Mr Chairman, I want to make the following statement with regard to the business of the House.

Today we will continue with the legislation on the Order Paper. Monday and Tuesday of next week will be used to deal with Votes. On Monday the Transport Vote will probably be discussed, while on Tuesday the House will be divided into two appropriation committees in order to discuss the National Education Vote and the National Health and Population Development Vote. From Wednesday to Friday the Vote of the hon the State President will be discussed.

Mr Chairman, I have had the privilege of representing the NP for 18 years. [Interjections.] During those 18 years I have seen three different parties in the Official Opposition benches. Each one of those parties carried the seeds of its own destruction. [Interjections.]

You are now in an opposition party.

Order! It seems to me certain hon members derive great pleasure from saying whatever they feel like saying in this House. It is an encroachment on the time of the hon member who is speaking and is completely unnecessary. The hon member for Hercules may proceed.

Mr Chairman, each of those opposition parties carried the seeds of its own destruction in the sense that each party was a coalition party. The hon members for Turffontein and Yeoville should be able to address the House on the interesting topic of coalition parties, the misfortunes they are heir to and the conflict generated in such parties.

The present Official Opposition carries the same deadly seeds, despite its temporary successes. After all, each of the previous opposition parties had its occasional successes as well. [Interjections.] The hon members of the previous Official Opposition should reserve their comments.

The Official Opposition that we have now consists of a coalition of the pre-1983 conservative “verkrampte” wing of the NP; the Blanke Volkstaat, better known as the AWB, of which the hon member for Ventersdorp is a member and of which the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is an honorary member or an additional member; the Aksie Eie Toekoms, as it is represented by the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo; the Oranjewerkers of Prof Carel Boshoff; the HNP, of which the hon the member of the Official Opposition was the pater familias, the Kappie-kommando and the Nasionale Konserwatiewe Party of the late Dr Connie Mulder—a coalition party consisting of seven participating partners! [Interjections.]

The misfortune that is going to befall this coalition party will occur the day the objectives relating to the division of the country and the granting of land have to be spelt out, because each of these participant partners has its own objective with regard to the division of this country. The Oranjewerkers want to use Morgenson, the hon member for Barberton’s main town, as the capital of the White homeland. The Blanke Volkstaatparty, the senior partner in the coalition party, wants a volkstaat consisting of the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal. The only advantage that the Blanke Volkstaatparty could gain from that is that the quarrelling about the beaches would come to an end because there would be no beaches in that state. The aim of the Nasionale Konserwatiewe Party, which was aired here in Parliament for many years by its leader, the late Dr Connie Mulder, is to have homelands for Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

If those are the objectives of the partners, the time will come when a policy will have to be decided upon for these objectives to be realised, and then the cat will be amongst the pigeons.

We are also dealing with a financial debate, and for that reason it is interesting to look at the financial objectives of some parties. In my hand I have two documents: An Afrikaans translation of the Freedom Charter of the ANC and the policy and objectives of the senior participant partner of the Official Opposition coalition, the AWB. When one reads these two documents, it is interesting to see how many similarities there are between them. By way of summary one can say that the AWB stands for ethnic socialism and the ANC for Marxist socialism. They have a lot in common. The ANC says the following:

What does the senior participant coalition partner of the CP say? It says:

If words have any meaning, these mean exactly the same thing.

In conclusion I want to say something to the Official Opposition. In the coalition which constitutes the party lies the deadly seeds of their own destruction. This wave of the euphoria of temporary success which they are now riding, is the same wave that the old UP rode in 1970. From first-hand experience, the hon member Prof Olivier will be able to tell them about the euphoria that reigned after the successes of the PFP.

Mr Chairman, in the 40th year of office, and at a point in the political history of South Africa which reminds one very strongly of the twenties and the forties, after the by-elections in Wakkerstroom, it is clear—all the symptoms are present—that the NP has come to the end of the road. [Interjections.] It is incredible that the hon the Leader of the House should this morning suddenly provide yet more proof, out of the blue, that this party is at the end of the road. We were informed that all three Houses of Parliament would hold a joint sitting next week. Now the hon the Leader of the House announces that this House will divide in two next week. What is this Government still capable of doing? It is incapable of carrying out a single resolution it has adopted. It wants to have three Houses sit together, and now it is dividing one House in two, and Parliament is meeting at four venues instead of one next week. I wonder where the second part of this House will sit? If this House divides in two, will one part sit on the gallery? Or will they sit in the lobby? Where will they sit? [Interjections.] Or will they now request the hon the Minister of Finance to insert a large new item of expenditure in the Budget for another building so that there may be seating for everyone in future?

All the symptoms are present to indicate that NP has reached the end of the road. This debate is one of the most demonstrable symptoms of how it has reached the end of the road. We have had the same reaction in this debate as one normally finds when a champion team, which has won the Currie Cup for years, is suddenly overtaken by misfortune and starts losing. The first reaction is that it is negligible and that it is only a temporary ripple which has benefited its opponents. They themselves do not realise that they have reached the end of the road.

I want to quote to hon members what the history books say. In this book, Imperalisme en Nasionalisme, the writer says the following on page 155:

Growing unanimity among National Afrikaners. I want to tell the hon member for Hercules that what he calls a coalition is a growing unanimity among conservative Afrikaners. They can no longer read the signs of South African politics, however.

Who was the writer?

The writer was Prof Duvenage and he was a Nat when he wrote this book. He was a good Nationalist and a good Afrikaner, and now he is a CP supporter. He understands history, but the NP does not.

Which Prof Duvenage?

Prof G D J Duvenage.

The second reaction which sets in, in such a team which has reached the end of the road, is that it begins to find fault. It begins to find fault and first says that the fault lies with its opponents, that they got away playing contrary to the rules and that the CP lies to voters. [Interjections.]

The third reaction which sets in is that team members criticise the referee. They say the referee became confused and gave an incorrect decision. In the case of these by-elections, and every election, the people are the referee. Now the hon the Minister of National Education says the people are confused; that the “ref crooked” them. [Interjections.]

The fourth reaction which sets in is that newspapers climb in, start indicating the mistakes and then having a field day. They tell the team how to put matters right and shout at them: “We want points!” Television awarded them a penalty kick right in front of the goal posts every evening, with a Minister on the screen, but they missed the kick every time. The newspapers shout for points but they do not realise that those people are incapable of scoring more points.

Now the team is at fault!

It misses the kick every time. The fifth reaction which sets in is that team spirit begins to flog. This manifests itself in a strange phenomenon, because some of them begin praising one another frenetically, as we have noted in this debate, especially as regards the hon member for Kuruman. As far as I am concerned, that hon member made the best speech for the National Party because he said nothing. [Interjections.] He merely uttered a few witticisms and in the process was caught totally offside. He was completely offside because he said one should examine their achievements in the economy. Look at the splendid economy! He said the victory they had not gained was a fantastic victory. He said the economy was growing by 3%. The winning try, which they did not score, exists only in his mind and not on the scoreboard. Where is the economy growing by 3%?

The next step that takes place is that infighting starts amongst the players themselves. In that respect the hon member for Innesdal made the best speech for the Conservative Party. That hon member was not speaking to us, but to his own party. This is most significant, and I want to put it like this. They tell us that we lie to the voters, but the hon member for Innesdal writes in an article that it is a myth that Black people’s political aspirations and a political solution regarding Black people can be attained without the inclusion of the ANC. He comes to the House and says he has not, at any time withdrawn those words. He will not withdraw them. Not at all!

I am now telling the hon the Minister of National Education that we shall go from here and tell the voters that the National Party’s policy is that the ANC will be included. Will be included!

I say that is not the National Party’s policy!

The hon member for Innesdal says a solution without the ANC is impossible. He says it is impossible and says he has not, at any time, withdrawn this and will not withdraw it.

He wrote this more than a year ago.

If we now tell voters this is NP policy, it is only the hon the Minister of National Education who says it is not so. [Interjections.] We shall tell voters it is the policy of the NP, but not that of the hon the Minister of National Education, because there are personal standpoints in that party. It is also the standpoint of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, that hon member must resume his seat. He is wasting my time. [Interjections.] That party has an hon Minister who says it is his personal policy that a Black man may become the State President.

Order! I do not want to take up any of the hon member’s time, but we cannot continue like this. Hon members must now afford the hon member for Lichtenburg the opportunity of completing his speech without unnecessary interjections.

We shall tell voters that it is NP policy that the ANC will be included in their solution, but that this is not the hon the Minister of National Education’s personal standpoint. The hon member for Innesdal left us in no doubt about where they would be included; he said they would be represented in a central South African Parliament—nothing more and nothing less. We are now going from here, and that is why I want to know whether it is NP policy that the ANC will be included in the central Government of South Africa envisaged by the NP. Now the hon the Minister is silent.

I have been forbidden to make interjections.

All right. [Interjections.] We are now going from here to tell the voters that it is NP policy that the ANC will be included in the central Parliament which is envisaged and that we do not know what the hon the Minister of National Education has to say about this. We shall have to find out from him later what he has to say.

I want to go further and say that the hon member for Innesdal was not talking to us the other evening, but to his own party. He was defiant and provocative and said that those who thought the ideals of the 17 banned organisations could be bottled up did not know what was going on. He said they knew less than Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.] To whom was that hon member talking? He was talking to the people who did the bottling up, to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, to the hon the Minister of National Education and to all the people on whom silence fell the other evening when he was speaking. He decided to take all the recalcitrant ones with him or else the NP had to kick him out. I now want to tell the hon the Minister of National Education very plainly that if he does not do something definite about the hon member for Innesdal, this hon Minister cannot hold it against any referee for assuming that the NP is providing for the ANC in the future Parliament of South Africa. One cannot get away from this.

The hon member for Innesdal said one could not bottle up ideals.

That is true!

There they are saying that it is true. [Interjections.] I want to say it is only true as regards legitimate and just ideals, and untrue as regards unlawful and unjust ideals. Our people’s history is proof of this. At the beginning of this century …

How do you bottle them up?

I shall tell the hon member how one bottles them up. His people proved how it bottled them up. At the beginning of this century British Imperialists wanted to swallow up our people’s ideals for the sake of their ideal of a world empire. Their ideal was a world empire, and it was an unlawful ideal. They thereby wanted to swallow up the legitimate ideal of the Afrikaners and of the Whites, together with their freedom and their country. That unlawful ideal of theirs was not only bottled up, but buried for all time. It was completely extinguished.

I want to say today that I gain the impression that the hon member for Innesdal is prepared for the ideal of the ANC and of the 17 organisations which has been bottled up. The ideal of that hon member’s people, of freedom and an own father-land, triumphed over the unlawful ideal of the British Empire, but now that hon member says it is a myth and that the NP has shaken off that myth, which is that its people should have an own country and freedom. That is why I want to remind hon members of the event at the beginning of this century when two ideals came into conflict with each other. At the time there were some of our compatriots who were more sympathetic toward the ideals of the British Empire and who went to fight on their side against the ideals of their own people.

Today I want to appeal to hon members, on whom silence descended the other evening, to reconsider their position in the interests of South Africa. Hon members should decide to which ideal to lend all their efforts and support. Do those hon members not want to come forward in the interests of the most beautiful and noblest legitimate ideals of their own people which do not offend anybody else? [Interjections.]

A fourth example of this Government having come to the end of the road is the hon the Minister of Finance’s Budget. He says he wants to combat inflation and prune Government expenditure. All he has done has been to fix limits on public servants’ salaries. He has not curbed Government expenditure. The question is now: Will he ever be able to combat inflation? What is the Government actually doing to combat inflation? According to this Budget, it is doing nothing. What is more, the excessive redistribution of income, which is responsible for inflation, proceeds unchecked. The hon the Minister thinks, however, that by means of an opening address and advertisements in newspapers he can create a psychological climate which will beat inflation. Inflation will not be beaten by that.

What is this Budget doing to increase productivity? It is doing absolutely nothing. A damning report against this Government was published by the National Productivity Institute. That report points out what one of the basic causes of the economic problems of South Africa is. According to the report, there was a 91% growth in productivity in the manufacturing sector in Japan from 1975 to 1986, whereas it was 18% in South Africa.

What is your solution?

I shall tell the hon the Minister now. I have said this frequently before. The hon member for Carletonville also told the hon the Minister this yesterday. The second point I want to broach deals with the earnings per employee. In Japan the earnings per employee increased by 86%; in South Africa by 352%. The cost per unit decreased by 2,6% in Japan; it increased by 262% in South Africa.

What is the hon the Minister doing about this in the Budget? He is doing absolutely nothing about it; on the contrary, he is continuing with it. The CP said that there should not only be parity in salaries; there should also be parity in productivity. If parity in salaries is not linked to parity in productivity, the hon the Minister will again land where he has landed now. And he has certainly landed there now! Everything the CP told him has come true. Whenever we had something to say, the hon the Minister, with a cynical, disgruntled facial expression, said the CP was stupid and knew nothing about the economy.

Hear, hear!

Everything the CP said, however, has come true. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that his Budget is certainly a crisis budget. What is the hon the Minister doing about growth as regards the unemployment problem? He can do nothing about it because he has two great problems. The first is the balance of payments. At present he is in a position in which he can have a surplus on the current account while at the same time having a deficit in the balance of payments because of debt repayments. The point of equilibrium on the current account is no longer zero, but R3 billion. This first has to be whittled away. Debt has to be repaid and only after that can it be regarded as an asset. As a result the economy is unable to grow at a rate faster than 3%. This is not enough to relieve the unemployment problem; on the contrary, it can only increase at a growth rate of 3%.

The second problem facing the hon the Minister is that of Government finance itself. The deficit before borrowing has simply become too large. It is equal to the net savings figure of the country. The hon the Minister could therefore not have budgeted in any other way. He will not solve these problems; their basic causes continue to be present in the economy. There is only one solution, which is domestic growth. This must be stimulated, but the hon the Minister does nothing about this either.

When we say these things, they say the CP is selfish because it does not believe in a redistribution of income. I want to state very clearly and emphatically today that if all that was required …

You believe in that!

We do not believe in a redistribution of income. If all that was required to solve the problems of South Africa was to hand over our wordly goods to other people, we would head the chorus to do so. If that were the solution, we would have proposed that it be done. In addition, the people of South Africa would do it too, because this is the third time this century that our politics have had to start from scratch again. In the previous century our people left all their worldly goods and trekked to freedom. We are prepared to do this.

History has proved, however, that one cannot create prosperity, growth and wealth by taking from one person and handing to another; on the contrary, one leaves everyone unemployed. Welfare can therefore not be claimed; it can only be earned. One cannot become rich by grabbing prosperity and wealth; one first has to earn it before one can become prosperous.

The fifth piece of evidence to indicate that they have come up against a brick wall is their policy of political reform. Their policy is joint participation, with the protection of minorities. This is a contradictio in terminis. The two facts cannot coexist. One cannot have joint participation and protection of minorities. If the majority does not want to protect minorities, one cannot obtain protection. If one wants the protection of minorities, one cannot have joint participation. One can have one but not both.

It is like freedom and equality, which are splendid expressions. Beautiful! Nevertheless, one cannot have both at the same time. If one has freedom, people become increasingly unequal because of inborn differences. If one has equality, one has to curb freedom to make all people equal. One cannot have both, and it is equally impossible to have joint participation and the protection of minorities.

I think Dr Van der Ross wrote in a newspaper on Sunday that the hon the State President had proposed a National Council, which Chief Buthelezi had rejected, but that Chief Buthelezi had proposed an indaba, which the hon the State President had rejected. Why? Chief Buthelezi is not interested in the protection of minorities; his indaba does not provide for the protection of minorities. He says himself that the Whites will be sentenced to an eternally open democracy. He is not interested in minorities. The hon the State President wants to protect minorities with tricks; that is why Chief Buthelezi is not interested in them. One cannot have those two aspects simultaneously.

Even if the Government succeeded in its policy, and even if it also succeeded in applying it, there is one natural law in South African politics, and that is that nationalism cannot be suppressed forever. One cannot suppress nationalism forever. It rises again, and then emerges more vigorously and strongly. White nationalism has burst forth for the third time this century. Even if the Government were to succeed in applying its policy, nationalism would not submit to being stemmed, because that nationalism which bums in the hearts of our people, also burns in the hearts of all the other peoples.

What about Black nationalism?

Not only are we sympathetic toward the legitimate and justified nationalism of the Black people; we are prepared to assist in realising it to the full. [Interjections.] Hon members ask me at what price? I said a short while ago that if it were only a matter of sacrificing all our worldly goods, we would be prepared to do this.

If the Government had spoken of participation, with the protection of minorities, it would have had a point, but then it would have come down to CP policy. That is the only way in which one can have full participation, with the protection of minorities. Then it is no longer a question of minorities, because every minority becomes a majority. That is what the CP policy of partition comprises. Even if the Government were to succeed in its policy, and even if it were to introduce this monstrosity, the natural law of nationalism would put matters right. It would no longer be peaceful, however. It would be as it was in Europe over the centuries, with bloodshed and violence until every people had regained and seized its rightful place, which is its country and its freedom. That hon member also said that if one lost one’s way on a mountainside, one should seek another path, and even return to the starting point. That hon member is one of the greatest liberalists in the NP. He said one should return to the starting point. I am now telling hon members that according to them that is nothing but an ox-wagon mentality. If one has lost one’s way, one should not return to the starting point; according to them one should only go forward. The greatest leftists in that party say one should return to the starting point. That was a sensible comment he made. I appeal to those hon members who fell silent to return to the true starting point, which is pure nationalism. Let South Africa proceed from there. I want to tell hon members that nothing can stem this natural law in politics, that is to say that nationalism will rise again. Nothing can stem that.

As regards the by-elections, the swing of 2% in Schweizer-Reneke, of 4% in Standerton and of 7,6% in Randfontein is clear proof that this nationalism has burst forth again within the CP. Nothing can stem this, even if they purloin our policy, as they did with that of the PFP. The PFP policy poisoned them and led them astray. I want to say, however, that the NP is too late to share in the resurrection of true White nationalism in South Africa. That is why there is only one place, and that is in the CP, where this will happen. We shall not stop fighting. We shall continue fighting because we know it is the only way to obtain a peaceful solution in South Africa. Nothing will prevent us from fighting because the wide-open spaces of South Africa have nurtured our spirit; that is why we cannot and shall not and do not want to be slaves. We shall fight until we have regained our freedom and until our fatherland assumes its rightful place in the world together with all the other peoples of the world.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You gave a ruling on interjections. As you created a precedent last night by silencing me after one interjection, I want to point out to you that after you had given your ruling, the hon member for Germiston made at least eight interjections.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must resume his seat. A point of order should be raised at the moment it becomes relevant. I am not going back in history now.

Mr Chairman, after what Dr Treurnicht said here yesterday afternoon, one should perhaps ask the CP whether they agree with it. Yesterday afternoon Dr Treurnich said here …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member has now referred twice to Dr Treurnicht. The point is that Dr Treurnicht is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and we do not call people by their names here.

Order! The hon member for Heilbron may proceed, but I merely want to point out to him that the underlying rule is that one should not refer to an hon member in a contemptuous, derogatory or petty-minded manner. The hon member should therefore preferably refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or the hon member for Waterberg.

Mr Chairman, I have always treated the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with great respect. The other day when he addressed us as ladies and gentlemen, I did not object. From what the hon member for Overvaal has just said, the extent or the limit of the view on life which, is open to him, is all too clear.

I said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had said yesterday afternoon that if it was racism to trample the interests of another race underfoot for the sake of self-interest, then he rejected racism, was opposed to racism. Does the rest of his party agree that when one sacrifices someone else’s interests in favour of one’s own, that kind of racism is also unacceptable to them.

It is quite clear from their reaction that they do not agree with this statement of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. What is strange is that the Leader of the Official Opposition said earlier on in his speech that the CP had shown that it had found favour with the blue-collar and blue-overall workers of the country. Why? Because when their futures are at stake, when their jobs are at stake, when their wages and salaries and so on are at stake, they look for a party which will protect these things for them. The CP must tell us how they can protect the jobs of the Whites in South Africa. There is only one of two ways in which this can be done. They must either say that they advocate job-reservation in present-day South Africa or that they advocate partition. Everyone in this House can attest to the fact that the young gentleman sitting at the back there, the hon member for Potgietersrus, shouted out in this House “You are absurd!” when we spoke about their policy of total partition. If there is not total partition, the only way in which White jobs can be protected in this country is by job-reservation. This is typical of the problem we on this side of the House have when we must compete publicly with the CP. They play both sides of the argument. As a matter of fact, the CP is publicly telling a lie, because on the one hand they say they are opposed to racism, while on the other they say that they will see to it that one person will get a job, because of the colour of his skin, which another person cannot get.

The speech which the hon member for Lichtenburg made here today attested to this, of course. His past speeches and the one he made this morning made me realise why the hon member was no longer the CP’s chief spokesman on finance, because he deals with facts and figures in a rather haphazard fashion. [Interjections.] What did the hon member say here? He asked, inter alia, where the growth rate of 3% was. The growth rate of 3% is the growth rate in the GDP. Hon members can take a look at this, and also at the Reserve Bank’s predictions for this year. He went on to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that he should pay his foreign debt because this was what was killing us. The foreign debt of this Government is R2,5 billion—this is only about 5% of the total foreign debt. How does he reconcile these facts? He says this light-heartedly, and it is accepted as the truth outside, whereas the State’s share in the foreign debt only constitutes 5% of the total.

Time and again, both inside and outside this House, the Official Opposition proclaimed the myth of the insurmountable national debt of this Government, as if it is of such a magnitude that it would make growth in the RSA totally impossible. What are the facts behind this ridiculous story which the hon members of the Official Opposition are disseminating? I have figures here which compare the total national debt of South Africa with the national debts of other countries.

We know that the size of the national debt per se, as is the case with any other debt, does not serve as a yardstick in assessing the financial status of the debtor. The same debt will be a totally different thing for me and for Mr Harry Oppenheimer. In the same way, a national debt must be measured against a country’s ability to pay.

Recent figures indicate that over the past 15 years the national debt in the different countries has been as follows: First let us consider Canada, where in the space of 15 years the national debt increased from 23% to 42% of its GDP. In the same way the national debt of the USA increased from 27% to 43%. The national debt of Japan, which is held up as an example to us, increased from 10,7% to 54,8% of its GDP.

The Government of the Republic is being maligned by the opposition for the way it is handling our finances. The ratio of our national debt to the GDP decreased from 40% to 33,4%. [Interjections.] That is how badly we are governing the country. [Interjections.]

The ability of an organisation or person to pay its or his debt is ascertained by working out the debt to revenue ratio. The lower the ratio, the sounder or safer the debt is. What is the position in South Africa?

If we again compare South Africa with the above-mentioned countries, we find that in Canada the ratio of national debt to state revenue increased from 104% to 225% over the past 15 years. In the USA it increased from 144% to 214% and in Japan from 81% to 439%. What is the ratio of national debt to State revenue in the RSA, which is ostensibly being governed so badly and where, according to the Official Opposition, the finances are being handled so badly? During the past 15 years the South African national debt has decreased from 220% of its revenue to only 138%. In contrast with all these countries, which are in any case among the most developed countries in the world, the debt-revenue ratio of South Africa, which has a large Third-World component, is decreasing. That is how badly the country is being governed, according to the CP’s stories.

If there is one thing which has been proved thus far in this debate, it is that the CP does not have anything it can criticise the Government on. I want to give hon members a few examples. The hon member for Barberton got very emotional here—I was very worried about what he said, because it was the truth—about the fact that insurance was the only way in which a young married man could safeguard his wife in the event of his death. According to him the deletion of the concession that R75 may be deducted from net income for insurance premiums for income-tax purposes, is going to have tremendously adverse consequences for these people and will result in their no longer being able to make provision for the care of their marriage partners if something were to happen to them.

I studied the figures I obtained from the office of the hon the Minister, and found that the rebate of R75—at the average effective income-tax rate on an income of R12 000 per annum—is 4,8%, which amounts to a saving of 30 cents per month. All this theatrical emotion was generated by a saving of 30 cents a month! Can hon members imagine that a couple, with the breadwinner earning R12 000 per annum, actually cannot afford to pay 30 cents per month more? This is dreadful! How can the poor people live?

This is the kind of nonsense we have had to deal with in this debate. The hon the Minister was attacked because of 30 cents. One cannot concern oneself with such trivialities when one is discussing the affairs of the country.

An hon member of the CP spoke about an old woman who had to read by candlelight because she could not pay her electricity account. There are many old people in my constituency whom I, like all of us, feel extremely sorry for in these difficult times. They are our first priority. If those old people are not exploited by their children— this is most probably the case here—there would not yet have been any necessity for that kind of behaviour in my constituency.

I want to make a further point which will indicate that the CP cannot object to anything except trivialities in the Budget. The hon member for Lichtenburg, who has just left the Chamber, is the CP’s chief spokesman on agriculture. According to the evidence of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition they initially enjoyed support in the rural areas and have now found favour with the blue-collar workers. Why did the CP not make any contribution to the Government’s agricultural policy? During the discussion of the Additional Appropriation, that hon member almost had a fit about the tremendous decrease in the agricultural budget.

What was the reason for this non-recurrent decline? He should not have looked at one year only, because during the year under discussion there were unprecedented natural disasters and certain repayments of agricultural debts by the Government which he totally ignored. Debts were paid off and consequently interest which was subsidised by the State, declined. The subsidies—the R134 million—were not repeated, because the producer price is going to be higher this year than last year owing to certain external changes and factors. These deductions, which are non-recurrent because we were assisted in the past and no longer need that assistance, total R480 million. If one were to add this R480 million to the budget, and compare it with the total agricultural budget of two years ago—this means both the general affairs and the own affairs budget—one would find that there had been an increase of 44% over these two years. No matter what the CP does, the increase over these two years is considerably higher than the inflation rate.

In conclusion I want to take this opportunity to thank the Cabinet, and specifically the hon the Minister of Agriculture, because they appointed the Brand Committee which is going to investigate the affairs of the farmer and is also going to investigate the problems surrounding the debt burden of the Maize Board.

I want to conclude by telling the hon member for Lichtenburg that it is a pity that he was not prepared to raise agricultural matters in this Parliament today, because I was waiting for those statements of his which were totally devoid of all truth. He should have repeated his statements on agriculture here today so that we could have held a discussion on agriculture. I deplore the fact that he was too afraid to talk about agriculture in this debate today, because all his statements would have been proved to be totally wrong.

Mr Chairman, this week has provided some interesting listening for many of us, and also a good deal of rough stuff. We have had to endure a good deal of rough stuff, especially when one thinks of the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg this morning.

As far as I am concerned, a few speeches have stood out and will be remembered. In my view there have been four highlights during this week. Hon members, whether they agreed or disagreed with the content of the speech, will, I am sure agree with me that the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, though fundamentalist in style, was effective, bruising and even painful to the Government.

The speech of my leader, the hon member for Sea Point was, I believe both logical and compelling, and it deserves serious attention.

Then, of course, the speech of the hon member for Yeoville cannot be ignored. He made a fine speech—a liberal speech, a progressive speech, and very definitely a pro-South African speech. The Government would do well to implement many of the suggestions which he put before this House.

We have already done so.

I am pleased to hear that, Sir. Finally, I would like to express admiration for the speech delivered by the hon member for Innesdal. If one thinks of the difficulties faced by that hon member in past years in his own party, and if one thinks of the very real difficulties he faces in his own constituency, then one cannot but admit that what he had to say, was both honest and true …

And courageous.

…and one cannot but respect him for the courageous way in which he sticks publicly to his convictions.

How people have changed! How our South African world has changed over these past years! When you and I came to this Parliament some 14 years ago, Sir, our country was a very different place. The process of building apartheid and the apartheid structure was virtually complete. South Africa was a totally segregated and horrendously racially discriminatory society.

Job reservation was in full force. All shop assistants around the country were White; that job was reserved for Whites. Bus drivers were White. In those days it was a criminal offence for a non-White to play sport in a mixed team in a so-called White area. As a matter of course, different wages were paid for the same job to people of different skin colours. Only a few years ago, if anyone of colour wished to listen to a debate in this House, he had to sit separately in Bay E of the Public Gallery.

Newer hon members—certainly those elected in the past year, and probably even those elected since 1981—do not even remember that when the International Cricket Conference, the governing body of world cricket visited our country in 1979, they were given red carpet treatment by our cricket authorities. They were entertained by the then Minister of Sport and Recreation who, if my memory serves me correctly, is the present hon Minister of National Education, and seen by the then Prime Minister, who is now our hon State President. The report which they were to draft on South African cricket was of crucial importance to the game in South Africa and to our international standing, and yet the then Speaker banned the ICC, those leaders from New Zealand, Australia and England, from being entertained to lunch at Parliament. Why did he do that? One of the members—I think he was the president of the Barbados cricket union—was not White. A whole group of world sports leaders was therefore banned from having lunch here at Parliament.

As I have said, however, times have changed. How people’s ideas have changed! How different it is today! The hon the State President has said that apartheid is outmoded and an obsolete policy. Racial discrimination, he says, is to be eliminated. Today, an hon member of the NP can stand up and say with impunity that Black political aspirations can only be satisfied by representation in a central parliament. I applaud that statement.

In truth, much that is positive has happened in our country. Allow me to mention merely some of the events we have witnessed in the past seven years. We have seen the introduction of non-discriminatory labour laws and the emergence of Black and non-racial trade unions and the total integration of sport, except in schools. We now have uniform tax laws. Blacks are now admitted to the so-called White universities and the quota system is not applied. Mixed business areas are to be found throughout the country. We have seen the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, the abolition of influx control—the pass laws—and the repeal of the prohibition on mixed political parties.

In the past few years, this Parliament has witnessed the abolition of all racial restrictions on the sale of liquor; the granting of residential rights to Coloureds and Indians in the Orange Free State and in northern Natal; the abolition of different identity documents for people of different colours; the restoration of citizenship rights to Black persons whose rights had been taken away some years before; and the granting of property ownership rights for Black South Africans in the urban townships.

We have lived through the elimination of statutory racial barriers in hotels, restaurants, cinemas and theatres. We have seen the opening of almost all recreational areas and facilities to all races.

I could go on; I have not presented a comprehensive list. I would add, however, that this represents not just reform, but a real change of direction and of its past policies by the governing party. There is certainly much that remains to be done, but it is equally true that a great deal has already been done, and it is not all cosmetic. Much that is real reform or change is part of our everyday lives right now as we sit here in this House.

Let us look at the agenda for the future. What must we do in the months that lie ahead? I say that the Group Areas Act has to go in its entirety. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act must be repealed. Educational and hospital facilities must be opened to all people and all taxpayers in this country. Lastly and most importantly, real initiatives must now be taken to negotiate a credible, acceptable, non-discriminatory constitution which will draw support from all our diverse communities. That, I believe, will be the toughest task of all, and it is certainly the most critical task that is yet to be tackled.

However, there can be no going back. There can be no return to the seventies. It is only the CP which promises to the voters in this country a future for the past. Make no error, this conservative pie in the sky will in the short term gain yet more support, especially in electoral terms. Seats will be lost. Hon members who are sitting in this House may yet lose seats to the CP. It is not something that effects only the NP. The rightwing tide, as we see it today, washes across the spectrum and will affect my party very radically as well. It is therefore vital that all those who are on the side of change and reform should learn the lessons of the last general election and of the by-elections recently held. [Interjections.]

I believe that the most important lesson for the Government, as spelled out in Beeld, is that South African citizens and voters want to know where they are going and where their leaders are taking them. Creeping reform, largely by stealth, step by step, bit by bit, with no end-plan or strategy in sight, will never satisfy Black South Africans, but it will scare the daylights out of prejudiced and frightened White voters. I therefore say to the Government: “Please spell out where you wish to lead the country. Tell us how you see the South Africa of tomorrow and start moving rapidly to get there.” Those who wish to go backwards, or even those who wish to stand still, must be left in the dust where they belong. The changes in the fabric of our society must be so entrenched that no political minority party can in the future reverse those changes without the consent of the overwhelming majority.

During this debate, one hon member queried the capability of the CP to govern within the framework of this Constitution. He also queried the CP’s ability to change the Constitution to suit itself should it ever come to power. Of course the CP has a secret plan to collapse the Constitution if it should gain a majority in the House of Assembly. [Interjections:] We should not bluff ourselves on that score. How are they going to do this? It involves using the power of the presidency to declare all matters—yes, Sir, all matters— except education, hospitals and housing, to be own affairs for the Whites. This means that foreign affairs, defence, transport, justice etc will become own affairs for the Whites under CP rule, thus effectively reverting to the pre-1983 situation, but with one difference, with Coloureds and Indians taxing their own people to finance their own limited affairs. In that way the CP hopes that the other two Houses will wither and die.

I say that this will fail. As sure as we in the PFP stand here, should the CP ever get close to power—heaven forbid—we in the PFP will use whatever voting power we have to prevent them coming into government. [Interjections.] However, the main moves must still be made by the Government and not by us. There are no alternatives. The only course is to complete the total abolition of all apartheid laws and to do it quickly and then to move on to a new and better constitution. In all these projects, we will be the Government’s allies, for the tide of the right wing affects us too, and if the Government fails in its task and falls to the “Right” the politics of the past will be upon us.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sandton must excuse me if I do not react directly to what he said because he used a lot of his time to talk about the past, and I think it is very important to talk about the future. He must also spell out the implications of the suggestions for the future. The NP will do that in due course; we shall attend to all those matters in the future.

*I should like to come back to the amendment moved here by the Official Opposition at the start of this debate. One of the main components of their amendment is the allegation that inadequate provision was made for agriculture in this year’s budget. At first glance this may seem to be the case, but I want to tell those hon members today, also with reference to the remark the hon member for Lichtenburg made here regarding the redistribution of wealth, that the hon members on this side of the House are not in favour of the redistribution of wealth either. We have said so repeatedly. What is important is that we are dealing with the redistribution of income. The Official Opposition must tell us whether they agree with this. If they do not agree—I want to get back to the Agriculture Vote in the main Budget—it is also true that one cannot take the wealth or the income of one group and place it on the budget of another group in order to achieve certain objectives.

What is very important is that we should consider for a moment the implications of agricultural assistance in South Africa. I took a look at the median in respect of the personal tax of the White taxpayer in South Africa this year. The median which the average White taxpayer in this country pays is R1 552. If one then looks at the subsidy of R1,1 billion, which constitutes direct donations to agriculture over the past few years, one finds that this means that we took the money of 708 763 White taxpayers to be able to achieve this one objective, namely that of getting agriculture out of trouble.

A budget for agriculture does not work like a budget for education or any other kind of Budget. One can plan these other aspects in detail in advance. One can make a five-year projection and one knows that certain escalations are going to take place. An element of variation is, in fact, inherent in an agriculture Budget, so that when there are problems, one can address certain specific problems this year, and then next year, when the problem has been solved or partially solved, one can get back to normal. This is precisely what happened in this Budget. I want to agree with the hon member for Heilbron and say that I am not at all surprised either that the Official Opposition did not even have a speaker in this debate to discuss the agricultural component of this budget.

One must not only consider the Budget when one thinks about aid to agriculture. Agriculture is also assisted in many other indirect ways which are not financed in a Budget and are not reflected in it. One example of this is this State-guarantee scheme which the Government has made available to the co-operatives. Participation in that State-guarantee scheme of R800 million is apparently going to lead to a payments of between R25 million and R50 million this year. This is not reflected in this Budget. Then there is the R804 million guarantee included in Vote 17: Agricultural Economics and Marketing—which deals with guarantees to co-operatives and control boards. Together these guarantees total R2 billion, which this Government furnishes to agriculture. There is also the direct fuel subsidy which falls under Vote 18—Trade and Industry—and one very clearly sees that virtually R298 million went directly to agriculture, although this is not dealt with under the Agriculture vote.

I want to touch on another aspect here which is very frequently misleading, and that is that assistance to South African agriculture is compared with such assistance abroad. Different Governments use different measures to support their agriculture. We know about the EEC’s and the USA’s measures. However, it is very important for one to ascertain whether a comparison can be drawn between the extent to which agriculture is supported in South Africa and the extent to which it is supported in other parts of the world.

At international level a standard has been developed, the so-called producer subsidy equivalent or PSE. This is used to ascertain to what extent agriculture is subsidised. In other words, if one were to cease implementing this measure, how much would one have to compensate that producer to place him in the same position in which he was before.

It is very interesting that they only mention South Africa in respect of three commodities. These are wheat, maize and sugar. Internationally anything under 25% is considered a low subsidy or PSE. Between 25% and 49% is considered moderate, and more than that is considered high. As regards wheat, for example, the EEC, the USA and the RSA have precisely the same equivalent. As regards maize, the EEC is lower, but the USA and the RSA yet again have the same equivalent. In respect of sugar all three are in the high-component bracket, namely more than 50%. I am merely trying to show that South Africa does not lag behind in respect of its assistance to agriculture.

In conclusion I want to say a few words to the hon the Minister of Finance, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the Government in respect of agriculture and its future. This should not be seen as criticism, because as far as I am concerned it is rather a matter of rearranging priorities in all our future planning for agriculture.

During the past few years we have had these aid measures for which we are extremely grateful. I do not know what percentage of farmers would still have been on their farms if it had not been for these measures. I know the farmers are also grateful, in spite of what is often said in this House. The Government must take cognisance of this.

As far as I personally am concerned, reconstruction does not only involve aid measures. The Government certainly does not intend this to be the case either. If we consider what the aid measures involve at this stage, we see that they certainly concern this component we are discussing here, sound financing for the future, as well as sound farming practices. I do not want to pursue this matter because we have already said enough about this. Constant attention is being given to this.

†The hon member for Mooi River pointed out a number of things on Tuesday, making a few statements and proposals to which I would like to react. Because of a lack of time I cannot cover them all, but I would like to mention one thing he said. He spoke about the total involvement to solve this agricultural problem.

*I cannot agree more wholeheartedly with what the hon member for Mooi River said. He also made other proposals regarding the short-term debt position and so on, but I think these matters are, in fact, being addressed in these most recent proposals.

When we talk about reconstruction, it seems to me we are running around in circles. If we take maize and try to solve a problem there, the producers change over to wheat or to other crops. At this stage everyone is dejected about the possibly large crops which the RSA may have. Time is running out, because we must also retain the sympathy of our consumers, our taxpayers. The hon member for Mooi River spoke about a “festering sore”. That is what is worrying me about the future.

When we talk about the economy of the country, we all say that it can only recover through production. If we can produce in South Africa, we can solve this problem. When we talk about our foreign debt, we know that we must export to be able to pay that foreign debt. However, when it comes to agriculture, we are in the process of introducing certain measures and sending out signals to curtail production. I can quite understand why this is being done, but personally I feel that our long-term solutions lie in the total exploitation of our production potential in agriculture. We have everything we need—the infrastructure, the people who want to farm, the co-operatives at our disposal, the storage facilities, the marketing legislation and the industrial potential.

I have a problem with the fact that we have reduced the bread subsidy in this Budget. I do not want to speak here on behalf of the wheat farmers, but I made a few calculations as regards the reduction of R50 million in the bread subsidy. A total of 1,3 billion loaves of brown bread are marketed in South Africa annually. With the reduction in the bread subsidy, the price of a loaf of bread would have to rise by 3,68 cents. We know that in the present climate no increases are being envisaged in any sphere this year. If we want to normalise the effect of the reduction in the bread subsidy, we shall have to reduce the producer price by R50 per ton to have the same effect as an increase in the price of bread. The millers and bakers then cannot get an increase either. I know why this is being done, but it places a damper on the production potential of agriculture.

There are three ways in which we can solve this agricultural problem in future. In the first place we must continue to create the prospect of production in South Africa. This consists of two components, and I shall get back to this in a moment. In the second place we must tackle the risk factor of climatic conditions in South Africa in some way or other, or else year after year we shall be faced with the problem that some or other part of the country will be hit by a natural disaster, such as a drought, and that the hon the Minister of Finance’s plans will go totally awry. In the third place we must control the input costs. I am not going to talk about this now, because I feel the entire Budget this year is aimed at controlling inflation in our country.

In the first place I want to ask that we spend money on research into the processing of our surplus agricultural products. We can have a long discussion on this. I am sure that we can think of some way of processing all the surplus products by means of some mechanical process and producing a nutritional food which we can feed to the hungry people in this country. I want to ask that we give priority to this research in future budgets.

I also want to ask that we investigate support for our agricultural exports. I know we are already doing this, but I am mentioning this for the sake of completeness. This must be done in order to utilise the production potential in our country to the full. We must reduce our risks by spending money on research into a national crop insurance scheme. The Government will initially have to help to launch this, but eventually it will be able to stand on its own two feet. Such a reserve fund can then be used during disasters such as droughts, etc. This will obviate the present distortion of the Budget in future.

I want to conclude by saying that we are like the tramp who was asked why he begged. He replied that he begged in order to be able to drink. Then he was asked why he drank. He replied that he drank in order to be strong enough to beg. We would seem to be experiencing the same vicious circle in agriculture. All I am asking for is a rearrangement of priorities. I am asking for permanent solutions. The hon the Minister of Finance is undertaking long-term planning. I hope he will also consider this. I hope he will approach the problems in agriculture with an open mind and a new vision. With these words I want to pledge my whole-hearted support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to link up with any of the previous speakers, because I do not have enough time to do so. However, I want to say a few words about the style of debating of the Official Opposition. They debate in the typical Africa style. They believe that the louder one shouts and the more emotion one incites, the more convincing one is. However, I want to assure them that this is certainly not the case.

In this debate on the Appropriation Bill I want to say a few words about the patriotism of the Official Opposition. True patriotism goes much further than the patriotism we experienced from that side of the House. I should like to explain what I mean.

The year 1988 is characterised by four big festivals. One of these is the fortieth anniversary of the NP’s coming to power. The other celebrations are the Dias Festival, the Huguenot Festival and the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek.

We have joint Dias and Huguenot Festivals. However, we have two Voortrekker festivals. I find this interesting, and I asked myself what the actual reason for this was. Why are there two separate festivals? The reason being advanced by the Official Opposition is that the NP is supposed to have forsaken the ideal of the Voortrekkers. I do not want to discuss the respective ideals of the Voortrekkers. I merely want to summarise them as follows. The ideals of the Voortrekkers were simply to be free and to work out their own destiny. The Voortrekker ideal therefore lay in the constant search for acceptable solutions to contemporary problems—not short-term solutions or the realisation of emotional ideals. There must therefore be another reason why a separate Voortrekker festival is being held by that side of the House.

I want to explain briefly why there is a separate festival. In order to understand what significance this festival has for present-day politics, I want to refer hon members briefly to a similar festival approximately 50 years ago. I want to quote from a number of newspapers of the time. I want to quote one specific item from Die Vaderland of 1938. This report reads as follows, and I am quoting:

They did not know the CP.

I am getting to that. The reason why the Official Opposition wants a separate festival is because they do not want Afrikaner unity, in spite of what the hon member for Potgietersrus said in the House this week.

They are not interested in Afrikaner unity, for the simple reason that the CP is drunk with a lust for political power. [Interjections.] I can motivate my statement for hon members. The Official Opposition’s lust for political power has gone so far that they have embraced the AWB. I ask myself whether it is simply a coincidence that the AWB’s number 7, with its so-called Christian connotation, is the same number as that which appeared on Hitler’s membership card of the German Labour Party. At some stage I should like to hear a reply to this.

As regards the consequences of the CP’s policy, it will lead to precisely what happened in Rhodesia. In Rhodesia the Whites had the opportunity, in 1962, to accept the constitutional amendments of Sir Edgar Whitehead. What this amounted to, inter alia, was that provision was made for a Black Cabinet member and A and B voter’s rolls. In the subsequent election, the proposals of Sir Edgar Whitehead were, however, rejected and he was replaced by the Rhodesian Front with their rightwing leanings. That is why what happened in Rhodesia did happen. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton does not believe it, but he should go and read the history books. That is precisely what happened. The opposite happened to what they have said time and again in all the elections and in the by-elections in respect of the NP. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with a few remarks on the enthusiasm which followed on the ox-wagon trek, which culminated in the establishment of the Ossewabrandwag, which at one stage had more members than the NP. In the same way I believe that in due course there will be greater enthusiasm for the Official Opposition—this is natural—but as surely as the emotional enthusiasm for the Ossewabrandwag, Nuwe Orde en Gryshemde petered out as reality took over— and some of those hon members should know that—the present, short-lived enthusiasm for them, which I do not begrudge them after the by-elections, will also peter out. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I shall not reply to the hon member for Bloemfontein North now.

†I want to make a special plea today on behalf of the flood victims in Natal, especially those in the rural areas. The Ndwedwe district, better known as the Valley of a Thousand Hills, was probably one of the areas worst affected in the Natal floods in September last year when the Umgeni and Umzunduzi rivers came down in a raging flood. We all saw it on television.

It was, however, not only the people in the flooded valley who were hit by the disaster; in fact, in the rural areas people tend to live on the slopes and not on the river banks and after a full week of driving rain, the traditional mud houses simply collapsed, either partly or totally, as the walls became soggy.

I went down into the valley with my neighbouring KwaZulu MP and the local chiefs about two days after the flood. It was quite apparent that the administrative structures that existed in the rural areas would not be able to cope with the administrative situation. There were literally thousands of families affected and in the Ndwedwe district especially the magistrate’s office, where people were supposed to lodge their claims, was cut off from the southern side of the Umgeni River for about two months. One could only get there by a detour of about one hundred kilometres.

Nevertheless, Sir, relief agencies did wonderful work. Members of the public donated food, blankets, clothes, building material and other items and also provided scrambler bikes and four-wheel drive vehicles to distribute their goods.

I think a fantastic effort was made by all. The families who completely lost their homes were put up in schools, churches, etc. That solved their immediate problems. The Disaster Fund was also then set up, and that settled the short term activity.

*I should like to refer to what is being done in the long term, however. In the first place a long form appeared. The form consisted of 13 pages, and was obviously too complex for the people in the rural areas. An abridged version of the form, which consisted of only a few pages, was issued later. This was the form that was used for the Domoina flood disaster. According to that form there was no list of items of what people had lost, but a global amount was paid out per room. If, for example, one had had a four-bedroomed house, one would get R100 for the contents of each room. Naturally this was completely insufficient to compensate people for their damages, but at least it could help them to get going again. There was the tragic case of a grandmother, for example, whose house was destroyed completely by the flood. Her children had got together and bought her a bedroom suite—a cupboard and a bed, etc. It cost them R350. They had paid the last instalment only the week before, when everything was swept away by the flood. One could get only R100 per room. In other words, there was no compensation for the sewing machine, the radio, etc, which had been washed away. Fortunately the people accept that the disaster fund is not there to compensate them in full, but to get them going again.

In the Ndwedwe district alone there were almost 15 000 claims. After six and a half months, only approximately 5 000 claims have been paid out. Many families whose homes and everything they contained were washed away completely …

Which district was this?

Ndwedwe, in the Valley of a Thousand Hills. As I said, many of those families who lost everything have not been paid out yet. They cannot make use of offers of building material at cost price. Those people are still living in terrible conditions. I think they must be accommodated now. Six and a half months have passed, and I want to ask whether we cannot appoint a special task group to accelerate the handling of these claims.

In the second place I want to lodge an appeal on behalf of the people who had to be moved as a result of the building of the Inanda Dam. Almost 150 families lost everything because they were living in the dam basin. The dam was at a stage of semi-completion at the time, it was getting full …[Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat just for a moment? Hon members must really assist the Chair and lower their voices. I can barely hear the hon member, unless he stands there shouting from his bench. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said, a number of families lost everything, because the semi-completed dam filled up. Those people could get nothing back, because everything was covered with two to three feet of silt and sand. They could not anything back, therefore. They could not even go and live there again. A plan was quickly devised to take them to the place to which they would have been moved, but once again there is a problem in that although those people are being accommodated in corrugated iron houses on a temporary basis, they have received no compensation as yet.

What have we done? Early in October I went with some of those people to a meeting with officials from the Department of Development Aid. An appeal was lodged to the effect that those people should be regarded as people in special circumstances, because they should never have been there.

One feels that they should also have been compensated for the loss of the contents of their homes. That has not been done at this stage, and once again I appeal for urgent attention to be given, specifically to the cases of the people who were involved in the removal, but also in general to all the people in Natal who have been waiting for six and a half months and have not yet been paid out.

I want to refer briefly to what happened in the House yesterday after the hon member for Durban-Central had made his speech. He referred to the so-called holy war between the hon the State President and certain church leaders. He said there would be a holy war when both sides claimed Christianity as the basis for their political endeavours. The hon member pointed out that these church leaders say they talk on behalf of the oppressed in this country and that that is all that they lay claim to. The hon member Mr Hattingh said he rejected the claim that this was a holy war, because:

That is the point. If hon members on the opposite side of the House want to claim that these church leaders do not talk on behalf of the oppressed and the people who have no rights, but on behalf of a so-called Marxist government, they are in fact declaring a holy war. You see, Sir—I think few hon members expected this—Bishop Tutu has rejected Marxism. In his letter he rejected it implicitly as an ideology and said he was not in favour of it. [Interjections.]

Implicitly or explicitly?

Explicitly. He wrote it.

Order! It is not the function of the Chair to restrict a political discussion or any other discussion in the House in any way, but in all responsibility I want to point out to hon members that in my humble opinion this discussion about a holy war should not be taken too far in this House. I do not want to make any further comment, but I want to address a word of warning from the Chair, because this is a sensitive subject which hon members should approach very cautiously and with great responsibility; otherwise we might become involved in something that could cause problems.

Mr Speaker, I cannot but agree with you, because this is precisely what we were referring to by saying in the House yesterday that dealing with this matter on this basis holds no salvation for anyone.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Greytown devoted the greater part of his speech to his constituency, and he will understand if I do not react to that, since I have no direct interest in what he said.

It was interesting to listen to the hon member for Lichtenburg this morning, and to the hon member for Barberton next to him earlier in the debate. I merely want to make one comment. The two hon members’ contributions in this debate remind one of the man who was elected to the church council, and when he was asked what he was going to do in the church council, he said he would make sure that dog-tax was abolished. They are completely out of step with the reality of our circumstances.

I want to talk briefly about an industry in South Africa which is proud of making a contribution to the Treasury.

The beer industry consists of a number of components. The agricultural component of this industry supplied agricultural products to the value of approximately R115 million last year. The secondary industry of the beer-brewing industry effected savings to the value of R109 million in foreign exchange for South Africa. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if the consumption of beer keeps to its present pattern, this industry can save South Africa more than R1 000 million in foreign exchange in the next ten years, because the industry itself produces malt on the domestic front.

A third component of this industry is the hon the Minister’s Treasury which estimates that it will collect more than R1 000 million in excise duty and general sales tax in the present budget. This means that the Treasury receives more than R3 million per working day from this industry. The hon member for Swellendam and I, as primary producers in the Overberg, are proud of being part of an industry which can contribute to the Treasury on such a scale, because we can afford to do so and because we should like to see this trend continuing in future.

An important phenomenon is that the consumer’s preference is one of the most important reasons for the pattern of consumption in this industry. It is clear that the consumer cannot be cheated in the long or short term with regard to the quality of the product at the price at which it is supplied to him. It is interesting, in this connection, that beer consumption in South Africa has more than doubled to 46 litres per capita during the past 17 years. That does not mean much, because it places us only 28th on the world list of beer consumers. There is still a lot of room for improvement, therefore, for the primary producer as well as for the hon the Minister, because we are not selling enough beer yet.

During the past 17 years the price of beer has increased by an average of 8,7%. This has caused beer to have a price advantage of approximately 40% in comparison with other sectors in the liquor industry. The main reason for this is that the industry managed to lower the real price of beer during this period. That is an important achievement. I want to add immediately that consumer preference was probably the most important reason for this. The reason for the consumers’ preference for beer was the quality of the product and the fact that the price had dropped in real terms.

The price of beer dropped for two important reasons. The first of these was the good management of the industry, from the primary producer to the final retailer, as well as high productivity and the industry’s willingness to invest enormous capital amounts in the industry. The old adage, “the laurels in life go to those who show their good qualities in action”, is true of this industry. It is an industry which does not plead poverty when it makes profits, but which gives back to the economy and to social investments and all other investments in this industry, which is something we are all proud of.

A second reason that made it possible to reduce the real price of beer over a period of 17 years— I want to compliment the hon the Minister on his efforts in that connection—was the conservative excise policy followed by the present hon Minister and his predecessors with regard to the beer industry. I want to thank him for that. As a result, the industry receives 60% of the total revenue from beer sales, and 67% of all Treasury revenue is recovered from excise duty on the beer trade.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that one cannot overemphasise the importance of the beer market as a source of Treasury revenue, and on behalf of the Overberg producers, who render the most important raw materials for the beer industry, I want to tell the hon the Minister that we would like to see this favourable Treasury revenue trend continue. We would like to assist with the sale of the product so that the hon the Minister, the consumer, the industry and the private producer can benefit.

It appears that the three components—the consumer, the industry and the Treasury—derive the greatest advantage from the beer industry if price increases do not rise above 8% over a certain period. Because excise duty plays an important part in determining the price, the ratio of excise duty to the retail price is important, and in this connection I want to compliment the hon the Minister once again. In 1970 excise duty made up 37% of the retail price of beer. Today it is only 17,9%. Against the background of this record of Treasury revenue, I should like to emphasise that the Treasury’s total income from tax is directly affected by the rate of change in tax per unit of the product. History has shown that the Treasury is benefited most by a relatively low excise duty as a percentage of the retail price of the product. It looks as though a tax rate of between 6% and 8% on beer can result in a growth rate of approximately 16% in the total tax.

I should like to compliment the beer industry in South Africa in this respect, however. This favourable state of affairs can be ascribed to both the hon the Minister’s conservative policy with regard to excise duty, and the good management of the industry.

We are dealing with the industry as a whole, as I said earlier—from the barley producers in the Overberg to the retailers. The contribution they render to the Treasury is one we can afford and are proud of, and we should like to see this continue.

I want to conclude by making three statements, and I shall be grateful if the hon the Minister could see his way clear to commenting on them in his reply. In the first place I want to say that a moderate excise policy is important if the consumer, the industry and the Treasury are to derive maximum benefit.

Other sectors of the liquor industry have their own distinctive problems, and I do not want to say anything about them. One thing is very clear, however, and that is that price increases in the liquor industry should not develop into the only means of ensuring producers’ income and profits. The use of the product should not decline as a result of price increases, because that is not to the advantage of the producer or of anyone in the industry.

The use of a price mechanism to regulate income could easily give rise to stagnation in turn-over and to everyone’s suffering losses.

In my opinion the implementation of the excise policy—this is my third point—to rectify structural problems in certain sectors of the liquor industry would be a mistake, and I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that although the beer industry is proud of making this contribution, and would like to continue to do so, the implementation of a moderate excise policy is the only possible way in which this can continue.

Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak after the hon member for Caledon. He always makes a well-considered contribution in the House.

I am not really going to react to what the hon member said. We have more or less come to the end of this debate, and it was very enlightening to listen to all the speakers and to note that as always the contributions, particularly those from this side of the House, were very good and positive. It was also enlightening to listen to the contributions of the Official Opposition and the other opposition parties, however. By this time we know that their contributions usually consist of criticism and are not constructive.

I should also like to express my thanks and utmost appreciation to the hon the Minister of Finance as well as his department for the Budget they submitted. In this way the Government has committed itself unconditionally to placing the country’s economy on the best basis ever. This was also proved in the hon the State President’s opening speech. The head of state himself paved the way for the Budget which followed in order to effect a proper and stable economy for our country.

He did this with the utmost responsibility, regardless of the possible consequences this could have for the NP and the Government, and regardless of the by-elections that followed. The responsibility displayed by the hon the State President was in the interests of South Africa and not simply to canvass votes at that time. It was done for our future and was future-orientated, because only a strong economy can pave the way for reform and political stability.

The course chosen by the hon the State President was followed by the hon the Minister of Finance in the Budget, because this Government has a responsibility towards the country and its people, whereas the opposition has no responsibility in that sense of the word. [Interjections.] That is why the Official Opposition said many absurd things, as I indicated in the beginning. This was merely done to criticise us and to get at the Government without any attempt being made on their part to contribute towards stabilising the country’s economy; on the contrary, the opposition is more intent on scuttling things that can be to their advantage, because they do not have the responsibility of governing the country in future.

They are grateful, in any case, that the NP is governing the country. The members of the Official Opposition know just as well as each of us does that we must have a stable economy. That is a prerequisite for political stability and reform. They are opposed to the latter, in particular, when it is a matter of reform. Do they want to stagnate in the past or would they also like to continue to exist in this country?

They have stagnated already.

No, Sir, they are trying repeatedly to bring the NP to a fall.

The hon member for Barberton said the NP had not come forward with a plan to protect the Whites. What has the NP been doing for the past 40 years, however? Apart from the fact that the NP has protected the rights of the Whites until now, it has also firmly established the rights of the Whites. These rights have been established in proper political structures which will continue to develop and will stabilise firmly. I have great appreciation for the hon member for Barberton, because he is an experienced politician and we have discussions with one another from time to time. I feel sorry for him sometimes, however, because I think he must be frustrated in his party at times, since they do not always permit him to use his intelligence and to stick to the realities.

I should like to mention one extremely important aspect of reform—an aspect of reform to which the Official Opposition is completely opposed. This will become clearer in the near future, before the end of the year. I am referring to the establishment of regional services councils. On the level of local government it is NP policy to bring government as close as possible to our people. It is extremely important that we succeed in this in the process of reform, because in my opinion this is ultimately the precursor to greater reform on the level of central government. The Official Opposition know in their hearts that this is true and that change must take place, because one cannot stagnate, as one of their prominent city council members, a candidate in the recent general election, said. He serves on a regional services council and is a member of that party, and he believes it can work. He says it is not necessary for us always to build bridges when, once we have built them, we are too afraid to use them. A member of that party serves on a regional services council.

We must accept that there are other groups in our country. We say this to one another every day. We know that the concepts of own affairs and general affairs work. The Official Opposition knows this too, because they are taking part in these structures quite happily, as some of their members are taking part in the regional services council structure. The existence of municipalities is a fact, also with reference to different population groups. In terms of this, every population group is represented in its own council. After all, there are general affairs among these respective local authorities too, whether the authority is a city council or a town council or a management committee. My question now is this: Why cannot those elected councils work together? Ultimately this would be in the interests of each of those councils. In my opinion the process that is developing on the local level is a constellation of elected councils in miniature.

That is how I should like to describe it. After all, the regional services council is not going to prescribe to a specific local authority on own affairs, but together they can render meaningful service to a broad community. The autonomous right of each local authority is not taken away from it by the regional services council, after all. It is not a case of one group ruling another within that regional services council.

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

No, Sir, I have only four minutes left.

You are too scared.

I am not scared.

In connection with ethnic relations …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: May one hon member tell another he is scared?

Order! No, he may not. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. May I address you further on a point of order?

Order! Certainly.

During the speech of the hon member for Heilbron he clearly said of an hon member of the CP that he was “te bang”, and you heard him …

Order! No, points of order should be taken at the time when the situation arises. I cannot go back in history. There is a reason for that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this arises directly out of the point of order which has just been taken by the hon member for Heilbron. You have now given the ruling that we may not say …

Order! No. I do not wish to advance reasons for that rule, but one might be to prevent hon members from saving points of order until a speaker of another party rises, so as to waste his time. That might be the reason. Whatever the situation might have been, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central could have risen when the hon member for Heilbron made that alleged remark. Then it would have been in order. The hon member for Algoa may continue.

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on this point of order?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr Chairman, may I then do so when the hon member for Algoa has resumed his seat? [Interjections.]

Order! No, not at all. I have given my ruling on the point of order, and the matter is closed as far as I am concerned. The hon member for Algoa may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in the context of ethnic relations, own and general affairs, I should like to quote someone who spoke very authoritatively on this subject in this House. I also want to qualify this, however. That person was someone who had a position of responsibility when he was still in the Government. I quote the following from a speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said in November 1981:

In the first place he mentioned:

That is the principle we apply. In the second place:

In the third place:

In the fourth place:

Mr Chairman, unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, we have come to the end of a very long debate, and I fear that even an objective evaluation of this debate would show that the country’s economy, seen as a whole, was not given its rightful share in the discussions, especially not in respect of the opposition. There was one very good exception, however, viz the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. The hon member for Yeoville made a speech which, with regard to his analysis of the problems in the South African economy, of which we and our advisers are obviously thoroughly aware serves as a reference.

With the exception of that speech, there really was not a single speech from the side of the opposition which did justice to what is a very important Budget. We shall have an opportunity to summarise the whole matter in its perspective on Monday. Allow me a word of very sincere thanks, at this stage, to everyone who made a constructive contribution. Allow me in particular—I shall repeat this on Monday—a word of sincere thanks, on behalf of the advisers and the officials, to those of the hon members who complimented these people. On Monday I should like to attempt a concise analysis of the extremely difficult position of the economy at the moment and the risks we are running, as well as the exceedingly difficult choices that will have to be made at an early stage if a repetition of the 1983-84 circumstances is to be avoided. I shall refer, in particular, to the fact that at this stage one will have to rely on intuition to a great extent in evaluating certain things, because the situation in South Africa, and our international economic position, are extremely uncertain with reference to which specific delicately shaded fiscal and monetary policy we should be implementing in South Africa at the moment. This has reference to the monetary policy in particular.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to make certain references to hon speakers of the Official Opposition. This is the fourth year in which I have had the opportunity to reply to the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill in this House. Every single time, without exception, I have had to point out to hon members of the CP the mistakes in their calculations and in the so-called facts that they dish up to the House. Every time it has been necessary for me to convey certain perspectives to them, perspectives which they very conveniently forget.

I am thinking especially of the hon member for Losberg who was very cheeky at one stage. He demands attention as he probably demanded it in his class. Unfortunately in this House he is not in a classroom. Here the merit of his argument has to hold the attention of hon members of this House. He has no other status on the basis of which he can insist upon their attention. This hon member was an academic. One would have expected a reasonable degree of perspective and objectivity from such an academic in his particular field of study. In his presentation of the foreign debt situation, however, he chose—as we have come to expect of the CP—certain years that suited him, and which, in view of the exchange rate circumstances—which he conveniently concealed—sketch a completely incorrect picture.

No, I did not conceal them!

In other words, if one wants to assume a standpoint on foreign debt, one does so as the hon member for Heilbron did. One does so against the background of certain other important aspects in the economy and certain internationally accepted trends. Then one is being scientifically and intellectually honest. I think this would have been a new experience for many of these hon members, politically speaking; something that was conspicuous by its absence in their arguments. The hon member takes a photograph of a moving scene that he finds suitable. He builds an argument upon that photograph and demands attention. We all then have to sit and listen, unbiased and with concentration, to the load of rubbish he dishes up to us. I should like to react to those aspects of his speech in more detail on Monday.

The Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on the economy, the hon member for Barberton, made certain statements about tax against the background of a report in their newspaper, the Patriot. I shall refer to that in a moment. I have with me a copy of the front page of the Patriot. Once again there is a completely untrue and misleading headline, viz “Blankes verarm”. [Interjections.] If impoverishment is taking place in South Africa as a result of economic conditions, all the people of South Africa are experiencing this to the same extent. That is a point which we shall never be able to get through to them intellectually, however, because they evaluate these matters with their emotions, not with their intellectual capacity.

They call the Patriot a newspaper, but even when it comes to quoting experts it is misleading. Here they say “ekonome het die afgelope week aan die Patriot gesê”. All the other respectable newspapers and financial publications in the country quoted economists by name in their commentary to the Budget. Everyone did so except the Patriot. In my opinion there are two possible reasons for this anonymous mention of “ekonome”. A little further along in this misleading leader article, there is mention of “in ekonomiese kringe”, as is typical of the Official Opposition. The reason for this is one of the following. Either no respectable economist is prepared to be quoted by name in the Patriot, or this was not said by any economist, and was designed as pure, misleading party-political propaganda. [Interjections.] I cannot but come to that conclusion. I challenge them to tell us in the Patriot who their economists are.

Jan van Zyl! [Interjections.]

I do not think there is a single economist of any significance, with regard to intellectual capability or professional integrity, who would like to be quoted in a report that says the following:

There are two gross and blatant untruths in a single paragraph. No wonder economists are anonymous when they talk to the CP. No wonder that if they do not find an economist whom they can talk to, they write that there are economists who are stupid enough to associate themselves with that kind of nonsense.

We on this side of the House cannot but deduce, time and time again, that the CP does not understand a word of the material they write about or talk about in this House. I react to this regularly by means of interjections, because it is torture to have to sit here and listen to speeches of such a low calibre. If, according to a doctor like the hon member for Parktown on the opposite side of the House, I have only got to the point of pulling faces, it is an enormous achievement of tolerance. [Interjections.] We did not announce tax increases as the Patriot said.

The hon member for Barberton now has to try to distort calculations in order to prove their point of view in terms of their propagandist approach to the Budget, which is an untruth. I want to interrupt myself and call my hon colleagues on this side of the House to witness. Have I not said repeatedly in the House that if the hon CP members had problems with their calculations, with economic concepts, with tax calculations, etc, they were welcome to come to the department? We would help them, and we would do so in a friendly way so as perhaps to help them to remember what they have learnt on that occasion.

What happens, however? I do not know whether or not the hon member made the calculations himself. Nor do I know whether he calculated the tax himself, or whether someone else was responsible for these misleading, untrue and mendacious statements in the Patriot, or whether the hon member was using that person’s information. The hon member said, and I quote from Hansard of 11 April 1988:

I can assure hon members that these untrue statements have an excellent chance of finding a home in the infamous columns of this inaccurate newspaper. The facts I am going to give now, and have given repeatedly, will not figure anywhere in the CP’s literature, however. What are the facts? The facts are verifiable. I repeat, if they dish up this kind of inaccuracy to their voters when they have verifiable facts at their disposal, what do they tell their voters in terms of non-verifiable figures?

The day will come when even those voters who struggle with mathematics and figures will find that the CPs have always told them untruths about these things. It will all come out one day. I do not know how people who say that they want to conduct honest politics can keep on telling such untruths in this Budget after three previous Budgets. If one does not acquaint oneself with the truth that is fully available to one and one turns repeatedly to inaccuracies and untrue interpretations, one has only one purpose in mind. Then it is no accident anymore. The CP is insulting its workers by thinking that they will not verify or understand these things.

What are the facts? In the first place, if a man earns R100 000 and his wife earns R20 000, the tax they pay is R39 085, not R38 885 as the hon member for Barberton claimed. His figure was incorrect. If I understand it correctly, the error was in his favour. If he had done his homework properly, they would have paid even more in tax. He used a lower figure, however, because his figure was incorrect.

That is how honest we are.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says that is how honest they are. That is not the crux of the matter, however.

In the opposite case he stated that the couple would have to pay R3 000 more in tax. That is what the CP wants to use to intimidate the taxpayers and incite them against the Government. That is what the hon member used in an attempt to make his previous statement credible. In the opposite case in which the wife earns R100 000 and the husband R20 000, their joint liability is approximately R34 000 and not R41 000. [Interjections.] In the case in which the husband earns R20 000, he does not have the advantages of the standard income tax for employees that the wife has. That situation is to our detriment, therefore.

What are the facts? The fact is that they do not pay R3 000 more. In reality, in the poor circumstances that we know apply in that case, they pay more than R4 000 less in tax. These are the facts. I wrote a note to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the margin. Here it is. My note reads: CIR. That stands for Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The note says, “Can you guarantee these figures as being absolutely correct?” Here is his note in which he said he could, since he had verified the figures himself. These are the correct figures in comparison with last year’s figures. [Interjections.] There are numerous such examples which I shall come to later.

In conclusion I want to reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg’s comment about productivity. He spoke about productivity and wanted productivity-linked remuneration as an absolute rule in the economy. Did I understand the hon member correctly?

Yes!

I appreciate the hon member’s confirmation. In the first place I concede that that is a praiseworthy management approach. Praiseworthy! The degree to which this is practicable and enforceable on the total economy by means of a budget is something that neither the best advisers nor the best available literature on Government finance have been able to tell me.

I shall say no more about that. According to the records kept by the whips, 9,8%, 9,8%, 3%, 9,8% and 7,5% of the NP’s members were absent on five days, on 10, 15, 16, 17 and 24 March respectively.

Just look at that!

In respect of the CP members, the absenteeism on those days—members were not in the House at all—was 45%, 50%, 35%, 45% and 50%. [Interjections.] I suggest that we decide, on the basis of this neatly selected spot check, using the technique of the CP, to link House of Assembly members’ remuneration to their productivity in future, since they were elected to be here in the House. [Interjections.] They were elected to be here! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, did the hon the Minister’s whips also keep records of the percentage of Cabinet Ministers’ presence while this debate was in progress? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it would be a good thing if all Cabinet members could be present at all debates. That is not practicable, however. I can attest to what happens to my diary. There are dozens of delegations that have to wait for months to get appointments with me at civilised times of the day because of the fact that I have to be here all week. I know about the hundreds of letters, and I mean hundreds, which pile up on my desk in the space of a week and are waiting to be read and signed individually.

Having discussions with delegations and doing one’s duty elsewhere as a member of the Executive is not always quite reconcilable with one’s obligations in the House. It is a great pity, but there are times when Cabinet Ministers have to be elsewhere. I am convinced that there is not a single Cabinet Minister who sits twiddling his thumbs in his office instead of being in the House. [Interjections.]

I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker I move:

Mr Speaker, I want to say just one thing about what we are discussing on the Order Paper at the moment. Before the 'Easter recess we had a debate here in which the hon the Leader of the House held out the prospect of our beginning the debate on the Standing Rules and Orders and the corresponding amendments to the Constitution today. That was what we expected would happen, until yesterday. Now we hear that we are not going to proceed with this debate; in fact, there will be no special debate next Monday or Tuesday to decide on how we are going to debate. We are simply carrying on with legislation and next week we shall proceed with the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill.

That simply shows us the confusion of the whole system of Government at the moment. There is no thought of leadership, and no direction. The whole parliamentary system is bobbing up and down on the ocean like a boat that has no captain and no rudder.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, I want to ask whether the point the hon member for Soutpansberg is broaching has any relevance to the Bill under discussion.

Order! I shall permit the hon member to continue up to a certain point. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member can leave this kind of thing to you instead of interfering with the order in the House from his corner in the back benches.

I now come to the Bill. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we support the Bill. We have no problems with the general gist of the Bill. With reference to clause 4, however, we should like certain assurances from the hon the Minister. Clause 4 extends the powers of the South African Development Trust Corporation to enable it to perform its functions outside the national states as well. As the hon the Minister put in his Second Reading speech, the expertise of this corporation can also be used in the independent states, such as Ciskei, etc, as long as the corporation exists and is available. We have no problems with using that expertise in those areas. In fact, in the example the hon the Minister used of the establishment of a farm, I think the Development Trust Corporation can render a very good service in those areas. My constituency borders on Venda, and the Vendas are working very hard at developing their farms. If the corporation is going to assist them with additional expertise, we have no problem with that.

We also have no problem with the expertise of the South African Development Trust Corporation being utilised for the Coloured and Indian population groups. As these powers are extended, however, we envisage that this can be done for the development of Black areas or Black spots in the White areas, viz for Black farmers in White areas. We have serious objections to that. We should like the hon the Minister’s assurance that there are no plans for the corporation’s expertise to be utilised for this purpose as well. We want this assurance for the following reasons. The national states and the independent neighbouring states have sufficient space and opportunities for the development of Black farming. It is not necessary to have such development of Black farming in the White areas in South Africa.

Secondly we believe that the expertise that is utilised there will be wasted expertise.

Thirdly this will undo the work of decades if one should start developing such spots in White areas again. We should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would give us the assurance that that will not be the case. Apart from that we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank members of the standing committee for their co-operation in making a success of this legislation so that we could submit it to this House. In the second place I want to extend a word of thanks to the officials who were really available at short notice and at all times to provide information and guidance.

I should like to ask hon members to allow me to express a particular word of thanks this afternoon on behalf of the members of the standing committee to the Minister as well for his goodwill and willingness to appear before the standing committee, even at very short notice. I want to tell hon members that as the chairman of a standing committee it is an absolute pleasure and a privilege for me to be able to work with such an hon Minister.

Hear, hear!

At the outset the hon member for Soutpansberg made a few remarks about the arrangements which caused this legislation to be placed on the Order Paper so quickly. We do not begrudge the Official Opposition that little bit of political pleasure, and we shall not debate it with them on this occasion, because it is merely a bit of politicking. However, I do want to tell the hon member that this legislation was thrashed out in the standing committee. I also think it has been on the Order Paper for some time, and by this time we should all be prepared to participate in this debate at short notice, as is the case today, and as hon members on this side of the House are prepared to do. Towards the end of my speech I shall say a few words about the questions which the hon member asked about the STC.

†What I want to say today is that this Bill basically deals with two aspects which I believe are both worthy of support. I want to thank both the Official Opposition and the PFP who have indicated that they will also support this Bill.

Firstly, this Bill deals with rationalisation and deregulation in regard to the Black communities outlying areas of South Africa. It provides for a shortcoming in the existing legislation in regard to the ministerial authority to extend or redefine existing Black townships in order either to subdivide existing local authorities or to combine mutual services of two adjoining townships without interfering in the individual autonomy of those areas.

This has two effects. It rationalises the procedure; in other words, it makes it very much easier for the Minister to act in this regard. It also creates an opportunity to provide for the mechanism by which authority is exercised and services are rendered in a more effective way and also at a lower cost in these Black areas.

Furthermore, I believe the various changes relaxing control over Black entrepreneurship are to be applauded. We would like to emphasise that we support these changes. Among other changes, they do away with the very limiting restrictions on companies with Black controlling interests, and also on certain associations and partnerships with more than six members, to purchase land in trust areas in South Africa without permission from the Minister. This too we applaud. It will enhance the rights of Black people in rural areas to operate with more freedom and in particular to expand their commercial activities and the enterprises in which they want to get involved. This will assist and encourage development of these areas by Black entrepreneurs too.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for the abolition of the requirement of ministerial permission for the issuing of licences to undertake professional and business practices in these Black areas. There is sufficient other protection for Black people in those areas and this new measure stops this inhibition of entrepreneurship in those areas.

Finally I want to bring a very important point to hon members’ attention. I am very pleased indeed that the hon member for Soutpansberg in fact supports this measure on behalf of the Official Opposition, because it provides for the expertise and experience which has been built up over many years by the South African Development Trust Corporation to be made available on request and not only according to their own wishes to other communities in other areas of South Africa as well. I speak from experience. Those of us who have had the opportunity to visit the projects that have been developed by the South African Development Trust Corporation in the Black areas come back with nothing but enthusiasm for the work that is being done in those areas.

The reason why this has happened is that some of the hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Councils of the other two Houses were at a certain stage invited to visit some of these projects. When they saw for themselves the tremendous development that was taking place under the guidance of the Development Trust Corporation, they asked why the expertise could not be made available to them too. Of course this involvement is limited to specific requests and subject to the permission of the trustee.

I would like to say that these amendments will create new opportunities for progress and development by allowing the use of existing experience and expertise instead of so-called foreign expertise in for example the TBVC countries. We are looking forward to this type of co-operation and co-ordination.

*We on this side of the House should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on this measure and wish him and his department and the STC in particular everything of the best in any attempts they may make to develop remote areas in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, we shall be supporting this measure.

The hon member for Turffontein set out in clear detail the provisions of the Bill. It is a complicated Bill of a technical nature and it required a fair amount of research and study to understand what was contained in the measure. I suggested to the hon member for Turffontein at the time of the meetings of the standing committee that it might be a good idea to arrange for the members of the standing committee to attend an information session early in the recess before we got involved in the next round of elections, in order for them to be advised of the workings of the department with regard to trust areas.

Members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development are aware of the activities of the department in that regard but those of us who have an interest in this matter are not always familiar with what is happening there. I would therefore suggest to the hon the Minister that he earnestly consider the possibility of arranging such an information session. I am suggesting not that we should visit the rural districts of the country but rather that we should simply attend an information session in the Head Office in Pretoria early in the recess to bring us up to date with the activities of the department in this regard.

During the course of the standing committee’s meetings on this Bill—there were numerous meetings because we encountered certain problems—the hon member for Turffontein proved to be a very patient and understanding chairman of the standing committee. I was pleased that he was so accommodating, because some members of the standing committee had particular problems and he was able to satisfy all of them. The Bill has now been brought before the House, one clause having been rejected.

Yet I must tell hon members that the hon member for Turffontein displays Jekyll and Hyde qualities. Our association goes back many years. While he was patient and accommodating on that standing committee and went to great lengths to ensure that the Bill finally emerged, his performance was quite different here in the House on Wednesday when he got himself worked up to a large degree over some political matters. I would hope that he could show the degree of patience and understanding he displayed in the standing committee when he gets involved with the CP. [Interjections.]

I do not want to open old wounds but the incident when we got involved with “Fiela” was not becoming to people in public life in this country. I think that he should quietly think about that again.

It might be particularly appropriate that we are not going to have joint debates in the Chamber of Parliament for a while because I do not think it would be appropriate to be involved in that sort of exchange in front of other hon members of Parliament. I think he must think about that in the quiet of the night.

We are going to support the Bill, but I would like to put two questions to the hon the Minister. I do not think anything can be done about them during the course of this debate. I do not think any changes could be made to the Bill at this stage, but they are matters which the hon the Minister might give his attention to. In due course appropriate action could be taken.

In clause 3 of the Bill provision is made for the deletion of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 24 of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. Subsection (3) provides that:

Subsection (4) provides that:

Subsection (5) reads as follows:

We support these deletions, Sir. We are pleased about this but, unfortunately, as is often the case with the Government, it is a case of too little is being done in respect of changes that are brought about. I want to ask the hon the Minister to have a look at subsection (1) of section 24 of the Development Trust Land Act which provides that:

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will not see whether that subsection should not be deleted as well. That could very well be the subject of a further Bill to be is presented to the standing committee.

My second question relates to clause 4 of the Bill, and it is a problem which has arisen because of various Acts which apply at the present time. There is a certain amount of confusion in that we now refer to what were previously the homelands as national states or self-governing states, and these two different descriptions appear in various Acts. When next a Bill is brought to the standing committee to amend various Acts which apply to Black people, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will not consider introducing an amendment to ensure that we have one definition for those territories. Let us call them either national states or self-governing states, whatever they are, but let us have one definition and change the terminology in all the Acts that apply.

I want to conclude by saying that we will support the Bill, but I want to add that I heard the hon the Minister quoted on the radio this morning as saying that this Bill was part of the reform process. While I accept that it is correct and that it is good for reform that change is being brought about, and that it should be accepted and supported, I want to say that it is painfully slow. The pace of change the Government is instituting is desperately slow, and drastic changes have to be made. I want to ask the hon the Minister to use his influence in the Cabinet to ensure that any further changes are brought about brought about as speedily as possible and not as slowly as is happening at the present time.

Mr Chairman, we would like to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North for supporting this legislation.

The hon member for Soutpansberg raised certain issues in regard to clause 4, and I would also like to deal with it. I am sure that the hon the Minister will answer the specific queries raised by him, but I think a little more should be said about the South African Development Trust Corporation. Although it was initially introduced as an interim body, it has fulfilled a very vital role in the economic development of self-governing states and the land administered by the South African Development Trust. The corporation has developed expertise through research, the optimal development of economic resources, the professional and technical assistance promoted through local skills and the promotion of community self-reliance.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, just before the suspension of business at lunchtime, I was dealing with clause 4 of the legislation before us and more specifically with the South African Development Trust Corporation. The corporation operates across the board, including agriculture, mining, industry and commerce, transport and human resources. The corporation is showing a substantial growth rate at the present moment, and the latest balance sheet available discloses assets of some R240 million.

In agriculture, the animal production for 1987 alone included a beef herd of some 25 000 animals, 290 milk herds and small stock units numbering over 5 000. During the 1987 financial year 3 092 new jobs were created by the corporation. I think the success of the corporation is due in great measure to the trustee, the chairman and the board of directors, whom I would like to pay tribute to this afternoon.

A great deal of expertise has led to the establishment of a strong body of Black commercial farmers in the self-governing states. As a result of all this success, other bodies have approached the corporation for assistance. This includes representations from Venda, Ciskei and the Administration of the House of Representatives. The need was for planning, financing and the implementation of farmer-settlement schemes. The Indian community made similar representations, and the matter has received the closest attention of the Cabinet.

It was established, however, that the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, 1968, did not empower the SADTC to operate outside the self-governing states or trust land. It is for this reason that clause 4 was introduced into the Bill. Clause 4(2)(c) provides that any community, person or institution inside or outside the national states may be granted assistance. It is to be noted that it is now no longer—as was the case previously—exclusively for the use of Blacks, but for the other race groups as well. This assistance is, of course, subject to the consent of and the conditions laid down by the trustee of the corporation.

Clause 5 is merely a consequential amendment to the long title of Act 46 of 1968.

There exists a wide range of needs outside the national states and trust land for planning and development. The corporation has the expertise and the know-how at its disposal. This legislation will allow the know-how to be made available to all communities in South Africa. It is reform legislation once more; it is necessary legislation and it is good legislation.

I accordingly have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members sincerely for their support of this Bill and for the positive way in which they have underlined important aspects of the Bill briefly in this short debate. Allow me also to thank the hon member for Turffontein, in addition to thanking him for his contribution to the debate, for the part he plays as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid in promoting the positive treatment of Bills that come before that standing committee, as well as for the excellent liaison he is building up with the relevant departments. The quality of our legislation is thanks mainly to this kind of leadership and I want to express my appreciation to the hon member.

†I would also like to refer to the appreciative remarks the hon member for King William’s Town made with regard to the SDTC, the SA Development Trust Corporation, and to the contribution he made in highlighting some of their achievements from their recent reports. Linking up with the hon member, I would like to pay tribute at this stage to Dr Koos van Marie, who has been managing director of this corporation for a fairly long period and who left the service of the corporation at the end of last month. Fortunately, we have been able to retain Dr Van Marie’s abilities and experience in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of this corporation. Especially in the field of agricultural development, Dr Van Marie in close conjunction with the Director-General of the Department of Development Aid has made, I think, a very meaningful contribution in the area of the settlement—on a commercial basis—of small-scale Black farmers in several areas in the country.

*I also want to thank the hon member for Soutpansberg, who made a friendly apology for his absence, for his support. The hon member put a question to me in connection with whether the SDTC would also exercise its functions—he mentioned this in terms of agriculture in particular— in so-called Black spots, viz Black areas I assume, outside the trust areas and outside the national states. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that since the Government made it clear a few years ago that it would not effect any forced resettlement, the permanence of certain Black areas, which are not part of the trust areas for incorporation into the national states, but were earmarked at some stage for resettlement and which, it appeared in practice, could not be resettled by means of persuasion, was accepted as part of the RSA. I am referring to two cases in particular, viz the eight Black areas in the Ciskei/Transkei corridor, that area between the two independent states, and a number of areas in the Eastern Transvaal, viz KwaNqena and Driefontein, and Daggakraal and Vlakplaas. In all these cases the Government, when it consulted with the representative farming bodies in the regions in question before making its decision known, received the strongest possible insistence from organised agriculture that if those areas were retained as permanent Black settlement areas in the RSA, the upgrading of quality agriculture in those areas and the promotion of those areas by the implementation of the applicable agricultural legislation should be effected with the greatest urgency, especially in view of the long period of neglect that had occurred in awaiting possible resettlement. In this way a sense of pride could be instilled in the inhabitants of these areas so that, in the interests of successful agriculture, they themselves would guard against the abnormal increase of occupation by illegal and unauthorised squatting, for example. For this reason I believe it is necessary, in cases in which the permanence of such areas has been accepted by way of exception, to utilise the SDTC to improve the quality of life in those areas in such a way that the people will not move from there to the urban areas, but will rather cherish the quality of their subsistence possibilities, the quality of their agricultural land and its productivity by combating uncontrolled settlement in their areas.

It is not merely a matter of agriculture, however. The SDTC has also done important work in the sphere of developing passenger transport services, as well as in the sphere of the development of trade activities. I believe that assistance should be granted in such areas in these respects as well, so as to make it possible for Blacks who are living there to keep on living there, even if they should work elsewhere.

We believe, therefore, that in granting this authorisation to the SDTC, it is necessary also to grant further development aid to those Black settlements which are no longer earmarked for resettlement and inclusion in the national states.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North requested the department to arrange a special information session, as I understood him, especially with regard to the department’s role in the trust areas. I thank him for that suggestion. I will certainly take the matter up in the recess and arrange such a session.

The hon member made a further request with regard to section 24(1) of the Development Trust and Land Act which requires that permission of the trustee or an authority authorised by the trustee must be given if any person who is not a Black wishes to practise some profession or do business inside a trust area. Sir, this requirement actually protects the interests of the Black people in such an area until such time as it has been transferred to the national state or self-governing territory concerned. We have received no request from any of the self-governing territories to change this situation. In fact, they themselves apply this section which has to do with the granting or refusal of permission to people from outside the territory who are not Blacks to settle in their areas with a view to doing business. Therefore, I think we should let the governments of the self-governing territories indicate to us whether they want this changed or not. We would have no objection to changing this section provided that we have received such a request from the self-governing territory concerned.

The hon member also referred to the dichotomy resulting from the two terms that are being used for what used to be known as homelands. This matter will be dealt with in a forthcoming Bill which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will submit to Parliament. This Bill will replace the existing National States Constitution Act, and care will be taken to ensure that in future there will be uniformity with regard to terminology.

*I shall confine myself to these comments, and once again I express my sincere thanks to hon members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Excision of Released Areas Bill was submitted for two reasons. In the first place it is intended that the two towns, Soshanguve and Lethlabile, cease to be released areas, and that they be administered and developed in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, and the Development of Black Communities Act, 1984.

It is the CP’s standpoint that this legislation cannot be supported. I want to give our reasons for this briefly.

In the first place it has always been the intention of the NP Government that these two towns, Soshanguve and Lethlabile, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Development Trust, would be incorporated into a self-governing territory or an independent state. Now the Government is suddenly contending that, because of the interethnic composition of these two towns, they can no longer be incorporated into a self-governing territory or an independent state such as Bophuthatswana and that consequently it is desirable to retain them as part of the Republic of South Africa.

It is our standpoint that there is no logic in the argument that since these Black towns are interethnic, they cannot be incorporated into a Black self-governing territory or an independent state and therefore have to be incorporated into South Africa.

We say this is an illogical and retrogressive step. It is a revocation of the NP policy that has existed thus far. With this Bill the Government is going back on the steps it has taken in the past, and is adopting a new policy.

The standpoint of this side of the House is that these two towns should remain in the released trust areas and should not be incorporated into the Republic of South Africa as such, not only because this is illogical, but also because it is in conflict with CP policy. We say that if they cannot be incorporated into a Black area, there is no reason whatsoever to incorporate them into South Africa, because if one were to compare the two areas in respect of which they are closest to, obviously they are closer to Bophuthatswana. That is why we say one of two courses is open to these two towns: They can either remain released areas, or they can be incorporated into Bophuthatswana.

The Government’s choice is to incorporate these two towns into the Republic of South Africa under the pretext of their inter-ethnicity. In our opinion this is in conflict with CP policy, and that is why we oppose this legislation.

Mr Chairman, one can almost sympathise with the hon member for Losberg. I think the hon member for Losberg was completely unprepared to deal with this legislation in this House this afternoon. He is totally uninformed. He has no idea what it is about. It surprises one to have to listen to the hon member. In the standing committee, where those hon members could really have obtained all the answers to their questions, they were so busy with Randfontein, owing to the absence of the two members of the CP who were supposed to serve on that committee, that they sent two other members. Those two members arrived there, and I felt sorry for them. They did not have a clue what it was all about.

Order! The hon member must refer to members as “hon members”.

I am sorry. I am referring to hon members. If I did not do so I apologise. [Interjections.] Two hon members were sent to that standing committee and they told me honestly that they did not know what it was all about. They did not participate in the discussion and they did not ask any questions; on the contrary, they did not even know whether to vote “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

Now we come here, and the hon member for Losberg discusses this matter. I really think it is embarrassing to enter into a debate with these people.

You are an embarrassment.

I am an embarrassment because I am telling the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis must restrain himself.

The hon member for Roodepoort must give me the opportunity to make my speech and put forward my standpoint. If he then still says I am an embarrassment, let him rise this afternoon and tell me whether the substance of what I am saying here this afternoon is an embarrassment.

Where were you during previous debates?

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort must restrain himself!

This measure represents a rational action on the part of the Government to accommodate the realities of the complex South African problems. It comes as no surprise to us that the Official Opposition is opposing the measure, because their irrational approach and their absolute refusal to deal with the problems of South Africa are once again demonstrated by their opposition to this specific measure.

What are we dealing with? There are two Black multi-ethnic, rapidly developing towns which do not fit in with the pattern of incorporation in the national states as regards administration, political rights, or whatever approach one wishes to adopt.

Now I ask—perhaps this is a question those hon members could have asked one if they had done a little homework—whether a precedent is being created with the deproclamation of these areas and their excision from the released areas for transference to Bophuthatswana. I maintain that this is not the case, and I shall tell hon members why I say this.

Are you going back on your own policy?

The hon member for Losberg has just had an opportunity to make a speech, and now he is sitting there asking me questions. He should have asked questions before he rose and made a… I almost said what… of himself here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Examples of multi-ethnic cities in South Africa are legion. There are cities like Soweto, Daveyton, Umlazi, Guguletu and Mamelodi. Hon members can go and look at them throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Those cities are just like Soshanguve and Lethlabile. There is simply no question of the strict ethnic influence of the national states in the character and composition of either of them. This is therefore a striking example of that 50% of South Africa’s Black communities which are going to be accommodated outside the borders of the national states, in that area which we know as the so-called White area of South Africa, in a manner other than the usual idea of inclusion in, or linking up with, the national states of South Africa where political rights are concerned.

There is something interesting about Soshanguve. This is further proof that the hon member for Losberg has no idea about this. I wonder whether he knows where Soshanguve is.

Ask him!

Does the hon member know where Soshanguve is?

Make your own speech! [Interjections.]

I must make my own speech! [Interjections.]

Hon members—the hon member for Losberg included—must listen carefully now. Soshanguve owes its existence to the fact that the inhabitants of that area moved to Soshanguve precisely because they refused to be incorporated in Bophuthatswana. What is more, the inhabitants of Soshanguve had an arrangement that no Tswana—that is a member of the Tswana ethnic group—could go and live in Soshanguve because they were Tswanas, because they did not want them there and because they did not want to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the word Soshanguve, one finds that it stands for Sotho, Shangaan, Nguni and Venda. The hon members can work it out for themselves. The Tswanas have no say whatsoever in Soshanguve. The hon member for Losberg says we are running away from our policy and that, as previously arranged, that place must be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] Surely that is not a reasonable approach.

Let us look at the composition of Soshanguve. We find that 60% of the people in Soshanguve are North Sothos, whilst 14% are Shangaan, 16% are Nguni, 5% are Venda and 5% are South Sothos. Nevertheless the hon member for Losberg says they must be incorporated in Bophuthatswana. There is not a single Tswana living in Soshanguve, but the hon member says we must incorporate them in that area.

It is a town which meets the needs of Black workers who live and work in Pretoria and environs and provides them with housing. It would not surprise me if hon members came up with that argument this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Order! No, we are not having a conversation.

Mr Chairman, let us look at the arguments of hon members of the CP, and of their hon leader, and apply them to Soshanguve. Do hon members know that just the other day the hon the leader said that he represented the people of Waterberg here in Cape Town? He asked why, if he makes a decision in Cape Town which affects the people in Waterberg, the Black people living in the rest of South Africa should not be satisfied with decisions made in Umtata or Thohoyandou. What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not tell us, is that the decisions made here in Cape Town directly affect the inhabitants of Waterberg, but that the decisions made in Bophuthatswana do not affect Soshanguve. The decisions made in Umtata do not affect Guguletu. Hon members must really do themselves a favour and just come back to the realities we are dealing with in South Africa. I do not wish to discuss this matter any further. We on this side of the House want to tell the Government that they are taking the right step here.

Carry on, man!

I would really like to carry on, because there is another town of which the hon member is also unaware. However, I do not think we should waste the time of the House if the Official Opposition does not know what this is all about. Then, as in the standing committee, we must simply vote without them, and govern the country as it should be governed without their participation, accommodating the realities of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, we are going to support this Bill mainly because it removes the danger of these two towns being incorporated into Bophuthatswana with all that that implies, in particular the possible loss of citizenship. This is the most important aspect of the Bill from our point of view.

We believe it is also an acceptance of the reality of part of the South African situation, and certainly the Black situation, where one has a situation of multi-ethnicity in some of these towns. As the hon member for Turffontein has mentioned, we have—certainly in Soshanguve—people of Sotho, Shangaan, Nguni and Venda extraction. One has these people there and it is a situation of voluntary association. They were not forced into one town on an ethnic basis; the situation developed over a period of time. It is becoming the order of the day in South Africa for people to associate voluntarily and it is something that the Government will have to take into account in their future planning. In future they will not be able to insist on rigid group membership. This is a positive development and we support it for that reason.

I imagine this is part of the Government’s programme of reform which is excruciatingly slow, as I mentioned in connection with the previous Bill we dealt with. It is to be welcomed nevertheless, and for that reason too we will support the Bill.

Another aspect that interests us is the danger of the removal of the residents of Oukasie. The situation with those people is unclear. Mention was made in the hon the Minister’s introductory speech to the Second Reading of this Bill that people from Oukasie would be able to move to Lethlabile. That is correct but there is a great deal of uncertainty hanging over the future of the people of Lethlabile, and that has been compounded by remarks made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the recent past. I hope the hon the Minister in his reply will try to offer some sort of clarity concerning the situation of the residents of Oukasie at this stage and if not, that he will be able to indicate in which direction the Government is moving in connection with those people. With those few remarks we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North and his party for their support for this measure. It was to be expected, especially after we learnt in the standing committee of the PFP’s extreme predilection for negotiations and discussion with the people who are affected in such an area.

With regard to these two towns, especially Soshanguve which borders on Bophuthatswana, the South African Government duly consulted with the government of Bophuthatswana and the inhabitants of the town decided that they did not want to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. We should like to thank the PFP for their support in this regard.

I should also like to take the opportunity to thank the chairman of the standing committee for the way in which he officiates on the standing committee and for his patience and leadership which have already been referred to. We are proud of our chairman. We also want to express our warm thanks to the hon the Minister and the Director-General and his senior officials for the assistance they give the standing committee and us as ordinary members. I want to thank them for the enormous task they undertake to ensure well-planned communities.

While this Bill makes provision for the excision of these two towns from the released area, we must make it very clear that these two towns are, at present, being administered by the SA Development Trust, and that only an advisory committee exists. As they are now being placed under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the Transvaal, it will be possible to initiate proper town planning and management.

We shall have to mention the fact that this existing advisory committee is particularly cooperative and that with their help those communities have already been developed into the towns that exist today. Soshanguve already has a population of 101 000, it already boasts 22 primary schools and five high schools and there are adequate community facilities. These things take place without our knowledge. For this reason we must make it our business to thank the department as well as the development trust for the tremendous work that they are doing—upliftment and welfare work.

They are helping a community which is struggling with urbanisation. When we speak about urbanisation I know that we Whites experienced it as well. Surely we, as South Africans, know what the great “trek” to the cities entails. After all, we too had to live in slums in desperate conditions. The question now rises: Why then the “trek”? It is a question of job opportunities and of improving one’s own position in life—to provide a subsistence for one’s family and the opportunity to educate one’s children and equip them for the future.

Mention has been made of the fact that the Conservative Party is reckless and stubborn with regard to these two areas. However, I mentioned that extensive negotiation took place with the Bophuthatswana government about the excision of this area. The hon member for Lichtenburg was involved in those negotiations. It now surprises one that the hon member for Lichtenburg is not participating and that it is actually embarrassing for the new hon members who now have to debate here. I am convinced that this is the right road. No one is losing anything. It is a released area that is acquiring a fully-fledged village management board. It remains the responsibility of the South African Government, whether it remains a released area, as was recommended by the hon member for Losberg, or whether it becomes a full-fledged town. For that reason I have no hesitation in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to what the hon member for Turffontein said here this afternoon. I must say that we are very grateful. The hon member said many things here on Wednesday, but every time an hon member of the Conservative Party was speaking, the hon member saw to it that he was absent from the House. [Interjections.] That hon member is a member of a party which advocates that sound relations—interpersonal and race relations— should be maintained in this country. If he is to be the exponent of that quality—someone who maintains sound interpersonal relations—and he behaves like that towards his fellow-Afrikaners who sit in this House, I do not know how he will be able to establish sound relations with other peoples. [Interjections.]

He also referred to the standing committee and to the fact that our members supposedly did not know what standpoint to adopt there, because it was not our permanent members who were involved with this specific legislation. I would argue that the system does not always make it possible for our people to be represented there by our permanent members. The initial intention was that the standing committees would sit when Parliament was in recess, because we also have other work to do. Now certain standing committees are sitting even whilst Parliament, and even the House of Assembly, is in session. It is not possible for our people to be in two places at once.

No, that is a feeble excuse! [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think we are going to persuade one another in this manner. Hon members must afford the hon member for Brits an opportunity to complete his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I must also say that it is not only the permanent members of the Conservative Party in the standing committees who are not present at all the meetings. This applies equally to the National Party, which in any case has more representatives on the standing committees than the Conservative Party.

The Bill before us is illustrative of the about-face which has taken place in the National Party over the past few years in respect of its constitutional policy. Earlier it was the policy of this Government gradually to move the Black peoples out of the area of jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa. They were to be settled in their own independent states where they could be governed by their own people.

Over the past few years there has been a complete reversal of this policy. The NP has thrown in the towel. The gates have been thrown open, and the NP no longer cares a fig where anyone lives and by whom anyone is governed.

This Bill is also indicative of the confused and illogical thinking of the governing party. As far as they are concerned, ethnicity and the diversity of peoples play little or no role in the future constitutional set-up of the Republic of South Africa, but at the same time they have to play a decisive role when it comes to the incorporation of people in another independent or self-governing area.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said:

How ironic! Of all the political parties in South Africa, the NP bases the incorporation or nonincorporation of these two towns in an independent state on ethnicity. The Republic of South Africa, the Whites of this country, including the Afrikaner, have to be willing to accept all and sundry as citizens of this country, with all the political implications that this entails. However, when it comes to a country like Bophuthatswana, such a town must consist only of a Tswana population in order to qualify to be incorporated in that state. What kind of logic is that?

The hon the Minister admitted that originally these two towns were meant to be incorporated into an independent Black state or self-governing area. As far as Lethlabile is concerned, this was precisely the reason why the town was established. The people of Oukasie, near Brits, had to be settled in their own area under their own government. Let us give the then NP its due this afternoon by saying that that was a fine policy. It was a policy which this side of the House would be able to support wholeheartedly this afternoon if the Government were to bring it before Parliament again. That was the right policy.

The Whites were even prepared to make great financial sacrifices because that policy would have meant that a part of the Black population in our country would be removed from our political system. Millions of rands were spent on this project. A fine town was established at Lethlabile. There is a high school and three primary schools. All the plots in that town have water, electricity and sanitation by way of water-borne sewerage laid on. Further plans are being made for other facilities which are essential to such a large town.

In Lethlabile, in the times in which we are living—hon members can believe this if they wish …[Interjections]… plots are being purchased for an amount of R4,40 per 25 square metre unit, or portion of a unit. This means that Black people in Lethlabile can purchase plots—if one can still call it “purchase” in the times we are living in and in our circumstances—at between R52,80 and R70,40 per plot. This is not just a little piece of undeveloped land. The plots have water, electricity and sanitation laid on.

By 31 July last year, 3 200 plots had been developed, and there are plans for the development of a further 800 plots in this town in the 1988-89 financial year.

Can the Whites in this country then not justifiably ask why these millions of rands have been spent on Lethlabile, when both that town and Oukasie, near Brits, still remain part of the area of jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa? I should like to know the following from the hon the Minister, since the hon member for Turffontein only gave us the ethnic composition of the other Black town.

What is the ethnic composition of Lethlabile? If it is true that Lethlabile is a multi-ethnic town, this could have been prevented if the Government had pursued a policy of Black labour preference areas. In the Brits area it is quite logical that as far as labour matters are concerned, it ought to be a preference area for the Tswanas. If the Government had pursued such a policy, it would not have been necessary to place this Bill before Parliament today and ultimately to give those Black people political rights in South Africa.

Do hon members know the real reason for this? The hon member for Turffontein admitted it this afternoon. Do hon members know why Lethlabile will no longer be incorporated in Bophuthatswana? It is because it is unacceptable to Bophuthatswana. That is the real reason. They are not prepared to have their country become a dumping-ground for all ethnic groups. They want to establish a majority of Tswanas in their own country. They want to retain their own country for their own people. They are not prepared to throw it open as a market-place for the world.

Let us be honest with one another this afternoon. We on this side of the House understand very well the standpoint adhered to by Bophuthatswana. We have the greatest respect and appreciation for the standpoint it is adopting. We do not blame Bophuthatswana for not wanting to accommodate a motley hotchpotch in its country. We do not blame it for having the vision to make preparations right now so that a power-struggle does not develop in its country between the various peoples or groups in the future.

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

Sir, I am presenting my argument.

Do not explain. Just say yes or no.

Mr Chairman, Bophuthatswana realises what tension and conflict it would cause in its own country if it allowed this. By the way, I have heard that a town similar to Lethlabile is being established in the Rustenburg area. I have also heard that Bophuthatswana is not prepared to accommodate those people politically or otherwise in its territory. Perhaps the hon the Minister could inform us later about these details.

Today this side of the House is speaking on behalf of the Whites we represent. We are also speaking on behalf of those Whites who have found a political home in the CP since 6 May, but who have not yet had the opportunity to vote for us— and there are many of them. Today we want to ask the Government why White South Africa is being turned into a dumping-ground for everyone seeking a political home? Why must we accommodate people, who are unwelcome elsewhere, in our constitutional set-up? [Interjections.] Why must we create political rights for multi-ethnic groups, whilst the right of the Black peoples not to do so is recognised? It is not only illogical, it is not only a sign of confused and illogical thinking, it is also an injustice towards the White people, and towards the Afrikaner people in particular.

Where must they go?

Order! The hon member for Parow, the hon member for Bethlehem and the hon member over there who has strayed from his seat, would do well to refrain from making interjections now.

Sir, the hon member for Parow asked me a question. I heard what he asked. I shall reply to him, although I have already replied to that question. Where must they be accommodated? I am pointing out to the hon member the illogical reasoning of the NP that we must accept their accommodation in the RSA when they give Bophuthatswana the right not to accept it.

The CP has a policy which will rectify matters. I did say a moment ago that there should be preferential areas for the Black peoples; then that situation would not have arisen. If we were governing the country, only Tswanas would have been settled in Lethlabile. The people of Lethlabile would eventually have enjoyed full political rights in Bophuthatswana. Those people would have governed themselves in their own country. Now they are ultimately going to exercise their political rights in the RSA. At first they will jointly govern South Africa. Later, when the NP’s policy has been carried through to its full consequences, they will govern South Africa.

At first they will be accommodated in the regional services councils, and they will jointly govern the White inhabitants of Brits. According to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, they will eventually be incorporated in the highest legislative and executive authority in South Africa—initially governing jointly, but later they will govern the whole of South Africa. This legislation attests to a lack of vision as far as the future is concerned. It attests to the NP’s capitulation, and the CP will therefore strongly oppose it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits participated in this debate although he was not a member of the standing committee. [Interjections.] He was not involved in the discussions either, but I do not blame him for taking part in the debate. Apparently he did so because Lethlabile is in the vicinity of Brits. [Interjections.] I accept that completely.

However, the hon member for Brits made out that the excision of these two areas came about as a result of compulsion from one side or the other. This legislation came into existence on the grounds of an interstate agreement between the RSA and Bophuthatswana. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon member for Brits that it is strange that he mentioned it here today. His train of thought and his arguments about this matter were very confused. He said that the CP’s policy was one of a people’s state (volkstaatbeleid), a policy of nations (yolkerebeleid). In other words, it involves the grouping together of peoples on a national basis. In saying that, he was ignoring the whole idea of the grouping together of specific peoples as the CP argues.

The hon member for Turffontein explained the ethnic ratios in Soshanguve to the House. However, the hon member for Brits, who ought to know Lethlabile well, since he spoke on the topic, also ignored the ethnic ratios in Lethlabile itself. If, for the CP, it is a question of the majority occupation of a specific people in a specific country or a specific area, it is remarkable that there are no Tswanas in Soshanguve.

However, if the hon member had done his homework and had looked at the population structure of Lethlabile, which ought really to be his field of interest owing to the fact that it is near his constituency, he would have known that 70% of those inhabitants are not Tswanas—23% are North Sotho, 14% are Shangaan, 21% are Nguni, 4% are Venda, 6% are South Sotho, 1% are other races, and 31% are Tswanas. I want to ask the hon member for Brits how one reconciles the two arguments now. Does he want these people who are not Tswanas to be forced into that country against their will and against the will of Bophuthatswana? [Interjections.]

What about our will?

A second matter that I should like to mention is that the hon member for Brits must know that these two areas, Soshanguve and Lethlabile, have never fallen under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Bophuthatswana. It was a trust area. [Interjections.] No, why? It is a trust area. All that is happening now is that the legal position of those people is being changed. They have always been governed and administered in terms of proclamations. The hon member for Walvis Bay said it has always been done by an advisory committee. If those people were to be removed from the released area, these towns would be administered and developed as two Black urban areas in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982 and the Development of Black Communities Act of 1984. Surely the hon member for Brits has no objection to the fact that the uncertainty of these people is being removed and that local authorities can now be established in a proper way, bodies that can negotiate on behalf of their people and with whom we and others can negotiate.

Another aspect that I should like to mention is an argument the hon member for Brakpan raised. It was placed on record that the hon member for Brakpan said that if the CP should ever come to power in this country they would consider dividing Soweto into ethnic areas rather than relocating it. The hon member for Brakpan said as much. He also said that the ethnic groups in those ethnic areas in Soweto would be linked to the particular homeland associated with that particular group. As the hon member for Brakpan knows, this is of course absolutely impossible, but if something like that were possible, I want to know from the hon member for Brakpan how they would administer that area while the Black people were staying there and not in their homelands. The hon member for Brakpan knows as well as we do that they would be able to do nothing other than administer those Black areas according to the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982 and the Development of Black Communities Act of 1984. That means that the status quo would be maintained even under the government of that party, were that ever to happen.

If these two areas were excised we would be creating a situation in which uncertainty would be eradicated. We do not force certain people into other countries if they do not want to be there or if they are not welcome there.

To come to South Africa?

The hon member for Losberg asked whether they should come to South Africa. They have always been in South Africa! They were never outside South Africa! All that is happening now is that a situation that had become totally unacceptable is being rectified in an orderly way. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to say that the acceptance of this Bill is not going to imply the acceptance of a new principle. All it will mean is that these areas will be administered in the same way in which all the other Black urban areas in South Africa are being administered.

I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member Dr Golden. He succeeded very neatly in turning the word which both hon members of the Official Opposition used in their contributions, namely “logic”, against the Official Opposition. The hon member Dr Golden indicated that, while the CP professed that its policy was that of a “volkstaat”, it came into conflict here with the principle of a “volkstaat” by wanting to include a multi-ethnic, non-national conglomerate in a “volkstaat”.

The hon member Dr Golden pointed out clearly that in the case of Lethlabile 70% of the inhabitants were not Tswanas. In the case of Soshanguve 100% of the inhabitants are not Tswanas because the Tswanas were all settled in the adjacent Mabopane West. If one wants to take logic, or the lack of it, as one of one’s points of departure—as the hon member for Losberg and the hon member for Brits tried to do—surely one cannot afford to land in such an illogical situation oneself. The point is precisely that we cannot deal with the complexity of our situation in South Africa merely with theoretical logic. We also have to deal with realities, which sometimes make theoretical logic inapplicable and require policy to be adapted.

When the Government in this case excludes multi-ethnic released areas because it no longer intends including them in a self-governing or independent state, it does not wish to imply that it now intends including only pure uni-ethnic communities in the self-governing areas or the national states. There are many examples of multi-ethnicity working well in practice in a predominantly Tswana, Pedi or Swazi area.

Hon members who are at all informed in this sphere will know that large numbers of Ndebele, especially North Ndebele, live in Lebowa. They are perfectly well adjusted and quite at home there. In western Lebowa there is even a whole area in which chiefly Tswanas live, whose chief is a prominent member of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly. In the same way there is a large number of people in KwaNdebele, with Pedi-speaking ethnic ties, whom one could call Lebowans and who live peacefully under the rule of the KwaNdebele government. Living in the Nsiguse area of KaNgwane, which is actually a national state for Swazis, is a large element of Tsonga-speaking people, who are actually associated with Gazankulu, as hon members are aware.

Consequently, it is not as if the Government is pre-occupied with a purely logical theoretical obsession. We try to accept and maintain as they are, such cases in which multi-ethnicity works in an orderly fashion, is acceptable and developing peacefully, as in the cases I have just mentioned to hon members, which are all being dealt with well by the self-governing areas concerned. When reality indicates to a person that fundamental problems regarding multi-ethnicity are arising in a specific case, however, one has to review and, if necessary, adapt one’s logic in accordance with other logic such as peaceful coexistence, stability and orderly future development.

In this case, therefore, arrangements were made for exceptions. I should also like to quote a piece of history here. The hon member for Walvis Bay helped me by pointing out that the hon member for Lichtenburg had been involved in the matter at the time when some of these areas, which originally formed part of Bophuthatswana, were excluded from it. I should like to remind hon members that Soshanguve originally formed part of the eastern development of Mabopane in Bophuthatswana. As a result of serious problems and tension between the predominantly Tswana portion in western and the predominantly nonTswana portion in eastern Mabopane, it was decided—I have to admit openly here that this took place in the face of strong objections from Bophuthatswana—to exclude Soshanguve.

What an admission!

Wait a bit! The hon member is going to run into trouble. [Interjections.]

It was also decided that the university—I am referring to Medunsa—which was originally to become part of Bophuthatswana, would be excluded together with Soshanguve. There were serious objections on the part of Bophuthatswana and Pres Mangope is still objecting to this today. He wants those areas per se.

The decision on this exclusion was taken by means of proclamation R70 of 1976. I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the hon the deputy leader of the CP in his absence, whether they were not part of the Executive at the time when these decisions were taken. If they were not part of the Executive did they not at least form part of the body of supporters of the Executive? This took place in 1976 when, if my memory serves me, Mr M C Botha was the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

I was a Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

I assume that a Deputy Minister who differs with a policy has the courage to say so. If he differs with it fundamentally, he does not remain in that Government.

Don’t be so stupid!

If a Deputy Minister differs fundamentally, he has the courage of his convictions to admit it or he retains the responsibility he accepted at the time and stands by it. [Interjections.]

This was taken further, however, and in the independence agreement published in the Government Notice of 9 December 1977 Soshanguve and its surrounding districts were expressly excluded from Bophuthatswana. Bophuthatswana did receive the assurance that Soshanguve would not be included in another national state. One may therefore say that Bophuthatswana’s priority claim was recognised in this regard but no further indication was given. In fact, the declared Government policy at that time was—its supporters apparently supported it at the time, except possibly those who merely pretended to support it—that Bophuthatswana did not have a claim and that Bophuthatswana could not insist on getting and was not entitled to get Soshanguve back again as it were.

That is the historical fact; it is not for reasons of academically theoretic logic. The reason is that a serious situation of tension arose at the time. I do not think anybody who knows the political history of the ministerial activities of former Minister M C Botha over a large number of years would think that he would have deviated in principle if he could have remained within the principle of his policy in any way, but the reality of serious conflict—hon members on the other side know about this as well as I do—resulted in this inevitable and essential adjustment having to be made.

Since it created a situation of uncertainty to say that Soshanguve should be excised from Bophuthatswana on the one hand and to retain it as a released area on the other, the Government has now decided to bring about finality on the matter and to give substance to the assurance given to the completely non-Tswana inhabitants of Soshanguve in a redefinition of the status of that area, namely to include it among that legislation which deals with Black urban areas in the rest of the RSA.

In the case of Lethlabile, I also want to go into its history briefly. In the case of Lethlabile it is well known and we accept that it was part of the land regarding which a promise was made, in terms of the independence agreement of 1977, that it would have to be incorporated in Bophuthatswana. Serious problems arose as regards the undertaking that the Government had given to resettle the inhabitants of Oukasie, the Black township at Brits, in Lethlabile because initially there was a degree of resistance on the part of Bophuthatswana to the fact that non-Tswana Black people should be settled in Lethlabile.

Towards the end of 1984 success was achieved in reaching an agreement with Bophuthatswana in which they were prepared to accept non-Tswanas, providing they had all originated in Brits, but in the case of both Soshanguve and Lethlabile there were serious problems because the government of Bophuthatswana had fundamental objections against land rights having to be granted to non-Tswanas in that area which would ultimately be incorporated with them because Bophuthatswana apparently objects to granting land rights to non-citizens.

This means that, within these areas, the possibility does not exist of creating security for the land owners by means of rights of ownership or leasehold rights on which they can borrow money to erect their dwellings. Consequently no possibility exists for financing and self-help and ownerconstruction of dwellings. This then means that the Government will have to build houses for all these people who are not Tswanas and cannot own land rights, as under the old dispensation, with finance basically derived from the central Treasury, whereas by excising these areas now and clearly accepting that their future is not within Bophuthatswana, we are solving the problem because proper land rights can be granted to the inhabitants even if they are not Tswanas.

The result is, as the hon member for Brits very generously admitted, that dynamic development in the building of houses and township development is going on in Lethlabile where much of the building of houses is taking place on loans which these people raise with the private sector with their land rights as security. The same applies to Soshanguve.

These decisions were made in a situation in which a person might actually, on the basis of strict logic—as these two hon members argued—have to act differently in a theoretical sense but, where you and even people who have such a record of straight dealing as the former Minister, Mr M C Botha, were forced in the light of reality to deviate and make such decisions as those to which we now want to give permanent substance.

The story that it has always been the intention that these areas would be incorporated—I am quoting the hon member for Losberg—is simply not true. It has been the intention since 1976 that Soshanguve will not be incorporated; in fact, it has been excised. Perhaps the hon member already had objections against the Government of the time but his colleagues over there still went along with the Government. It was only later that they saw eye to eye and discovered that they were kindred spirits.

I think I have already dealt reasonably effectively with the second argument, namely that of logic, which the hon member for Losberg used. The hon member for Brits also used that argument.

I should also like to refer to certain other comments made by the hon member for Brits. He continued to sing the tune which was initially sung at the start of the previous debate …

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has just said that it was never the intention that they should be incorporated in Bophuthatswana but I want to refer him to a paragraph in his Second Reading speech which reads:

It seems to me the hon member is just as unobssrvant in this debate, where we are speaking frankly to one another, as his hon colleagues in the standing committee. I have just stated clearly that Soshanguve formed part of Bophuthatswana but was then excised. It was excised in 1976.

Ferdie Hartzenberg.

His hon leader and deputy leader were jointly involved in that excision. The initial intention was therefore the intention before 1976. It was excised as early as that. My argument seeks to link the objection of that party to the date of this decision. If they therefore accuse us of being illogical, they should first cast this in the teeth of their own hon leader and deputy leader. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brits joined his fellow party member who tried to apologise at the start of the debate on the previous Bill for the absence of their representatives on the standing committee. I want to point out, however—I think the hon member for Turffontein emphasised this very strongly too when he demonstrated that they were out of their depth on the standing committee—that what is of importance is not whether a person is present on the standing committee but whether one makes a positive contribution there. It need not necessarily be a positive contribution; one may also make a negative, critical contribution but it must be a contribution.

Since we heard about productivity earlier in the debate, and the hon the Minister of Finance discussed the arguments of the Official Opposition on productivity this morning, I want to say that productivity is not measured in this House by what takes place here but also by what takes place on the standing committees. It is not merely a question of a person’s sheer physical presence but also involves the quality of one’s participation. Does one sit there passively and allow matters to take their course or does one really play a responsible part and participate?

I dealt with the question on ethnicity put by the hon member for Brits by explaining in which sense ethnicity was deviated from and in which sense ethnicity could be adhered to—in the light of practical considerations as well. I think I also dealt with his request for information on the ethnic composition of the towns; in fact, the hon member Dr Golden has already furnished the figures here.

The hon member said inter alia that the real reason why Lethlabile would no longer be incorporated in Bophuthatswana was that it was unacceptable to Bophuthatswana and Bophuthatswana no longer wanted it. The exact opposite is true, however.

At the end of 1985 or at the beginning of 1986 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning held a long meeting with Pres Mangope and some of his Ministers to convince him of the necessity, in the light of circumstances related to the settlement of the inhabitants of Oukasie in Lethlabile, that Lethlabile should no longer remain part of Bophuthatswana. The President of Bophuthatswana accepted this unwillingly and only after much persuasion. It was therefore not unacceptable to him at all to acquire Lethlabile. He actually wished to retain that area but objected to the fact that in general non-Tswanas should be settled there.

The hon member then asked where these people were to be dumped and appealed for labour zoning on an ethnic basis. I want to challenge the hon member, if he is serious about consistent action in this regard, to come with a request— supported by his constituents—that the entire Brits area should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb and that all who are not Tswanas should be removed. In this way Brits will become a purely Tswana area with all the side effects this will have on the labour force in that area. We shall assist the hon member with this. If he comes to us with the support of his voters from the industrial sector—if he has voters there—as well as from agriculture and ordinary households, and asks us to help them to remove all who are not Tswanas from the area and says that they will be satisfied to manage with only a third or a quarter of the inhabitants of Lethlabile who are Tswanas, we shall help him. I challenge him to do this. I shall even make the services of my department available, as well as the services of the Department of Development Planning and Community Development in the Transvaal. We shall give the hon member everything he requires to help him and then we can see how matters work out.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member also referred to how well Lethlabile had been developed and at the cheapness of sites in the area. It is Government policy to make the price of sites, even sites with services, as cheap as possible in trust areas and to make them attractive for the very reason to get Black people to settle there rather than in the metropolitan areas of the RS A. It is also Government policy to make the development in Lethlabile as attractive as possible for the purpose of persuading the population of Oukasie to move as quickly as possible—by the attractiveness of the alternative—to settle in Lethlabile. We shall continue to do this. I want to add, however, that inhabitants pay service charges in accordance with the demands of local authorities for the furnishing of services such as water, electricity, refuse removal, etc. The price of sites is very reasonable, however, and this enables those people to acquire security. By way of financing which they obtain from the private sector on the grounds of that security, they are able to build their houses so that the Government does not have to build a large number of houses. I want to bring it to hon members’ attention that, whereas the Trust built 8 600 houses in Soshanguve at the time, of which 2 300 have already been sold to occupants—I can also mention that a further 4 000 houses were built there by private contractors and that the total number of houses in Soshanguve is estimated to be 12 500 at the moment—I think the number of houses which the Trust built with Government money in Lethlabile is fewer than 50 because the inhabitants themselves can borrow money to build those houses as they can become landowners and have land rights. I believe that in saying this I have basically answered the nonsensical objections and arguments of the hon member for Brits, as well as the hon member for Losberg, who did not actually make a speech but rather delivered a prelude or overture to the debate before the actual movements of the music began.

[Inaudible.]

Who is talking about Coloured homelands? [Interjections.] I should like to conduct a debate on that.

In conclusion, I want to return to the hon member for Turffontein to thank him for his positive contribution and especially for the way he used the analysis of Soshanguve population percentages to show up the untenable arguments of hon members on the opposite side of the House. He also pointed out that the independent states’ governmental decisions in no way affected the circumstances of their citizens’ lives here in South Africa and that it was therefore ridiculous, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had once done, to compare his representation of the Waterberg constituency here in the South African Parliament with that. It was a very valuable contribution and I want to thank the hon member for it.

I have already thanked the hon member for Walvis Bay for his contribution and especially for his reference to the hon member for Lichtenburg’s role. I also want to thank him for the way in which he underlined that this matter should be grasped within the entire problematic aspect of urbanisation.

I associated myself with the hon member Dr Golden at the outset.

†In conclusion I should like to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North. With regard to his request that I should give some clarity about the position of Oukasie, I briefly want to refer to the Press statement dated 30 March 1988 which was released by my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

*In that he pointed out that by way of the reply to a question in Parliament he had confirmed that no forced relocation of inhabitants would take place from Oukasie to Lethlabile but that that did not mean that the Government’s decision regarding the abandonment of Oukasie—the decision was announced by way of a Government Notice in October 1987—had changed in any respect. He therefore confirmed that the Government’s decision as regards Oukasie remained in force and that the inhabitants of Oukasie had to be resettled in Lethlabile, inter alia because Oukasie was no longer economically viable for further upgrading or expansion in the longer term. He also pointed out that the inhabitants of Oukasie had for a considerable time been resettling voluntarily in Lethlabile and that various community leaders were already settled there.

In this respect I wish to emphasise that the offer of living conditions of a good quality in Lethlabile has to serve specifically as an important attraction to allow the resettlement to proceed in an orderly fashion and with the co-operation of the inhabitants of Oukasie. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at the time that a more attractive incentive package would be offered for the resettlement of inhabitants. Consequently no forced resettlement will take place but everything possible is being done to make resettlement in Lethlabile as attractive as possible.

Sir, I shall let that suffice.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—103: Alant, T G; Andrew, K M; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Barnard, M S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, S J; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Eglin, C W; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, CP; Heine, W J; Hulley, R R; Hunter, J E L; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koomhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Lorimer, R J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malcomess, D J N; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H 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; Soal, P G; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Zyl, J G; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J; Welgemoed, P J.

Tellers: Blanché, J PI; Golden, S GA; Kritzinger, W T; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—18: Coetzee, H J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I ask the Chairman of Committees to take the Chair.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I ask you to rule that it would be inappropriate for the House to go into Committee, because there are no amendments of which notice has been given which are valid in terms of the Rules of the House. Therefore there is nothing for the Committee to consider.

My argument is briefly the following. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is advancing an argument in support of his contention. I would ask hon members to give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, we have dealt with the Second Reading of the Bill and the question is what the scope of the Second Reading is and to what extent amendments have to be relevant to the scope of the Second Reading. Rule 31 of the Joint Rules and Orders states, and I quote:

In other words, what is at issue in an amending Bill is not the principle of the principal Act but merely the question of the principle contained in the amendments. This is an amending Bill.

Order! Is the hon member’s argument that the principle of the principal Act remains intact?

Yes, Mr Chairman, the principle of the principal Act remains intact. The principle of the amending Bill, which is all we are entitled to consider at the Second Reading, is very clear. Apart from the short title, it is a one-clause Bill, with two subsections. The first clause merely deletes “which date shall not be later than 30 June 1987”, and inserts the following:

In other words, all that the Bill does in clause 1(a) is to state that instead of the date being 30 June 1987, it now has to be a date prior to 30 June 1990. In other words, the principle is merely a change of the date by which the development boards must be abolished.

Clause 1(b) merely states that, notwithstanding the abolition of development boards, development areas in respect of divisional council areas shall continue to obtain. It therefore deals not with whether one is abolishing anything but, irrespective of that, with the fact that the development areas insofar as divisional councils are concerned shall continue to obtain. That is therefore the sum total of the content and the principle which we have to consider at the Second Reading.

When it comes to the question of amendments, I want to refer to Standing Order No 61(1), which reads:

The subject matter of the Bill is a change of date and a proviso that irrespective of whether development boards are abolished or not in respect of divisional councils, the areas will be retained.

The only amendments which we can consider therefore are amendments which are relevant to those two provisions. On the Order Paper a number of amendments appear which have nothing whatsoever to do with either the date—which is the one issue that has changed—or the continuation of development areas.

Order! Is the hon member referring to Bill 2C when he refers to the amendments?

Mr Chairman, I am referring to Bill 2D which is the Bill before us.

Order! That is the final Bill. The standing committee amendments are in effect on Bill 2C. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr Chairman. The amendments which the hon the Minister has now put on the Order Paper have nothing whatsoever to do with the principles or the content of the amending Bill which we approved at Second Reading. In fact, they deal with a number of completely different matters. I refer to the previous long title of the Bill which was rejected. It stated that it dealt with the following:

This has nothing to do with the principle. I continue:

There can be no doubt that the amendments which the hon the Minister has placed on the Order Paper fall beyond both the substance and the principle of the amending Bill which has been agreed to by this House. On that basis, Mr Chairman, I believe you have no alternative but to rule that it would be out of order for a Committee this House to consider amendments which in terms of our own rules are not valid.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on the point of order that was put by the hon member for Sea Point?

Thank you, I would appreciate that.

In his arguments the hon member for Sea Point is trying to create the impression that this Bill has appeared out of the blue. He wants us to consider the Bill before us with tunnel vision, without considering its history. The provisions that are now being moved as amendments were part of the Bill that was before the standing committee. I mention this to confirm the fact that these provisions do indeed relate to the provisions of the Bill that was before this House and that was agreed to at the Second Reading.

Is the hon member for Sea Point trying to tell me that the provisions that were originally contained in the same Bill do not relate to one another? These were provisions of the very same Bill. How can the hon member for Sea Point argue that these provisions do not relate to the other two provisions? In effect that would mean that one and the same Bill contained eight clauses that had nothing to do with one another. Surely that would be taking things a little too far. We all know that this is not an omnibus Bill; all the clauses are interrelated.

The only reason that those six clauses were not included in the Bill that was presented to this House for Second Reading, was that the standing committee was unable to reach consensus on those clauses. Consensus could not be reached because the hon members of the House of Representatives voted against those clauses. However, what has happened since? Since then these amendments have been agreed to by the House of Representatives. The same members of the standing committee who voted against them, now voted in favour of them in their own House. Must we turn the proceedings of this House into a farce by arguing that now that consensus has been reached and now that the hon members who voted against the clauses in the standing committee have voted for them in their own House and agreed to the amendments, we should act as if we take no notice of what goes on around us? Must we become obsessed with the provisions of the Bill as it reads now? I want to submit that these clauses do indeed relate to the two clauses that have been agreed to, and that the amendment is therefore entirely acceptable—in terms of the very rule that the hon member for Sea Point quoted.

Order! The hon member for Sea Point argues in terms of Standing Order No 61(1) to the effect that such amendments or clauses need to be relevant to the subject matter of a Bill. The degree of relevance is not spelt out in the particular standing order as I read it and therefore I suggest that it should be “reasonably” relevant. The hon member did not mention that it would be necessary for an instruction to be obtained prior to these amendments being considered. The question is: When is an instruction necessary? An instruction is necessary merely when, I suggest, there is no other way of going about a matter of this nature. Now, as I see it, in this case the amendments deal with details flowing from the abolition of development bodies, and the intention is that these amendments will assist in the practical application of the Bill. In that regard I consider them to be reasonably relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and I rule that the proposed amendments may be considered by the Committee of the whole House.

Committee Stage

New clauses to follow clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment that was printed in the name of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Order Paper, as follows:

2. Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsections (2) and (3) of the following subsections, respectively:

1. “(2)
   1. (a) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he may determine, by notice in the Gazette transfer the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations referred to in subsection (1)(a) or any part thereof from the Administrator in which they so vest to such public authority or public authorities as he may deem fit, with effect from a date mentioned in the notice.
   2. (b) The assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations of any development body abolished in terms of section 2 (2) or any part thereof shall as from the date of such abolition, pass to such public authority or public authorities and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine by notice in the Gazette.
2. (3) The Minister shall exercise the powers conferred upon him by subsection (2) with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance and, where a transfer of assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations to a Minister entrusted with own affairs takes place, with the concurrence of the relevant Minister entrusted with own affairs.”.

Amendment of section 4 of Act 75 of 1986

3. Section 4 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. “(10A)
   1. (a) The Administrator may, subject to the provisions of subsection (10) (b), with effect from a date determined by him, place any person in the service of a public authority referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘public authority’, in the service of any other public authority.
   2. (b) For the purposes of this subsection ‘Administrator’ means an Administrator as defined in section 1 of the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985 (Act No. 109 of 1985), acting—
      1. (i) after consultation with—
         1. (aa) the person concerned;
         2. (bb) the public authority in the service of which the person concerned is;
         3. (cc) any other body which or person whom he deems necessary;
      2. (ii) on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration if the public authority in the service of which it is intended to place such person is a Minister or an Administrator”; and
   3. (b) by the substitution for subsection (11) of the following subsection:
2. “(11) No person shall, in consequence of any recommendation or decision made or action taken in terms of subsection (5), (6), (8), [or] (10) or 10A, be entitled to rely on any provision of the Labour Relations Act, 1956.”.

Amendment of section 5 of Act 75 of 1986

4. Section 5 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

“(1) The administration or exercise of any power or right conferred or duty imposed which is assigned by any law to—

1. (a) a development body referred to in section 3 (1) (a), shall on the date mentioned in that section pass to the Administrator concerned, and shall thereafter, in so far as the administration of the law has not under section 98 (3) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act No. 110 of 1983), in relation to a population group been assigned to a Minister—
   1. (i) pass to the public authority referred to in section 3 (2) (a), on the date mentioned in that section; or
   2. (ii) if the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations are transferred to more than one public authority under section 3 (2) (a) and in so far as the power or right conferred or duty imposed relates to any asset, liability, right, duty and obligation which thus passes to a public authority, pass to such authority: Provided that where in the last-mentioned case such power or right conferred or duty imposed does not directly relate to such an asset, liability, right, duty and obligation, the Minister may determine to which public authority concerned in the said transfer, the administration or exercise of such power or right conferred or duty imposed, shall pass;
2. (b) a development body referred to in section 3 (2) (b), shall on the date referred to in that section, subject to the provisions of regulations made under section 5 (4) (b), and in so far as the administration of the law is not assigned to any Minister by such regulation—
   1. (i) pass to the public authority referred to in section 3 (2) (b); or
   2. (ii) if the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations are transferred to more than one public authority under section 3 (2) (b), and in so far as the power or right conferred or duty imposed relates to any asset, liability, right, duty and obligation which thus passes to a public authority, pass to such authority: Provided that where in the last-mentioned case such power or right converred or duty imposed does not directly relate to such an asset, liability, right, duty and obligation, the Minister may determine to which public authority concerned in such a transfer, the administration or exercise of such power or right conferred or duty imposed, shall pass.

1. (1A) A regional services council shall not in consequence of a transfer referred to in subsection (1) acquire the power to levy any tax on immovable property.”; and
   1. (b) by the addition to subsection (4) of the following paragraphs, the existing subsection becoming paragraph (a):
      1. “(b) The State President may under paragraph (a), if he deems it expedient, make regulations assigning to a Minister of a Ministers’ Council the administration of any law which conferred functions upon an abolished development body, in so far as it relates to any matter referred to in section 14 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983.
      2. (c) The State President may make any such regulation only on the ground of a decision taken by him in terms of the directions of section 16 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, as if that section applies, and the provisions of section 18 (2) of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such decision of the State President.
      3. (d) When any regulation contemplated in paragraph (b) is made, it shall for the purposes of section 84 (1) of the Provincial Government Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961), be deemed that Part IV of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, has under section 98 (3) of the said Constitution Act been declared to apply to the provisions in question.”.

Amendment of section 6 of Act 75 of 1986

5. Section 6 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection, the existing section becoming subsection (1):

1. “(2) Unless it is clearly inappropriate in any particular case, with effect from a date determined by the Minister in terms of section 2 (2), any reference in any law or document to—
   1. (a) any development body abolished in terms of section 2 (2) shall be construed as a reference to the public authority concerned as contemplated in section 5 (1) (b); and
   2. (b) any person in the service of such development body shall be construed as a reference to a person in the service of the public authority to which the Minister has transferred him in terms of section 4.”.

Insertion of sections 7A and 7B in Act 75 of 1986

6. The following sections are hereby inserted in the principal Act after section 7:

1. 7A.
   1. (1) A public authority may in writing authorize—
      1. (a) any person in his service; or
      2. (b) a committee of persons designated by that public authority,
         to exercise or perform in general or in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature, any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on that public authority by or under this Act.
   2. (2) A public authority may, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law but subject to directives of the State President, in writing authorize another public authority to exercise or perform in general or in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature, on behalf of the first-mentioned public authority, any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on such first-mentioned public authority by or under this Act.

   Elections for development bodies

   1. 7B.
      1. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7 of the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Act, 1985 (Act No. 104 of 1985), no election as contemplated therein shall be held for a development body referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘development body’.
      2. (2) Unless a development body referred to in subsection (1) dissolves for a reason other than the expiration of the period for which it was elected, the development body shall continue up to the day immediately preceding the date determined in terms of section 2 (2) in respect of the development body concerned, and, unless his membership is terminated for a reason other than the expiration of the period for which he was elected as such a member, it shall be deemed that every member of the development body was properly elected as such for the period ending on such day.”.

Construction of certain proclamation

7. Regulation 2.A of Proclamation No. R.110 of 1987 shall with effect from 29 June 1987 for all purposes be deemed to have brought about, and to bring about, the legal consequences which it purports to have brought about and to bring about.

Mr Chairman, the development bodies were abolished on 1 July 1986, but timely provision for the transfer of the staff, functions and assets of certain local government bodies to other governing bodies was not made at the time. For that reason it is now necessary to amend the principal Act. In the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister concerned, two main reasons for this were given. I want to deal briefly with those two reasons.

In terms of section 2(2) of the principal Act the development bodies could only be abolished in the period up to 30 June 1987. That is the relevant date involved here, and it is the main reason that is being given for this amendment. However, according to the Second Reading speech, the extent of the task made it impossible to complete the transfer in time. This side of the Committee wants to show that it was as a result of bad administration, as well as other reasons which I shall mention later, that it was impossible to complete the task in time. The position is as follows: The 34 remaining Cape Divisional Councils, the Natal Development and Services Council and the seven regional services corporations in Natal will be abolished in terms of the principal Act when Regional Services Councils are established in future.

In order to correct this situation, amending legislation with six objectives is now being proposed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It seems to me the hon member for Losberg is arguing about clause 1 which was agreed to during in the Second Reading, and which is not being discussed by the Committee at all. The clauses that are printed here on the Order Paper are being considered by the Committee. The hon member is now discussing a clause that has already been agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I shall come to the amendments on the Order Paper.

The hon member for Losberg must confine himself to clauses 2 to 7, as they appear on the Order Paper.

I am demonstrating that we do not support the amendments of 28 and 29 March respectively on the Order Paper, and I am giving the reasons why we do not support them.

The hon member may proceed.

The first two clauses deal with the date of abolition. They seek to delete that date of abolition and to allow certain local governing bodies to remain in existence.

The other four objectives—I am now coming to the question put to me—deal with the transfer of personnel from one government authority to another. Secondly, and this is the important provision involved here, is the transfer of assets and functions on the one hand, and the separation of assets and functions on the other hand. In terms of this provision, certain assets pertaining to representatives are being transferred to the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, but not the power to levy taxes to administer the areas concerned.

Mr Chairman, during the first meeting of the particular standing committee the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture: House of Representatives expressed his dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. The first meeting of the standing committee was then postponed without any voting having taken place.

At the second meeting the clauses were discussed and only clause 1 was agreed to. The other clauses were rejected in a formal vote. The result was that only clause 1 was reprinted. The House of Assembly then recommended that all the clauses could be proceeded with, but the House of Representatives did not recommend it.

The Second Reading then took place. At this Second Reading the reprinted clause 1 and the short title of the bill in question were discussed. An agreement was then reached with the House of Representatives, which resulted in all seven clauses now being put.

Order! Those are the five clauses to which the hon member for Losberg may confine himself.

I am confining myself to them. We now have the situation, and that is one of the objections that this side of the committee has to this Bill and also why we will oppose this Bill—that we are dealing with the original Bill as it was submitted. Secondly we are dealing with a Bill with a single amendment to clause 7, and thirdly we have a Bill that comprises only clause 1 of the original bill and the short title.

Apart from the aforementioned we now have two texts that appeared in the Order Paper of 28 and 29 March respectively. In the last text—I am now confining myself to it—of 29 March, an additional amendment was made to subsection (3) of section 3 of the principal Act.

This legislation is very complicated and the Committee will in fact have to go a very long way and make an entire reconnaissance to establish what is actually before this Committee at the moment. These texts of 28 and 29 March, and specifically the amendment to article 3(3), were never discussed by the standing committee.

That is why the CP states the viewpoint that it is impossible for this side of the committee to support this Bill. I want to give a few reasons why the CP is not going to support this Bill.

Order! I take it the hon member is going to refer to the clauses when he says that his party is not going to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I can refer to the clauses, but I want to use them as a basis on which to indicate why we cannot support this Bill.

Order! The principle of the Bill cannot be discussed. The hon member must confine himself to the clauses that are now to be amended.

Mr Chairman, I accept the matter as you have indicated. However, I want to point out that this side of the Committee cannot support the Bill since the date under discussion here is not acceptable to us. The postponement of the local government elections from 1988 until a later date is not acceptable to us either. On those grounds we are unable to support the clauses as they are contained in the relevant Order Papers of 28 and 29 March. We cannot support the underlying principles of the clauses as formulated.‘Therefore, we cannot support the formulated clauses in the amended texts of the Order Papers of 28 and 29 March.

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss the procedure. Hon members in these benches would like to oppose clause 2, but we do not want to discuss all the clauses simultaneously. We want that clause to be dealt with first. Once that had been dealt with, we can proceed with the other clauses. My request is therefore that we do not discuss these clauses en bloc, from 2 to 6. I am asking that we first put clause 2 and take a decision in regard to that clause. Thereafter we can proceed to a discussion of the other clauses.

Mr Chairman, I do not think we have any other option but to discuss this clause by clause. All six provisions— if I have counted correctly—fall under the head “New clause to follow clause 1”. I therefore do not think we are permitted to divide them up into separate provisions, but that we must, in fact, discuss them as one single clause.

Order! What is before the Committee at present is the discussion of the amendment, as moved by the hon the Minister, ie the insertion of the specific clauses. If hon members will confine themselves to those clauses, we can permit a discussion. What is before the Committee at present, however, is the amendment of the hon the Deputy Minister, ie that certain insertions may be made.

Mr Chairman, I accept your statement, but there was a further amendment by the hon the Minister, which subsequently appeared on the Order Paper. We want to discuss that amendment. It was not moved in conjunction with the previous amendment. We want to discuss clause 2, the amendment to section 3 of the Act, which was placed on the Order Paper a few days later.

Order! The amendment, as moved by the hon the Minister, is an amendment to his amendment. Consequently it includes the whole concept of that altered amendment of the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to link up with what was said by the hon member for Sea Point. The motion relates to the insertion of several amendments. I therefore want to ask that we discuss those amendments separately so that each can be inserted in the legislation. It is tremendously difficult to speak about the whole gamut of amendments. There is the possibility that further amendments will result from the Committee’s deliberations before certain proposed amendments are agreed to, and that might place us in a difficult position. My request is that we discuss each amendment separately.

Order! I can understand the hon member for Parow saying that no new amendments can be moved in this Committee. The only matters that can be put before the Committee are the amendments printed on the Order Paper. In other words, the Committee is not empowered to move new amendments. The amendments before the Committee at present involve the insertion of specific clauses. I understand that there are various clauses. The amendment now before the Committee, however, involves the insertion of these clauses. All I can therefore allow is a discussion of the clauses in accordance with the hon the Deputy Minister’s motion to the effect that the Bill be thus amended.

Mr Chairman, what is printed on the Order Paper is an amendment, as moved by the hon the Deputy Minister, an amendment consisting of various provisions. I think that the question put by the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Parow is whether these provisions can be discussed separately or whether they have to be discussed as one single clause. I am of the opinion that the Rules in question provide that this has to be discussed clause by clause. If that is the prescribed procedure, we have no alternative but to lump together the provisions appearing under the head “New clause to follow clause 1”. Clause 2 can then be discussed separately. All the provisions falling under the head “New clause to follow clause 1” however, must be discussed as an entity. I am inclined to agree that it would perhaps be more satisfactory if we could discuss them separately. I am of the opinion that in terms of the Rules we have no choice in this matter but to discuss this clause by clause.

Order! Yes, I understand that. The hon member for Mossel Bay is correct in saying that this has to be discussed under one heading. The Committee has no problem with all the participants in the discussion dealing with each clause.

Mr Chairman, I request your guidance. If there are seven clauses which have to be amended, and there is one clause I do not agree with, must I vote against all seven?

Order! Does the hon member mean that he must vote for or against the amendment?

Yes, if one is to vote once in respect of all the clauses.

Order! The Committee will only vote once on the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to say in all deference that your ruling, which appears to be correct in terms of the Rules, is a further result of the resolution adopted here earlier. The problem facing us—I know it is not relevant, but please permit me to say this—is that the procedure being adopted here is, in fact, incorrect. That is why we now find ourselves in this situation. According to your ruling it appears that even if I were to agree with some clauses, whilst disagreeing on others …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Before you took the Chair, the point was already put by the PFP, in fact by the hon member for Sea Point. The ruling was that we should now adopt the correct procedure with the insertion of the clauses.

Order! I merely want to point out to hon members that we must confine ourselves to what appears before the Committee, ie the amendment of the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon member Prof Olivier may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling. I do not have a choice. I shall discuss this matter further on a later occasion. I merely want to state that I think that the hon member for Mossel Bay contradicted himself. One cannot, on the one hand, say that they were separate clauses in the Bill, that being all to the good, but now say, on the other hand, that only one clause was discussed. I shall, however, leave the matter at that.

I want to discuss clause 2 of the Bill.

Order! Is that the inserted clause?

Yes, clause 2 which you put, in other words clauses 2 to 7. These are the clauses amending section 3 of the principal Act. The background to why the House of Representatives voted against the original clause in the Bill specifically involved the distribution of the assets and liabilities, etc, and their transference.

In passing I just want to say that although I naturally respect your ruling, the hon member for Losberg’s interpretation of the situation was correct. To return to clause 2—the question can be asked: What was the standing committee actually dealing with?

Order! The hon member must please assist me. In referring to clause 2, to what clause is he referring?

I am referring to clause 2, which amends section 3 of the principal Act, with the insertion of the new clause …

Order! Yes, the hon member may proceed.

In other words, I am not discussing the clause already agreed to by the House.

The history of that amendment which was subsequently added—the hon member for Losberg is correct in that that amendment was not referred back to the standing committee—is that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives, on behalf of the House of Representatives, and also confirmed and endorsed by the House of Delegates, focused on the practical problem that arises when a development body such as the divisional council is abolished. It is also being expected to act as an agent of the regional services council established to replace the abolished development body, while the assets are transferred to other bodies. It is therefore being entrusted with the responsibilities, duties and obligations when there are no assets with which to meet those obligations. That was the major argument, and I think the hon member for Mossel Bay will also agree that it was the major objection. On those grounds the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates components stated that they could not continue with such a situation if that was going to be the result.

On those grounds they rejected this clause, and the other clauses too. That was the starting point.

Thereafter the matter came before the House of Representatives and agreement was apparently reached on an amendment contained here in subsection 3. The implications of the amendment are that when the assets and liabilities are distributed and transferred, if such assets and liabilities were to be transferred to an own affairs Minister, that should take place with the approval of that Minister.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will concede that this amendment, which was agreed to in the House of Representatives, was also moved on the standing committee by the hon member Mr Lockey?

As far as I can remember— and I am open to correction—the amendment was never discussed there. The idea was mooted, but it was never discussed. Let me say at once, however—and I am saying this in all deference and with due apology to the hon member for Mossel Bay—that I believe that this amendment, as it stands, does not meet the objections which were mentioned there by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives and which were supported by the members of his House and of the House of Delegates.

The implication of this amendment is that the Minister entrusted with own affairs, and he alone, can decide that he does not want this, while the express intention of the objections was—Minister Curry mentioned this in the House of Representatives—that they wanted a joint say in how precisely the assets and liabilities should be distributed.

[Inaudible.]

No, this amendment only states—I ask the hon member for Mossel Bay to examine it again at his leisure—that if something is transferred to a Minister entrusted with own affairs, this should take place with his permission. Here there is no question of consensus being required when it comes to the principle underlying the distribution of assets and liabilities.

But the House of Representatives agreed to it in this form!

No, I want to reiterate that I do not think that this amendment fundamentally meets the objections raised by the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The fundamental problem, their wanting a joint say in how precisely the assets and liabilities should be distributed, is not dealt with in this amendment. I was not present in the House of Representatives, because I am not permitted to participate in their discussions, but I do want to say that I do not think that this amendment interprets the fundamental objections raised by those hon members. Apart from the matter of principle, that point alone is sufficient reason for us to reject this specific clause.

Mr Chairman, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that one is only permitted to speak for 10 minutes. I have not yet got round to the other clauses and shall therefore probably have to make use of another turn to speak.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier is not correct. The House of Representatives’ basic objection dealt with the fact that they could obtain only liabilities, and no assets, from the distribution of this estate. To circumvent that, and to ensure that they obtained both assets and liabilities to administer, they could refuse to accept such an apportionment to the relevant Minister entrusted with own affairs in the House of Representatives.

The hon member Prof Olivier’s argument about their having no say in the distribution of assets is incorrect, because the assets are distributed by the administrator in executive committee. The administrator in executive committee is comprised of all population groups in this country. Members of the relevant governing or majority party in the House of Representatives have representation in that House as members of the executive committee. The argument about their not having a say in that matter is incorrect, because they do, in fact, have a say.

The problem about their possibly receiving liabilities and no assets, is obviated by the amendment of the then Deputy Minister of Development Planning which was agreed to in the House of Representatives. It is to be found in the amendment appearing on page 180 of the Order Paper of 29 March and was acceptable to that House. It is also acceptable to this side of the House and I therefore ask the PFP to support this clause.

I do not want to reply in detail to what the hon member for Losberg said. He wanted to deal with this question on an ideological basis. This is not, however, the time to do so, and there is consequently not much on which I can reply to him. The fact that you had to point this out to him, Mr Chairman, resulted in his resuming his seat fairly quickly, in contrast to what we have come to expect of him.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the hon member Prof Olivier’s argument, to which I think the hon member for Parow has replied quite effectively, I merely want to add the following. Looking at the wording of the amendment in question, if I am reading it correctly, specifically the last portion of the wording in question, to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred, I see “with the concurrence of the relevant Minister entrusted with own affairs”. It is therefore quite clear that he is only going to agree if he gets what satisfies him in accordance with his ability to meet his obligations. That is the crux of the matter under discussion here.

If I look at my hon colleague’s Second Reading speech on the Bill before the House, I see that that was specifically the problem experienced by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives—that obligations are imposed upon him, but that he does not have the ability to deal with them, and he wants to make every effort to ensure that he is in a position to deal with those obligations at the time when they are transferred. I therefore think that an adequate arrangement is being made here by way of this insertion, it being stated that he cannot have obligations imposed upon him before he is in a position to meet those obligations; he must therefore concur, and that is what has been formulated here. I therefore think that this is the best way in which this specific arrangement can be formulated. That is what I wanted to add to what the hon member for Parow said.

In regard to the hon member for Losberg’s argument, let me say the following. I can understand that when one examines the different texts, this seems like a complex piece of legislation, but if one places them in sequence, as one must surely do, it is not really that complex. I have only just acquainted myself with this aspect, and I am therefore familiar with what the hon member for Losberg must have gone through. I also had to place the texts in sequence in order to understand what we are dealing with here. If we examine the new clause 2, which amends section 3 of the principal Act, against this background, and look at the amendments which appeared on page 171 of the Order Paper on 28 March and on page 180 of the Order Paper on 29 March, we see that on 29 March we had only a single addition, ie a new proposed subsection (3) amending subsection (3) of the principal Act. There is consequently a small addition, specifically to deal with this point to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred. The amendments of 28 March and 29 March are therefore not two detached or separate amendments. On 29 March there was merely an addition. For the rest the wording of the amendment of 29 March is precisely the same as the wording of the amendment which appeared on the Order Paper on 28 March. So to make the statement that we are dealing here with complex amendments is not correct. I should merely like to have this placed on record. If one merely arranges things in a logical sequence, there is really nothing complex about it, and if one just uses one’s head a bit, one gets it all sorted out.

I merely want to say the following about the clause now before the House. I do not want to anticipate other hon members’ arguments, but I do think it is necessary for us just to examine the matter in its proper prospective. The clause under discussion deals, in particular, with three aspects, with a view to making practical arrangements in regard to those matters—the assets which are under discussion, the staff which is under discussion and the powers which are under discussion in the transfer of the property of these various development bodies. That is what is under discussion, and I should like to point out to the hon member for Losberg that if he were to examine the principal Act that was before the House and was passed in 1986—it was therefore passed before 30 June 1986—he would see that in sections 3 and 4 of the principal Act provision is, in fact, made for the transfer of the assets and the powers and the transfer of staff regulations. It is therefore not a matter in regard to which it has now been discovered, two years after the event, that arrangements should have been made. Provision was made at that stage, and this was incorporated in the Act. The hon member must just have a look, for example, at what is contained in section 3 (2) (a) of the principal Act; he would see that this was, in fact, included in that section.

Recently, when I came across this, I immediately asked the legal men whether what was contained in section 3 (2) (a) was not, in fact, sufficient to cover this point. There are various interpretations.

There is a difference of opinion about that.

Yes, there is a difference of opinion about that.

Some law advisers say that what is contained in paragraph 2(2)(a), for example “ … transfer … to such public authority as he may deem fit” is not sufficient to cover the respective public authorities involved. The hon member and I are both legal men too, and I must honestly say that to me it seems sufficient to be able to say that the respective public authorities are included in this formulation, as it stands. Let us concede, however, that there may, legally speaking, be a difference of opinion about that.

For the sake of absolute certainty and clarity, and since we are dealing with an amendment of the original legislation, it was decided that we should insert these amendments that are now before the Committee. In a certain sense they are therefore consequential amendments that already exist in the principal Act. If one therefore were to reread the Order Papers of 28 and 29 March and see what new insertions there were, one would discover that in the case of the amendment to section 3 this only has to do with the definition of the full portion or “any part thereof’; a public authority or “public authorities”. I hope that now makes that point absolutely clear. The same also applies to the amendments moved in regard to sections 4 and 5.

I therefore want to say that here we are dealing with practical circumstances which, in point of fact, have in a certain sense largely developed over the past two years and which were foreseen in the principal Act. In a certain sense these amendments are, in fact, consequential amendments to ensure that we have no dispute about the legal position in regard to certain events.

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the main amending clause, to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred. It is the one about the distribution of assets and the inclusion of a Minister’s concurrence, and this is the one which was dealt with in the House of Representatives.

I understand what the hon the Deputy Minister said. I listened to him carefully and he was saying that we actually have a bad bit of legislation here and that this is the best the Government can do. According to him this is the best the Government can think of. I want to tell hon members it is thoroughly bad because it is based on a bad principle. There is no way in which one will be able to deal with that principle by means of other subterfuges and devices of an executive kind.

What is the basic principle involved in this subsection? It is that the Minister who has assets in one body is now empowered to distribute those assets among the various bodies. That is basically what it is about; it is in other words a kind of asset partition. It is not a partition of territory but a partition of assets.

Let us look at what we are dealing with. The issue arose—those of us who were in the standing committee know this—because of the dissolution of the divisional councils in the Cape. What did one have here? One had a single body, a divisional council, for an area. It had undivided assets and it provided services to all communities. A divisional council was a single, regional body with undivided assets, providing services to all sections of the community. The only thing it lacked was having all the people vote for it.

Instead of increasing the voting and broadening the base of democracy, the Government has come with an alternative in terms of this clause, and that is to break up the divisional council assets on a racial basis. So the divisional council is not only going to be abolished, but its assets are going to be divided among Coloured, Indian and White own affairs as well as general affairs. This clause gives the Minister the authority to divide the assets among these four elements.

However, they are going to divide not only the assets but also the services on a racial basis. Instead of providing services in a region from undivided assets, they are now going to divide the assets and the services on a racial basis. It is because of this problem that they have to come with this concept that a Minister of one race group has to give his concurrence to this breaking up of assets.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that at this stage we still do not have own affairs for Blacks, for where are they going to get the assets?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Sea Point is discussing the principle not only of one Bill, that has already been agreed to, but of two Bills, viz the Bill under discussion as well as the Regional Services Councils Bill. He is discussing the principle of the legislation and I suggest that he is out of order.

Mr Chairman, I want to read this very carefully. This clause has been specifically designed. The previous Bill provided for all the assets to be transferred to one body. This clause is an amendment to the previous clause which specifically allows the hon the Minister to distribute to various bodies: “the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations… or any part thereof … to such public authority or public authorities …” [Interjections.] I am opposed to this because we have not discussed this principle. This principle was not contained in the Bill when it was submitted for the Second Reading. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the concept contained in this clause that the assets should be distributed in this way and I am arguing that the Government is creating an impossible situation.

It is not possible in modern South Africa to take the undivided assets of a region and to start appointing or allocating them fairly to the various racial components. If this is what the hon the Minister intends, he will end up with an unfair distribution of assets on one side or the other. I do not mind who it is, but it will nevertheless create an unfair situation. If one assumes that the subsection dealing with the Minister is intended to achieve fairness, and even if it seems fair at that moment in the perception of the relevant own affairs Minister, that region will develop organically and out of that region one will get different demands from different communities so that the assets will not rise and increase at the same time. In other words, there will be growing demands in respect of one community, while the assets will grow in another community. It is only by keeping a common pool of assets even within the context of the Government’s own policy—and by allowing the separate racial groups requiring services to draw from a common pool, that one will achieve a situation of fairness. We are opposed to the concept of taking the collective assets, as well as the collective services, of a region and trying to say that we can, at a given moment, apportion them on a reasonable or fair basis to individual communities.

At this stage there is no provision for Black own affairs. In this regard, I want to ask the hon the Minister how, once the assets have been distributed—he is now empowered to do this—to the various own affairs Ministers, he is going to find assets to distribute to the next group which will have to be part of an own affairs group in terms of his own policy.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point has tried to build an argument around the fact that provision is being made for the own affairs of the various population groups. Even if we exclude own affairs and population groups from the argument, the fact remains that the boundaries of the new authorities will not necessarily correspond with those of the old development bodies. This being so, it follows as a matter of course that a question arises in respect of the apportionment of assets. This means that where, for example, two regional services councils take over the area of one divisional council, the question automatically arises as to which regional services council should receive the assets of that divisional council and in what proportion. After all, the new authorities will be responsible in future for providing services to that community. The distribution of assets remains an inherent problem, irrespective of whether the area is regarded as consisting of one or more communities. By trying to involve a group context, the hon member is merely trying to attack the principle of the legislation in a roundabout way. It has nothing to do with …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is very difficult for us to hear what the hon member for Mossel Bay has to say, because there is so much noise coming from the NP benches.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

Sir, I submit that the problem that is being dealt with here really has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that services have to be provided for separate communities. This does add a further dimension to the problem, but I submit that the problem that arises from the fact that the geographic area that is to be served by the new authority does not necessarily correspond with the geographic area that was previously served by the development body—these bodies are being abolished—does not in itself raise the a question of the distribution of assets, liabilities and functions. For that reason this provision is a necessity that we cannot do without.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay is presenting a ridiculous argument.

It is not a ridiculous argument!

It is ridiculous, because the hon member is shying away from his own party’s racial policy as well as the amendment before us. He says it has nothing to do with racial segregation; that it deals with separating or joining councils in order to create new councils and authorities. This is not what the amendment says, however.

†It reads:

The amendment is, in fact, specific. No mention is made about combining authorities or about regions. It specifies that, in the event of services being allocated on the basis of race—that is what is being done—a certain procedure has to be followed.

However, the hon member says I am using this clause in an attempt to introduce a discussion on the division of race. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will say: “Of course that is what we are talking about.” We are talking about dividing up the assets on a racial basis. That is what the clause is about. In fact, it even states that, because of that, special procedures have to be followed.

The hon member is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, and I can tell you that he too knows that. He knows exactly what this is about. He knows that the issue which was raised by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives had nothing to do with putting together various divisional councils in various regions. I can mention the case of Atlantis where, in one region, there was an allocation to Whites and another to Coloureds. That was what it was about.

I hope the NP will at least not start running away from the consequences of their own policy. They have a racist attitude, in the sense that they believe in the division of services on the basis of race. They believe that assets must be divided on the basis of race. Let them go to bed with that, but do not let them run away from the consequences, as the hon member for Mossel Bay has tried to do this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement that we are actually dealing here with consequential legislation in the sense that these circumstances were foreseen at the time and that this amending Bill was before this Committee today as a result of that foresight.

If we look at the proposed section 2 (3), for example, it is very clear that this is a new provision inserted on the grounds of an agreement reached with the Coloureds. Let us state very clearly today—the hon member for Mossel Bay must acknowledge this—that the proposed section 2 (3) of the Bill was inserted after an agreement was reached with the House of Representatives. That is the truth of the matter, is it not? In the light of the fact that the proposed section 2 (3) was inserted after an agreement with the House of Representatives—there was no agreement prior to that—how can the hon the Minister say that this is consequential legislation? Surely that is not true; it is not a consequence of that. Surely the proposed section 2 (3) is very clearly a new provision which was the result of a new situation developing and which did not arise out of a situation which was foreseeable when regional services councils were introduced.

I want to make a second remark. Here we are dealing with a tangled web of State administration in the sense that when regional services councils were introduced, no provision was made …

Order! I am not going to allow regional services councils as such to be discussed now.

With all due respect, Sir, I am not discussing regional services councils as such but the reason for the insertion of subsection (3) of the new section 3.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Subsection (3) was inserted because at the time, in the case of regional services councils, no provision was made to cover the areas for which provision is being made in this legislation. That is why subsection (3) has now been inserted. There is no question of this situation having been foreseen at the time, as the hon the Deputy Minister indicated to us. It is a situation that developed as a result of an agreement reached with the House of Representatives because that hon Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture was extremely dissatisfied about the fact that the new subsection (3) had not been included at the time. I want to quote to hon members the new subsection, which reads as follows:

That was the peg on which that was hung and which led to the approval for the agreement which was reached. That is the reason.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is really wide of the mark now. I really do want to suggest that he consult the principal Act. It would prove a great help to him.

He is arguing now about subsection (3) which is being inserted here by way of this amendment. He says it is a new subsection. But that is not true, is it? [Interjections.] In the new section 3(3) of the principal Act of 1986 there is the following:

If one reads what is contained in subsection (2), one finds that it deals with the distribution and transfer of assets and everything that goes hand in hand with that. It has precisely the same wording as is now contained in subsection (3), about which the hon the member is complaining. All that is now being added is the following:

That is contained in subsection (2) of section (3) of the principal Act in any event. Now—this is what is under discussion here—the following is being added:

That is an addition. So that is a point which is now being added. It is not an additional subsection which is now being introduced, as the hon member argued. The hon member should read the principal Act; then he would see that that is contained in the principal Act.

The hon member speaks as if these provisions are additions being made solely for the sake of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives. But that is not true, is it? The hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Assembly and the hon the Minister entrusted with local government in the House of Delegates do, after all, derive the same advantage or disadvantage, whatever the case may be, from this. The hon member is free to go and ask those hon Ministers how they feel about that. The very same thing applies to all of them; in fact, my predecessor, the previous hon Deputy Minister, addressed that matter, to which the hon member has just referred, in his Second Reading speech. I do not now want to waste the Committee’s time by repeating that, but it is in the Second Reading speech. He clearly indicated that although the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives had focussed on this point, as I told the hon member Prof Olivier a moment ago, it is a point that was emphasized, because when one transfers obligations and the authorities receiving the obligations are not in a position to meet those obligations, they should be assisted in some or other way. Although this was emphasized by the hon the Minister in the House of Representatives, the other hon the Ministers agreed that it would be to their benefit if such an amendment were introduced.

It is really a great pity that the hon member for Losberg wants to draw this conclusion by way of insinuation and that he has done so on the strength of a point which should, in fact, be to the benefit of all three relevant administrations.

In reply to the hon member for Sea Point, I merely want to raise another matter. It is very interesting. The hon member actually argued against the principle of the abolition of the development bodies and the distribution of their property …

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me the hon member cannot remember very clearly. What he opposed in his argument this afternoon, he agreed to in 1986. I consulted Hansard to ascertain what he said about that. In 1986 the PFP passed the principal Act, with all the implications he is now opposing in his argument. In fact, the hon member himself was in the House and he voted for that.

At this stage he is arguing against it. I cannot understand this. The implication of the principal the hon member spoke about earlier in the committee stage, ie that one is now dealing here with the distribution of the property of the development bodies on an own affairs basis, is already contained in the principal Act of 1986, as adopted, and at the time the hon member voted in favour of that. I do not know where the change in his standpoint came from, but he must not confuse the Committee with that aspect now. The fact is that that is the implication of the principal Act.

A further point is that when the hon member is speaking about the distribution of the property of the development bodies, he is referring to the divisional councils. Surely it is not only the divisional councils which are affected by the Act, but all the other development bodies which are involved. Let us now specifically speak about one of these, the Black development boards, which have meanwhile all been abolished. The property of those development boards surely did not represent a diversity of assets or property relating to own affairs. A large number of other aspects, which were Black own affairs—if one wishes to put it in those terms—were involved, for example sorghum beer and the manpower aspects which fell under the auspices of the development boards. They were not transferred to other own affairs—type bodies. In the case of sorghum beer they were transferred to the IDC, with a view to later privatisation. In the case of the labour aspects, they were transferred to the Department of Manpower and delegated or not delegated by the department.

The argument the hon member now wishes to raise is that we are speaking here of the abolition of the development bodies and the distribution of their property as if it all relates to an own affairs distribution. That is not true. That is the point I should like to bring home to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point intimated that I was now trying to run away from my party’s policy. The hon member is either being wilful or he does not understand Afrikaans.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am under the impression that the hon member for Mossel Bay has already spoken three times on this clause.

Order! The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point is either being wilful or he does not understand Afrikaans, because the statement he objected to arose from the argument about the geographic area of the previous development bodies not necessarily coinciding with the geographic area of the governmental bodies to be established. As the hon the Deputy Minister rightly indicated, there are various public bodies or development bodies involved here.

Arising out of that argument, I tried to indicate to the hon member that in specific cases it was possible for the geographic areas not to coincide. I dealt with that aspect, and if the hon member had listened, he would have heard me saying specifically that the problem is highlighted by the fact that provision has to be made for the respective population groups. “This lends a new dimension to the problem”, were the words I used. Now the hon member is accusing me of running away from my party’s policy. By the very nature of the argument, I was arguing a different aspect of the matter with the hon member. I never intimated that the provision under discussion did not relate to groups. Of course it does. The whole tenor of the Bill revolves around the standpoint of the own affairs of the relevant hon Minister of the House of Representatives. Of course the whole matter revolves around groups. In my contribution, to which the hon member objected, I tried to emphasise another aspect of the matter, however.

Mr Chairman, I follow the hon member for Mossel Bay’s argument, but he himself created this problem, because the hon member for Sea Point’s problem specifically involved the distribution of assets and liabilities on a racial basis. He did not speak about anything else, which is quite correct, because the amendments, as they stand, do specifically make provision for the fact that assets and liabilities can be transferred to more than one public body. They can consequently be transferred from a divisional council to more than one regional services council. That is quite correct. That was not, however, the essence of the hon member for Sea Point’s problem.

For that reason the reply the hon member for Mossel Bay furnished by referring to that provision, was completely irrelevant. So the hon member fell into that trap himself, if I may put it in those terms. He replied to an argument which was never advanced by the hon member for Sea Point.

We can consult Hansard.

Very well. I do not want to come back to the reaction of the hon member for Parow. I merely want to reiterate that I think that my interpretation of this particular amendment is correct, and I shall speak to him about that at a later stage.

The fact that the executive management committee also embodies people from other colour groups has nothing to do with the amendment we are discussing in this Bill. By the very nature of the case—my hon colleague also indicated as much—we support this particular clause in the Bill.

I now come to clause 3, which amends section 4 of the principal Act. Basically we have no objections to that because, in terms of subsection 10A(a), extreme powers are being granted to the administrator to transfer people from the service of one public body to another. It is stated here that he can do so after consultation, with the person concerned. It is probably better to say that there should be consultation with the person concerned so that the administrator does not have the unrestricted ability to do exactly as he pleases, but that still means that in the last resort, after the consultation he has the power to decide that a person has now been town clerk of Cape town, chief executive officer of a regional services council or the secretary of a divisional council for long enough and that that person is now going to be transferred to the service of another specific body. It is true, of course, that the administrator has to comply with the stipulations in the clause, i e:

1. (i) After consultation with—
   1. (aa) the person concerned;
   2. (bb)the public authority in the service of which the person concerned is;
   3. (cc) any other body or person which he deems necessary.

If that relates to the Public Service or any service to the public, the Commission for Administration is also involved. There has to be consultation, but the administrator can take the final decision as he deems fit. Here he is therefore actually being entrusted with dictatorial powers when it comes to transferring people.

In that connection it is therefore important for subsection (11) to be substituted by a subsection in which it is added that someone who is thus transferred cannot have recourse to the Labour Relations Act. We therefore feel that here, in the sweeping powers being granted to the administrator, things are actually going too far. One could say that this is an essential consequence of the prevailing situation, but we are unhappy about it.

I want to go on to clause 4, which amends section 5 of the principal Act. I quote:

The quotation goes further, but what it actually amounts to is that in this clause there is further confirmation of the whole concept of own affairs. The hon member for Mossel Bay has to concede this point. As hon members know, we have basic objections to that entire concept.

I again quote from the proposed new section 5(la)(b):

His powers are therefore completely unlimited.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if I correctly understood him to say that his party had no objections to the clause or amendment as it stood, but that owing to their basic objections to the legislation, they were going to vote against this?

Mr Chairman, how can the hon member for Mossel Bay divorce those two aspects? They cannot, after all, be separated. Let us look here at the proposed new section 5(la)(b), which reads:

It is impossible for me to divorce the principle from the provision of this legislation. I have two problems as far as this is concerned, i e the powers being granted to the State President to amend any Act by regulation. Let me say that that is not a good measure. If an act has to be amended, it ought to be amended by this Parliament and not by the hon the State President by way of regulation. It is wrong in principle, and that is the principle underlying my standpoint. Added to that there is the whole problem involved in the question of own affairs and the reference to the relevant provision in the Constitution. I therefore cannot separate the two, and on these grounds I have to say that we cannot support that particular clause either.

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly in the Committee. The hon member may proceed.

We also have fundamental objections to the following clause, i e clause 5, which amends section 6, for the same basic reasons I have mentioned. The proposed new section 6 (2) reads as follows:

1. (a) any development body abolished in terms of section 2 (2) shall be construed as a reference to the public authority concerned as contemplated in section 5 (1) (b):
2. (b) any person in the service of such development body shall be construed as a reference to a person in the service of the public body to which the Minister has transferred him in terms of section 4.

In other words, again these are unrestricted powers being conferred upon the Minister, something to which we fundamentally object. In these circumstances we cannot support this particular clause either.

It seems to me that clause 7 is wide of the mark, and although there are no fundamental problems from our side, we cannot go along with the statutory amendment as a whole. As stated, we therefore find ourselves in a situation in which we either have to accept or reject all the clauses, from 2 to 7. In the light of our fundamental objections to certain of the clauses, we therefore have no other choice but to vote against this particular provision embodying clauses 2 to 7.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to refer to clause 3 which is aimed at amending section 4 of the principal Act. It empowers the Administrator to place anyone, in the service of a public authority, in the service of any other public authority. It is the standpoint of this side of the Committee that we must strongly oppose this provision. We have had certain experiences with a similar provision. Mr Chairman, if you would permit me to use examples to motivate why we are opposing this clause, I would like to do so. We have had numerous examples of the abolition of the development bodies in question here, with numerous people coming to us—to the Conservative Party—to complain about the fact that there was a lack of security in cases where they had been transferred to other bodies. We are opposing this provision as a result of what we want to term the draconian powers for the Administrator which are embodied in this provision, the uncertainty this could create for the staff concerned and the lack of job security that is at issue here.

Finally I should like to come back to the envisaged new section 5(l)(b). The same argument mentioned by the previous speaker applies here too, i e that the State President is being empowered to amend any Act by regulation. That is an unsound legal principle which this side of the Committee cannot support. It deprives this Parliament, which is the supreme authority with regard to legislation in the Republic of South Africa, of its powers to amend an Act, when it wants to do so, by majority resolution. This side of the House is opposed to depriving the highest legislative authority in the country of that power, and we strongly wish to underline the fact that use should not be made of regulations when it comes to amending Acts.

Mr Chairman, I shall begin with the hon member for Losberg’s point about the staff and also the provision that is being made for dealing with the situation in regard to clause 3. I should like to say that we are all concerned about the way the staff involved here are being dealt with. There are large numbers of people involved. In fact, my hon predecessor referred to that in his Second Reading speech, saying that with the abolition of the development bodies which had thus far taken place, approximately 32 000 employees had been transferred from the development bodies to other public bodies.

That is indeed a matter which has to be dealt with on very compassionate grounds. I agree with the hon member. It is specifically for that reason that that provision is being made in the Bill. What is now being provided for is of course that, for the sake of argument, a specific official of a development body which has been abolished will then serve in the own affairs administration authority of a specific group. It does happen, however, that such an own affairs authority may at this stage not yet be a full-fledged authority. Here in the vicinity of Cape Town we have two such examples, that of Bloubergstrand and Atlantis, where two such own affairs administrations are involved. Not one of those two authorities has full-fledged status as yet.

One therefore has a transitional phase that is involved here. Until one has completed the process, one therefore has to adopt an interim measure to keep on accommodating the staff. That is what is involved here; if one did not do so, the fate of the staff would be up in the air, their names not appearing anywhere on any establishment or post structure. That is why it is so important for this process to be finalised.

To answer Prof Olivier’s question at the same time, it is also necessary to make provision for a person to be empowered to cause that transfer to take place, for the sake of argument, the moment that authority has full-fledged status. That is what we are making provision for here. In this case the administrator is the best authority to entrust with such a transfer. I think that administrators are specifically the people in the respective provinces who, by virtue of their image of independence, and the abilities they have when it comes to taking decisions on matters of this nature, are persons occupying positions of trust in the eyes of staff members. Staff members can therefore confidently leave this matter in the hands of the administrator and allow him to exercise those powers.

For the record I want to ensure that there is clarity on what the administrator’s function is. It is not, as the hon member Prof Olivier indicated, a question of his simply being able to exercise this function in consultation with the relevant people or bodies. In terms of subsection (b) of the proposed section 4 (10A) the administrator, as defined, acts after consultation. It is not as if he is being empowered to exercise a discretion; he must act in consultation with the relevant person, the public authority and the body to which the person is transferred.

Is it therefore after consultation with and not in consultation with?

It is after consultation with. In other words, the person is consulted in this matter. It is not the administrator’s choice. He also has to consult with the Commission for Administration. In other words, the interests of the employees are sufficiently covered. I think that is the best way one can look after the interests of employees.

With reference to the point the hon member Prof Olivier made about the powers being granted in the proposed new section 4 (11), this is not a new principle which is being introduced. It is an existing principle contained in the Act. It is merely an addition to the provisions of the proposed section 4 (10A). In fact, the principle is already firmly entrenched.

May I just refer to the remarks made by the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Losberg about the provisions of subsection (5) (iv), as printed. According to this subsection, powers are now being granted to the State President. Let us look at the practical circumstances involved. I should like to ask the hon member for Losberg to listen to this. Let us take the example quoted in the Second Reading speech and see what the position has thus far been in regard to the powers of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas in the case of an area such as Ennerdale. Up to now that body has exercised authority in regard to Ennerdale, a Coloured residential area. To have that transferred after the abolition of that body would mean that a new public authority would have to take over that responsibility. The public authority involved here is the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Representatives. Surely the hon member has nothing to quibble about as far as that is concerned. Or does he? It does not seem to me as if he does.

If the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is to be responsible for that, surely those powers must be transferred to him. The only person who can transfer those powers is the hon the State President. Surely those are not extraordinary powers being granted to the hon the State President. These are powers which are comparable—if one could put it in those terms— with those granted to the administrator in the previous clause. This is merely being done in order to transfer the figure of authority. I think that is a very practical example. It was a total misrepresentation on the part of the hon member when he said that powers were being granted to the hon the State President for which no legislative authorisation had been granted. That is a ridiculous conclusion, is it not. It was done, in point of fact, to ensure that the situation could be dealt with in practical terms.

Lastly I just want to react to what the hon member Prof Olivier said. I am referring here to what he said about clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6 contains a consequential amendment. I understand that he has objections to the preceding clause. If he objects to that clause, he must also object to this one. It is, however, a consequential amendment relating to what is contained in clauses 4 and 5. This has been done to create certainty. The same applies, to a large extent, in regard to clause 7. If I heard correctly, the hon member had no difficulty with clause 7 (b).

Clause 7 (a) is also, to a large extent, a consequential amendment to grant powers of delegation to that new authoritative body. I think I could understand if the hon member had a problem based on principle. It is, in point of fact, a consequential amendment which follows upon the previous one.

Amendment put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—87: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Hunter, J E L; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Meyer, R P; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, D W; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Zyl, J G; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—28: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D;

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 negatived.

New clause:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Title:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill now before the House arises from a request by the Chief Master of the Supreme Court of South Africa who, in terms of section 55(1) of the Mental Health Act of 1973, also empowers the Master to issue a reception order authorising the detention of a person whose mental condition is the subject of an enquiry. In practice notice is given by forwarding a copy of the reception order to the Master concerned.

The Chief Master proposed that the forwarding of reception orders to the various Masters be restricted to cases in which the Magistrate comes upon assets in the course of the relative enquiry. The Chief Master also pointed out that during 1985, for example, 5 600 reception orders of people who had no assets—thus serving no constructive purpose whatsoever—were submitted to various Masters’ offices. The main purpose of this Bill is consequently to eliminate this unnecessary paperwork.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members in anticipation for their support.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, it is indeed true that this amendment was introduced at the request of the Master. It is also true that this should not and will not detrimentally affect anyone. Only in cases in which the magistrate ascertains, in his investigation, that such a person owns property, will such a notice be send to the Master.

We on this side of the House therefore have no objections, and we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to agree wholeheartedly with the CP for a change. This Bill is very short and to the point, and with very few words it will achieve a great deal. A large amount of unnecessary work will be eliminated. The members of the standing committee obtained the literature and documentation in advance. They examined it, convened and in less than a minute—I did not time them—the proceedings were concluded. There was no discussion of the matter on the standing committee. Everyone was in full agreement. Proposals were submitted, which were agreed to, and once that had been done, we went home. I therefore do not think it is necessary for me to say more about this. It is a pleasure for me to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to thank the hon the Minister for having thanked me in anticipation for my support. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to thank the following people: The hon member for Pietersburg, for his support, the hon member for Langlaagte, for his constructive contribution to the debate, and the hon member for Parktown for thanking me in anticipation for the thanks I am now expressing. That is all I have to say.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.