Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, first and foremost I have a very important announcement to make. The NP, with its policy of integration and mixed residential areas, was not only crushed in Randfontein, but totally humiliated in yesterday’s by-election. [Interjections.] The reason for this is obvious. The Whites of South Africa have caught the NP in the act of preparing the way for Black majority rule and for a Black State President. [Interjections.]

We have only just begun the struggle and the NP has already suffered three crushing defeats. What will happen once the Whites are even better informed? [Interjections.] The NP has met with defeat in three by-elections. They could have been spared this … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I wish those hon members would give me a chance! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the last by-election was unexpected, but it nevertheless shows an increase of 100% in resistance to the NP’s policy. The law of averages now dictates that it is the NP’s turn to relinquish three seats. [Interjections.] How about it? Can we not set our sights on a few of those seats of the NP? The NP must give us a chance to win three of their seats. [Interjections.] That is what will happen if they end up in a general election. Whether the Coloureds allow them to do so this year or next year or in five years’ time, we are going to beat them, and the few of them who remain will possibly come and sit on this side of the House. [Interjections.]

I want to ask this question: What has gone wrong in the NP? These days they no longer appoint an administrator from the Cabinet. Now they simply appoint anyone. They no longer appoint ambassadors from the Cabinet either.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Middelburg is apparently abusing the opportunity to discuss a serious Bill by crowing about a political victory in the Randfontein constituency. I am simply stating that in my view the hon member is stretching the rules of the House too far.

Order! The point of order is entirely correct. In view of the circumstances, I permitted the hon member to continue for a few minutes—two minutes to be precise. The hon member should now come back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that I have trodden on a few corns, but I think it is sometimes necessary to do so.

When I look at this legislation, it is plainer to me than ever before where this hon Minister is headed insofar as local government is concerned. Here in the Cape Province the divisional councils are immediately to fall under the control of the racially integrated regional services councils. Nevertheless, I should like to thank him for looking after the officials. It would seem to me that the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-urban Areas will be the next body to be taken over by the racially integrated regional services councils. Then only municipalities, as we know them today, will remain, and the hon the Minister is fast preparing to absorb them as well. Once this absorption process by the RSCs has been completed, the democratically elected members of the city councils will disappear, just as the democratically elected members of the provincial councils disappeared earlier, and they will be appointed by the Government as lackeys.

For the aforementioned reasons the … [Interjections.] I have no time for questions, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This amending Bill does not deal with the principle of regional services councils. That has already been accepted. It merely deals with amendments in relation to the abolition of other local government bodies. The principle of regional services councils has already been accepted. The hon member should come back to the amending Bill.

Order! The hon member may proceed. The hon member for Parow is correct, but the hon member may possibly still be in the process of developing his argument.

Mr Chairman, for the aforementioned reasons the CP cannot support this legislation. The CP is 794 times 2 854 times 3 711 times opposed to the principle of regional services councils.

Mr Chairman, it is really not pleasant for me to speak after the hon member for Middelburg. The hon member apparently does not have the faintest idea of what the Bill under discussion is about. Apparently the hon member simply stood up in the absence of the hon members for Ermelo and Roodepoort in order to score a few political points and to crow about the victory in Randfontein. [Interjections.] Let me say at once that we do not begrudge the Official Opposition their bit of pleasure at the results in the Randfontein constituency. However, the hon member has conveniently forgotten that in actual fact there has been no real change since the election on 6 May last year. The hon member … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he does not regard 3 711 as a high figure? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if we had to start comparing majorities, what would the Official Opposition have to say about those constituencies in which the NP obtained majorities of 8 000 and higher? Is that a high figure or not? [Interjections.]

That is in the past!

It happened recently, namely on 6 May last year, and since then the Official Opposition has not grown by even one constituency. [Interjections.] They are still in the same position as they were then. [Interjections.] Now they are bragging with a few increased majorities in by-elections, which is a common phenomenon. In by-elections the majorities of opposition parties normally do increase. [Interjections.]

I think I have already devoted too much attention to the hon member for Middelburg, and I want to come back to the Bill under discussion. In terms of the principal Act, the Abolition of Development Bodies Act, 1986, 13 development boards, 4 of the 38 divisional councils in the Cape, as well as the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas have already been abolished. The divisional councils in the Cape were all supposed to have been abolished even before 30 June last year, but practical problems and legal technicalities prevented or precluded this from happening. That is why provision is being made in the Bill under consideration for the abolition of the remaining Government bodies after 30 June 1987 as well, with the proviso that in so far as divisional councils are concerned, these must be abolished before 30 June 1990.

There was general consensus in the standing committee on the principle that the divisional councils in the Cape should be abolished before 30 June 1990. As far as the implications of this were concerned, however, it appeared that the abolition of divisional councils, in terms of existing legislation, would mean that local areas and management committees within the area of jurisdiction of an abolished divisional council would also fall away upon the abolition of the divisional council. That is why provision is now being made in the Bill for the continued existence of local areas and management committees even after the abolition of the divisional council concerned, because it is necessary that the rendering of services at local authority level within the areas of those management committees should continue. So much for clause 1, which makes up practically the entire Bill before the House at present.

The Bill originally incorporated a further five clauses which provided for the orderly change-over of the development bodies which are to be abolished, to the regional services council system.

In the standing committee the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives raised an objection to the transfer of the functions of existing development bodies to the various Ministers of Local Government in the respective houses. The reason for this was that cases had reportedly occurred in which such functions had been transferred without the associated financial capacity to afford those functions also being transferred. This caused embarrassment to the Minister in the House concerned because the performance of those functions by the existing regional services councils on an agency basis could not be afforded. It was simply for this reason that the standing committee could not reach consensus regarding the provisions that have been made in clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill.

Since that time, however, this problem with regard to financing has been solved at a meeting of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, and consequently the objections to clauses 2 to 6 have actually fallen away. However, those clauses do not form part of the Bill at present before the House. I therefore do not intend to discuss the content of those clauses now, because I am of the opinion that this may be done in the appropriate manner during the Committee Stage when the motion of the hon the Minister, as printed on the Order Paper, is debated.

Suffice it to say, therefore, that this side of the House lends its support to the Bill as it appears before the House at present.

Mr Chairman, the hon member furnished quite an interesting survey of the history of this Bill. I find it strange, however, that a standing committee of this Parliament, which is the highest legislative authority in South Africa, could not come to an agreement in respect of clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill; and then that hon member still had the audacity to say—this was after the standing committee had actually rejected those clauses—that the Bill had been referred to the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member did say that. He said that an agreement had been reached on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs after the standing committee had rejected those clauses. Is the hon member trying to tell us that after a committee of this Parliament had adopted a standpoint on this Bill—a standpoint which had been printed on the Order Paper—the Bill was referred to a subordinate co-ordinating body in which the matter was resolved without that standing committee’s having agreed or consented to it or without the Bill’s having been referred back to the standing committee?

Sir, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that this Bill has already been agreed to by the House of Representatives? They were, in fact, the people who objected to clauses 2 to 6.

That is not what the hon member said. He said that the problem had been resolved by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs and that this committee had reached an agreement. Did the hon member not say that? [Interjections.]

Then he still has the audacity to approach a lower body to interfere with the functions of a standing committee of this Parliament. It was not only the House of Representatives that voted against it; the Indian House voted against it too. What happened there? Did they also agree to this Bill? †Apart from the principle which we will talk about, Sir, I want to tell you that we are sick and tired of legislation by horsetrading. Legislation by horsetrading by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is taking precedence over legislation we have to debate and decide on in this House. Hon members indicated that in spite of a formal decision taken by representatives of all three Houses, somebody—I presume it was the hon the Minister— went to the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs in order to resolve the problem. I say it is an insult to this House.

This is what is happening in the field of constitution-making. The hon the Minister is totally disorganised. He has a make-shift approach to constitution-making and he moves around from one element of a dispute to the other in order to try to “konkel” an agreement. We are sick and tired of it. I am sorry that the hon the Minister is not here.

Why is he not here?

I would presume that he has gone off on his Easter holidays and has left the hon the Deputy Minister to look after this. [Interjections.]

We have before us, as a result of all this, a very simple Bill which, as the hon member correctly says, deals only with the question of a change in the date for the dissolution of divisional councils. Therefore, in the interim, the area called a local government area should remain in existence.

The first point—I will raise this matter on a point of order for your guidance—is that there are other amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister, and I want to contend that those amendments fall outside the scope of the principle of this Bill. This Bill before us, as is stipulated in the long title of the Bill, deals only with the issue as to when divisional councils can be dissolved as well as the consequential fact that, depending on that date, local government areas must remain in place. What the hon the Minister has now done is to place a series of amendments on the Order Paper which deal with a totally different matter. They deal with a whole range of matters which have nothing to do with the date for the dissolution of divisional councils. We will put it to you, Sir, to rule before the end of this debate that this House cannot go into Committee on these other amendments, unless there is a specific instruction to do so in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders, because the proposed amendments incorporate principles which have nothing to do with the Bill before us.

The hon member was correct. He was so aware of this that he said he was not even going to touch them. He knew the moment he started debating them he would be out of order. He knew that and that was why he did not debate them. He said he was waiting for the future stage. Therefore, at a fairly early stage, Sir, I will ask you to rule as to whether the amendments placed on the Order Paper by the hon the Minister are in fact relevant to the Bill before us which deals solely with the date on which the divisional councils can be dissolved. The other amendments deal with the question of the State President making regulations as were they laws. We will argue that the hon the Minister is not entitled to put them on the Order Paper and to have them debated as an extension of this particular Bill, unless there is an instruction that this should take place. We believe it will be totally out of order.

However, the hon member is not correct. He said it was only the question of the distribution of assets which upset the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives and caused those hon members to vote against those other clauses. Those other clauses have nothing to do with it; they have no bearing on or relevance whatsoever to the question of the distribution of assets. Both the Indian and the Coloured House voted unanimously against clauses 2 to 6. Clause 3 is the one we are dealing with, but we are also dealing with clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6, which have nothing to do with the distribution of assets.

The fact is that because of this whole shambles— in terms of the procedure of this House it is a shambles—we now have on the Order Paper amendments which were unanimously rejected by the other two Houses when we debated them. Now he tells us it was the Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs that had to resolve the difference.

The reason for the original amendment was this: We asked the hon the Minister in 1986—the Bill we are amending is an amendment of Bill 75 of 1986—how long it would take to get rid of the divisional councils. He said he would do it by 30 June 1987. In fact, in 1986 we passed a Bill saying that the divisional councils must be scrapped by 1987. We did this because this hon Minister said he would be able to do it. He has not fulfilled his obligation in terms of the law but he now comes along with retrospective legislation and says he wants permission for it to carry on until 1990. I presume he is going to come back in 1990 and ask for a further exemption in this regard.

That was agreed to by the standing committee. [Interjections.]

I am asking: Why did this happen? We are now making a new constitution for South Africa at local government level. In 1986 Parliament passed a law to say this would happen by June 1987. In 1987, in other words, one year later, it had to happen. In 1988 the hon the Minister says he has not done it. He now wants to leave it until 1990. This is evidence of untidy, incompetent handling of a portfolio by a Minister who is in charge of constitution-making. He should not come here with “grootman” promises and say he will be able to do it next year when in reality I believe he knew he could not do it.

So what we have here is a very simple Bill. We will protest against the Bill, not because we do not believe it is necessary or advisable to extend the date by which divisional councils should go out of office, but because of the way it has been done—behind the back of this House and the standing committee of all three Houses. Here we have the traditional Heunis “konkeling” in the corridors.

Order! It is unparliamentary to use the word “konkel”. The hon member must withdraw it.

Is the word “konkel” unparliamentary?

Yes.

I will withdraw that. I will just say there has been “konkeling” between the executive and hon members of other Houses. There is no doubt of this. There is no doubt that the Government somehow has managed to get …

Order! The hon member is making it difficult for me. He is implying that hon members of other Houses are “konkeling”. I suggest that he withdraw that and substitute another word for it.

I thought I had to withdraw “konkeling” in reference to specific allegations in respect of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Exactly!

I am saying now that the executive was involved in “konkeling” in trying to get hon members of other Houses to support legislation. I am not levelling criticism against hon members of other Houses. It is against the arm-twisting approach which this Government uses to try to get constitutional amendments through the Parliament of South Africa. We believe this is wrong. We believe all the cards should be put on the table. If, in fact, the hon the Minister believed there was growing support for the amendments that had been rejected I believe he should have sent them back to the standing committee. He should have sent them back to the body that rejected them. However, he did not do so. He did not tell anybody about it. All he did was to place those amendments on the Order Paper of this House. In these circumstances we certainly cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would not like to argue the hon member for Sea Point’s point of order. I would rather leave it to the Chair to determine whether the amendments on the Order Paper are out of order. I would not like to argue that point.

However, it is interesting to listen to the words used by the hon member for Sea Point—words like incompetence, untidiness and arm-twisting when he referred to constitutional affairs. Our approach to constitution-making is to negotiate inside and outside the corridors of Parliament with people who are affected by the laws that we make. When we do that, the hon member for Sea Point accuses us of arm-twisting. The hon member correctly said that this is a very simple piece of legislation to make it easier to introduce constitutional change. However, when one looks at the record of political competence and tidiness of the hon member for Sea Point’s party …

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am sorry but I do not think so.

When we look at that party’s philosophy concerning the politics of South Africa, we must say that they are the champions of lost causes. They are prophets of failure, something which was so splendidly illustrated in the election results of last year.

In Randfontein! [Interjections.]

I think that that hon member is a little off the track.

*It is a simple piece of legislation of a technical nature which does not really require a lot of debating. I want to close by saying that this side of the House supports the legislation.

Mr Chairman, if it were merely a matter of the Bill before the House, in other words a matter of the postponement of the date of the dissolution of the divisional councils and other bodies, as originally intended in the legislation, there would have been no difficulty. The hon member for Mossel Bay will recall that I myself proposed, on more than one occasion, that all that need happen is that a Bill be passed to postpone the date because it is impossible to dissolve all the divisional councils in the Cape in the time proposed.

What has happened in the interim? Within the context of this Bill amendments have been placed on the Order Paper …

That has nothing to do with it.

The hon member for Mossel Bay says that has nothing to do with it. Surely we cannot consider the principal Act other than within the scope of those amendments? The hon member for Mossel Bay himself linked those amendments to the Bill. He himself said that those aspects, in fact, only constituted an extension of the principal provision of the Bill.

I just wish to associate myself with what the hon member for Sea Point said, namely that these amendments did not, in fact, follow from the principle embodied in the Bill. We need go no further than to look at the envisaged amendment to the title of the Bill. We must take into account that the Bill is purely concerned with the extension of time. In the envisaged amendment to the title the following appears:

That is quite correct—

That, too, is still correct; it still falls within the ambit of the Bill. However, the Title then goes on as follows—

Surely that has absolutely nothing to do with changing the date of dissolution. The Title then goes on—

Order! The hon member would assist me a great deal if he could say what Bill he is dealing with now. What is the number of the Bill he is referring to now?

Mr Chairman, I am reacting to the speech by the hon member for Mossel Bay.

Order! I just wish to point out that there is apparently a B 1B, B 2C and B 2D. The Bill has undergone changes that must be taken note of. It seems to me that B 2D is before the House at present. The hon member may proceed. I just wanted him to assist me in this regard.

Mr Chairman, in the interests of all of us in this House, let me just expound the procedure followed with this Bill— I shall come back to it later and provide a fuller motivation—so that there may be no illusions. There was a Bill which came before the standing committee of which the hon the Minister is chairman—the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

At that particular meeting of the standing committee, when the Bill in question, which the legislation we are dealing with today derives from, was being dealt with, problems were experienced by members of the House of Representatives owing to the relationship between the Labour Party and the Government. As a result, the members of the House of Representatives withdrew from the discussions of that standing committee. The hon member for Mossel Bay can assist me if my memory is failing me.

There was then no quorum, and accordingly the standing committee could not proceed with the consideration of the Bill. The result was that the hon the Minister, if I remember correctly, appealed to Mr Speaker to grant the authority to the standing committee to carry on with the consideration of the Bill. I reiterate that this is the Bill which embodies this particular clause on the mixing of the boards. The chairman of the standing committee then obtained authorisation from Mr Speaker to carry on with the Bill, despite the lack of a quorum. That is what happened.

It was in that diminished standing committee, sitting without a quorum, that the motion concerning desirability was moved and passed, despite protest by ourselves and others. The hon the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but we assume that when the hon the Minister submitted it to us here, the relevant Bill would be referred back to the standing committee. We then took it that the process would, in fact again start from scratch and also that the motion concerning desirability with regard to this Bill would then be put before that meeting of the standing committee.

Again I speak under correction, but as far as I know the desirability motion was not moved on that occasion. The question, in terms of procedure, is whether we have a valid Bill before us, in view of the fact that this House decided to refer that Bill back to the standing committee. I want to put forward, for consideration, that because the desirability motion was not moved on that occasion—not as far as I can recall—we do not in fact have a Bill before this House.

Short cuts, eh?

That is the appeal I make to this House, and to the hon member for Mossel Bay. [Interjections.] Our contention is, firstly, that we do not have a valid Bill because, in terms of the rules, the desirability motion concerning that Bill was not moved in the standing committee after this House had referred that Bill back to the standing committee. Secondly—and if you, Mr Chairman, were to rule that this was not relevant, I would accept that—the amendments are at issue—the hon member for Mossel Bay himself mentioned this—which appear on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister, and which the hon member for Mossel Bay linked to the Bill.

The hon member for Mossel Bay—I beg your pardon, I do not want to repeat what the hon member for Sea Point said—spoke about the problems experienced in the standing committee, and the fact that those problems were then referred to the co-ordinating council, where they were resolved. Mr Chairman, if you were to rule that I could deal with that point on a later occasion, I would do so with pleasure. However, I did not make that connection; it was the hon member for Mossel Bay.

Quite honestly, I want to tell hon members that I believe that not only do we not have a lawful Bill before us in terms of the rules; I want to go further and say that the hon the Minister, through that link, has in fact made a farce of the entire system of standing committees in this Parliament.

I should like to elaborate on that, if hon members will permit me. If amendments or proof of amendments that go further than the provisions of the Bill, are effected in respect of a Bill that has been negatived—that is what has happened, then I want to say—I shall go into this again later— that we are making a farce of the whole system of standing committees, not to mention the concept of consensus.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member Prof Olivier perhaps tell this House in terms of what rule of this House it is a requirement that the desirability of a measure be put and accepted?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay, who is chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, knows full well that it is the rule in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders.

It is a practice, not a rule.

The hon member regularly followed that procedure—we are grateful for that—namely that the principle of the desirability of the Bill be established by formal discussion before the Bill is formally put. The function of such a motion that is put—whether or not it is procedure—is to determine whether the standing committee does, in fact, wish to proceed with the discussion of the Bill.

It is a good practice.

If the motion of desirability is negatived, then that means that in effect there is no Bill before the standing committee. Surely the hon member for Mossel Bay is acquainted with the procedure. I just wish to say that if one does things in this way one makes a farce of the entire system of standing committees and of the concept of consensus.

Although we have no objection, in principle, to postponing the debate, we cannot in the circumstances, owing to the linking that has taken place, support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first instance I want to express my sincere thanks for the fact that the hon member for Middelburg had the opportunity to express a few thoughts about the election on behalf of his party. I think that as fellow-politicians, hon members are entitled to crow a little bit about their victory after the outcome of the election at Randfontein. I do not begrudge them that pleasure. At the same time I crave the indulgence of the House to reply briefly to some matters mentioned by the hon member.

The hon member asked what had gone wrong with the NP. I want to tell him that nothing has gone wrong with the NP; the NP won the last election with the biggest majority we have ever had in this House. One only has to consider how many of us are sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] Something else went right for us, and that was that the NP found that the policy of total partition could not work. When we found that out, those hon members took to their heels. [Interjections.] They were not prepared to accept the reality that one had to adapt one’s policy if it did not work. They left because they were not prepared to face up to the reality of our country.

Had it not been that it would be such a catastrophe for our country, I should very much have liked to sit in those benches when they came to power, to see how they sweated blood to establish a Coloured and Indian homeland. I should like to see how they sweat blood to get 15 million Black people out of the country and reintroduce influx control and administer it properly. [Interjections.] However, if I had to sit in those benches I would be rolling in the isles, but it would be a catastrophe for our country were they to come to power. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House have taken cognisance of the outcome of this by-election and, like all politicians worth their salt, we shall examine the implications of this outcome.

Order! I think the hon member has made his point. He should perhaps come back to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I shall conclude with a final sentence on the subject. I want to tell hon members that if they think that we will adopt a policy of hate, racism and White selfishness to win the favour of the voters, they are making a mistake. We shall certainly not do that. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn to the hon member for Sea Point who spoke earlier. I was really astonished at the reaction of the hon member for Sea Point here today. I find it so remarkable that the hon members of the PFP speak to people in the other Houses on a regular basis. They hold discussions with them on a regular basis to persuade them to support the standpoint of the PFP. In those cases it is called discussion. However, when we speak to members of the other Houses, we are plotting. That is the difference. When they speak about consensus politics, they speak about something that is elevated. When we say that we, too, seek consensus in our various political philosophies, then we are engaged in “horse-trading”. That is the difference. The hon member for Sea Point says that they are “sick and tired” of this and that. I should like to tell the hon member for Sea Point: We are sick and tired of his personal attacks on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] We are also sick of that. It was an unnecessary remark by the hon the leader of the PFP, even though that is a small party, to say that the hon the Minister went for a long week-end. The hon member ought to know better. Even if he does not agree with what the hon the Minister does, at least he ought to appreciate his dedication to what he is doing. [Interjections.]

I understand the frustration of the hon member. Recently they acquired three new members to swell their ranks.

Half of them have beaten a retreat again!

One fellow lasted only a day, but he was far cleverer than the hon members for Claremont, Durban Central and Greytown. They sat there for a long time before they found out where they were. This man only lasted a day before he left, because he did not see his way clear to staying there. [Interjections.]

Hon members never dealt with the merits of this Bill. However, I concede at once to the hon member Prof Olivier that in recent times we have developed the problem that when a new piece of legislation is dealt with, there is a long title which more or less covers the objective and so on of that legislation, and it is very easy to deal with the principles underlying the legislation and have the long title accepted. The problem with amendments such as these is that all the amendments are incorporated in the long title. Then, if it is necessary to vote for or against the long title, and one does not agree with one amendment, one has a problem.

The problem which then occurs is that the whole amending Bill has to be rejected. I concede to the hon member Prof Olivier that this matter must be considered by the procedural committee so that on the standing committees we can gain clarity as regards the acceptance of the long title. It has become customary that one can do so with new legislation, but the hon member will agree with me that that practice has really caused problems as regards the putting of that long title if there is one section that the other Houses do not agree with. My appeal, therefore, is that the rules committee look into this matter very thoroughly and provide this House and the committees with firm guidelines in this regard. I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin my reply by referring to the hon member for Middelburg. I want to remind him that I am a WP supporter when it comes to rugby. I think his benchmate, the hon member for Delmas, will understand what I am talking about.

What did Tukkies do to you?

The Maties sent them their other little team. [Interjections.]

All hon members will remember that a few years ago by May WP had already won the Currie Cup, but by September they had not even reached the cup final. I want to tell the hon members of the CP that one does not win a general election a year or two beforehand. [Interjections.] The CP is welcome to celebrate these little victories. WP beat SWD and Boland, but when it came to bigger things, they dropped out.

That was WP, not Transvaal!

The CP is welcome to celebrate these little victories—they must not celebrate too royally, however—and enjoy them.

In a more serious vein I want to tell the hon member for Middelburg, who is a friendly chap whom I like very much—I do not know whether he celebrated too much—that he made a significant error in his reasoning this afternoon. He referred to the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas and said all their functions were going to be transferred to the mixed regional services councils. Those were the hon member’s words.

In my Second Reading speech I said that most of the functions and powers of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas were going to be transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly because 48 of the 50 local areas that fell under the council were White areas. Only two Coloured areas are being transferred to the regional services councils or to the Administration: House of Representatives. Consequently none of the powers of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas are going to be transferred to the mixed regional services councils, as the hon member put it. I can understand that one can make this kind of error when one is celebrating.

I want to refer to the hon member for Sea Point. I read the newspapers fairly regularly, and since January I have noticed that the hon leader of the PFP has been knocked about quite a bit. Certain hon members have left him and there have been renewed demands that he resign as leader. I felt quite sorry for him, because it cannot be pleasant to experience all these things. If there is one hon member in this House who really needs an Easter recess, it is the hon member for Sea Point. [Interjections.] I trust that the hon member is going to enjoy the recess and have a wonderful rest so that he can return with renewed vigour.

The hon member launched a violent attack on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning this afternoon, and that is not in character. May I tell the hon member for Sea Point that I had a luncheon date with the hon the Minister, and that he was 15 to 20 minutes late because he had been at a Cabinet meeting. He cannot be here now because he has other obligations, and I therefore apologise on his behalf. He is not on holiday. His wife attended the luncheon this afternoon, and she was complaining that they could not even go away for Easter.

I accept that.

Very well, the hon member accepts that, and I shall proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member Prof Olivier referred to certain matters with reference to the standing committee. I want to say that the standing committee is not the highest authority. No standing committee has higher authority than Parliament. The three Houses of this Parliament are the highest authority. The standing committees are mere parliamentary institutions.

We now come to the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. I referred to this body in my Second Reading speech, and so did the hon member for Sea Point. I said the following:

Upon the request of hon members of the House of Representatives, the amending Bill was not discussed in the respective Houses, but was referred back to the standing committee. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives pointed out in the standing committee that:

In addition he pointed out that—

There was great understanding on that standing committee for the financial problems local authorities are experiencing with the transfer of functions, but it is not within the power of the standing committee to resolve those financial problems.

We had a meeting of the Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs in Port Elizabeth last Friday. It is a wonderful meeting to attend, because all the population groups and all three tiers of government are represented there. We had an in-depth …

If they are so wonderful, why do you not bring them here?

That hon member runs around all over the place, to Dakar and places like that, but when it comes to the things that matter, he is never there. When it comes to South Africa’s interests and the councils we have in this country, he is conspicuous by his absence. He has no understanding of these things, and I would welcome it if he would rather just doze off and go to sleep. Sleep well!

I want to tell hon members that we had in-depth discussions about the local authorities’ financial problems in the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. The hon the Minister of Finance was there as well. He replied to the questions that were put, and there was a penetrating and frank discussion about the whole matter. The co-ordinating council therefore did not do the standing committee’s work.

Not one of the amendments or clauses—or the Bill itself—was referred to the co-ordinating council. This never even came up. The financial aspect was discussed nevertheless. It was accepted by the members who were present there, including the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives. This Bill, with all its amendments, was considered in the House of Representatives on Monday. In the end the measure was adopted in full by the House of Representatives.

I want to assert here this afternoon that the co-ordinating council did not do the work of the standing committee. The co-ordinating council merely solved the financial problems. The coordinating council did not discuss a single clause or amendment that has any reference to this Bill.

In addition I want to assert that the principle contained in the measure under discussion comprises the abolition of controlling bodies. That is the principle. The amendments in the Bill merely comprise details of when a controlling body should be abolished. For that reason I claim that that council needs no terms of reference at all.

The hon member for Sea Point also referred to the date of 30 June 1987 which was given as the date on which divisional councils were to be abolished. The hon member is a member of the standing committee. I want to remind him that the date of 30 June 1987 was inserted by the standing committee, not by the hon the Minister. It was an unrealistic date. We could not get the divisional councils in the Cape abolished by 30 June 1987. We are now proposing a new date. This date was also proposed by the standing committee. The standing committee suggested the date of 30 June 1990. These aspects did not come from the hon the Minister, therefore, but from the standing committee.

I now want to refer to the hon member Prof Olivier who argued in more or less the same vein as the hon member for Sea Point. I have a great deal of respect and regard for the hon member Prof Olivier. Nevertheless, it is not true that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is making a farce of the standing committee. I am not a member of the standing committee. However, I want to quote to the hon member Prof Olivier, who is a member of the standing committee, what the standing select committee report says. In the first place the hon member knows that the clauses of the Bill were not unanimously rejected by the standing committee. The House of Assembly component of the standing committee voted in favour of the clauses.

That is quite correct!

The chairman of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs—the House of Assembly component of the standing committee—reported as follows in his report, dated 23 March 1988:

That, Sir, is what we have in front of us now.

Secondly I want to draw the hon member Prof Olivier’s attention to the fact that the only procedure in terms of which one could enable the House of Assembly as a whole to carry out the recommendation lay in its placing the amendments on the Order Paper so that the House of Assembly as well as the other two Houses could get an opportunity to express themselves on the amendments. Had we not done that, it would have meant that the decision of one component of the standing committee to vote in favour of certain clauses would not have received any further consideration by the Houses. The Houses were still free to accept or reject the clauses in Committee of the whole House, however.

If, therefore, it were to be discussed in Committee of the whole House in each House, each House would have the right to decide whether or not to accept it. I dealt with this in the House of Representatives on Monday. The Second Reading took place there. The Committee Stage was granted. I accepted an amendment which I myself had proposed—an amendment which determined that the transfer of the assets and the obligations and so on should take place with the concurrence of the own affairs Minister of Local Government to whom they were being transferred. We accepted this after the financial implications and problems had been sorted out. In other words, the House of Representatives is unanimous in its satisfaction about this and agreed to it.

I now want to appeal to hon members. We settled these matters with the co-ordinating council, the correct place in which to do so. We did not do the work of the standing committee. We are therefore coming to this House with the Second Reading and requesting that these amendments’ be adopted, so that we can continue to abolish these controlling bodies, so that greater order can be attained with reference to local government. Nothing sinister is being done. No scheming is involved, as has been claimed. There were frank and honest discussions, and we saw eye to eye and understood one another, and no one’s work is being done by other bodies. I want to appeal to hon members. I want to appeal to the hon member Prof Olivier, who understands these things and has enough sense to understand them. Let us co-operate, accept the Bill and abolish these bodies so that we can have greater order on the level of local government.

Order! A number of arguments have been put forward, and although there is no reason for me to give a ruling one way or another in the circumstances, it might be expedient for me to make a few remarks in this connection, ex tempore, that is without deliberate consideration, and prima facie, as the facts have been put before me.

In respect of what the hon member Prof Olivier said, it is true that the highest authority, this House, heard his arguments. If he has convinced the House, naturally hon members can vote against the Second Reading. I also want to point out that the Order Paper has been approved and that the House does its work according to the Order Paper. The Second Reading was moved, and perhaps one should ask whether this is the correct time and whether it is not too late to object on the basis of that kind of argument, viz that the standing committee did not do its job. In addition it is true that the House does not take cognisance of the procedure in the standing committees. The standing committees determine their own procedure and the House merely takes cognisance of the standing committee report. The hon member did not refer to any rule of the House on which he is basing his argument either. I shall say no more about that.

The hon member for Parow mentioned that there were certain shortcomings. I should like to suggest that if there are such shortcomings, hon members who have been affected by this could perhaps address written representations that these shortcomings be rectified. I think that if there are such shortcomings, all hon members of the House would like to co-operate in an effort to rectify them.

†Again, regarding the remarks of the hon member for Sea Point, I should like to thank him for giving advance notice of his intention to raise a point of order. I might just say again, ex tempore and prima facie, that it seems that once the principle of a Bill has been accepted after a Second Reading debate—which has not yet occurred in the case of this Bill—amendments could well be moved dealing with further detail so as to give better effect to the principle embodied and accepted in such Bill at Second Reading. There is no real point in having a principle agreed to, unless one can effectively give effect to that principle.

I make these few remarks because I do not intend passing any judgement or making any final decision. I have simply placed on record some prima facie, ex tempore impressions.

Mr Chairman, in view of what you have just said, may I enquire of you whether you are prepared to tell us what the Chair considers to be the principle of the amending Bill now before the House?

Order! It seems to me that the principle of the amending Bill is the abolition of development boards. I should also mention that matters such as this are sometimes most involved. There is absolutely no reason why hon members should not inform the presiding officer of their arguments regarding such matters in advance, so that he can give them proper attention. I am certain that if all matters were simple and straightforward, we would not have had any problems today.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Would you welcome some arguments at this stage, or would you like us to call upon you in your office and present them?

Order! At this stage there are no amendments before the House. All we are considering now is the Second Reading of the Bill. The amendments will be considered at a later stage.

If I may say so, Mr Chairman, I think you gave an off-the-cuff ruling on the principle contained in this Bill. May I address you on that subject?

Order! I doubt whether any good would come of such an address. The matter has been debated extensively, and the House is not going to vote on the principle now. The vote on the Second Reading concerns the content of the amending Bill, so there is really no point in discussing that now. Hon members will have a more suitable opportunity to advance their arguments when the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Bill comes up for discussion, and also, if agreed to, at the Committee Stage.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—84: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Brazelie, J A; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Louw, E v d M; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; 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; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Zyl, J G; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Thompson, A G.

NOES—26: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Pienaar, D S; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Paulus, P J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, this Bill demonstrates a very important aspect of politics in South Africa. Yesterday we won an important election in Randfontein by a very wide margin.

Order! No, that point has been raised a few times, and I think we should now confine ourselves to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate something related to that with this Bill. I do so on the basis of a comment made yesterday by the Chief Information Officer of the NP, the former MP, Dr Geldenhuys, with reference to the outcome in Randfontein. He said the Government did not have a blueprint for the future, and if people were unsure as to the road along which the Government wanted to take them, they grabbed at what was familiar.

As if you have a blueprint. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Parow tried to make a caricature of the course we wanted to follow with this country, but the voters will not allow themselves to be bluffed, because if we consider the legislation in front of us, we see that it was presented to this House as far back as 1985 and passed by Parliament. Sixteen regional services councils have already come into existence. [Interjections.] In the course of the establishment of these regional services councils and in bringing the legislation to the stage at which it is today, many amendments were moved and passed by the House of Assembly, in 1986 for example before the first regional services council came into operation on 1 July 1987.

Three years after the principal Act was passed, the hon the Minister comes along with further amendments in the form of this amending Bill, which has no fewer than 20 clauses. The principal Act has only 18 sections. What does that tell us? It tells us that we have become saddled with a proliferation of administrative red-tape.

The purpose of the Bill is to rectify contingencies which obstruct the operation of the Regional Services Councils Act—I almost called it that thing—and to try to reduce the problems. The legislation also provides for further financial obligations on the part of regional services councils, for example the remuneration of members of committees of such a council who are not members of a regional services council. Furthermore, this amending Bill specifically makes provision for the means of financing rural councils. We shall vote against it because this amending Bill is especially detrimental to every farmer in South Africa.

We shall not only vote against the Bill, however; we shall also register the strongest form of protest here in the form of an amendment. I therefore move as an amendment:

Consideration was initially given to the possibility of the Administrator giving recognition to farmers’ associations that complied with certain requirements so that they could have representation on regional services councils. The implication of this would be, however, that all of organised agriculture would have to be politicised. That is understandable. In yesterday’s agricultural debate the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Affairs expressed strong disapproval of politics interfering in organised agriculture.

I should like to quote from the Loubser Report on page 7 in which the following amendments were proposed:

Surely that is an example of politics in its purest form. Local government is now standing with both feet—the city council and the rural councils on the one hand, and the regional services councils as an extension of them on the other—firmly planted in party politics in South Africa. One cannot get away from it. We now have the phenomenon that the NP is, at many levels, running away from party politics. I understand that the NP is not standing as the NP in Pietersburg. They want to adopt a so-called “best man” policy because politics must be kept out of council matters. This amendment places politics squarely in the midst of local government affairs.

I want to return to the Bill we have before us. Since it has been a long time in coming, in my opinion it is necessary to refer to the historic course this Bill has taken. The principal Act was passed in 1985. At that stage the Beeld of 8 October 1985 made the following comment, and I quote:

The target date was 1 January 1986. We are now in 1988 and the first regional services councils only came into existence in June 1987. The hon the Minister has already admitted in his Second Reading speech in one of the other Houses that its establishment was not a simple process. That is true. This article says at the end, for example:

What is the main problem? It is singled out in these two final paragraphs. I want to state frankly that the attitude of the farming communities is negative as far as the establishment of the so-called rural councils is concerned. In my opinion the establishment of rural councils is the most important specification and amendment in this Bill we have before us.

The Loubser Report, on which the establishment of the local councils is based, also reports that there was unanimous support on the part of organised agriculture as well as on the part of the SAAU represented by Messrs J de Villiers, F J Malan and J F van der Merwe.

I want to suggest that these representatives do not in any way reflect the opinion of the farmers of South Africa. Hon members should go to the farming associations, the District Agricultural Union or the Transvaal Agricultural Union; I am telling hon members that they do not support this concept of rural councils. I say without fear of contradiction that our fanning community is not interested in a further loading of input costs without any real advantages. That is what is going to happen, in fact their representation on and participation in the regional services councils are going to burden them further in respect of input costs. I want to present hon members with what appeared in the Landbouweekblad on page 69, of 10 July:

Fine. Provision is now being made for it. The article also states:

In a moment I shall deal with the concept of hospitals, health services and roads, services which in my opinion are not going to be rendered by the regional services councils.

There are other people as well, such as farmers and entrepreneurs, who were informed by an hon Minister in this House that these levies would merely constitute a transfer of taxation and that the levies that a farmer was going to pay on his wages and on his income could, after all, be deducted from his real income. There is only one problem, and I cross-questioned the hon the Minister about this when we discussed it at the time. Suppose the farmer did not make a profit. He is therefore not a taxpayer, but he will still have to pay these levies. That is not a transfer of taxation; it is an additional levy imposed on him, regardless of whether he makes a profit or not. I put the question in this way (Hansard: House of Assembly, 25 June 1986, col 9801)—

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Pietersburg whether he is able to tell me whether farmers in the Cape Province, who are landowners, pay divisional council tax only when they make a profit on their farming and whether they also have to pay the tax when they do not make a profit?

That is quite correct, but I am referring specifically to the Transvaal farmers. Furthermore, I also want to tell the hon member that the Minister will, from time to time, have to determine the levy the farmers have to pay in respect of these councils. Surely we know what happened to GST, for example. It started with 4% and ended with 12%. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said in reply to my question at the time—

He ended his reply by saying:

He is therefore incorporating an extra input-cost item for the farmers in establishing these rural councils. The then hon member Mr W L van der Merwe asked a further question:

The reply by the hon the Minister—it was the hon the Minister of Finance dealing with the legislation at the time—was:

In my opinion these things are not the functions of regional services councils. Hospital services are not even part of own affairs any longer, as they ought to be in terms of the Constitution. They are entirely provincial matters. I simply cannot see how those kinds of services are going to be rendered to the farmers by a regional services council, nor how they are going to be accorded any say in the matter through their rural council.

If one analyses these examples the hon the Minister mentioned, one notes that they are completely outside the scope of any rural council or any regional services council. I should like to know how any of the examples I mentioned are going to be dealt with by a rural or regional services council.

This amendment Bill is now going beyond that because objections were raised in respect of separate rural areas for the various population groups. The hon the Minister knows that there have always been objections on the part of the other population groups to different local authorities or separate rural councils. Now the Government wants to insert a new principle into local government, a new principle of central government in that it will now be possible to have a joint rural council.

In clause 15 on page 18 of the Bill, and I quote from the envisaged section 12A, it is clearly stated:

1. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any two or more Ministers referred to in that subsection …

Here the Ministers of the Ministers’ Councils are being referred to—

The hon the Minister also made it very clear in his Second Reading speech. I quote from page 3:

Here we therefore have an entirely new concept being incorporated which has not even been accepted at local government level. In other words, the local authority itself can therefore be a racially-mixed body by way of an agreement among the Ministers of the relevant Ministers’ Councils, as I quoted to hon members from clause 15.

And the community.

Now go and tell that to the farmers! Go and tell the farmers of South Africa that they must take the lead in establishing mixed rural councils! A local government body which is, at least for the town-dweller or city-dweller, still a separate governing body, now becomes a mixed or joint council. This possibility is being created by this legislation. Anyway, the city-dweller and town-dweller will only be able to avoid this until such time as open areas are introduced.

Consequently clause 1 also provides that in section 1 of the Regional Services Councils Act the definition of a governing body may also mean a rural council. In Clause 4 section 4 of the principal Act is being amended to make provision for rendering regional services across geographic and national boundaries by means of an agreement; in other words, in self-governing territories and even in independent states. Here further provision is being made for the subsequent negation of borders in respect of the Republic of South Africa, self-governing states and the independent states outside the Republic, so that the states can also become part of third-tier government. It is therefore a further step towards attaining the ideal of a unitary state, which is diametrically opposed to the principles and ideals of the CP.

Furthermore, provision is being made in this amending Bill for participation other than by the use of tariff services. I want the hon the Minister to explain to us what exactly is meant by that. In the Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said:

There you have the services which were referred to!

My argument is that services of this kind are not going to be rendered to farmers by regional services councils or rural councils.

Rural councils do not render any services!

That is correct; they do not render any services; regional services councils, however, do. The commodities I am referring to here are not functions of the regional services council. If that is the case, I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister which norm the administrator is going to incorporate in order, as he said, to achieve a fair result so that these people might be given representation in a way other than by purchasing services. What norm is he going to apply? This amending Bill represents an attempt at improving experimentation or is rather an experiment in respect of the third tier of government. According to the hon the Minister, who has just entered the House, it is an experiment—as he has already said in this House—which could possibly be carried through to the central level of government.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon the Minister that this experiment is not going to work. Does he really think that there will be a single farmer who will get his farm labourers to come and sit around a conference table with him to deliberate on how his farm should be managed? That is why this principle will be even less successful at the rural government level. It will not be able to function on this third tier of government, and if they want to carry it through to the central tier, it will be just as much a failure as it is at the third tier of government at present.

What is the Government engaged in? They are hoping to maintain White self-determination by means of a qualified franchise based on financial means. One does not need a prophet to foresee that this is doomed to failure.

Besides, what is the factual situation? By 1990 there will be 26,7 million Blacks, 980 000 Asians and 3,1 million Coloureds. At present the country’s 5 million Whites contribute 93,6% of our country’s revenue. If there were to be a redistribution of prosperity and living standards in a unitary state, it would simply mean that the Whites’ standard of living in their own fatherland would have to be lowered to that of a Third-World country in Africa.

I want to say, however, that the CP’s standpoint remains nevertheless that just as we reject the mixed tricameral parliamentary system in which we find ourselves at present, we also reject the principle of a multiracial government at the third tier, and in particular the principle of rural councils. Just as we are sitting in the House of Assembly and are present here today, our members of the local authorities will also be sitting on the rural councils in order to negotiate the best terms for our people at the third tier of government. Here we shall continue to strive for our own sovereign areas of jurisdiction for our people until our ideal of freedom with justice has eventually been achieved. That is why I want to register our objection in the strongest possible terms by means of the amendment we have moved. We shall therefore vote for that amendment.

Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning back most warmly after his long week-end. It was said earlier by the hon member for Sea Point that the hon the Minister had gone away on a long week-end. As I understand it, this took place between lunchtime and now.

One should, in any event, never pay any attention to the hon member for Sea Point!

We hope that the hon the Minister enjoyed his long week-end in these few minutes that he was able to slip away.

One cannot believe him anyway. So do not be annoyed at him!

The hon member for Pietersburg referred fairly scornfully to the amendments that we have to insert in this legislation. We did not find it amusing, and I want to predict that further amendments will be necessary because we have established a new constitutional structure which has to experience growing pains, as does every structure that has not been tested anywhere else in the world. We had to establish this structure as a consequence of our own specific circumstances, and for that reason shortcomings will show up in practice. That is one of the reasons why we did not rush in blindly and establish regional services councils left, right and centre. It was done on an orderly basis. A number of them are already functioning and we are learning from the problems of those boards, which is why these amendments are being moved.

The hon member for Pietersburg says they are not working. I should like to quote to the hon member what the chairman of the Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council has to say about regional services councils:

I shall come back to this letter at a later stage. The hon member complained that the farmers now also had to pay the levies in terms of the Bill in question. That is correct, but the farmers also use some of those services. The farmers make use of the infrastructure that is made available through the “town’s ratepayers’ money.” Not only do they ride to town on the roads, but once they are there they also make use of water, electricity, and other facilities which are financed by those people in the town. Surely it is only fair that the farmer should also make his contribution towards that region. Surely to argue that he should only do so if he makes a profit is an absolutely ludicrous argument. It is a completely silly argument.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? The hon member quoted from a letter from the Chairman of the Central Witwatersrand Regional Services Council in which mention was made of an amount of R72 million. I want to ask the hon member what the total appropriation of that regional services council is and where that extra money is to come from.

I do not know what the total appropriation is, but that is the amount which he says has been collected to date.

It is over R400 million.

This letter is dated 22 March 1988. Regional services council levies are not collected all at once, but on a monthly basis. The hon member should just be a little patient because there is still a major portion of the year left, and the money will come in. We shall take another look at it at a later stage.

You are simply impoverishing our people!

I want to tell that hon member once again that it is only fair to pay for the services one uses. After all, it is not a profits tax that is being levied here. Whether I make a profit or not, if I make use of a service such as water, for example, they do not ask me whether I have made a profit or a loss in my business enterprise. I have to pay for my water.

It is as simple as that. I do not know why that principle ought to be applied differently in the case of the farmers, unless one wants to make political capital out of it and butter up one’s little band of CP farmers. [Interjections.] That is all it amounts to.

I want to point out to the hon member that the old Potchefstroom road is being doubled in size. Do farmers not make use of that road?

Who is building the road?

Surely the question as to who is building the road does not alter the argument. What does that have to do with the argument?

The farmers are paying for those roadmakers with the tax they pay.

What does it matter who is building the road? I want to quote to the hon member from this letter:

What is more, this has other spin-offs which should not be underestimated.

The hon member also complained that the rural councils would be politicised. He referred to the debate on agriculture and complained that it would be politicised.

I say there is politics in agriculture!

Of course that is so.

You are running away from it!

After all, those hon members announced at their congress that they would fight the relevant local authority elections on a political basis. We shall do so as well. We shall not run away from the CP. There is not the slightest doubt that we shall fight them wherever we find them. [Interjections.]

And you will lose every time!

I just want to refer to one further aspect. Hon members of the other Houses objected to the fact that the rural councils in question could be constituted on a group basis. The argument against this is not valid, for the simple reason that the components of which the regional services councils are composed at the moment are established on a group basis. Therefore it is not a valid argument to raise objections to it now. It would have been a valid argument when we passed the legislation, but that legislation has been passed by all three Houses of this Parliament.

The accommodation of political rights is not the only function of regional services councils. They also rationalise services. I want to tell hon members at once that the rationalisation of services cannot take place overnight. This is a project that will only bear fruit with the passage of time. We must accept that as an established fact, but we are on the right track in that the regional services councils are rationalising services in our country.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member that the original Act, which provided for the creation of regional services councils, was based on the principle of elections being held according to group or race. The principle of representation on a group basis was incorporated in the original Act. That is why we on this side of the House were, and still are, opposed to that Act and the principle. In view of the fact that the new rural councils have also been based on that principle, we are also opposed to the principle of extending separate representation in the rural councils.

†There are two things in this Bill we are concerned about, and I have already referred to one of them. We have a situation in an area outside of a local government area on, say, one farm or in one small farming community which is not a local authority area, where people are going to be represented on the regional services council in that single area and where there can be no less than four racially-based rural councils. If there is an Indian, Coloured, Black and a White living on a particular farm or in a particular farming community, there will be four rural councils to deal with the requirements of four individuals who happen to belong to the four different racial communities.

What is interesting, is that when they have voted separately via their rural councils for representation on the RSC, they will then be dealing with general affairs! When they get there they do not deal with own affairs! One is therefore artificially creating own affair electoral colleges in order the deal with general affair matters. We are opposed to this in principle. We think it is crazy artificially to manufacture separate electoral systems on a racial basis in order to compose those councils when one wants to bring people together in a society on the basis of general affairs.

Did you want to make a practical proposition?

I will tell that hon the Minister what the practical proposition is that should have happened all along. In the Cape, to use it as a model, there was a body known as a divisional council. It catered for all the facilities in a region. From our point of view there was only one thing wrong with that divisional council, namely that the voters for the divisional council were White.

Is that wrong?

What the Government should have done, was to extend the representation on the divisional council to people of other races. If they are going to deal with general affairs, let all the people in the area then vote for a council that is going to deal with general affairs. There is no need for us to create an artificial council of separate racial communities living in the same area.

At the moment, even local authorities are demarcated by a demarcation commission on a regional or area basis, but these rural councils are not. Within a global area like within a region, one is going to have up to four regional councils dealing with people living on one particular farm or in one particular farming community. One can then add to that that within a total regional council area, one is going to have no fewer than 12 of them—three for each racial community, multiplied by four. At the behest of the House of Representatives, at least a concession was made, namely that if two racial communities want to combine for their own purposes, they can do so in respect of this action, but it has to be by way of agreement between the Ministers or the two racial communities.

So here we have an artificial creation of new bodies on a racial basis in order to get people together on a non-racial basis. As a result of that, one has, in terms of clause 15 (6), almost a contrived system in order to try to manufacture a concept of what this body is all about. It states:

That we can understand; it is an electoral college. We would prefer it to be on a non-racial basis. It states further: “ … to promote the interests and welfare of those persons …” Mr Chairman, I would have thought that it is in fact the RSC that must promote the interests and welfare of those persons, but now we have an electoral college which is specifically elected to do that. In addition to creating an electoral college out of it, it “shall be vested and entrusted with the powers and duties which the Minister concerned may from time to time identify …”. We therefore have a body with no fixed powers and no fixed responsibilities other than those that a particular Minister at a certain time may grant to them in his own discretion.

When it comes to who is going to pay for this, I have never known a system before where the payment for the services of an own affairs council to deal with own affairs in a rural area is made by means of money appropriated by Parliament. This is a freak situation. One has here an own affairs body looking after the interests of a specific own affairs community yet while everybody else in a local government area is taxed in a general sense, this particular body, is going to operate on the basis of money appropriated by Parliament.

I believe that this has become something of a local authority freak, because it has been contrived. The hon the Minister does not know whether to love or to hate. He does not know whether he wants to integrate through general affairs or segregate through own affairs. A body therefore has to be created in order to make this strange creature viable, although it does not really deserve to exist.

There is also the issue raised by the hon member for Pietersburg. What is the power of these people as far as voting is concerned? It is all very well to have representation, but what is the value of representation without a vote? I would have thought that the most important element of political power, whether in Parliament, a regional services council, a local authority or the government of a national state, is the power of the vote. The most important thing for people is not just to be there but, once they are there, the value of their vote.

A formula was set down for regional services councils, according to which the value of the services drawn from such a council determined voting power. However, because there will now be rural councils not drawing services from the RSC, and because there will therefore be no measurable way of determining their voting power, the Bill contains an arbitrary provision empowering the Administrator in his discretion to decide what will be fair in respect of the vote of a rural council. That the voting power should be determined on a completely arbitrary basis by the Administrator of a province, and not firmly determined in terms of the law, goes right against the grain as far as anybody who really believes in representative government is concerned. We in these benches would therefore vote against this Bill even if our only objection was to these rural councils.

We must also, however, repeat a warning we issued at the time when the principal Act was before Parliament way back in 1985. We believe that the regional services councils are going to develop into expensive bureaucratic monsters. They are going to become bigger, more complicated and more expensive, and there is not going to be the direct control that exists through direct representation of the voters. Representation of the voters is always via a council, and not direct. One simply has to look at the long title of this Bill to realise how many more factors are being built into regional services councils. To make my point, I merely have to emphasise some of the verbs in the long title, as follows:

The Bill consists of 20 clauses, each of which makes the RSCs more cumbersome, more costly and more burdensome.

We object in principle to the racial provisions regarding rural councils. Apart from that, however, at a time when the hon the State President says we must streamline, simplify, privatise, tighten our belts and stop spending so much money, there is no way in which we in these benches can be party to legislation which will add to the tax burden of the ordinary citizens of South Africa at regional services council level.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the hon member for Sea Point on one point only. He based his objection to this measure largely on the group concept, in which he does not believe. I must tell the hon member that the PFP’s idea of the group concept in South Africa is as far removed from the realities of this country as are the standpoints of the AWB. On that point, he and the AWB are equally far from the truth. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Sea Point referred to the costs, but he can only refer to the costs of this form of Government if he compares them to the costs of his alternative. The advice which we receive from people who are at a safe distance abroad, and which those hon members try to propagate here in South Africa, is rendered ridiculous by the realities of Africa. Hon members are removed from the realities of this continent and this country if they want to propagate the idea that groups do not exist in South Africa and that governmental systems should not be established on a group basis.

I want to return to the hon member for Pietersburg. He made quite a few allegations here. With all due respect to the hon member I want to say that these allegations were somewhat arrogant. I would be glad if I could have the hon member’s attention. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietersburg alleged that the representatives of the South African Agricultural Union did not represent the opinion of the farmers of South Africa. I want to tell the hon member that that is an arrogant assertion. I want to tell him: “Let the cobbler stick to his last”. The hon member has never, as far as I know, been a delegate to a congress of any of the regional agricultural unions of the South African Agricultural Union. The hon member has never been elected to the executive committee of a regional agricultural union. By way of repetition I want to tell him that it is arrogant for him to come along and say that the representatives of the South African Agricultural Union’s standpoint regarding regional services councils do not represent the opinion of the farmers. [Interjections.] The Leaders who have been elected by the communities represent the opinion of those communities.

A second point I want to make to the hon member concerns the statement he made here that farmers would not get their workers together to deliberate with them on the management of their farms. I want to tell the hon member again: “Let the cobbler stick to his last.” The hon member does not know what he is talking about at all. Exactly what the hon member says will not happen is happening on my own farm. Do hon members know what the result is?

You will go bankrupt! [Interjections.]

The result is that we are doing very well. Our productivity is higher and there are better relations. What the hon member said would not happen, is happening on an enormous scale in the Western Cape. It is also happening in other parts of the country, but I cannot venture an opinion on that. I want to tell the hon member that the statement he made reflected his party’s bigoted standpoint on consultation.

I now come to my next point. The hon member said that the CP would take their seats on these regional services councils and promote the interests of the White group there. In other words, firstly he said that they would not consult, but then he conceded that they would take their seats and promote the White group’s interests. I want to ask the hon member whether they are going to talk and participate in the discussions when their representatives are sitting on the regional services councils? [Interjections.] Are they going to promote the Whites’ interests or are they going to do what they are doing at present on the standing committees?

Good Heavens! [Interjections.]

It is a public display of spinelessness! [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, what happened in the standing committee? Those members sat there and shut up like a clam! They say absolutely nothing! [Interjections.] All they do is abstain. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon member the following question. When his people serve on the standing committee, are they also going to be sitting there quiet as mice and merely abstain all the time? Or are they going to participate and do what one is supposed to do. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg does have his own standpoint, after all. Of course I can understand his being braver today than he usually is— braver than becomes him and his party. However, I put it to the hon member: As far as the legislation before us is concerned, they are exactly like the PFP—completely alienated from the realities of this country. It does not mean that we are going to introduce constitutional reform in South Africa without any problems or mistakes. Amendments will have to be made at a later stage. Readjustments will have to be made.

Surely we are nonetheless engaged in the development of a constitutional dispensation in South Africa. When one is engaged in the development of a constitutional dispensation, it is logical and obvious that changes will have to be made from time to time.

Certain questions are raised by the standpoint of the hon member for Pietersburg and his party on secession. Will it be possible for them to amend the Constitution in such a way as to implement their secession, never having to come back to Parliament to make the adjustments and amendments to the system they want to try to create? No, it will not happen. After all, no one is perfect; not even the CP.

It is pleasure for me to support the legislation under discussion. Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.