insofar as that could be relevant. Even if the voting took place there, it would take place as in a standing committee on the basis that each House has a vote.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether, if two of the Houses did not arrive at a joint sitting, such a sitting could proceed, or whether it could not proceed at all?

Both the Constitution and the rules make provision for such circumstances. When a particular House launches specific stay-away campaigns, there are certain prescribed procedures to ensure that the legislative process cannot be impeded by such stay-away campaigns. The hon member should just have read a little further, since he would have seen that provision has been made for this.

Yes, if they sat separately.

No, that, too, will be incorporated here.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he knew that that hon member is a member of the AWB?

I do not think there is much doubt about it, but that hon member must ask the hon member for Bethal himself for final confirmation.

I really think that if it is a problem, the principle is in fact built in, and we shall have to watch it carefully. We cannot allow a House which participates in an election to withdraw from the system, thereby bringing the country to a halt. The Constitution and the rules for the implementation of the Constitution prevent this. I do not think that something we do here makes it easier for someone to bring the process to a halt. In fact, I think the procedures are being curtailed somewhat and the position is being facilitated to prevent this very eventuality.

Mr Chairman, I have another question. I have problems with…

Order! The hon member cannot simply stand up and begin to put a question without giving me the opportunity first to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to reply to the question.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to answer the question.

I apologise, Mr Chairman. The previous definition of when there should be a quorum or when a House was sitting, had to do with the exercising of powers. Now it only has to do with when it votes to decide on a question. In addition, it sits separately when it decides on the question. Am I not correct in saying that, since they do not vote in the Chamber of Parliament? If it fails to put in an appearance in the Chamber of Parliament for the debate in a joint sitting, but does go and vote in its own House, what happens then? As I see it, unless the hon the Leader of the House can correct me, no provision is made for such a situation.

In the schedule, as well as in the report itself, the hon member will see that an amendment is proposed relating to quorum rules, namely that quorums will only apply to voting and not during debates. This will solve the problem effectively.

The hon member for Sea Point spoke about fundamental constitutional differences between us and them. Mr Chairman, I should really like to assist you now. I have reacted to remarks which you allowed during the first broad general debate, and we could go on at length and conduct an in-depth debate on the constitutional structures on which these rules are based. However, those constitutional structures are not what is on the Table at present. I am not trying to criticise you, Mr Chairman, since I think it is a good thing that you gave us a little time for a broader debate. What is on the Table here, however, is the facilitation of the practical functioning of the constitutional structures established by the Constitution.

The key question the hon member for Sea Point asked me, was about the President’s Council and about regional services councils. Within the framework of the Constitution, this is the directly-elected body of all the White voters in South Africa. Likewise, the House of Representatives comprises the representatives of that population group, and the same applies to the House of Delegates. The regional services council is an indirectly-constituted body which derives its authority from the constituent local authorities which are also constituted on the same basis as the House of Assembly.

How do they vote when they are there?

If we want to look at it from a technical point of view, we see that too large a local authority is deprived of its full voting power.

There is a restriction in the sense that it is not permitted to cast more than 50% of the votes. I am not familiar with the details; I am not the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who knows the Regional Services Councils Act out of his head.

Do they vote on a group basis?

Sir, firstly the council is constituted on a group basis. [Interjections.] Secondly, checks and balances are built into the voting procedure, so that one group cannot dominate another. Surely hon members cannot argue with that. It is embodied in the Regional Services Councils Act. Therefore expression is given in a different way to the principle that one group should not dominate another. However, the group structure also remains a fundamental principle in the regional services councils.

And in the President’s Council?

Sir, the President’s Council is a body about which the hon the State President has already made an announcement. We are prepared to take a critical look at its composition and functions. I do not wish to conduct a speculative debate here now. My personal standpoint is that if we could depoliticise the settlement machinery, it would be a very good thing for South Africa.

And what about the electoral college?

Order! No, we cannot continue in this vein; we will eventually be dealing with the composition of school committees!

If we do not look at the electoral college…

Order!

Amendment put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Noes—102: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Beyers, J M; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Jager, C D; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Delport, J T; Derby-Lewis, C J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, PTC; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Langley, T; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Odendaal, W A; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Treurnicht, A P; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D Pde K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk, W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A.

Ayes—19: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Cronjé, P C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Amendment negatived.

Paragraph 1 put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—83: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, PTC; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A.

Noes—37: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; 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; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Paragraph 1 agreed to.

Paragraph 2:

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Brakpan to speak, I want to say that we have had a relatively wide-ranging discussion about the underlying and background principles, and that I intend to limit hon members strictly to the proposals contained in the report.

Mr Chairman, we are now dealing with motions and notices of motion, deferred voting, when a private member wants to have a subject discussed, precedence to topical matters of urgent public importance and legislation.

If one carefully reads paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 in particular…

Order! Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

… one sees it is nothing but an argument aimed at systematically making separate Houses inferior as far as general affairs are concerned. The system as we know it, namely that an amendment may be moved for example for a Bill to be read that day six months, falls away. The amendments which can be moved, motivated and debated fall away. There is only an opportunity to state a standpoint on behalf of a party at the deferred meeting, and perhaps an amendment which may be placed on record. However, there is no provision for the amendment to be moved in the debate and for it to be discussed by means of the normal debating procedure we are accustomed to.

Then the joint sitting adjourns so that the separate Houses can go and vote at a later date. We predict that in due course this is going to become impractical and in accordance with the Huntington principle we are going to vote together in future. In the same way that we have just argued in respect of paragraph 1 that the credibility of the Government is in tatters, we know that the future trend is going to be that we are going to vote together—in the same hat, as the hon the Leader of the House says—as the hon members of the PFP want.

The objectionable nature of this entire paragraph is illustrated specifically by paragraph 2.2. We in the CP are not interested in a joint sitting. Let me state this very pertinently and clearly. We are not interested in a joint sitting, and therefore we are also not interested in the fact that a matter of urgent public importance may be discussed at a joint sitting. However, we now have the situation that most matters which must be discussed are general affairs. An opposition party is therefore compelled to approach the senior Whips of other Houses to get a certificate from them to convince Mr Speaker that a matter of urgent public importance must be discussed. We find it objectionable that we have to go to a member of another House to get the permission of that man to request a debate on a matter of urgent public importance.

In other words, we who believe in self-determination on own affairs will therefore be compelled to introduce a matter of urgent public importance in our own Chamber, whereas it may be a general affair, because far be it from us to go to the Whip of another hon House to get a certificate from him stating that he considers the matter to be of sufficient urgency to justify a debate on a matter of public importance.

This argument also applies to paragraph 2. 3. This actually proves three things. In the first place it proves the irrelevancy of opposition parties, and even more so opposition parties which are not the Official Opposition. In the second place it proves the irrelevancy of separate Houses as regards general affairs of urgent public importance. In the third place it is trying to force hon members or parties into an integrated Parliament. We refuse to be integrated in this way. We will not vote in favour of paragraph 2.

Mr Chairman, seeing that the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition dealt with this paragraph specifically, I want to say that this report deals primarily with joint sittings. The hon member argued about the procedure to get a topic discussed, but we are dealing here solely with getting a topic discussed at a joint sitting. This does not encroach upon the right of opposition parties to have a matter of urgent public importance discussed in a specific House. This paragraph deals solely with joint meetings and a joint debate on a matter of urgent public importance should a member request this. The argument of the hon member that this deprives him of a right which he at present enjoys or that it forces him into a joint debate, therefore does not hold water. This report does not deal with the handling of private members’ motions in the three separate Houses.

The other aspect dealt with in this paragraph, is that of deferred voting which is an entirely new principle in our parliamentary procedure but, if I may say so, it is a tried and trusted system in many European parliaments. It affords us solutions for a whole series of practical problems which we foresee and for that reason we can use it to good effect. What happens in practice is that a debate on a measure is finalised in a full joint sitting or an extended committee or in the separate Houses, but the voting is not done on that occasion. The voting is deferred to a specific day and placed on the Order Paper of the different Houses. Debates can now be finalised in various extended committees which sit simultaneously. The debate can deal with a Vote or legislation. Because those extended committees do not have the power to settle the matter, they merely finalise the debate, but the full Houses eventually vote separately on the matter. That is why it is essential for the voting to be deferred.

There is another very important aspect, namely the matter of amendments. An incubation period is now being created between the finalisation and the reply to a debate and the eventual voting which will take place on that Bill. This period creates an opportunity for an hon member to place an amendment on the Order Paper by submitting it to Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker then refers all amendments, together with the Bill, to the standing committee for further consideration. Even if the debate on a Bill has been finalised in a joint sitting where it would be technically possible to vote separately in one room—I think that is the question the hon member for Yeoville asked—this period between the finalisation of a debate and the eventual voting creates a meaningful opportunity for us for amendments, which is a considerable improvement on the present system. If hon members therefore say that their democratic rights are being curtailed, this provision gives the lie to that, because their opportunity to submit amendments is being extended by this.

Whereas at present an hon member of the opposition must request a half-hour debate by way of a motion in order to be able to go into Committee to discuss an amendment, he is now being afforded this opportunity to have it discussed in the standing committee. If the standing committee considers it practicable, that measure is submitted to the Houses again.

The problem the hon members for Sea Point and Port Elizabeth Central are facing is that they realise that this system is working, and they dare not allow this system to work. That is why they are trying to create an ideological difference between this House and the other Houses. However, they know that it is of no avail even to try to create that ideological difference, because it did not succeed in the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Otherwise we would not have been able to come here with a measure that had been agreed upon. There is consensus among the Houses in respect of this matter. An attempt to stir up trouble about the ideological principle will therefore not succeed in this debate.

Mr Chairman, this paragraph just reinforces the point that we made in respect of the first paragraph, and that is that the absence of the right to take joint decisions has a whole series of consequences. This is why we are going through the contortions which are required in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Let me read 2.1.1 for the record:

This is quite correct. If one cannot vote, one cannot resolve a deadlock. That is why we have this whole process which does not allow for motions to be put, which does not provide for amendments to be moved and which does not allow voting to take place, all because we have not come to terms with the simple fact that when we are meeting jointly on general affairs, we should also be voting jointly.

We shall not be supporting this paragraph. We do not like the concept of deferred voting referred to in paragraph 2.1.4. Can one imagine having a debate and then, at some time which does not follow on this particular debate, at some later stage, assembling in one’s own House, having a brief statement of fact made by each party, and then going off and recording the votes? What are we doing to Parliament as a place in which there should be an exchange of views and of ideas?

Suppose a private member wants to have a subject discussed. This is the end of private members’ motions as far as joint sittings are concerned. There will be no provision for a private member’s motion at a joint sitting.

We have never had it!

No, but the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said “die stelsel werk”.

We are now going to have joint sittings, but at joint sittings, private members cannot move motions. Even if they have gone through all the procedures, all that will happen is that a subject will be put on the Order Paper for discussion. Why not move the motion? Do hon members know why? The only reason is to avoid taking a vote. Can hon members imagine that when there is a matter of urgent public importance, when, first of all, one has the permission of Mr Speaker, when one has the permission of the Whips of parties in each of the other Houses, and the Chief Whip has put it on the Order Paper, it can only be dealt with in the form of an item on the Order Paper? It cannot be dealt with in the form of a motion and it cannot be decided upon. Why have it as a matter of urgent public importance if one cannot reach a conclusion?

Mr Chairman, one can go through all of this. Take the example of legislation. There will no longer be a Second Reading. There will no longer be an introductory Second Reading speech. There will no longer be a motion before the House on which one can decide. All there will be to do will be to consider whatever is on the Order Paper.

The problems arising from paragraph 2—and we shall identify them later on—and from paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 all flow from the fact that here we are trying to bring people together, but we are refusing to allow them to finalise the action, and that finality must take the form of the decision to vote.

For these reasons, we have no intention of supporting paragraph 2.

Mr Chairman, I have only one thing to add to what the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said. The system of deferred voting works well in a number of parliamentary systems in Europe. I understand the Dutch, Belgian, West German and I think also the French parliaments all apply this system, each in its own way. It is not a new system, therefore. It gives one a new opportunity, once all the fuss about a debate has died down, to formulate one’s standpoint by means of an amendment and to motivate it briefly with a view to making it known to the public. For that reason it is an broadening of the opportunities for parliamentarians.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon the Leader of the House, while he is engaged in debating this point, that I am impressed with Italy, Belgium, Germany and France, as I did not realise that they had tricameral racial systems.

They have a system of deferred voting.

However, the chamber makes the decisions. What the hon the Leader of the House is actually saying is that somebody else should make the decisions. Regarding the systems he mentioned, whether they are deferred or not, the people who took part in the debate make the decision; they do not make separate decisions. What is proposed here is not simply a deferred vote. There will be a single debate and three separate deferred votes. How dare the hon the Leader of the House say that there is any comparison between…

But there is!

There is no comparison between a particular chamber’s saying, “We will postpone a vote until a later occasion when we will debate it and come to a decision” and our saying “We will not have a vote here, but we will have three separate deferred votes on the same subject”. The hon the Leader of the House should take other aspects of those other parliamentary systems into account as well. To choose the one thing that suits him and then not even tell the whole story, or to suggest that this system in any way compares, simply boggles the mind.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend it as a direct comparison. I merely wish to say that if deferred voting works well for a one-chamber parliament, it can also work well for a three-chamber parliament. [Interjections.]

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

Paragraph 3:

Mr Chairman, paragraph 3 concerns the arrangement of business, hours of sitting and automatic adjournment and the duration of debates and speeches, which is precisely what we addressed in respect of paragraph 1.

We accept what the hon the Leader of the House said, viz that there are conventions, one of which will be applicable here, and that the Chief Whip of Parliament will not be able to discharge his functions unless he consults with the Leader of the House or the Whips of the other parties.

Having said that, we must say that the Chief Whip of Parliament is going to become a powerful wielder of the sceptre in this new dispensation. There is no question of that. What is more, as it is expressed here, it is further proof of our argument that the trend will be towards joint sittings.

Obviously no Minister is going to want to reply to the Second Reading of a Bill in every House, or to go and debate there. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is therefore going to consult with the Minister—this is one of the reasons for joint sittings—and say that a certain matter will be referred either to a joint sitting or an extended public committee, and not to separate Houses. The Chief Whip is often going to be tempted to have a Bill passed more quickly by a joint sitting or an extended public committee.

It can be dealt with more quickly, surely.

Yes. Obviously it will be quicker, and democracy, which should be seen to be taking place, is going to suffer, because all the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is interested in, is in concluding matters quickly. He is not interested in democracy being seen to be done. That is what is important. “Just like justice, democracy must be seen to be done.” That is going to disappear.

We are going to have a situation in which debates will be taking place in four places simultaneously, since there are the three Chambers of Parliament and the extended public committees. In this way small opposition parties are effectively being shunted out.

I thought you were a big one!

We have a lot of followers, but as a result of this system, in which the hon the Leader of the House has been instrumental, the Transvaal has also been shunted out so that proportionately it has fewer voters than the Cape. The hon the Leader of the House has roused a hornet’s nest by saying that. He knows he is in trouble, because he has only a few seats left in the Transvaal as opposed to the many seats in the Cape. In terms of numbers, the Transvaal still has many more seats…

Order! No, the hon member must drop that point.

But, Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House was leading me on. [Interjections.] You must speak to him too, because he was leading me on.

You are easily led.

No, I am not so easily led, but the subject broached by the hon the Leader of the House was an interesting one. [Interjections.]

We now have the very interesting situation of provincial standing committees. The provincial councils have disappeared, democracy has been expanded and there are five appointed members of the Executive Committee. In addition there are standing committees which have to consult about the provinces’ budget of R9 600 million.

To ensure that democracy is seen by the public to be done, this standing committee is going to travel to Bloemfontein, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg to consult about provincial matters in the provincial capitals. Apparently this will take place in public and it is regarded as a fundamental extension of democracy and public debate. That is eyewash. We are not impressed by this method of the hon the Chief Whip embodied in paragraph 3.

I now come to the question of automatic adjournment. There will be no automatic adjournment as we know it at this stage. The three Houses and the extended public committees are going to adjourn upon the ruling of the Chairman, in other words, when they adjourn upon their own resolution. Theoretically this means that we shall sit as long as the hon the Chief Whip wants us to. We shall consult with one another beforehand and he will ask how many speakers we have on a specific day and how many hours we need, and will say, for example, that he would like to get to Item No 6 on the Order Paper before adjourning, because that should take us to precisely 18h00 or 18h30.

What is going to happen in practice? More and more pressure is going to be exerted on the hon the Chief Whip to make more rapid progress with the Order Paper and therefore the whole parliamentary process. The moment we agree that there will not be an automatic adjournment, theoretically we shall be able to sit daily for as long as the hon the Chief Whip and therefore the Government want us to. We are going to be forced to agree to the finalisation of the business the Government wants disposed of on a particular day. This is no different from a guillotine measure.

In paragraph 3.3 we have the interesting phenomenon that hon members will have a strict time restriction. There are three Houses, and although they do not have an equal number of members—that is the argument I mentioned a moment ago—all these Houses carry equal constitutional weight and can quite probably lay claim to equal time.

The hon the Leader of the House did argue that one should allocate the time in terms of the number of members in a particular House and that they would be entitled to less time if they had fewer members. The fact is that we shall often meet in joint sittings in which three components of Parliament will be present. Theoretically those three components can each lay claim to the same time as the other two components, even though such a component may consist of fewer members. Can the hon members imagine how much time an opposition party with 25 or fewer members will have at its disposal?

At the moment a party like the CP has approximately 120 to 180 minutes of speaking time in the no-confidence debate that lasts a week. If the debate that is going to be held on the speech from the throne also lasts only a week, it means that the CP will have approximately 50 minutes in which to take part in this most important debate of the year.

Once again it is our standpoint that opposition parties are irrelevant, that Parliament itself is becoming less relevant and that the executive authority is becoming far more relevant. For that reason we cannot vote in favour of paragraph 3.

Mr Chairman, it does not surprise me, but it is a pity that the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition approaches the whole report and the recommendations contained in it with as much suspicion as if it were an attempt to eliminate the opposition and opposition politics in the House completely.

The fact remains that in deciding which course a measure is going to take, whether it is going to be debated in a joint sitting, an extended public committee or the separate Houses—which is also a possibility—the Chief Whip of Parliament will obviously be guided in the first place by the course the particular Bill has followed in the standing committee. That always gives one an indication of whether or not a Bill is contentious and whether it is an innocent measure about which there is absolute consensus. To some extent this information will determine how it is dealt with.

In addition the total amount of time Parliament has at its disposal for concluding its legislative programme will also be an important consideration. In terms of these rules, we are going to work with sitting days rather than sitting hours, because in the process we shall be able to effect a much better and more productive use of time. In determining a specific day’s programme, we shall obviously have a target time for adjournment, something that will not necessarily differ from the present adjournment times. Since there will be mutual consultation about the duration of debates, which will be enforced by the presiding officers, it is possible to determine beforehand when that debate will end.

This is not an untested proposal. One finds this measure in a number of European systems. In my opinion we have already begun to use the principle of target programmes during this session, even if only to a lesser extent. We put target programmes to the test, even without concluding rigid agreements with one another concerning time, and this worked well. The hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition helped us to make it work well.

The fact is that once we have drawn up a programme in consultation with one another with a view to a specific adjournment time, there will be an earlier adjournment if a debate does not last that long.

Surely only a stupid Chief Whip—I am not a stupid Chief Whip, but I could have a stupid successor—would try his best to make this system work without consultation with the other Whips. The hon the Leader of the House gives that kind of Chief Whip three months, but I give him only a week, because he would not be able to do this job for longer than a week.

I saw a report in yesterday’s Sunday Times in which an unnamed member of the PFP said something about this. I really do not blame him for not having his name mentioned. The report reads:

[Interjections.] There is a further quotation, and an approving hon member on the opposite side of the Committee gives me the idea that he was the one who said this. I quote:

I have a good idea of who the hon member is, and I am not surprised that he is ashamed of having his name linked to that kind of statement.

Let me make a clear statement as far as this is concerned. I think it is well-known in this House, as in fact it is known throughout the political scene, that personally I have no political ambitions. Naturally this does not mean that I have no ideals. My ideal is to make this system work and to make it run smoothly. [Interjections.] For that reason it would be absurd to try to commence this system with the preconceived idea of tricking the opposition parties, because the moment one tries to do that, one will be damaging the system and will not be able to proceed with it.

What will be new is that a specific time will be allocated to the parties for debating, and a party will have to decide how many speakers it is going to use within that restriction of time. Obviously, if it has been decided after consultation to allocate five sitting days, for example, to a debate, the time will be divided up among the three Houses according to a fixed formula. It goes without saying that the numbers in those Houses will play a decisive or primary part in determining the time. If this were to prove, however, that meaningful debating cannot take place, there are methods of adapting this formula from debate to debate and from time to time.

One method would be to allocate a minimum period of time to parties and to allocate the remaining time proportionally according to the number of members. As far as the allotment of time among the Houses is concerned, the number of members in those Houses will obviously play an important part. Since the present rules determine that, for argument’s sake, 80 hours be allocated to this House, 40 hours to the House of Representatives and 35 hours to the House of Delegates for the Committee Stage discussion of the Budget, it is an established principle that a House with fewer members has less time for debate.

In a case in which a House gets a specific period of time for a debate, that House will allocate the time among the parties within its ranks and according to its own formula. If, for argument’s sake, the Official Opposition has 40 minutes in which to discuss a Bill, that party will have to decide how it is going to use its 40 minutes. It may have one member speaking for 40 minutes, or 10 members speaking for four minutes each, for example.

There will be a rigid application of that time only in that the allocation of time which that party itself has decided upon and which is indicated opposite its speakers’ names, will be applied rigidly by the presiding officer. There will be no definition stating that a member may speak for 30 minutes during a Second Reading debate. The party will indicate, for example, that it has four speakers, and indicate the time that has been allocated to each speaker. If we do not do things in that way, we shall not be able to draw up a target programme.

Naturally we shall still have to do a lot of in-depth research during the coming recess into different methods of allocating time before we can give the final answers about this allocation of time. We shall have to make a number of test runs with the numbers of the present parties in the three Houses to see how the allocation of time is going to work in terms of certain formulas.

In the final instance, however, it will be necessary to consult all parties before we determine final formulas, because if we do not draw up formulas which afford a certain degree of satisfaction, the system cannot work.

In saying that I am not trying to say that we are going to succeed in drawing up a formula which will satisfy all parties. That is simply not practicable. It is interesting that over the years we have developed formulas in Government ranks which were based purely on membership numbers. With this as our basis, the Government developed a formula by which it sacrificed some of its time so that it could be divided up among opposition parties.

In the European systems we find that these formulas which we have developed in practice are known by important-sounding names, but they are the same fixed formulas. As far as that is concerned, I should hesitate to draw up final formulas before having made these trial runs and having done further research, also with the assistance of opposition parties. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has once again sought to justify this strange, weird and deceitful system that we use in this Parliament by quoting what happens in parliaments in Europe. What happens there has no relevance whatsoever, Sir, because the simple fact remains that the tricameral Parliament is a deceitful system intended to retain power in the hands of the NP. That is the reason for the whole system.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament suggests that because we have been cooperating in a system among the Whips during the course of this session that has worked with regard to the allocation of time, we are now going into a similar system in the joint sittings and in terms of the rules which are before the Committee today. That is not true, Sir. It is just not the case.

We in the opposition know that under the present system, during the Second Reading debate on a Bill, we have the right to continue debating that Bill for up to 12 hours. What the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is now seeking to do is to get us to tell him—before we even get to the Bill—how much time we want, and he will then make the decision. He, and nobody else, will make the decision. Paragraph 3.1 of the report states plainly that “it is recommended that the Chief Whip of Parliament should decide whether business will be dealt with jointly or separately”. That is an enormous amount of power to be given to the Chief Whip of Parliament. He is also going to decide, however, on the number of minutes that each party is ultimately going to use.

This actually happened during the course of the whipping of this afternoon’s proceedings. We decided that in the course of the afternoon we wanted to bring in a second speaker on a Bill that is to be debated later today. I was able to go to an NP Whip and say that instead of having one speaker we wanted to have two speakers on this Bill. Our request was accommodated, and we will now have two speakers on that Bill. I have an amended speaking list as a result. When, however, these new rules apply, we shall not be able to do that any longer.

Of course you will! You allocate your own time.

That is the point! In this particular instance we are not limited in time.

If our first speaker wants to speak for 30 minutes and our second speaker wants to speak for 30 minutes, we can do it that way at the moment. However, under the new system, if we are allocated 30 minutes in total and three speakers use 10 minutes each and we want a fourth speaker, we cannot give him another 10 minutes. We shall have to divide the 30 minutes by four and then each speaker will have 7,5 minutes. That is the difference. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is again basing his argument on a false premise, which is not going to obtain in the new situation. When we get to that new situation and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has decided that all that is left for us to do is to say “Ja, baas” or “Nee, baas”, we shall be limited to the amount of time that we are allocated. This is going to be very difficult for the opposition, because it appears to us that the time we are going to have for debate under this new system will be far more limited than it is currently. I want the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to react to that. Does he or does he not agree that once we have this new system the opposition is going to have far less time available to them to oppose than they currently have?

Under the new system the time available has to be divided by seven in the first place. Right now, here, the available time is not divided by seven, but under the new system it will be divided by seven and the House of Assembly will get four of the seven parts, the House of Representatives will get two and the House of Delegates will get one.

Maybe!

Yes, maybe, because the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will decide. [Interjections.] Having then decided that, there will be a further allocation of time to the parties. By the time we get to the end of the day and the time allocated to our party has been decided upon, we shall be stuck with that and when that amount of time has been used by our party, regardless of how many speakers used at that time, the buzzers will go, the bells will ring, the sirens will be set off…

And the trumpets will blow!

… and that is going to be the end of our debating time, regardless of what has happened in the debate or whether there are items that have not been dealt with in that time. Debate is meant to be a give-and-take situation in which one tries to react to points that are raised by members on the other side. I think that we are going to have very sterile proceedings in this new Parliament, because members are going to be so limited in speaking time that they will not be able to react at all to what previous speakers have said. Members will simply have to state their viewpoints and sit down. It will no longer be a debate; it will simply be a sterile statement of views.

We now come to clause 3.2 and I just want to read one little section of the first paragraph, where it states…

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please restrain himself.

I repeat, Sir:

This is a sort of ad hoc solution to a situation and this is what this whole set of rules boils down to. These are all ad hoc solutions to try ultimately to create a situation in which we can have some sort of a parliamentary sitting. It is all based on the fact that we want to appear to be democratic when we are not being democratic. It is all based on the fact that the NP is determined to keep full control.

I want to repeat what I said, I think, last week in the course of debate:

These rules are a very tangled web indeed!

They are stealing our time from us!

Mr Chairman, the Chief Whip of Parliament said that he had no personal ambitions. I do not know what he means by that, but I think…

You are the last person who needs to elaborate on that!

No, I will not allow myself to be prescribed to by the hon Chief Whip of Parliament or anyone else, except the presiding officer, as to what I say here. [Interjections.] I had in fact intended paying him a compliment. What I wanted to say, in view of his statement that he had no personal ambition, is that it is in any event something quite exceptional to become Chief Whip of Parliament. Very few people will ever achieve that.

Despite the compliment I am paying the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, in my opinion too many powers are being vested in him in terms of paragraph 3. My motivation for this statement is that he is taking “time limit” too far. I think that is the essence of the objection I wish to discuss under paragraph 3.3. The issue of time saving has also been taken too far. The hon the Chief Whip said a little earlier that we should get finished sooner.

At present we have the situation that we have certainty. For example, in certain cases we can debate a matter for 12 hours. We feel that this is an outstanding system which is working well at present. Let me give hon members an example. We as Whips negotiate with one another and decide, for example, to have only two members speak on a specific matter—for say 10 minutes each. In this way the matter is quickly finalised. However we have the certainty that if there is a problem, and new facts emerge—for example, a Minister can rise and say something which we had not fully understood at the outset—we are still entitled to get up here right away and have several members speak for half an hour. [Interjections.] We are now being deprived of that right. The fact that there must now be a formula and that we will no longer have certainty, is an important right that we are being deprived of.

Next I should like to discuss the formula that we now have to devise. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament said a great deal about this but what he said was vague. We want to discuss the issue of the formula more extensively. Is it not true that the time to be allocated can be allocated only per House or per individual? I do not know whether there is a third possibility.

If time were to be allocated per House, then surely it should be divided equally. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament is shaking his head, but in terms of the Constitution there are three Houses. If the time is going to be divided equally, so that each of the Houses is given an equal length of time, this will mean that the House of Delegates, which has one third of the number of members the House of Assembly has, will be given four times more time than the members of the House of Assembly, because there are fewer of them.

Correct. That is why I shall not consider doing it in that way.

Yes, Sir, but we have the problem—the hon Chief Whip of Parliament must excuse me when I say this—that we do not trust the hon Chief Whip. It is not that we do not trust him personally; we do not trust the NP. [Interjections.] We have learnt the hard way. That is why we are examining this in detail. We recall what happened in 1983 in the debate on the Constitution. We recall all the promises of the past. That is why hon members must pardon us; we examine every aspect clinically.

If the time allocation were to be calculated per individual a formula would have to be devised on the basis of the fact that there are 308 members in the three Houses of Parliament. Then one has a problem once again, and that is that there are 45 members in the House of Delegates. The number of voters who voted for them is much smaller, however, than the number who voted for the CP, those 550 000 voters who voted for us. I am speaking about democratic principles, and it is clear that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament knows nothing about democracy.

Now you are setting up a false target! [Interjections.]

If the hon member for George would just go back to George again, we should really see how fast he can run. [Interjections.]

You are setting up a false target!

No, I am not setting up a false target. I am debating on the basis of an existing, established right that we are now being deprived of. After all, at present we have an existing, established right, namely a stipulation relating to time in accordance with which the opposition parties conduct their business. It is an arrangement that works well. Since it is something that works well, why does the Government now want to take it away?

I now wish to come back to my argument, and develop it further. When time for debate is allocated to the three Houses, it means that the House of Delegates is given four times more time than the House of Assembly, which is wrong. If it is done in accordance with individuals then the House of Delegates which has 45 members must in fact be given twice as much time as the CP, which has 23 members.

Hear, hear!

The hon member of the NP says “Hear, hear!”. Apparently he wants the House of Delegates to be given more time to speak than the CP, which represents 600 000 Whites and which represents the majority of Afrikaners here. [Interjections.]

Order!

My dilemma is the following. [Interjections.]

Order!

An examination of this formula reveals that if one gives the House of Delegates time according to their 45 members and the CP according to its 23 members, the CP gets half as much time as the House of Delegates, whereas we represent two to three times more voters than they do.

How many seats do you have?

We have 23 seats and 27% of the voters voted for us. Three per cent voted for the HNP; therefore we enjoy the support of approximately 30% of the voters in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

Five hundred and fifty thousand people voted for us and at the next election the majority will vote for us and the minority for the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I want to summarise the argument…

[Inaudible.]

The hon Chief Whip has had a turn to speak. Surely he can speak again.

We are extremely concerned about the issue of the formula. They now want to take away the fixed period and negotiate a formula. I want to mention the problems we have with the formula. We want them to react to this. The disadvantages entailed by the proposal in paragraph 3. 3 that there should no longer be a fixed time, is that this encroaches on the right of opposition parties. I want to say to the hon members of the Government that perhaps one day—not perhaps one day; definitely one day—when they are an opposition party…

Shortly.

… they will understand what it means. It is easy for them, who have 130 members, to shout and make a fuss. It is very easy. We have only 23 members; therefore we can be trampled upon. A Speaker and a Chief Whip of Parliament and a Leader of the House are also there to protect opposition parties. I say that the right of opposition parties is being encroached upon. An established right is being taken away.

Therefore democracy is being encroached upon, because like the Government we are representatives. Now we are being given much less time, and we have no certainty about the time. This creates uncertainty. When we discuss the Bill, we first have to debate about time. There will be general uncertainty, whereas at present there is certainty as to the rules. As I said previously, if we decide on five to 10 minutes then that is in order, but if things go wrong, the Second Reading debate can last 12 hours. We know we have that right.

This will weaken the existing system. I want to sum up by asking why the Government wants to abolish a system that is working well. Why do they want to deprive an opposition party of that established right? Why do they want to exchange uncertainty for certainty? I therefore appeal to the hon the Leader of the House to grant opposition parties at least a minimum time to talk. Let us now decide on a formula in terms of which a minimum time to speak is granted. That is our democratic right. We are asking him for that right. He now has the opportunity to protect the rights of opposition parties.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the explanations and elucidation provided by the hon Chief Whip of Parliament.

There is one facet I wish to single out. The fact that we also accept the extended committee system and that up to four committees can sit simultaneously, creates more room for the broadening of debates. Therefore there is ample opportunity to utilise all the venues productively at the same time and to afford more members the opportunity to speak.

We have not accepted that yet.

This is also dealt with by implication in paragraph 3.1. If the hon member will look at it, he will see that he deals with the arrangement of business. It is recommended -

That is quite relevant. It again creates the opportunity to provide more opportunity for discussions in a very productive way. Ultimately we are all concerned to hold meaningful discussions on a Bill or whatever subject may appear on the Order Paper. The process of negotiation that precedes it provides an indication of the needs. If it is a matter about which a specific party feels strongly, then that party will be afforded the fullest opportunity to say that it wants ample opportunity. Then, in order to make the whole system work, provision will be made according to requirements for those reasonable and fair needs.

We must find a way to plan better in an orderly fashion. Hon members all need to have a programme for approximately a week ahead which is reasonably definite. I think that in this session the hon the Chief Whip has succeeded in doing this to a reasonable extent. It has meant that Whips were able to tell members, and chief spokesmen on specific subjects, that they need not be present at a specific time because the Whips had a definite programme. It was really to the considerable advantage of hon members that we planned weekly in advance, and planned the agenda of each day, and it certainly could not be argued that the depth or breadth of debates in the current session were detrimentally affected. The only difference is that it was not absolutely binding, but I foresee that basically the new system will operate as the hon Chief Whip of Parliament has already caused it to work at this stage within the existing rules.

While I grant them the privilege of being suspicious, I want to give the assurance that we shall not give reason for their suspicion to harden into certainty that they had reason to be suspicious. We intend applying the system fairly and justly, in a way that will satisfy hon members of the opposition parties as well. For how long have some opposition Whips not been calling for a target date when we can go home? We can only begin to work out and plan target dates properly, and thereby achieve considerable savings, without infringing on the basic operation of democracy, if we increase our capacity to bind one another by way of agreement.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House has not convinced me. [Interjections.] The existing system works well, but the opposition parties have an assurance that we have X number of hours available.

Now the hon the Leader of the House talks about planning. As far as I know we co-operated very well this year. On the occasions that I acted as Whip and the hon Whips on the other side requested me to hurry, I took some of my speakers out and told someone else to speak for five minutes instead of 12 minutes. We co-operated extremely well.

The hon the Leader of the House speaks of a system that is fair and just. The system is fair and just at the moment, but the point is just that we have the assurance that there is a minimum time at our disposal. If he now states that he aims to introduce a system that is to work well in future—apparently he also wants to say that he will be largely unable to do so without the support of opposition parties and he would like everyone to co-operate—I ask him the simple question why he wants to deprive us of our assurance policy. If the system must be fair, then that must simply be specified. Why is the minimum period not incorporated? Let us establish that formula and put it in the rules. Then there will be no problems, and we shall co-operate as in the past. When the Government has a problem, it consults us in that regard, and the system carries on as at present.

The hon the Leader of the House speaks about target dates. We would all like to have an idea of more or less when we are to adjourn. Now I want to ask him how, if the current fixed, rigid formula is removed, it will help him to determine his target date better. Surely that will not work. He will not know how to set his target date. Therefore all we can say is that in order to cause the system to work well and harmoniously, the system in terms of which Whips consult each other must continue, but then the opposition parties must be given the assurance that there is a certain minimum time for discussion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal is arguing very reasonably, and I shall try to reply to him in the same reasonable spirit in order to explain my own perception with reference to this matter.

What we must take into account is that a joint debate can take place in two ways. It may take place in a joint sitting of all the Houses, or in an extended committee, which is also a joint sitting. Now, it simply goes without saying that when we are dealing with extended committees, more than one of which sit simultaneously, there is less time pressure. In the nature of the matter one will then be able to allocate so much more time in the negotiations than will be the case with a pure joint sitting of all three Houses. Therefore the hon member will concede that whereas the current position is essentially that where three Houses deal with legislation simultaneously, the time taken by a session is determined by the House that sits longest. That, of course, is the House of Assembly.

The moment one begins with a joint sitting, time is no longer saved. Apparently there is an impression that it is just this that saves time. A joint sitting definitely does not save time; on the contrary, it is an accumulation of the time of the three separate Houses. However, when one is dealing with extended committees, where four could sit simultaneously, time-saving does take place. Therefore one would have to establish separate sets of minimum times to satisfy the opposition parties. A minimum time would have to be set for a single sitting in an own House. A minimum time would have to be set for proceedings in an extended committee. A minimum time would have to be set for proceedings in a joint sitting. In determining our work programme for a single day, therefore, we would have to scale down somewhat, or even be permitted to add time, in order to fit everything into a specific day’s programme.

The problem is in fact that should one in a joint sitting exceed, by a half-hour or an hour, a cut-off point that may have been set, and adjourn instead, it means that one will have to go through the whole process once again and convene another joint sitting to be able to make provision for that half-hour or hour. Therefore one would much prefer to agree with all parties in advance to scale down our needs or perhaps to leave aside a specific Bill so that we can fit our proceedings into a specific timetable.

I understand that the hon member feels that the securities that he now has are being lost in this process. Nevertheless the fact remains that, after all, we could not grant unlimited time for a joint debate, and there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. The safest cut-off point is after all obtained in terms of a method which accords the hon member and his party a joint say.

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

Paragraph 4:

Mr Chairman, the paragraph under discussion concerns public Bills about general affairs. The first remark I want to make in this connection, is that a Second Reading speech will no longer be made by a Minister. We argued about this when we discussed paragraph 1. Nevertheless, we are unhappy about there not being a Second Reading speech and the fact that hon members will have to rely only on an explanatory memorandum. At the same time it is true that the hon the Minister who is dealing with the Bill will no longer be piloting the measure through the whole process, as it were, as was the case in the past.

Once again this illustrates the extended powers of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. With reference to paragraph 4, I want to repeat this statement. Paragraph 4.1.6 deals with the declaration of vote, and reads as follows:

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament once commented that more and more in this process the Press would be present at these deferred sittings to report on the statements made there. If that is the case, democracy in this country once again has a very big problem, because Parliament really meets in four different Chambers. A person who has to report on the proceedings of Parliament cannot always determine where a debate that is of the utmost public importance and should be reported most widely, is being conducted. As a result he will wait for the deferred sitting, because the crux of a party’s argument will be set out there, and that is what will be reported. This is not a healthy situation.

I also want to emphasise, in connection with paragraph 4.1.7, that extended public committees are being established in terms of this recommendation, and that the Chief Whip of Parliament is being given a discretion to decide on the matter in consultation with a Minister, who will probably prefer a Bill to be discussed in the joint sitting. This also applies as far as paragraph 4.2.2 is concerned.

In these circumstances, because of the question of amendments that cannot be moved, as well as the declarations of vote which are made in this way and the fact that extended public committees are being established in terms of this paragraph, we are not in favour of paragraph 4, and shall be voting against it.

Mr Chairman, obviously we are also opposed to paragraph 4. I shall deal in general terms with paragraph 4. 1, while my colleague and benchmate, the hon member for Yeoville, will deal with paragraph 4.2, which relates to money Bills.

As far as paragraph 4.1 and the paragraph generally is concerned, it contains many of the items which form the basis of our opposition to these rules in general terms. I say this because as one reads through the subparagraphs, it is quite clear that this paragraph was made necessary by the insistence once again that there should be no joint voting or joint motions at a joint sitting. The paragraph deals once again with, and emphasizes, the enormous powers given to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to arrange the programme of Parliament and to determine whether Houses should meet jointly or separately. There is also the principle that instead of a Second Reading speech introducing a Bill, it will be the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament once again who will determine that a memorandum be placed before the House in place of a Second Reading speech. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is shaking his head, but the paragraph reads:

Thus we have a repetition of a situation where a memorandum is simply placed before the House before the Second Reading, and that will be the basis of debate. There will be no formal motions which can be amended—this is stated very explicitly in paragraph 4.1.3—and the opportunity to move amendments to the motion for Second Reading will fall away.

Then there is a provision relating to recommittal of the subject of the Bill and, according to this subparagraph, this can be done by way of a substantive resolution. It then goes on to say that if that substantive resolution is not agreed to by all three Houses, the Bill will not be referred or recommitted to the committee.

The provision then goes on to deal with the whole question of a declared vote—which the hon the Chief Whip of the CP has dealt with—and again this provides for a limited opportunity for the parties to state, in the course of a few minutes, what their position is. Then, as a result of representations which we in these benches made before the standing committee, there is provision for a party to table, for inclusion in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House, a written formulation of that particular party’s viewpoint.

That was a concession which was made during the discussion in the standing committee and it is a slight improvement which one concedes. That takes the place of what we were asking for when we referred to the inability of opposition parties to move a reasoned amendment when adopting an attitude on a Bill. As a result of that the standing committee has provided that a written formulation of a party’s viewpoint could be filed, as it were, at Second Reading. That is a minor improvement.

As far as the consideration of a Bill by extended public committee is concerned, here too we find that this can be done by way of a memorandum. Once again no vote is taken and the matter is only voted on when it is referred back to the individual Houses sitting separately. Throughout this measure we have what we object to mostly, viz that there is no provision at all for joint voting when these matters are considered. We consider this a bad provision and we shall vote against it.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to make a point about paragraph 4.1.7. It reads:

I just want to establish one point, namely whether the words “in terms of the normal rules of debate” eliminate the possibility that when the Houses of Assembly is sitting, for example, “one of the presiding officers” of the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates may preside as chairman, and our chairman may preside as chairman in one of those Houses. I merely want to put this one question.

Mr Chairman, before the hon member for Yeo-ville gets around to financial legislation, I want to try to reply briefly to the arguments raised.

The first argument concerns the second reading speech which can supposedly be eliminated by the Chief Whip of Parliament. I do not know where the hon member for Berea read that the Chief Whip of Parliament had the power to decide whether a second reading speech should be read and whether a memorandum should be submitted. The whole idea is that the commencement of the legislative process will not differ in any way from what applies today where a Bill with an explanatory memorandum is submitted to Mr Speaker. The memorandum usually spells out the desirability of the Bill. When the standing committee has dealt with that Bill and has usually also amended it, it would be possible for the standing committee, in consultation with the Minister, to make available a comprehensive memorandum when the Bill is referred to the joint sitting for discussion. I do not think this is a new principle. This afternoon a specific Bill was introduced in the House of Delegates and the Minister’s second reading speech was distributed here. If it is going to be more convenient for documentation purposes for hon members to receive a second reading speech instead of a memorandum, then so be it. However, the fact remains that a Minister’s second reading speech on a Bill is merely a comprehensive memorandum, and nothing more. He may give it a political slant, but he can also do that in a memorandum. I do not know why its absence would be such an impediment to the opposition.

Let us consider how an extended memorandum from the standing committee would accommodate the hon members’ position. It is not true to say that the Press will not know where a topical debate is taking place. The definition is in fact that when the programme is worked out for a Bill, it will be indicated opposite that Bill on the Order Papers of the three Houses where it is to be dealt with; in other words, in an extended public committee, a joint committee, or in all three Houses separately. This will be indicated on the Order Paper of each House.

A further aid that will be used, and that we are already testing in the House of Delegates this session—since there is not so much room for manoeuvre—is a small monitor screen indicating which measure is under discussion in that House at any given time. It would seem to have been a success there, and I think in the case of extended public committees and at joint sittings a monitor screen will be set up outside in the lobby indicating throughout which measure is under discussion at any given moment.

As far as the declaration of vote is concerned, this is really a very useful development, and I think hon members are going to concentrate on it increasingly. It was a privilege for me to listen to speeches in many places, even in the European Parliament, lasting two, two and a half, or at the most three minutes. It is astounding what one can say in two or three minutes on such an occasion.

That is a slight to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

I think we are really suffering from a syndrome in this place, namely that the degree of our opposition to a measure is determined by the number of speeches, the length of our speeches, and the fact that we finish with a head count.

The length is determined by the regulations.

The public outside are not interested in the hours we spend treading water here.

Let us consider this debate we are conducting this afternoon. How much of this debate is being passed on to the public? How much of this debate, for which we have unlimited time, is passed on to the public? What is the public’s view going to be on the handling of these rules this afternoon? How many members from each party spoke and how long their speeches were? Of course not. What is going to be important in the report on this debate is that the two most important opposition parties each adopted a fundamental standpoint on this report—one of these, that of the CP, opposed to joint sittings as such, and the other, that of the PFP, opposed to the principal of separate voting. That is all that is going to be conveyed to the public. That is simply all that is going to be disseminated, and not all these other speeches which we happened to make here in order to arrive at the same fundamental objection every time. [Interjections.]

You would be surprised how many people read Hansard nowadays.

Sir, I do not want to elaborate now on who reads Hansard and who reads Die Patriot, and pick a quarrel in that way.

As regards the extended public committees no serious objections were raised. The hon member for Overvaal had something to say about the matter of presiding officers. It goes without saying that because the rules provide that only Mr Speaker may preside at a joint sitting, provision will have to be made for other presiding officers. For that reason a panel of chairmen will be constituted for Mr Speaker from the present presiding officers of the three Houses and it will be for him to decide who is going to preside in a particular House or at a specific stage when he vacates the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I propose to restrict myself very largely to the financial aspects of paragraph 4.2, but allow me first to react briefly to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament in two respects.

Firstly, to use the European Parliament as an example is a complete and utter fallacy because it is not a legislative body. In fact, it has no legislative powers of any kind. The European Parliament cannot be compared with the supreme legislative body of any country whatsoever. It is a completely different situation. I have studied it, perhaps not in as much detail as the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has, but I can assure hon members that there is no comparison. I think we should simply accept that as a fact. [Interjections.]

The other point to which I wish to react concerns the public’s presence, and even the reporting of what takes place. The significance of parliamentary proceedings is similar to that of a court sitting in public; in other words, the public should be able to witness the proceedings. Whether or not they take advantage of this is exactly the same as whether or not they actually attend a court case. The reality is that they are allowed to be here. When we look at the galleries now, we can see that there is hardly anybody there, but the truth is that members of the public may be here, and our proceedings may be reported. That is the really significant aspect of democratic procedure, and one which we have to deal with carefully.

I speak now as a person who feels he is and wants to be a parliamentarian; who is steeped in the conventions and traditions of Parliament; and who believes that finance plays a major role in politics. After all, one of the major reasons why we are here is to see to it that money is available for the running of the country. It is true that laws are passed, but the origins of the whole concept of a parliament lie in the fact that autocratic rulers needed people who were able to vote the money and whose imprimatur upon the voting of that money meant that it had credibility among the public, and consequently that the public were more willing to pay than if the autocratic ruler had sought to impose that taxation himself.

When we take those two things together and look at what has happened here, we find ourselves in a very difficult situation. Firstly, I do not think there is any reason to do away with procedures which have stood the test of time, when those procedures work. Change for the sake of change is not meaningful; it must be effected because one is changing to something better than what one had before.

Secondly, one does not oppose change merely because one is a traditionalist or steeped in convention. If there is a better process, one moves towards it, and that is the principle which I think can be applied here.

Let us look at some of the traditional things we are doing away with. The First Reading of a Bill has already undergone tremendous change, and that relates to money Bills as well as other Bills. First it was abolished, and now it is coming back in a completely different form insofar as money Bills are concerned. The Third Reading has already disappeared, and now ceases to be part of the kind of tradition in which we are involved. The format of the Second Reading is to change completely. There is no reason why we should not continue to have the kinds of amendments we had before. They are traditional amendments which have stood the test of time, but they are being done away with. The manner of debating and voting is also to be changed in these circumstances.

Let me ask a pertinent question. I have no objection to moving away from Westminster. That is part of what virtually everybody here talks about, but the difficulty lies in establishing where we are actually going. Nobody can tell us that. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in another House that the characteristic of a dynamic constitutional system was that it provided evolutionary growth and never pretended to represent a final end-product. Do we know the significance of this? It means that we are entering a period of continuous change and continuous instability, because until one has finality, one will continue in the process of change to have instability.

The great constitutions of this world did not come about as a result of piecemeal patch-work, but because people sat down and worked out a plan for a constitution. Can hon members imagine the American Constitution taking a 100 years to evolve? It did not work that day. The German Federal Constitution also did not work that way. The constitutions which exist and function have never worked that way. We are in danger of experiencing a period of perpetual instability because of a period of perpetually not knowing where we are going. To my mind that is one of the major risks that we have here.

Let me take a tax Bill as an example. The introductory speech on a tax Bill can now be delivered either to a joint or a separate sitting. Then it is placed on the Order Paper for First Reading in either a joint or a separate sitting. One then votes on the First Reading, but it must be done separately. After that the schedules are discussed either jointly or separately and voted on. Then there is a Second Reading which takes place jointly or separately and which must be voted on separately. What is remarkable about this is that, in terms of the rules, all of it has to be done in two hours. In the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates these seven steps have to be taken in an hour. What kind of a deal is this?

Let me take as an example the report of the Margo Commission which is going to be embodied in legislation. We can have a completely new tax Bill. The whole of the report of the Margo Commission in law form—if it is adopted by the Government and incorporated into a new Income Tax Bill—has to be dealt with in these seven stages within this limited period of time without a standing committee.

I want someone to tell me why tax legislation does not go to a standing committee. Somebody must give me a good reason for that. I also want to know why there must be these time limits, because to my mind they are illogical. What I am saying does not go against the principles which the hon the Leader of the House said are the basic principles of his party.

Surely we should have an efficient method of dealing with the financial legislation which comes before us in order for Parliament to function properly and to ensure that the fundamental principles relating to finance and tax are, in fact, applied. There is no way that anyone can say that taking these new rules together with the existing rules as suggested here, is an efficient way of dealing with money Bills. No one can say it.

I appeal to the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to look at the whole question of money Bills. They should have a far more efficient system. This is not a question of politics or of somebody scoring an ideological point. It is a question of the efficacy of dealing with what is, perhaps, the most important part of our whole legislative structure, because it is on that tax system that everything is based.

I find myself in very great difficulty—I address these remarks across the floor of the House to the hon the Leader of the House—in regard to the question of voting at a joint sitting. If we have looked around the world—the Chief Whip of Parliament has done that—we know it is very easy to sit and to vote by means of buttons which register when one presses them. It can be done in seconds. It is the easiest thing in the world. One does not have to do it in any other way.

If we accept the fact that the reasons why the hon the Minister wants each House to vote as an entity are ideologically based, it is utterly illogical that we should be voting together in a standing committee. We should all go into separate rooms and vote separately. It is nonsense, because in a standing committee one 14 amendments can be moved by members of all three Houses, but in the end one still has to vote in the same room.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time in this connection. I merely want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that I think the deviation as far as money Bills are concerned is really much smaller than in any other case. If I understood the hon member correctly, his objection was that all these possibilities had to take place within a period of two hours. That was one of his objections.

I do not know where he read about two hours in this report.

Look at the existing rules.

But we do not have existing rules for joint sittings. [Interjections.]

*If a Bill is dealt with in a joint sitting, a time must be determined for this Bill in order to provide for the requirements the hon member referred to—the fact that it can be accommodated in different ways.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament?

Mr Chairman, I want to finish the point I am discussing first.

That is precisely the point I have just argued with the hon member for Overvaal concerning the undesirability of determining fixed minimum requirements, because money Bills can be dealt with on different occasions. They can be dealt with either in a joint sitting, an extended public committee, or in this House, as is the case today. According to the present rules of the House of Assembly, those money Bills would still be subject to the provision of two hours, but only if they are discussed only in this House. Surely that is not what we are arguing about now. What is going to happen is that the legislation is going to be discussed in three Houses, and voting will take place separately. Surely separate voting is not a new principle. I really do not know why the hon member is arguing about it.

He also raked up the old story that he could not understand why money Bills could not be referred to the standing committee. We have discussed that matter year after year. Every year we say that traditionally these are Bills which are discussed towards the end of the session, and that therefore time is always a factor. Since a money Bill merely implements decisions which have been taken in respect of the Budget, and nothing else, we have established a practice—I think it happened again this year, because I requested that we try to do so again—of these Bills’ being discussed during an informal sitting of the standing committee. I think this obviates the hon member’s problem, because this legislation is discussed in the standing committee, although on an informal basis. Time remains a factor, however.

I really cannot understand what the hon member’s other problem is. He said the Second Reading was falling away. The only thing that is happening is that it is now called a First Reading. The same debate that is conducted during the Second Reading at present will take place during the First Reading in future. In the same way a Third Reading debate will be called a Second Reading debate. The debate conducted in the Committee Stage at present will be conducted during one of these debates in future, when the Schedules are discussed. The vote has been separate until now, and it will stay separate. The more matters change in respect of the money bills, the more they actually remain the same. I really cannot understand the hon member’s problems.

Mr Chairman, I should like to come back to paragraph 4.1.7 briefly. I did not quite understand what the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament was saying about it a moment ago. I should like to test the reply he gave just to see whether or not I understood him correctly. What is really intended by paragraph 4.1.7, is that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament can decide whether he wants to refer a Bill to a joint meeting or to an extended public committee.

Let us suppose he decides that it should go to the extended public committee. According to paragraph 4.1.7, the committee consists of members of the standing committee and any other members of Parliament who want to participate. They can meet in any of the three Chambers under the chairmanship of one of the presiding officers of the three Houses, who will be appointed by Mr Speaker.

With this long explanation as a background, I want to ask the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to answer yes or no to the following question. An extended public committee of this kind can therefore comprise the members of the specific standing committee which has considered the legislation, as well as all the other members from all three of the Houses, and they can meet in the House of Assembly. In theory, therefore, all 308 members can be here under the chairmanship of a presiding officer from either the House of Delegates, the House of Representatives or the House of Assembly. Do I understand this paragraph correctly?

Mr Chairman, I should just like to come back to some of the things the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said which, I must say, I found a little surprising.

Firstly, he spoke about the fact that this suggestion relating to the time limit had no application at all; that in fact I was referring to the rules relating to general affairs in separate Houses and that these had no application. Let me very pertinently put the following point to him. In terms of the draft rules… Does the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament have a problem? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville may continue.

Sir, he has a problem and I do not like to see an hon Chief Whip of Parliament with a problem.

No, I don’t have any problem.

In the draft rules to which the report refers, specific reference is made to appropriation Bills mentioned in Joint Rule 47. If the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will look at Rule 23 (1) (a) on page 12 of the rules, he will see the reference. Therefore, reference is made to Joint Rule 47. The pertinent question which I want to put to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is: What about Joint Rule 46? It does not disappear, and Joint Rule 46 is the rule which deals with these time limits. What I am asking him to do, is to tell us what time limits are applicable to money Bills which are referred to in the rules under the heading of money Bills from Rule 22 onwards. What are the time limits in that regard? If Joint Rule 46 does not apply, then what does apply? To my mind, as it has been drafted, it is quite clear that Joint Rule 46 does not disappear. It remains; it forms part of the rules. That is the first point to which I should like an answer.

Secondly, he said that the reason why we do not have a standing committee for money Bills is because everything is in fact merely geared towards implementing budgetary proposals. That, Sir, is complete and utter nonsense because when one looks at the last taxation Bill which was debated last week in my absence, one will find that with the exception of the actual income tax and company tax proposals and the few concessions that were mentioned in the Budget, 90% of the provisions of that Bill had never been mentioned before.

Let us take the position with regard to Ciskei, for example. When was there an opportunity to debate and to test the provisions relating to the Ciskei? When was there an opportunity to deal with the provisions relating to the taxation of films, for example? What, in fact, does he have in mind?

The reality is that when the standing committee dealt informally with the taxation measure as an act of courtesy, it did so for less than an hour. There was hardly any opportunity to ask any questions. The average member of that committee could not even ask a question and when one did ask a question there was only an opportunity for five minutes or so do anything at all. That, Sir, is not the way one deals with a Bill in a standing committee. So it is ludicrous to suggest that this is a substitution for the actual functions of the standing committee.

I want to know what the time limits will be in the House both when there is a separate sitting, which may be designated for a money Bill, and when we sit in joint session, because it is in that connection that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament must tell us whether Joint Rule 46 will apply or whether it will have no application at all.

Lastly, I should like to deal with the issue of the changes that are being made. On the one hand, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament talks about things being traditional but, on the other hand, when it does not suit him, tradition flies out of the window. Traditionally, opposition to the First Reading of a Bill, as this House and its predecessors knew it, was the highest form of protest against a measure which any opposition party could lodge. I ask the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to tell us what the highest form of protest will be that may be lodged by an opposition party to a measure the Government introduces in terms of these new rules. What is the highest form of protest? What is the equivalent of what used to be opposition to the First Reading? What is that? Can he tell us what that will be?

Let him tell us what the equivalent will be to being able to express the greatest disapproval at Second Reading, viz that the Bill “be read this day six months”. A spokesman can get up and make a short statement or hand in a document, that is true, but where are these traditional aspects that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament talks about? What is going to be the equivalent of these in the Parliament of the future?

Mr Chairman, firstly I just want to react briefly and in general to the speech by the hon member for Yeoville. He made a great fuss about the constitutions of America and West Germany which came into being and immediately brought certainty and security, and the uncertainty in which the present method is apparently going to plunge South Africa.

After all, those constitutions the hon member mentioned as examples stemmed from a terrible crisis, from a crisis that practically destroyed those countries. Does the hon member want us to draw up a new constitution in that way?

Not America’s.

Or does the hon member want it to be done in an orderly manner, in a way that will continually ensure stability and will mean that the next step and development will once again have to be approved in terms of a stable system before what already exists can be amended?

†That is built into our Constitution. The crucial provisions of the Constitution cannot be changed unless there is consensus. My making a statement to the effect that it is my stated aim to go beyond this will not give rise to uncertainty if that statement is supported by the fact that the matter will come back to this Parliament, and this Parliament, within the framework of the prescriptions of the Constitution, will be the only instrument that can change what exists with regard to the Constitution. I say, therefore, that this is the method to bring about evolutionary and necessary development in a way that alleviates uncertainty and offers security to all the people of South Africa.

*The hon member referred to the question of times. I have an idea that he is incorrectly interpreting paragraph 23. (1)(a) of the Schedule to the report. When Rule 47 is referred to, no reference is made to the times.

They are referred to in Joint Rule 46.

Yes, reference is made to the list of names in Rule 46 to illustrate what kind of legislation is meant. In future the duration of debates will no longer be governed by means of set times, but by means of the new agreed procedure—we have already dealt with this—in terms of which a time is specified after consultation, and that time is then divided into turns to speak. Therefore the hon member is wrong still to adhere to prescribed times which have in fact been replaced by a new procedure.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he is now saying that Joint Rule 46 will fall away if these proposed new rules are adopted? Is that what the hon the Leader of the House is saying, because that is the crucial question? Will Joint Rule 46 fall away and not be applicable at all?

Let us have a look at Joint Rule 46. Joint Rule 46 provides that—

1. (a) In the House of Assembly:
   1. (i) 3 hours for…
   2. (ii) 2 hours for…
   3. (iii) 2 hours for…

This falls away, Sir. My interpretation—I have also consulted the Secretary to the House of Assembly on this matter—is that it falls away. The reference to the existing Joint Rule 47 in paragraph 23. Subparagraph (1) (a) does not refer to the hours mentioned there, either, but to the various bills mentioned therein.

Let us have a look at what appears in paragraph 23. Subparagraph (1)(a) of the schedule to the report, to which the hon member referred:

1. (a) Mr Speaker shall, in the case of an appropriation bill referred to in Joint Rule 47 refer…

In other words, Rule 47 does not fall away?

No, the times also fall away. The reference to Rule 47 is there to show that those Bills referred to in that rule, namely the Appropriation Bill, the Transport Services Appropriation bill and the Post Office Appropriation Bill, are involved when this procedure, as in paragraph 23. (1)(a), is discussed. Time limits, however, assume a totally new aspect. Time limits are by agreement and by ultimate final provision on the agenda. This then gives the Whips freedom of movement.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House a question? I just want to discuss another aspect and say that it is very clear to all of us now, and that we all know now that with this system the Post Office Budget and the Transport Services Budget can be debated in this way, in exactly the same way as the Main Budget. There is no dispute about that. However, what I asked the hon the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon, and what I now want to repeat, is that on 27 August 1986 he made a very important statement in the House, and I quote him from Hansard, col 10946:

How is one to understand this now?

What is being referred to are the committee stages.

Will these debates never take place in a joint sitting? Here, in paragraph 4. 2, financial bills are dealt with including, as the hon the Leader of the House has just read, the Post Office Appropriation Bill, and the Transport Services Appropriation Bill. The hon the Leader of the House specifically stated that those debates would never take place at a joint sitting. This is the complaint we lodge against their credibility. The hon the Leader of the House went on to say:

That was only a year ago, and now they are coming along and saying we have to have debates in a joint sitting. This in essence illustrates our complaints against them.

One cannot believe them!

The philosophy of the new rules is not to have long, complicated and detailed measures, but to give maximum flexibility to Parliament itself by means of its Whips. It remains the intention not to deal with the committee stages of the Post Office Appropriation Bill and the Transport Services Appropriation Bill in a joint sitting. For exactly the same reasons as…

You are not referring to committee stages here.

Yes, but it is nevertheless clear from the motivation I gave that it had to do with the committee stages. Whoever asks for a station in the Second Reading debate? After all, in the Second Reading debate of those appropriation Bills people discuss the totality, and fees that are levied, service fees that are levied, facets relating to large-scale expenditure and the economy of the budget. During the committee stage members discuss the individual needs of their constituencies. It is still the intention to continue in this way. However, to spell it out again in great detail would negate the neatness and flexibility that has been built into the wording of the rules. It would also encumber the Whips and the Chief Whip of Parliament in their role of planning in a systematic and organised way according to what is needed.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House if he would be so kind as to show me where in the draft rules, which are attached to this report, it is indicated that the rules in respect of general affairs which we are referring to fall away? If they are not going to fall away, which of them will remain? In other words, I ask him to tell us exactly what the status is of the rules relating to general affairs, which are referred to, and to show us where, in regard to money Bills, the time is to be determined?

Sir, I just want to give notice that I will move—I think that will clarify the matter to a certain extent—at the end of this debate that the following paragraph be added to the report as a paragraph 15. My amendment reads as follows:

That doesn’t answer my question.

Sir, we discussed this question of how time for discussion would be determined when we discussed, inter alia, paragraph 3.3, which deals with the duration of debates and speeches. Let me read that paragraph to the House:

But where does it say that in the rules? I see nothing about it in the rules.

Well, if there are no longer any time limits or requirements, it will not appear in the rules. Does one now have to make a rule to say there is no time limit? If one does not specify that there are so many hours for this and so many for that, there is no provision to say so.

Mr Chairman, my question is whether the rules concerning general affairs still apply or not. Which of those rules are applicable, and which are no longer applicable? [Interjections.]

Sir, once this report is accepted, and if the amendment which I intend moving is effected, then the consequential amendment—I have just read it to hon members—namely that there will no longer be fixed time limits for debates, will result in an amendment of the rules. It will be a consequential amendment.

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

Paragraph 5:

Mr Chairman, merely for our information I want to ask a question in connection with the difference in the wording of the prayer which is read. The wording of the prayer read in the House of Delegates differs from that read in the other two Houses. I merely want to know whether the prayer which is going to be read in the joint sittings will have a different wording, which will be acceptable to all three Houses of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to the fact that there was a moderate (matige) difference in the prayer…

Moderate? [Interjections.]

I mean that there is a specific difference between the prayer read in the House of Delegates and the one read here and at joint sittings. I want to assure hon members on behalf of the Government that the prayer which is going to be read here, will be the standard prayer which has been found acceptable by all three Houses, and which has also been prescribed for joint sittings.

Paragraph agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this paragraph deals with a very important matter, the abolition of the motion of no confidence. [Interjections.]

Order!

The traditional debate that has become characteristic of the entire South African political scene since 1910 is now being done away with in paragraph 8. We vehemently object to the Government moving away from this well-known and established tradition. It is very interesting to see the kind of reasoning in this memorandum. Paragraph 8.2 states:

[Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must lower their voices.

It continues:

Is it not peculiar, in the first place, that the Government itself acknowledges at this late stage, three years after the introduction of this new dispensation, that there is uncertainty about joint responsibility? This is a dreadful admission to make.

What document is that?

I am quoting from paragraph 8. 2 of the document of the NP. [Interjections.]

The majority parties in the Houses are apparently experiencing problems with conducting debates on motions of no confidence in the Cabinet. This is the first time that I have heard that majority parties experience problems with the way in which they have to participate in no-confidence debates. Surely it is ridiculous to argue in this way.

And this is their consensus for government!

In the first place I want to put it to you, Sir, that this no-confidence debate, apart from private members’ motions, is the only debate in the parliamentary programme in which the opposition can take the initiative. This has been the case for a long time. It is irrelevant to argue that a motion of no confidence has never succeeded in history, from 1910 until now. That is not the point. The point is that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the other opposition parties have the opportunity to discuss the policy of the Government in its entirety before the people. In that week the Government stands in the dock and the opposition has the opportunity to place the entire programme, policy and principles of the Government under the microscope.

It can be argued that the motion that the State President’s message be tabled will mean that the policy of the Government as a whole can be criticised in any case. However, the fact is that it is part of the tradition of this Parliament that is now being ended by this motion.

At the same time, whether or not this calling to account can also take place in the committee stage, is neither here nor there. Indeed it is currently being asserted that there are various committee stages in which hon Ministers can be called to account and that it is therefore also unnecessary to do so in the no-confidence debate. That argument simply does not hold water. A no-confidence debate is precisely the occasion where the Government of the day has to give an account of its stewardship. It is the debate that appeals to all interested parties. Large numbers of people are present there in order to hear what the plans of the Government for the following year are and what the standpoints of the different oppositions parties are. We are therefore unable to associate ourselves with any amendment to this established tradition.

The interesting argument raised in the standing committee is that we should at least know that even in Britain the speech from the throne is the document which is tabled and discussed in the House of Commons—in the Westminster system.

Back to Westminster! [Interjections.]

But now we have to hear that we are moving away from Westminster! That is one of the most important arguments that was used in the standing committee—that even in Britain, “the Mother of Parliaments” a no-confidence debate is not conducted at the beginning of the session. At the same time, however, we are moving away from the Westminster system.

We want to make a further assertion that this amendment with regard to the whole pattern of conducting debates, as is manifested in the no-confidence debate, also illustrates how the right of the so-called own Houses to self-determination is being restricted. In this document it is argued that it is difficult for Minister to pay attention to no-confidence debates or motions of no-confidence in the various Houses. It states:

Surely it is not necessary for them to have to take place simultaneously in three Houses.

Surely it is not necessary for the no-confidence debates to take place simultaneously in all three Houses. However, it is now stated that it is difficult for Ministers to go and react to arguments in the different Houses and that it should therefore rather take place in a joint sitting by means of the discussion of the speech from the throne.

The speech from the throne! That is it!

It is not a speech from the throne.

It is nothing less than a speech from the throne, Sir. The hon the Chief Whip told us that himself.

It is not necessary to be so disparaging.

No, man, it is nothing less than a speech from the throne. [Interjections.]

Yes, it is a speech from the throne! [Interjections.]

Sir, the saving…

It is not a speech from the throne at all!

Oh no, Sir, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament should not become nervous now. It is the head of state’s speech.

His speech from the throne!

No, it really is not a speech from the throne!

It remains a speech from the throne, even if he is unhappy about it. [Interjections.] This is where the initiative lies with the Government, again because it is the State President’s speech that is tabled. It is not the initiative of the opposition. The initiative remains with the State; it remains with the NP. We are being deprived of the one occasion on which we had the opportunity to take the initiatives ourselves. [Interjections.] To spare Ministers from being present in different Houses, the right of peoples to self-determination is now suffering, because this own affairs House is increasingly—as I have said before—being shunted onto a sideline. Since there is uncertainty—as I was saying just now—about where the joint responsibility now lies in this coalition Cabinet and since the majority parties in the Houses therefore experience problems with conducting debates on motions of no confidence in the Cabinet, it is no wonder that the man in the street does not know what the exact functions of responsibility of every Minister, member of the Ministry and Ministerial Representative are either.

This is the chaotic situation in which the Parliament of South Africa finds itself at present. The other day I put a question to the Department of Transport Affairs. It then emerged that this question was not within the area of the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, but rather that of the hon the State President. However, after that it appeared that it was not within the area of responsibility of the hon the State President either, but rather that of the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office. In this way there are constant problems in determining to whom a question should be directed. [Interjections.] There is uncertainty. There is ambiguity. There is also chaos. Therefore, while we are dealing here with a matter which strikes at the root of the parliamentary democracy as we have come to know it, we want to express our opposition to it, and shall consequently vote against Paragraph 8.

Mr Chairman, I shall resist the temptation to react further to the way in which the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition touched on this matter, particularly as regards his reference to the speech proposed in this paragraph to be placed on the Order Paper for discussion.

The speech from the throne?

Mr Chairman, if one really wants to be stupid I suppose one can refer to it as a speech from the throne. I do not know whether the hon member for Pietersburg prefers to be described in that way. [Interjections.] The fact remains that a motion of no confidence, or rather a motion for a debate which is linked to a motion of no confidence, at the beginning of a session has become an absolute anachronism. If we said in the standing committee that even Britain no longer did this, we said this because our motion of no confidence was initially derived from the British system of a motion of no confidence at the beginning of a parliamentary session. Even Britain, the country we derived it from, no longer does this. Nowhere in a single European Parliament do we find that the beginning of a session is based on a motion of no confidence. [Interjections.] Throughout something else is dealt with in this connection, because a motion of no confidence in a government is essentially something different to a motion with which a session of parliament should start.

What is the opening address of the hon the State President developing into?

A speech from the throne! [Interjections.]

It has already developed into a policy speech of the Government. It has also developed into an analysis of a working programme for the forthcoming session of Parliament. When this subject is therefore placed on the Order Paper, it is of such a general nature that as far as all opposition parties are concerned there is absolutely nothing—nothing at all—which they are not entitled to discuss. There is nothing in that opening address of the hon the State President which they may not or cannot discuss, which they still want to associate with a motion of no confidence.

Therefore I cannot understand what right an opposition party is being deprived of if it can still do the same things. It is surely not correct either to allege that the opposition parties are being deprived of their initiative. After all, the initiative still lies with the opposition parties to reprimand Minister after Minister with reference to what appeared in the opening address of the hon the State President, or even on what was omitted from the opening address of the hon the State President.

When we therefore say that there are problems with the handling of the motion of no confidence in the other two Houses, it is all very well to refer to this in a derogatory fashion and to say that there is still absolute chaos after three years. The point of departure of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is surely not healthy when he says that this is a coalition government. Surely he knows it is not a coalition government.

My, my!

Surely he knows it is not a coalition government. During the discussion of a motion of no confidence in the other two Houses there is no responsible body which can react to such a motion of no confidence. In addition if one of the other two Houses were to agree to a motion of no confidence in the Government by a majority vote this could lead to the dissolution of the relevant House.

We therefore have a real problem at the moment with the handling of a motion of no confidence in either of those Houses. In order to eliminate the frustration resulting from the fact that a meaningful debate takes place here in the House of Assembly on a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet in which Cabinet Ministers participate, whereas they debate amongst themselves over there and do not get around to the actual circumstances of the day, one must try to create a pattern in which all three Houses can participate. We envisage that by placing the opening address of the State President on the Order Paper, an opportunity will be created for all three Houses to discuss the policy, the philosophy and the working programme of the Government meaningfully. Because this is not a motion, amendments to it cannot be moved as this would complicate the situation in that a number of amendments could appear on the Order Paper. Naturally there is therefore no division either.

This now gives us the opportunity to retain what the Official Opposition and other opposition parties had in the past, namely an opportunity to analyse the entire policy of the Government at the beginning of the session. All we are ensuring is that the other two Houses will also be able to participate meaningfully in that debate.

Mr Chairman, I found it interesting that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and the hon the Leader of the House should have explained to us that we were in the process of moving away from the Westminster system. In this particular instance, they tell us, we have already departed from it because we have motions of no confidence whereas the motion of no confidence is not a feature of the Westminster system. In the present case, therefore, we are moving closer to the Westminster system, in terms of which there is no motion of confidence, whereas we had already moved away from it! When it suits the Government to use that excuse, they use it, but when it does not suit them, they try another tack.

†Mr Chairman, I believe that no other clause or paragraph reflects as clearly the confusion that exists under the present system as far as motions of no confidence are concerned and neither does any other paragraph in this particular report reflect the arrogance of the Government towards the opposition as clearly as does this particular recommendation. The hon the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip of Parliament have repeatedly said: “Maar die stelsel loop nou vlot. Kyk hoe vlot loop dit onder die huidige stelsel.” One need only read what this report says:

Is it a case of “vlot loop” when the report says that various problems have occurred? Let me quote what the report goes on to say:

Why is there uncertainty about joint responsibility? Do they mean to say they have been operating a Cabinet system for four years and there is uncertainty about joint responsibility? The hon the Leader of the House will no doubt remember that when we sat on the select committee, we actually raised the question of joint responsibility. We received a report from the staff of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning saying that one of the conventions was that there would be joint responsibility and I can remember the very afternoon that the State President was inducted, he had a meeting and said that there was no longer joint responsibility. I want to know how the Government can have a system that is operating, while in their own report they say: “Because there is uncertainty about the principle of joint responsibility in the Cabinet…”. What kind of constitution have we got in South Africa? What kind of Government have we got when they admit that there is uncertainty as far as joint responsibility is concerned?

The paragraph goes on:

We told them that! When did they suddenly discover this? When did the hon the Leader of the House discover that this was going to be a problem? Now, after four years, he finds it is a problem and he must do something about it.

However, the report goes on:

Therefore he says it is not feasible to have motions of no confidence at separate sittings and it is also not possible to have motions of no confidence at joint sittings. So what is the alternative? Scrap the motions of no confidence!

*Now they have the audacity to tell us in the opposition why we move motions of no confidence. It is not for them to say why we move them. We want to get rid of them. [Interjections.]

†Whether we get rid of them or not is another matter. All I want to say is that it is the light of arrogance when a Government decides why opposition parties move motions of no confidence. Whom do they think they are? The dictators of South Africa? [Interjections.] Who are they to prescribe to the opposition the reasons why they move motions of no confidence?

Then they come with this suggestion:

Good Heavens! A debate without a reply! Is the hon the State President not prepared to stand up and take his medicine?

No!

Can he call a general election as the Leader of the NP and be protected by this provision of no reply? What is going on in South Africa? [Interjections.] What is going on in this country when the hon the State President is protected by his majority in Parliament from replying to a motion about the performance of his duties?

At the end of the debate no vote is going to be taken. Good grief, Sir, what a toothless bunch of bulldogs we are in this Parliament! We have now reached the situation where the Government tells us that we should consider ourselves lucky to have an opportunity to debate but there will be no reply from the hon the State President, there will be no reply from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and when it is all over no vote is going to be taken. [Interjections.] And this is an extension of democracy! I want to say that this is evidence of the total confusion and chaos that exists under the present tricameral system and is also evidence of the supreme arrogance of a Government which is no longer sensitive to the workings of parliamentary democracy. To the Government winning an election means that they have a mandate to run this country for five years and Parliament is actually just a nuisance. The hon the State President knows it. When I look around me and consider the great contributions made by the otherwise loquacious members this becomes even more evident! I think of all those members who are always participating in debates but suddenly, “tjoepstil”! Why are they not participating in this debate? [Interjections.]

Order!

It affects them vitally. It affects their status as MPs, it affects Parliament. [Interjections.] I would have hoped that the hon members opposite would not only have been concerned with the rights of the majority but just occasionally would have been concerned with other matters as well. One of them is the rights of MPs. Are we just going to be lackeys of the executive? Are we just going to be walked over? Are we just going to say “Ja, baas” every time? Or are we actually going to stand up as members of the supreme legislature of South Africa and tell Tuynhuys that it is no longer going to push us around?

If this system of executive government is going to work there must be an equally strong pride on the part of the legislature. Other hon members have referred to what happens in other systems but there too a strong executive only works if there is also a strong legislature. However, if the legislature is represented by the docile majority of members of this House it will not work.

Hon sheep!

The hon member for Houghton says hon sheep. [Interjections.] I do not know whether they are sheep or not but all I want to say is that the time has come for this Parliament to stand up for its own rights. I want to tell hon members opposite that the rights of the opposition are as important to the functioning of this Parliament as are the rights of the majority.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to call other hon members hon sheep? [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much simultaneous participation in this debate. The hon member for Sea Point may continue.

I believe the best way for hon members to show that they are not sheep is to show that they are not sheep. [Interjections.] That is the best way of proving it. I believe that the time has come for members of Parliament to resist the aggressiveness of the executive and to protect the rights of the opposition—to make this Parliament function as a forum of the nation and not just as the bleatings of sheep. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon Chief Whip of Parliament began his speech by reproaching my hon Chief Whip for the way in which he had supposedly spoken. I shall now come to an agreement with the hon Chief Whip: During the course of my speech I shall refer to the speech from the throne as the presidential speech.

You can refer to anything you like.

The present temporary hon Chief Whip of the House of Assembly would do well to take the floor and to participate in this very important debate instead of making ridiculous interjections. [Interjections.] He should just tell us whether he knows what is contained in this document. It looks as if he does not know, because he is not even participating. [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament also said that the NP Government was not a coalition government. What is it then? There is the Government of the country consisting of the State President and the Cabinet, and other political parties are represented in that Government—at the moment the NPP of Mr Rajbansi. Is that a coalition or not? [Interjections.]

No!

That is not a coalition! What is it then?

They do not understand what is going on here.

No, Sir, I must tell you this is…

Order! No, I am not prepared to allow the debate to degenerate like this. If hon members do not want to co-operate with the Chair I shall be obliged to call them by their constituencies. The hon member for Over-vaal may continue.

The fact of the matter is that the present Government is worse than a coalition. A normal coalition is when one has a government consisting of more than one political party in one Chamber, in one Parliament such as this. This is usually a distinctive type of political situation in which, for example, one would find that the NP and we had a coalition. But here we have a worse situation. The one coalition partner has walked out completely. He cannot even swim where he wants to. That is the consensus we have. And they are sitting with another coalition partner still present. If that is not coalition government, then I really do not know what coalition is.

The hon Chief Whip says that this new system is really a no-confidence debate. I then want to put a simple question to him. Why are they changing it then? Why do they want to change it then, if it is exactly the same? Why do they want to change the whole thing?

You will not understand.

The hon member says that I will not understand. Let me tell him I doubt whether 5% of the hon members of the NP know what is written in this document. [Interjections.] I doubt whether 5% of them know. Not one of them is participating. Not one of them knows what is stated in this document. Not one of them knows about the enormous implications of this document and they sit here and joke and laugh. [Interjections.]

Order!

Only one Cabinet Minister is present here.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal may continue.

I want to agree with the hon member for Sea Point. The Westminster system has now… [Interjections.] Sir, is someone shouting at me? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow shouting across the floor of this House.

I want to agree with the hon member for Sea Point. The Westminster system has now become a useful instrument. It is virtually like a lighthouse—now you see it, now you don’t. When it suits them they are against it and when it suits them they are for it. It is becoming ridiculous.

I also want to say that what we are dealing with here today, this discussion of one paragraph after another, is a brilliant example of the enormous hash into which this country has fallen constitutionally. One is simply unable to make these things work. [Interjections.] There are so many bits and pieces there is such an enormous quantity of cogs and machinery that the thing simply cannot work.

It is going to come unstuck.

I shall read a paragraph from yesterday’s Sunday Times to hon members. After all, hon members on the other side now have one undivided South Africa. Whereas in the past we had separate states each of which could do its own thing, they now have one South Africa. Do hon members know what the Sunday Times says about what this one South Africa looks like? I shall read one paragraph:

In one state!

That is one undivided state. [Interjections.] The problem that is being experienced…

Order! The hon members for Greytown, Parow and Claremont are conversing too loudly. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member may continue.

The hon Leader of the House is doing his best to make these things work. I know he is doing his best.

It is going to work.

The hon member says it is going to work, but it is not working. Mr Hendrickse has already left the Coalition Cabinet. [Interjections.] He says the Government may not even hold an election. The NP can no longer govern. [Interjections.] They cannot govern, because they cannot manage all these cogs and gears. That is what we have here now! [Interjections.] We now have a system here that has become hopelessly too complicated. Those hon members simply cannot make it work. [Interjections.]

The reason the hon Leader of the House is experiencing this problem is precisely what he and the old NP always warned against, namely that they have landed up in that middle-of-the-road position. In this country there have traditionally been two schools of thought, that of an undivided South Africa, as propounded by the PFP, or that of partition, as we have it. It is very interesting to me that the hon members over there, the hon Leader of the House included, were the people who in 1977, 1978 and prior to that, heaped praises on Mr Vorster and separate development. Today they are heaping praises on the hon the State President for power-sharing and for the rest of this mess, which is something completely different. [Interjections.]

What is a mess?

Order! The hon member must just tell me what he was referring to when he used the word “mess”.

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the constitutional mess in which South Africa finds itself. [Interjections.] If you do not like the word, Sir, I shall withdraw it.

Order! I should prefer it if the hon member withdrew it.

I shall refer instead to a constitutional morass. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

The aim of a no-confidence debate is that on that occasion the opposition has the democratic right to place the Government in the dock, as the hon Chief Whip of the CP has said. The initiative comes from the Official Opposition and they introduce the vote of no confidence. That debate is absolutely wide, and on that occasion an account is demanded of the Government. It is not a case of evasion in which it is said that as far as the joint responsibility is concerned there is a lack of clarity. That surely is just absolutely unconvincing. The Cabinet carries responsibility for the Government of this country. Every Minister is responsible for his portfolio. In the no confidence debate the opposition moves a motion as widely as it wants to. It attacks the Head of State and every Minister and it requires them to account for what they have been doing that year.

This is the right of an opposition in a democratic dispensation. The hon Leader of the House now wants to gloss over that. We do not know what exactly his plan is, but he knows, with all due respect, that we do not trust him. Now he says we are going to keep things as they are, but yet he is changing them. We now tell him it is the inherent democratic right of an opposition to move a motion of no confidence in a government at least once a year and to call it to account for what it has been doing.

[Inaudible.]

Why does the hon Chief Whip want to change it then? [Interjections.] The hon Chief Whip now wants to change the thing, but I just want to tell him that we do not trust them.

I now want to ask the Chief Whip, if this happens in the normal course of events, how does one move a motion of no confidence in this new dispensation? Supposing half of the NP members walk over to the CP and we want to move a motion of no confidence in the State President, in terms of the present system we could give notice of that, and we would do so. How is this going to be done under the new dispensation? [Interjections.] How will this be done if the Chief Whip of Parliament agrees and one receives a certificate from the other two? [Time expired].

Mr Chairman, I want to start with a statement you allowed the hon member for Overvaal to make when he quoted from the article in the Sunday Times with which he was so impressed. I should like to ask the hon member which of those top posts of each population group, such as President’s posts or Prime Minister’s posts—call it what you like—the CP is going to abolish.

In our state?

Surely the CP is not going to abolish a single one; they are going to have two more. They are going to have a new Coloured sovereign country and a new Indian sovereign country too. [Interjections.] After all their policy is that each people must have its own country and must become independent. [Interjections.] In terms of their policy there will be just as many, and even more, such posts in Southern Africa. It is therefore absolutely naïve to say that this is chaos. They are shooting themselves in the foot. [Interjections.]

Let us go a little further and give the hon member a definition of coalition. He would do well to consult the people around him who are well versed in political science to find out whether the definition I am going to give him in simple language is reasonably correct.

In a coalition situation different parties work together in accordance with a programme which has been agreed upon. We do not have such a programme with the Labour Party or with the majority party in the House of Delegates.

Who are they?

We are therefore not a coalition. [Interjections.] Perhaps this has been formulated a little vaguely but this is the reason why reference is made in this paragraph to the matter of joint responsibility.

†This is what the hon member referred to when he said there is uncertainty about the extent to which members of the Cabinet who are members of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates are bound to the principle of joint responsibility. The basis on which the executive has agreed to operate within the framework of the new Constitution is that if such members as, for instance, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates serve on the Cabinet, they are bound in terms of joint responsibility by decisions taken at a Cabinet meeting at which they are present. However, they have the right to distance themselves from those decisions, to inform the hon the State President and then to take a different stance in public.

But in the discussion of a motion of no-confidence in those Houses it is not only decisions which were taken while they were present which are attacked, but the whole existing legislative system with regard to which those Chairmen have not taken responsibility when they decided to co-operate within the system. That is the basic underlying difficulty which is being honestly dealt with in this report.

Hon members may not like the system and we have many other debates in which they can shoot down the system, but the only party in this House which is involved in trying to make the present Constitution work successfully, is the NP. [Interjections.] Those two parties are breaking a very important parliamentary tradition.

*That parliamentary tradition is that when a measure is introduced one fights it tooth and nail, but once it is on the Statute Book it is the law of the land and our Constitution is now the law of the land. [Interjections.]

Both those parties had an opportunity in May—it was their entire theme in the election—to have the validity of the Constitution overthrown by getting another mandate. They failed miserably. The CP can at least say that they showed a degree of growth, but the members of the PFP stagnated and deteriorated in their views. Now they are suddenly defiant and even want to protect the interests of this House. However their standpoint is that this House is nonsense. Their policy is that this House must be abolished immediately and replaced by a Council which will be elected by a joint electorate in which the total White population will be reduced to as small a minority as the PFP at present forms in this House. [Interjections.] I therefore really consider that party a very unacceptable “champion of the rights of this House”.

I never spoke about this House.

I want to say a few words about the so-called speech from the throne. In the new Constitution a new dimension came to the fore. Since we have had an executive State President, his opening address has no longer been clothed in the neutral terms of that of the State President of 1961 up to the beginning of the new constitutional dispensation, or that of the king or queen of England. Because the opening address of the hon the State President has become an actual standpoint of policy it has—whether or not hon members think they took the initiative with the motion of no confidence—started to dominate the debate. During the debate no one even refers to the wording of the motion of no confidence. [Interjections.] Since we have had an executive State President hon members of the opposition have always attacked what he said in his opening address. The hon member for Sea Point now asks why there is not even the right to reply. In terms of the present system the hon the State President is after all not compelled to participate in the no-confidence debate. In practice he does deliver the opening address, whether or not the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition thinks that he himself does so.

A second misconception has been created in this debate, namely that the opposition is now suddenly being deprived of the right to introduce a motion of no confidence. Before I explain in how many ways this can be done, I merely want to say that the public outside has never been impressed by the fiction that a party with 22, 24 or 25 seats starts off the session by ostensibly introducing a motion of no confidence in the Government. [Interjections.] Since I have been a member of Parliament I have had to explain until I was blue in the face why a motion of no confidence was introduced by people who were well aware that they did not have a hope of winning a vote.

That is democracy!

The public does not like that tradition. The South African public likes honest politics. [Interjections.]

Right-wing politics!

Honest politics means that one introduces a motion of no confidence when one really takes the initiative and not when one rather self-consciously introduces a motion of no confidence here directly after one has lost an election simply because it has been the custom since 1910. The right kind of honest politics we need in South Africa is that the opposition introduces a motion of no confidence when it really suits them, when it holds an element of surprise for the Government, and when they do so from conviction because they think they have a case with which they may be able to strike a blow.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

I just want to explain briefly in what ways the opposition will be able to make use of a motion of no confidence.

Very well, that is actually what I wanted to know.

In the first place, if they do not like the State President they can, in terms of section 9 of the Constitution, introduce a motion of no confidence through the electoral college. [Interjections.] Then they can introduce a motion of no confidence in the State President, in terms of which he may be relieved of his duties under specific circumstances.

In the second place, section 39 (2) (b) (i) and section 39 (2) (b) (ii) of the Constitution afford the opposition other ways of expressing their lack of confidence in the Government.

How does one set about doing this?

Hon members can read the Constitution in this connection. They can reject financial legislation or they can… [Interjections.] Let me read it out to hon members if they cannot find it for themselves.

How do the new rules affect this?

The new rules do not affect this at all; they do not amend section 39 of the Constitution.

How does one have this placed on the Order Paper?

Parliament shall dissolve if—

1. (i) passes a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet within any period of 14 days; or…

[Interjections.]

Order! The hon members for Green Point and Turffontein should rather confine their attention to the debate.

1. (ii) rejects any bill which appropriates revenue or moneys…

and what follows on that.

In addition, if hon members want to introduce a motion of no confidence at a joint meeting, all they need do is get the support of one member from each of the other Houses, and they can do so in terms of one of these other paragraphs we have dealt with. However they are also at liberty to introduce a motion of no confidence in the Government by way of a private member’s motion at any time. [Interjections.] This can happen in our own House, here where we are now sitting. It can happen at any time during the session. There is no restriction of which I am aware or which I came across which prevents them from doing so.

It appears at the bottom of the Order Paper.

We negotiate regularly on the basis of times—that is now included in this. Private members’ motions, where opposition parties receive preference, are in no way negatively affected by this. We shall continue to discuss private members’ motions in this House on various occasions at the beginning of sessions.

Like Alf Widman’s Smoking Control Bill! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, specific private members’ motions on specific days. I am therefore telling hon members that there is adequate opportunity for them really to take the initiative…

That is rubbish! [Interjections.]

… not because it is the custom, but because they are at liberty, if they want to be a little imaginative, to introduce a motion of no confidence on several occasions during a session, either in co-operation with other Houses or in this House only. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg North must restrain himself.

I listened to him on the radio this morning, Sir. He talks rubbish. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, that hon member has a strange habit of being more or less talkative at different times of the day, and as the end of the session drawing near, I am slowly beginning to discover what that pattern is, and to arrive at certain conclusions. [Interjections.]

I listened to you this morning. You talk rubbish. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member cannot restrain himself, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber. [Interjections.]

I should like to say that in addition to the debate we are having here…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Greytown to ask here, while you are giving a ruling, whether he may leave the room? [Interjections.]

I did not hear the remark. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

In any case, Mr Chairman, I have no objection to the hon member leaving the room. [Interjections.]

I should like to say that since I was a young parliamentarian I have found that the motion of no confidence really is not the correct instrument to achieve what it purports to achieve. It purports to be an occasion on which the opposition can bring the Government to a fall. Not once since I came to this House, however, and this is the 15th year I have been here—a few of my hon colleagues have been here longer than I—have I found that even the opposition seriously believed that this really meant what the name of the debate suggested it meant. [Interjections.]

Let us rid our system of those dusty charades to which the hon member referred, and have a debate on the actuality of the moment at the beginning of the session, namely the President’s address. [Interjections.] Let us have a debate on the initiatives of the opposition, who want to tell us how bad we are on the various occasions they themselves can create to do so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House is quite correct, because during the past 30 to 40 years there have been no situations in which a motion of no confidence could really make any difference to the Government of the day. There were times in the past, however—not only in this Parliament—when the governing party of the day had such a slim majority and there were such political undercurrents that such a motion of no confidence could have had disastrous consequences for the Government. [Interjections.]

What is more, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that that time in South African politics may not be so far in the future. [Interjections.] That is not impossible, Sir.

The part appropriation will be just the right time for that.

No, wait a minute, Sir. I shall tell him what I regard as a great pity in respect of this matter. I accept that there is an underlying improbability in the situation, but over a period of 77 years this House of Assembly has built up a certain tradition and developed a certain style of its own; to such an extent that the hon the Chief Whip says the motion of no confidence is something that does not exist in any other parliament in the world. Why must South Africa surrender this too? Why must we follow the example of the rest of the world? Should we not have something that makes us a little exclusive; which gives us a character of our own?

The governing party is strong. They are in a position of power and they are going to bulldoze these rules through this Parliament.

They simply want to follow the queen’s example.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says the Government is following the example of the Westminster parliament, and the queen. That is a pity, because one has the king with his medals and his guards and everything…

And the changing of the guard.

And the changing of the guard. [Interjections.]

The fact is that when it comes to the motion of no confidence—I must agree here with the hon the leader of the PFP—the Government reflects an arrogance in this whole matter. We are not bewailing the fact; we accept it as such. But the governing party wants to eliminate the opposition parties as far as possible. They want to make us as unobtrusive as possible, and restrict our role to the minimum. We think that is a pity, especially because an apparently strong party like the NP is doing this. [Interjections.] After all, the opposition has a very important part to play in the kind of debates the Government says they want to conduct, and perhaps they will be sitting in the opposition benches before they themselves realize it. If the Government could not retain the traditional no-confidence debate for any other reason, they could have done so because that was the only time during session, apart from the ordinary equal opportunities for private member’s motions, that the Government gave the Leader of the Official Opposition an opportunity to take the floor and initiate the debate using his own words and his own ideas. If the Government wants to do away with this—and they are going to!—they must do so. When they do, however, they will be doing this Parliament and its traditions an injustice—whether this Parliament is the only one of its kind in the world or not.

The hon the Leader of the House said the present Government was not a coalition.

Of course not!

What is it then? Is it a government sui generis, the only government of its kind in the world? Or is it an ad hoc government? If it is not a coalition, what kind of government is it? If the NP government and the National Peoples Party—until recently they also governed with the assistance of the Labour Party—are not a coalition, what are they? The hon the Leader of the House must tell us what they are. [Interjections.]

Must everything have a name? [Interjections.]

Then the hon the Leader of the House must tell us this is a government sui generis, something that does not exist anywhere else in the world—an ad hoc kind of government.

We want to develop a system which is sui generis. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House said the Constitution was everyone’s law. In this respect I think the hon the Leader of the House was giving his own interpretation to this aspect. It is true that one cannot criticise a law of the land in Parliament, because, after all, it is an Act of Parliament. We do not accept this system of the NP Government, however.

Just wait until the next election!

Very well, we shall wait for it, and the Government can let it be an early election, or they can have it whenever they like, but we shall be waiting for it. We do not accept this system, however, and we are not going to kowtow to the Government in this situation.

They no longer decide when an election will take place. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg says they do not even decide when an election will take place any more.

They cannot!

They cannot do so.

The hon the Leader of the House can say what he likes, but as far as we are concerned, this Parliament and the House of Assembly are going to be the poorer once the no-confidence debate has been abolished.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to a few things mentioned by the hon the Leader of the House. On the question of coalition, he said a coalition existed when there was a agreed programme, and that they did not have a coalition with the National Peoples Party or the Labour Party. He made a shocking admission. He said they had members in the Cabinet with whom they had no agreed programme. That is precisely what the hon the State President said on 23 May 1980, when he said we were groping around in the dark without any light to guide us. On that occasion he was referring to the abolition of the Senate. [Interjections.]

That is a lie and you know it!

Mr Chairman, someone said that was a lie.

I said that was a lie, and you knew it.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that statement.

I said, “That is a lie, and you know it,” and I withdraw “you know it”. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw the whole statement.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte…

Run (hol), Koos!

Order! Which hon member made that remark?

Mr Chairman, I made that interjection.

Order! What did the hon member mean by it?

Mr Chairman, I meant the hon member should run.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I merely want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When we say “run” to the hon member for Overvaal, it means that he ran away from his constituency. If we may not say that to him, I wonder what we…

Order! Order! I have given my ruling and the hon member for Overvaal may proceed.

I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte that he was referring to the reply the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave a few days ago when I said the hon the State President had said we were groping around in the dark without any light to guide us. The hon member for Langlaagte said that was a half truth. It was the whole truth. The hon member can take a look at that day’s edition of Beeld. I shall give him copies of it—the hon the State President was not referring to the abolition of the Senate. He was referring to the future constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] It was a question of groping around in the dark, and now the hon the Leader of the House says they have no agreed programme. Once again that is groping around in the dark, and putting together a lot of things which simply cannot work. [Interjections.]

Do you have a agreed programme with the AWB?

We have no agreed programme with the AWB. We are the CP. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House, however—and I can shout louder than he can even if he does not have a turn to shout—I would a hundred times rather have the AWB as my partner than have that party’s partners as partners. [Interjections.] I want to ask them whether they have any programme.

Of course!

What programme do they have? They are groping around in the dark, after all.

Go and read our manifesto. [Interjections.]

Order!

Which manifesto? Yesterday’s or this morning’s? We have not seen the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning today, so we do not know what the latest programme is. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House was referring to the law of the land, and now he wants us to accept it. What he expects, therefore, is that as soon as an election is over, the opposition party should simply give up so that it is a case of winner take all. We shall keep on fighting, from election to election, until we have beaten that party. Surely we have the right to do that. Or are they afraid of us? [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that his remarks about the speech from the throne—that it is no longer neutral and that the presidential address dominated in the past—is not quite true. We came here in the past, and then the hon the State President made his opening address. After that we could move our own motion of no confidence. We worded it and decided what we wanted to talk about, and this did not always concern the hon the State President’s address.

Run (hol), Koos!

Mr Chairman, hon members are ignoring your ruling.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the House referred to the section I read from the Sunday Times. He also referred to our policy. I said very clearly that this was what things would look like in the new South Africa they want to create, which is only one South Africa, There will be half a dozen presidents, 156 Government departments, and so on. That will be the new South Africa! Impossible! In our South Africa there will be one government, which will consist of Whites who will govern Whites. [Interjections.]

It has been said this evening that the Government is displaying a measure of arrogance towards the opposition parties. I want to remind hon members that the NP represents only 52% of the electorate of this country, whereas the opposition parties represent 48%.

How many seats? [Interjections.]

Does the Government realise that it only just represents the majority? Do you realise, Sir, that the coalition partners of the NP, the Indians and the Coloureds, represent only 20% of the electorate? As a coalition group they are a minority group in this country, yet they are arrogant about the rights of opposition parties.

I now come to the disadvantages attached to the abolition of the traditional no-confidence debate. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that the issue in the no-confidence debate is not so much to have the motion of no confidence in the Government passed in order to get rid of the Government; that is only one of the aspects concerned. One of the essential elements of the no-confidence debate is to call the Government to account about the way in which it is governing. That was the crux of the matter in the past. We rose here, one by one, and attacked our opponents—in one case, for example, the Minister of Defence, or in another the Minister of Law and Order—and made him the subject of a search for accountability concerning what he had done during the past year. It is not quite correct, therefore, to say that the purpose of the no-confidence debate is merely to reject the Government. This debate is also intended to call the Government to account. That is the primary objective. [Interjections.]

I maintain today that the disadvantage of abolishing the no-confidence debate is that this places a restriction on opposition parties’ freedom of speech. Secondly it is a setback for democracy, because the Government is trying to gag the opposition members in a very systematic way. In effect, this is an attempt to cover up. We have a cover-up to contend with.

You are groping around in the dark!

I wonder whether the hon member for Langlaagte does not want to use his influence with the hon Whips, and ask them for a turn to speak. [Interjections.] We are talking, but why does that hon member not get up and talk? The reason is probably that he knows nothing about what is written in this document. [Interjections] That applies to the hon member for Boksburg as well.

Go and play with your gun on the border! [Interjections.]

Someone mentioned the border. We can discuss that as well. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many senseless interjections that have nothing at all to do with this debate. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to summarise what I have said. This is an attempt by a minority group in the country, viz the NP with 52% support and its coalition partners with 20% support—that is a minority of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians—to gag the opposition parties. We—in fact, all opposition parties in this country—want to tell the Government that we shall not take this lying down. We shall fight the Government from one election to the next. The by-election in Standerton is at hand, and they are going to lose there by 2 500 votes. At the next election…

Order! No, the election in Standerton is not under discussion at the moment. [Interjections.]

I agree, Sir. [Interjections.]

The Government will not succeed in gagging this opposition party. We shall fight it from election to election, until we have taken over the Government. That hon member will be sitting here in the benches of the opposition parties one day, and then we as the Government will be fair in our conduct towards him, something they cannot say in respect of the opposition parties today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I only want to put one question to the hon the Leader of the House. He says that they are not a coalition government. He says they have a programme. Now I want to ask him who draws up the programme. Does the NP Government draw it up alone? Does it not consult its partner or partners in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates? We want to know whether it draws up the programme alone and whether it is told from outside what its programme must be.

Crocker.

Does Chester Crocker tell the Government what its programme must be? [Interjections.] We merely want to know who draws up that programme. That is the most important aspect as far as we are concerned, because if he says that they are not a coalition government…

What was your majority, Tom?

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg’s majority has nothing to do with this debate. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

I have a fairly safe majority in Soutpansberg, because my majority can only grow from what it is now. The NP’s majority can only decrease from what it is now. A party’s future and mentality is reflected in its life. The lighthearted and undisciplined manner and lack of respect of these hon members… [Interjections.]

Order!

… is a sign of the future of the NP. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House—he can take this to heart as regards his party—that history has proved that the more power dictators and powers that fell in the past usurped for themselves, the closer they were to their fall.

Yes, the Bible says so too.

I just want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that he himself is killing the NP by the way in which he is using these rules for his own convenience and to suit himself.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to tell the hon members who say we are arrogant that the best proof of how unfounded that statement is that we frequently sit and listen in a fairly resigned and civilised manner to tirades like the one we heard from the hon member for Overvaal again this evening. If only he knew how angry we get, but still control ourselves, when he talks such nonsense, he would realise that we are not arrogant. [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg—he is acquainted with the NP constitution—that it is stated in the NP constitution that it is our congresses who prescribe policy in the final instance. [Interjections.] Since the hon members left us we have even gone to federal congresses twice to get significant changes in policy agreed to. Then we took them to our provincial congresses. No one outside the NP prescribes our policy to us. [Interjections.]

The CP cannot say the same, because they do not have the courage to say that they reject the Boerestaat concept of the AWB unconditionally. [Interjections] The hon member must therefore not talk to me about this. The NP designs, defines and markets its own policy. The other majority parties in the other Houses, which co-operate with us in the Constitution, have their own policies, and there are deep-seated differences in policy, but in the interests of South Africa at this stage we are getting better co-operation from them on matters of fundamental importance than we are getting from the CP. [Interjections.] It is a disgrace to the CP. [Interjections.]

What was the last point the hon member put?

Chester Crocker.

No.

The matter of the programme. Who draws up the programme?

I have already said that the NP draws up the programme itself. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to tell the hon member that the impression they are creating that we want to silence the opposition, is devoid of all truth. [Interjections.] How can an opposition which was afforded the opportunity twice within the space of four years to win at the polls, which was able to participate in a free election, first in the referendum and then again in 1987, an opposition which says that next year’s municipal elections are going to be a general election, say that they are being gagged in South Africa? Surely they have every opportunity to put their case. For that reason I really want to tell hon members that this donkey they are trying to whip into motion, is not going to budge.

Which donkey?

The donkey of “we are gagging you”.

Mr Chairman, I really did not wish to argue further with the hon the Leader of the House on this matter, but to tell us that we have the opportunity to take part in elections and that we are not being gagged here, is really not a comparison to be drawn by an educated man. [Interjections.] We are now speaking according to the old rules. If these new rules are adopted, we shall not be able to speak like this anymore. We shall speak about that presently. [Interjections.] Something we are still able to do at this stage is contest elections. We do not know how much longer this will still be possible for us, but at present we are talking about the discussion and debate in this Parliament. The way in which the Government makes these rules, and the way in which they are bulldozed through here and then implemented means that people outside this House are going to hear increasingly less of the opposition parties.

They do not want to hear!

Be quiet, brothers! There comes the AWB. [Interjections.]

What did you say your minority was in Rustenburg? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the problem with doing away with the no-confidence debate becomes clear when we read paragraph 8.2. It arises from the Government’s problem…

Where did you read that?

I am referring to paragraph 8.2 of the report now before the House. It states clearly that the problem arises from lack of clarity on the question of whether the Government is committed to the joint responsibility of all the members of the Cabinet.

Were you here when I dealt with that?

I was here.

It does not arise from an anachronism as the hon Chief Whip of Parliament has said. It arises from an anomaly that has been present in this new Constitution Act from the outset. The anomaly lies in the following. Surely the Government would never consider appointing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or any other hon member from this side of the House as a member of the Cabinet, or would it?

We are not that stupid!

Would the Government consider appointing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as a member of the Cabinet? [Interjections.] Naturally it would not do so because the policy of the Official Opposition differs from that of the Government; because there are basic differences in policy. In reality, however, the Government goes further. It appoints someone that differs radically from itself as far as policy is concerned. For that reason the Government has a problem. It has a problem in the Cabinet. It has a problem in that a situation has now arisen whereby the Government cannot allow any no-confidence debate, because to do so would inevitably render the Government extremely vulnerable. For this reason we are telling the Government that that is the basis of the problem. Therefore we are now getting this cover-up job. Yes, I am calling it a cover-up job, because that is all it is!

Plasterers! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that the root of the problem is a practical one. The CP wants to have all hon Ministers here during a no-confidence debate, doesn’t it? Be honest now.

Of course! [Interjections.]

Do they think that other Houses do not also want all hon Ministers to be present during a no-confidence debate?

They can sit at other times.

What will happen to the business of Parliament then?

That is the problem of your Constitution!

According to this new arrangement each House is at liberty to move a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. The Cabinet does not flinch from no-confidence debates, and it is prepared to meet each House and to discuss this situation. Now, however, it can take place through real initiative when a party in a particular House feels that that is what it wishes to do. Then that party can take the initiative. This prescribed type of debate dating from 1910 which we are now compelled to use whether we want to or not and whether it is the opportune time or not will now fall away. However, no one will be deprived of the basic right. That also applies to the other Houses.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House has just repeated what I consider to be a very peculiar statement. We have spent the same amount of time in this House; he also spent a long time in this House before he was included in the Cabinet. At the time it was very important to be able to participate in the no-confidence debate.

Yes, that is right.

Did we not appeal to our Whips repeatedly to be given an opportunity to speak in the no-confidence debate?

I did not!

Yes, but you have been a kind of head boy since you arrived here. [Interjections.]

There is great competition… [Interjections.]

Order!

There is great competition among ordinary hon members—the so-called lesser lights in this House—to be able to participate in a no-confidence debate. This is well known, Mr Chairman, and the hon the Leader of the House must not tell me now that he has no knowledge of this. Every year there is great competition to obtain turns to speak in the no-confidence debate.

It will be exactly the same in terms of the new Rules.

No, Sir, it will…

How on earth will that be possible? [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House has now alleged that we have many opportunities to propose motions of no confidence. He mentioned one such opportunity as an example. He said we should approach a senior Whip of both the other Houses to sign a document which would enable us to introduce a motion of no confidence in this House. [Interjections.] That is the situation into which he wants to force the CP.

Nonsense!

Yes, Sir! The other method to which he referred dealt with the provision applicable when the State President became indisposed, etc. He then referred to section 39 (2) of the Constitution and said we could simply move a motion of no confidence in the Government. When we asked him how this was done, however…

It is to be found in the Constitution!

We ask him where the Rules provide for this. Where do the Rules prescribe how one is to do this? One method is by means of the consent of the other two Houses—as mentioned by the hon the Leader of the House. The other method is by placing it on the Order Paper. How does one have it placed on the Order Paper? Sitting over there is the hon man, the Chief Whip of Parliament, who will determine whether it is placed on the Order Paper.

Yes, right at the bottom!

Of course! Where else? [Interjections.]

It therefore means that such a motion will never rise to the first position on the Order Paper.

You are very sure of that, aren’t you? [Interjections.]

Sir, I know only too well the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will ensure that this does not happen. The hon the Leader of the House added that the only other way of having a motion of no confidence discussed was by way of a private member’s motion. Consequently this means that, as the hon member for Overvaal said, an acquired right is now…

By kind favour of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament.

Yes, by kind favour of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament we now have to exercise an acquired right. We are now being deprived of that acquired right, which Opposition parties have had over the years and which is typical of democracy. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, and then they continue to maintain they are not arrogant. The hon the Leader of the House contended that the people of Vereeniging and wherever else he went wanted to know why we had a no-confidence debate. Mr Chairman, no one has ever put such a question to me in my life. [Interjections.] Everyone accepts… [Interjections.] Everyone one deals with knows this is the most important part of the parliamentary programme every year.

And not a single predecessor of the hon the State President’s would have abolished it.

Yes, that is correct. [Interjections.]

Only the king abolishes it! [Interjections.]

Order!

It was also a good opportunity for the Government…

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, I recognised only the hon member for Brakpan.

It has always been a good opportunity for the governing party to put its policy as well and for Cabinet Ministers to be heard. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now the hon the Leader of the House has made the following statement, on which I want to take issue with him. It is that the speech from the throne… [Interjections.] It is that the President’s Address—as he maintained—had increasingly become the most important document. Sir, the hon the Leader of the House can surely not state this so categorically. It is patently untrue. Until a year or two ago we did not even refer to the State President’s Opening Address. We did refer to his Rubicon speech. [Interjections.] The entire debate centred on his Rubicon speech; it had nothing to do with the opening of Parliament. On another occasion we referred to his New Year message. It happened only on certain occasions that there was definite reference in the course of the no-confidence debate to the hon the State President’s Opening Address. [Interjections.]

But we do discuss what the hon the State President says!

But, Sir, surely we cannot discuss Boswell’s circus! [Interjections.]

Exactly!

We have to discuss the Government’s policy, not so?

It remains the same! [Interjections.]

The basic point involved here is this. This is an acquired, vested right which exists in democracy and in the tradition of this House. It is now being trampled underfoot by the Government. [Interjections.]

Paragraph 8 put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—81: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F 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; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A.

Noes—34: Andrew, K M; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Paragraph 8 agreed to.

Order! When the presiding officer is announcing the result of the division, surely he is entitled to expect silence. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members must not see how far they can go with the Chair.

Mr Chairman, an hon member has just repeated the word used by the hon member for Benoni a while ago.

Order! Which hon member was it who used the word “hol”? This senseless shouting of interjections of this nature cannot be tolerated in the Committee. It certainly does not enhance the standing of the Committee and, if it happens again, I shall expect the hon member who is guilty of it to do more than withdraw it; he will also have to apologise.

Paragraph 9:

Mr Chairman, this is again, in style, a repetition of the kind of thing that we have been objecting to throughout the discussion of these rules.

Paragraph 9.1 relates to punishment of members guilty of disorderly conduct. In many ways it is a very cynical provision because it says simply that if such a situation arises at the present time, a member is dealt with at a meeting of a House and by resolution of a House. However, because of the whole problem in which the Government finds itself regarding the whole question of taking decisions at joint sittings it now says that it will be much more convenient, instead of the House taking the decision by resolution to discipline a member guilty of misconduct, to empower Mr Speaker to suspend such a member. In the absence of Mr Speaker it will be done by the presiding officer of a House.

As we indicated earlier this afternoon this is part of the whole tortuous process which must be inevitable when the Government tries to avoid decisions being taken at joint sittings. The principle inherent in this paragraph is repugnant to any democratic parliament and therefore we shall oppose this provision.

Mr Chairman, we on this side also feel that we are vesting these powers in one person, that is Mr Speaker, which is actually at variance with the entire tradition of this place.

I think the fact that a member could only be named in the past on the motion of a Minister and subsequently by way of putting the question, indicates that the judgement of a member was in fact placed in the hands of his peers here. Whether this merely happened in theory or whatever the case was, it was not a power vested in the single person of Mr Speaker, regardless of the extent of his prestige in this place.

Underlying this situation, however, I think is the fear of the Government that, if it should name a member of one of the three Houses, it could possibly not expect any support from the House from whose ranks the person named came if it were put to the vote.

That is correct!

This is what the Government is running away from and it is proof of the monster it has created with this system which is bringing it face to face with such problems.

In other words it could happen that a member from one of the three components behaved himself in such a way that he certainly deserved to be named but that, if a Minister belonging to one of the other components were to rise and move that he be named, there would be no support from the ranks of that component to which the person who had misbehaved belonged.

Our standpoint is simply that over many years, since the time of Westminster, a tradition has developed within the system in the House of Assembly as regards the naming of a member in which his peers give their verdict on it. This is being taken away here and that is why we oppose it.

Mr Chairman, I think this particular provision has some other implications which I should like to point out and which I think perhaps you, Mr Chairman, are somewhat familiar with. They concern the question of what actually transpires when there is a breach of privilege of Parliament as opposed to a breach of privilege relating to only one of the Houses of Parliament.

It would appear that there are some individuals who argue that any breach of the rules of the House would actually constitute a breach of privilege of Parliament.

Order! The hon member must now relate his argument to what is in the report.

Yes, I am coming right to that, Sir.

If you look at this, you will see that we are talking about two things. The very first words of paragraph 9 are: “The existing Rules on the maintenance of order in the Houses…” We are talking about rules. If it were argued that the breach of a rule of a House is only punishable because it is a breach of the privilege of the House, then the privilege would be the privilege of Parliament, and if one were in a joint sitting, it would be a privilege of the joint sitting of Parliament.

If that were so, the question would arise who should actually punish that breach of privilege of Parliament. If the breach of privilege were committed at a joint sitting—and let us assume for a moment that the breach is of so serious a nature that it does constitute a breach of privilege, such as an assault on Mr Speaker, which would be a very serious breach—how would that be punished, Sir?

One would have to have a select committee either of one House or of all three Houses. One would then have the problem of being unable to report back to the joint sitting, because the joint sitting would be unable to deal with it. I therefore pose the following question. Is one not getting oneself into a terrible morass in regard to a question of privilege by giving no powers of any kind to a joint sitting? The joint sitting has no powers and can take no action.

An attempt is made to evade this problem by bestowing certain powers on the Speaker, as stated in paragraph 9.2. The powers referred to here are, however, limited, because they are prescribed; in other words, one cannot go beyond what is prescribed in paragraph 9.2. In terms of a breach of privilege of a serious enough nature, one can even impose imprisonment. The member can actually be locked up downstairs until Parliament rises. Who is going to do that in future—the joint sitting, a standing committee of the three Houses, a select committee of the three Houses, or an individual House?

One of the things that will happen because of the inability of the joint sitting to protect itself is that one will have to have recourse to the individual Houses in order to see that the privilege of Parliament is preserved. This highlights very clearly how such a situation could develop if a serious breach of the rules results in a breach of privilege. A ludicrous situation will develop because of this inability of the joint sitting to do anything to protect itself against a breach of privilege.

Mr Chairman, if such a case of breach of privilege were to be referred to the Houses, which would have to vote on it, another question would arise. What would happen if two of the Houses were to decide that an assault on Mr Speaker for instance were not a breach of privilege and one House decided it certainly was? Then we would reach an impasse. Would it be a case which could then be resolved in some way or other? How would this matter of privilege and the breach of it be brought to a conclusion, by which a member could be punished if two of the Houses were to decide it was no breach of privilege if it were referred to them and they had to decide on it?

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to say in general that we on this side are convinced that the Chair ought to have adequate power and authority to be able to maintain order at all times. We do not consider the powers vested in the Chair in this way to be extraordinary.

This paragraph deals with the maintenance of order. I readily concede that, when we consider consequential amendments to the Standing Orders, we shall have to pay scrupulous attention to what may arise from this and also to what is related to the amendment I shall move in a moment, and specifically to the matter of breach of privilege and how it should be dealt with.

I give the undertaking that we shall go into this matter thoroughly and that we shall deal with it in connection with those rules to ensure that breach of privilege remains a matter to be dealt with by the institution itself.

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

Paragraph 10:

Mr Chairman, paragraph 10 proposes that the present rules of debate, as contained in the Standing Orders of the Houses, be made applicable just as they are to joint meetings of the Houses. Then we get to 10.2, however, which reads as follows:

My information is that this podium will be located in the middle, right in front of Mr Speaker. If a dispute should arise between the member speaking and Mr Speaker, the member would be standing with his back to Mr Speaker. My question is in what way he is then to communicate meaningfully with Mr Speaker.

He is going to have a rear-view mirror!

When a question is put or when a point of order is raised, an hon member has to move from his seat to a microphone. I wish to know how many microphones there will be in the large hall. 1 also want to adopt the standpoint on behalf of this side that this arrangement is obstructive as regards the established, traditional course of debate as we know it in this House because, when one wishes to raise a point of order, that point is discussed immediately. In what way is an hon member who wishes to raise a point of order, for example, going to give an indication that he wants to do this if he first has to walk to a microphone to furnish an explanation?

I am of the opinion that this is a further practical example of how traditional debating as we know it in this House is being subdued and actively changed. We on this side of the House will consequently vote against this paragraph as well.

Mr Chairman, I wish to reply to the hon member very briefly. The entire question of the use of a podium was addressed and approved last year. Consequently I do not believe we need argue this at length except to reply directly to the hon member’s question that six microphones will be placed at strategic points in the Council Chamber of Parliament. If the hon member knows the layout of that hall, he will know that there is an aisle between the two rows of seats where microphones will be placed at strategic points.

As regards Mr Speaker’s discussion with a member speaking, Mr Speaker will be able to see the member’s face on the screen of his monitor in any case, even if he is standing in front of him. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, apparently we are now going to carry on our debates by television. One actually has to have a television monitor in the joint sitting in order to handle the debate properly. It is a ridiculous system. [Interjections.] It is patently absurd.

Now we are going to have a podium from which we are going to have to speak. This means that hon members are going to have to queue up on either side so that they can quickly move up from place to place and take their place on the podium for the appointed number of seconds that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has seen fit to grant them.

This is actually going to turn the whole debate into something which is not a debate. It is going to turn it into a sort of formalised, stultified occasion where stiff speeches are in all probability going to be read out over a microphone. [Interjections.] The debate as it should be in a House of Parliament is actually going to become a meaningless…

Lecture.

… lecture. That is quite right. Therefore we shall be registering objection to this paragraph. We find that what is really happening in this whole set of rules—this is just another example—is that the real power and the legislative power of this Parliament is moving next door.

When these new rules are implemented, then even more so will the real power to legislate and to do everything else—in other words to be a total dictator—have moved next door. When I use the words “next door” I do not mean the next Chamber; I mean the next separate building which is Tuynhuys.

Mr Chairman, we are dealing once again with a case here in which the role of the Opposition is going to be subdued. In the present atmosphere in which debating has been conducted since 1910, one may rise in one’s own seat if one wishes to speak and one may put points of order. In such debate there is a fighting spirit, somebody is actually being addressed, and one is able to convey one’s standpoints directly. This is a lively arena in which politicians take issue with one another. What will be the case during a joint sitting, however? In the first place one has to address Mr Speaker, although he will be sitting behind one. At the moment I am talking to the hon Chairman; I can see him and I am supposed to address him. How can I address Mr Speaker if he is behind me? I have to look at him on the television screen.

The point I wish to make is that it appears to me that the Government has reached the stage in which it is afraid of the Opposition. It is becoming afraid of debates. We have been sitting here debating since this afternoon and the only people participating are the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. There are no debates taking place here any more; it seems to me the fight has been completely knocked out of the NP. It has become so frightened of the Opposition and of the force with which we debate against it that it wants to abolish the type of debate we are engaged in now under that new system. Why does it wish to do this? Why does it not want to permit us to debate as we have been doing for the past 80 years in this Council Chamber? Why does it now want to abolish that tradition, which is a South African one? It appears to me a few people were overseas and were impressed there and now every novelty they saw there has to be introduced in South Africa at all costs…

The rules were laid down last year…

Last year or next year makes no difference; the hon the Chief Whip seems to me to be so enamoured of foreign systems and so eager to change that, no matter what tradition we are discussing, it simply has to be flung out at the window and replaced. Now there has to be a small throne standing just so, a microphone here, a television screen there, and something else here and yet another thing further along. I shall tell hon members why this is going to happen. The Government does not want to look the Opposition in the face. [Interjections.] It has reached the stage of having become afraid of traditional debates. That is why it is doing this. [Interjections.]

Let its members laugh at this but the fact is they want to remove the fire and enthusiasm from debates. They want a lifeless debate, as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, the Chief Whip of the PFP, said. They want a little lecture to be delivered from the front. Each of us then has to rise and speak from the front. Ultimately they will tell us we may speak for two minutes and then table our speeches. Then it will become a sterile debate and the speeches will all be cast into the bottomless Hansard pit. [Interjections.] Our objection is that this type of debate will remove all the fire from traditional debates and change their nature and characteristics. The reason for this is that the Government has become afraid of traditional debates.

We are in the process of exposing Government weaknesses here from day to day, of revealing the lack of credibility of the NP to the people outside and how purposeless this party has become and of emphasising the fact that it has no plan to which it is working. We are exposing this here but in that debate it wants to draw the Opposition’s teeth. It can do what it likes but there are still elections outside this House and, when we have won that election, we shall return and restore the true South African tradition of the House of Assembly. We shall fling the innovations that a few hon members of the NP fetched from overseas out of the window.

Mr Chairman, I think a good debater—there are good debaters in all parties—will not be daunted by everything hon members of the Opposition are so afraid of now. He will be able to conduct a fiery debate from that podium if he is fired up about a specific matter. I therefore really do not think this will inhibit a good debater; it might perhaps be a good thing if poor debaters were inhibited. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House what his main reason is for changing from the present system to another one? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have already given our reasons in full. [Interjections.] In the first case, the size of the hall plays a part and, in the second case, by the time we discuss legislation there it has already, for the most part, been thrashed out in the standing committees. It is part of the new style specifically not to start out with confrontation but preferably to conduct proper dialogue after thorough consideration and the hearing of evidence.

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

Paragraph 12:

Mr Chairman, this paragraph deals with the need for a quorum. It determines that a quorum is essential only when a vote is taken at the deferred meeting. There will not be a quorum in the normal course of events.

We know that since this new dispensation was instituted, the Government has had problems with a quorum. We saw this once again last Friday, when there was no quorum.

After you had walked out. [Interjections.]

It is no accusation to say that we walked out. It is the duty of the Government, which has 133 members, to ensure that 50 of its members remain here while debates are taking place. [Interjections.] We have a very interesting position here in respect of the quorum, however.

We know that those hon Whips instructed the other hon members not to participate in the debate because they wanted to put an end to this matter at some stage or other. That is why only the hon the Leader and the hon the Chief Whip are speaking. I am tempted to say I can give hon members the assurance, as my colleague the hon member for Overvaal said, that very few of those hon members know what this document contains. [Interjections.] What is more, if there were no quorum requirement at present, only five people would be debating here tonight, because those hon members who are making such purposeless interjections would not have been here. [Interjections.] They would have had a reason not to be here.

We have discipline in our party. [Interjections.]

Discipline in that party? Before the election I think we had the bells rung for a quorum four times. The new dispensation has been in progress for only three years, and on four or five occasions we have not had a quorum. Although the Government consists of more than 120 members, they cannot get 50 hon members here to form a quorum. [Interjections.] There were between 46 and 48 hon members of the Government party in this Committee all afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will agree with me that the Official Opposition is the only Official Opposition that has ever asked for a vote and then not had enough members to enforce it? [Interjections.]

What does that have to do with the matter? [Interjections.]

The next point I want to make in this connection, is that the hon Cabinet Ministers are not here either. This is a good opportunity for them to be justifiably absent from the discussion in one of the Houses. [Interjections.] We spoke about this a few days ago. From time to time we talk about the fact that under the new dispensation, only one or at most two hon Ministers are often present in the House. Miraculously enough, there are three hon Ministers here tonight, which is not a bad achievement in comparison with what has happened during the past few years. Usually there is a big empty space in the House where the hon the Ministers sit, because they are not here. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament having problems with his hearing? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

You were not referring to an empty space (hol kol), were you? [Interjections.]

I said there was an empty space, yes. Did the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament not hear that? Perhaps I should have said “vacuum”; possibly he would understand that better. [Interjections.] There is a vacuum where those hon Ministers should be.

The fact that so few hon members of the Government are present here, actually indicates contempt for Parliament. In future we are going to sit in four places, which means that hon members can easily disappear and easily boycott sittings. The only thing that will be necessary, is their presence when a vote is taken. What a farce, what a ridiculous farce the Government is making of this Parliament by arguing that a quorum is necessary only when a vote is taken!

Do hon members know what is going to happen? In that big hall that is being built, an hon member is going to stand at the podium, the hon member speaking after him will sit and listen to him, and the other hon members will be attending standing committees and other committees. They will be “productively absent”, and this will not matter any longer. [Interjections.] This makes a farce of this whole procedure in Parliament, and we shall be voting against this paragraph.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches will also be voting against this quorum paragraph. We find the attitude of the NP to this whole question of a quorum quite extraordinary.

The first comment that came back across the floor when the hon member for Brakpan spoke about the lack of a quorum last week was: “But you walked out.” May I ask those hon members, however, whose legislation it is that we are passing? Is it their legislation, or is it the opposition’s legislation? The particular Bill that was being discussed on that occasion was the Finance Bill, which is actually quite an important Bill. Yet the NP could not muster a quorum in this Chamber; and whenever there is a lack of a quorum, they blame the opposition for walking out. How laughable can they be!

Patently, Sir, they do not believe that they are going to be able to keep their hon members in order. I think the course of this debate has shown us how true that is. [Interjections.] Therefore, they are giving up. They are no longer going to try to maintain a quorum during a debate. They are only going to have a quorum when we vote.

It is going to go even further than that, Sir. As I understand the way this system is going to work, there is not going to be a special vote called for on a specific debate. Instead, we are suddenly going to have voting day. Then there will be put, one after the other, a whole lot of Bills on which one will suddenly have to vote. I understand there may be as many as five or six Bills that we are going to have to have a voting session on. Then we shall all make our two-minute speeches on why we are supporting or not supporting. The Bills will then go through. It is all going to be totally meaningless, Sir. Therefore, we shall be opposing this quorum provision.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to a question put by the hon member for Langlaagte. He asked whether it was not true that the CP was the first Official Opposition who had asked for a division and then not had enough members present in the House.

Yes.

But the hon member knows why there were too few of us here that day. He knows that that was the result of the NP’s explicitly—for the umpteenth time!—breaking their word. We were to have adjourned before that day. That was how things had been arranged. We had arranged a congress long before then, and that number of our members simply could not cancel their obligations in respect of that congress. [Interjections.] The hon member’s argument therefore reflects on him concerning his party’s credibility or lack thereof, since we were experiencing that dilemma because the NP, as so often before, had not kept its word. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to examine paragraph 12.2. I do not know whether this is correct. It reads:

The only power a House has, therefore, and the only power this House has, is when it adopts a resolution. When one takes a look at section 61 of the Constitution, one reads:

And then the number of members is mentioned. The crux here, therefore, is what constitutes the power of a House. According to paragraph 12. 2, the only power a House has is to adopt a resolution. I cannot agree with that. We have the right to debate, after all, and a House has the power to do many other things, such as moving motions. The power of a House cannot be restricted only to decision-making. Does a House not have the power of debating, or is that a privilege? Is it a right? Is it a play on words?

Ultimately debating is also a power of the House. Now I want to know whether debating can be separated from decision-making. It is one process, after all. We do not simply come here and take decisions; it is a process.

It is a right; not a power.

The hon member for Langlaagte must please ask for a turn to speak. I am sure the two hon members who keep on talking must be tired of talking by now. That hon member must ask for a turn to speak. I wonder why they did not give him one. The reason is probably that he does not know what is stated in this document and that he would be an embarrassment to them.

The point I want to make is that debating makes up an integral part of the decision-making process, because it is all one process. We sit here, the Secretary reads the Order of the Day, and a member rises to his feet and moves a motion. This process ends in a decision. The taking of the decision cannot be separated from the debates and that whole process.

We must seek a reason, therefore, for the quorum’s having to be present only when the resolution is adopted. I shall tell hon members why that is the case. It is because the NP has reached a stage in which it no longer sees its way clear to maintaining the old established quorum. The NP does not see its way clear to having enough of its own members here. Hon members can count and see that there are very seldom fewer than 15 of us in the opposition benches. The Government only needs 35 members for a quorum, and cannot always manage even that. The fundamental reason for their wanting to abolish quorums is that the NP can no longer maintain discipline and keep its people in this House. That is the fundamental reason for their wanting to abolish quorums.

On Friday there were only seven of you.

I really cannot understand this abolition of the quorum.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why only 36% of his party was present in the House at one stage last Friday, 25 September?

I was in Europe last Friday.

He was not here, and that is why he does not know.

I do not know whether 36% or 35% of my party was present. Let us say only 36% was present. That hon member is upset about that, but does he know that for them to maintain a quorum here, they need only 25% of NP members? They do not see their way clear to doing even that. [Interjections.] If a quarter of the NP members were here, the opposition would make up sufficient members for a quorum. A quarter of 130 is just over 30. The NP does not see its way clear, therefore, to keeping a quarter to a third of its members here on a regular basis. At the root of this is the inability of the Whips, the Chief Whip of Parliament and the Chief Whip of the House of Assembly to ensure that their members are present in this House. This is a kind of capitulation; since they cannot maintain discipline, they cannot ensure that their people are here.

I cannot understand why the Government wants to abolish the quorum. This detracts from the dignity, decorum and traditions of this House. What is this House going to look like if there are only 15 or 20 people while a debate is taking place? What will that look like? It is an indication of the Government’s disregard for the dignity of Parliament, as we have known it for 70 years. The Government no longer wants the House to be full, so that meaningful debate can take place. It does not mind if only 10 or 20 people are sitting here. It is tearing the House to pieces.

You should be the last one to talk about dignity!

The hon member for Boksburg should rather reflect on what he went to do in France, and on what right he had to be there. He must go and do his military service before he can say anything to me. [Interjections.] Yes, and then he has the audacity to laugh!

Order! No, this has nothing to do with the debate. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

I want to conclude by saying that I cannot understand that the quorum is being abolished. [Interjections.] The NP’s inability to apply discipline is at the root of that. We must retain the quorum, so that we can retain the dignity and decorum of this House as we have known it during the past 70 years. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for George asked why only a third of our members were here on Friday. Apparently he was not here on Friday, because my colleague, the hon member for Pietersburg, began his speech on a motion of the hon the Leader of the House as follows:

What congress? [Interjections.]

It was the Cape congress of the CP, and it was a splendid congress. [Interjections.]

One aspect on the issue of the quorum has not been broached yet, and as far as I am concerned it is one of the most important aspects. One comes here as a member of the House of Assembly, or as the Flemish say, as a people’s representative, and I think the idea is that one participates in the legislation and other matters concerning the country. We cannot all be here at all times, and we cannot all attend every debate. Nevertheless, I think a member should be involved in the debates that takes place here as much as possible.

What should happen in the system—note that I use the word “should”—is that one should know what one is voting for and what is being debated.

But then one must be awake!

Sir, I do not know why the hon the Chief Whip of the NP in the House of Assembly is so amused, but I want to tell his predecessor…

I have nothing to do with you!

I am not talking to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament; I am talking to the hon the Chief Whip of the NP in the House of Assembly, or is the hon member this lot’s Chief Whip as well?

It is because you are awake for a change…

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is fast asleep again, Sir.

I want to tell the hon the Chief Whip of the NP in the House of Assembly that this NP’s lack of discipline has become blatant since he became the Chief Whip of the NP in the House of Assembly. He cannot organise or control them. [Interjections.] That is why they come forward with things like the abolition of the quorum. [Interjections.] The fact is, the NP is no longer capable of applying discipline in Parliament. That is why they cannot govern the country. That is why they are making provision for such rules. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that the fact that a member has to be present is basic to a House of Assembly’s activities. [Interjections.]

I shall not say to that hon member who has woken up, what Langenhoven said, but I shall tell him I promise never to sleep in the House again if he can make a better contribution when he is awake than I can when I am sleeping. [Interjections.] Secondly I want to tell him that I am keeping count of who is sleeping—I shall not cast aspersions where I may not do so—and I think the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament is the member who sleeps most of all in this House.

He has a record! [Interjections.]

He holds the record, Sir. When we look down the rows on the opposite side, we see that they sleep far more than we do. [Interjections.]

Where is the hon member for Kuruman?

Order! That does not appear anywhere in the report. The hon member must come back to the report. [Interjections.] Order!

With this arrangement in respect of the quorum, they are throwing the underlying idea of a parliamentary debate into reverse gear. They are making provision for members to be mere rubber stamps, voting sheep, voting cattle. That is what provision is being made for. I think it is wrong of the governing party to make provision with its quorum system for absence from rather than presence at parliamentary debates.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to tell hon members—I am not saying this is a definitive argument—that at present this Parliament is the only parliament in the world that requires a quorum during debate. [Interjections.] I say that this is not a definitive argument, but hon members should take cognisance of it.

Secondly, according to legal advice we have obtained, I want to say that section 61 of the Constitution in fact already provides what we are asking for. Nevertheless, to put this beyond all doubt, an amendment will be contained in the Constitution Second Amendment Bill which will be dealt with later, in terms of which the concept in section 61, “exercises its powers” will be replaced by “determination of a question”.

We can have long semantic arguments about this. We are not removing the quorum provision to legalise or promote absence. We are removing the quorum provision because it is really not necessary, since it is necessary in the exercise of power, viz when the resolution is adopted. We shall still be making a proper contribution in all debates, as always.

But you do not want a quorum!

The hon member need not lecture us. We shall make our full contribution. This side of the House has better attendance of debates; their attendance is definitely better than when those hon members were members of the NP.

Oh no!

Mr Chairman, I deliberately avoided getting involved in the discussion of this paragraph because I have been waiting to hear the hon the Leader of the House explain why they want to remove the quorum provision. For 80 years this Parliament has operated on the basis of a quorum. I have never heard a complaint. I have never heard of confusion in regard to interpretation. [Interjections.]

I must tell the hon the Leader of the House that the constitutions of hundreds of organisations stipulate that a meeting cannot start until there is a quorum present. They do not merely say that a certain number of people must vote. Unless one has voting cattle, voting is the consequence of debate. Voting is the consequence of any interaction of views, and that is what Parliament is about.

I said earlier that hon members were becoming arrogant, and they were offended. However, it is not a wilful arrogance; it is just a creeping arrogance. It is a creeping arrogance towards this Parliament. I wonder what the public must think of this. After 80 years Parliament says: As long as you are here to vote you will be able to participate and vote; it does not matter if you are absent the rest of the time.

Voting cattle!

I want to know from the hon the Leader of the House what the real reason is. Have there been practical problems in this respect? Is he scared that where there are joint meetings there may not be quorums of each of the Houses present? I cannot believe that on the basis of the superficial interpretation that is given to conflict in a provision in the 1983 Constitution—which after all he or his colleague next to him drafted—and on the basis of some confusion which may exist, after 80 years he is deciding to scrap the quorum rule.

I do not think it is fundamental, but I think it shows an attitude of mind. It shows an attitude towards debate. It shows an attitude towards the total responsibility of members of Parliament and parties towards the parliamentary system. To say after 80 years, on the pretext of a conflict of interpretation in regard to the 1983 Constitution that we are going to scrap the quorum requirement, I believe belies and disguises the real objective behind this paragraph.

Mr Chairman, let me say immediately that I really wanted to continue, but I got rather carried away emotionally. In the memorandum to the legislation which we are due to discuss, additional motivation is also provided. I agree that there is an element of what the hon member referred to. Nobody is denying it.

Paragraph two of the memorandum states:

This is not before the House at present.

There is a rule of anticipation. One is not allowed to discuss it now.

Order! What is the hon the Leader of the House referring to?

I thought that this was on the Table.

Order! What is that?

It is the legislation which will flow from this.

Order! No, the hon the Leader of the House may not discuss it now.

Well, Mr Chairman, let me then inform hon members that if paragraph 12 is accepted, then obviously section 61 of the Constitution, in all probability will have to be amended to make clear our intention. Yes, there is an element of what the hon member referred to in both this proposed amendment of section 61 of the Constitution and this paragraph. It would be possible for a particular House, under given circumstances, to disrupt the proceedings of debates at joint meetings.

Why did you not tell us this in the standing committee?

Mr Chairman, that possibility has been anticipated in the Constitution itself, and I want to refer hon members to section 37 (2) where it is specifically stated that if under certain given circumstances any House is unable to meet—and unable to meet also includes unwilling to meet—then the other two Houses will constitute Parliament. This principle has been built into the Constitution. There is also provision in the rules that if in the standing committees on a particular day the representatives of one House is absent or refuse to participate, then, after a certain given procedure, the members representing the other two Houses can continue. So, yes, there is an element built into this paragraph to ensure that if a situation should arise where protest is decided upon by a particular participant in the system by staying away that will not disrupt the normal activities of Parliament. They would still have the right, however, not to attend the voting. They would still have a right to say that they refuse to exercise their power. We are not taking that right away from anyone, but, yes, we are here also looking at the element of ensuring continuance of planned programmes without any disruption whatsoever.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House referred to section 37 of the Constitution where it is determined that if a quorum is not present or if a House does not meet its performance or its functions, it will be deemed therefore that the other two Houses have made a decision. That, however, is in respect of voting. The quorum situation we are talking about at the moment…

It is the same principle.

… is to avoid having a quorum when one is not voting. In a joint sitting, for instance, there is no way that that meeting cannot meet its performance or functions, because there is no voting at the joint sitting. The hon the Leader of the House therefore uses a provision in the Constitution which determines that if one is not present for voting purposes the quorum requirement need not apply, to justify not having a quorum when one does not vote

It is the same situation.

No, Mr Chairman, it is just the opposite situation. The fact is that a quorum is required when one is voting, and we believe the law requires at the moment that one should have a quorum when one debates. Is that not so?

What the hon the Leader of the House is saying is that we now do not need to have a quorum when we are debating. I should tell hon members, however, it is a retrograde and arrogant attitude towards the total performance of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I think the basis for implementing this rule has just been revealed by the hon the Leader of the House. It is becoming clear that what the Government is actually afraid of is a boycott. If there should be a boycott, there must be a rule according to which it can be dealt with. The rule that is being made now is in direct conflict with every existing principle of debate.

What about the AWB’s Boerestaat?

The hon member for Turffontein can talk about the AWB until he is blue in the face. [Interjections.]

Order!

The problem is that ultimately debating should take place in such a way that there is a possibility of persuasion to insights that are different from those held by a person. That is why it is necessary for members to be present.

Precisely!

The hon the Leader of the House, who is a lawyer, should realise that. After all, there are a number of lawyers on the opposite side of the House. They must also give recognition to the following concept. We have the general public as well. Surely we should recognise the concept that “justice must be seen to be done”. That is part of why it is essential—if we owe the people something, we owe this House something too, after all—at least to create the impression that there are people here who are listening to and taking part in a debate that contains the basis and possibility of persuasion. But the Government is making a mere voting cattle situation of this.

That is correct!

They get a few people together and tell them they must come and vote. That is nothing but a mere voting cattle situation. People vote blindly. There will be no arguing in a debate in order to get to a point. [Interjections.] We are being deprived of that basis, and the Government is contributing to an even greater farce than this so-called tricameral system has been from the beginning. They are making this into a colossal absurdity. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman. I think we should look at this situation as a whole. In the first place, the Rules will mean that we shall be sitting in four separate places. Who is going to go around counting everywhere? We are going to be working according to a new system, in which Parliament will be involved in its activities in different ways at different times. We on this side of the House do not need a quorum provision in order to maintain a proper presence at each of those joint sittings. [Interjections.] After all, we respect Parliament. [Interjections.] We also respect the debates which are conducted here. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to give the hon member the assurance that no sinister ulterior motives are involved. We say the Constitution already provides that a quorum is necessary when one exercises one’s power. We say that provision means that one is exercising one’s power when one takes part in a vote.

What about the debate?

There will be no vote at those debates, because the rule of deferred voting will apply. There will have to be a quorum in the case of deferred voting.

Reference was made to a quorum’s being required on other occasions. There are points that require decisions on each of those agendas. If hon members examine the agenda, they will see that every time a quorum is required, decisions are required. This is not being changed at all. When decisions are required, there has to be a quorum. Do these hon members want to tell me that they, who have so much respect for Parliament that they arranged their Congress in Kimberley, on a day on which Parliament was sitting… [Interjections.] Sir, they had no reason to accept that Parliament would have adjourned by then.

You should know that our congress was arranged last year.

Do they want to tell me that they have been informed of what happened here in the House last Friday? Have the members of the CP who had their congress in Kimberley been informed of what happened here in the House on Friday? [Interjections.]

Yes! We read about what was said here!

The hon member for Soutpansberg says they were informed, Sir. I concede that that is possible. That is why the admission of the hon member for Soutpansberg refutes the argument of the hon member for Ermelo. The hon member for Ermelo said one could not participate meaningfully in a vote if one was not present at the debate.

That is correct.

How many times have those hon members taken part in votes after they had not followed the debate at all? Let us be honest.

Very few. [Interjections.]

They often come here, Sir, especially if it was a shortish debate, not even knowing what Bill they are voting on.

We are not the NP.

No, Sir, this happens to everyone. Let us not be sanctimonious about this. The fact is that an MP who is worth his salt knows what is going on in this Parliament. Someone rightly said a moment ago—I think it was the hon member for Soutpansberg—that we cannot always all be here. That is why, for the sake of the dignity of Parliament, we must ensure that we attend debates properly. We on this side do not need a special rule in order to attend debates.

What about Friday? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is something very strange here. This debate deals with the arrangement of joint meetings, joint meetings at which three Houses will be represented. That is the purpose of the rules we are debating. Yet, whereas our whole purpose is to arrange a joint meeting at which three Houses will be represented, in the end we are saying it does not matter if two do not turn up; then we shall have the meeting with one, and we shall still be having our joint meeting.

With all due respect, that does not make sense. We want a joint meeting at which the three Houses will be present, yet at the same time we are saying it does not matter if those three Houses are not present; if there is only one House, we shall still be having a joint meeting.

I thought you did not want that.

We do not want it, but we are debating the point that is under discussion in this Committee. [Interjections.]

With respect, I want to say I agree with one thing the hon Leader of the House said. It concerns Solidarity’s letter. There are Houses that do not care to attend debates and propagate boycotting them. We are not in favour of boycotting Parliament either.

Why do you walk out then when someone else comes in?

We realise that there is a Parliament and a Constitution, and that is why we are taking part. We do not agree with a tricameral parliament, but there is a Constitution that we shall support until we can change it. That is why we are here. We do not agree with mixed joint committees. We find it strange that we vote in one mixed committee, but not in another. In one we require a quorum so that they have to be there; otherwise those joint committees and the standing committees cannot carry on. Here we do not need that. We think this is a very strange logic that is taking root in Parliament.

Double standards.

One thing is being applied in one case, but it does not matter whether or not it applies in another. We are not working according to any consistent principle. We are working haphazardly and pragmatically, just as we please. We merely want these gears to mesh with one another somehow. With all due respect, that is the problem we have here. I simply cannot see how it can be my objective to have a joint meeting of three Houses, while in the end I say that even if only one House is present at a joint meeting, everything is in order.

Mr Chairman, I was sitting in the American Senate one day while a debate was in progress. A senator was making his speech, and there was only one other man in the whole chamber. That is one of the things that bothers me. The hon the Leader of the House and we are talking at cross purposes. There need not be a quorum for this new tricameral system. This means that in practice only one member of the Government, and no member from the other two Chambers, could be present; as the hon the Leader of the House sees matters, that system can still work.

The point we are making, and which my colleagues made as well, is that at least the semblance of debate must be preserved, but in terms of this new proposed rule, it is being thrown overboard. That is the difference between our standpoint and that of the Government. We do not think this is really desirable in the system.

Mr Chairman, I have not heard a single argument that could really convince me that we have such a drastic deviation here. Let us go back to the mother parliament of the Westminster devotees. What is a quorum there? Forty out of 600.

But it is a quorum!

How does that sound in view of the arguments presented by the hon members, however?

Let us be practical. Why do the bells ring when we have to vote? If we have an ideal world in which we vote only if we have taken part in the debate, why must the bells be rung when a vote is taken?

To get you lot into the House.

Surely that is an admission that not all hon members follow the debate.

Why do you not simply let us make use of postal votes?

We are making a practical arrangement.

Suppose we sit in four extended committees and we have a quorum problem in one of the committees as a result of negligence because all the parties are not making their contribution. Do hon members realise how the whole programme that has been worked out can be disrupted by that? That is the kind of practical problem that we want to obviate by doing this.

That is why we do not see our way clear to dispensing with this. In any event I think it is already provided by law, but we want to state it beyond any doubt and that is why we shall continue to support it.

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

New paragraph to follow paragraph 14:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, I think there needs to be a little more explanation in relation to this amendment. I think this is like a blank cheque.

What will happen now is that in terms of this amendment, read together with the last paragraph, virtually any amendment can now be effected to the rules. As I understand it all that then happens is that it goes to Mr Speaker. It does not even have to come back to this House. With great respect, that is not the way in which a House regulates its own procedure. We have a set of draft rules here which we have debated paragraph by paragraph. What may now happen if this amendment is accepted, however, is that the whole situation can be dramatically changed. All that is required is that Mr Speaker agrees. He can refer it to the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and that is the end of the story. It does not come back to this House. If that is the intention of this amendment, it cannot possibly be agreed to.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House what is going to be taken out of the Rules for Joint Meetings, the Joint Rules and the Standing Rules and Orders of the three Houses, what is going to remain and what is going to be changed because all that we are being asked to do here is to give a blank cheque. I come back to the same point that I raised earlier today, viz: What is going to happen with regard to the time limits in respect of taxation measures? I want to know what is going to happen to the committee system in that respect. I do not like blank cheques. I think they are bad and, as far as Parliament is concerned, the one inherent concept is that Parliament regulates its own affairs and makes its own rules.

By doing this, Parliament is in fact abdicating that right and we do not know what the set of rules is that is going to come out at the other end. Therefore I do not believe that this amendment can possibly be accepted. I think it is designed to take away from Parliament part of its powers and I think the hon the Leader of the House owes us an explanation of what he intends doing. What is going to remain of the old Standing Orders and Rules? What is going to be changed? What is going to be superseded? If it is going to be limited to aspects that are inconsistent with what we have agreed to tonight, that is one matter, but if it goes one iota further than that—and the wording of the amendment does—then there is no doubt that this matter has got to come back to this House and that this House has to deal with those rules.

Mr Chairman, it is not in any way the intention to take anything away from this House. The fact of the matter is that by accepting this report, we have brought about certain amendments which have an effect on the existing Rules and Orders. Therefore leave is being requested here for the Secretariat to consolidate the Rules for Joint Meetings, the Joint Rules and the Standing Rules and Orders of the three Houses into a single set of rules, and to make consequential amendments. [Interjections.] That is to prepare a document. That document will go to the committee that also discussed this document, and the report of that committee will once again be laid before this House.

Will the hon the Leader of the House undertake to do that?

I give the hon member my undertaking.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that we took cognisance of his motion only when he rose to introduce it, and that we got the wording of the motion as a favour from the Secretariat.

I am sorry about that. I apologise.

The hon the Leader is apologising.

I think this is an example of how the situation is developing. Whatever the hon the Leader of the House may say, consequential amendments are mentioned in this resolution. Consequential amendments are amendments that one can introduce according to one’s interpretation of what consequential amendments are. We are not prepared to grant such a power to the Secretariat or even to the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders. That is something that must be discussed by the Committee of the whole House.

New paragraph 15 agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Report, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule:

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by asking a question. In my copy of the document—unless it is different from everyone else’s—there is a blank in regard to Rule 15 and another blank in regard to Rule 53. Are we agreeing to blanks, Sir, or what are we doing?

That is a blank cheque.

We have got blanks, Sir. Now, what are we actually doing, and will somebody please explain to me whether we are agreeing to blanks or whether we are agreeing to provisions?

Those are the rules for fellows who cannot read and understand.

Order!

Mr Chairman, I have prepared an amendment. I really overlooked Joint Rule 53. I have an amendment—it has not been duplicated, and so I cannot distribute it—to replace the open space in Joint Rule 15. If you will put the schedule only up to Joint Rule 14, that may give me the opportunity to explain, or are you accepting amendments to any of the Joint Rules at the moment?

Mr Chairman, are you now going to put Joint Rules seriatim, or are you going to give a ruling that in substance

Order! No. I was going to put the Schedule as a whole, but in view of the problem that has now arisen, I shall put Joint Rules 1 to 14 of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, it is our intention to oppose the adoption of the schedule as a whole. We wish to vote against it in its entirety. If you are going to put it rule by rule Sir…

Order! I have not put it rule by rule.

But you have put Joint Rules 1 to 14, Sir. We do not wish to have those rules passed. We do not wish to support the adoption of any of the rules. You have put Joint Rules 1 to 14, Sir, and we are going to call a division. Then you are going to have to put the rest of the rules, and we are going to call another division. It is our intention to divide on the schedule, because it is that which gives effect to the whole system that has been put forward during this long debate.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I suggest that you give me an opportunity to rectify the two omissions by means of an amendment. I suggest that you put the amendment and perhaps then the schedule as a whole.

Order! That seems to be an appropriate procedure, since I understand there is a problem with Joint Rule 15 in the schedule. That is why I put rules 1 to 14 first, but if this will lead to greater satisfaction, I shall put the amendment first.

Rule 15:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

Order! I now put the schedule as amended.

No, Mr Chairman. The amendment has to be put first, and then the schedule as amended. It cannot already be put as amended. The amendment has now been moved. We will debate it, and when it has been disposed of, we will deal with the schedule either as amended or as not amended.

Order! Once one starts making concessions in respect of procedures, one finds oneself confronted with further problems. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, are you ruling the whole schedule out of order?

Order! No, I am not ruling the schedule out of order at all. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we shall have to deal with the amendment first.

Order! I put the amendment as moved by the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, I have had no notice of the amendment, but I would have proposed a different period. The reason is very simple, and I would like to exemplify this by referring again to Finance Bills. The Finance Bill which has recently been disposed of during this session contained more than a dozen clauses dealing with a dozen different subjects, some of which one agreed with and some one disagreed with. I defy anybody, even the cleverest of the debaters on the other side of the House, to state an attitude on 15 clauses in a Finance Bill within three minutes in any intelligible form.

I submit, with great respect, that this would be a farce. I think it is utterly unreasonable to suggest that a political party can state its reasons for not voting for the approval of a question, when it can involve this degree of complexity, in a period limited to three minutes. It is also impossible from a practical point of view.

I concede that there are straightforward measures in respect of which one could state one’s opposition and the reasons therefore with the brevity required. That is fair enough, and it is no problem, but what about, for example, a piece of labour legislation which has a whole variety of provisions, some of which one agrees with and some of which one disagrees with? How can an opposing party’s view possibly be stated in 3 minutes? I think it is utterly unreasonable, and it is certainly completely unacceptable.

Mr Chairman, we must keep our perspective. This declaration of vote comes after a full Second Reading debate in which parties have had full opportunity to state their case. They had no right to a declaration of vote in the past. This is an additional measure. [Interjections.]

According to the hon member, the right of moving a motion is being taken away. I have never heard an amendment in this House that took as long as three minutes to be read. Has any hon member ever heard such a long amendment? [Interjections.] No, and this is part of the substitution, in order to get it included in the minutes. That is why three minutes is regarded as fair; not to give one’s complete objection in three minutes, because one has had the debate in which to do that, but to give a brief summary of why one holds a certain standpoint and why one is going to vote in a certain way.

Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

Mr Chairman, the amendment is not acceptable.

Amendment moved by Mr H H Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Leader of the House agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Rule 53:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

Amendment moved by Mr H H Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Leader of the House agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Schedule, as amended:

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of a very long debate. This schedule contains the rules that have been formulated in order to put into effect the long report that we have just debated. I think this might actually be the last occasion in this Parliament on which we from the opposition side will have been able to debate properly an issue of this nature and to spell out properly our objection to the autocratic methods of the governing party.

I think it is noteworthy on this occasion to state that if a flock of sheep had been elected to this House on 6 May instead of hon members of the NP, with the exception of the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, they could have made just as great a contribution to the debate as has happened during the course of this debate. [Interjections.] All that we have had and all that we now have is an amount of meaningless bleating. [Interjections.] Not one of them has stood up to participate in the debate. They are, as my leader the hon member for Sea Point has said, voting cattle who have been given instructions not to speak because the decision has been made for them and this is the order that they will have to obey…

Mr Chairman, it was ruled earlier on that we were not to refer to hon members as animals. I ask you to please enforce that ruling.

Order! Voting cattle is an idiomatic expression. [Interjections.]

†I have given my ruling. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central may continue.

Mr Chairman, for these reasons I believe as hon members on the other side are so fond of saying that this is a historic occasion. This is the last occasion on which the opposition will have been properly able to debate a measure in front of this House and with adequate time and adequate provision for them to be able to oppose a measure. We therefore will be opposing the adoption of the schedule and we will be calling for a division on that.

Mr Chairman, the Schedule is actually the concretisation—this is a word the hon members of the NP love to use—of the report we debated this afternoon. It is unnecessary to say that we are opposing these Rules.

I merely want to make two further points. What is happening here is simply a sign of what democracy is becoming under the leadership of the NP. Secondly I want to say that when one determines the rules of the game, there must be some degree of consensus among political parties. If consensus cannot be reached on this important aspect, we are heading for a dictatorship. [Interjections.] We cannot associate ourselves with a Schedule which was accepted unilaterally by the NP to satisfy their whims. We are going to vote against this Schedule. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of this debate. If this report is agreed to, the office of the Chief Whip of Parliament will have considerable additional obligations. It does not matter whether it is I who am Chief Whip, or anyone else after me. I am aware that that office will have an exceptional responsibility.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am really trying to be serious, and if the hon member for Witbank,…

He is talking to someone else.

… who is the CP’s financial expert, would rather confine himself to the financial rand and leave this business to me, things would be much better.

I was saying that an exceptional responsibility is being placed on us, and that one would hardly be able to exercise this function properly unless one had the co-operation of most of the parties, if not all of them.

I believe that we shall the co-operation of the parties in this connection as we did in the past, so as to broaden democracy and not to curtail it, as was suggested here. [Interjections.]

I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon the Leader of the House, who was largely responsible for the handling of the report, for the excellent work he did.

Schedule, as amended, put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—81: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F 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; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

Noes—33: Andrew, K M; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, late though it is this evening, we in these benches do not believe that this final report which will undermine Parliament as we have known it, which will undermine Parliament as an effective debating chamber, which will undermine Parliament as an instrument for coming to political decisions on the basis of give and take in debate across the floor of the House and which will undermine the status of Parliament in the eyes of the people in this country, should go by without a further vote against these particular provisions. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (1) fails to recommend that the Constitution be amended to provide for the adoption of resolutions at joint sittings;
2. (2) makes serious inroads on the rights of opposition parties and of individual members of Parliament;
3. (3) places vast regulatory powers in the hands of the Chief Whip of Parliament (who is appointed by the Majority Party); and
4. (4) provides for procedures that are so cumbersome and involved that they will inevitably detract from the status of Parliament as the supreme legislative body.”.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—82: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Farrell, P J; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Rabie, J; Redinger, R E; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; 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; Wessels, L.

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

Noes—33: Andrew, K M; Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Resolutions accordingly adopted.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to say that we are convinced that these proposals will in fact promote more meaningful debate, will not in any way dismantle the image of Parliament and will promote debate in which we as members of the same Parliament will debate together on the same matters on which we must take decisions because they are matters of general interest. We are also convinced that these proposals will promote a better attitude among members of Parliament. In my heart I am convinced that by doing this we are improving the rules.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Mr Speaker, Rule 23 (2) (a) provides that when a Bill is introduced together with the memorandum thereon, when it is laid upon the Table in each House by Mr Speaker, it shall thereupon be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee. Therefore, by the very act of placing this Bill on the Order Paper of this Parliament and having it deemed to have been read a first time, it is deemed to have been referred to a standing committee, in this particular instance the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

We had sight of this particular Bill for the first time this morning. This Bill, which alters the Constitution, the most important law of the land, is now going to be placed before this House without our having had the opportunity to discuss it in a standing committee—the same committee which hon members on that side of the House have been at great pains to commend to us, telling us what a good system it is and how much better the legislation is that has emerged from it. Under these circumstances we do not believe that we can support any motion that will enable the governing party to steamroller this Bill through Parliament. By not referring it to a standing committee they will in fact be steamrollering this Bill through Parliament, and we object to that.

Mr Speaker, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. I was not involved in the matter myself, but according to my information, this procedure was cleared with the hon member for Sandton in his capacity as Whip of the PFP on Friday. There may be a communication problem. We would not have submitted the motion in this form had we not been sure that it was with the agreement of all the parties. In view of this, I should like to appeal to the hon member to withdraw his objection.

We are not going to discuss the Bill now. It will be discussed when we meet again next week. There is more than enough time for reflection. It is a consequential amendment which arises from something that was discussed thoroughly by a standing committee as well as the Committee of this House. I would have had a lot of sympathy with the hon member’s standpoint since the other hon member is not here and the matter could be discussed with him, but there really is sufficient time to make a proper study of the Bill. I do not think there is any question of its being pushed through.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister when it is intended to debate the Bill?

Not before next Tuesday, 6 October.

Under those circumstances, Sir, we shall withdraw our objection. May I say that, unfortunately, I have no knowledge of anything having been cleared previously. As the hon the Leader of the House said, the hon member concerned is not here. I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding which was a fault from our side, and I think in withdrawing our objection we demonstrate that.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.