announced that he had received a Message from the State President calling a joint sitting, as follows:

P W BOTHA,

State President.

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet.

announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Tuesday, 18 June, at 14h00 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the new Rule 5A introduces a fairly radical innovation into the proceedings of Parliament. There are various rules which provide for the interruption of business and a change in the precedence of orders of the day. Here we now have a rule which permits an officer of Parliament actually to interrupt business. We understood in the standing committee that there would be a limitation on this right, namely that it would only relate to matters actually on the Order Paper. That having been said, it is a fairly drastic innovation.

The first point in this regard is that it is done without notice. In the standing committee the point was made that no good or sensible Chief Whip of Parliament would presume to do this unless he had been in a position to give as much prior notice as possible. We are faced here with the old dilemma namely that we are not legislating for the present good or sensible Chief Whip of Parliament but for future Chief Whips of Parliament as well. I therefore hope that the Chief Whip of Parliament will not take anything I say amiss.

A further point is that the question is put to the House concerned without amendment or debate so that in fact members of a House are deprived of the opportunity of discovering why this has had to be done and of expressing their views on it. We will have to watch this very carefully if the three Houses pass this particular provision. I must say that we did not like it at first sight. We have looked at it again on several occasions and I have learnt nothing which does not raise in me the apprehension that a Chief Whip of Parliament other than the present one might well be disposed to take advantage of it.

The effect of this is that the Chief Whip of Parliament can operate in this fashion in any of the three Houses. This puts him in an extremely powerful position in each of the three Houses to command the business of those Houses. We are going to appraise this particular provision.

Mr Chairman, I cannot quarrel with the standpoint of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. He is probably fully entitled to try and preserve the existing situation. All I can say is that the amendment owes its origin to the fact that the departments’ activities make it essential. For example, a department like the Department of Finance traditionally has a great deal of legislation that has to be passed towards the end of a session. One need only consider the Income Tax Bill, and so on. The Minister of Finance must pilot this legislation through the three different Houses. In the limited time a Bill is available towards the end of the session, it is not always easy to have all the legislation piloted through. This year we are getting it through reasonably successfully, but I do not know whether we shall always be in a position to do so.

The whole idea of this amendment is purely that while the House is engaged in other legislation in terms of the Order Paper, there can be a temporary interruption to enable the relevant Minister to dispose of his legislation to that that Minister can subsequently proceed in another House.

I should like to elucidate this on the basis of a hypothetical example. On Wednesday we had a Joint Sitting. On Wednesday morning we began with a piece of legislation the discussion of which was continued after the lunchtime break. After the Joint Sitting on Wednesday afternoon it may be necessary for us to deliberate on a certain motion in this House. This will mean that we cannot do so because we shall then be interrupting the discussion of a piece of legislation which is already being discussed.

I do not believe that I alone should give the assurance. The orderly functioning of every House makes it necessary for there to be the closest consultation with all the parties in that House before such a step is taken. I cannot foresee that this will constitute a right which will be freely and generally used, but I foresee that one will need it in specific circumstances. I think that this is unquestionably the case and I believe we must make provision for those circumstances.

Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Rule 14:

Mr Chairman, this again is a new provision. While I do not have any objection to the substitution of a member of a standing committee I think we have perhaps made the proceedings a little cumbersome. Now we require two persons to satisfy the chairman of the standing committee that the member concerned has a good reason for being absent. We provide that “if a member of the standing select committee and the Whip of such member’s party satisfy the chairman”, but what is going to happen is that we are going to be in recess and the members are going to be spread around the Republic. We are now asking for proof to the satisfaction of the chairman from two sources—the member concerned and the whip.

Of course there is also a grammatical error in that if one requires both those persons to satisfy the chairman, the word “satisfies” should not be used, but the word “satisfy”. I presume that the word “and” is used conjunctively here.

My view is that the question of satisfying the chairman of the standing committee should be left to the senior Whip of the party involved and that the member concerned should not come into that aspect of the proceedings.

Mr Chairman, once again I have respect for the hon member’s standpoint. The only reason why the Whip—or the senior Whip, as the hon member had in mind—is involved here, is that this rule now affords one the opportunity to designate a substitute for a member on an ad hoc basis and the chairman cannot take it upon himself to appoint a member other than by consulting a Whip of that party. I do not think that if the member has satisfied the chairman that he has a sound reason for being absent, the Whip need also do so with regard to the chairman. He is involved in this matter purely in the sense that he designates a replacement for the member on an ad hoc basis.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 16:

Mr Chairman, we have a problem with this rule, particularly with subsection (2) which provides as follows:

The point was raised in the standing committee by our colleagues who reside in the more far-flung areas of the Republic, like Kuruman, I understand, that the mail these days is perhaps not as quick as it could be. In any event, the mere requirement that it has to be “forwarded” within 14 days may, as I say, in certain far-flung areas of the Republic involve a member in very, very short notice indeed.

For that reason I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, as regards this provision which extends the relevant period from 7 to 14 days, I just want to say at the outset that it is a pity that the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition deems it necessary to move an amendment at this stage. Since it relates to a joint rule, acceptance of the amendment could really cause practical problems in the handling of the amendment, since by this time the report as a whole has probably already been agreed to by the other two Houses. However that is not an insurmountable problem.

To get to the substance of the hon member’s amendment I want to say that the position is that the first meeting of standing committees for the recess will probably be determined centrally, taking into account all the relevant factors, eg when party congresses are held, when legislation is available, etc. This will enable one to determine long before the time when a standing committee should meet. I think we can undoubtedly give all hon members the assurance that the period of 14 days specified in the rules may at this stage be nothing more than a guideline and that in practice it will be far more, as a result of the position at that stage.

Hon members will, however, fully understand that we cannot risk making the period for which provision is made in the rules, too long. Specific circumstances may arise, although at present there is no reason for this.

I want to conclude by giving the hon member the assurance that as far as the first meeting is concerned, considerably more than 14 days’ notice will be given to hon members.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Rule agreed to.

Rule 17:

Mr Chairman, this rule re-enacts provisions which exist already. It also adds a provision in regard to the venue where a standing committee may sit.

We have no quarrel with the new paragraph (c) but I cannot let this opportunity pass without referring to the fact that the leave granted by this provision whereby a standing committee may upon its own resolution sit during the sittings of a House, has in fact caused a great deal of trouble, frustration and inconvenience among hon members.

When we first conceived the idea of a standing committee which would be an extension of Parliament in the very real sense of the word, there were two ideas uppermost in the mind of the standing committee. The first was that a great deal of the donkeywork would be done during recess. I understand the problems of the Government that during this session we did not take up the slack, as it were, of legislation in the recess.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that the attitude of this side of the House is that the law advisers and the draftsmen of the various departments of State must please be told that these standing committees are an extension of Parliament. Months have been set aside for their sitting towards the end of this year and any piece of legislation that is not ready for submission to those standing committees at the appointed time of which they have been given good notice will cause inconvenience to hon members in the next parliamentary session.

The other matter that was uppermost in our minds was that every Friday until the Easter recess would be set aside as a day for the sitting of standing committees. I do not want to cast aspersions or throw bricks but that system did not work terribly well. I think all the hon members of this House will agree with me that these standing committees have been sitting around the clock on all days, but my particular objection is that this happened while this House was sitting. I do not think there is a single member of a standing committee here, except perhaps for the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs which does not have a great deal of legislation, who has not felt that he has a divided obligation to the House and his standing committee.

Certainly the Standing Committee on Finance has been placed under intolerable pressure. I do not think that I am letting any cats out of the bag when I say that we felt so strongly about this that we went to see the hon Leader of the House not so long ago to say that the strain upon this particular standing committee has been intolerable over the past two weeks. We give notice that in future we will watch this particular paragraph (a) very closely and it may well be that we will have to reconsider our position in regard to this matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition by saying that when one is a member of a smaller party in this House, it becomes a great deal more difficult to do one’s duty as a member of a specific standing committee, and that also applies when the House is in session.

I want to say to the hon Chief Whip of the Government that the one initial problem we had, viz that open debate in Parliament would be jeopardized by way of the new dispensation, is confirmed when the standing committees sit while the House is also in session.

In addition, I want to say to the hon Chief Whip of the Government that it will not be very long before the Government is going to find, at a subsequent election or after the elections we have now, that it is a party whose numbers are declining. The Government will find, when they are in such a position, that the rules they are making today from a strong position owing to their strong representation, will cause many problems for them, too, at a later stage. I therefore support the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, the request of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is a very reasonable one. However, we must bear one thing in mind: During the past recess, before this session of Parliament began, we still had no standing committee work. When this session began we had no option but to sit on Fridays. I appreciate the problem he had in connection with the sitting of committees on Fridays. However, we are now going into recess. The request put to me by the Whips of the Official Opposition, the CP and the NRP was clearly that we request the officials and the various Ministries to have legislation ready so that standing committees can sit during September and October, or October and November, as we arranged with the Chief Whip of Parliament. We did not have these arrangements last year. This system was only implemented from 16 January this year.

By the time we get here next year, the greater part of the legislation will therefore already have been disposed of by standing committees, and I do not foresee that there will be as much pressure on standing committees. I appreciate the problem of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and I shah convey the message to the Cabinet and the various Directors-General to submit the legislation to the standing committees as promptly as possible to enable them to dispose if it.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 22:

Mr Chairman, in Rule 22 there is a provision according to which, when Parliament is not in session, a Bill which is to be introduced, together with its memorandum, shall be forwarded to the members of the standing committee at least 14 days before the date appointed for the meeting of the committee. I accept that there are administrative problems involved, but a member of Parliament who is not a member of the standing committee is not going to receive a copy of the Bill.

No, every member receives it.

Is that so? Is there another provision?

Every member receives it, as in the past.

Is that in the rules, Mr Chairman?

[Inaudible.]

In that case I am happy with this provision.

I do not want to be difficult but I would like to refer to paragraph (5)(b) which provides for the insertion of a new paragraph (c) in subsection (4). The effect of this provision is that no report from the chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Bills will be necessary. We think that this is a mistake because we believe that hon members ought to be informed as to the proceedings of this standing committee. I know that this standing committee has a particular status because it deals with draft Bills, but I think we are making a mistake if we preclude the need for a report.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 24:

Mr Chairman, this Rule and the proposed new Rule 24A are the most important new provisions of the Rules which are being amended.

When the long debate on the new Constitution started two years ago, we understood that as an essential part of the workings of the new Constitution there would be a joint sitting of the three Houses. We learnt at a fairly early stage that the scope of such a joint sitting was severely circumscribed; in fact, it would virtually be ceremonial occasions and the introductory speeches of Ministers on the Second Readings of Bills. However, what has happened—and I think we must be quite blunt about this; I do not think we must attempt to bluff ourselves or the public—is that the system has not worked very well. From the point of view of the public gallery, the presiding officers, although I can, of course, not speak for them, and certainly from the point of view of hon members these have been deadly dull proceedings. I really think we must talk turkey. No questions were allowed and in the end I actually do not remember hearing many interjections. Members were absolutely bored because it really was a bit of a farce.

There was also something slightly humiliating about solemnly bringing in 45 seats and letting hon members from the other Houses also listen to all the speeches of Ministers. I do not blame the Ministers; it is not a comic turn and nobody expects them to be especially entertaining in a Second Reading speech. When we rose, we again had the messengers solemnly take out the 45 odd seats after we saw the disappearing rear ends of the hon members involved. Something was psychologically not right about that.

What is to be done about this? One option is to accept this Rule. On the whole we will find that this is what is going to be the case. The hon the Minister will make his introductory speech in one of the three Houses …

Order! Is the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition now speaking about Rule 24A? I only put Rule 24.

Yes, Sir, that is perfectly true. Do I have your permission to take them jointly because they are absolutely interlinked?

The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition may continue.

We are thus going to have the situation where we will no longer have joint sittings for certain introductory speeches. Such speeches will now be delivered in a single House.

That was not the only option. I believe the other option was to have a joint sitting in a more meaningful way. The possibilities were limitless. Nobody is suggesting that there should have been a vote. The policy of my party is, of course, clear—we would like one House. However, I do not want to go into constitutional problems. However, it would certainly have been within our wit to have conceived a system whereby the joint sitting system was strengthened, not emasculated. I believe we could have had meaningful debates; there could have been time limits set; the number of speeches that could be made could have been set—for example perhaps only one member from each party could have spoken. There were limitless possibilities but we have now in fact eliminated those possibilities.

It is a step in the wrong direction.

Yes, it is a step in the wrong direction; it is a step backwards. It also raises an enormous question mark in regard to the millions of rand that we are spending alongside this building between here and Tuynhuys. We are now embarked on a situation where we are spending millions of rand on a great hall of Parliament which, unless something drastic happens in the next few years, is going to accommodate a very small number of joint sittings which are contemplated by passing these two Rules.

Therefore, I am afraid this is a matter of basic principle. We think we are going backwards in this regard. We have to know and respect our hon colleagues in the other two Houses. Obviously they have a contribution to make—equal to our own—but now we are solemnly saying to them that they cannot even sit with us in a joint sitting. I think this is a retrogressive step.

Mr Chairman, the proposal of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition boils down to a change in policy and I do not think this is the right time to discuss that.

*Once our new building has been completed and it is no longer a question of carrying in chairs, ie when circumstances are different and there is more space, we can discuss the matter again.

I do just want to say, though, that this amendment means that a Minister may make a speech in one House and Table it in the other two Houses. However, he still has to make a speech. As far as the Minister is concerned, the question is not whether it is a joint sitting or separate sittings of the three Houses. What the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is asking, however, amounts to a total change in policy, and this is not the appropriate time to discuss that.

Mr Chairman, as far as this Rule is concerned I would like to suggest, with regard to the words “unless the presiding officer intimates at the commencement of the debate that Mr Speaker has extended the period of the debate to one hour” at the end of subsection (1), that the words “to one hour” be deleted.

I feel that the whole question of time should be left entirely in the discretion of Mr Speaker in deciding how much time should be devoted to a Committee Stage in this House. I feel that in this regard we should take into consideration the precedents that have been set by the Congress of the USA. When Congress was first established Jefferson wrote what was called Jefferson’s Manual which form the Rules of the House. This manual was written some two years after Congress came into being, and these rules were the same as those applied in the House of Commons. In effect, therefore, the United States started off just as we in this country did by adopting the rules of the House of Commons.

In course of time the standing committee system was introduced. However, there is one basic difference in that their standing committees are open to the public as are the discussions on those committees whereas ours are in camera. The result is that because on the standing committee the clauses are debated one by one, only the members of the committee are aware of the discussion that takes place on that standing committee. I feel therefore that hon members of this House should have a greater opportunity to discuss the clauses of a Bill at a Committee Stage. In the United States where, as I say, the debates on standing committees are open to the public, they have what is called the five minute rule in terms of which a member can only speak for five minutes at a Second Reading because the proceedings of the standing committee are open to the public. I feel that more time should be given for a Committee Stage in this House so that more hon members have the opportunity of discussing the clauses in any particular Bill.

I say, therefore, that I feel that the question of extra time in this respect should be left in the hands of Mr Speaker and not be limited to 30 minutes. Parties will then be able to approach Mr Speaker to motivate their reasons for requiring a longer period than 30 minutes.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 40:

Mr Chairman, in this regard again Mr Speaker will be given the discretion as to whether a joint sitting shall be held or not. Just for the sake of the record I want to say that for the same reasons as I enumerated previously we have reserved our position in respect of this provision.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 41:

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal specifically with two aspects of this Rule which are of force and effect at the present moment and which will continue to be so.

The first aspect is in regard to the maximum period laid down for the deliberations on an appropriation Bill in a standing committee. In the case of the main appropriation the period is limited to seven days while in respect of other appropriation Bills the deliberations are limited to a maximum of three and two days respectively. However, the same principle applies.

Secondly it concerns the provision in terms of which it is necessary to sit on the day following on the day on which the Bill and relevant papers have been referred to the appropriate standing committee.

When we look at this in practice two important issues arise. The first of these is the impracticability of having to sit on consecutive days. What happens in practice is that when a standing committee has to sit on consecutive days it often happens that the members of a particular committee are required to be present here in the House in the afternoons on those very days on which a specific standing committee sits. The result is that the committee does not really sit for seven days but only for seven mornings. It is true, Sir, that the rules have been amended and that standing committees can now sit while the House is sitting should that be agreed to by way of a motion being carried in the particular standing committee. In practice, however, it does happen that the members of a specific standing committee may be required to attend debates in this House concerning legislation in which they are involved.

By way of example I can refer to something that happened earlier this year—during this very session of Parliament. Hon members who are members of the Standing Committee on Finance were required to be present at a sitting of that committee while at the same time legislation concerning the Finance portfolio was being debated here in the House. That is obviously an entirely unsatisfactory situation—a situation which to my mind really reduces the period of seven days to a mere seven mornings—seven mornings which normally turn out to be three-hour mornings. That means that a standing committee often sits for only 21 hours in respect of any given piece of legislation.

If they are lucky enough to have a quorum every time they meet.

Yes, then there is of course also the problems that regularly arise in relation to a quorum. That, however, is another matter altogether. Experience has shown that the Standing Committee on Finance can indeed serve a tremendously important purpose. There are examples to prove this statement of mine. I will briefly refer to a very simple example. This is perhaps a classic example of the credit which the Standing Committee on Finance evidently deserves.

In one instance—it may appear to have been a minor instance—the Standing Committee on Finance raised the very important question of GST and other duties payable in respect of rice. We reported to this House on the matter, as a result of which the House of Delegates took a unanimous decision on it because it affected them perhaps more than anybody else. Consequently the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council raised the matter in the Cabinet where he succeeded in persuading the Cabinet to agree to lifting GST in respect of rice. That, Sir, is one example of where hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by what has transpired in the Standing Committee on Finance.

Referring to the standing committee’s handling of the Budget, we had the situation this year that the policy on the Budget was first stated and subsequently representatives of the various departments were heard. What actually took place was that when the representatives of the individual departments appeared there was so little time that it was obviously not possible to hear them all. Even those the committee could hear could only be heard for a relatively short period of time as a result of which hon members lost out. They lost out because the benefit of having the heads of departments and other experts explaining what was indeed involved in their Votes was not obtained. That benefit is indeed one of the very substantial benefits of this whole system. We are indeed frustrating that benefit by the manner in which this provision is drafted. That is the first matter in relation to the working of this system as far as Parliament is concerned.

The second issue related to the public. The members of the public believe—and correctly too—that the standing committees will enable them to make representations, to submit written representations and to come along to give evidence. They were in fact told so by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. As a result of this the public could make a better input in regard to legislation thus making it function far more effectively. What happens in practice? In practice—on this very occasion—for the whole of those seven days there was no opportunity of hearing outside evidence. The committee did not even have time to consider representations received in writing. The result is therefore that the system, while in theory a very great advance on what existed before in regard to the formulating of legislation, of the Budget and of all matters relating to it, is not working properly at all. That is why, if we want a public input in this regard, we will have to change this rule.

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament says that it creates problems if one has to go to the three Houses. I accept that, as well as the fact that it may not be possible to change it now, but I appeal to him to try to make the system work better. I think it can work better and that there can be a greater input by the public. We need that input but cannot get it at present as a result of the way it is done.

The second aspect is the question of having to sit immediately after a Second Reading speech has been delivered. We had the well-known debacle—and I do not want to reopen any sores—in respect of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill which is not yet over. That happened purely because the committee had to sit immediately after Second Reading. It is impractical to do so because one finds, as happened on this occasion, that a number of money Bills, for example the Sales Tax Amendment Bill, the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Bill etc were all introduced on the same day. As a result the two-day periods overlapped. If two days were allowed to elapse after the delivering of the Second Reading speech on each Bill it would make sense, but it does not make sense if the Second Reading speeches on four Bills are delivered on the same day and only the same two days afterwards are available, and then normally only three hours per day. An Income Tax Bill is usually highly technical and only very few people study it and take part in the debate, and the same applies to the other money Bills. To encapsulate the discussion of those matters into a two-day period is not a practical proposition. I appeal to the Chief Whip of Parliament to give consideration to this aspect. I am not trying to score a debating point but merely trying to make the system work better. At present it is not working as well as it could.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 56:

Mr Chairman, whereas we have made very strong representations in regard to the whole question of ministerial replies to questions and in particular have tried to cut down the delays that have been caused—I will come to this specific problem in a moment—something has slipped in here which I am sure was not meant to be, namely that whereas previously we could hand in a question at any time up to the adjournment of the House, in terms of this provision it has to be done by 12h00. I am afraid we have been short-changed by four or five hours and, far from getting our original plea through, we have in fact come out of it in even worse shape. I must express my disappointment that my persuasive abilities seem to have failed me in this respect.

Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Rules and Orders:

Standing Order No 50:

Mr Chairman, this Standing Order must be read in conjunction with the amendment to Standing Order No 65. The position in the past was that in situations of this kind the concurrence of all members of the House had first to be obtained. It may be recalled that we had a slight problem with the hon the Minister involved with Escom in which for a couple of days he was at sixes and sevens. For what it is worth, he will go down in history as being the fulcrum round about which this amendment turned.

We do not like the idea that a Minister can just get up and without notice move the withdrawal of a motion or a Bill. We believe that it is traditional in Parliament that once a matter is before a House it must be continued with save with the concurrence of all members.

I can see the practical problems and I can see the difficulties which the hon the Minister had. I accept that he tried to get around the problem in his usual charming way, but he understood at the time that there were practical reasons why Parliament by convention had this rule. We should like to stick by it.

Standing Order agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order No 51:

Mr Chairman, perhaps I am in error here as I was earlier on this afternoon, but as I understand it a draft Bill of the nature that we are now talking about is not circulated to all members, but only to the standing committee members. I think here again there is a principle at stake.

I understand that such a draft Bill is a queer document. It is not something that has gone through the proper processes and as far as Parliament is concerned it is virtually a piece of paper. I think, however, that it is important that all members should be aware of what is going on even if the Bill is before a standing committee which has a particular status. I think even if it is in typed form, even if it is photocopied, a copy should be sent to all members of Parliament.

I therefore move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, are we going to get no reply from the Government benches in regard to the various submissions which we make here? [Interjections.]

I should like to emphasize the points raised by the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. This matter actually cropped up in the Standing Committee on Private Bills. We were told by the chairman of that standing committee—he is here and can confirm it—that having a Bill printed in the form in which we usually receive Bills is expensive to Parliament. If the Standing Committee on Private Bills rejects such a Bill there is no need to incur the expenditure of having that Bill printed and having it circulated to all members because such expenditure will be wasted.

We accept that argument, but by the same token that Bill is placed before the standing committee not in a printed form but in typed form. All that we are asking is that the Bill in that same typed draft form be circulated to all members so that all members may have the benefit of reading it and conveying their particular views on that draft Bill to their representative on that standing committee. That is all we ask.

Mr Chairman, we have not refused to reply to the motions or ideas put forward. However, the hon members are aware that we have a committee in which we all sit together—and the hon members were present when this matter was discussed. Moreover, this matter has been approved by the other Houses as well. Therefore it cannot be changed today. It is not out of disrespect to the Opposition that we have not replied.

This matter relating to draft Bills of private members was discussed in the committee. The Speaker makes announcements with regard to these Bills. Why did we not have printed what we had before us? Having it printed is enormously expensive. However, we can discuss it in the committee and take the matter up with the Speaker next time, or else have a few copies made. However, we cannot incur the expense of having it printed. In one instance we had a Bill before us which was submitted shortly afterwards by the relevant Minister in a totally different form—or rather, it is going to be introduced by him. Must one, then, incur all that expense? If a Bill does not go through, the Speaker announces it here. However, the proposal that we have a few copies made may be discussed in the committee. We could submit a proposal in this regard to Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Leader of the House saying to us that, because these Standing Rules and Orders have been approved by the other two Houses, he and his collegues are not prepared to entertain any amendment whatsoever to them in this House? [Interjections.] What then is the point of discussing them here?

Amendment negatived.

Standing Order agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order No 83:

Mr Chairman, I do not want the hon Chief Whip of Parliament to feel that I am casting stones at him, but here again there seems to be that wish to seek power on behalf of Chief Whips of Parliament. Here we are dealing with own affairs. I do not understand why the Chairman of the House concerned should not in fact have the authority to fix dates for the meetings. Here again, we find that the Chief Whip feels he has to come in and play his part in this regard. I feel that this now exceeds the bounds of what he can reasonably regard as his particular empire.

Mr Chairman, I really do not take it amiss of the hon member that he attacks me about something that fell into my lap. However, I did not ask for this. If the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, in its wisdom, decides on such a proposal, then I really cannot be held responsible.

Allow me just to sketch the background of this amendment. Appropriation committees on general affairs and own affairs sit simultaneously. This year it was not a question of the committee stage on the budgets of own affairs being disposed of first, after which we went on to the committee stages of the budget on general affairs. The one therefore affects the other, and the committee stages of own affairs budgets give the Chief Whip of Parliament the room for manoeuvre to arrange the discussion of general affairs in such a way that the Minister will be available for a specific House. Therefor it is not a question of exceptional powers being sought.

I accept that.

Standing Order agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Recommendation 3:

Mr Chairman, before I come to paragraph 3 dealing with replies to questions, this seems a convenient stage now that we have dealt with the nuts and bolts of the new rules for me to say how grateful I am—I am sure that I am also speaking on behalf of my colleague on the standing committee—for the patience exercised by Mr Speaker and for the expertise that was manifested by the secretariat in our long sittings and in the drawing up of the many, many documents that had to be formulated before we had this final draft and our final meeting. I think Parliament can be proud that we did so much work over a fairly short period of time under fair pressure.

I come now to the matter of replies to oral questions. I think I speak on behalf of all hon members on this side of the House when I say that we have been excessively frustrated by the fact that in many cases we have had to wait for up to 14 days for replies to our oral questions.

I know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread and I have learnt during my time in the House that one has to know one’s facts before one can come up with a proposition. I was told immediately by those who know better than I that we are well off in this respect compared to the House of Commons. I was also told that the departments of State had indicated that whereas they did not quite know how this new Constitution would work in terms of the number of questions and how long they would take, there had to be some delay to enable them to work on the replies. These were the answers that I received and I accept their validity to a certain extent.

The point of this notation in the report is that I think all hon members of Parliament are jealous of the opportunity that we have to ask questions of hon Ministers. This is a procedure that lies at the heart of the democratic system; it certainly does in Westminster and we have inherited that to that extent. I think Ministers themselves will agree with the proposition that these are very important occasions on a Tuesday afternoon.

If hon members were to believe that there was any deliberate attempt or an attempt by default to allow a certain passage of time to water down the effect of their questions, I think there would be a legitimate cause for grievance. At the moment I am quite happy to accept the fact that the departments of State require this extra time, but I think the point of the proceedings in the standing committee was to indicate that we would be watching the situation.

I was also told that there were many more questions envisaged under the new Constitution than there have been in the past. I have taken out the figures as far as I can and there have been more questions, but I wonder if the increase in numbers justifies this fairly long delay. Again we are not going to do much about it at the present stage but we have recorded our disquiet.

Again I know that there are special provisions for urgent questions, but one would not want to resort to them even if Mr Speaker were to permit it. I think the whole matter of questions if so important that we should watch this carefully in the future.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the words of the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. The hon member must realize that questions are sometimes asked which cost thousands of rand to answer, owing to all the research work that has to be done. Sometimes, when a Minister stands up and asks that the question stand over, the Opposition parties groan. We want to accommodate one another and we specifically agree to the period of half an hour now being extended to 45 minutes, in order to make it possible to answer questions. That is specifically to impress upon the hon member the importance we attach to questions. I think we should first test the matter in this way.

Recommendation agreed to.

Recommendation 4:

Mr Chairman, like the question of replies to oral questions, this is again a very important part of the parliamentary procedure. In the past we have known at the beginning of every session that there would be 10 private members’ motions, five for the Government and five for the Opposition parties. One of the casualties of the new Constitution was the concept of a fixed number of private members’ motions on a fixed day. I think in the past we had them on a Thursday, if I am not mistaken.

It was on a Friday.

On a Friday. I think these have become a real casualty of the new dispensation. I think hon members are disturbed that they are not, as of right, entitled to a certain number of private members’ motions through their parties. I must say that the Chief Whip of Parliament adopted a very sympathetic attitude when this matter was raised in the standing committee, and therefore I do not want to push him too hard. I think his indication then was that he would be happy to go back to a system of allowing plus-minus ten private members’ motions. He was not committing himself but he certainly was very sympathetic. It was at his instigation that we agreed to the idea that at the beginning of a session the Whips of the various parties would come together, with the Leader of the House, I presume, to decide on the number, the dates and the times of private members’ motions. I am quite sure that he will have the co-operation of all the parties in going back to the old dispensation to some extent. Again I can understand his problems in regard to logistics. I accept his particular and unique problem, but on the other hand I think that he will be the first to admit that this is a valuable part of our Parliamentary proceedings which we would do well to preserve.

Mr Chairman, I have great respect for the appeal that has now been made here by the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. I think we also indicated in the discussions in the Standing Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders that this is appreciated. I think we are already going a great deal further when we provide that we shall meet at the start of a session to decide on the number of private members’ motions and how they will be divided among the parties. What I, in turn, want to ask is that at that meeting we should not try to specify that specific days be set aside for dealing with these motions, because that immediately causes organizational problems. A private member’s motion is often a useful instrument when there is not enough legislation on the Order Paper. On the other hand, the problem may be that the same Minister will be needed simultaneously in more than one House. In terms of the new system it may happen that while a Minister is dealing with his own legislation in one House, it may also be required of him to be present simultaneously in another House when a private member’s motion is being discussed. If we could agree on the number of motions spread across the course of the session, so that we can programme them in terms of when they are most convenient and the relevant Ministers are available, we should have made considerable progress towards reaching an agreement. I shall then try to meet the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition halfway.

Recommendation agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr Speaker, I move:

I want to say at once that owing to the importance of this legislation it will take some time to explain the provisions.

Background

In co-operation with all the interested parties we are at present entering a new dispensation for local authorities in our country. The reason for this not only encompasses the process of constitutional reform on all levels of government in South Africa, but it is also the need for the rendering of services itself to be rationalized which dictates the need for such reform.

It is an essential further development for which a need has existed for a long time. Testifying to this are the numerous enquiries which eventually culminated in one of the enquiries of the Co-ordinating Council in 1984, viz the “Enquiry into the Joint Rendering of Services and the Rendering of Regional Services” under the chairmanship of the present Administrator of the Cape Province, Mr Eugene Louw, whose report was unanimously approved by the Co-ordinating Council on 10 May 1984.

In 1980 the United Municipal Executive, in evidence before the Commission of Enquiry into the Constitution—the then Schlebusch Commission—had suggested on behalf of White local authorities that urban and rural regional councils be established for the entire country. It was clear from the evidence of the United Municipal Executive that the joint rendering of services could be to the benefit of all local communities and local authorities.

Also in 1980 the Committee of Enquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities (the Browne Committee) recommended that bodies be created which could render joint services to local authorities. This committee was of the opinion that such bodies would be able to render cheaper services, particularly in the larger urban areas, than could be rendered if the respective local authorities each functioned on their own.

During the announcement of the Government’s guidelines during the Federal Congress of the National Party in Bloemfontein on 30 July 1982, the then Prime Minister stated inter alia in this connection, and I quote:

In this way the Government confirmed in principle that the joint rendering of services was an acceptable and feasible concept for the better rendering of services to the inhabitants of our country’s cities and towns.

Recommendation 43 of the President’s Council’s 1982 report for the establishment of joint services committees, however, could not be accepted by the Government at that stage before the further technical investigations envisaged by the President’s Council itself had been disposed of.

Regional services councils therefore had their origin in proposals from organized local government and the recommendations of expert equiries extending over a long period of time.

Many experts on local government matters, as well as politicians and officials associated with local authorities, served on the committees of enquiry and recommended the creation of such bodies.

The committees of enquiry and the Co-ordinating Council that recommended the system were representative of local and provincial authorities, as well as interest groups in the sphere of local government.

The Bill is therefore the result of enquiries in which representatives of and authorities on local government played a prominent part.

Desirability of Joint Rendering of Regional Services

Mr Speaker, there are various reasons why the need for joint rendering of services has been recognized for many years. The reasons are primarily as follows:

During the consideration of this Bill the Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters resolved:

Therefore the joint rendering of services by means of regional services councils seeks primarily to achieve co-operation and co-ordination in regard to the rendering of services among local authorities to ensure the optimum utilization of scarce resources; in other words, to ensure cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

A local government institution will in this way be placed in a position, within the scope of its financial and other means, to render services which are of such a nature that they will raise to the highest possible level, and maintain the standard of living and quality of life of the community.

The independence of the respective participating local government institutions, as well as the acceptance of joint responsibility for matters of common concern, are built into the regional services councils model.

In this connection we are continuing to build on what the State President said during the opening of Parliament on 25 January this year, namely that all future constitutional development would take place on the basis of self-determination for each group over its own affairs and joint decision-making on matters of common interest.

The State President therefore re-emphasized that this principle was one of the basic, underlying principles of our new dispensation on all levels, including that of local government.

These new service-rendering institutions are therefore not a new higher level of government. The building bricks or components of the RSCs are in fact the local authorities in the respective regions of all four population groups, of whatever degree or size.

They are a horizontal extension of local authorities—a new instrument, I think, in the hands of and controlled by local authorities themselves.

If the regional services councils succeed in their objective, it is in fact going to become relatively easier for communities of whatever group, through co-operation, to furnish the local communities for whom they are responsible with services.

Everyone is aware that needs, exist for services on local level, needs which have to be urgently satisfied. We dare not allow our own political likes and dislikes to gain priority over the needs of the communities which constitute the South African population. The new joint structure and the constituent local authorities must therefore be viewed as the two hands helping and augmenting the same body, ie the local government level that has to provide people with primary services.

†Black local authorities

Regarding the membership of Black local authority institutions on regional services councils I wish to state clearly that this is the result of participation in the process of peaceful negotiation. This result has been achieved by Black leaders such as the Urban Councils Associations of South Africa, who were willing to negotiate on behalf of their communities. Indeed, it must be seen as part of the process of constitutional reform for Black communities as announced by the State President on 25 January 1985.

In terms of a Bill approved earlier this session, Black local authorities were also granted representation on the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs, functioning as the highest forum to advise the Government on local government affairs. In terms of this Bill Black local authorities can become members of the regional services councils on the same financial basis as any other constituent local authority.

These steps will hopefully not only enhance the stature of Black local authorities but will also ensure and promote co-operation on the local level between all the population groups. Black local authorities will be assisted in this regard to provide better prospects for their residents and acceptable minimum living standards in respect of essential services such as water, sewerage and electricity. The success of Black local government is, inter alia, also dependent on access to funds to develop infrastructure in their areas. This will be done by way of the councils which are to be established in terms of the Bill.

Additional sources of revenue

There has been much unjust criticism expressed against the specific income sources contemplated in this Bill. For this reason I wish to give the background to the philosophy on which the sources are based, the reasons why such sources are necessary, and why these specific sources have been identified for the financing of local government.

Requests were made to the Government a number of years ago by local authorities that other sources of revenue be found to enable local government to continue providing services of an acceptable standard. The whole question of additional sources of revenue has been studied in great detail for many years. Investigations covered a wide area in an attempt to arrive at the most satisfactory method of addressing the problem. Numerous committees such as the Borckenhagen Committee and the Browne Committee applied their minds to various proposals. Stemming from the dissatisfaction in local government and other circles with the findings of the Browne Committee, a special working group, later known as the Croeser Working Group, was appointed in 1981. Its task was to evaluate the recommendations of the Browne Committee in the light of the Government’s constitutional guidelines and the guidelines regarding the rationalization process in the Public Service and, if necessary, to make recommendations on the financing of local authorities. One of the most important findings of this working group was that although scope existed for the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities, an urgent need for an additional revenue source for local authorities did exist.

The working group therefore recommended that additional revenue sources based on economically bound areas—that is within the area where people live, work and buy—be created for local authorities.

The Croeser Working Group, which was later converted into the Permanent Finance Liaison Committee, therefore recommended a three-component revenue source based on turnover, salaries and wages and investments to be levied on the business sector.

This committee, as a point of departure, accepted that a new body would be necessary to collect these levies on a regional basis and to distribute them on an equitable basis to the various communities.

For this reason it was recommended that institutions which are responsible for the joint bulk supply of services should also be vested with the responsibility for the new revenue sources.

However, these recommendations had to be held in abeyance until such time as the Government’s constitutional plans for the local government level came into fruition and the Co-ordinating Council came to a decision on the regional services councils.

After the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs in 1984 had accepted the principle of establishing regional services councils, a subcommittee of the council also investigated additional revenue sources towards the end of last year. This time, however, against the background of involvement of all race groups.

This subcommittee consisted of members of the Co-ordinating Council, the Permanent Financial Liaison Committee, representatives of local government and persons from the private sector, some in their private capacities. I may mention that the private sector was represented by directors of the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the SA Agricultural Union and the Housewives League.

This subcommittee unanimously accepted the institution of a new two-component revenue source consisting firstly of a levy on the total salary and wage sum of all employees in respect of their employers—the so-called regional services levy—and secondly a levy on turnover—the so-called regional establishment levy.

The new sources of revenue collected by a regional services council will be appropriated for use primarily for firstly infrastructural services and the improvement thereof to a minimum realistic level in areas where the greatest need therefor exists; secondly cost in providing for regional services; thirdly easing the tax burden on property tax or, in the case of Black local authorities, the rent on houses; fourthly part payment of infrastructure for transport; and fifthly training of personnel.

This implies that within the area of a regional services council a distribution of revenue will take place to aid the developing less affluent local communities in the provision of basic essential services of a minimum standard.

It is the Government’s sincere wish that the additional sources of revenue will among other things enable local authorities to become more self-sufficient, to reduce the need for the Government to provide subsidies and even to make it possible to withdraw concealed subsidies in the metropolitan areas which will favourably, I believe, influence regional economic development in the rural areas.

Principles on which the new levies are based

This Bill, especially as far as the financing of local government is concerned, is based on certain basic principles. Firstly it takes into account one of the government’s basic policy guidelines, namely the maximum devolution of responsibilities, power and decision making. A second and related principle which has been formulated is that of user-charging, which means that services should be paid for as far as possible by the actual consumers.

Viewed in a broader context, this also implies, for example in the case of metropolitan transport subsidies, the taxpayer within the region benefiting from these subsidies should be responsible for the financing thereof instead of the general taxpayer as is the case at present.

The third principle on which these new levies has been based is that the various authorities should have a tax liability towards one another.

The last principle I wish to refer to concerns the level of service provision and the trends that exist in this country—and I want to stress this—to implement too high and unaffordable standards of services and infrastructure.

Although it is absolutely essential that the existing infrastructural backlogs in certain areas should be eliminated as soon as possible, it should always be borne in mind that South Africa is not a first-world country and that realistic and affordable minimum standards of services should be accepted.

*I want to conclude by pointing out that this Bill differs from the one which was passed by the House of Assembly in 1984 in the following main respects:

Firstly, the Black communities may now be represented on the same financial basis as the other groups in the activities of these councils.

Secondly, express provision is being made for the new sources of revenue.

Thirdly, officers or employees of the State and provincial administrations may also, under specific conditions, be seconded to a regional services council.

Fourthly, communities in self-governing areas, national states or outside the RSA may by agreement become a member of a regional services council and be treated as part of such a region.

Fifthly, compensation may and under specific circumstances be paid for the transfer of personnel or assets.

Sixthly, a member may appeal if the council refuses to exempt him from the use of a regional service.

Finally, the Minister of Finance exercises budgetary control over a regional services council.

As I have indicated, we have come a long way to arrive at where we are today with this Bill before the House. It is indeed the product of long and complicated negotiations and investigations which extended over a period of many years.

This Bill is not the work of one body, one group of people, one province, one population group or even of one political party. It is the result of the combined thinking of all interested parties. I concede that there were some who did not think.

We are dealing with a complex and sensitive matter, but at the same time, too, with a very important matter which can bring South Africa and all its inhabitants the greatest benefits.

I am aware of the fact that with this Bill, the final word has not been spoken on this complex matter. We shall learn more in future and we shall possibly have to make adjustments.

I want to emphasize that the Government does not regard that present proposals for regional services councils as the beginning and the end of co-operation on local government level or on any level of government. It is a new system which will probably, during the implementation process, will still have many growing pains and will require changes and adjustments. I am convinced, however, that the concept in its present form is viable.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the title of this Bill has a familiar ring because on a previous occasion, about a year ago, we had a Second Reading on a similar Bill. That Bill has now come back to us with a number of amendments. Let me say at the outset that we in the Official Opposition, and I think the country as a whole, have certain practical difficulties—we with this debate and the country as a whole with the Bill. The debate should be an interesting public debate on a very important, contentious Bill with elements that are constructive and others that are destructive. We would have preferred a situation where we could have had a Committee Stage debate identifying the various clauses and debating them. The new rules of Parliament do not make this possible and I think the public at large is going to suffer as a result of there not being a public visible debate on each of the clauses in which they can be dissected and analysed as we go along. However, within the constraints of the rules of this House we will do our best. My hon colleagues and I will take elements of this Bill and will try to dissect them during this Second Reading debate.

The second difficulty is that one has to attempt to evaluate this Bill against the background of a constitutional process and an overall constitutional concept or model which this Government might have for South Africa, while we are not privy to this model, if there is one. We really do not know what this Government has in mind when it comes to relationships among first, second and third tier government. We have therefore to deal with a very important new governmental structure without being able to say precisely how this fits into the Government’s overall plan for the future constitutional development of South Africa. To the extent that we understand the Government’s plan and to the extent that that overall plan is based on the concept of self-determination for separate racial communities, we do not like what we see as far as the Government’s constitutional plan for the future of South Africa is concerned.

The last point is a less important one but I think I should mention it because this House is in the process of setting up standing committees and developing conventions and attitudes about the behaviour of members on those standing committees. While having the chairman of the committee who is also a member of the executive, piloting the Bill is a good way of getting the Bill onto the Statute Book as rapidly as one can, I do not think it makes for good parliamentary procedure. I really think that if the standing committees are going to be effective, there should to an extent be an arm’s length between the executive which wants the Bill and at least the chairmanship of the standing committee which is looking after Parliament’s side of dealing with the executive on this matter. So I suppose that while I must congratulate the hon the Minister on his tour de force as the chairman of this committee and also the executive member trying to pilot this Bill through this House, I do not believe that that should be a precedent which should be established for the future operation of standing committees. The opposite should be the case. There should be a separation between the executive and the legislature in this particular matter.

When one looks at the Second Reading speech which the hon the Minister made to this House, one realizes that in general there would be very little difficulty if all this Bill had to deal with was the question of seeing that there were adequate services for various local communities and also adequate sources of finance at local government level. We could then try to ascertain whether this Bill was the right one to achieve those objects. However, the hon the Minister is aware that this Bill has to be seen against the background of the total philosophy of the NP and the Government towards local government. Furthermore, it has to be seen against the background of its plans for the future. When we put the Bill into this context, all I can say to the hon the Minister, using the building industry as a parallel, is that while the building which he is constructing may have some admirable purposes, it is a building which is built on foundations that are rotten to a design which is defective and that it has finishings which in many ways are appalling. We are therefore not looking at the concept but at the actual building which is going to be erected.

I want to analyse aspects of this building in relation to what we understand the Government’s concept for local government to be. Stripped of all the ancillary arguments and all the other rationalizations in favour of regional services councils the prime reason for the RSC is to make it possible for the Government to apply its policy of apartheid at local authority level. That is where it starts. It is to make its policy of apartheid at local authority level viable or workable in South Africa. Were it not for the fact that this Government insists that Coloureds, Indians, Whites and Blacks can only exercise their local authority franchise—and I use these words advisedly—in racially segregated and racially structured local authorities there would not be the need to impose this form of grid of RSCs on all the local authorities across the length and breadth of South Africa. It is the hon the Minister’s declared intention that the country should be covered by RSCs.

The hon the Minister played down this aspect with his fine words in his Second Reading speech. He emphasized the services and finance aspects but played down the third aspect which is clearly contained in the motivating memorandum which came with the Regional Services Councils Bill before this House. This Government’s policy is clear, and I think the hon the Minister will concede it. No matter how small and no matter how non-viable, whether one views it from the economic or the services point of view, local authorities in South Africa must be based on apartheid among the various racial groups. That is fundamental and that is the real base on which local government works. One can then have “oorkoepelende liggame” but that is the basis of local authority structures in South Africa. It does not even matter what the wishes of the people are. The wishes of people who want integrated local authorities are not acceptable. No matter whether common sense or good economics dictate that we should have integrated local authorities it is not permitted in terms of Government philosophy. Local authority areas have to be demarcated and local authorities have to be structured on racial separation.

I only have to quote to the hon the Minister, if he wishes, the sections of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act where it says quite clearly in defining a “local government body” that when it applies to the “White population group” it means:

But for the Coloured population group it means:

When one looks at the Indians it reads:

So the basis or the foundation upon which the superstructure is going to be built is, in fact, apartheid at the level of the local authority. This policy of the Government must inevitably result—as the hon the Minister knows when he looks at the patchwork quilt of the metropolitan and surrounding areas of South Africa—in a plethora, a multitude of small, non-viable, poorly serviced, inadequately staffed local authorities. That is the consequence of this basic policy. It is because of this consequence that the Government now says that they have to find a means of overcoming the problems that they have created for themselves because of their obsession with this racial division at local government level.

It is these racially based local authorities, the White municipalities, the Coloured management committees, the Indian management committees, liaison committees and local authorities and the Black local authorities which are going to elect the RSCs. These racially separated bodies are the driving force behind the RSCs. If anybody controls these RSCs other than the Minister or the Administrator, it is going to be these local authorities. It is important to read into the record the political participation part of the memorandum attached to this RSC Bill. There it is quite clear:

This concept means that, at local authority level, we start off from an apartheid base. Once we have established that apartheid base, we can then build a further superstructure:

They are thus “institutions in the hands of and controlled by” separate, apartheid-oriented local authorities. That, in essence, is the foundation on which this thing is based. It is for this reason that we are sceptical. In fact, we are opposed to the structure based on this rotten foundation.

Were it not for this racial obsession there would be many other ways of dealing with the problems of economies of scale. The argument is economy of scale. I say to the hon the Minister that I am aware that there can, in certain circumstances, be economies as a result of scale. However, this is not automatic. Economies of scale can often be offset by inferior management, by diffuse leadership or unmotivated personnel. If none of these reasons was there, and were it not for the fact that the hon the Minister wants apartheid at local authority level, there would be a whole range of ways in which we could tackle the problem of ensuring that there are adequate services. The hon the Minister is aware of them from the debates we have had previously. The use of public utility corporations, the use of private sector companies, the use of core city agencies, the use of joint services by co-operation among all the local authorities of the areas, and even the use of regional bodies from time to time were alternatives when none of these other ways were seen as a practical way of dealing with the situation.

The most revealing part of this came during a debate and discussion on one of the standing committees where it was explained that Schedule 21 lists general affairs. It was explained that if we have five or six White local authorities that were contiguous and we had to provide those services, we would not have a regional services council because as long as all the local authorities were White, it would be an own affair. However, as soon as we include even one Indian management committee or one Coloured management committee, all of those own affairs become general affairs and we would then be required to have a regional services council.

At the root of this issue is the Government’s concern—I would say it is an obsession—with race and with the concept of separation at the local level. I want to put it to the hon the Minister in this way, and he should prove me wrong if he believes I am overstating this: If Coloured and/or Indian and/or White communities of their own free will wish to form a single local authority or a single municipality, one integrated local authority, would they be able to do so in terms of the present law? No, they would not because the Local Government Franchise Act makes this absolutely impossible.

If one accepts that this is the concept of the hon the Minister he then goes on to say that our political prejudices should not cause us to work against the interests of the communities. Yet this Government is putting its political prejudices at local authority level ahead of the interests of the communities. I would have thought that at least some of the harm which is done by basing these new regional services councils on racially separated local authorities could have been undone if in fact the RSCs were directly elected. If the people could have voted for their own RSCs, they would at least have been free to vote and express themselves in favour of Black, Coloured, Indian or White members.

However, there is no direct election of members of these RSCs by the general public. The members of these RSCs will not be elected by popular vote. When we talk of a “horisontale verlengstuk”, I would have thought that the essence of local government was to keep local government as close to the people as possible. Yet in this particular regard this form of local government is going to be isolated from the people by interposing racially based and elected local authorities between the people and this body.

The Government is going even further. It is going to put this law on the Statute Book even before the Coloureds and Indians have had the opportunity of having proper local government of their own. The Government is aware that unless they accept apartheid for local authorities the Coloureds and Indians are doomed to have management or liaison committee only. In the context of the present situation, unless they accept apartheid as its base, they are unable to have full local authorities in South Africa.

The result of this is that while many of the management committees work hard and are acceptable to the community, the hon the Minister is aware that in many parts of the country the management committees are considered odious, not because of the people who are in the system but because of the fact that those committees are an inferior substitute for a system providing for full municipal rights. So, it is not only being based on apartheid but it is also being based on inferior structures.

Likewise the hon the Minister is going ahead to put the superstructure on Black local authorities. I believe that the structure of Black local authorities, outside the racial concept, is adequate. However, the hon the Minister knows that Black local authorities in many parts of this country are not accepted as viable instruments for Black representation at this time; primarily, because this hon Minister, in spite of the advice we gave him, has proceeded with those Black local authorities without having created the financial base on which they should be operated.

I do not agree with the hon member.

The Government proceeded with them and the hon the Minister was fully aware of this set of circumstances. We believe that he should first see that Coloureds, Indians, Whites and Blacks all have viable local authorities before he starts using these other less than viable bodies as the basis for forming the new regional services councils.

So, the hon the Minister—and we must look at the dynamics as well as the theory of politics—is going to base RSCs on two bodies which themselves are matters of dispute within the Coloured, Indian and Black communities. Whether we like it or not, they are matters of dispute within those communities and he is going to transfer this dispute into the new RSCs. This does not make common sense. It is made even worse by the fact that the hon the Minister is piloting a Bill through this House which is going to prevent the Coloured and Indian electorate from choosing their new management committees as they should do in September this year. There should be a general election for management committees in September this year throughout the Cape Province, but a Bill will come before this House denying to Coloured people the right to have those elections and then basing the new RSCs on the old management committees which should in fact be retiring now because new elections should be taking place. So, while this may be a clever political manoeuvre, our problem is that we are going to be faced with new regional services councils but that their status is not going to be enhanced by the circumstances in which they are being founded. In fact in many ways, judging by the way in which the hon the Minister is handling this, it seems to me that he is determined that, in terms of popular politics, they should get off to a bad start. [Interjections.] So much for the foundations and the problems we have in that regard.

The next point we must emphasize is the extraordinary and autocratic powers that are placed in the hands of the central Government as a result of this Bill. I say “central Government” advisedly. It has changed from the Administrator on his own to the Administrator and the Minister, and it is now the Administrator in consort with three or four Ministers of the central Government. However, I believe that the powers which are given to the central Government over local government in this Bill are extraordinary. I believe they will create an element of coercion over local government as well as a debilitating uncertainty when it comes to practical administration. They will certainly weaken the concept of representative government and accountability which after all is the basis of local government in any country. The people must feel that they control their local government—not that it is controlled by some central authority.

What are the things that will weaken this concept of accountability and of democratic responsibility? No direct elections will be held in this instance. No direct elections must in essence weaken the concept of direct responsibility. One now has a situation in which local authorities are being elected to handle own affairs, and that this body also becomes the electoral college for electing a new body that is going to handle general affairs. One of the tragic effects of this is that it is going to entrench own affairs as the power base for the future. It is going to entrench own affairs—or apartheid—rather than to extend the whole concept of general affairs.

Secondly, Sir, the Administrator and his Executive Committee from April or May 1986 will no longer be accountable to his provincial council. I am talking now of their political accountability. He cannot have supply voted down. His executive cannot be voted out of office by way of an adverse vote of elected members. The provincial councils are going to go and the Administrator and his executive are going to be nominees, not subject to the ordinary discipline of public accountability. The hon the Minister may very well contend that from a finance point of view there will be select committees on public accounts and so forth. That is simply to ensure that there is the proper administration of finance. We are talking now about political accountability. So those people who are going to have vast powers—and the Administrators in particular—will not have political accountability.

It is true that some of the other people with whom they will be operating will have a degree of accountability but each of them, once again, to his own separate House, and that in respect of a matter which is a matter of general affairs. They are therefore going to be members of a central Government accountable to their own separate Houses where they will deal with a matter which is essentially a matter of general affairs. All this is the result of the fact that the government is simply not prepared to expand the provincial government as a second tier. It is not because the Government believes it is a bad system. I suspect they are going to invent a new form of second-tier government. The real reason why they do not like it is that they simply do not want Coloureds, Indians, Blacks and Whites all to share one system of second-tier government. After all, there is the necessary infrastructure for that. There is a highly competent administration right throughout this country which has happened to manage own affairs and local government for many, many years. It has the apparatus. It has the infrastructure too. This Government, however, is so scared of the concept of giving Coloureds, Indians and Whites the same vote in the same provincial council that they would rather have an Administrator who is not accountable to an elected body.

So, Mr Speaker, I want to look at some of the powers of the Administrator because when one reads what the powers of the Administrator will be, it appears that in certain instances the Administrator will be acting together with the Minister who will be handling Black local government while there will also be the three Ministers of own affairs. Collectively they represent the central Government. They are invited to take office by the State President. They are members of the executive. They are not members of the legislature. Here we have a situation in which abnormal powers are placed in the hands of the Administrator acting on his own or acting in consort with these people.

I should like to have a look at one or two of these. The whole question of the establishment is one thing I want to refer to in the first instance. While the Administrator is required to consult with local bodies and councils in every region, he does not have to act in concurrence with them. He only has to act in concurrence with his colleagues who are Cabinet Ministers. Decisions taken are therefore Cabinet decisions, not decisions of the local community. I would have thought that the local bodies are the critical people. Are they not the people who are affected by the decisions taken? All there is in respect of them is a casual reference to consulting whereas the Administrator acts in concurrence with the other people.

On the question of establishing these new regional services councils I want to know whether they are going to take away powers from existing local authorities. They can be established by the hon the Minister. He can determine their functions. He can do all of these things.

This in itself creates vast uncertainty. The hon the Minister will remember that when we were dealing with Black local authorities we said that if one wanted second-tier or third-tier government one had to have one with defined powers and defined authority. One cannot have the situation that at any time, without the approval of the local authority or the regional services council, the Administrator and his Cabinet colleagues can take away from and give powers to various bodies. When one goes through this measure one sees, time after time, that they are the people who have the authority.

Of course, what really sticks in one’s gizzard, is the question of the board of appeal. In terms of the new system, a decision has to receive the approval of at least two thirds of the votes even if it is not so easy to obtain it. Even after it has been approved, any one person can ask that it be reconsidered again. If the two thirds decision is reaffirmed the second time around, any local authority can appeal against such a decision and the appeal board, headed by the Administrator, can overrule the decision of a council. I find this preposterous. We go to the elaborate extent of setting up a system whereby there has to be a two thirds majority for a decision to be valid and that this decision can be reaffirmed twice, but that a local authority can then appeal to the appeal board headed by the Administrator who can overthrow the decision.

It sounds like fun but what does it mean? Who is responsible for meeting the deficit when decisions are overthrown? Who is responsible for running the affairs of a regional services council? Who is responsible for paying the tax? Who is responsible for seeing that these bodies are kept out of the red? In spite of them coming to a decision with a two thirds majority and doing so a second time, the Minister of Finance or the Administrator with the appeal board can reverse the decision. What kind of local government, what kind of democracy is this when outsiders can reverse a decision and yet not carry the responsibility for the consequences of that reversed decision? What sort of situation does one have when local governments are told that they are responsible to regional services councils, but then whatever their mandates are, Ministers can overrule that mandate and impose a decision on them that runs contrary to the mandate given them by their electorate? What kind of democracy is this? What kind of local government is this?

This all arises from the fact that the Government is determined to introduce the concept of race at local authority level. Scrap that and let people be what they want to be. Let them unite into combined municipalities if they wish or let them even be separate if they wish. As long as the Government has at the foundation of its structures for first-, second-and third-tier government the concept of apartheid, we are going to get ourselves into this difficulty.

There are certain other aspects like the financial one which other colleagues of mine will deal with.

To give effect to the attitude of members on this side of the House, I move the following amendment:

1. (1) it fails to provide a sound basis for meeting these needs, as it is designed primarily to implement the policy of apartheid in respect of local authorities;
2. (2) it will undermine government at local level by placing autocratic powers in the hands of the Central Government; and
3. (3) at a time when the Margo Commission is reviewing the whole tax structure of the country, it imposes two new forms of taxation without proper consideration of the consequences of these taxes on employment, economic development and the overall administrative cost structure.”.

Mr Speaker, it is probably to be expected that the greatest opposition to the Bill will be based on the political motivation as elucidated by the hon member for Sea Point. It is simply a fact that the mandate of the White voters suggested a certain programme as the programme of the Government of the country. For that reason the opposition must accept that essentially the implementation of the constitutional setup will take place within the framework of that programme and not within the framework of the political philosophy of the PFP. That is why it is essential for us to see this Bill in the light of the situation as it is at present, and not as the PFP would like it to be.

The hon member for Sea Point intimated, for example, that this Bill was based on apartheid and that this made the PFP sceptical of the Bill. This Bill is based on the prevailing position in local authorities, where our system of local authorities makes provision for a whole range of different local government structures as they exist at present, including management boards and other local government bodies which exist for the other population groups, including the Coloureds and the Indians as well as the Blacks for whom provision has been made.

It is of no avail now to object to the participation in these regional services councils of, as the hon member for Sea Point said, management committees and local government committees, because they are bodies which exist at the moment. Provision is being made in another Bill for segmental autonomy to be allocated to those local government bodies, if they ask for it, after consultation with the relevant Ministers for own affairs and the relevant bodies, as one member of the standing committee called it. Consequently they do not merely remain advisory bodies. They will become bodies which can exercise authority, and consequently they will be bodies which can participate fully in exercising authority over the matters which affect them most fundamentally

These proposed regional services councils will probably have to deal mainly with general affairs at local government level, and the existing local government bodies will give more attention to own affairs at local government level.

Common affairs provided for in schedule 2 are, however, of a widely divergent nature and there is an urgent need, where at all feasible, for a body to be created to provide these services, which are not of a political nature, cost-effectively to the entire community. I will now enumerate several of the services appearing in schedule 2 which are being taken into consideration for collective provision, namely water, electricity, sewerage purification works, abattoirs, ambulance and fire brigade services, health services, airports, the promotion of tourism and several other services, such as passenger transport services and traffic matters.

It goes without saying that initially these councils will be established mainly in existing metropolitan areas, because there is an urgent need for the establishment of regional services. But the legislation does not exclude provision being made in due course when the need arises for regional services to be established throughout the area; in other words, for the provinces or new regions which may possibly be classified because there is talk that three regions, which will each carry out their own provincial functions, may be established in the Cape.

In the Transvaal, more than one, possibly even three, can also be established. It is foreseen that these regional services can be provided, planned and co-ordinated on a collective basis to serve the entire area of each of these regions. In my opinion it is urgent that provision be made for this.

In this Bill provision has been made for the Administrators—they will be the Administrators of the existing four provinces, but from next year there may be eight Administrators if amendments are introduced—to appoint a delimitation board to delimit the regions and the functions which must be exercised there. It goes without saying that this will have to be done in consultation with, therefore with the permission of, the Ministers who deal with own affairs in the respective Houses of Parliament, as well as the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The local government body, whether it is an autonomous or a non-autonomous local authority, will also be consulted when determining the area of the regional services council.

Provision is being made for the transfer of certain functions. If functions are transferred, their utilization is made compulsory. This means that it will not be possible for certain local authorities in a specific region to say: “We are prepared to provide our own services at this level; we do not need to make use of the regional services; for that reason we are opting out.” If some of the larger local authorities decide not to make use of these services, this will result in their leaving the entire responsibility to the smaller areas. For that reason it is provided that the utilisation of the services will be compulsory in so far as those services are provided.

It is provided that the term of office of the regional services councils will normally be five years, but in view of the fact that provision has been made in other legislation for the general elections for local authorities to be held in 1988, provision is also made in this Bill that the term of office of the first council to be appointed, will be up to 1988, ie up to the holding of the general elections for local authorities, after which the terms of office for the new councils which are appointed will begin.

Now it is also important to know that these councils are not directly elected bodies. The hon member for Sea Point objected to that, but I thought it was a logical consequence. These are bodies to which representatives of all the participating bodies will be sent. Every autonomous local authority as well as every non-autonomous local authority which makes use of these services, will therefore be able to send one or more representatives to become involved in the co-ordinated discussions on the provision, the financing, the determining of priorities, etc, of the collective services.

The vote qualifications are handled according to certain formulae. Each body represented by representatives from that body, will participate in the decision-making processes in connection with the provision of the respective services and the determining of priorities as far as such provision is concerned. It is therefore clear that all population groups—White, Coloured, Indian and Black—are really being given the opportunity here to become directly involved in the provision of collective services to their communities.

The hon member for Sea Point also objected to the authority of the central government. He said that the Administrator, who was appointed by the State President, and the Ministers of the central government had great power in this legislation. When this Bill was initially accepted, before statutory effect had been given to the new second tier structure, it was obviously essential to incorporate this formula in this system.

It can, however, be accepted—the hon the Minister has announced this—that the present system of provincial councils is going to be abolished next year between the end of April and the end of June. But this will not leave a vacuum; a new second tier government structure will replace it. That new second tier government structure—also according to an announcement by the hon the Minister—will mainly give attention to common affairs.

It can consequently be accepted that in that structure provision will be made for the proper administration of common affairs of all the respective population groups. There will also be an executive committee on which the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians will be represented. A liaison mechanism will also be introduced for the necessary liaison with the Black population groups in each of the respective regions.

Provision is consequently being made here for facilities which are really better to be made available to the entire community on a co-ordinated basis. The one overall point of departure regarding the provision of this is to bring government closer to the people. There must be a devolution of the exercising of authority. An opportunity must be created for the people in the local areas or regions to have a greater interest and share in the provision of services to their respective communities.

In my opinion it is therefore desirable that this Bill be accepted and that it be accepted specifically on the basis of the policy structure as proposed by this Government.

Mr Chairman, before deaing in general with some aspects of the Bill I want to say right at the outset that the CP, of course, regards this legislation in a particularly serious fight. We see it within the framework of the Government’s new constitutional dispensation and the practical implementation thereof, together with the fact that it is now also to be implemented at the third tier of Government. Because we feel very strongly about this I want to say right at the outset that we move as a further amendment:

I just want to refer briefly to the speech by the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member condemned the Government for its race policy on the basis that this legislation allegedly still contains too much apartheid and because there is allegedly still control over own affairs. I want to say from this side of the House that our objection to the legislation is of course from the diametrically opposite angle.

Our objection is not that there are still signs of the identification of various communities, but that the self-determination of the various communities is being undermined to such an extent that one can no longer speak about significant self-determination. [Interjections.]

In the light of a definition furnished last week by the hon member for Randfontein, viz that self-determination is more or less concerned with the opportunity of having a say and the opportunity to make certain contributions, our view is that this constitutes such a watering down of self-determination that we are unable to accept it, and that from that point of view we certainly cannot agree with the hon member for Sea Point or the governing party.

We are of course opposed to the principle of power-sharing that is built into the new constitutional dispensation, the way it is implemented and the way it is to be implemented when this new legislation is passed.

There is a second remark I want to make with reference to the speech by the hon member for Sea Point, in particular his plea for direct elections of the members of this House. In my opinion that can only mean a common voters’ roll. It means that one accepts the idea of a unitary community as one’s point of departure. It means that specific communities within that unitary community will be reduced to bigger or smaller minority groups. In particular, what it will amount to is that the White community will be systematically reduced to a dwindling minority group in this whole system, as the numbers and revenue of the various other groups increase.

Against that background, with the pattern proposed by the hon member for Sea Point, we cannot see how that party can offer any guarantee against the domination by a specific race group—domination by the Black community—of the other communities of South Africa. I am being honest when I say that the Official Opposition have never once given me a clear indication of what they mean by the non-domination of one group by another, nor have they put forward a formula in terms of which they can prevent ultimate domination of other groups in South Africa by a specific group or groups.

I have a few general remarks to make about the legislation. The CP took the opportunity to attend the discussion in the standing committee. Secondly, right from the outset we said that we differed with the basic principle embodied in the Bill. Against that background we intimated that we were opposed to the principle. Moreover, even on the second day I asked what the procedure was to be and whether I was supposed to vote against each of the clauses. At that stage I was given the assurance that my standpoint of opposition to the principle of the legislation had already been recorded, and we therefore assumed that our standpoint had been stated.

My first remark in connection with the handling of the legislation of the standing committee is that the principle of consensus government which the Government put forward as an ideal, does not work. Secondly, it cannot be consistently implemented either. If that principle were to be implemented in the standing committee then one member of that standing committee—say for example me, or the hon member of the NRP—could block the consensus principle or could block the decision. If the consensus of all had to be obtained, then one person could effectively resist. I personally voted against the principle.

I think I indicated on a previous occasion that a minority veto is not acceptable. In the long term a majority will simply not accept that a small minority can constantly block its decisions. The point I want to make is that in the standing committee too, the standpoint was adopted that we would vote. Thus there was voting on the standing committee as to the admission of oral evidence. Moreover, there was a suggestion that oral evidence be called for, but it was outvoted. The idea was put forward that additional memoranda be called for. We voted on that, too. I have no objection to that, but if the idea is that decision-making should entail consensus, the committee did not operate on that principle. We voted on a few statements by the chairman of the committee. At that stage the chairman gave us the assurance that we could conduct an informal discussion and that we could propose entirely new legislation. He made a few statements, we voted on them, and I voted against them for a specific reason. The next morning the chairman told us that the principle of the legislation had been accepted. I was somewhat astonished that things had happened in that way.

That is not true and you know it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that that is not true and that the hon member knows it?

Order! Which hon member said that?

Mr Chairman, I made the statement that the statement by the hon member for Waterberg was not true, and he knew it was not true.

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

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I do not know why the hon member is sitting there making a noise now. The fact of the matter is that the chairman made certain statements at the meeting the previous evening. We voted on them and I voted against them. He made certain statements but said that they had nothing to do with the legislation. The next morning he said that the principle had been accepted. What is wrong with that? The hon member should not just sit and make a noise. [Interjections.]

The second statement I want to make, and that is that I fear that in this legislation we are incorporating something of a socialist principle. I shall try to motivate this. If this is not the case then—and I mean this in all sincerity—we should very much like to have indications from the hon the Minister as to how the infiltration of more and more elements of socialism is going to be prevented and eliminated. I now refer to clause 4(2) on page 10, in which the following appears:

I stress “the transfer or devolution of assets, powers, duties, rights and obligations”. I infer that these are pooled. A joint body is then appointed over the pool which decides on them.

My other reference is to the proviso to clause 12(6) on page 20. I quote:

I should like to put forward some observations in this regard.

In the first place, in my opinion this reflects the philosophy of Prof Sampie Terreblanche. He speaks about “The redistribution of income”. [Interjections.] I think that the opportunity has now presented itself for the hon the Minister to furnish us with guidance in connection with the thinking and the acceptance or otherwise of this kind of philosophy in the ranks of the NP and the Government. I want to know what the view is with regard to this philosophy of the redistribution of income.

I am aware of a speech made by Prof Sampie Terreblanche in which he tried to shoot down certain reservations with regard to this concept. However I fear that he did not succeed entirely in eliminating all reservations with regard to this phrase.

Then, too, there is a new slogan that is re-sounding in our midst, viz that of the transfer of wealth from the prosperous communities to the poorer or less developed communities. I think that that is a dangerous expression. [Interjections.]

It is in the Bible.

I read the Bible. The hon member can go and read Acts 5 if he likes, and he can quote from it too. However, I want to say to the hon member that he will try in vain to find texts throughout the Bible, starting from Abraham, to support socialism. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to an additional point. In the standing committee it was said, for example, that the sooner we slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs, the better. Interjections.] I mention this to draw attention, not to a specific person, but to an idea which does exist. I gained the impression that this idea was not rejected in all quarters. I also gained the impression that this goose to be slaughtered, the one that lays the golden eggs, is a White goose. [Interjections.] It is a White goose. Then, too, I want to say that there is a certain spirit among certain groups, elements or individuals in this country. It is a spirit that seeks only to grasp, to grab things, to equalize and redistribute without taking individual group achievements into account.

This is an impression that I have gained. I do not believe that we shall be able to give one another authoritative assurances to the contrary in this House, but we have heard this and we hear it at other places too. There are also people who suggest that the Whites have enriched only themselves, that they have claimed all facilities and that the other communities have received virtually nothing. There are people who contend that the time of retribution has come.

Against this background I should like to quote a paragraph or two from a source which hon members may not associate with the CP, but I quote from it nevertheless because this source expresses a reservation we must take cognisance of. I quote from page 15 of the Assocom memorandum:

Isn’t that true?

That is true. I quote further:

That is a factual statement. In addition to that the report says:

I quoted this because these two paragraphs contain a valid warning, viz that with reference to and in pursuance of a certain idiom, there are Black communities, or individuals in the Black communities, who cherish expectations that cannot be complied with and that this Bill is not intended to comply with.

This report goes a little further, and its advice is of course that we should get rid of all apartheid. This, in turn, is another oversimplification. This is a view of society in South Africa which in our opinion is oversimplified, because it views society in South Africa as basically being founded on laws of economy and finance; it is totally or virtually blind to the fact that there are different race groups and different ethnic, language and cultural communities in the country. They do not merely want to see an own language guaranteed; they also want to ensure that they have the financial resources and the economic power whereby they can serve and promote other facets of the cultural life of the specific community as well. That is the reason for the sensitivity with regard to the utilization of certain funds generated within a certain community. This body’s answer to a “centrally planned, socialist democracy” is:

The point I want to make is that provision is being made in this Bill for the pooling and transfer of assets, obligations, control of facilities and so on. In my opinion this legislation is moving in that direction and in my opinion this assails the meaningful right of self-determination of specific communities in this country. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to say that we are not blind to the fact that there are indeed moderates in all the different ethnic or race groups in South Africa. Nor are we blind to the fact that there are moderates in the ranks from which emanate the remark that the goose that lays the golden eggs must be slaughtered. Even from that quarter and in that community one hears the voices of moderates.

However there are extremists. I am going to mention the name of Dr Boesak and the name of Bishop Tutu. There are extremists such as these gentlemen who advocate an equalization that can only be achieved at the expense of established rights.

One can debate established rights. One can also debate the issue whether established rights have come into being on a just basis. Not all established rights, however, have come into being on an unjust basis. I contend that if these demands are to be acceded to, it can only be done at the expense of established rights. At worst, it can only be done over the dead bodies of specific communities in this country.

No-one will contend that nothing more could be done for certain communities. Moreover, the conditions in certain residential areas are indeed capable of improvement and in some instances, considerable improvements. In addition, no-one contends that no assistance should be given. However, no-one should contend, either, having taken the facts into account, that nothing has been done or that the White community in South Africa have only done everything for themselves and that no funds have been made available—funds to which Whites, too, have contributed—for the benefit of and on behalf of Coloured and Black communities in South Africa.

What must be rejected in this connection is any slogan such as that the goose that lays the golden eggs must be slaughtered. I think that such remarks should be rejected. What should also be rejected is enforced equalisation, steps whereby everyone will be impoverished, the paralysing of a free enterprize system in South Africa and the onslaught on healthy community life.

Now I want to touch on a third matter. It relates to the introduction of Blacks into regional services councils. I want to remind hon members of something we said at the beginning of the year. I do not want to introduce the whole constitutional matter into the discussion at this point. I mention this merely because this is included as a subdivision of the total constitutional dispensation which the Government is in favour of implementing, not only at the highest level, but also at the local and regional levels. The Government’s basic points of departure are, firstly, power-sharing and multiracial government over everyone. This has already been put into effect at the highest level. We already have a Parliament comprising three Houses of various race groups. We already have a Cabinet consisting of Whites, Coloured and Indian.

Secondly, it is the approach of the Government that a person must be able to participate in the government of the country in which he lives without any qualification. The country in which such a person lives has indeed up to now been in the process of being subdivided so that the specific area in which that person lived could be excised and attached to a specific national state. In that way that person was able to participate, only in the place where he lived, in a government, without this meaning that he participated in a multiracial government governing the whole of South Africa, thereby ruling with and over Whites as well.

Thirdly, the Black people must be able to participate in the political sphere, they must be accorded political participation and must obtain a say at high levels. Fourthly, they must be able to decide on their own affairs up to the highest level. I shall not repeat, at this juncture, the argument I advanced earlier this year but I want to say that this means a unitary state in which White, Indian, Coloured and Black communities outside the national states form a unitary state. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Even if one were to think in terms of a federation, a “non-racial federation” or a regional federation, it would still be a unitary system. I do not think—and this is what we are trying to indicate—that one can escape the consequences of such a unitary state. However one adapts one’s formulas, ultimately one is faced with a Black majority Government over the whole of South Africa!

Now the Blacks are being introduced at the third level, in multiracial regional services councils. Black local authorities are now gaining representation in these councils. They are also obtaining joint decision-making in respect of White local authorities because they are included in that one body in which the assets, liabilities and obligations of all are pooled. They obtain a joint say even if it is based on proportional representation. Even farmworkers’ associations are now gaining a status. It is now possible for a farmworkers’ association to decide jointly on matters such as abattoirs and markets for fresh products, airports, library services, recreation services, land usage, transport and so on.

The CP cautions against this. Here we have an experiment that is on the point of being launched, whereas it has not yet proved itself at the highest level. We are still to be faced with all the problems and dangers of confrontation within the politics of the RSA.

When I speak about the dangers of confrontation I want to repeat something I said two years ago during the by-election. I want to ask these friends, who are constantly warning us against Black revolution in South Africa, whether they are not afraid of that same action on the part of Whites. In the same breath I want to say for my part that I reject that and that we want to know nothing about that kind of method. However, if one states it definitely as a possibility, I want to say that the Government should take into account that they should not subject the White community in South Africa, either, to excessive provocation by way of steps that threaten its freedom and right to self-determination! [Interjections.] I want to say to those hon members that what they want to do now, and what they are doing, is to tie a cat and a dog together by their tails. [Interjections.] This spells trouble and confrontation in the politics of the country and at the regional and local levels.

I want to conclude with a reference to the composition of the regional services councils. If I understand clause 4(3)(a)(iii) correctly, these regional services councils are to be comprised of local authorities or bodies that may include a body or a local authority of an independent Black state outside the Republic. If I am not mistaken, this means that the headquarters of the Ciskei, adjacent to King William’s Town, may be included in a regional services council for King William’s Town and environment. Thus the capital city of an independent Black state can elect a local representative to a regional services council, the basis of which is in fact in the RSA. I myself have visited the large Black city of Mdantsane near East London. Mdantsane, which obtains its water and electricity supply from that same region, will be able to gain representation in a regional services council which includes East London as well! It can obtain a seat in such a regional services council. It brings its assets, its liabilities and its obligations with it. All these are pooled. It decides jointly, with the rest, on the utilization of the money. It would therefore be entitled to preferential treatment in terms of the specific clause that I quoted at the outset if it happened to have the most urgent needs. We say that this is an irregularity. I believe that this is an indefensible principle because it is irreconcilable with true self-determination and true independence of a state. We are certainly opposed to it.

Mr Speaker, to begin with—after listening attentively to the hon the leader of the Conservative Party—I want to point out immediately that he did not in any way address the problem in question here today. He differs drastically from it, he said. Yet, at the same time, he and his party provide no solution to this problem. [Interjections.] With all respect, Mr Speaker, once again I got the impression that the Conservative Party—also through its leader—indeed fears the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Why are the problems of South Africa— and then in particular in the specific sphere we are discussing—not addressed? The speech made by the hon member for Waterberg was interspersed with fear. [Interjections.] He quoted here what someone else had said in connection with the goose that lays the golden eggs. Surely that is evidence of his fear, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] The hon member gave us an explanation of socialism. The hon the leader of the Conservative Party eventually warned us—as is his habit, of course—that this measure would lead to confrontation. Every measure taken by the Government, and which provides solutions to our problems, is seen as a problem by the Conservative Party. Nowhere do they see solutions, however.

I should like to put a question to the hon the leader of the Conservative Party this afternoon. He is very strongly opposed to the measure under discussion. Will he allow members of his party who are members of a local authority to serve in a regional services council? [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, that is a very fair question, after all. There are members of the hon member for Waterberg’s party who are members of local authorities at present. Will the hon member and his party allow those members of local authorities to serve in regional services councils? [Interjections.]

Rather carry on with your speech! [Interjections.]

You shall receive replies to everything as soon as you have completed your speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik’s problem is that he always wants to reply even before a question has been put. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik knows, of course, that he cannot evade this question. The hon member for Waterberg is the leader of the Conservative Party. If he and his party feel so very aggrieved, he and his party should have decided as a matter of policy on future participation in regional services councils. Is he therefore going to forbid his members to serve in regional services councils or not? [Interjections.]

Of course I understand the hon member for Waterberg’s actual dilemma. The Transvaal Municipal Association accepted the principle of joint rendering of service and the principles embodied in the legislation under discussion.

For joint rendering of service?

The hon member for Langlaagte must keep calm. In addition, the hon member for Waterberg’s MPC, the gentleman Fanie Ferreira, who in my opinion is also making a positive contribution to local management, is a member of the executive committee of the Transvaal Municipal Association.

He is not a believer in joint government!

I am not speaking to the hon member for Pietersburg. It seems he is very nervous this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg’s provincial council member is a member of the CP and serves in the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Municipal Association. He has said he will continue to take part in local management in future. What is the hon member for Waterberg going to do in this connection? After all, the hon member for Waterberg and his party differ fundamentally from the standpoint of the Transvaal Municipal Association and the hon member for Waterberg’s MPC. I ask the hon member for Waterberg again whether he agrees with the standpoint of the MPC in his constituency. I do not want to offend him.

Make your speech.

The hon member for Waterberg and his party do not intend to make a contribution to the promotion of local management in South Africa in future. We do not get replies to ordinary questions.

I want to know where the money you collected for Connie is.

The hon member must ask the hon member for Sunnyside.

It is a privilege for me to take part in this debate and to support the Second Reading of the Bill. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning pointed out correctly in his second reading speech that this Bill had gone through a long preliminary stage and that the organized local authorities had made consistent inputs through the United Municipal Executive in the course of many years. It goes without saying that we shall never succeed in compiling legislation on which everyone agrees unanimously. Indeed, as we have heard, there are people who do not agree with aspects of this Bill. The question, however, is whether or not there is a better viable alternative. I want to make use of the opportunity to put a few standpoints on the principles underlying the Bill from the perspective I have by virtue of my office.

In the first place, I want to say that my administration and I took thorough cognisance of the Bill even before its publication and made certain inputs which were also included in the final product. Secondly, I took cognisance with approval and appreciation of the fact that the respective Ministers of Local Government are to play a decisive role in terms of the provisions of the Bill, especially as far as certain of its aspects are concerned. In this way for example, the delimitation of regions in clause 2(2)(a)(iv) requires the approval of the respective Ministers of Local Government. The approval of the Ministers is also required for the establishment of regional services councils in clause 3(1)(a). The entrusting of functions to regional services councils for which provision is made in clause 3(1)(b), is also subject to the approval of those Ministers. The same applies to the making of arrangements in connection with the transfer of assets and the transfer of staff to regional services councils in terms of clause 4(2). The decision as to whether compensation is payable for assets referred to in clause 4(4) also has to be approved by the Ministers. The Minister’s approval is also required for the appointment of the chairmen of regional services councils in terms of clause 7(1). Clause 1(3)(a)(iii) gives Ministers representation in the appeal board in connection with the hearing of an appeal against the decisions of regional services councils. In the case of the imposing or exemption of levies, clause 12(1)(a) and (b) requires the Minister’s approval. When regulations are determined in terms of clause 13(3)(b), the approval of Ministers is required too.

I see the important role entrusted to the Ministers of Local Government, especially by the amendments brought about by the standing committee, as a further mechanism in the Bill to protect the interests of the respective minority groups.

This brings me to the third point. In my opinion sufficient checks and balances have been built into the Bill to protect group’s minority interests and to ensure that one group will not dominate another.

Lastly I want to say I am convinced that the leaders in the ranks of White local authorities are prepared to accept the new challenges and the new possibilities that are being created, in a positive way.

I am convinced that this new mechanism which is being brought about on local government level by the Regional Services Councils Bill can be applied to accomplish better rendering of service with optimal utilization of resources. Since the regional services councils will be made up of the representatives of the participating local authorities or local bodies in future, I should like to appeal to them to take careful note of this important task of the regional services councils viz the upgrading of the quality of life of participating communities taking the requirements of the respective communities into account, as quickly as possible.

This Bill is based on the Government’s two cardinal points of departure of self-determination concerning own affairs and joint responsibility concerning affairs of joint interest.

I believe it can and will work if the will to make it work is there, for the very reason that it is based on the facts of South Africa’s unique conditions and has come about with the co-operation of South Africans over the dividing lines of party-political considerations. I believe that will is there.

This Bill is the most important Bill to have resulted so far from the activities of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs Committees, without detracting from the importance of other measures which have been established or will be established as a result of the activities of the co-ordinating council.

On this occasion I should therefore like to convey my personal appreciation and my appreciation as a member of the co-ordinating council, towards the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for the tremendous task he has performed in his office and as chairman of the co-ordinating council in establishing this key constitutional reform measure as well as various other measures on local government level. I thank the hon the Minister for the co-operation I received from him in affairs concerning our local authorities and I offer him my continued co-operation.

I shall make it my task to promote the objectives and ideals stated in this measure in a spirit of positive co-operation within my field of responsibility together with the White local authorities.

Mr Speaker, I want to say right at the outset that in listening to the debate one finds that the Official Opposition describes this Bill as an apartheid measure. From the hon member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, one hears that this is an integration measure and that it promotes socialism. I must say quite frankly that I can find neither of those definitions reflected in the Bill.

I accept that the Bill as it stands makes a very difficult decision necessary. I think that everybody agrees with the concept of regional services. This concept comes in fact from 1977 and 1978 from the Natal Plan which the Government vetoed, and which provided for metropolitan authorities to provide hard services. It also provided for local authorities for the various racial groups. It also had something which this new system misses and that is provision for minorities.

The Natal Plan provided for Black participation and that is now in the new version of this Bill, and we welcome that. The principle of providing joint services on a regional basis is one which we not only accept, but which, as the hon the Minister who was formerly Administrator of Natal will know, was pioneered in the discussions held with the Coloured and Indian communities eight years ago and accepted by them in writing at that stage. Unfortunately it was vetoed and now that the Government has come with similar proposals—not quite the same, but similar—some of the same people who actually signed the report on the Natal Plan in 1978, now reject the new system.

The new system has to start with what exists. I think one must take that into account. It contains two basic principles. The first is the provision of regional services and the second is financial support for local government. Both those principles we accept. We recognize the need for finance and we recognize the advantage of regional services.

Our main objection to the measure is the method proposed for financing, the payroll levy which we see as something that will discourage employment, not necessarily because of the cost factor, but because of the psychological factor of knowing that one is being taxed on the number of people one employs. It is an unfair measure in that it places different burdens on different taxpayers. There is not equal taxation for different taxpayers. A labour-intensive industry will have to pay more in terms of payroll tax than a capital-intensive industry which has fewer employees, works with high technology and modern equipment and may make a great deal more money than a clothing factory or a textile factory employing 800 to 1 000 workers and having to pay the levy on each of those. The labour bill of a capital-intensive industry also accounts for a far smaller part of its expenditure than is the case in a labour-intensive industry. That is particularly true of industries like the shoe and clothing industries. Because they are labour-intensive, their labour bill is a far larger part of their expenditure. They will pay up to 50% or more for wages where a high-technology industry may only be paying half of that, 15% to 20% of their overheads being labour. So, we do not believe that that is a fair tax.

The other tax proposed, the turnover tax, is equally unfair. A vendor such as a supermarket or a hypermarket, selling on a very low profit margin but with a very high turnover, is going to have to pay far more tax than a specialist shop such as a boutique which can be making a profit of 300% to 400% on a special garment. The hypermarket, which is making a fraction of that in profit, will have to pay far more than the person who sells a few items for a high profit.

We do not like either of these levies. In the standing committee we moved an amendment. [Interjections.] What is your alternative? If the hon member who is so hasty to ask that question had done his job as an MP and read the amendments he would have known what I suggested as it stands in the amendments that were rejected. I do not want to quote it but it stands in the printed report. Let me summarize it by saying that in regard to clause 12 we proposed that for the first year of their establishment councils should receive from the member bodies a percentage not exceeding 50% of the rates received from commercial and industrial properties in the regional services council area, plus such additional money as may be needed to be appropriated by Parliament from the State Revenue Account. This was to be the position until such time as the Margo Commission had enabled the Government to reconsider the whole tax structure of the Republic.

The hon member for Sea Point mentioned the Margo Commission. Here we are introducing a new principle in taxation at a time when a special commission is re-examining the whole taxation structure. Ours is an interim proposal for a period of one year only to provide initial finance to get this off the ground.

We believe the methods proposed are not fair and that they can be harmful to industry and commerce itself. We believe that they can particularly harm some of the small businesses which are finding it very difficult to survive at the present time, and that this may be a last straw which can break their back.

For that reason I moved in the standing committee to omit the definitions of the two levies in clause 1. I moved the amendment with our alternative in clause 12 and voted against the clause when that was turned down. We put our view loudly and clearly in regard to the source of revenue while accepting the need for finance to bolster particularly the small new local authorities. I am referring in particular to the Black local authorities, but also the Coloured and Indian authorities which have never had enough money to provide the sort of service which creates confidence in local government.

On the other hand we feel that this Bill is not only necessary but that it is urgent. Until there is money available to provide the proper infrastructure one will not be able to eliminate some of the unrest that is occurring in the country today. The removal of that unrest, as everybody is agreed on, depends for 80% on political action and 20% on military or police action. It is a matter of urgency to be able to provide the infrastructure and the services which will provide an improved standard of life for the people in the townships of South Africa.

The CP rejects this measure and has moved an amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day on the grounds that it creates integration and is a danger to South Africa. I believe the real danger will be if we do not do something to raise the standard and the quality of life in our Black, Coloured and Indian townships.

I do not see what the urgency is to establish a final tax mechanism now. It will take a year to get this going and if we can have an interim measure which can provide some money in the meantime, then we can consider the Margo report in the light of this issue fitting into the local tax structure of the country.

We had other objections, and I proposed amendments to those provisions in the Bill in the standing committee. We believe that if a function is transferred from the present supplier to a regional services council, the proviso should be, and the Administrator should satisfy himself, that those functions will not cost the ratepayers, the users, more than they are paying now. The arguments against that were that in the early stages there might be a temporary period where these functions could cost more, but in the long run they would be more cost effective on a regional basis and therefore they would become cheaper. I do not see the necessity for any service to cost more than it does now, even in the initial stages, because with the economy of scale being so greatly increased, and with experienced people handling it, it should not cost more. We therefore proposed a proviso that the Administrator should satisfy himself that such transfer of any functions would not increase the cost thereof to member bodies. There was another technical amendment which the committee accepted in regard to the transfer of part of a function. That I welcome. There were other amendments moved as well.

Another objection we had was that, when a service is transferred to a regional services council, any capital reserve funds attached to that service which have been collected and saved up by a local authority, should not be taken over without compensation. Why should one local authority which has been careful, which has provided for the future, which has put away money on depreciation and from the rates fund into a capital reserve fund, lose all the benefit of its thrift, while another which has not bothered and which has borrowed money hands over its services with all the debts attached to it? We felt it was not fair to penalize those local authorities which would have over debt-free services by taking their reserve funds as well.

The other amendment which I moved was in connection with clause 7, namely that the chairman of a regional services council should be elected and not appointed. I do not want to go into the argument on why he should be an appointed official—we will probably hear it again. However, this is in conflict with the whole alleged aim to bring government nearer to the people, to bring it down to the lowest level by devolving power. Yet the chairman of the new council is going to be appointed by the Administrator. He will be appointed, not elected. Yet there has been such care taken to ensure that only people elected by ratepayers to local authorities will serve on the council. That means that everyone who has a vote and everyone who is a member of that council is a person elected by the electorate at the lowest level—by the ratepayers of some local authority or other body. Even development boards, even the Development and Service Board of Natal, and the Peri-urban Board of Transvaal will have no vote on the body because they are not elected levels of government. They can be co-opted and they can attend meetings, but because they are not elected, they are barred from having a vote. So, whereas care is taken that the RSC will be a democratically elected body, the Bill provides that the chairman who will be in control of that body and who will lead it, need not be an elected person. He need not represent any local Government. He need not come from the region.

There is no basis on which to argue that he will be in control.

Well, the chairman will obviously have a major influence, unless he is no good as a chairman. Any chairman who is worth his salt is going to influence it. He is going to be paid. His deputy can also be paid. In other words, he will be an official in charge of an elected body. He will be sitting as chairman of an elected body while, in fact, he is an official appointed by the administration. These are some of the issues which we feel strongly about. An hon colleague of mine will deal further with them and possibly with certain others when he speaks.

As hon members can see, the standing committee itself made a large number of amendments to the original Bill. Some of these were technical—the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly referred to them—and emphasis was placed on there being an appeal to a body which included the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the three Ministers of this Parliament who are in charge of local government and the Minister in charge of Black local authorities. This carried great weight with the other two Houses, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, who see in it a safeguard against being dominated or dictated to by the House of Assembly. They saw the concurrence which has been introduced, instead of only consultation with these Ministers, as a safeguard of their own independence, and the “selfbe-skikking” which the CP says, does not exist in this Bill. However, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works who spoke here and the hon the Ministers in charge of local government in the other Houses will in fact have total self-determination in respect of their own interests because they will have to agree with any decision which is taken by the council on appeal.

What is your definition of self-determination?

Self-determination is the right of a community to deal with and determine those matters which are intimate to the community. I am referring to the things which are close to the community. Where one comes to the general affairs in which one community deals with other communities, then one seeks to achieve the goals one has decided upon by consensus. This Bill goes so far as to make the consent of a two-thirds majority necessary for a decision.

Is that consensus?

If one does not achieve it, then one does not have consensus and then there will be no decision. Any one of the communities can ensure that its rights are not interfered with by simply not giving its concurrence. Each community can do that. It is not “selfbeskikking” if only the Whites have that right and the other communities do not. They must all have the same right to protect their own intimate interests whilst not affecting the rights of other communities.

We have very serious reservations about the levy and about other aspects. Our vote against two of the clauses in the standing committee stands on record. We opposed those clauses and put forward amendments. When were were defeated, we voted against those clauses. Those objections remain.

However, the final issue one has to decide on, is whether one is going to oppose the Bill now and so prevent progress towards providing the critically needed funds for local infrastructure and getting a new set-up off the ground. I can understand why the CP has nightmares about it because this is the first time in history that there will be joint decision-making by all four groups in South Africa—White, Coloured, Indian and Black. It has never happened before that their elected bodies through people elected to public office, sit down and take decisions together on the same issue. It was proposed in the Natal Plan but it was not accepted then. It is happening now. However, even then the Government, the Department of Co-operation and Development or Plural Affairs, as I think it was called then, agreed that the development boards and their Black local authorities could participate in the Durban Metropolitan Committee. So the principle was accepted as far back as that. Now it is being introduced. As I have said, I can understand the nightmares if the CP for here is the first truly multiracial body consisting of members of all four groups, each elected by its own community, coming together and taking joint decisions.

For those two reasons we believe that we cannot vote against the principles involved at the Second Reading. Unfortunately, procedure now dictates that we cannot debate the Committee Stage and move amendments here. We have to look at the principles at the Second Reading, and both the principles of regional services and financial back-up are so important that we shall support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, referring to the principle of the Bill under consideration, the hon member for Durban Point started and concluded his address on a constructive and positive note, and I have no fault to find with that whatsoever. In between, however, the hon member reiterated all the reservations that he had raised in the committee and which had been debated at length in the committee. If I remember correctly, the hon member for Durban Point had no support for his points of view in that committee and I do not propose taking up the time of the House to debate those matters with the hon member once again.

The hon member for Durban Point, at the commencement of his address, correctly pointed out that this measure was neither an apartheid measure nor an integration measure.

*The hon member for Sea Point went out of his way to show that this measure was nothing less than a further extension of the apartheid structure of the Government’s constitutional proposals.

Its foundation is apartheid.

The hon member is now intimating that this structure rests on the foundation of apartheid. The fact remains that the hon member for Sea Point, like so many other critics of this measure, cannot find justification for his criticism in the measure itself. They refer to the fact that the regional services councils will be established on a foundation which they brand as an apartheid foundation. They are therefore expression criticism of the existing situation of separate local authorities for the various communities among our population. So their criticism is not aimed at the measure that we are discussing now. They find justification for their criticism in other measures entirely which established separate local authorities for the various communities among our population. They base their criticism on those facts in order to oppose this measure. Surely it is not fair to argue in this way. Inasmuch as separate local authorities for the various population groups exist, whereas this is a fact, the question arises as to whether the proposed regional services councils are in the interests of local authorities or not. That is what it is all about at present.

The simple fact that hon members have to resort to referring to what the hon member for Sea Point calls the foundations upon which this measure is based, and not to the measure itself, is a very strong indication that they can find nothing wrong with the measure under consideration and have therefore to grasp at an existing factual situation as already embodied in other legislation.

On the other hand, the hon member for Waterberg went out of his way to give us a dissertation on the alleged integrationist tendency ostensibly being shown by the Government’s constitutional proposals. [Interjections.] In actual fact, however, the hon member said absolutely nothing at all about the measure under consideration. I do not wish to be unfriendly towards the hon member for Waterberg but, really, if I did not know that he was a member of the specific committee and that he had been present during the discussion, I would involuntarily have come to the conclusion that the hon member for Waterberg had no idea at all of what the measure under consideration was all about. [Interjections.]

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

Yes, the hon member for Rissik may ask a question provided that it is an intelligent one.

I shall try. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Mossel Bay whether he can give us a practical illustration of the following situation in connection with the Whites of Pretoria. What are own affairs as far as the Whites of Pretoria are concerned and what are general affairs together with the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in the townships around Pretoria as far as they are concerned? [Interjections.]

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon member for Rissik should just exercise a little patience.

It was an intelligent question, wasn’t it?

Yes, it was probably the most intelligent question the hon member for Rissik has ever asked.

That is certainly no achievement! [Interjections.]

The fact remains that the proposed regional services councils are absolutely colourless. [Interjections.] Race and colour have no relevance whatsoever as far as this matter is concerned. [Interjections.] They are not in the least relevant because the motivating factor or reason for this measure is not to accommodate local authorities serving population groups other than the Whites. It is not an attempt to assist the Coloureds, Indians and Black people. It is a question of practical realities and, even if all existing local authorities were to be integrated as hon members of the PFP want, or even if there were no local authorities for people of colour from the other communities of the population, the need for regional services councils would be just as valid and urgent. [Interjections.] It is a question of the establishment of services on a regional basis which can be provided jointly in a far more efficient manner than by local authorities separately, irrespective of the communities of the population involved. That is why in the long run it is not of particular importance to the local authorities which communities of the population form the majority on the regional services councils. [Interjections.] The consideration throughout will be the provision of services on a regional basis and the utilization of facilities on a regional basis. [Interjections.]

To come back to the question of the hon member for Rissik, I want to point out that every local community needs certain services, and there are some of those services which can best be rendered by the local authority if it does so together with other neighbouring local authorities.

Such as?

Such as a sewerage scheme. If the hon member looks at the schedule he will find a whole series of similar services there. [Interjections.] These include water and power supply as well as ambulance and fire-fighting services. This is nothing new. There are numbers of local authorities which for years have been providing and rendering services of this nature jointly and voluntarily.

Who makes the decision?

The local authorities involved in those services make that decision.

Singly, not jointly?

No, how can they decide individually? Of course they decide jointly where the undertaking is a joint one. Really, the hon member for Jeppe must not be so naive. For some years now local authorities have been striving for co-operation in order to eliminate duplication and the wastage of manpower as far as possible. However, the problem has always been that when it was a question of profitable services, it was reasonably easy for local authorities to agree to render those services on a communal basis, whereas the rendering of non-profitable services always created problems because it was always a question of who had to pay for those services. The Bill before the House is important precisely because provision is now being made for additional revenue from sources other than rates on fixed property. The fact that additional revenue will now be generated is itself the guarantee for the success of the regional services councils.

Over the years local authorities have been struggling with a continuous shortage of finance. Years ago the Borckenhagen Commission was appointed to try to find alternative sources of revenue for local authorities. I remember during the years when I was a member of the executive of the Cape Municipal Association how year after year we waited for the Borckenhagen Report which was to provide us with the solution to the financial problems of local authorities.

Altogether we waited 12 years for it.

Borckenhagen’s Report came and went, and there was no solution. Then we had the Browne Committee. Once again we looked forward for years to the report of the Browne Committee which was to solve the financial problems of local authorities. Once again no solution was forthcoming. We now have the measure under consideration which provides for additional sources of revenue for the regional services councils so that regional services councils will also be able to render those services which cannot be provided profitably, and where the emphasis is placed specifically on the question of raising the standard of living of underdeveloped communities which have fallen by the wayside. Whether those communities consist of Whites, Coloured, Indians or Blacks makes no difference. The same principle holds good for all those communities.

Hon members of the Conservative Party see nothing but an integrationist tendency in this measure. In actual fact it has absolutely nothing to do with integration or colour. It deals with the needs of local authorities, and I can mention numbers of White local authorities which will be able to utilize this provision as fruitfully as will Coloured and Black local authorities.

Mr Speaker, will the hon member answer a question?

My time has almost expired, Sir, I am sorry but for that reason I cannot answer questions now.

I say therefore that this criticism on the part of the Conservative Party is completely unfounded. However, the argument of the hon member for Sea Point is equally incorrect. There is no truth in the allegation that where five or more White local authorities are contiguous to one another a regional services council will be excluded. I do not know where the hon member for Sea Point comes by such nonsense. I repeat that there is no colour in this measure whatsoever. People who are continuously obsessed with colour and who wish to drag colour in by the hair into this measure are either uninformed or wilful or both. Neither will it do any good to argue the point with people who, whether to left or right, are wedded to their racism. They simply see colour in everything. To the one side it is too little and to the other side again too much. That is why we shall probably continue arguing about this ad nauseam. However, what is important is that this particular measure suggests a realistic method of assisting local authorities, firstly to bridge their financial problems, and secondly to render services more efficiently and beneficially on a regional basis. They will be able to do this better than if they have to do so separately and each on its own. That is why I also have pleasure in supporting this particular measure.

Mr Speaker, I found the speech of the hon member for Mossel Bay very fascinating because he could have made half of it from these benches. I found it fascinating to hear him say that no colour is involved in this measure and that race and colour are not relevant as far as regional services councils are concerned. The hon member nods his head. He argues that at this level of government all that is happening is that services will be provided. I find that a very attractive argument because at the level of government we are at, our function is also to provide services. We provide education, defence, police, hospitals and health services. The function of government at all levels is to provide services. That is why I agree with the hon member that race and colour are not relevant. I am fascinated to hear that he has come over to this cause and I really appreciate the conversion that has taken place in the hon member for Mossel Bay. I want to congratulate him on that because it is really a remarkable change in him.

Are you against the hon member for Sea Point then?

No, just give me a chance. The hon member then says that we can find no fault with this legislation and that we are looking for something outside the legislation in order to try to find fault.

You listened well.

I listened very carefully. It is not my function to deal with all the aspects of the legislation, but I do not, for instance, find it in the concepts of democracy as I understand them that a decision of a regional services council can be appealed against by a minority, a very tiny minority, and that the central Government can then overrule the majority by overthrowing its democratically taken decision. Is that a good principle? Hon members are terribly silent now. I am now talking about something in the Bill itself and not about something outside the Bill.

With regard to the particular brief I have, I want to say that I was hoping that I could speak after the hon the Minister of Finance because I am fascinated to hear what he has to say on this Bill. I hope he is going to take part in the debate. My views on taxation in this regard are well known to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning because when he still had the provisions dealing with this up his sleeve and they were secret and he leaked out certain words here and there, I saw what he was after, I saw the scheme and I forecast exactly where we would be today.

I have never seen your turf guide.

The hon the Minister is so secretive that he sometimes does not know himself what he is doing and has to enquire from others what he is really up to.

While there are many matters in the Bill which we find objectionable, I think there are some principles we have to clearly state we agree with. Firstly, there is a definite need for new and effective sources of revenue for local government. I argued this when I was in local government. Like the hon member for Mossel Bay I argued it in the provincial council and I have argued it here, and so have my colleagues. It is a fact we cannot get away from.

Our amendment says so.

Yes. Secondly, the need for assistance to local authorities with an inadequate tax base at presently constituted clearly exists. This applies in particular to local authorities which have limited commercial and industrial centres and have low values of residential properties and where residents historically have relatively low incomes. There is no doubt that in this regard there is a clear case for the need for specific assistance. I do not think we disagree on this principle.

Thirdly, I think there is in any case a strong case for the rationalization and therefore regionalization of certain services which can be provided more effectively on a regional basis. Unlike the hon member for Waterberg who is so terribly worried that this is a socialistic measure, I have always believed that it is a principle of taxation that one levies taxation on those who can afford it. One provides services for the community as a whole so that one is actually redistributing income. [Interjections.] Of course it is a transfer of wealth; that is what taxation is. Taxation is that one levies tax on certain people in the community and then one spreads it around.

I have never ever heard any hon member of the CP say that he is against this concept because, if that was so, then I must say that if we are really keeping the tax to ourselves spatially then I want to keep all the tax which is collected from Yeoville for Yeoville. I do not want the Government to give any of it to Waterberg because the people in Yeoville pay far more tax than the people in Waterberg pay, but the people in Waterberg get the benefit of services for which my taxpayers are paying. That is the whole concept, and if that is socialism, then I do not understand it. I have always understood that whether one goes to the United States or anywhere else where there is a free market or a free enterprise system one does not find anybody who suggests that there should be no tax or that the levying of tax should be unrelated to the wealth of one as opposed to the lack of wealth of another. In other words, one does not say to a man when he uses a State service, for example the Police, that the policeman is there just to protect the rich man who pays the tax. The policeman is there to protect everyone.

You are appeasing the Nats.

I do not appease anybody, not even the hon member. The hon member should not talk rubbish; he does not know what I am talking about. He really does not understand tax principles and that really is the whole point. [Interjections.]

The next aspect brings me to the things which we believe are the reasons why we have to oppose the Bill. In particular I want to deal with the tax matters about which I am talking now. The concept is that there is a commission of inquiry into taxation at all levels of government and in all its forms. That such a commission has been appointed and that these tax measures have been introduced without that commission having made a finding on them, is something which is quite remarkable. The commission, by its terms of reference, is to cover this very aspect with which we are dealing now.

While it is correct that this measure may have been born out of the Browne Committee, in turn out of the Croeser Committee and may even have had its origin far further back—it is also true that there has been a degree of consultation—there is no doubt that the circumstances have changed and that the whole tax structure in South Africa is now being investigated and reviewed. This is a major aspect of taxation which is sought to be levied on a very important sector of the community.

What is remarkable here is that the hon the Minister of the Finance actually agrees with me even though he does not admit it. What he says, talking about this, is the following:

In other words, even though we are passing this legislation today or tomorrow or whenever we shall, this is all going to be reviewed by the Margo Commission. The hon the Minister continued:

This indicates to me very clearly that right within the ranks of the Government members themselves there is a preparedness to accept that at least the possibility exists—I put it no higher than a possibility and I do not even say “probability”—that the Margo Commission can say that this is a wrong system of taxation, and that if the Margo Commission says it is not the correct system of taxation, then the whole of this bureaucracy which is now being created is going to be dismantled because they will then follow Margo and his recommendations. [Interjections.] Hon members should not shout at me; they should shout at the hon the Minister of Finance. He is the fellow. I am putting a case to the effect that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is creating something of which the hon the Minister’s colleague in the Cabinet has said that if the Margo Commission finds that it is not good, it is going to be abolished. [Interjections.] He said it. It is a fact.

What is going to be abolished?

The tax—we are not going to abolish the regional services councils. It is the tax I am talking about, not the regional services councils. [Interjections.]

Another factor—I shall come back to this issue in a moment—is that as far as this particular legislation is concerned, it contains in it the basic flaw that it has the ability to discriminate without logic on a regional basis in terms of taxation. This is again the story of the hon the Minister of Finance and his Tant Sannie from Pofadder. I want to state very clearly that what in fact is happening is that the Tant Sannies and Oom Piets of Pofadder have imposed a particular type of ideology on people in areas who do not want that ideology, and are making the victims of that ideology pay for an ideology they do not want. That is the reality. This Bill enables the burden of ideological legislation to be placed on the shoulders of those who do not want that ideological legislation.

The best example is the transport levies. Who in South Africa is responsible for the situation that people have to travel long distances in order to get to work? Who created that situation? Who created the situation resulting in this high cost of transport being incurred? Only the NP did, and not the people who are now going to have to pay the levy.

What is remarkable is that in terms of this legislation a levy must be paid not in respect even of only the commuters within the country. Let us read what it says. In terms of clause 12(6)(d) it can be used for:

It includes “outside the Republic”! So, now, because of the ideological concept of this Government, people are going to be made to pay for an ideology they did not want in the first place. This is also by way of an answer to the hon member for Mossel Bay. He spoke of the fact that there is no ideology or political philosophy in this. Of course there is! Not only is there that, but the wrong people are also being made to pay for this ideology.

The other leg of the argument is, of course, the discriminatory effect of this provision on industry in metropolitan areas. The argument used both by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Finance is that one has to do away with the subsidies for metropolitan areas because, after all, the metropolitan areas should pay for their own services. That is the argument they use. Now, I have a book here which analyses who pays the taxes in South Africa. I would commend this as essential reading to the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

[Inaudible.]

No, I do not pay it all. That hon Minister also pays some. The reality is that the people in the metropolitan areas are paying the tax as it is. They are paying the majority of the tax. They are actually paying for the tax concessions, incentives and pay-outs that are given to decentralized industry. That is coming from the taxes they are paying. It is not as if they are getting anything for nothing. It is true that they get back some of the money they pay, but the argument that they must pay the taxes and then, on top of it, pay further levies and that in fact they are getting something for nothing is completely and utterly a fallacious argument. Both the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Finance have conceded that this form of taxation is intended to act as a disincentive for industrial development in the metropolitan areas. The hon the Minister of Finance nods his head. [Interjections.] If it is, and they have said so, this is an utterly unacceptable ideological concept.

I want to make it clear that we have never opposed decentralization on economic grounds, but we have opposed it on ideological grounds and we have opposed the ineffective and inefficient manner in which it has been applied in South Africa. When one goes back in history one sees that there have been border industries, no White capital in the homelands, then there was White capital in the homelands, then there was decentralization, then deconcentration etc. We have gone through a whole series of debacles in respect of this matter.

The reality of the South African situation—it is one of the tragedies that the South African Government will not accept it—is that the creation of jobs at the cheapest rate possible for an ever-increasing population is a major problem in South Africa, if not the major problem.

Without doubt one of the reasons for the instability which exists in South Africa today is the high degree of unemployment. This unemployment is not merely caused by cyclical events but it is structural unemployment. If one does not tackle that by creating jobs at the cheapest possible rate, then one is in fact betraying South Africa because one is not helping to solve the real problems which confront us. [Interjections.]

That leads me straight into the question of what a payroll tax really is. It is euphemistically called “a regional services levy.” Only in an ideologically mixed-up system does a government impose a tax on the payroll of workers and so create a disincentive to labour-intensive activities, when the creation of jobs is, as I have indicated, the greatest problem South Africa has. [Interjections.]

The whole question of capital or labour-intensive activity is one that we thought we had to some degree agreement on in this House, namely that we had to try to use the available labour to the best possible advantage. Let us also be realistic: When it comes to the use of labour there are various levels of productivity in respect of various activities. There are various labour costs involved and there is a variety of factors which affect the issue as to whether one should impose a payroll tax or not.

Let me touch on the principles of taxation as they are presumably to some extent accepted by the government as well. Those matters are being investigated by the Margo Commission at the moment. I have always understood insofar as the principles of taxation are concerned that the hon the Minister of Finance—I now refer to him rather than the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—is committed to two kinds of taxation. The one is taxation on consumption expenditure and the other is a taxation on accruals.

In regard to consumption expenditure— that is the general sales tax and the indirect taxation that exists in a variety of forms— there is a considerable body of opinion in South Africa and elsewhere which believes that that should be the major form of taxation, rightly or wrongly. We spoke about this form of taxation the other day when there was a suggestion that there had already been a prejudgment on this. I was pleased to hear that that had not been the case.

The second form of taxation is the question of accruals where one taxes people because they make a profit, because they have earnings; they may have capital gains, or they may have some other accrual of some kind or another. There the principle has been enunciated by what is perhaps the best known of the taxation commissions, the Carter Commission in Canada, when it said that the concept of taxation should be based upon accruals.

The payroll tax and the turnover tax fall into neither of these categories. I dealt with the reasons why the payroll tax should not fall into it. Insofar as the turnover tax is concerned, the hon member for Durban Point has dealt with a number of the issues relating to it even though he is still voting in favour of the Bill. A turnover tax is paid by the seller whereas a general sales tax is actually paid by the spender—it is consumption tax. The turnover tax is unrelated to profits. One can actually be running one’s business at a loss. One can have an assessed loss for tax purposes an yet have to pay a tax. That is illogical. One can actually be in insolvent circumstances, and one still has to pay payroll and turnover taxes. That cannot be right. It is an inherent illogicality from a taxation principle point of view to tackle taxation on this basis.

The next issue I want to mention is the question of the simplicity in a tax system, which I also thought was one of the principles which had been accepted. Multiplicity of different forms of taxation firstly gives rise to unnecessary bureaucracy in regard to the collection of those taxes, and it gives rise to unnecessary work by the taxpayers who have to make additional returns. It actually makes the evasion of tax easier, and therefore it needs considerable additional policing in order to see that that evasion does not take place. What is quite remarkable is that in the address of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in introducing the Second Reading debate in this House, he said that almost half of this taxation was going to come from the public sector. If that is in fact so, why does one have to pay a tax? If the public sector is providing the money in order to pay that tax, why collect from the taxpayer himself? Why cannot we have a simpler system to do it? This is a most nonsensical thing. This is then followed up by an argument as if the Government is bestowing some kind of largesse on the regional services councils by agreeing to pay this tax! However, the Government does not have any money. The money the Government has and hands out, is the taxpayers’ money. It is not giving its own money. It has nothing. It is worthless unless the taxpayer gives it funds. What the Government is in fact doing is that it is levying money from the taxpayer in order to pay half of the total that it anticipates collecting from the levy to the regional services councils.

It certainly does not require much ingenuity to work out a simpler form of taxation which is more difficult to evade than the taxation that has now been suggested in this measure. Then the hon the Minister of Finance said that existing municipalities are going to collect the taxes and the Receiver of Revenue will monitor it. Is that right? However, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says:

He is talking about the Croeser working group.

I should like the hon the Minister of Finance to tell us how local authorities are going to collect this levy. What are they actually going to do? Where is the machinery for it? As I understand it, and I am oversimplifying it, there must at least be somebody who sends a form to an employer and to a businessman to fill in to ascertain what tax he must pay. Somebody has to send such a form.

Secondly, somebody who is an employer or businessman has to fill in that form. Somebody has to send it, together with a cheque, back to somebody else. Somebody has to check that he is doing the right thing and that he is not cheating. For that reason it is now said that the Receiver of Revenue is going to monitor the system, and apparently one will be able to look at the records of the Receiver of Revenue to check whether the figures are right or wrong. If that is correct that the actual records of the Receiver of Revenue will be used, it will be very simple to take the taxes paid to the Receiver of Revenue, to add on a minuscular percentage, and produce the same amount of money as would be produced under this system. It would be the easiest thing in the world to do but because it is so simple it is apparently not being applied. With great respect, I want the hon the Minister of Finance to get up in this House and to tell us exactly what the municipalities are going to do, how they are going to do it, how the system is going to work and what the function of the office of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue will be.

We discussed all that in the committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay has—I was going to say a bloody cheek—a nerve because at the request of my hon colleagues I asked to give evidence before that committee and he was one of the members of the committee who did not want to hear me. They voted against it. [Interjections.] They did not even want to hear what I had to say. [Interjections.] They did not want to hear alternative suggestions; and not only that, but there were many other taxation experts who should have been heard … [Interjections.] Did the hon member for Mossel Bay vote against it?

Order! I have listened to the discussion across the floor. Before the hon member for Yeoville continues, he must withdraw the word “bloody”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may continue.

The hon member for Mossel Bay must really not come along with a story as to what the background to this matter was. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to some specifics which are contained in the Bill itself. Let us look at the definitions clause. I refer hon members to the definition of “regional establishment levy”. Here it is specified particularly that it means a levy calculated:

Presumably that means exactly what it says. It means that one does not pay sales tax on exempted goods, which means that if I have a business which only has exempted goods, then I do not pay. The only way in which I can then be covered would be:

Instead of dealing with it in the simple manner which I have suggested—because sales tax does not work; there are so many exempted items and one could even have a business which runs purely on exempted items—one is now going to have to have another set of figures which somebody is going to have to calculate in order to get a tax base so that a payment can be made.

The same goes for paragraph (b):

It is said to be determined on an equal basis to that of a vendor in those circumstances. Let us take some simple examples. Mr Chairman, you were an advocate in your time. What is going to happen in regard to your colleagues who are now at the Bar? On what are they going to be taxed? Are they going to be taxed on their gross fees? One may find advocates who have gross fees— you may not have been so unlucky but young advocates experience this problem— which are less than their expenses when they start their practices. [Interjections.] In those circumstances one is presumably going to have to pay a tax on gross fees; if not, what will one do?

In this way one can quote innumerable examples as to why one should not have this system but a much simpler system. We could have had an easier system which could have worked much better under the circumstances.

Let us look at the question of the regional services levy. Here we have a fascinating thing. It says in paragraph (c):

As I understand it I cannot borrow money from myself if I am a sole trader. I have always understood that; I do not think it is a legal possibility; so that is nonsense to start off with. One then taxes a man on the drawings which he has. A sole trader would have a profit which he earns; so if he leaves the profit in the business then he does not pay tax on it. If he draws any money on that, however, whether it be, presumably, from a capital account or income account, he is liable for tax. This cannot make sense. All that we are doing is creating a complex and involved system which is unfortunately, open to abuse because of the complexity of it and which, in fact, has many disadvantages for the fiscus because, after all, if one imposes a tax, one should collect it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think I am qualified to try to plunge into the details of the argument put by the hon member for Yeoville. As my time is limited I shall rather leave it to the hon the Minister of Finance when he enters into the debate in any case.

The hon member put a point or two, however, which were important in my opinion because they introduced perspective once again. He reacted to the hon member for Waterberg’s so-called objection to socialism and pointed out that any system, capitalism or socialism, has as its substructure the philosophy that it creates the opportunity for the transfer of assets from rich to poor or that it establishes a norm for the effective division of wealth so that within the framework of this system everyone would get what he was entitled to. The effective functioning of the system should also, however, bring about an egalitarianism.

In addition the hon member objected to the statement made by the hon the Minister that if the Margo Commission were to recommend other systems, we should look at them and kick up a great fuss about them. I cannot understand why he regards things in this negative light, for in my opinion it is a positive point of departure to say that if something better is introduced, we shall give attention to it and if we are convinced that is an improvement, we shall implement it.

Why do we not wait a few months?

That is exactly what I wanted to say to the hon member. Why do we not wait a few months? How many months will we have to wait and what is the need at present? If I understand him correctly, the hon member believes that those who are well off should make a contribution to this transfer of assers to those who do not have. It does not matter which system is applied. I do not want to enter into a debate on the system with him. He says, however, that those who have something at present, can wait. We can wait a year or 18 months if necessary.

There is a different way of doing it. That is my whole plea.

There may be other ways of doing it, but until such time as we have clarity on another better way, we shall continue in this way and I do not believe that hon member should kick up a fuss about it.

It is interesting that the hon member referred to Tant Sannie in Pofadder. He must not discount the possibility that Tant Sannie actually lives in Yeoville and may not send him back to this House next time because of the way in which he is performing here. [Interjections.]

There is one point made by the hon member with which I want to associate myself, viz the fear that the scaling down of the initial recommendations of three possible sources to two, in other words the elimination of capital as a basis for tax, is alarming. Unemployment is indeed one of our greatest problems at present and one runs the risk of the entrepreneur shifting the emphasis from labour-intensive to capital-intensive undertakings. In any case, we shall have to look more deeply at the danger of labour replacement by capital in the production process.

We are running a risk.

I agree with the hon member. That is one of the things that disturbs me too. I do not want to become ideological and debate about it, but I should like to express my concern about the matter.

The hon member for Sea Point moved an amendment in which he gave three reasons as to why they do not support this Bill. The first is that it neglects to establish a sound basis and that apartheid is the whole basis of the legislation. The hon the Minister made that statement in his second reading speech to try to confirm that we are thinking in terms of own communities. He did say, however, that the building bricks or components of the regional services councils are precisely the local authorities of all the population groups in the various regions. The building bricks, therefore, are the local authorities. That is why the hon member for Mossel Bay is indeed correct if he says this Bill is not an ideological Bill, but the Bill which deals with municipal authorities as participating components disregarding the communities, except where protection, which the other two Houses felt necessary as far as their interests were concerned, has been introduced. They felt they could be detrimentally affected by the various authorities’ actions. They therefore want to involve their first tier authority as protector of this whole system. While the point of departure is a consensus approach— even if it is a concurrent majority system which we are experiencing here—at least it is a search for consensus among majorities in the three Houses. I therefore think we are compelled to introduce it if they feel it necessary.

The second reason the hon member does not want to support the Bill—and his amendment states this—is the autocratic power in the hands of the central government. That autocratic power is also a result of the need felt by hon members in the other two Houses. The amendments to the original published Bill that were effected on the Standing committee, indicate this very directly.

The third reason, of course, is the question of tax which I have dealt with briefly.

I want to return to the hon member for Waterberg’s speech. I want to express my concern about a few of the remarks he made here. He quoted from the legislation and objected in particular to the point of departure that the regional services councils have to determine priorities concerning the most urgent requirements in the regions and that attention should be given to these. He then referred to Prof Sampie Terreblanche and said it sounded like this “redistribution of income” to him. It is the old story again. If one has a redistribution, it is socialism in the view of those hon members. It does not matter in which system the redistribution takes place. Even if it were to take place according to a total free market approach, it would be socialistic, and then they would probably want to intervene in this system to try to temper the socialism which arises from the free market.

The hon member also said in an oblique reference to an interjection of the hon member for Pinelands, I think, that he could not find anything in the Bible which justified socialism. I want to add that we shall find nothing in the Bible to promote capitalism or a free market. I do not think we should look at the Bible or at texts. We should rather agree with one another here in the House that we, who profess to be Christians, will truly go out to seek answers, not in our own interests, but in the interests of the total community in which we live. I think that is one of the points of departure on which we can agree.

Having said that, I also want to ask that we shall not use the Bible to denigrate specific parties either to the one or the other side. If it is really our point of departure that we are doing it for the sake of our neighbour and of the whole community of which we are part, I have no objection to our seeking that point of departure through any particular party. It requires us to move away from this power-seeking and serving one’s interests, however. Where we do have power, we should try to use it, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of the total community of which we are part. In the same way, if we seek power, we must seek it not for our own sakes, but for the sake of the total community of which we are part.

The hon member also said that to him it seemed a method of co-ordination, of taking away and of redistribution without taking group achievements into account. The hon member for Waterberg—I am sure the members of his party, too, in particular the hon member for Barberton—will agree with me that the point of departure can truly not be that compensation merely on the grounds of achievement is a norm which any of us in this House can accept as the only norm. I think we all believe one of the norms we should take into account is the very norm of need, which is raised by this Bill. He made the further statement that the co-ordination of established rights actually seems to him to be what Tutu and Boesak are propagating and striving for. I want to ask him to reconsider that. Is he really thinking of rights when he raises this objection, or is he thinking of advantages? I am not speaking on behalf of these two hon gentlemen now. We must ask ourselves whether, when we speak about rights, we are truly concerned with rights, and not with our privileged position. I do not believe what we regard as rights are always right.

Privileges.

Yes, they are privileges as the hon member for Innesdal says.

Lastly, I want to say the hon member comes back again and again to say we should not speak so lightly about a Black revolution, for a White revolution is also possible. He then says he rejects it. In addition he says we are knotting the tails of a cat and a dog together. What does he mean by that? He says he rejects revolution, but if we do certain things, we must understand him to be either the cat or the dog, and he is either going to scratch or bite. He is going to become part of this revolution then, even if he rejects it. We are the ones, however, who are forcing him to lead a White revolution or to join in with one. I would be so pleased if I could understand him in a different way, but I cannot. To me it seems this hon member piously keeps on saying that he rejects revolution whereas in actual fact he is creating a climate and a spirit which is in harmony with revolution. [Interjections.]

In fact, he is suggesting it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning acting correctly in parliamentary terms when he says the hon member for Waterberg is suggesting revolution? Did he say that?

Yes, I did.

Mr Chairman, I know he said it, but I want to know whether or not is is parliamentary?

Order! In my opinion it is merely the hon the Minister’s opinion, and therefore I find nothing unparliamentary in it.

I am going to raise two other points quickly. In the first place the possibility is now created in this new Bill for the regional services councils, by agreement, to include communities outside the borders of the RSA. It is interesting that last year, when we debated the Bill on regional services councils, no provision was made for Black communities at all. Now they are included structurally in the Bill, whereas last year we argued that these services could be supplied on agreement. I know there were many of us in NP ranks on this side of the House who explicitly asked for this adjustment. We asked for it in the second reading debate. That is why I am grateful that we have progressed thus far. It is interesting that reference is made in the Bill to the possibility of inclusion, on agreement, of communities outside the RSA area. It is still according to agreement, but the possibility is contained in the legislation. This is a great advancement, and I think we should also see it against the background of the State President’s opening address at Parliament on 25 January, when he referred to co-operation between the respective entities which have to be placed in a single complete framework in the long term. It is a positive development which I am very grateful for and which I think will show us in future that we are succeeding in truly accommodating all communities in a process of reform.

Lastly I want to point out that one of the most important differences—there are more, but in my view it is one of the most important—between the originally published Bill and the one before us at present, as amended by the standing committee, is the elimination of the central business and industrial areas, when the voting power in these regional services councils is calculated. I think it is an important development because the central business areas, and in particular the industrial areas, rely to a very great extent on people who move from other communities and areas into areas which make up part of White municipal areas at present. Rather than have a tug of war concerning where those specific areas belong in delimitation, I believe a positive approach will be to give attention to the total excision of those areas. It is clear that more guidelines have to be established for that. I hope and trust it will move in the direction in which those areas will be cut out totally, and in which we can learn to work together as people from separate groups and communities—work, to each other’s true advantage, in a spirit of caring for one another, and eventually to the advantage of the whole Republic of South Africa.

Order! I have considered the statement made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in connection with the hon member for Waterberg. He asserted that the hon member for Waterberg was suggesting revolution. I am not quite sure whether the hon the Minister meant the hon member for Waterberg was fomenting revolution, whether he was an instigator of revolution or whether he was interceding for it. Will the hon the Minister please tell me what he meant by it.

Mr Chairman, my standpoint is very simple. I referred to what the hon member for Waterberg had said in his speech. He made the statement that we should not provoke the Whites. Implicit in that statement of his was the suggestion of revolution. Unfortunately I can make no deduction other than this.

No, the hon the Minister must withdraw that statement. It is not parliamentary.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I made a statement with the same drift. Rather than be directed by you to withdraw it tomorrow, I shall do so now. [Interjections.]

I listened to the hon member for Randburg, of course. He did not make the statement quite as flagrantly as the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I am waiting for the hon member for Rissik to withdraw his statement as well.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Yes, the hon the Minister is quite correct, of course.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg associated himself with the hon member for Mossel Bay by alleging that there is actually no ideological standpoint or principle that is at issue in the legislation under discussion.

I was speaking of colour, man. Are you not able to hear properly?

Mr Chairman, if there is no ideology inherent in this legislature, I suppose no ideology of integration is built into the entire constitution of the Republic of South Africa either.

Don’t you know the difference between colour and ideology?

The hon member for Randburg had all sorts of problems with what the hon member for Waterberg is supposed to have said. The hon member for Waterberg is concerned about a mixed regional services council that has to determine priorities; that has to determine what will happen to established White areas, spheres, and facilities that are now going to be made available to other population groups when this legislation comes into operation. The reprehensible insinuations—which I naturally cannot repeat because they have in fact already been withdrawn—I find quite unseemly in this House. They simply do not belong here.

However, I want to return to the question that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works asked here in the House in pursuance of the speech of the hon member for Waterberg. The hon the Minister asked if the CP members of local authorities would serve on regional services councils. What a ridiculous question! We as representatives of the Conservative Party sit here on standing committees in a system we opposed and will continue to oppose. Of course members of the Conservative Party will negotiate within the system on behalf of their own people.

Of the White people, yes!

They will serve there. This is one thing I can tell the hon the Minister. They will, however, sit there within the framework of our principles and they will also negotiate there for our own people there.

When, one compares the Bill as it was originally presented to the standing committee with the way it appears at present, one realizes that it has certainly undergone a change. The standing committee accepted no fewer than 132 amendments and omitted clause 13. This makes one think of the amendments to the Constitution that were proposed at the time. If this specific Bill that we are dealing with today had been discussed under the old dispensation the Government would probably also have had to apply the guillotine to get the constitutional dispensation at local government level passed.

What we are dealing with here is the constitution for local authorities, something about which hon members on the opposite side had nothing to say when the referendum was held. It is becoming more and more clear that in the regional services councils which, as the hon the Minister himself said, are really an extension of the local government level, increasingly less mention is made of own affairs and that it is becoming more and more a completely integrated third tier government authority. It is a general affair because we are dealing here with a general Bill.

Apart from general services and infrastructures affecting everyone, mention is also made in Schedule 2 of passenger transport services, traffic matters, cemeteries and crematoria, ambulance and fire-fighting services, health services, libraries, museums—I assume that in those museums there will be an exhibition of what separate development looked like in this country once upon a time—recreation facilities etc. Parks, theatres and sporting facilities which include swimming-baths, naturally all fall under recreation facilities. Item No 22 in Schedule 2 is “Other regional functions” that are at present still being handled by local authorities. I want now to ask the hon the Minister what functions are going to remain for local authorities. The Bill encompasses all the functions of a local authority, and regional services councils will only be an extension of local authorities. What functions are going to remain for own local authorities such as they are today?

The new dispensation is now being put together here on the local authority level, and the coalition Government is now going one unauthorized step further, I repeat an unauthorized step further than that for which it has received a mandate from the voters, and it is also accommodating the Blacks within the same Government institution on the same basis as Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The hon the Minister puts it this way in his Second Reading speech:

In 1984 the hon members for Sea Point and Houghton stated that this was the most important point on which their opposition to the legislation was based, namely that Blacks were excluded from it. We have just heard from the hon member for Randburg that at that stage a section of the NP was unhappy that Blacks were not yet being accommodated. Now they are there and after only 11 months Blacks are therefore also being accommodated. In a previous part of his speech the hon the Minister said the following:

I want now to ask the hon Minister why he is selling out the White community to his own political preferences and those of the coalition Government of power-sharing and political and social integration?

Without a mandate.

What kind of morality is that? Yes, without a mandate. The hon the Minister would do well to listen to how he expressed himself to the hon member for De Aar in his reply to the Second Reading debate on this legislation last year. He had the following to say to the hon member (Hansard, 1984, col 11243):

He also asked:

Let me now ask the hon the Minister what his moral codes were at the time and if he has turned in his tracks. He himself has changed drastically over 11 months. At least the hon member for De Aar continued to follow the route of separate development and told his voters that on the day the Government accepted a mixed government he would no longer be part of it. [Interjections.] In the same speech the hon the Minister said (col 11240):

This is exactly the opposite to what the hon the Minister is proposing today should happen. In col 11241 …

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

The hon the Minister may put a question to me as soon as I have dealt with this aspect.

In col 11241 the hon the Minister says:

In principle he is in fact now exchanging White self-determination, which he described as White domination, for eventual Black domination. Let me ask him what kind of morality that is. The hon the Minister is the last one who should address other members on morality.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member if he agrees that Black local authorities have a different composition to those of the Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics.

But of course. They are, however, being accommodated here at the same third level of government or regional services councils, yet the hon the Minister was still saying eleven months ago that this was impossible; it was not NP policy.

Let me tell the hon the Minister unequivocally that he and his coalition Government are breaking their word of honour to the Whites of this country. [Interjections.] Let me tell him that on innumerable occasions he has pledged solemnly that Blacks would not be accommodated constitutionally in what he too at that time called White South Africa. Does the hon the Minister deny this?

How?

Ask the hon Leader of the House who stated quite bluntly that he would leave on the day Black people were accommodated in the same constitutional set-up.

Where?

In the Twelve Point Plan.

Yes, the NP did not accept it in the Twelve Point Plan of 1981. [Interjections.] Do hon members want to deny it? It is after all the truth.

That is stated in their programme of principles.

Order! Only the hon member for Pietersburg is speaking.

This coalition party now turns around and the hon the Minister ever so piously declares that nothing like a White South Africa ever existed; we are all partners in the same multiracial nationhood with one multiracial coalition Government in power, with Coloured and Indian Deputy Ministers who are now handling general portfolios in specific departments. It is therefore a multiracial Government which the NP previously disguised by using a Coloured and an Indian Minister without portfolios governing Whites. This is the situation as it now exists. Inasmuch as the Government is occupied with this, inasmuch as so much progress has been made…

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, when business was suspended I was in the process of showing how within a space of 11 months the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is not present in the House at the moment underwent a radical change of mind in regard to this specific legislation before us. One has only to look at the standpoint that he adopted in this connection in 1984. On that occasion he called the moral codes of the hon members for Kuruman and De Aar into question in his reply to the particular debate.

When I stated that the coalition Government had experienced a radical change of mind the hon members on the opposite side chorused: “On what do you base that opinion?” I can give many reasons for it. Let us just look at the NP’s blue card which is probably still the card used by the hon members today when they enrol members, or is there perhaps a red card now?

A multi-coloured card.

Yes, or a multi-coloured card? On the back of that card is the declaration that has to be signed by a prospective member. Among other things, it includes the following:

Now hon members say there is no longer a White nation. In fact, the hon the Minister says there is no such thing as a White country.

It never did exist.

Did it never exist? The hon member should just ask the hon member for Bloemfontein East whether he agrees with that. The hon member for Boksburg…

Say “Dr Vilonel”.

… says there was never anything of the kind.

Order! Did the hon member for Pietersburg ask the hon member for Rissik to help him with his speech?

I am doing it voluntarily, Sir. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir, it is voluntary assistance.

The hon member for Pietersburg may continue on his own.

Sir, the hon member for Boksburg says there is no such thing as White South Africa, but his colleague next to him, the hon member for Bloemfontein East, says the ideal of a White South Africa is 100% his policy. [Interjections.]

In its editorial of 9 May Die Vaderland writes as follows:

That is definitely going to happen.

I can also provide further evidence. I do not know whether the NP has as yet revised its programme of principles. This is what I want to ask the hon member for Bloemfontein East. I have here the Free State’s programme of principles. Here we find the following with reference to the party:

Is this still the policy of the NP? [Interjections.]

Yes.

I hear “yes” and I also hear some, for example the hon member for Boksburg, saying: “No, it is no longer the policy.” It seems to me as if there is left and a right wing in the NP. Some say “no” and the others say “Yes.”. [Interjections.]

You are quite right: There is.

There are two wings?

Yes. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is changing the policy of the NP completely, and he has already come a long way, but there, are believe it or not, members behind him who still believe that it is 100% the policy of separate development. The hon member for Bloemfontein East told me he still believes entirely in separate development which includes the concept of a White fatherland. He said so in so many words across the floor of the House. Does the hon the Minister not want to put that poor hon member right and tell him that he is living in a dream world? After all, this is no longer the policy of the NP. I should like the hon the member for Bloemfontein East to listen to what I am saying. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bloemfontein East must listen to what the hon the Minister said. The hon the Minister stated quite clearly that no such thing as White South Africa exists any longer, or that it never existed. The hon member for Bloemfontein East said, however, that the concept of separate development was still 100% his policy, and the concept of a White fatherland is included in this. The hon member definitely put it in that way across the floor of this House. The hon member should really ask the hon the Minister to put him right because that is no longer the policy of his party at all.

I wonder what the Government still has to do to make even the hon members in the back benches realize that the Government is renouncing the history of the NP and destroying every principle for which it stood. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following in this House 11 months ago in regard to the inclusion of Black people in a government institution:

Those were his exact words.

Be honest enough now to say what kind of institution we were talking about.

Surely we were speaking about the central institution.

Yes, of course.

This is a government institution as well. The Government is after all planning to accommodate Black people right up to the highest level in the central Government institution as well, or is this not the case? [Interjections.]

I want to put this question to the hon the Minister: After having spoken these words, who has in the meantime given him approval to make provision for Black people within the same government institution at the third level? Perhaps he received it from the State President on 25 January but he definitely did not receive it from the White voters of South Africa. In all the quotes that I have read, the Government itself admits that it does not have a mandate to press on with this. The Government is deceiving the White voters of South Africa outrageously and is leading them up the garden path in regard to what it is doing about third tier government.

The Government can continue what it is doing but I want to warn it that the voters of South Africa are at some stage or other going to pass judgment condemning the Government. The Government is still to see this happen in the future. At some stage or other the voters will reject the Government contemptuously when they realize how recklessly their right to self-determination and freedom in the country of their birth has been disregarded.

I want now to return to the legislation itself. The first striking principle that is built into this legislation is the delegation of power, instead of in my view the devolution of power about which we hear every day. In terms of clause 2 the Administrator—he is appointed by the Minister and is nothing less than an agent of the Minister—delimits regions after consultation and not in consultation with local authorities. Local authorities therefore have no say in the delimitation of these regions.

In terms of clause 3 the Administrator establishes the regional services councils. In terms of clause 4 these regional services councils are vested with—I quote the exact words—“all the powers and duties of a local authority”. I ask the hon the Minister now: What is left for the present local government as it exists today?

Clause 5 compels every local authority to make use of the functions of a regional services council. It has to make use of them. A local authority will therefore not be able to reserve recreational facilities, sports fields, libraries etc for the exclusive use of its own community. If the regional services council decides that this kind of facility should be made available to all the population groups in that particular region, that will be done.

I want to know now, however, what will become of the right of determination of the own local authority. It is quite obvious that all these matters that I have mentioned will now be general affairs and will be controlled by a multiracial regional services council.

The chairman of the regional services council will be appointed by the authorities and the various members of the regional services council will be given proportional representation according to their financial contribution. I wonder whether the taxpayers of South Africa realize what is going to hit them when each employer, over and above his normal tax, still has to pay a regional services levy according to the salaries or wages that are paid. Every undertaking, every profession is going to be hit by a regional establishment levy which, among other things, is going to be determined according to the floor space each occupies or by its total turnover.

Where do you see that in the legislation?

It is not stated in as many words in this legislation; this is what it makes provision for. According to the explanation given in December by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, he said provision could be made for it … [Interjections.] Very well then, let me ask the hon the Minister to tell us here tonight on what basis professional people are going to pay regional establishment levies.

Why do you not read what is said about it in the Bill?

On what basis are they going to pay it? [Interjections.]

It is interesting that in terms of subsection (7) of clause 12 an employer or entrepreneur is prohibited from deducting the levies from the salaries paid by him, or from regarding any part of the levies as part of the costs of services or the prices of products. In fact, further on in that clause provision is made for heavy penalties—a fine of R5 000 or imprisonment for a period of 12 months, or both—for a contravention of this provision. What I want to know, however, is how the hon the Minister is going to control this. Apparently the hon the Minister himself realises how difficult indeed it is going to be to control it because in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister himself said:

The hon the Minister is therefore already conceding that as a result of this legislation and these tax levies there is going to be an increase in the inflation rate. The man in the street, therefore, is once again going to be the one who will have to pay the price in the end.

Who is the man in the street?

The White voters whom we represent in this House. [Interjections.]

As far as I know clause 15 of the legislation is the first provision in terms of which the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is empowered to supply the personal financial information of every taxpayer to someone on another tier of government. The hon the Minister must eell us if this is the case but as far as I know, it has never yet happened in terms of the Income Tax Act that the Commissioner for Inland Revenue has been able to make available to someone at another level of government—in this case the third tier of government—the tax details and information known to him in connection with the financial circumstances of companies, undertakings, partnerships and self-employed persons to those officials for the purpose of levying further tax in the form of a regional services levy and a regional establishment levy. I think it is lamentable that the personal financial information of people is made freely available to another tier of government.

Do you not know the law? [Interjections.]

I know the law that makes this provision but let me say that it is regrettable that the restriction upon this information being made known to someone outside the Department of Inland Revenue is now being lifted. [Interjections.]

I want to say in conclusion that we on this side of the House vehemently oppose the stripping of local authorities of their powers and functions. We detest the steps being taken by the Government to create a wholly integrated community in South Africa. This legislation comprises one of the most important aspects in that process. We object to what the hon leader of the CP called a kind of socialization which is being built into this in consequence of the fact that not only the taxation but also the assets and facilities of one sector of society, the White sector are to removed or that restrictions are to be placed on them and that they will be employed for the benefit of other communities. That is why we lodge our strongest protest and I should therefore like to support the amendment of the hon leader of the CP.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon members of the respective Opposition parties while they were discussing this Bill. It is quite clear that this Bill is actually being used as a platform from which they can expound their ideologies and political viewpoints. It is quite clear that these hon members—particularly the hon member for Pietersburg, who has just resumed his seat—used this Bill as an excuse to make a number of statements, some of which had absolutely no substance. It is quite clear that they wished to take the opportunity to state their general political standpoints.

I shall get back to the hon member for Pietersburg. As far as the hon member for Sea Point is concerned—other hon members have also already referred to his speech—I must say that one was actually surprised by his approach. The hon member for Waterberg severely condemned this legislation as being a step in the direction of socialism, and this statement was repeated by his colleague, the hon member for Pietersburg. Are they not aware of the fact that we do not have an absolute separation of economic activities in South Africa? There is no absolute separation between the respective bodies and population groups. I do not know how those hon members reason, because this has never been the case. This step which is now being taken, is actually a practical consequence of circumstances which indicated why this had become necessary.

The hon member went on to say that this was an unauthorized step which was now being taken. I want to point out to him that through the State President and the relevant Minister the Government has repeatedly said on various occasions that the position of the Black people would have to receive the necessary attention.

At which election did they get that mandate? [Interjections.]

They got it on various occasions. In the speech which the then Prime Minister made in Bloemfontein in 1982, he already indicated it as a guideline. When the referendum and general election were held, the majority of voters accepted it. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I cannot hear what the hon member is saying. It seems to me as if the hon members of the CP not only sing in unison, but also talk in unison and consequently one cannot hear what they are saying. [Interjections.] The hon member now has so much to say about a mandate. I wonder where the hon member for Pietersburg is supposed to have got a mandate to say certain things here.

The hon member for Yeoville spoke about the financial aspects in particular. He is very concerned about the fact that, possibly owing to the recommendations of the Margo Commission, the basis on which the finances will be raised may be changed. The hon member who is so intensively concerned with the financial affairs of this House is, after all, aware that adjustments are made when circumstances necessitate this. This is surely not an unusual phenomenon. If it becomes apparent in practice that certain adjustments to the proposed basis according to which these levies will be determined will be necessary, it is surely possible to make these adjustments.

The system of local authorities in this country actually remained static for several decades. The structure did not change at all for a very long time. As a result of investigations by many bodies it was expected that adjustments would in fact be made and because this Bill now forms part of the culmination of these negotiations it will be welcomed in particular by the bodies affected by it.

These matters were discussed at length and it was not clear how matters would develop, but when this Bill and what is still to follow are accepted, the bodies intimately affected by this, will at least know where they are headed. To the hon member who said that we did not have a mandate, I just want to say that the United Municipal Executive and the Transvaal Municipal Association, people who are intimately concerned with these matters, have, in fact, given their blessing to these developments. The people who are therefore really affected by this Bill, are satisfied with it.

There you are wrong.

No, that is correct. The hon the Minister and his department deserve our thanks for the way in which they handled this matter together with the relevant bodies with whom they negotiated in order to bring the matter this far.

The objective and function of the regional services council which will be established, were discussed very thoroughly and I do not think that I should elaborate on this any further. It would not be of much value. But in the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to a few consequences of the establishment of the regional services councils.

In many cases some of these services which will now be provided by these councils were duplicated in the past. This must of necessity bring about savings. Although there have been objections to a certain approach in this connection, it has nevertheless already happened in practice that neighbouring local authorities have worked together with regard to certain services and in that way have also saved money. This is simply a natural and practical consequence of that.

This is the first time in the history of local government in South Africa that a form of tax other than tax on immovable property will be levied to use to supply services in towns and cities. For many years representations have been addressed that another basis must be found because the tax structure which only pertained to immovable property, was actually very limited and because a greater degree of elasticity had become essential. I think that this should also be welcomed for that reason.

It is true that in the pass the Treasury definitely refused to allow another basis to be used. I remember that in the seventies the representatives of the provinces in fact went to Pretoria to see the then Minister of Finance and his Director-General about this matter. I believe it was as a result of this that the Browne Committee was appointed. It was because the provinces went and argued there that local authorities had to get relief with regard to the basis on which taxes could be levied, particularly considering the greater services which were expected of them, as well as the development, particularly in the larger cities. It was therefore necessary for other sources of revenue to be acquired.

Every new structure which comes into existence, can only be operated successfully and can only serve its purpose fully if it has sufficient money. That is why it is necessary, because this structure is being established, also to ensure that it will at least have the finances to carry out its functions. Hon members who spoke earlier in the debate, also alleged that this system was now being impossed on local authorities in cities and towns.

I believe that it is also important to remember that an Administrator will definitely not be so irresponsible as to impose regional services councils on people in areas where something of this sort is not really desirable. The Administrator must merely consult the relevant parties, but if they make out a proper case for its not being desirable to establish a regional services council in a specific area, I do not believe that the relevant Administrator will simply impose it on the people.

These regional services councils are going to play a supporting role and are also going to place local authorities in a position where they can get support in the performance of their task. This will also enable them to perform those tasks which they normally perform—the provision of certain services to the relevant residents—more carefuly; to concentrate more on those tasks and to ensure that the relevant town or city is a more pleasant place to live in for its residents, particularly by establishing better facilities which will also enhance the quality of their lives. This is of course especially important as far as people of colour are concerned.

The community councils which were established at that stage, resulted in the liaison between White and Black towns disintegrating to a certain extent. I do not know whether it was always in the interests of the relevant towns. The regional services councils can now lead to that lack of communication, which in certain respects developed as a result of the task which the community councils performed being eliminated. Of course I am not saying that the community councils did not perform a useful task at that stage—nor am I saying that about the present development boards. The fact remains that the regional services councils will now succeed in remedying that lack of communication.

Consequently I take pleasure in supporting the Bill under discussion, being firmly convinced that it will have a beneficial effect on the entire system of local government.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom has made reference to various matters concerning the regional services councils, but I do not think that he has given us any answer to the argument of this side of the House with reference to the Margo Commission. In fact, I do not think he tried to reply to that at all. So, we are waiting patiently for the hon the Minister of Finance to deal with that argument and I hope we shall hear his answer later on. However, I shall refer to it again just now. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that very little change has been made to local authorities for a long time. I do not know what his definition of a long time is. Quite a number of changes have been made in regard to the management committee system and the executive committee system. The only point on which I do agree with him is that little or no change has come about in the quest of local authorities for additional sources of revenue. We all know the history of the Borckenhagen, the Driessen, the Niemand, the Browne and the Croeser reports, and now have before us proposals concerning additional sources of revenue. I think nobody in this House would quarrel with the fact that local authorities do require additional sources of revenue and that some of them are reaching difficult financial straits because the interest they are paying on their loans is almost equal to the rates income they are receiving. I think that is a dangerous financial position. The hon member did make a positive point with regard to the duplication of services on a regional basis, and I agree that there are areas where duplication can be avoided in order to save money. However, as he rightly points out himself, certain local authorities have got together on their own initiative and supplied regional services to meet the needs peculiar to their local authorities; in fact, I am not sure that we need a regional services council to do it.

I think we all appreciate that local government is intimate government and that it is a very important form of government. It is essential on the local level, where the councils are close to the people who elect them, to have good, clean local government and supply a service to the people living in the area in the best way and cheapest manner, taxing people in a way that is fair to everybody. The first point I want to make in regard to the regional service councils as proposed here is that I understood that it was the attitude of this Government to devolve maximum power to local authorities. In fact, I have an extract of a Press release issued by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself towards the end of 1984, when he said the following—I quote:

If that is the case, why is that so many of the functions listed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill before us are in fact to be taken away from the local authorities to be placed in the hands of the regional services councils? So, the Government are not giving—I say this with great respect—maximum power to the local authorities.

But the regional services councils are local authorities.

They form the second tier; they are not the local authorities at base level. The Government are creating a new body altogether. It might just as well be called a provincial council. Why do they not call the provincial councils local authorities?

The MINISTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING [Inaudible.]

Why do they not call the Government a local authority? [Interjections.]

You must be completely crackbrained! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Mossel Bay must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Let us ask ourselves what this new model of regional services councils they are creating looks like [Interjections.] It is going to be a council of elected representatives of the local authorities involved. That regional services council will have to operate. In order to operate, it is going to have to deal with some of these regional services which the Government is proposing it deal with. It may have to deal with traffic, and so it will need traffic experts and engineers. It may have to deal with sewerage, and so it will need sewerage experts. It will have to collect taxes, and so it will need treasury assistance. In other words, we are setting up a completely new bureaucracy of regional services councils with umpteen different departments in order to deal with the various…

Twenty-one.

Twenty-one different departments says the hon member for Sea Point. In the schedule we can see that there are twenty-one different functions which the regional services council will have to administer. [Interjections.] For one, the people serving on the regional services council are going to be elected people. They are not going to be full-time workers. Or are they?

Is this a full-time job for them? [Interjections.] I do not foresee this being a full-time job for them. I foresee them attending their council meetings. I foresee their having an agenda, studying it and then considering how to deal with the matters before them, in which case, they will have to be permanent officials. For there to be permanent officials, there will, in turn, have to be departments. These departments require heads of departments. Therefore, the Government is setting up a complete new bureaucracy in order to deal with the new regional services councils and the functions that are assigned to them. [Interjections.]

We in these benches do not view the scenario in that particular light. Our amendment which was moved by the hon member for Sea Point and which I support, has three particular legs. It indicates first of all that we are against the implementation of the vertical walls of apartheid. It also indicates that we are against undermining government at local level. This, I think, is what the Bill is doing to a large extent by taking away the powers from local authorities. It also of course contains a reference to the Margo Commission which I will deal with.

Let me try to paint another picture for this House. I ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning what Johannesburg will look like—and I am obviously involved with Johannesburg for much of the year—if a regional services council is instituted there. What, I ask, would be the effect of such a measure on Johannesburg itself, on the Witwatersrand, and on the other areas surrounding Johannesburg? [Interjections.] Firstly, we have a market at City Deep. That market is, in effect, already a regional service. Farmers come from far away to sell their products on the market. People come from far and wide to buy from that market. It is a regional market. It is administered by the City Council of Johannesburg. Its profits go to the city council. Moreover, it is improved all the time by that council in order to continue to provide the facilities it does. What will be the fate of that market if a regional services council is established? [Interjections.] Will it then devolve upon the regional services council? If it does, the city council will be compensated for it and it will be out of their hands.

There will be no compensation.

No compensation.

There will be no compensation.

Then there is also the question of the abattoir. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can shake his head as much as he likes. I hope it does not fall off. We have an abattoir. That abattoir does not belong to the City Council of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] It belongs to the Abattoir Commission. It ceased to be controlled by the local authority a long time ago and is administered by the Abattoir Commission. Is that going to be taken away from the Abattoir Commission? Will it fall under the regional area which is going to be established there? [Interjections.] The RSC will have to administer cemeteries. Will a person in Germiston then be able to bury somebody in Roodepoort? Or are there going to be regional cemeteries?

Chris for the cemetery!

Now I understand why you people are so worried about the cemeteries.

I see. Well, that is very much a local thing. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, we talk about demarcation. I do not want to anticipate the hon the Minister’s Bill on demarcation but, as with all trilogies of Bills, it is difficult to discuss one aspect on its own when the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle needs to be fitted in. In this case it is the demarcation Bill which the hon the Minister will introduce very shortly. Can we visualize for example the region of Johannesburg stretching from Randfontein in the west to Nigel in the east, and from the north at mid-Rand, including Sandton and Edenvale, to the south as far as Vereeniging? [Interjections.] Soweto will be incorporated and so will Evaton, Riverlea and Bosmont. Can that possibly be one region? If that is the case, how on earth are we going to provide regional services to that large area? We have been told that there are going to be eight regional areas in South Africa but that initially there will only be four. Obviously the Witwatersrand is going to be one. The hon member for Mossel Bay mentioned ambulance and fire brigade services. If there is a fire in Randfontein, does the hon member want the fire brigade to come from Krugersdorp? As far as I am aware, a fire brigade service should be able to reach the scene of a fire within eight minutes, while an ambulance service should be able to reach a patient in a relatively short time. How is one going to put an ambulance and fire brigade service on a regional basis if it is going to be impossible for them to react to a call for assistance in such a small space of time?

As far as the Witwatersrand is concerned, Escom supplies electricity to the whole region. In this respect there will, therefore, be no change. All local authorities in that area buy electricity from Escom and one does not need a regional services council for that. They all get their water from the Rand Water Board so that this aspect will not be affected. However, there is the question of finance. I think the first mistake the hon the Minister of Finance made, and so did the committee, was in refusing to allow the hon member for Yeoville to appear before the committee in order to discuss the whole question of taxation.

It is not my committee; it is a committee of Parliament.

Is the hon the Minister saying that he has no control over his own Standing Committee on Finance?

May I ask the hon member a question? Was it not possible for the PFP to withdraw one of its members on the committee and replace him with the hon member for Yeoville?

You would not agree to it.

I am glad the hon the Minister asked that question, because that is exactly what we wanted to do, but we were prevented from doing so. It is inconceivable that at a stage when all taxation measures have been referred to the Margo Commission a measure as important as this one dealing with employment tax and turnover tax should not be referred to that commission. Perhaps the hon the Minister can tell us whether he will change his mind if the Margo Commission finds that the proposed taxation in this Bill should not be imposed?

In any event, the proposed measures are far from clear. We do not have the benefit of the discussions in the standing committee. Apparently no evidence was given. We also do not have the benefit of a Committee Stage in this House any longer and the only opportunity we have of eliciting specific information is during the Second Reading debate. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance, because I think it affects him, to explain the definition of “regional establishment levy”. The first part is fairly clear as it is based on the sales tax applicable in any given situation. However, paragraph (b) of that definition reads as follows:

If ever in my life I have read gibberish, if ever I have read anything that is unclear, then this is it. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon the Minister talked about the regional service levy and he also spoke about the regional establishment levy. It is said the levy will be based on the total turnover of an enterprise and that in the case of an enterprise which has to pay GST, the turnover will have to be obtained. It is also said that in the other cases new formulae will be determined to establish turnover. What are those new formulae? We are asked to pass a Bill which is supposed to become a law but nobody in this House knows what the new formulae will be. Can the hon the Minister tell us what those new formulae will be? [Interjections.]

After the establishment of the new formulae and the tax a further definition comes into the picture and that is the definition of “regional service levy”. This levy will be imposed on the basis of salary. Mention is also made of partnership and reference is also made to the amounts paid to such partners. I think the hon the Minister should deal with the valid argument advanced by the hon member for Yeoville in regard to a person who shows a loss on his business. Will such a person be taxed on his turnover notwithstanding the fact that he is virtually insolvent?

There is also the question of the timing of these levies which are to be imposed. Could there be a worse time in our economy than the present to tax people on their turnover and on their employment on this basis? I think it is inconceivable. Firms are going insolvent. Various factories in Cape Town are at present laying off 200 or 300 persons at a time. The imposition of this tax will only encourage two things. The first one is a reduction in manpower; in other words, the number of people who are in employment will be reduced. This will be done in order to reduce the tax payable. The second is to encourage poeple to move out of the regional area as such and to go to other places where the tax does not apply.

Initially there has been a lot of criticism on the part of the Chambers of Commerce, from the central business district of Johannesburg, the FCI and the Housewives’ League. In fact in the cuttings which I have it is also said that this tax will be punitive. It is also said that this tax is a three-headed monster. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance whether this will be any better now that it has been changed into a two-headed monster. It is now acceptable since it is no longer a three-headed monster?

Chris and Barend. [Interjections.]

I have another problem and I should like to know what the position of Johannesburg as such is going to be. I think it is common cause because I am sure that nobody will deny the fact that the largest revenue will be derived from Johannesburg both in terms of employment and turnover. I do not think that there can by any dispute in this regard. It means that Johannesburg will have to pay for whatever region it falls into. The people of Johannesburg will have to pay. The only relief which they will have is that they will have 50% of the votes on the regional services council but even so they will have no casting vote. What it boils down to is that the people of the large local authorities will be taxed so that the services of the smaller local government bodies which do not have the necessary funds themselves will be paid for.

I am not saying that they are not entitled to some form of revenue. I do not say that there should not be some form of revenue for them. It may be that the council will make the decision without having been advised properly. The formula of the tax does not allow for any variation, and that being the case it follows that everybody in the region will have to pay that same rate.

When it comes to the question of the rate, let me tell the House that I remember Mr Croeser talking about 1%. In the Bill there is no limit to what that rate may be. In the Financial Mail of 14 June there is a report in which the following question is asked.

This is an interview on regional service strategy with Mr Croeser. He says:

Does the hon the Minister of Finance agree with this? There is nothing in the Bill to stop a regional service council from levying well above 1%.

What the Bill does do is to say that the budget of the regional service council must be approved by the Minister. With that I again have a difficulty, because what will happen in practice? Does the regional service council draw up its budget, argue about it and then send it to the Minister, or does it first send it to the Minister and then discuss it after he has already approved it? This is a chicken-and-egg situation. How will this in fact function when the budget has to be approved? I agree that there should be some limit imposed in this respect. At present, as hon members know, local authorities are controlled by provincial administrations as far as their rates and taxes are concerned. In that respect they have to get the permission of the administrator to go above a certain level. In this case we are creating difficulties as far as the rate of taxation is concerned. In the circumstances, I have a lot of difficulty with the taxation that is proposed in the measure before us. I think some limit should be imposed.

There is another point to which I should like either hon Minister to respond. It has been discussed in the past and I think it is a recommendation of the Croeser Committee, although it does not appear in the Bill, that local authorities should tax on improvements on land as well as on the land itself. I am dead against forcing a local authority to tax on improvements. Johannesburg has grown extremely well without taxing on improvements, but merely on the land itself. I believe it would be a retrogressive step to tax on improvements, because town-planning and aesthetic considerations have been applied. People have been encouraged to erect buildings that are aesthetically pleasing and of value to the city. I sincerely trust that neither Minister will approve of these bodies being forced to levy tax on improvements.

There are a few other points I should like to raise. There is the question of the existing provincial councils. We are creating regional service councils and I should like to ask the simple question, which I believe my hon colleague from Sea Point also asked, namely: If the whole object of this exercise is to bring the Blacks into a form of local authority and to bring Coloured, White, Black and Indian local authorities together, why on earth is the existing machinery of provincial councils not used? Those structures exist and representatives can be elected to those provincial bodies. In that respect the precedent has been set of electing them to the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. It could be done quite easily.

Another aspect I should like to raise concerns clause 11(3) which relates to appeals. I want to ask the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether he thinks it is right that, after a regional service council has held a meeting and deliberated on an issue, a person on that council can make representations to appeal against the decision taken and the matter goes to the Minister who, through his appeal body, as set out in clause 11(4), can reverse a decision taken by a regional service council. How on earth can that procedure apply? At present, only when a local authority, which is a public body, has taken a decision mala fides and is taken to court—only the court can reverse that decision—can one have an appeal and can the decision be overruled by an appeal body of that nature.

I have a suspicion, too, that the NP would like to have the regional service councils under their control. I wonder whether that is not the reason for the decision of the NP to fight local authority elections to ensure that their representatives on those local authorities will serve on the regional service councils by virtue of the NP having control over those local authorities and those local authorities having to follow the dictates of the Government.

I want to say in passing that the NRP apparently had a difficulty. They disapprove of two clauses but they do support the principle. Unfortunately we no longer have a Committee Stage in this House, so they have no way in this House—I say this with great respect—to register their objection to those two clauses. I would have thought the sensible thing to do was to move a reasoned amendment or at least to support our reasoned amendment which I think meets their case. [Interjections.]

It has been said that there are positive aspects to the regional services councils. The first concern is the source of revenue. That in itself is a positive aspect, but the manner in which the source of revenue is being proposed in this Regional Services Councils Bill, without reference to a body that is considering taxation, is not acceptable at this stage. I think other sources of revenue could be found for local authorities which could be acceptable to them.

Then we have the regional services themselves. I think I have said that the regional services are not as simple as we like to make out. There are many local authorities who have existing services which will be jealously guarded by those local authorities. Those services meet their needs and they will be reluctant to let them go since they built them up themselves.

Very few of the regional services items mentioned in the schedule can be used on a regional service basis today unless one is going to create a brand new area with new local authorities and start de novo. Then I can understand the logic of that. However, if one has had 75 years of local government, with those local authorities in many cases building up their own services, then I think one will face a problem. I think, for example, of Johannesburg which will celebrate its 100th anniversary next year.

The other positive benefit was that Black local authorities would benefit on a financial basis. Black local authorities would serve on the regional services councils and a multiracial body would be created, which we favoured.

There is something I want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in all seriousness. The success of the regional services council and the Black local authorities serving on it will depend on the credibility of its members in the eyes of the people who elect them. I am afraid that up to this point that is in question, and I think the events of the past few months speak for themselves. What change does the hon the Minister or the Government propose in order to give the Black local authorities that credibility so that their people accept them and the RSC will have the credibility we would like it to have?

With great respect, unless the Government goes further than just the local authorities or the regional services councils, and gives something meaningful to the Black population and gives them some say in the overall government itself, I am afraid there will be a credibility gap in future. If the Government can solve that problem, it may be on its way to creating successful regional services councils.

For the reasons stated by us, we have moved our amendment.

Mr Chairman, I think tonight’s debate will go down in history as one of those rare spectacles; I have never been subjected to such wild flights of fantasy. In Afrikaans we have a saying “om die bobbejaan agter die bult te gaan haal” and in my opinion that saying has never before been as applicable to a debate conducted in this House as it is this evening. [Interjections.]

I owe the hon member for Sea Point a word of thanks and I will return to him in a moment.

*I should like to touch on a point to which the hon member for Waterberg referred earlier when he said that we on this side of the House had socialistic tendencies and when he began to talk about a distribution of income and of wealth. I see that the hon member for Rissik is already sitting there ready, because we on this side of the House know that if anyone asks the hon member for Waterberg a question, it is he who replies. [Interjections.] It is as if he is programmed. He answers immediately, because he is too afraid that his leader will reply. [Interjections.] That remarkable way in which he gives expression to his confidence in his leader is something I really cannot understand. [Interjections.]

To illustrate this brief point we may simply define “income” as “yield”, whether it be income, interest or whatever. For the purposes of this brief argument we define “wealth” as “fixed assets”. Now I want to ask the hon member a question. He says that they are opposed to the financial policy of a redistribution of income. Did I understand him correctly? The hon member says that I understood him correctly. [Interjections.] The hon member answers in the affirmative—thank you very much for the courtesy. [Interjections.] The hon member says yes, we all heard correctly. He said that he was opposed to a policy of a redistribution of income. Over the years in South Africa, and in any developed country, income tax is a policy of redistribution of income. [Interjections.] The truth is, however, that that is not in fine with the propaganda they are distributing about the NP.

Just come to the Bill.

I shall come to the Bill in a moment.

This again is a very important point of propaganda in regard to which the hon member has again just laid the egg here, while the monster will emerge outside. We must just settle this point with one another. [Interjections.] When we look at the average income statistics there are few White families with three to four children who pay enough tax to pay for their children’s school education and university training until long after the last child has left school. And then we have not even referred to the fact that those children are protected, that they travel on roads, that there are hospitals, and that all the other government services are available to them. Then we have not yet spoken about that. Why is that the case? These services exist because there is a redistribution of income.

And he says that that is White socialism!

He calls it socialism.

Chris, you must not help him! [Interjections.]

Yes, just listen to that! [Interjections.]

My hon colleague made the correct point when he said that the most effective and just way in which to bring about a redistribution of income is by way of the free market system. In that way one redistributes according to merit, the income that derives from the resources of a country. Our system of taxation takes from the rich and gives to the poorer people. Therefore, what that hon member said to us today when he accused us of having a socialistic tax policy—he said he was opposed to it—was that the poor people of South Africa must beware; if they get their way and can implement their tax policy, it will be strictly according to income. [Interjections.] Now the hon member is again evading the consequences of his own statement because I do not believe that the hon member was thinking in terms of figures when he considered the system of taxation. He is most welcome to approach our offices, and we shall give him average figures so that he may understand that if there is no taking from the rich and giving to the poor in terms of a policy of the redistribution of income, then the poor people in South Africa would not be able to send their children to school, they would not be able to undergo hospital treatment nor would they be allowed to travel on the roads.

Let us take the argument a little further. I also want to ask the hon member whether he is opposed to the redistribution of wealth. The hon member says yes—he is shaking his head.

When are you going to get to the Bill.

I am dealing with the Bill! We are dealing with the redistribution of income and even of wealth. Let us briefly examine the matter of the redistribution of wealth. In a country with a free enterprize system, the free market permits one to bring about a redistribution of wealth in that there are equal opportunities so that those who have talents, and use them, can obtain a share of the riches of the country which previously they did not have.

What have we done thus far in South Africa? Did the hon member reject that NP policy in all the years he was a member of it himself? In the land consolidation programme and the free transfer of land to the Black national states we had one of the most dramatic examples of redistribution of wealth in the history of the Western World, because land is the basis of wealth. [Interjections.] We effected a redistribution of existing wealth because we realized that it would help us to achieve self-determination for both Black people and White people. I must therefore infer that that hon member is opposed to the redistribution of wealth. He is the man who is always telling us how logical things are. In the light of his logical policy he will now have to get away from a policy of the redistribution of existing wealth. Now, I just wonder how he is going to present a consistent argument as far as his policy of partition is concerned. After all, the hon member for Lichtenburg once told us what they would do. They will simply delimit the land and then the Brown people would be told: “That is your hinterland; that is your homeland. Come and buy your own land.” I recall that that was said after their pamphlet had attacked him so. [Interjections.]

Let us take a brief look at what would happen if they were to implement their policy without pursuing the policy of the redistribution of existing wealth on a dramatic and spectacular scale. I should say that in such a case absolutely nothing would come of their wonderful policy of partition. However, it might even be simply a daydream which they could not begin to implement. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg can laught as much as he likes but I want to give him a good suggestion. If he wishes to advance any argument that has anything to do with figures, he should obtain better advice than that which comes from those who sit around him. [Interjections.] I think that that hon member said something in this House today which he wants to use outside for propaganda purposes. However we shall settle his hash for him if he gets onto a platform with the kind of argument he used here this evening. [Interjections.]

I think you should scale down a little! [Interjections.]

There we hear another member of the “hit squad”. [Interjections.]

Order!

If that hon member thinks that I have skeletons in the cupboard which he can use to settle my hash, then let him try. I shall give him all the information. He will have free access to my files; indeed, I invite him to my office.

The hon the Minister must refrain from making childish attacks on the hon leader of my party!

Order! Up to now I have shown patience in calling hon members to order several times. However my patience is not unlimited. Hon members must now afford the hon the Minister the opportunity to continue with his speech. [Interjections.] I am speaking to the hon member for Langlaagte as well. He must please control the tone of his voice now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to come back to the hon member for Sea Point. [Interjections.]

Order! I just wish to interrupt the hon the Minister for a moment. Certain hon members are trying to provoke the hon member for Langlaagte now. That is perhaps a little unjust. The hon the Minister may proceed.

A week or so ago the hon member for Sea Point and his hon colleagues were most upset with me when I told them that through their utterances about and descriptions of the Government’s policies in this House, and the way in which this has been transmitted all over the world, they have, over many years, created stereotypes of interpretation of the South Africa Government’s policy in foreign countries which, to my mind, have now materialized into certain concrete actions. I owe the hon member for Sea Point a word of sincere thanks. He has proven my point exactly because this afternoon that hon member denigrated this piece of legislation in this House as being apartheid and nothing but apartheid. [Interjections.] In other words, there is only one conclusion that we can draw, viz that anything which is not blatant PFP policy is apartheid. Anybody who has travelled overseas or who has spoken to a foreign journalist knows what awful stereotypes about South Africa come to mind when well-meaning people in the USA, for example, hear the word apartheid. They associate it with the worst possible, inhuman behaviour and they do not associate it with the kind of legislation before this House which is aimed at the redistribution of income to the benefit of the underprivileged communities in this country. That is the essence of this piece of legislation. [Interjections.] If I were a well-meaning person in another country and I were to read the Hansard of the hon member for Sea Point, a member of Parliament and a former leader of the Official Opposition, I would think that this man should obviously know what he was talking about and I would believe what he said. He said he condemned this piece of legislation outright as despicable because it is apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon member called it apartheid.

I said it is built on the foundations of apartheid.

Is a house anything different from the foundations it stands on? That is a ridiculous argument. Let the hon member then get up and tell us how he can possibly ever venture into an argument with any critic of South Africa and, if that person calls this piece of legislation the worst form of apartheid or says it is founded on apartheid, persuade that person to think otherwise. [Interjections.]

Let me come to the hon member for Yeoville. I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that this legislation, as far as the tax part is concerned, is based on two calculations. Any business knows what its turnover is and any business should know, on a monthly basis, what its payroll is. So, there is no fancy calculation.

But turnover is not necessarily related to profit. You should know that. [Interjections.]

That is the essence of the whole thing. We are not talking about profits. We are not talking about taxation in the classic sense of the word. We are talking about levies being charged which money will be channeled directly into the infrastructure of a particular area. Secondly, if that business is a labour-intensive business—the hon member for Durban Point raised this—then, certainly, as far as payroll is concerned, that business will pay more. Let us take the other extreme. A one-man business with a huge income will, in relation to its turnover, pay more. Those are the extremes, however.

To think that you are running the finance of this country! [Interjections.]

I have yet to hear a better idea. The hon member for Yeoville does not understand …

No.

The hon member should give me an opportunity. I did not interrupt him. We are not used to him displaying bad manners. Why does he not listen for a moment? The point is that we want this levy system to be capable of differentiation. That is the very essence of it. If we just wanted the money, the revenue, we would have added another 0,5% or 1% to GST and got it over and done with, but that is not the idea. The very essence of this system is to allow a specific region to raise levies according to the infrastructural demands of that area.

Would that be fairly based?

Let the hon member then give us a fairer method. The fact is that, if a business is labour-intensive, then every labourer in that organization depends on the infrastructure. Is that not a fact? It is a fact. If, in the end, a particular business can no longer afford to stay in business in a certain area for some reason or other, for instance, as a result of the cost of water, the cost of transportation or the cost of electricity, that businessman will just have to move out and that may sound like hard words.

And get rid of the workers? [Interjections.]

Sir, we have never made any bones about this: This is one of the instruments to promote decentralization. It is a fact; and for that very reason we make allowance for levies on a differentiated basis. [Interjections.]

More unemployment.

Now the hon member says we will create unemployment.

That is your policy.

He says our policy is unemployment.

That is right.

What a ridiculous statement that is! Mr Chairman, the fact is that, if in a particular area a certain sum is raised through these levies, this money will have to be spent there, in that very area. In spending it in that very area, we will create the necessary job opportunities there! That money will not be spent elsewhere. It will not go to the central fiscus. [Interjections.]

Including the transport subsidy?

Order! If hon members wish to ask questions, there is a correct way of doing it. We cannot have this continuous bickering.

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

Yes, but I do not have much time left.

Is it correct that the transport levy as such does not have to be spent in the area itself, but can actually be spent outside the area?

It is not the idea to spend money levied in a certain area outside of that area.

Yet it says so in the Bill.

However, it will not be possible at all stages to say to the last cent what sum which should have been spent in that particular area was spent in an adjacent area. However, the whole concept has a regional basis. [Interjections.]

*I now turn to the hon member for Pietersburg. Is he not interested in the economic development of the backward areas of the platteland? Why is he opposed to this Bill? [Interjections.] The whole idea of this is to establish industries in those parts that are economically backward as far as industrial development is concerned. [Interjections.] I cannot understand his opposition. [Interjections.]

†Another point raised by one of the hon members concerned this so-called bureaucracy. I think it is about time … The hon member is not listening, so I might as well not reply to that. [Interjections.] Does the hon member want to hear my response to that?

He is just trying to show you the Bill!

I am speaking to the principles contained in this Bill. That is what I am doing. Let me address the point about our not referring it to the Margo Commission. The reason is simple and we have given it often across the floor of this House: We need that revenue now. The fact that the Margo Commission has an open mandate to look at the entire tax structure in South Africa has nothing to do with the argument the hon member advanced earlier. We need the revenue urgently. That is why we want to institute these RSC’s now. If, in its ultimate analysis of the whole picture of tax legislation in South Africa, the Margo Commission can satisfy the fundamental requirements in respect of these needs, the Government will look at that.

What are these fundamental requirements? They are simply that it must be possible to identify the amount which one levied in one particular area in order to spend it in that particular area, and to have a different set of circumstances applying in another area. If the Margo Commission can give us a better plan than all the various commissions and committees have given over a period of time, we will certainly consider it.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he has studied the situation in the USA where taxation is actually imposed on a city basis and on a state basis and that money is then spent in the area concerned? Has he studied that?

The number of studies that have been involved in the drafting of this particular piece of legislation, gives me the confidence to say that what we have here is the best effort that we could possibly have produced at this stage.

A last point I want to make has to do with these so-called bureaucracies. Let us look at this question finally, please. The proposed RSC’s are not separate taxing entities. Certainly, it would be quite possible for there to be a new bureaucracy with tax collectors, inspectors, and what have you. However, the tax collection will be done by the local authorities. There is no big deal about this. The businessman simply calculates his payroll, adds a certain percentage, and then remits his cheque. Then one calculates one’s turnover—which is something every businessman must know—and one calculates the percentage and sends the cheque to the local authority. Then the inspector for Inland Revenue comes along and he asks for a summary of the revenue entries and compares it with his. If there is a discrepancy he will say: “Aha, this fellow says here that he had a turnover of R1 000 000, but to us he said he had a turnover of R2 000 000. Let us send an inspectorate to come to find out what is going on in this particular case.” Now, I am not prepared, on behalf of regional services councils yet to be established, to venture a guess like the hon member for Hillbrow did and go on and on and on about things which could happen. I am not prepared to say that they will not have a secretariat and that they will not have this or that, but there is no question about it that this is no new, fancy, large, bureaucracy which will add to the clumsiness of the bureaucratic set-up. If ever it is necessary to have permanent people there, even a small number, I am certain that they can be recruited from elsewhere.

This business that we are overtaxing the public is also so much nonsense. [Interjections.] Let us just remember one thing. In the Budget Speech delivered here on 18 March, I specifically said that we are not putting a surcharge of 7% on company tax. Why? To allow for this system to be introduced. Otherwise we would not have allowed a discrepancy to exist again between individuals and companies.

It is not only companies that are paying.

Sure, but that is one of the reasons. That is how we could accommodate companies. [Interjections.]

The regulations pertaining to this particular piece of legislation will be drafted in cooperation with a subcommittee of the Margo Commission, and from these regulations it will be determined how an advocate will pay. However, in the process—if I have time I shall duly indicate it—certain other levies and charges will be dropped and there will be a shift from a central government taxation liability to local government or regional services councils. [Interjections.] Really, I think that hon members on the opposite side of this House could have thought of much better fundamental arguments to fight against this particular piece of legislation. I tried to listen objectively, but I could not identify a single logical, objective argument as to why we should not go ahead.

I should like to ask the hon member for Hillbrow one last question. He asked if there had ever been a worse time to institute this kind of levy. [Interjections.] Taxation through consensus is not possible because taxation is always untimely in certain respects. I want to paraphrase his question and ask him this: Has there ever been a worse time to leave the councils of underdeveloped communities without revenue? That is the question which a responsible government must answer for itself, and that is the reason why we are going ahead. [Interjections.]

I want to get this on record because there are people in my department also who have been working diligently and with great imagination over many years to see this particular piece of legislation come to fruition. It is interesting to see the development of this piece of legislation over a number of years. Forgive me if I mention Mr Croeser’s name specifically for the mammoth task that he has done in the development of this legislation we have before us here.

One of the main questions raised regarding these levies, is why new sources of revenue cannot be raised at and redistributed from the central Government level. It is a prime question. The answer is quite clear: Functions cannot be devolved in isolation; financial means and responsibility therefore must accompany the process to ensure voter control at the local level. Raising taxes at the central level and redistributing them to the regional level, will merely further politicize an issue which is essentially for the benefit of people in an economically contiguous area. I think one should accept that the process of centralization as far a taxation is concerned, which took place in 1970 regarding provincial revenue, has in retrospect proved to be less than ideal, especially in view of the changing constitutional dispensation.

The numerous investigations undertaken in the past concerning local government finance have indicated the limited growth potential of property taxes as an adequate source of revenue for all local authorities. It has been shown that certain local authorities where—owing to historic and other factors— there has been little or no business and industrial development, do not have sufficient funds available to perform the basic and essential tasks such an authority has to perform. It is important to realize that we cannot wait until a place such as Soweto has developed its own industrial or central business district sufficiently powerfully in terms of tax revenue generating ability so as to have become self-supporting. Logic therefore dictated that new taxes imposed on the business sector, which could then be allocated to the local authorities within the region, would be the most suitable way of solving this problem. The concept is after all not a new one; it is in fact also applied in a number of countries abroad such as West Germany and France.

*Mr Chairman, the fact that an investigation that lasted for years as well as negotiations were necessary to place the feasibility of the concept of regional services councils beyond all doubt and to prove the acceptability of a new structure to all the interested parties, has unfortunately meant that the extensive detail that is necessary in all tax legislation could not be incorporated in full in the Bill. In addition, the fact that the Margo Commission, to which has been entrusted the task of the revision of the Republic’s tax structure, was only appointed recently and, has to be involved in the process as far as practicable, gave rise to the decision that the taxation provisions should be of a purely enabling nature.

While referring to the Margo Commission I wish to state very clearly that the need for the establishment of regional services councils, which has already been outlined by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, makes the introduction of these levies essential at this stage. Therefore I just want to stress that in view of this urgency the Government was not prepared to refer the proposals in this regard to the Margo Commission before they came into effect. This would have meant an intolerable delay in the introduction of this essential keystone of constitutional development. However, in the nature of the matter, the commission will necessarily also have to give consideration to these levies in its consideration of the whole issue of sources of Government revenue.

Mr Chairman, whether we like it or not a government is elected to govern, and it has to carry out its responsibilities and duties. In the nature of the matter it consults as widely as possible in the process. However, full consensus will never be possible, particularly as far as taxation is concerned, and therefore every government must necessarily take decisions that cannot satisfy everyone. Nevertheless an effort is always made to refine the detail and the practice by further consultation after the decisions have finally been taken with regard to the principles involved. This will also be done in the case of the new levies, and moreover the Margo Commission—which, I may mention, has appointed a sub-committee specifically to look into local taxation—will also be involved in the process of drafting regulations in terms of which the taxes will be levied and published in the Gazette.

For the sake of interest I might just mention that two members of the Margo Commission served on both the permanent finance liaison committee and the sub-committee of the Co-ordinating Council which unanimously recommended these tax proposals.

I now have a few remarks to make about the collection of the regional levies. One of the most important points of departure in deciding what new levies should be introduced was that they should be simple to collect and should not result in any new tax authority or administration. Mr Speaker, I believe that the way in which these tax proposals have been formulated will indeed succeed in this aim.

In the first place, provision has been made for the revenue from these levies which will therefore accrue to the regional services councils to be collected by the local authorities with existing facilities as agents within the regional services council area.

In the second place a self-assessment system will be employed in the collection of these levies—and this is a very important matter—which ought to facilitate considerably the task of the tax collector.

In the third place, the basis on which this tax will be levied—turnover—particularly as it is defined in the Bill, together with the wage bill of undertakings, ought to be information that can be made available to the collecting authority without any additional cost either to the entrepeneur or the collecting authority.

Could you not perhaps read even faster?

Why do you not simply table the thing? [Interjections.]

If those hon members cannot listen as fast as I am reading they do not belong in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The final—and perhaps also the most important—factor is the fact that all inspection functions will be carried out with the existing knowhow by the Department of Inland Revenue. It may even happen that enterprises which do not at present appear on the tax register of the Department of Inland Revenue but which do have trade licences will be traced in this way.

I should like to sincerely congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in advance on this piece of legislation. Since this is an important step forward in the elaboration of our system of constitutional development I wish to extend to him my personal congratulations on his efforts. We of the Department of Finance take pleasure in according him our co-operation as far as the financial side is concerned.

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Minister of Finance started his speech, he said that he had not heard such flights of fantasy in this House before. I am afraid that I can repeat that after having listened to him now. If ever I have heard a debasing currency in political debate in this House it is accusing the PFP of being the messengers, harbingers and the bringers of disinvestment. What did the hon member for Sea Point say in his amendment? He said that this Bill “fails to provide a sound basis for meeting the needs as it is designed primarily to implement the policy of apartheid in respect of local authorities”. Let us consider this. The regional services councils are made up of representatives of local authorities and local bodies. How are the local bodies constituted? They are constituted from representatives of racial groups. The racial groups elect their representatives by way of separate voters’ rolls. What else is apartheid except differentiating on a racial basis? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning knows full well that local authorities have approached him and his department to reconstitute themselves on a non-racial basis, but that they have refused. There may be other legislation that governs that, but this legislation implements it finally at the regional services level. The hon the Minister of Finance wants to shoot the messenger.

You did not understand it.

I understood it absolutely perfectly. He said that the utterances in this House of this party spread over the world and create a stereotype. This is no stereotype but exactly what the Government and those Ministers are creating.

If one looks at what the hon the Minister of Finance said about the redistribution of income, I would agree with what the hon member for Yeoville had to say. We on this side of the House have no argument or disagreement on the question of the redistribution of income or even on the redistribution of wealth as he so lucidly explained it to the hon member for Waterberg, but I think we must make quite sure that we are looking at the same thing. We have taken note, and I have certainly taken very careful note, that he indicated quite clearly that if businesses could not afford to pay levies for the roads, water and electricity they would have to move out. He said: “This will be one of the instruments used to promote decentralization.” If that is correct the hon the Minister of Finance must come and explain to the local authority in Pinetown why industries are moving away from that area as a result of his decentralization policy. We live on the edge of a rural, poverty-stricken community and yet we are deemed to be a metropolitan area. Now this decentralization policy is going to be implemented even further.

When I look at my own constituency in terms of this Regional Services Councils Bill and at the local authorities which will become part of much a regional services council in the Durban-Pinetown area, I see that my constituency in fact covers ten such local bodies, namely three White, three Indian, three Black and one Coloured. There are ten of them in my constituency and there are eight or nine members of Parliament in the greater Durban area. In this respect we are dealing with the problem area of the numbers game, where each person and local authority will be represented by at least one member on a regional services council if it is below 10% of the total number of votes on that RSC. However, the voting is not constituted that way. When one looks at the constituting of the regional services council in an area such as the Pinetown-Durban area, one sees that the core city of Durban can have no more than five members on that council. There may well be 40 or 50 such representatives and I think we must look very carefully at the complications created by this legislation. I believe that when individual local authorities of whatever so-called group examine this legislation they will start by looking at how these councils are constituted. I want to take the example of my own constituency. There are, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can acknowledge this, people in that area who will not have a vote and no representative on the regional services council. They can be White, Indian or Black, depending on where they are living within that area. Is that correct? There is a deafening silence in the House.

Carry on with your speech; I shall reply.

I shall, thank you. Such people will then not be able to exert any pressure whatsoever on that regional services council. The hon the Minister may acknowledge that a little later. Similarly I have a local affairs committee within my constituency that only has 400 voters, but it will also have one seat.

What I am saying is that when one looks at the numbers and at constituting these regional services councils in terms of their voting percentages, I think there will be very considerable pressures building up within an area such as Durban/Pinetown.

I think there is little dispute in South Africa generally and particularly in this House that a metropolitan form of services provision would prove cost effective. There is also little dispute that the spread of local services provision must be extended to allow each individual to enjoy certain basic services. What is in dispute is the means by which one reaches these relatively simple ends.

The PFP has declared that the means detailed in this Bill are not the way. Speakers of this party have clearly spelled out the initial gross failing of the Bill. It is the racial base of separate local bodies which makes this Bill and its major aspects unacceptable. The entire structure of separate local authorities including management committees and local affairs committees is erected here in a system which is totally dependent on that separateness. That is what constitutes the Bill’s gross failing. The hon the Minister must be well aware—I have already pointed this out—that there are local bodies which have called for a common voters’ roll, non-racial elections, single councils and so forth, but how can these be accommodated? The hon member for Mossel Bay has spoken about this being a colourless regional services council. That is fine; I shall take him at his word if he allows Westville to have a non-racial council.

But that is not in this Bill. [Interjections.]

But it is the base of this Bill, the very base upon which this is built.

Why do you not read the Bill, Helgard?

You show me where it is in the Bill.

This attempt to separate the so-called general and own affairs of groups by means of entrenching these provisions in the schedule to the Bill does not remove the basic objection to the concept of general and own. There is no doubt that the ability of a metropolitan authority to co-ordinate and to administer services will contribute to cost effectiveness. As the hon the Minister said in his introductory speech, this, however, is a further manifestation of the Government’s goal that every person individually and in group connection must have authority over matters affecting his interests.

I go again to the essence of the whole matter: Cost effectiveness and group connection are going to be inimical. They will clash and one cannot have both. As a result the absolute cost effectiveness clashes with the strategy of the Government to retain an own affairs symbol at local government level.

I should like to turn to the consideration of one of the very real difficulties which we in Natal experience, and this is the mechanism for the inclusion of local authorities from the national states. One recognizes that in terms of clause 4(3)(a)(iii) such a local authority may be represented on the council provided that the council so agrees by a two-thirds majority. When they enter into an agreement there will be certain conditions set and then a local authority of a national state may come in. I have no doubt—if one looks at it demographically one sees it quite clearly—that the greater percentage of all the people in the Durban/Pinetown metropolitan area actually live in a national state. They do not live within the so-called common area; they live in kwaZulu. It will certainly make no sense to proceed with the local authorities of kwaZulu being absent from a regional services council in the Durban/Pinetown area. It will be crazy. What we are also hoping is that the representatives of the White, Coloured and Indian local authorities will agree that the local authorities from kwaZulu may come into the regional services council. They are not obliged to take them—and one must remember that they will be taking the poorest element—but we certainly believe they should.

The second question in this conncetion is which body they are talking about. The answer is quite simple in the case of local authorities in kwaZulu bordering on Durban, for example kwaMashu, Umlazi and Clermont, which are all constituted local authorities. However, when we come to Malukazi, Inanda and Ntuzuma, outlying squatter areas contiguous to the urban area and within the metropolitan area of Durban, then who or which body is going to be represented on the RSC—a tribal authority, a church group, a self-constituted popular movement? These are very real and very important difficulties the Durban-Pinetown area is going to have to face in the very, very near future.

We are pleased, as I think has been said earlier, that there has at least been an advance from last year’s Bill: Blacks are now included. Surely, however, there must be a more satisfactory means of achieving regional government than by inviting kwaZuIu later. One can but presume, as I think I have indicated, that the Durban-Pinetown RSC will have the good sense to ensure that an agreement is entered into with kwaZulu local authorities. Without such an agreement—I want to make this clear—without the agreement to include the Black areas surrounding Durban, the tensions and stresses in the region are going to be absolutely enormous. Already some of those authorities are included in the Metrocon—I think the hon the Minister is well aware of this. We would certainly believe that it is most unfortunate, to say the least, that this RSC could be constituted before the kwaZulu local bodies are included. It seems an unfortunate circumstance and one wonders whether in fact other arrangements could not have been made at ministerial level for the inclusion of those local authorities before the RSC itself was originally constituted. One must note that it would be highly inappropriate for any RSC, be it this one or any other, to draw up regulations, to set a levy or to determine the expenditure of its own funds, which it would do in terms of clause 12(6), without kwaZulu or any of these deprived communities in national states coming in before such a decision is made.

In that respect I should just like to turn to the proviso of clause 12(6) which, as the hon the Minister will be aware, sets the position out quite clearly:

I have absolutely no problem with that and think it is an important Provision, but I must say I have a problem with the application, because I am afraid that the subjective analysis of which the areas of greatest need are will become one of the controversial aspects of this legislation. We are all human beings and this will be true of the RSC as well. I believe we have a broad sense of what deprived communities and areas need, but I am similarly aware that, human nature being what it is, there is going to be disagreement: “My area has got less than your area and therefore my need is greater than yours.” I am afraid that this kind of squabbling might well take place.

I think that what we need here is, at least, a clear indication from the Minister to RSC’s that a more scientific basis for determining deprivation and need should be established, by way of guidelines or in some other form. The absence or poor provision of infrastructural services must be amenable to some form of scientific judgment. What comes first: Sewerage, potable water, roads, the provision of electricity? It is difficult to determine. I think there must be some kind of scientific judgment. Here the frailty of human nature—here I must say that this is aimed at the whole NP Government—is most susceptible to emotion and vote-cathing. I hope and trust—I say this in all good conscience—that the NP members on the RSC and the other members as well, namely the CP, NRP and our own members, will never exploit the extension of priority services to deprived communities for party political gain. It is so easily done. I would earnestly appeal to all party politicians that we at least acknowledge that there are deprived communities and that they do need to be serviced. Perhaps in regard to this broad area of service to deprived communities in kwaZulu the hon the Minister would like to make a statement a little later.

I would like to turn to clause 3(2)(b) whereby the administrator is granted certain powers to transfer, second or place the services of any officer or employee of any local authority or the province or the State at the disposal of a RSC. Certain questions emerge from this powerful means of moving staff around. We must be aware of the fact that as soon as one starts moving people around, all kinds of doubts and questions come into their minds. In terms of clause 4(2) any employee shall not be prejudiced in any way by such a transfer; that is covered in this Bill.

However, three questions still persist. Firstly, will section 14(3)(a) of the Public Service Act, 1984, which is referred to, apply? According to this, no transfer or secondment may take place without the consent of the person being transferred or seconded. I think we in this party believe that that is absolutely essential. Secondly, would the secondment or transfer envisaged be for a fixed period of time or would it be an open appointment? Thirdly, would full and adequate provision be made for the transport and/or accommodation for the employee? I think the hon the Minister will be well aware that many of these regional areas constitute a large physical area and certain employees may well have to move. One hopes that provision will be made for them—we are of course here looking at the creation of a bureaucracy. In this connection the hon the Minister must be aware that several of the RSC’s—here I can cite Durban, Pinetown, Johannesburg, etc—are broad in expanse. This assurance will go far in contributing to the more acceptable transfer of staff.

There are one or two other points which I think should be mentioned. I think it would be wise for the hon the Minister who is here to have a quiet word with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who I see is in the House at the moment. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has been through the debacle of parental tuition fees. I am afraid that what we are looking at is a similar set of circumstances.

The idea of parental tuition fees in education was to provide an added sum that the State was not going to provide in order to maintain services in one sector of education so that State money could be used elsewhere. I think the same broad spread of financial assets is being made in this area. I think the kind of political turmoil turned up by the application of parental tuition fees and the thought of where State money would be going in place of so-called “White” money may well emerge here. I think it is a very strong emotional attribute that we must guard against.

The hon the Minister made a reference in his introductory speech that South Africa is not a First World country and he stated “that realistic affordable minimum standards of services should be accepted”. I have no problems with that, but here again one has to ask: What happens to the higher levels of services that already exist? Does the RSC expend its money in maintaining such high standards or does it allow certain standards to drop? Do we stop the luxury services provided in certain White residential areas because they cannot be provided elsewhere? This again is the kind of question that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is having to examine and wrestle with. The State cannot afford a luxury education system for all. One should set certain minimum, basic standards and everybody will have to apply them. However, what is going to happen in the White sector in maintaining those standards, in this case under local government?

One notes, of course, with some degree of concern—and this is probably going to be mentioned a little later as well—that the taking over of assets from certain local authorities will take place with no compensation being paid or made available. Here we have a major difficulty. What happens if one is a local authority that looks after its money? What happens if one has built up a large cash reserve in a certain capital-asset fund and this money is going to an RSC? What are we advising people to do now? They are being advised to transfer the money into an own affairs vote immediately, so that the RSC cannot get its hands on it.

Durban has over the last few years been proud that it is one of the few major cities in the world that has little or no debt. I earnestly believe that the hon the Minister must provide Durban and other cities in that position with answers to that kind of question. Is Durban going to be saddled with the debts of outlying areas whilst it has kept its nose clean over the past three or four years? That is an important problem.

The last point I want to make …

Hear, hear!

Thank you! The question was raised last year in this very same debate in the light of that party over there, the NP, having indicated that it wishes to participate as a political party at the local level, whether we are looking at the RSC’s as being party-politically structured. Is that the vision of the hon the Minister at this moment?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinetown will forgive me if I do not react directly to his arguments now, except to give this reply to his last question regarding Durban: It is true that the larger local authorities will have to make a sacrifice to the smaller local authorities, because they are in a better position than the smaller local authorities to negotiate for tarrifs.

There is a very peculiar phenomenon in this House today, particularly when hon members of the CP put their case. The measure which the House is considering this evening, was already debated by us in another form during the 1984 session. What did we find there? Through their speaker, the hon member for De Aar, the CP rejected the measure during the Second Reading debate in the most definite way in which a party in this House could reject a measure, namely by moving that the measure be read this day six months”. Today they did exactly the same thing.

After the hon the Minister had reacted and had referred the matter, after the Second Reading, to the Select Committee on the Constitution, which was an exclusively White committee, it was not acceptable to the CP. They left the Chamber. But what was very interesting was that when the hon member for Kuruman, who was not the main speaker in the Second Reading, had to reply after the hon the Minister had announced that this measure was to be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution, he took it amiss of the hon the Minister, because the CP were not being allowed a final opportunity to debate the measure fully in the White Parliament. These are the people we are involving in a debate here.

This evening is the last opportunity that I will have during this session to participate in a debate which concerns a measure handled by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. For that reason I should like to express my great appreciation to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is the man who leads the way as the instrument of the Cabinet. All communities in South Africa will be grateful to him for the positive steps which he is taking in respect of reform in South Africa, to ensure-peace and prosperity for all communities. Interjections.]

In the very first place I should like to refer to the matter of local government because I was involved with this for many years. I have here seven reports which were the result of the legislation to create a co-ordinated board on local government matters. These are reports to which we shall refer for many years to come.

The measure now before the House is not the product of the work of one person or a single House; it is the product of the input of experts in the field of local government, who have rendered a service to local authorities for many years. This evening I want to take this opportunity to give special recognition to these people, and to express my appreciation to them, because these reports have given rise to legislation which has already been placed on the Statute Book. I am thinking of the legislation regarding the uniform remuneration of town clerks, the training of staff for local authorities and the introduction of uniform franchise for local authorities, for example. I have only mentioned a few examples now.

There is one matter which the opposition parties simply must accept, namely that the Government received a mandate in the referendum to continue with the policy. [Interjections.] We must accept that every group will function as a separate community. [Interjections.] Consequently there will be own local governments for every group in South Africa. We cannot get away from this fact.

The measure which was considered by the House in 1984, is in fact before this House this evening in an amended form. I believe that we must make one matter very clear to each other this evening, namely that the enquiries which preceded this measure, ensured that it would be in the best interests of all the inhabitants of South Africa. We must also bear one aspect in mind when we look at this measure, namely that we must also take cognizance of trends.

Let us look for a moment at the demographic trends in the RSA. We note that by the year 2000 there will be 1 161 000 Asians; 5 280 000 Whites; 3 790 000 Coloureds and 36 400 000 Blacks in the Republic. [Interjections.] I am in the process of enumerating the demographic trends which the Government must take into account.

Let us look at the process of urbanization. If urbanization continues at the present rate, by the year 2000, 95% of the total White population, 91% of the Coloureds, 93% of the Asians and 75% of the Blacks will be living in the towns and the cities of the RSA.

It is important for us to take cognizance of the fact that in future success with regard to peace, security and prosperity will be decided at local government level in South Africa. We must have no doubts about that.

I now want to refer hon members briefly to Schedule 2, which we have in front of us. Regional services councils must ensure that the people to whom I have referred, who will stream to cities and towns, will do so because there are employment opportunities, facilities and accommodation in those areas. We must, however, ensure that those people can earn a living within the area of a local authority.

Let us look at the Schedule to see, in the first place, what the measure seeks to achieve. Its objective is not to decide for local authorities what tariff their people are going to pay for electricity and water, because large quantities are involved here. Reference is made here to “Bulk supply of water” and “Bulk supply of electricity”. It is surely an accepted fact that when a person approaches Escom to negotiate for a lower tariff, the kind of consumer and number of consumers play a role. The actual consumption in the course of a month will determine the tariff. Surely it is as plain as a pikestaff that a lower tariff can be negotiated with Escom if one buys in bulk. In this way it can be offered to our people in our cities and towns at a lower tariff. [Interjections.] Reference is also made here to “Sewerage purification works”.

Order! Hon members must not turn their backs on me and then speak out loud to the hon member. The hon member may proceed.

Reference is made to “Land usage” in South Africa. I have already referred to the demographic trends. The land is not increasing in size and we must take that into account. Reference is made to “Roads and stormwater drainage”.

In the entire process we will have to accept that there are going to be local authorities that will not be prepared to co-operate. This has happened over the years. This measure will result in kingdoms which have been built up over the years by local authorities having to be destroyed.

As far as the building of roads is concerned each local authority wants to have its own full-fledged road-building unit, whereas many of them do not have the financial capacity to achieve a utilization of 20%, 30% or 40% for that heavy equipment. But when these services are rendered on a regional basis and there is one full-fledged equipped unit to serve a specific area, it is possible to effect savings. In this way rates in the areas of local authorities can be lowered. As far as the other groups are concerned we can achieve lower rentals for them.

I am appealing to the opposition parties: Let us accept the establishment of regional services councils in the interests of all the inhabitants of our cities and towns in the Republic of South Africa. I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Witbank has just tried to make out a case for the introduction of regional services councils. He says that forces must be consolidated through the medium of capital investments such as in road building machinery in order to be able to render services more cheaply to the local authorities falling under them.

Is that not a good case?

Yes, it is a good case. However, for many years now there have been divisional councils in the Cape that have had road building and all kinds of other machinery at their disposal to make facilities available which municipalities also use. These are usually White divisional councils and White local authorities. Strangely enough, the wonderful NP has never thought of converting the divisional councils into regional services councils in order to provide White local authorities falling under their jurisdiction with such services.

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

I shall answer questions later. Suddenly now, since Coloured, Indian and Black local authorities have been built into this thing, the “great” NP has come to realize that it can convert divisional councils into regional services councils which will now be able to sell services to local authorities more cheaply. [Interjections.] Why cannot large municipalities as well as divisional councils which have this necessary infrastructure at the moment also make these services available to Coloured and Indian local authorities so that they can buy them where necessary? The NP has to destroy certain local authorities in order to introduce multiracial regional services councils—multiracial local authorities—to perform these functions. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Witbank also referred here to what the CP had to say last year when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning withdrew this Bill. He said that we had blamed the hon the Minister because, at the behest of the PFP, he had withdrawn a Bill with the request that it be referred to a select committee— that he had deprived the White Parliament of the privilege of making that decision. The hon member for Witbank blames us for that.

When the Regional Services Councils Bill was introduced into the House in the dying moments of the parliamentary session last year, the PFP made a plea that the Black people should also be included in the regional services councils. Later that Wednesday evening the hon the Minister withdrew the Bill—after the Second Reading had been disposed of—and then said that he was going to refer it to a select committee. The CP objected to this at that stage because the CP also said on that occasion—and this the hon member did not say—that that select committee to which the Regional Services Councils Bill was to be referred would be a multiracial standing committee in the new dispensation which would have to give consideration to the request of the PFP that Black people also be included. On that occasion the CP said that if there was to be a joint standing committee of Parliament consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and if they had to decide whether the Blacks should be included or not, the Government would have to give in to the pressure exerted by its partners, namely the Labour Party, that Black people should in fact be included. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not however refer that Bill to a standing committee as he had undertaken to do. No, during the course of the year the Cabinet itself decided that Black people would be included.

What absolutely amazes me is that that Bill was ready last year but that it was never introduced into Parliament. If the hon the Minister had not had an appointment elsewhere on the following day, the Regional Services Councils Bill of 1984 would have been adopted by Parliament. [Interjections.] We expected the Regional Service Councils Bill to be introduced into Parliament early in 1985 because it was in fact ready last year. Its Second Reading had already been taken.

At the beginning of this session Parliament had hardly any work. Now, after precisely a year, this Bill has again made its appearance. Once again in the dying moments of the parliamentary session, the hon the Minister has come forward in order to pilot the Regional Services Councils Bill through this Parliament. I find it strange that this is being done at such a very late stage.

The hon member for Durban Point said this evening that this was the first time that all four groups were sitting and deciding together in the same Government institution. He said: “This is a truly multiracial body.” That is in fact what it is. I agree with the hon member.

Why are you so afraid of it?

We are not afraid of it. [Interjections.] We simply appreciate the dangers which multiracialism introduces into this situation. If the Black people are included in this basis of government and if the Government has yielded in its stance of last year to where it is now, we are afraid that the Black people can also be included in the first level of government on the same basis and that we will then eventually have a Black majority government in this country. [Interjections.] That is what the CP is afraid of. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Point said: “This is a truly multiracial body”. That is in fact what it is. I remember in the good old days how we in the NP spoke about multinationalism, but there is no multinationalism built into this Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mossel Bay shakes his head vigorously, but I want to repeat that there is no built-in multinationalism because the Black people are being given the right to sit on regional services councils as a group and not as Xhosas, Zulus, Vendas or Tswanas. He still shakes his head.

There is no colour in it.

Are there no people of colour in the regional services councils? Is there built-in multinationalism in Black local authorities in an area where Tswanas, Zulus and Venda are living together? No, the Black people are being represented as a group within one local authority.

The hon member for Mossel Bay says that regional services councils are built on separate local authorities for the various population groups. Is that correct? [Interjections.] He says it is correct. I understood him correctly. That is the story that they tell the people on the platteland but I want to tell him this evening that regional services councils are not built on the foundation of separate local authorities. They replace certain corner-stones of separate local authorities. This Bill takes certain tasks away from existing local authorities and gives them to these new multiracial local authorities that are to be established. Does the hon member agree with me?

Just make your speech.

I want to state this evening that this Bill is not—as was said by the hon member for Mossel Bay—built on separate local authorities for the various population groups. This Bill is taking some of the most important corner-stones of existing White local authorities away and placing them in the hands of a multiracial regional services council. [Interjections.] This is the beginning of the replacement of own local authorities. A symposium on local authorities was held in Stellenbosch last week, and all the various political parties represented in this Parliament had the privilege of putting their policies on local authorities to that symposium. The CP stated emphatically that we were in favour of each national group having its own local authorities. The NP adopted the attitude of “You want it, we have it”, which was the attitude the old UP also used to adopt. They have own local authorities for those who want them but then they also have multiracial ones for the integrationists and the outside world. The CP stated unequivocally that it was in favour of own local authorities, and the NP said it was also in favour of them but that there had also to be a multiracial regional services council for a larger region to carry out other functions. All the other parties in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates said that they were only in favour of individual integrated local authorities in each town because they rejected the principle of own local authorities. Future consensus decisions taken with the hon the Minister’s coalition Cabinet partners will certainly not give effect to own local authorities for the various population groups. This Bill heralds the destruction of own local authorities for the various national groups. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay said: Well, the CP will once again say it is political integration. He said that the CP would conjure up the ghost of political integration, but the NP decided at its congresses that elections for local authorities should be conducted on a political basis, just as it decided would be the case at Kuruman. It put up an official candidate there and got a hiding in the process. [Interjections.] Strangely enough, this time we did not read about it on the front pages of Die Volksblad and Die Burger. The NP decided that local authorities should be constituted on a political basis. On our Order Paper this evening we have the very legislation that is to abolish the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

The Cape Town City Council and Coloured, Indian and Black local authorities in the Cape Peninsula may be incorporated into one regional services council. All these local authorities are elected on a political basis. The PFP has already adopted the view-point that it is going to recruit Coloured, Indian and Black members for the party. In 1988 the PFP will therefore be able to put up candidates in the elections for the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks.

Are you afraid of that?

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is afraid of that.

Are you afraid of that?

Is the hon the Minister afraid of that?

No.

The hon the Minister is not afraid of it. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the NP is going to do the same thing.

That is not what it is all about. [Interjections.]

Now the hon the Minister is silent. He will not reply to me in this regard. [Interjections.] Here we are going to have one regional services council where Brown, Indian and Black PFP members are going to sit on the same council.

I want now to ask the hon member for Mossel Bay whether this is not political integration. Here we are going to have Black, White, Brown and Indian PFP members sitting on this regional services council on behalf of their own local authorities. They can hold caucus there; they can discuss and decide on matters jointly. [Interjections.]

They speak on behalf of their respective local authorities.

Very well, they have their own separate local authorities, but the people sitting there belong to the same political party. There are Black, Brown, White and Indian members.

Whty don’t you mention blue as well?

There are no blue people. [Interjections.] Here we have political integration in its purest form. I want to tell the hon the Minister that NP members can also be elected to this council and they can form the opposition in this regional services council. Beside the fact that the members of this council can include Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks who belong to the same party can sit on that council. I want now to ask the hon the Minister whether, like to PFP, he is also going to put up candidates for all the councils. [Interjections.] We get no answer from the hon the Minister in this regard either.

Last year the PFP opposed the Regional Services Councils Bill because Black people had been excluded. I said last year that as a result of its political philosophy the NP found itself in a situation where it was being forced to allow Black people to participate in regional services councils. I wonder whether the hon member for Witbank also read this last year.

I have said the PFP has no cause for concern. Because of the crush in which the NP finds itself together with the Coloureds and the Indians it will be driven to comply with the requirement of the PFP that Black people participate in regional services councils. I have said that the NP will also accept power-sharing with Black people; I said this last year in the debate on the Regional Services Councils Bill.

I should like to quote what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had to say.

Old Seer Hoon!

Yes, I want to tell the House something else that I saw last year. When he met on the Wednesday evening and were to adjourn the next day, we said that the hon the Minister was withdrawing the legislation because he had to be at Douglas the next day. Fourteen days later when I arrived at the same farm my words were borne out—he was in fact on that farm. [Interjections.]

Chris, did you go to shoot kudu?

I am pleased the hon the Minister’s shooting was accurate. He is a better shot as a hunter than as a politician in this place.

I should like to quote what the hon the Minister said last year (Hansard, 1984, col 11238):

[Interjections.]

Order! I shall now begin addressing members by name. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

I should like to quote the hon the Minister again. He says:

The hon the Minister goes on to say that he makes no excuses for the fact that Black people are being excluded. He says (col 11240):

He says that they have to be accommodated in a different way.

Of course!

This was last year. However, he is now accommodating them in the same way as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. After all, they are also being given a seat on the regional services councils.

[Inaudible.]

They are also now being included in the regional services councils.

Over the past six months the NP has given up a fundamental point of view which it held over the years. The NP has changed its viewpoint in the meantime and now accepts power-sharing with Black people as well. This is not just a story—it is not simply a bit of CP gossip. Power-sharing among Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks is now being written into a law of this Parliament. We left the NP when they said that they accepted power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians. At the time there were a few old friends who went a little way with us but who then did an about-turn. [Interjections.] Legislation dealing with power-sharing with Black people at the third level of government is being placed on the Statute Book this evening. Now our old friends sitting over there are satisfied. They are satisfied to accept power-sharing with Black people.

In terms of clause 7(1) the chairman of a regional services council will be appointed by the Administrator for a period of five years. In this case the Administrator in the new dispensation will also be appointed by the State President. Therefore, the State President appoints the Administrator and the Administrator appoints the chairman of a regional services council, something which in our opinion is a deviation from democracy. In terms of clause 9(4)(b) the Administrator will determine the number of votes to which local bodies will be entitled in the regional services council of which they are members. [Interjections.] Clause 9 deals with the franchise on regional services councils. From this it is very clear that the composition of these regional service councils will not be based upon the number of voters in every participating local authority. The reason for this is self-evident. The Government is trying to avoid the situation where local authorities will be given representation on a regional services council of this nature in accordance with the number of voters comprising such local authority. Why does the Government shrink from this? Why does the Government shrink from democracy? If the composition of regional services councils is based on the number of voters in every participating local authority, and we accept the fact that there will be separate authorities for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people, the Coloureds in the Cape will have the majority of representatives in every regional services council. If true democracy is built into the composition of regional services councils, the Coloureds will have the majority in every regional services council in the Cape. There are 1,2 million Whites and 2,2 million Coloureds in the Cape. In the light of the provisions of this Bill, Seer Hoon is going to make a prediction here this evening. Just as I predicted last year that the suggestion of the PFP that Blacks be included in the new dispensation and in regional services councils would be accepted, so I want to predict this evening that hon members will agree with me next year that I have been right again. These regional services councils will be constituted in such a way that the Whites will have the majority in every council.

Are you opposed to that?

Those hon members ask whether I am opposed to it. I am opposed to people being tricked within joint bodies. [Interjections.] Hon members laugh about it but I want to repeat that the CP is opposed to people of colour being tricked in these multiracial councils and committees. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Sir, I have just trodden on a very sore toe. [Interjections.] Ironically enough, they laugh about it, but I have trodden on the NP’s corn, because they hope and trust that henceforward they will be able to trick the Coloureds on the multiracial standing committees, the President’s Council and also the regional services councils by passing the resolutions that they want passed in every case. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Minister that if this is not so, I shall apologize to him. If there are regional services councils in which the Whites are not in the majority, I shall apologize to him for having made this statement.

You will have to beg his pardon. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randburg says that I will have to beg the hon the Minister’s pardon. I repeat—for the benefit of the hon member for Randburg as well—that there will not be one regional services council in the Cape on which there will be more Brown people than Whites.

What about a White homeland where there will be a White majority?

No, the hon the Minister must not try to wriggle out of it now; we can discuss that White homeland later. [Interjections.] At the moment we are discussing the hon the Minister’s multiracial regional services councils. In the Cape the White minority will have the majority say. The NP will have to trick people of colour by some means of qualified vote otherwise the decision of the latter will prevail. People of colour will be able to make conclusive decisions on regional services councils.

Where is the need for basic services going to be the greatest? Who is going to fight hardest to obtain services and keep prices as low as possible? Surely we know that it is going to be in the in the Brown communities. When I look at a place like Britstown where there are 4 000 Brown people and 800 Whites, it is clear to me that the 800 Whites will receive more votes in a regional services council than the 4 000 Brown people. If this is in fact to be the case, I want to issue the warning this evening that there are going to be conflicts of interests in those regional services councils. The reason for this will be because the majority will have to bow to the minority which will have more votes. The interests of the majority group will clash with those of the minority group, but their interests will be made subordinate to the decision of the minority. That is what will happen here and that is the best recipe for conflict.

Does that formula hold good for your politics as well? [Interjections.]

That hon Minister who is in abject need (barensnood) knows that one can only avoid discrimination and give people true freedom within the sphere of own separate freedoms. [Interjections.] It has been stated in the NP over the years that true freedom can only be given to people and that one can only really avoid domination by giving political rights to the various peoples within their own fatherlands. [Interjections.]