announced that in terms of Joint Rule 22(4) he had referred the following draft Bill, which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

Order! The hon member for Uitenhage has asked me for leave to raise a point of personal explanation. I give him the opportunity of doing so now.

Mr Speaker, I have read the Hansard report of my speech on Thursday, 13 June 1985, and wish to clarify a possible misinterpretation of two passages. These were not extracts from the report of the Kannemeyer Commission but were my own comments on the report prepared by certain hon members of the Official Opposition in relation to the incident at Uitenhage on 21 March 1985.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Today it is a great privilege for me to move the second reading of the Development and Housing Bill in this House. This Bill represents the first own affairs legislation on Housing and Community Development which is being introduced in Parliament under the new constitutional dispensation. Similarly it is the first own affairs legislation, apart from the budgetary measures of the hon the Minister of the Budget, which is being introduced here in the House of Assembly.

It ushers in a new era in our history of housing in that measures are being proposed which are going to lay the foundations of a new housing policy in order to meet the needs of our White population. The principal object of the Bill revolves around the improvement of the quality of life of those people for whom this House has a responsibility.

As hon members know, the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, provides that Community Development, which includes housing, is an own affair. Consequently the State President has assigned the existing relevant statutory provisions for the implementation of this matter to the Ministers entrusted with own affairs. For reasons of practicality and feasibility it has not yet been possible to subdivide the existing structures in the sphere of community development completely. Consequently the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board are performing functions in regard to each of the respective population groups, while the activities of these two statutory bodies are also being financed from joint centralized sources. These arrangements only apply in the interim, until own affairs legislation is passed. The Bill before this House seeks to establish an own statutory body and fund to remedy the situation. An explanatory memorandum in this connection has been made available so that hon members will already have the background to the Bill.

Before I deal with the principles contained in the respective chapters of the Bill, I should like to have it placed on record that it has always been, and still is, the view of the Government that responsibility for housing rests in the first place with the individual himself. Only when the individual cannot make the grade in the private sector can assistance from the authorities be expected. The policy, as it manifests itself in the Bill, is aimed at ensuring that everyone is provided with adequate housing and that unsatisfactory residential conditions are eliminated. The implementation of this policy is consequently accompanied by the application of the following principles:

1. (a) the individual must do everything within his means to meet his own and his family’s housing needs;
2. (b) the private sector must play the leading and principal role in regard to the provision of housing;
3. (c) the Government sector must assist the private sector in resolving bottlenecks and problems obstructing the realization of an adequate housing supply; and
4. (d) the Government sector must only attend to the housing needs of those who cannot readily be assisted in the private sector and must, as far as is feasible, limit its housing aid to what is required to enable the individual to receive such assistance.

In the Government sector, in terms of the provisions of the Slums Act, 1979, an obligation has been imposed upon local authorities to ensure that the inhabitants of their respective areas are properly housed and that sufficient sites are made available for the construction of dwellings. Essential means to enable local authorities to discharge their obligations, and the necessary machinery to assist them in this task, are embodied in the Development and Housing Bill, which in essence comprises a rationalized synthesis of the relevant provisions of the House Act, 1966, as well as the Community Development Act, 1966.

†The Bill comprises five chapters. Chapter I deals with the establishment, constitution, objects and general powers of the Development and Housing Board. This board will be composed of not more than six members, while, in comparison, the National Housing Commission has a maximum of 14 members and the Community Development Board a maximum of 12 members. In order to promote efficiency, the new board will consist of a comparatively small number of experts in the field of housing.

A full-time executive committee as well as part-time regional committees are envisaged which will carry out the daily business of the board. By means of the appointment of committees for specific purposes in accordance with clause 8(6), investigations of a specialized nature can be undertaken in conjunction with interested parties which will be represented on these committees. In brief, the objects for which the board will be established are, inter alia: To acquire and alienate land for purposes of township development and the provision of housing, including community facilities; to develop areas or to assist in the development of areas; to take steps to prevent decay in any area or to assist with the rehabilitation of any area which tends to decay; to assist natural persons to purchase or hire immovable property or to construct or repair dwellings for the achievement of its objects; and to approve projects and grant loans for the execution of housing projects by local authorities, utility companies, housing utility companies or persons.

The powers of the board do not significantly differ from those of the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board. It is the intention to transfer, by resolution, the assets of the aforementioned statutory bodies, comprising land or an interest in land situated in an area declared for the White population group, to the Development and Housing Board as soon as the proposed measures have been placed on the Statute Book. These assets will, in terms of clause 11(1)(c), devolve upon the new board.

*Chapter II deals with financial matters, in particular the establishment of the Development and Housing Fund to finance the activities of the Development and Housing Board.

This chapter also deals with control over the proposed fund and the application of moneys from the fund. In clause 14(5) provision is also being made for the subsidization of the rentals of dwellings which form part of an approved project.

Acquisition of land and township establishment and development form the subject of chapter III. The underlying purpose of the respective provisions of this chapter is to enable the Development and Housing Board, as well as local authorities, to acquire and develop land expeditiously, without any cumbersome procedures which are detrimental to the housing supply process. Identically worded provisions already exist in the Housing Act, 1966, and the Community Development Act, 1966. These provisions are associated with the functions of the Commission of Enquiry into Township Establishment which subscribed to the necessity of simplifying and streamlining township establishment procedures to ensure that matters functioned smoothly. Where proven bottlenecks exist in regard to the making available of sufficient building sites at affordable prices, it may be expected that the Development and Housing Board will, with the means at its disposal, concentrate to an increasing extent on eliminating them.

Chapter IV regulates the granting of loans by the Development and Housing Board for carrying out approved projects, subject to specified conditions. It also regulates the borrowing and lending of money by local authorities for the purposes of housing provision and contains measures against defaulting debtors and non-compliance with loan conditions.

†The most important administrative matters dealt with in chapter V are the following: (a) Measures against tenants who fail to pay rentals and unauthorized occupants of property; (b) control over projects carried out by local authorities; (c) registration of, control over and assistance to housing utility companies; (d) control over the demolition and conversion of dwellings; (e) measures to ensure that unoccupied dwellings are made available for dwelling purposes; and (f) delegation of powers as well as reporting on the activities of the Development and Housing Board.

* Among the important matters for which provision is made in chapter VI, is a ten-year pre-emptive right in respect of the sale of immovable property and the granting of loans to natural persons in order to discourage speculation. Land acquired for housing purposes but not thus utilized, as well as certain dwellings, may not be sold without consent. Furthermore the Development and Housing Board is being empowered to investigate any matter in regard to housing and advise the Minister on any housing matters. An obligation is being imposed upon local authorities to furnish the board with specific information on housing. Finally, regulations on specific matters may be made.

The elucidation I have just furnished indicates in general the main principles contained in the Bill. Hon members should not find these principles altogether strange, since the Bill primarily entails a re-enactment of existing statutory provisions, presented in a rationalized and streamlined form. The amalgamation of functions of two existing statutory bodies and the establishment of a single new body is in my opinion a step forward. In the meantime the rationalization process is being continued. Consolidated regulations to replace the existing ones are being envisaged, while amended procedures in regard to the handling of loan applications by local authorities will be introduced soon. The amended procedures are aimed at purposeful budgetary planning in order to shorten the waiting period for funds for the financing of housing projects. A new code containing all relevant policy directives and guidelines will be compiled to serve as an aid to local authorities, welfare organizations and housing utility companies in attaining the objects of the Bill.

†Altogether these measures provide a sturdy platform on which to build sound relations at the various levels of government. The achievement of housing objectives demands a dedicated and co-ordinated approach, and I wish to give the assurance that my department is committed to promoting co-operation in the fields of housing and development.

Wherever possible, my department will pursue its activities in close collaboration with local authorities. With particular reference to the Bill before the House, consultation with local authorities will take place as a matter of policy. Liaison with local authorities will be maintained. Regional representatives of the department visit local authorities on a programmed basis and every effort will be made to ensure that each local authority is visited at least once a year.

*I trust that hon members will pledge their whole-hearted support to this Bill, and I am looking forward to a pleasant debate.

Mr Speaker, the House of Assembly does not often commence its business so early on a Wednesday morning. I think this is proof of how busy we have been during the past few days.

I should like to compliment the hon the Minister on the way in which he dealt with his first Bill under the new dispensation. I think this is the second or third Bill on own affairs with which we are dealing in this House. Furthermore I should like to thank the department for its helpfulness and for the memorandum which assisted us in gaining better insight into the Bill. I believe we are all grateful to the officials we have in this country, and we as an opposition party find that they are generally extremely friendly, pleasant, helpful and well-informed.

†This is an important Bill for two reasons. One is because it reflects the new constitution, an aspect I will deal with shortly and, secondly, it deals with housing and shelter. I was always told that our basic urge in life is to be loved, but the demand for shelter is most often and almost exclusively the first basic need after food. When one does not have food and shelter, the demand for love tends to be much less important. It is right that we should be dealing with such an important issue as housing.

It is clearly our responsibility to see to it that our nation is adequately housed because without decent housing there cannot be family life and orderly development in our society. The hon the Minister has mentioned the four principles on which he bases his housing policy. In this country we have traditionally bought our own homes, and our-Black people, and especially our Black women, have been the house-builders, not only in tangible terms as the mothers of the families but in the physical sense as well. The idea of helping oneself in respect of housing is not something which is alien, and I think nothing has demonstrated this more effectively than our squatter camps. The Government has utilized this energy in places like Onverwacht, which is now called Botshabelo, and the Department of Co-operation and Development have always used it in what they call their closer settlements, which were really just site-and-service systems making use of the traditional Black skill in erecting their own dwellings.

We in this country have done an enormous amount in terms of housing. I think we should remember that, although unfortunately the measures this Bill stems from, have in some cases been used to apply in various ways the policy of resettlement on racial grounds which we believe has brought disastrous results for this country. I can remember as a student at the University of Cape Town running a boys’ club at Winder-mere, which was a terrible slum at that time but which today is a fine housing estate. Those of us from Natal will know that there was a place called Cato Manor. Most of those people have been rehoused in Umlazi and kwaMashu. In Northern Natal at Osizweni near Newcastle there is an enormous closer settlement. In the 1950’s the whole of Soweto was an enormous housing achievement. We all remember a famous or notorious Minister, Marais Steyn, who had a tremendous squatter problem in the Cape Peninsula, whereas today that housing problem has been largely resolved. That is something for which we can be thankful.

The housing developments at Phoenix and Chatsworth in Durban as well as the large town of Mitchell’s Plain on the Cape Flats, have been undertaken. There is also the Khayelitsha development which shows what can be done—not in ideological terms but just in the provision of housing—if the Government sets their mind to it. There, literally within a year or two, a new city has been developed and a far more sensible, human policy in regard to what one may call informal housing or squatter settlement has been applied. So I believe that we can deal with our housing problems in this country. We have done so and we shall have to do so. I had a look at the last report of the Department of Community Development where it is pointed out that since 1920 we have provided, at State expense, for all people in South Africa 820 000 houses. That is a very large number of homes. However, it is not necessary for us to explain to this House that we still have an enormous number of homes to build in order to provide housing for our growing population. We need to consider that carefully. I wanted to mention this briefly.

Housing has many advantages for our economy, particularly at this time. It is the most labour-intensive way of using our population. It has been proved that the construction industry provides more jobs per thousand rand than any other kind of industry. So in this time of unemployment, housing is an important aspect. Secondly, almost all the materials, in fact, without exception, that we use in our housing are produced in South Africa. So housing is a great engine for development and for employment. It is also an area in which the small businessman can start. Often a Black man who starts by building garden walls, or doing a little bit of paving for somebody as a sub-contractor, can develop himself as a small and eventually a bigger or maybe a very big contractor. That is one of the important aspects that we should emphasize in housing.

We are actually very unhappy with this Bill. As I have mentioned, the housing needs of South Africa are of national interest. I believe the hon the Minister must tell us what has happened to the National Policy for General Housing Matters Act which we passed in this Parliament last year because the first problem with this Bill is that there is no reference whatsoever to a national housing policy. In fact, the last communication of the Department of Housing, to which the hon the Minister referred in his address, points out that the National Housing Commission is going to be disbanded. I believe the hon the Minister in his reply to this debate needs to tell us when this National Housing Policy Board was appointed, whether the Advisory Council has met yet, who the chairman of this Advisory Council is and what is happening in regard to that situation because this Bill is a very worrying phenomenon in terms of the South African housing situation. We in the PFP believe that introducing a racial concept into housing so that there is a White House which deals with White housing only is most undesirable. In the Bill there is no reference whatsoever to any kind of co-ordination of policy or money or determination of housing priorities for South Africa. This is going to contribute to racial thinking and racial conflict in South Africa.

Housing is the area where every man likes to exhibit his personality and to show how he can care for himself or otherwise. People spend a great deal of money on their home and take a great deal of effort over it. The home is always a source of comparison. I believe that the minute we have White housing, Indian housing, Coloured housing and Black housing—apparently without any national determination of priorities and standards—we begin to have comparisons. Everybody will start saying: “Ah, but look at the White housing. They are getting more money”. Or they will say: “Look at the Coloured housing. They are getting more money than Indian housing”. This I feel is a source of conflict in our society.

It is important that the hon the Minister understands the PFP’s attitude towards this issue. We believe that by building racial issues into legislation—which is what we are doing today in respect of what is otherwise not a bad Bill—we are contributing not towards the resolution of our political problems but towards making them more difficult. Racial issues are real. The PFP does not deny that. We accept that people have racial feelings. We believe, however, that we have to try to move away from entrenching a racial concept into legal principles in our society. After all, Mr Speaker, you and I cannot choose our parents, neither can we change the colour of our skin. So to make the colour of our skin a condition of any aspect of our laws means that we are judging people on something which they themselves are helpless to change, and that is a source of conflict in our situation. [Interjections.]

To come forward as we did yesterday with the Regional Services Councils Bill and as we are doing now with this kind of legislation, is a very bad principle in this country. We are sowing for ourselves even more dragons’ teeth than we already have at the present stage in South Africa.

For this reason, in particular, we in the PFP cannot support this Bill. We believe it is extending the principle of apartheid within the housing system. We were given no indication at all in the hon the Minister’s second reading speech about how he is going to deal with this.

We also believe it will be appropriate for the hon the Minister to tell us how the sales campaign for White housing is going. Previously the sales campaign—if one looks at the kind of report at which I am looking now—was seen not in terms of White houses, Black houses, Coloured houses and Indian houses but in terms of 400 000 or 500 000 Government-owned houses which were being sold. We are told that 50 000 sales have been finalized. We do not see this in racial terms. Now, however, because of this kind of legislation I have to ask the hon the Minister how many White houses have been sold. Then Blacks or Coloureds will compare that and say, for example: “Ah, well, you see the Whites are buying more.” This could well be nonsense, for it could be as a result of factors entirely other than racial, but this could still be the cause of comparison. Now, with this sort of legislation, one actually compounds that issue.

I come now more specifically to the Bill itself rather than to the principles of it. I must compliment the hon the Minister and his department. It is an elegant Bill. In respect of its language and readability, it represents a great improvement over the two previous Acts which are more or less consolidated into it. Unfortunately, the Bill incorporates some of the more Draconian features. I think it is right that we should remind ourselves in this House that it is the Community Development Act which is being absorbed into this Bill which was used as a basis for applying the Group Areas Act. Every time we look at District Six and the weeds growing over that barren wasteland, we must remind ourselves that this is the Act which was used to make that possible. Unfortunately, many of those Draconian features have been retained. My colleague, the hon member for Hillbrow, will deal with some of those issues in the Committee Stage.

The aspect pertaining to regional committees is one to be welcomed. I believe a six-member committee will probably work much more efficiently, although there is nothing in the Bill which states who the people are or how they are to be appointed, other than that they are to be appointed by the hon the Minister. I am sure—I sincerely hope—that the hon the Minister will appoint people not on a political basis but because they have considerable skills in this field. Fortunately we have many of them.

We are concerned, among other things, about the fact that despite the hon Minister saying that local authorities are going to be consulted, in terms of clauses 23, 24, 29 and 57 he still has enormous powers to overrule local authorities. I believe that this hon Minister ought to bear in mind that the public are becoming increasingly concerned about town-planning and environmental issues, and I believe the hon the Minister of Defence discovered this over the De Hoop issue. [Interjections.] If anybody goes to the David Kramer Jol, which is on at the moment, and listens to the song Skipskop and the Coloured family who leave it, will understand that that expresses at a very deep level the feelings of the public. The public care about how Parliament is redeveloped; about where the post office is going to be in their town and about having trees and kerbs and stormwater drainage. The public actually want to feel part of town-planning decisions, and I hope the style which this hon Minister will apply in his department will be a consultative one and that he will not resort to using some of those powers which he has. Generally speaking, I believe that local authorities are keen to co-operate.

I notice, for example, in clause 25 that the hon the Minister has retained the right to change names, and I am not sure if this is an attempt to avoid the Pietersburg Town Council calling its main street Treurnicht Road or whatever it may be. [Interjections.] I should like to suggest it as a name for the high street in Waterberg, but I imagine a dusty, gravel road would not be appropriate for the leader of the CP. [Interjections.] That is another example of the position.

Accordingly I move the following amendment to the hon the Minister’s motion:

1. (1) by fragmenting the administration and direction of housing on strictly racial lines it will lead to a worsening of the supply of housing and to an increase in the cost of housing for the ordinary citizen;
2. (2) it fails to provide for a system of determining and controlling national housing priorities; and
3. (3) it superimposes its authority over the town planning schemes of local authorities.”.

Mr Speaker, in the short time at my disposal I cannot do justice to the importance of the Bill before the House. Before I reply to the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North I should just like to confine myself to individual general aspects of the legislation before the House.

In the first place I want to emphasize the fact that this measure is the first to give statutory format to an own administration’s local government, housing and works. In fact this measure completes the format of the Constitution of 1983. We now have the very important component of own affairs built into the Constitution. That is why the measure which we are discussing here this morning is a pioneering and historic measure. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the symbolism of this measure. It is as though this side of the House wants to say that this Bill which deals with development and housing is fundamental and basic to the firm and solid laying of the foundation of the new dispensation.

I think this is an important historical occasion, and on this occasion we want to congratulate the hon the Minister most sincerely on having introduced this measure into this House.

The Department of Local Government, Housing and Works received its format on 3 September 1984 when the State President referred certain measures to the department in terms of section 26 of the Constitution. In this short period this legislation of 63 clauses has been introduced into this House. To have been able to submit as comprehensive a measure as this to this House in so short a time is evidence of application and a particular devotion to duty. It is also proof of the earnestness on the part of this side of the House to ensure that own affairs are not treated in a Cinderella-like fashion but that true statutory format be given to own affairs.

When we look at the body of the legislation we see that it is logical, systematic and understandable even to us laymen. The hon member for Gezina will be able to read the legislation through from clause 1 to clause 63 at his leisure.

In this connection I also want to congratulate the department on the high standard of the content of the legislation. I want to tell those who were involved in drawing up the legislation that this achievement has not gone unnoticed.

I come now to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. In the first place I want to tell him that we on this side of the House were struck by the moderate tone that was apparent in his speech. We want to urge him to chat with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition more often because then at least we can have a constructive debate with one another. [Interjections.] I should like to join issue with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in regard to their objection to this legislation and their reasons for not supporting it.

In the first place the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to Black housing. I do not wish to introduce Black housing into this debate because this legislation deals specifically with own affairs and therefore with White Housing. However, I would just like to associate myself with the hon member by saying that there is an element of concern as far as Black housing is concerned, particularly in relation to the unco-ordinated nature of the Black housing operation. This is something that will have to receive attention.

The opposition of the Official Opposition to this measure is its fragmented nature on a racial basis. In his argument the hon member asked why there should now be a development and housing fund for the Whites and separate development and housing boards for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. He asked why we were not satisfied with the National Housing Commission as we know it today, and the National Housing Fund.

My reply to the hon member is firstly that this measure flows from the Constitution of the RSA into which are written certain provisions concerning own affairs and general affairs. In other words, this measure which is now before the House flows in the first instance from the Constitution of the RSA.

Secondly, when we consider the realities of South Africa, we find that we have to deal with a First and a Third World situation, and that nowhere is the contrast between a First and Third World situation greater than it is in the sphere of housing. Because we have a first and Third World situation in South Africa, our policy provides for the differences in respect of the provision of housing for the various population groups. The hon member said that we have only one national housing policy. In my opinion this measure gives effect to the reality of South Africa, namely that there cannot only be one national housing policy because we have to deal with a First and Third World situation. The housing policy for the Whites has been spelt out by the hon the Minister. I do not want to repeat it now but basically it boils down to the fact that the individual has to make provision for his housing himself. There are also various other policy measures involved in this. This housing policy in respect of the Whites does not provide for the needs of the Brown people and the Indians. As far the Brown people are concerned, the housing policy can concentrate more upon the provision of family housing. The housing policy for Blacks will centre more around the provision of serviced sites. That is why I believe that in order to be assured of a sound housing policy it is necessary for every population group to be able to decide upon its own housing priorities.

This brings me to a further point. The National Housing Commission is today an integrated commission consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people, but the National Housing Commission only meets four times a year. The representatives of the South Africans of colour on this National Housing Commission can come more into their own in their own housing commission under the jurisdiction of the Ministers of Local Government, Housing and Works of the other Houses. This brings us to the crux of this legislation. In the past in the allocation of funds by the National Housing Commission priorities were played off against each other. Every year there are White housing priorities. There are also Black and Indian housing priorities. The situation was such that the responsible Minister and the official entrusted with the functions of the National Housing Commission had simply to weigh up their priorities against one another. They had to decide which was to receive their highest priority— Lenasia, Phoenix, Mitchell’s Plain, Atlantis or Khayelitsha.

By dismembering the National Housing Commission we are now giving each population group the opportunity to decide on its housing priorities itself. This is a sound development and no decisions can be forced upon any of the other communities. This is the development requested by the other communities through the medium of the House of Representatives, and the result was the appointment of the Curry Commission. I should like to quote paragraph 5 of the Curry Report. According to this paragraph the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives asks for greater powers to be given to the Minister holding that portfolio particularly with regard to the selling of houses and the administration and implementation of the whole housing operation. This is therefore not a policy measure which is being forced upon them; the report testifies to the fact that they themselves have asked for it.

In summing up this argument I can briefly say that good grounds exist as to why there should be separate housing commissions and administrations in respect of housing for all the population groups. Priorities can be better determined in this way, and it is possible to have better administrative control over the housing operation of the various population groups. That is why this measure is a very positive development in the sphere of the provision of housing for the various population groups.

Before dealing more specifically with the textual aspects of the legislation, I should like to reply the hon member’s question in regard to what has become of the National Housing Advisory Council. The National Housing Advisory Council was established interms of the National Policy for General Housing Matters Act, Act 102 of 1984. This was the empowering Act passed by Parliament to give effect to own separate administrations. This general Act provided that there would in fact be co-ordination among the various housing administrations of the various Houses in that norms, standards and the financing of housing would be co-ordinated by the various responsible Ministers. That co-ordination therefore does in fact exist. I do not know whether the council has in fact been appointed but the process has already begun its course.

This measure concludes a specific era of housing administration. It concludes an era during which more than R3 000 million has been spent on building more than one million housing units since 1920. If there is one thing I wish to do this morning it is to pay tribute to this mighty effort on the part of the State to meet the housing needs of everyone with the assistance of local authorities and welfare organizations. South Africa would certainly have been the poorer without this mighty housing effort.

There are two functions which no state can neglect to fulfil. Firstly, no state can neglect to protect the integrity of its borders and secondly, no state can neglect to protect the integrity of its people.

Just do not anticipate P W Botha again! You know how cross he was about you and the leasehold system, don’t you? [Interjections.]

That is what this Bill gives effect to. It protects the integrity of the White people of South Africa. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Bellville. After all, he is a sort of seer—a person who can see things in advance and who can also tell us in advance what the National Party is going to do in the coming year. [Interjections.] As we all know, he was the leading light in regard to the 99-year leasehold system here in the Cape. I felt very sorry for him at the time because I happened to be in the Lobby when he was called into the office of the present State President where he was given a proper dressing down. [Interjections.] However, he was successful in weathering the storm and at the subsequent congress of the NP the whole of the National Party, including the State President, supported him to a man. [Interjections.] His remark in regard to the protection of the integrity of the State is an indication to me that we are going to hear something more about this matter this afternoon at 14h15.

I just want to refer to a statement which the hon member for Pietermartizburg North made here earlier. The references that have been made to the Group Areas Act in this House over many years, to its evil and monstrous nature, are now more than familiar to all of us. The allegation is still often made that this was all the result of the Afrikaner’s obstinate determination to remain in power.

I said nothing about it.

No, I know the hon member did not say it. He is far too well-balanced ever to say anything of that nature. However, there are many other people who do in fact say it. [Interjections.] There are many people who over the years have held up the Afrikaners everywhere as being people who hate their fellow-men; who oppress their fellow-men just as they please.

I should like now to take hon members back into history to the days of the old Gold Law. Where did the Group Areas Act have its origin? It was precisely in the Gold Law! Who were the rulers and the masters who passed the Gold Law? I do not want to say that it was the British because my old friend Tubby Watterson here next to me is also an Englishman. [Interjections.] Yes, let us content ourselves by referring to the then rulers of the gold mines. I just want to read one of the provisions contained in the Gold Law at the time, as follows:

What is provided in regard to Coloureds occupying land? Section 130(2) of the then Gold Law provided as follows:

This is still only the start of everything that can happen to such a Coloured person.

Was it the British who did that sort of thing to the Coloureds?

Yes. We must remember that the Mining Commissioners at the time applied these measures. They form part of the legislation that over the years has become synonymous with the circumstances in our country. Successive governments—including the NP Government—extended that legislation; in fact, perhaps applied it even more strictly because of the development process those people had to undergo rather than oppressing those people through its application. That is why I always feel badly about it when people refer to these matters negatively. It is totally wrong that the Group Areas Act as well as the background and circumstances giving rise to it should be regarded as an oppressive measure. It may perhaps not be equally easy for everyone to accept the fact that residential areas are demarcated for the various groups. That is true.

It sometimes happens that swallows build their nests above one’s front door. One has then to remove that little bird—the sweetest of all little animals—because its nest is causing a problem at one’s front door. One has therefore to break down that swallow’s nest and get him to move somewhere else where he continues to be regarded with affection and appreciation by everyone in the vicinity. I just want to show that it is simplistic …

That is the most pathetic description I have ever heard of.

Well, at least it is simple, and I want everybody else to understand.

*Separation has never been a question of hatred. I explained yesterday how our dear ones are buried separately. In terms of certain rules they are buried ten metres away from each other and a street has to separate them. There is nothing wrong in wanting to be separate.

Inasmuch as we are discussing this Bill this morning, I want to say that its draftsmen have performed a particular task in this regard. They have also acquitted themselves particularly well of their task and have done so with particularly good taste with a view to the position as it was.

We have a good Minister.

It would take me some time to admit that in public. This Bill brings certain facts to light.

Before leaving the subject of group areas I just want to refer hon members to Soweto. I served on the Johannesburg City Council in the days when the removals were taking place and I saw how people rebelled against them. One found that there were 40 families occupying one plot in Sophiatown. Who were the lessors and what were they offering for lease? A family had two sheets of corrugated iron on which to sleep. The lower floor was corrugated iron and on top of that there was another piece of corrugated iron. The families slept in shifts. While the one family went to work or was away, one of the other families came to sleep there. Whole families were being murdered there.

How could we have tackled a large housing scheme and a township development scheme such as the Americans and the outside world wanted us to tackle? Of course we could not do so. We did not have any rich people who needed the houses. We had to deal with an untrained person who had come to work in the city. He received £5 per month and this had to cover his food, clothing for his children and his housing. However, the Americans and the outside world wanted that housing scheme to provide homes with three or four bedrooms. This was a health and a goodwill project. It would have caused problems for any government in the world. Hon members need only look at places like Tigerboom Gardens in Hong Kong or Managua. One is then able to appreciate what these governments which have so much to say about other people are themselves doing in respect of housing.

One cannot get away from the fact that particularly when we CP members were still in the NP, it was a very good party and that very many good things were being done in this country. The moment that there is a racist connotation attached to housing the true purpose of housing is destroyed. For tha reason I believe it is quite right that a Black person should have a say in regard to how his own housing should be constructed. Look how stupid we were in providing pavements three to four metres wide in a place like Bellair. One cannot do this sort of thing under the present circumstances. The cost of maintaining thos sidewalks creates an enormous problem When a method of paving the sidewalks and the street has to be decided upon, it must be remembered that it can cost from R2 000 to R3 000 per street, which is unnecessary expenditure because this can have an adverse effect with a view to the fact that children play in the vicinity. The deep furrows and stormwater pipes that are provided are dangerous if there are children around. These large stormwater pipes that are installed make the areas dangerous for children. This is particularly so in communities where children stay alone at home while their mothers are at work. The type of stormwater drainage provided in the larger townships today is dangerous.

Are you still dealing with the legislation?

Yes, I am discussing the legislation because I am talking about housing. The hon member should just listen.

This Bill gives effect to the total housing picture of the Whites particularly. It gives to the White community a so-called own affair. I admit quite openly together with the hon member for Bellville that this can only be an own affair if the statutory body is not constituted. I believe it is unnecessary to constitute such a body.

I believe that we need this Bill because without it we cannot go any further at present. Over the past two to three years the housing needs of other people have pushed the housing of Whites completely into the background. For example, in a city like Johannesburg one finds the situation where there are about 6 000 or 7 000 people on waiting lists. It is a bad thing if one does not obtain accommodation after one has been on a waiting list for a month. I say that there are people today whose names were placed on waiting fists in 1967 and who are still without housing today.

Since what date have they been on waiting lists?

Since 1967.

Since the hon the Minister accepted responsibility for housing I have submitted the Strydom case to him. He will remember it. I submitted that case to him in 1984. At that stage those people had already been on a waiting list for seven years.

You received a reply in that regard.

Yes, I received a reply but a reply is not a house. [Interjections.] Anyone who thinks he can cover himself up with that little piece of paper is quick to realize that it does not work. [Interjections.] I have already received so many replies that my files are full to bursting point although there has been very little forthcoming in the way of housing.

All that I am saying is that this Bill is once again going to place the spotlight on White housing. There will probably not always be sufficient money, and I anticipate hearing that old complaint once again. Nevertheless the hon the Minister has said that it is the point of view of the Government that every person must have his own home.

That is of course not a wrong point of view, but can an ordinary worker afford his own home today? I am talking now about a person with an income of R1 000 per month. He cannot afford it because it already costs so much just to live. Moreover the monthly payments on a house are very high. In 1980 the average monthly interest paid on a house was more or less 10%; let us say 10% and in exceptional cases 12%.

But people earned very much less at that time.

No, the hon member must not make any mistake. His diagnosis and prognosis do not match. [Interjections.]

The salary structure of 1980 is very close to that of 1984, but taxation, rentals, interest structures and so forth have changed enormously. In 1980 one paid interest at 10% on certain loans while today one has to pay interest at 18% on the cheapest loans without its being due to any fault on one’s own part. This happens without there being any defect in one’s contract.

What is your plan?

I shall tell you what my plan is in a moment. [Interjections.] The first thing I believe is that one cannot finance a home by means of loan capital from an overdrawn bank account.

Is that part of your plan?

Yes. The State should again investigate the authority given to banks to grant home loans, thus excluding building societies. At the moment a building society is trying to be a bank and a bank a building society. The one is against the other simply to maintain high interest rates and the one justifies the other. If one is paying composite interest of 25% on a home loan, it boils down to the fact that the capital is being repaid at the end of more or less every four year period, and that is unsatisfactory. Of course, this is not the hon the Minister’s problem, but it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. In a very small area in Germiston at the moment there are 37 home owners who have to tell a specific building society each month that they have repaid R30 000 or R40 000 on their homes and still owe R7 000 or R10 000 on them but are not in a position to pay the R3 000 that they are in arrears. In the end those people lose their homes. I think that there should be some way out for existing home owners in this connection, and I wonder whether the State could not help people who are unable to meet their rental or bond repayment obligations. Perhaps the State could advance money for a limited period to people in urgent financial need. What sort of people experience this problem? It is usually the person who is between 40 and 50 years of age and who has still to pay two to three years on his bond. Previously he had to pay R200 or R300 per month. His salary has remained more or less the same, with perhaps a small increase, but the repayment on his bond has risen by 100%. For this reason I believe it would be a good thing if the hon the Minister could see whether there is any possibility of providing assistance in this regard.

Then there is the question of the selling of houses. I was the first one in 1976 to ask that houses belonging to the State be sold to the public. I put this request to the then Minister, Marais Steyn, and he said at the time that all housing owned by the State, particularly that in Crown Gardens about which I made particular enquiries, would be sold. Nearly ten years have elapsed since then but all the houses in that residential area have not yet been transferred to private individuals. The reason for this is ostensibly that all the streets and services have not yet been completed, and that the middle walls, the fire walls, have not yet been erected by the municipality. Now that private individuals are buying the houses, the fire walls have suddenly become important although, while the houses belonged to the State, that municipal regulation was regarded as being of no value and those houses could simply burn down. Because the municipality has now to incur the extra expense the transfer of the property has been delayed for some years now.

I know that the hon the Minister has a problem because the area is situated within the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg and there is a delay for some or other reason. One can imagine how a pensioner must feel who wishes to buy one of those houses. The undertaking was given at the time that the houses would be sold for what it had cost to build them. In 1953 the construction cost of those houses was R1 500. I do not know what the construction costs are at present, but my pensioners and other people are now paying between R10 000 and R13 000 for those houses. We are not complaining about this because in these times it is nevertheless providing those people with a home. However, I want to ask the hon the Minister to see whether these matters cannot be rectified in spite of these problems. There is the question of sectional title and of the top and bottom levels of the buildings which do not have their own piece of land. I accept the fact that this can present a problem but there ought not to be any problem in the light of sectional title rights as they are today.

I want now to raise a very sensitive point, and I hope that the hon the Minister will not take it amiss of me when I tell him that we are experiencing great problems in Mayfair. One section of it has now become an Indian area in terms of the Group Areas Act. All my old White voters are still living there. However, they are living in rent-controlled dwellings. Nobody wants to go along there today to investigate their complaints. Previously they paid R62 while they are now having to pay between R200 and R300 for a similar dwelling. They are simply informed that that is what they have to pay. I know that there is no rent control provision in this Bill. However, I should like to have seen such a provision in this Bill, because who is going to deal with the provisions in regard to rent control in terms of White own affairs— if it is an own affairs? Is it going to be people of another colour?

I shall tell the hon the Minister what our problem is. People of another colour come along and settle in Mayfair. The people whom I represent are poor people but they are good, decent, hardworking people. These are not people who have the money to go to court each time some offence or other is committed against them. However, they have exactly the same rights as any other person in this country. For example, they live in rented houses which are then sold by the owners. At the moment they are being sold to Coloureds and Indians. The hon member for Johannesburg West will ratify this remark. Those persons are then given notice and it is of course not a lawful notive. Then when I tell them to approach the rent board because they cannot be evicted in terms of the rent control legislation, and they are in fact living in a White area, the rent board says that it does not have the jurisdiction to take action in this regard. For this reason I want to ask for the insertion of a clause to empower the officials to carry out the duries of the rent board in this area.

We cannot but welcome this Bill because it throws light on the great need for White housing. Recently the position has been that when people spoke about a shortage of housing they were talking about a shortage of Coloured and Indian housing. This does in fact exist. However, while I have had to fight every inch of the way to have those 245 homes retained for those White people in Mayfair, it has been announced that plusminus 4 000 dwelling units are going to be built in that area for Indians. Beside the 245 dwellings which are going to be taken away from the Whites, a further 4 000 units are going to be provided which is going to bring about a great improvement in their housing situation. However, I cannot accept the fact that Whites are being forced out of the White area unlawfully day after day and that all the housing measures are being focused upon only the Coloureds and the Indians. At the time when I was still involved in the Mayfair fight, the various Indian groups even took out their revolvers when they came up against one another. There was a group who supported me and who said: “S P Barnard is right. You cannot evict those poor White people.” Yes, some of the Indians did say that. In that case I was able to prove that there were 50 houses in Lenasia which were unoccupied during the week. These people had come to stay in Mayfair but over weekends they left Mayfair and went back to Lenasia.

The housing need among Whites, particularly in Johannesburg, is very serious. Those who are hardest hit are the older people, the pensioners, people living in rooms on their own and whose rentals have been increased from about R62 to R120. Some of them even pay as much as R300. Young people are also affected in this regard.

Although we give our full support to this legislation we do not accept the fact that it is an own affair in its own right because the general Act, Act 102 of 1984, still prevails. However, we support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, one finds it very difficult to respond to a speech by the hon member for Langlaagte.

You do not understand it.

The hon member for Pietersburg does not understand it either. [Interjections.]

I just want to make one remark about the speech of the hon member for Langlaagte. This morning the hon member used the example here of a swallow building its nest. By using that example he revealed his innermost feelings and those of the hon members of his party.

[Inaudible.]

I am not going to. I want to be kind to the hon member. The hon member for Langlaagte spelt it out very clearly that the swallow could build its nest as long as it did not do so at his front door. It should rather build it at the side of the house.

You are quite right, my friend. [Interjections.]

This lack of love for one’s fellow-man has been proved to me, because the swallow wants to build its nest there because it wants protection, because it wants to be safe. In the hearts of those people, however, there is a great lack of love for their fellow-man. This was made quite clear by the example the hon member used. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I do not wish to be unkind to the hon members of the CP. After all we have come to the end of a historical session of this Parliament.

In speaking about legislation on own affairs, I do not want to repeat what my colleague the hon member for Bellville has said. It is however proof to me that the NP has placed itself irrevocably on the road of reform in South Africa. I should like to quote to hon members of the CP what was said by the Prime Minister on 13 September 1977 about decision-making on own affairs. He said:

He continues:

The Constitution makes it very clear. Hon members can read section 14 and they can look at the Schedule where it is very clearly provided that housing is an own affair. That is the issue before this House this morning.

I want to tell hon members that it gives me a warm glow when I think of what the NP Government has done to provide housing for my people in this country. I am pleased that in his Second Reading speech this morning the hon the Minister once again in the clearest terms spelt out the Government’s policy, namely, that in the very first instance the responsibility of providing housing rests with the individual. However, like the State, the employer also has a responsibility. I shall return later to what was done by the State in the course of only one year.

This measure before the House today is an example of the rationalization process upon which the Government has embarked, and I want to express my appreciation for it. The terms in which the legislation is couched also make it possible for the average person to understand it. This is something I have been advocating in this House for many years. I should also like to express my particular appreciation to every local authority as well as the private and public sectors that have become involved in the provision of housing in South Africa. Neither should we neglect to include our utility companies as well as all the other people who have become involved in the provision of housing in our country.

This session of Parliament has been a historical one, and the measure before the House today is historical too. The State President said the following on 27 January 1984 (Hansard, vol 112, col 9):

Viewed against the background of the rapidly growing and urbanizing South African population, in particular the changed economy, social and political circumstances, the provision of housing to satisfy the need for it is of real importance.

I just want to mention one amount of money that has been spent on White Housing in nine of the largest cities in our country, including Johannesburg. The Strydom case can also be assisted from those funds. If it so happens that a person qualifies for it and then has to wait for 10 years or longer, I do not find it acceptable either, but I doubt the assertion.

In the financial year 1984-85 nearly R60 million was spent on White housing in nine of our largest cities. I think of housing for the aged. 10 825 dwelling units were erected at a cost of R224 million providing 43 300 people with housing. Buildings that have been converted into homes for the aged house 2 467 peoples. There are other institutions as well. I could continue in this way to prove that this Government is contributing its share towards the provision of housing.

It is estimated, however, that 45 000 dwelling units will have to be erected annually to meet the needs of housing in this country. I want this morning to appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that our business sector does not so easily receive permission to convert homes into offices. This is happening, and I think people are too easily permitted to do this. Because we suffer from a bulldozer syndrome I think our people find it all too easy to demolish a dwelling unit when it could be restored at a fairly low cost in comparison to the costs involved in the erection of a new unit. I also want to make a further appeal to the hon the Minister that we get the co-operation of our local authorities in this connection.

We know that throughout our country thousands of units have been erected on smallholings in conflict with the regulation that not more than one dwelling unit may be erected on such a holding. We must deal with this matter. I read in the Press a week ago about a person who was expected to demolish four dwellings that had been erected. I went into the details of the matters and I do not think that man acted correctly. Let us rather oblige him to establish a township but we should not expect such a person to demolish those dwellings. We must look into these unnecessary hindrances.

I understand the situation and I should like to protect the developer in the process. I cannot allow someone to proceed with development in a disorderly way while the man across the street has to comply with all the requirements for establishding a township. One should not make it necessary for such a person to demolish houses; we should rather make it his responsibility to establish a township. In this way we will not be wasting that capital.

I think these are issues we in this country should look at. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said that after food and clothing, housing was one of the most important requirements that we have to provide to ensure that we have a contented and happy community. It will also ensure that we have a productive corps of workers.

Now that we have come to the end of this parliamentary session I want to address every member in opposition as well as every reasonable South African. Let us devote ourselves single-mindedly to finding the answers to our unsolved problems. Let us build a future for contented communities in this wonderful fatherland of ours. If we fail in our task we shall be leaving the future Republic of South Africa and posterity in the lurch. I ask hon members and every well-meaning South African to put himself or herself in the position of the State President or the Government. The weal and woe of this country has been entrusted to us insofar as man’s responsibility is concerned.

Do the hon members of the opposition parties want to assist us or hinder us in achieving what we have set out to do? I put this question to the hon opposition members. We have to be prepared to do more for our common love for our fatherland than for our hatred and prejudices. There are so many matters that we can work for and for which we can be grateful in our country. Let us sort out our priorities and serve our country with commitment. Drive out all doubts with courage and faith. I am pleased to support this measure.

Mr Speaker, before I start with my own speech there are some points that I would like to raise and I am sorry that the hon member for Langlaagte is not here. It is hardly becoming for such an hon member to refer to me as “tubby”. I would say that that is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I certainly do agree with a great deal of what else he said, particularly in respect of stormwater drains, people being unable to afford houses of R100 000 etc. However, insofar as his parochialism is concerned, I know very little about it.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made a speech which quite frankly shocked me. As far as I am concerned his speech was naked racism from beginning to end. I am sorry to say this, but racism does not only extend towards Blacks, but it can be directed against Whites as well. For whatever odd reason that hon member has, he just somehow cannot think in terms of doing anything for anybody except for people with other than white skins. Whilst I accept that many non-Whites have received a bad deal over many years and that these bad deals must be put right, over the past few years the Whites are the ones who have had the bad deal as far as housing is concerned.

I do not know how much the hon member knows about housing generally, but from the time that he referred to—somewhere way back in the 1920s—to date, 94% plus of all housing built for Whites has been built with private enterprise money—not by State funds of any sort, whereas the reverse …

That is not quite true.

Please! You make your speech in your time; I will make mine now.

Insofar as the other communites are concerned, almost 100% of all housing of an orthodox nature that has been built for the Black community has been built with money from State funds of one sort or another. Insofar as Coloured and Indian housing is concerned, the situation is reversed to that of Whites; in other words, the overwhelming preponderance of housing for Coloured and Asiatic communities has been built by State funds of one sort of another. Therefore, to give the impression that the Whites are getting some sort of a preferential deal is most unfair.

Finally, on this particular point I should like to ask this: Has the hon member had any consultation whatsoever with members of the Coloured or the Indian community in respect of housing? I have, and I can tell that hon member that the Coloured and the Indian communities want to handle their own housing. They want to get the money to be able to control their own housing development. Whether there is any in-built reason for this, I am not prepared to say because I do not know. However, I do know that if we were not to permit them to control their own housing development, if we were to have had one amorphous housing set-up and continue with that under this new Constitution, the Coloured and the Indian peoples would be most offended. They believe that they have the right…

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

No, you may not.

The Coloured and the Indian people would be most offended. As I said before, I have had discussions with them on this particular Bill, and on housing matters for many years—not just over the past five minutes. I can assure the hon member, after 30 odd years of dealing with matters relating to Coloured and Indian housing, I believe I know perhaps a little about not only that subject but also the people for whom it is being done. As I say, therefore, I believe his speech was one of racism from beginning to end, and I feel resentful that this be put forward as the opinion of the more liberal element in this House.

I want now to deal with the Bill itself. This Bill seeks to create a housing board for Whites. I presume that similar boards are being created for the population groups represented in the other two houses; certainly some medium for the building of houses and the development of housing is being created—of that I am aware.

The need for housing for Whites has been relegated to a very low priority for a very long time. The consequences have been that White housing stock has not developed at the rate it should have. There have been a number of reasons for this. Rent control has partly been responsible for it in respect of multiple housing units such as flats and the like. The high cost of housing, the shortage of money and various other factors have created shortages in housing in certain categories. The high interest rates, of course, have made the cost of borrowing money for home building very expensive. It has now reached a stage where only those who have housing provided as a condition of employment or people who have rich fathers or mothers or whatever can reasonably anticipate obtaining housing. Of course the same applies to those who qualify for housing subsidies from banks, building societies and various other empolyers.

The two groups that I am interested in and who are under the most pressure, are the young family man and the elderly person who is finding it difficult to find accommodation at a price that he can afford. I have been very sympathetic towards the elderly but will leave that subject for the moment and move on to the plight of the young family.

Family life is the keystone around which any nation is built, whether it be a Black, White or Brown nation. Once family life breaks down, then that nation starts breaking down. A home is the absolutely vitally essential element to keep a family together. When one does not have a home and family life breaks down, one gets thuggism, druggism and disrespect for the rights of others and for the law. In no time at all one then has a chaotic shambles in one’s country, as I say, as a result of the shortage of homes. Therefore, if we want a sound family life, then decent, affordable housing must be available to all but, as I say, in particular to the young family.

The functions of this board are to acquire land, to develop it—either itself or through agents of one sort or another—and, similarly, to build dwelling units for financially necessitous sections of the community. They will be able to expropriate land from local authorities and other bodies and will also be able to override many of the rather stupid and time-consuming regulations that some of the more difficult local authorities have. I hope that they will do just that because one finds so many ridiculous regulations in relatively small areas. As far as underground service regulations, for example, are concerned, a small area of a few square kilometres may have half a dozen local authorities with different regulations. This is one area in which I believe a great deal of time and money can be saved.

I also believe that this hon Minister is perfectly well aware of the fact that speed is one of the more important elements in the construction industry because time is money. To the developers—whether they be from the department or board itself or whether it be utility companies or the private entrepreneur—every day of delay costs money. I believe this is one of the prime areas in which one has to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in getting things under way.

I would commend to the hon the Minister that self-help with regard to home building should also be brought into the White community. Years ago, particularly after the war, a very large number of houses were built by owner-builders. The land was available to them and since they could not afford the high costs of professional building, many of them learnt enough and had friends around them who knew enough to assist them to be owner-builders. Literally thousands of homes were built in the period between the end of the war and the middle fifties to the sixties by owner-builders. Good houses can be built that way. This is part of self-help. It has been suggested that self-help sites should be available for the other communities. I believe a similar sort of thing, on an orthodox basis of building, can and should be available for the White community.

I believe further that as these houses are to be built with State-assisted funds, there should be no garages, no servants’ quarters and a minimum of fancy finishes. Furthermore, I believe that these local authorities that insist on large sites should have their wings clipped and be persuaded—forcibly, if necessary—to have smaller sites. Some local authorities are still making quite ridiculous demands in respect of housing standards. [Interjections.] With the powers this board has, money is likely to become more freely available because the board will have wide authority empowering it to borrow money both internally and externally. Furthermore the board will also have the benefit of a budget allocation. I believe a likely activity on the part of the hon the Minister and the board can be—as a consequence of the availability of money—to stimulate the building industry which is in a disastrous position at the present time. It is one of the worst affected industries in South Africa—the building and the engineering industries relating to infrastructural services.

With a real push for home development, I believe quite a number of other occupations can be given a vital impetus. Once a house is built it has of course to have furniture, electrical appliances, soft furnishings and a whole variety of other things. I believe that if this can be a serious generator of the development of a considerable volume of trade, it can also effect great relief in the current situation of unemployment.

It can be said—and quite rightly, I believe—that there is a greater need for housing among the other communities than is the case in the White community at the present time. By saying that it does not mean, however, that there is not an imperative need for White housing. With the constitutional setup we now have it is the function of this hon Minister to see to it that there is housing available for the White community. There are of course also the hon the Minister’s counterparts in the other two Houses who can ensure that the needs of the population groups who are their respective responsibilities are being met, and I hope that this hon Minister will ensure that those who have to suffer through high rentals owing to a shortage of supply will receive the assistance they so desperately need. I hope the hon the Minister will do a great deal to keep rentals down in respect of housing for the whole community. I hope too he will do what is necessary and what is being done in most countries in the Western World today which is to ensure that everybody for whom he is responsible becomes a home-owner.

Mr Speaker, there is probably no one in this country—regardless of group context or his status in society— who is not involved with housing. This has been stressed again very clearly in the course of this debate.

Family life is a prerequisite for stable community life and in that regard housing naturally plays a very important part. It is a fact that various groups have an interest in this matter; various hon members have already pointed this out. We have only to think of the aged, newlyweds and other interest groups. Further it is also true that there are young people in our cities today experiencing problems as regards accommodation. I believe that in this regard relief can also be brought possibly by way of a change in policy on the provision of accommodation.

In addition, Mr Speaker, I should like to refer to the hon member for Umbilo; I take pleasure in responding to what he said. I believe he replied in a very effective way to the hon member for Pietermartizburg North. This hon member is a member of a party which we could do well to call the R10 million party. That is the R10 million party with such grandiose plans for the future and which pursues its struggle on a racial basis in particular. I shall leave it at that, however.

There is an old proverb that good wine needs no bush, which also applies in the case of this hon Minister. Nevertheless I wish to use the opportunity to express my appreciation toward him. I was privileged to serve on the commission, chaired by the hon the Minister, which investigated township establishment and it was my experience there that he accomplished his task in a calm and balanced but purposeful way. I have no doubt whatever that he will also promote this very important matter affecting White housing in this country with level-headedness and equilibrium.

I also wish to refer briefly to the hon member for Witbank who spoke on the demolition of houses or putting houses to use for other purposes. I agree with him that it is sometimes undesirable. I also wish to point out, however, that if there is no urban renewal especially in the vicinity of the old city centre, the central business district, it can give rise to the development of undesirable or so-called slum conditions. Yet it sometimes has a salutary effect but, where it concerns buildings which are still habitable, I want to agree with the hon member in the main.

This Bill which establishes the Development and Housing Board is very important because it has to deal with a significant matter in this country. The quality of life of people in towns and cities is largely determined by living conditions. Community development and the provision of housing are among the most important basic functions of our local authorities. In discussion of the new dispensation and, in fact, at every opportunity the importance of local authorities in this country has been emphasized. I wish to state that one of the most important tasks of those authorities is to provide sites and promote housing as this is in the interests of the inhabitants of our towns and cities.

The traditional process of community development and the provision of housing in South Africa has been promoted by various institutions. The respective authorities as well as the private sector are involved in this important task. We often think of the metropolitan areas or the larger cities in discussing these problems but the smallest country town or community also has an interest in this as it is also the dwelling place of people. Just as the suburb of a metropole is of interest to its inhabitants, in the same way the country town is of interest to its inhabitants.

The board which is now being established, as well as its committees, is able to acquire and develop land and expedite township establishment through the relevant Administrator. The Administrator can approve township establishment regardless of the provisions of some Act or other. This is contained in clause 23. It is a significant facet of this measure because in the past the problem often arose that for various reasons which I do not have the time to deal with today delays in the township establishment process were too lengthy. The fact remains that provision is made here to expedite township establishment.

The point of departure is that the individual is responsible for his housing in the first case and has to provide his own housing with the aid of the private sector. The fact remains that the authority will always have to play a supportive role in this process. I also think that by way of this legislation the State accepts that it also has and always will have a duty in this regard.

It is vital for housing to be carried out in an orderly and systematic way according to certain guidelines. The systematic and judicious allocation of funds is most important and in this Bill provision is also made that the appropriation and the provision of funds are not done in a haphazard but systematic way. I think this is very important. I think that in the past local authorities involved with housing were not always aware of what they could expect as regards the provision and allocation of funds. I think this will now be possible on a more judicious and firmer basis and to me this is very important.

There are other significant clauses. In this respect clause 8 dealing with regional committees springs to mind. Although its basis is temporary, it is very important because the people involved will be fully conversant with the circumstances of that region. They will therefore be able to control matters in an orderly way and realistic decisions can be taken as well.

In closing I wish to refer briefly to clause 54 which deals with pre-emptive rights. In terms of pre-emptive rights, a person buying a house on this basis is not permitted to sell that property before the expiry of 10 years from the date of purchase. I know there are good reasons for this which I cannot deal with now. I wish to request the hon the Minister, however, that the implementation of this provision be considered with compassion and the necessary sensitivity in particular circumstances.

There are cases in which people are transferred. In addition one can buy only a first house on this basis and not a second or a third. If a person is transferred a few years after purchasing that house and has to move—these are circumstances beyond his control—he is going to lose in the process. I should like to request that these cases also be dealt with in a judicious and sympathetic way.

My time has expired. I wish to close by wishing the hon the Minister and his department every success in this important task in which they are involved. I believe that as regards housing and township establishment in this country they can accomplish a great deal. It will be to the great benefit of all if they succeed in this.

Mr Speaker, I shall furnish the hon member who has just resumed his seat with a few replies later in my speech.

I wish to start by making a few proposals as regards the provision of accommodation. I think they are proposals to which the hon the Minister would do well to pay attention. As it states, the point of departure of the department is firstly that individuals should supply their own housing and that the State will intervene only at the end. It is naturally true that in every community there are those incapable of helping themselves and in consequence it is basically in that area that the hon the Minister will be involved.

If one reads the hon the Minister’s introductory speech and also listens to other people’s comments, one notes that stress is usually laid on housing and it sounds as if the reference is to a house—the gabled house with lawns and barbecue. Basically that is what people think about if the conversation runs on housing.

If one reads through the speech, one notes the very first object of the department is the following: “To acquire land for the purpose of township development.” I believe that when the ordinary man reads this, he perhaps, like the hon the Minister, thinks of streets, plots and so on. Special consideration is being given to serviced plots. In addition it states: “To construct and repair dwellings.” Once again the word “dwelling” gives one the idea that it is a detached house. I also wish to read the following from the speech:

Once again one forms the idea of a small plot, a cottage, etc. In our Western society it remains a fact that in consequence of the use of private transport we find the enormous so-called “urban sprawl”—up to the present I have been unable to find a good Afrikaans equivalent. This happened chiefly as a result of the use of own transport and that is how everyone thinks in talking of a house of his own. In speaking of the people the hon the Minister has to furnish with housing, we are not actually discussing those who can afford to participate in the idea of urban sprawl. The most effective type of housing with a view to the provision of services, mobility, etc is definitely not the type of extended suburban development we know.

In speaking of a new residential area nowadays, from the nature of the case it will be situated a great distance from the city centre, employment opportunities, recreational facilities and so on. Cities are large already and, when one speaks of a new extension, it is usually located 15, 20 or 30 kilometres from the city centre. To assist the first entrants to the housing market by providing them with small shacks far from everything is not the best way of going about it to my mind.

I am not a person who says a specific way is the best but simply feel that adequate attention is in no way being paid to high-density and even multilevel housing. I think an enormous shortage exists in that market. It arose especially because of rent control and certain other measures. A great shortage of rented and high-density housing therefore arose in and near city centres. Newcomers to the housing market or the aged could make use of such accommodation. Such people usually have no children and young couples are still in the process of collecting a nest-egg. At that stage they do not want to purchase a lawnmower or have two cars because they are so far from the city centre. I wish to request the hon the minister earnestly to pay attention to factors making high-density housing possible. Bring people back to the cities and let us create cities of the future and not the huge urban sprawl of the beginning of the century.

A further possibility related to high-density housing is the so-called “granny flat”. I wish to ask the hon the Minister to pay greater attention to this and where necessary to put pressure on local authorities to permit this. In Australia there is a scheme whereby the counterpart of the hon the minister’s department has mobile housing units which it lets for example to retired couples to enable them to live in a relative’s grounds for instance so that it is unnecessary to furnish services and existing services can be put to better use.

An additional aspect to which I should like the hon the Minister to pay further attention is that repayments on bonds should be deductible from income tax. One of the greatest problems people experience is the enormous amount to be deducted from their income monthly to pay for their housing and I think the step I am proposing would encourage investment in addition.

†The hon member for Umbilo said that Whites have by and large built their houses through the free-enterprise system. Has the hon member forgotten that one out of every three Whites works for the State? This is only according to the narrow definition of the State. If one adds to this the State corporations etc that figure could probably be as high as 40% or even 50%. Those people did not have to go to private enterprise as we expect of any Black man who comes to the city who has no access to finance. Those people have very, very cheap housing loans. The SATS, for instance, spent more than R100 million in one year from capital resources to house their employees. So to say that Whites have to rely on private enterprise alone, is just patently untrue.

*To return to the amendment: We are opposed to it because the Department of Housing is divided into three components; I shall speak on the political implications of this in a moment. Purely from the point of view of manpower, we regard this as a great waste. In addition it is the skilled manpower of which there is actually such a great shortage.

If we take a city like Pietermaritzburg for example, we see that over a long period they have created a very effective department of housing. The department has skilled personnel, both technicians and clerks, who know how to work with people. This is not merely a loose group of individuals but a team of colleagues with a team spirit. Such a team spirit is indivisible; it can only be destroyed if that team is fragmented.

Who is going to do that?

The department of housing in Pietermaritzburg now has to listen to three political masters, as we may call them. If the Government is to have its way, the city council itself will be divided into three components as well. The department which is now to do the work of White housing is the same as was previously chiefly involved in the provision of housing for Coloureds and Indians. It is the old Department of Community Development. Its skilled personnel now has to be divided into three units. This is what we are opposed to because, instead of one director-general, there are now going to be three and so the old story continues. We heard the hon the Minister express the hope that members of the department would visit each local authority at least one a year. This will mean they will have to pay yet another and another visit as there are three now.

We wish to know where the highly skilled personnel has to be found to administer those other departments. They cannot, for example, be drawn from the ranks of Coloureds and Indians. I think I have mentioned this in the House before but at the moment there are precisely 25 architects for instance who are not White in the whole of South Africa. There are only about 100 engineers out of a corps of 3 000 civil engineers—The people who have to supply the services and do the planning—who are not White. This means that the skilled personnel of all those departments is going to be preponderantly White in any case.

From the private sector.

Yes, from the private sector. Now we ask with tears in our eyes why it is necessary to divide the administration into three components when we actually have a shortage of such skilled personnel.

In our opinion the real problem lies at another level. A man’s house remains his castle. It is the final expression of one’s status and it represents the statement one wishes to make to the world. That is what done’s house means to one. One can look at someone’s house and then be fairly near the mark in attempting to assess his financial or economic capability.

Nevertheless one’s ability to earn is a function of one’s training and education; it is also a function derived from the system. The problem arises, however, that in travelling through South Africa and merely looking at the houses without looking at the colour of the occupants themselves, one can predict what the colour of those occupants is. Unfortunately to the world this is the wretched face of apartheid. If one is White, one’s house presents a certain appearance but if one is Black, a “site and service” shack is good enough for one. [Interjections.] To those hon members who do not realize the implications of apartheid, it is sufficient that each group will have a say in its own matters. To the rest of the world and to most people in South Africa apartheid is ultimately manifested in one’s own house. One’s house, after all, is what one has obtained out of the system over the past few decades.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon member can say I am talking nonsense but he can try convincing the rest of the world or the young man throwing stones in Uitenhage that there is a reason other than that the NP wishes to perpetuate what we have.

That is the message you wish to convey.

It is the truth.

But we are telling the hon member to go out and try to tell those people that there is no reason for this legislation other than that the Government wishes to take apartheid further with this division of housing into its racial components. Let him try it.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member? I wish to ask him whether he is aware of the quality of accommodation in Lenasia and in a certain area of Soweto.

In the days before I arrived here my occupation was to build houses. [Interjections.] I built some thousands of houses of all types—from the bottom to the top—and I therefore know what those houses look like. We repeat, those hon members should attempt explaining this to Black people living in an area where there is no school and so on. What are those people striving for? They are also striving for one of those fine houses the hon member is talking about. It is useless therefore to say there a few such houses.

The hon member for Bellville says there is a First and a Third World in South Africa and consequently we should divide housing in three. I wish to ask the hon member for Bellville: If he has seen those very houses the hon member for Randfonten was talking about, why then divide the department in three? What is the difference, I ask the hon member for Bellville, between what a Coloured or an Indian wants as regards housing and what a White wants in this connection? There is no difference whatsoever. The same applies to the Black man as well because he is striving for this too.

The very fact that the department has been divided in three is a sign to the Black man that the Government is telling him: “Actually it is as well for you to remain in your ‘site and service’.” I therefore support the amendment.

Mr Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon member for Greytown ended this second reading debate on such a negative note. With all due respect, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Greytown does not know what is going on in South Africa. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Randfontein asked him a very valid question it was very clear that the hon member could not answer it. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that he would do well to drive some distance along the cement road between Pretoria and Vanderbijlpark and see what is going on with regard to housing for the various population groups to which the hon member for Randfontein referred. [Interjections.]

What I blame the hon member for is the fact that he is giving the public at large a negative image of this measure as a result of the apartheid syndrome he suffers from. The hon member for Greytown is a snob. [Interjections.] I want to reply fully to some of his arguments. He says one’s home and status are linked. However, if he will look at the definition of “dwelling” in this Bill he will encounter the philosphy in connection with the provision and the standards of housing with which the State is involved. Linking one’s status to the home one owns is one of our big problems in South Africa, and the hon member is aggravating it. Owning a large or fine house does not give one status; it is what is in one. As long as people have the idea that one has to have a large house in order to have status—that is the hon member’s philosophy—we shall have a problem providing acceptable and economic housing in South Africa. I am sorry the hon member concluded his speech so negatively on a subject which he is supposed to know more about [Interjections.]

I should like sincerely to thank all hon members who participated in the discussion of this bill. I should like to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North for his contribution, although he is opposing the measure. He was cordial towards myself and to the department and I want to thank him for it. An important point the hon member made this morning, one of acknowledgement, is the great contribution the Government has made over the past years in providing housing for all the population groups in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I know the hon member for Houghton does not agree with that but she was probably not here when he spoke.

You are allowed to created a backlog, that is what I say.

The hon member should just read the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Then she will see that he maintained a good perspective.

I should like to tell the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North a few things about the amendment he moved. In the first portion of it he says the following:

Without going into the political connotation the hon member is introducing here, I want to tell him it is exactly the opposite. It is not true that this measure will tend to weaken the provision of housing; on the contrary, it is exactly the opposite. With all due respect, I also cannot see how this measure will increase the cost of housing to the ordinary citizen. I should like to tell him and the hon member for Greytown too that the fact remains that we are operating in terms of the Constitution of South Africa of 1983. I also want to refer the hon member to the Schedule to that Constitution.

†May I remind the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North that community development, housing included, is an own affair in terms of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution of South Africa, 1983. General and own affairs are fundamental principles of policy, the practical implementation and execution of which demand that existing institutions must inevitably make way for new ones which will impart to each population group exclusive jurisdiction over those matters which have been designated as own affairs.

Existing institutions such as the National Housing Commission are comprised of members of the various population groups and as such do not satisfy the needs of a single group in matters which are its sole prerogative. Insofar as the National Housing Fund and the Community Development Fund are concerned, the Bill proposes a single revolving fund to finance housing and development expenditure into which moneys accruing to the existing two funds in respect of property in White areas are to be deposited. This obviates the need for shared assets and joint decisions.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also referred to the South African Housing Advisory Council. The National Policy for General Housing Matters Act, 1984, came into operation at the beginning of 1985, but the SA Housing Advisory Council has not yet been constituted. This is a matter for the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works, and my colleague the hon member for Bellville has also referred to this.

I would like to point out that the Act deals only with norms, standards and income groups for the financing of housing. It has a rather limited scope to deal with all aspects of all types of housing. I would like to give the hon member the assurance that co-ordination in respect of the matters dealt with in that Act is at present also under consideration and that there will be co-ordination and collaboration between the various Ministers in this regard.

*I should like to thank the hon member for Bellville sincerely for the contribution he made here this morning. The hon member is also chairman of our study group and I also want to thank him heartily for the work he is doing there. The hon member had some kind things to say about the department and myself for which I thank him most sincerely.

The hon member also replied comprehensively to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North particularly as regards that hon member’s concern about the so-called fragmentation of housing. The hon member also referred to the work of the National Housing Commission, and I should also like to take this opportunity to record my and my department’s sincere thanks to the National Housing Commission as well as the Community Development Board for the measure of co-operation we have received from them in this connection, from the chairman in particular. I should like to thank the hon member for Bellville for his contribution.

The hon member for Langlaagte apologized for not being able to be here. He said he would perhaps come in again later. If I knew he would be coming in a little later I would wait for him, but I shall simply continue in the meantime. The hon member for Langlaagte took us on a journey to various dwellings. He also referred, inter alia, to the Gold Law. The various forms of housing even gave the hon member the opportunity to refer to the swallows that have nested near him. The hon member for Witbank has already referred to this. Now it is true that it has been written: “Even the swallows find a home.”

Apart from congratulating the legal draftsmen, for which I thank him, the hon member for Langlaagte referred to various other aspects. He said today that he knows of persons who have been waiting since 1967 for a house to be allocated to them. The hon member must feel free to bring this to my attention. If a man has been waiting since 1967 to be allocated a house or a flat and he qualifies for it in terms of our policy and the existing legislation, this is in my opinion unnecessary and totally unacceptable. I should therefore like more details on this specific case from the hon member.

The hon member also referred to the Strydom case. I shall also have that case specifically investigated once again but I am under the impression that the person referred to does not qualify for housing in terms of our policy and the existing legislation. The hon member will have the opportunity to raise the matter once more when we again discuss the Vote.

The hon member is of course also very resourceful. The hon member said that he had received an answer but that a man could not cover himself in paper. I admit of course that he is right but at the same time there may also be something in the answer that could give some perspective to the problem. However, when the hon member talks about paper, we know of course that the policy of his party is not worth the paper it is written on. So if we have to debate it, we can do so on another occasion. [Interjections.]

In dealing with my Vote, I referred to various schemes in terms of which the State assists individual buyers. In this connection I should like to refer the hon member, inter alia, to the interest subsidy scheme and to bring to his attention once again the subsidy scheme involving the saving of money with a view to encouraging young people to obtain their own home. I can debate this in more detail on a future occasion.

The hon member also referred to Crown Gardens. As far as the specific problem he brought to my attention is concerned, I can assure him that I shall investigate the matter and find out what the reason is, if any, for the delay in connection with the transfer of properties to individual buyers.

Like other colleagues, this hon member referred to the sale of houses among the White population group. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also discussed this. Of the 10 825 saleable dwellings still unsold as at 1 July 1983, 2 059 had been sold between that date and 31 March this year— in other words, 19,4%. If, however, we look at the total number of saleable dwellings built since 1920 with money from the National Housing Fund, we find that there is another perspective to the matter. 139 346 saleable dwelling units have already been erected since 1920, of which 130 616 have already been sold, representing 93,7% of the total. This is certainly an impressive figure and I think hon members will agree with me that it is something of an achievement.

The hon member for Langlaagte referred to the Rent Control Act and to specific problems in this connection. The hon member is very welcome to discuss the provisions of the Rent Control Act with me again. All dwellings and dwelling units erected before 21 October 1949 are subject to rent control. As I have stated repeatedly, if there are problems in this connection—I also said this during the discussion of the Vote—such cases should be brought to the attention of the regional office of my department in Johannesburg so that action can be taken in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. However, the hon member also created the impression here today that certain Whites were affronted when they had to vacate properties and houses in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act when a proclaimed area was allocated to another population group. My information is that all the Whites concerned were invited to submit their needs in respect of alternative accommodation to the department. Preference was given to those who responded to the invitation by allocating them dwellings in departmental projects such as Crown Gardens and Lindbergh Park. Through the kind offices of the department, several families were helped with dwellings in projects of the Johannesburg City Council. On the whole, the families receiving alternative housing were better housed than had previously been the case. Much of the accommodation they had had in Mayfair East was already dilapidated. Most of the families applying to the department for help were in fact provided with alternative accommodation.

I want to thank the hon member for his support of the legislation. It is interesting that the hon member took us back almost to his cowboy days when he told us about the times he had had to draw revolvers to solve specific housing problems in his area.

I want sincerely to thank the hon member for Witbank for his contribution this morning, as well as for his friendly remarks about me and my department. The hon member raised a particularly important matter regarding the demolition of dwellings. He also referred to the conversion of dwelling units. I want to state as general policy that this will only be done in the most extreme circumstances. I may tell the hon member briefly that it is our policy that applications to demolish and to convert properties into cheap living accommodation are not approved unless it is essential to do so and is in the interests of the community. One cannot at all costs retain all dwelling units at the expense of essential development. I know the hon member will understand that. The chairmen of the regional committees of the National Housing Commission to which the decision-making power has been delegated consider each application thoroughly on its merits. In the light of these circumstances there are factors we consider, for example, the necessity of retaining cheap housing stock, the condition of the buildings, whether the buildings are occupied or not, the necessity for demolition or conversion, the availability of alternative accommodation to occupants who can afford, it, and the provision of alternative housing by the applicant for demolition or conversion. The last-mentioned matter can even be negotiated with an applicant who applies for demolition. I should like to give the hon member the assurance that we are treating this matter seriously and that we shall continue to give it our attention.

†I should like to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his contribution. He also dealt with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in his own way and, I would say, to very good effect. Throughout his career the hon member for Umbilo has made a very positive contribution towards the establishment and construction of housing. I want to thank him for the sincere way in which he approaches matters of housing and also for his contribution this morning. It is true that we have a task to provide housing for the young family. I agree with the sentiments which he expressed. It is also true that one has to look after the elderly people.

*My department has compassion for the aged. The applications for welfare housing addressed to our department are comprehensive. I want, however, to give the assurance that we shall be particularly sympathetic in caring for out aged.

†The hon member referred to the self-help schemes which may be introduced. My department has a positive attitude towards promoting home ownership in this field as well.

With regard to the point which the hon member raised about the standard of housing—he said that one should not provide a garage and servants’ quarters—I should like to refer him to the definition of “dwelling” in the Bill. He will notice that we have introduced the provision that a dwelling will not consist of more than five rooms. I think that gives an indication of what our policy in this regard is.

In general, I want to say that I will refer the entire debate which has taken place on this Bill to the board to be established so that they may consider the various points raised by hon members.

*I want to thank the hon member for Welkom sincerely for his contribution. I want to assure him that I greatly appreciate his contribution this morning as well as his contribution on the commission of enquiry into township development. A very important aspect that the hon member touched on here is one in connection with the pre-emptive right. I should like to tell the hon member that we have taken cognizance of this and that each case will be considered on its merits. The buyer’s reasons for the resale of a property will be carefully considered. I understand the problem that in certain circumstances it may in fact not be necessary to insist on the full 10 years. The board is therefore also able, in terms of this legislation, to waive its pre-emptive right—either unconditionally or subject to the condition that a portion of the financial benefit that such a person received by purchasing from the board be repaid out of the proceeds of the resale. This benefit could consist of a capital discount on the market value of the property and/or an interest subsidy. In terms of the regulations that we intend to apply, the amount to be repaid will be reduced by 10% for each year the buyer owns the property.

I should like sincerely to thank the hon member for the contribution he made here today.

I have already dealt to a certain extent with the speech of the hon member for Greytown. I merely want to add that as far as so-called granny cottages are concerned, this is something that is being resorted to by local authorities to an increasing extent. There was also a very positive reaction to the recommendations that emanated from the report of the commission of enquiry into township development in this connection. Therefore, as far as this aspect is concerned, I can give the hon member a positive answer.

A recommendation was also made in that report with regard to the question of mobile dwelling parks. The hon member for Greytown referred to the so-called mobile units. This department does promote the idea of the establishment of mobile dwelling parks in South Africa and has in fact already made a specific piece of land available to an entrepreneur who wants to develop in this particular direction.

At the same time, however, I want to make another statement regarding the hon member for Greytown. He created the impression here that the State provides only single unit or freestanding accommodation. The hon member described this as some little hamlet of other which is being put together far away from everything. I want to invite the hon member once again to look at the housing projects himself. In fact, he does not have far to drive. As he has been discussing high density housing, he would do well to have a look at Parow Park. Has the hon member ever been to Parow Park?

No, not yet.

Well, it is just around the corner. The hon member would do well to go there and see for himself what it is like. More than 2 000 people live there—on a large and small scale—in a compact set-up. I am sure the hon member for Parow would be happy to show the hon member for Greytown around there. The statement by the hon member for Greytown that the State only provides little hamlets for people far away from everything is nothing but a total misapprehension on his part.

He looks like a hamlet! [Interjections.]

I have already indicated that I shall also refer the record of the debate on this measure to the new board, when it comes into operation. I want therefore to content myself with thanking all hon members sincerely for their contributions to the debate here today.

It is true that it remains our important ideal to bring accommodation within the reach and means of everyone who needs it. The new board that is to be established will be a board consisting of knowledgeable people. It will also be a board that must be able to act in an advisory capacity in the sphere of housing on an ongoing basis. It will furthermore be a board that will always have to think regeneratively because solving the housing problem will require ongoing regenerative ideas and new methods to meet the challenges. This department and myself together with the new board to be established certainly see our way clear to do this.

Mr Chairman, I wish to point out why this Bill is successfully defined as a racial Bill although it initially appears that there is no racial connotation. Here I refer to paragraph (vi) of the clause where “declared area” is defined as follows:

Order! No, the Committee cannot proceed in this manner. Hon members must not converse so loudly. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North may continue.

Thank you, Sir.

That definition effectively reduces the Bill to a Bill for White people only. I am pleased that the hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that there was consideration of some formal means of consultation among the various Houses and housing agencies which would be on a racial basis in addition to the National Housing Advisory Council which would basically deal with means test and other financial implications. That remark is very important and I wish to remind the Committee that we have primarily voted against the Second Reading of the Bill because of this very definition.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the definition of “dwelling” in paragraph (ix) and particularly to paragraph (c) which reads:

During this session Parliament has paid scant attention to the problem of drug abuse which faces South Africa. We have had little opportunity to discuss it and there has been little opportunity for Parliament to take positive steps as regards this problem.

I know that this problem does not directly face the hon the Minister, but in terms of the definition of “hostel” he is responsible for providing buildings to accommodate people who are in need of treatment because of drug abuse. It is no secret that in South Africa the problem of drug abuse has got a little out of hand. The Act is not as effective as it might be. People have been calling for bigger penalties, in particular with regard to pushers, and I am hoping that this hon Minister, with the powers entrusted to him, will take positive steps to liaise with the Department of health and Welfare to make accommodation available for the rehabilitation of those who suffer from drug abuse. Johannesburg has Phoenix House, Durban has Norman House, but to the best of my knowledge Cape Town has nothing at all. It is the youngsters who need protection because they are subjected to dagga, LSD, heroin and even cocaine. In a port like Cape Town which is open to international trade it is easy to obtain these dependence-producing substances. It is important that youngsters suffering from drug abuse should not be sent to jail. They will be sent to jail unless there is a rehabilitation centre. Courts are prone to send such abusers to a rehabilitation centre rather than to jail. My appeal to the hon the Minister is to try to do something positive in co-operation with the relevant Minister for the establishment of centres for these people.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, the clause provides for the appointment of a board consisting of six members and that one will be appointed chairman and the other vice-chairman. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister advised us that the National Housing Commission had had a maximum of 14 members and the Community Development Board had had a maximum of 12 members, but that this board would now only be composed of six members so that it will be more closely knit and an easier board to deal with. He said: “To promote efficiency, the new board will consist of a comparatively small number of experts in the field of housing”. I wonder if he would explain to us what he has in mind when he talks about “experts in the field of housing”? Will he tell us what qualifications he would regard someone as having in order for him to be regarded as an expert? Will the board be limited to six members? Does he anticipate appointing representatives of the business sector to the board or will they all be Government officials? Will he explain to us whom he intends appointing to the board and what qualifications he will take into account before making those appointments?

Mr Chairman, we have no specific qualifications in mind regarding the members of the board. The intention is to find people who are experts in the field of housing for appointment to the board. Members from the private sector will most definitely also be appointed to serve on the board. The board will not only consist of Government officials and they will not outnumber the members appointed from the private sector. In my reply to the Second Reading debate, I pointed out that the whole idea is that this body should also be able to advise the Minister and his department on innovations as far as housing and the provision of housing are concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, clause 4(2)(e) provides that anyone who seeks election or the party nomination to become a member of the House of Assembly or the provincial council will not be eligible to be a member of this board. I want to anticipate the Constitutional affairs Amendment Bill which is on the Order Paper for today. One of the clauses provides that in the event of there being a vacancy for any provincial council, it will not be filled. The purpose of my amendment is simply to tidy up the Bill because there is no doubt that the Constitutional Affairs Amendment Bill will be passed before Parliament adjourns today, and therefore this provision is superfluous. As I say, it is simply designed to tidy up this Bill because no provincial council vacancies will be filled after today.

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

1. 1. On page 12, from line 49, to omit “or a provincial council”.

Mr Chairman, the amendment is acceptable, of course.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr Chairman, clause 9 provides that any member of the board who directly or indirectly receives any fee of reward shall be precluded from holding office under the Act. It then provides that any member of the board who discloses any information acquired by him in the course of his duties shall be guilty of an offence for which there is a fairly stiff penalty provided viz a fine not exceeding R10 000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years. I feel that anybody who in the course of the performance of his duties disseminates any information that he has acquired should also thereafter be precluded from holding office under the Act, and therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 16, in line 47, after “years” to insert:

Mr Chairman, I see this as an improvement of the Bill and therefore I am pleased to accept this amendment as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 28, in line 41, after “contract” to insert:

Clause 21 that we are dealing with at the moment provides for the attainment of the objects of the board. We have no objection to the objects, viz township development and the provision of housing. For that it is necessary to expropriate, and this clause gives the board the powers of expropriation to which we have no objection.

However, what is contemplated in this clause is that, having expropriated, an agreement is then entered into. In paragraph (d)(i) of subsection (1), however, it is provided that when the property has been purchased by the board—not expropriated—and thereafter one cannot find the seller, the board is empowered to cancel the sale and deem it to be an expropriation. I have a little problem with that. I can appreciate that the board has then entered into the sale and the seller has signed it, but has disappeared, and the board needs the land for its development. It may be a property in the centre of a large area which holds up the entire development. I appreciate that as well. Firstly, however, no time limit has been placed on the period within which the lost person may be found. On that basis and in terms of the regulations under Clause 62(1) I hope that regulations will be made to stipulate the period. I do not want to include it in the Bill as such but “cannot thereafter be found” is a very broad term and I should like to see a limitation on that.

The transaction having reached that stage, transfer is then taken. No provision is made, however, for what will happen to the proceeds. It is stated that the amount to be paid after expropriation shall be equivalent to the deed of sale price. That is fair enough. However, it is not stated just where that money is going to be paid—and here we must remember that the seller cannot be found. The purpose of my amendment is thus to insert in line 41, after “contract”:

I use that particular strategy because it is the same strategy as is used later on in clause 22(3)(b) where a deceased estate is dealt with. I think it only fair then that it be paid to the Master of the Supreme Court.

Again, I should like the hon the Minister to consider providing in the regulations that once the money has been paid over to the Master of the Supreme Court, this fact is adequately problicized in, for example, a newspaper circulating in the area and in the Government Gazette. There will thus be notice that the money has been paid to the Master of the Supreme Court so that, at some stage, the attention of the seller can be drawn to this fact.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Hillbrow for his sincere attempt to improve the Bill. Firstly, I would like to say that, as far as the time limit and as far as the question of publication are concerned— the hon member referred to these in this specific instance—I will consider his suggestions when we come to the drafting of the regulations.

As far as the hon member’s amendment is concerned, I should like to refer him to the provisions of clause 21(1)(c) which states:

I should like to refer the hon member then to the position in the Expropriation Act. As the hon member has said, this provision deals with the payment of compensation for expropriated property in instances where the person to whom compensation is payable or his whereabouts are unknown. Section 21— and the hon member will see that sections 6 to 23 of the Expropriation Act are applicable here—of the Expropriation Act, No 63 of 1975, already provides for the compensation in such an instance to be deposited with the Master of the Supreme Court. Therefore I regard the proposed amendment as superfluous since that situation is already provided for.

I accept that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

1. 1. On page 30, from line 8, to omit subsection (2).

Subsection (2) actually says:

That is the Registrar of Deeds:

I am very worried about this. I do not think that it is a very good provision. I am therefore asking that it be omitted.

We are now dealing with the acquisition of the property either by expropriation or else by purchase or where the seller of such land is deceased. I suggest that if the title deed cannot be found the normal procedure applicable to regulations in the deeds registry apply. The hon the Minister is well aware of these regulations.

Applications must be made formally to the Registrar of Deeds. The procedure has been simplified with regard to the publication of an application of that nature and it is then sent in. However, I have a real difficulty with this: That title deed may be pledged by way of security to a bank or a money-lender. If it is pledged by way of a mortgage bond that fact will be picked up at the deeds registry because that bond will be registered against the title deed. I do not think that is a problem, but I do feel that if it has been pleged in the manner referred to, that person may be very severely prejudiced. He is sitting with the title deed not knowing that the property has been expropriated. He may have been involved in large financial transactions with regard to that title deed, unaware that the property has been transferred without his knowledge and certainly without his consent. This is my problem. Therefore I think if an order of court is required, as it will be in certain circumstances, I do not think we should evade an application to court of that nature so that people can be warned accordingly.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon member for Hillbrow, and may I say that there is no intention whatsoever to cause anybody hardship. I do not think that anybody should be prejudiced by any of these conditions in the Bill. This particular subsection deals with the registration of transfer in favour of the Development and Housing Board in respect of property acquired by it in instances where the title deeds are not available, that is, when they are misplaced or lost. To obtain a duplicate of a lost title deed is a relatively simple procedure governed by regulation, as the hon member will know. I can give him the details but I think he knows them by heart. Subsection (2) of this clause simplifies the matter even further inasmuch as it enables transfer to be passed even without a duplicate deed by endorsement of the original deed kept by the deeds office. The obtaining of a duplicate deed entails unnecessary administrative work and costs, and these are obviated by this subsection. I should like to assure the hon member that, as we see it, the subsection can have no detrimental effect but can only expedite the provision of land for housing.

I think in terms of the procedure which the hon member is suggesting the problem he has indicated may also arise. Although I cannot foresee any hardship being cause by this matter, anybody always has the right to come to the department or to me if there is a specific problem. However, on a legal basis, I honestly cannot see that a man can be prejudiced in terms of this provision as far as his rights are concerned by a title deed which has been lost.

I want to say in the circumstances that with a view to expediting the obtaining of land for housing purposes, reasonableness will always prevail in our approach when we deal with this particular subsection both in practice and in the administration of the Act.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to frustrate the work of the board. I am quite happy with the question of effecting transfer as quickly and expeditiously as possible, but we are not facing the problem correctly. If a bank is sitting with that title deed by way of a pledge or security, that bank will have no recourse against the board for having transferred that property. That bank only has recourse against the borrower who sold that property or whose property it was in the first place, and they have lost that security. Now, why I say we must follow the normal deeds office procedure is to cover this because, as the hon the Minister knows, an application for copy of a lost title deed no longer has to be published although one does have to make an affidavit. In the affidavit one has to say among other things that the title deed has been lost or destroyed, that the person does not know where it is and that it has not been pledged by way of security to any person. When he makes that affidavit. I am quite happy for the Government to go ahead. That is where the problem lies. One has to make the affidavit that the deed has not been pledged by way of security.

Mr Chairman, I am quite prepared to refer this particular subsection, after it has become law, to the law advisers and to consider the arguments of the hon member. I would like to tell the hon member that I will not put this procedure into operation until we have had the opinion of the State law adviser on this because the intention is not to create any hardships or losses for any persons.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr Chairman, this is a very important clause that deals with the establishment and development of townships. I want to ask the hon the Minister, who happened to be chairman of the commission that sat to discuss the very aspect of delays in the establishment and development of townships, whether any procedures will be shortened as a result of the recommendations of that commission insofar as the establishment of townships are concerned.

Mr Chairman, to be very brief, I indicated during the discussion of my Vote earlier this session that I am of the firm opinion that certain procedures have already been expedited and that I am positive that the procedures for the establishment of townships will indeed be shortened in future as has been recommended.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 34, from line 16, to omit subsection (1).
2. 2. On page 34, in line 44, after “Administrator” to insert “and local authority”.

I have a serious difficulty in that this clause provides for exemption from the provisions of any ordinance or by-law or regulation of a local authority and the conditions of the establishment of a township prescribed relating to certain provisions which are listed from (a) to (e). That is why I am asking for the deletion of this provision. The reason is that I do not think that the board should per se be exempted from the provisions of the regulations and the conditions of the town planning establishment and the local authority….

This has given rise to serious misgivings and a great deal of ill-feeling on the part of local authorities although I do not deny that it has been the position in the past that provincial administrations could override local authorities insofar as town planning schemes are concerned.

I would like to quote again from a speech that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made towards the end of last year. He said:

Here we are overriding the administration of local authorities and their town planning schemes. I would like to give the Committee one example of this because this was the case in the past. Local authorities are very, very keen on having aesthetic control of their areas. From a town planning point of view it is very important to maintain what is aesthetically acceptable. There is a ridge in Johannesburg which overlooks the cemetery and was left clear of housing. The department came along—because it was exempt from the provisions of the town planning scheme—and erected an enormous block of flats right on that ridge, standing out like a sore thumb on a ridge which should be preserved for aesthetic reasons. That is the sort of thing I am getting at. Even the provision of a building which will generate an enormous amount of traffic where the roads are too narrow to accommodate all that traffic, and is built against the wishes of that local authority and does not fit in with their scheme, is unacceptable.

I realize that certain establishments and buildings need to be erected. Therefore, in terms of my second amendment, I want to leave that provision in the clause, so that the clause would read:

I am giving the Minister the power:

and then I add on these words:

In other words, all I am asking the hon the Minister is not to ride roughshod over the local authorities and lay down the law without the local authorities being able to do anything about it, but to consult the provincial administrations and the local authorities so that they can be a party to the decision. At least they can put forward their point of view and try to persuade the hon the Minister whether or not to go ahead with his scheme. That is the purpose of my amendments.

Mr Chairman, insofar as the second amendment of the hon member for Hillbrow is concerned, I should like to say that I fully support it. At first glance, his first amendment also bears a certain amount of reason until one stops to analyse the situation. It is not a new principle, unfortunately, that State departments in one shape or another can override local authorities. This has been done for a very long time. Here we have to do with a State department, and such being the case, I feel that it might start all sorts of unusual precedents if one were to change the position in this regard. For that reason I cannot accept the first amendment to this clause.

However, there is one point that I would make, namely that, although State departments do have certain rights not to submit plans, to obtain approvals and the like, I feel it should be on record that they would at least submit courtesy plans so that the local authorities would have the appropriate plans for the various other purposes for which a local authority needs them. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister will place on record, if he can, that that will be done. Therefore, although I do not support the first amendment, I do support the second amendment to this clause.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to say that, as far as the quotation from a speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning which the hon member for Hillbrow read, and also as far as the application of this Bill are concerned, I am in full agreement with him. As concerns the question of policy, the hon member can rest assured.

Secondly, I should like to say that the second amendment of the hon member for Hillbrow is acceptable to me, as it is to the hon member for Umbilo. I find their support of this amendment acceptable.

I should just like to remind the hon member of what I said in my Second Reading speech just now as far as co-operation with local authorities is concerned, namely:

I also said that the regional representatives would visit the various local authorities.

As I have just said, we operate in close collaboration with the local authorities on all matters. In the provision of low-cost housing, all prescribed regulations and requirements cannot be met, and therefore the board cannot be made subject to such requirements. As a matter of policy the department submits courtesy plans to local authorities. As requested by the member for Umbilo, they will also do so in future. I should like to give him the assurance that this will be the position. The department also endeavours to meet the requirements of the local authorities as far as possible. However, in the interests of the speedy provision of housing for the lower income groups it is considered necessary to retain those powers. Therefore, I believe the hon member for Hillbow can also rest assured as far as this question is concerned.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister explain why he wants clause 29(a)(ii) included. Could the hon the Minister not perhaps see this also being applied outside a declared area. I can foresee that there may well be occasions when the local authorities may wish to act as agents. In Natal, for example, the Port Natal Development Board—it used to be called the Natalia Development Board—sometimes acts as an agent for the kwaZulu Government. In the same way the Durban or Pietermaritzburg municipality can be used as an agent to develop a housing facility. So it seems to me that by using this, one could do that. Maybe the hon the Minister can explain to us why he feels he needs to have these powers given to him in terms of clause 29(a)(ii), allowing funds from his department to be used by a local authority outside its own area of jurisdiction.

Mr Chairman, I think the idea is that assistance may be granted to other local authorities. I should like to consider the thoughts of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North on this and will pass them on to the board. If further decisions to provide assistance in this regard should arise from them, we shall be pleased to implement them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 57:

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

1. 1. On page 64, in line 36, after “thereof” to add:

This clause is similar to clause 24 which we discussed a little while ago. Clause 57 provides that a local authority, a utility company, a housing utility company, a natural person or another person or body to which or to whom a loan for the construction of a dwelling has been approved may also be exempted from the provisions of by-laws, regulations or town planning schemes. I do not think it is a problem that local authorities are exempted from their own by-laws etc because they are going to comply with them as far as possible.

However, I have difficulty in regard to the utility company. A company may be established which is going to override all these regulations and all these town planning schemes. I am referring in particular to building regulations, which are of course very important. Structures may, for instance, in terms of building regulations not be acceptable to a municipality. If such regulations are overridden it does not mean that plans do not have to be submitted. I am a bit worried about this.

Furthermore, I should like to refer to the use of the term “natural person” as it is found in clause 57. In terms of this clause they are meant to be private individuals and not plain bodies. With the consent of the Minister they are being given the right to submit a request for exemption. I believe we are all agreed as far as it concerns our approach. I am also very happy with the hon the Minister’s policy and with his attitude in relation to local authorities. I am also delighted that he consults with them. In accepting the amendment moved by this party in respect of clause 24 the hon the Minister also acted in the same positive and co-operative spirit.

Therefore I do not believe there is any need for me to repeat all the arguments raised in respect of clause 24. They hold good in this instance as well. In moving my amendment I have merely tried to make it possible for adequate consultation to take place. My amendment actually asks for a proviso to be inserted in clause 57. I hope therefore the hon the Minister will see fit to accept my amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for the attitude they have adopted in relation to this Bill, and also for their efforts to improve this legislation. I am delighted to accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Hillbrow.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, I should like to indicate to the House that we will not be voting against the third reading of this Bill because we realise that South Africa definitely needs housing facilities, even if only for our aged people. That is exactly what the effect of this Bill will be.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a sorry day that we should see housing in South Africa racialised in this manner. At this time South Africa needs to convey a message to the world that we are moving away from racial structures in our society. We have a proud history of housing in this country, and we could have made even greater progress if we had been more realistic in this respect.

I hope the hon the Minister and his Government are going to make sure that there is proper co-ordination in order to determine future housing priorities for South Africa because that is going to be critical to our national interest in the years ahead. We believe that the department and its officials will do a good job on the strength of their loyalty to South Africa, but the general interests of housing in this country could be served far better without legislation of this nature.

Mr Chairman, the consequences of the implementation of the legislation in question create great expectations in me especially because as a former member of the National Housing Commission and also as a member of the executive committee I can very clearly see the positive results of this measure. I do not wish to philosophise or guess about this. I am speaking from practical experience. The institution of the new board is creating great expectations and I think it is big news to the White community. It holds the advantage that the housing needs of other communities will also be able to be examined more intensively.

The executive committee of the National Housing Commission approved between 70 and 170 projects every fortnight. These projects are connected with the housing needs of communites of all population groups. Hon members will appreciate that it is a very difficult and comprehensive task and I think it is carried out very well by this commission. I should very much like to pay tribute to the chairman of the commission, Mr Willie Marais. I think he accomplishes his task with distinction.

This Bill holds a very great improvement for us. As a result we will ultimately be able to succeed in relating the available technical research to research on socio-economic needs. I should very much like to appeal for greater decentralisation at local level in the implementation of this legislation.

Then I should like to read more into the concept of “development”. The physical development of land the erection of housing comprise more than the mere building of houses. The crux of the matter is actually the creation of communities. As the department of Health Services and Welfare falls under the same administration, greater co-ordination in co-operation with this new board as regards the needs of communities will be possible. I should like to support this Bill with great enthusiasm.

Mr Chairman, there are only a few matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister in the discussion of this Bill. One feels that opportunities sometimes present themselves which could be put to better use, for example where houses are abandoned by mining companies and transferred to the Government. I wish to call the hon the Minister’s attention to such a case near Jagersfontein. We should use the legislation we have to make better use of the houses which we can obtain in these circumstances. I wish to mention the small town of Charlesville in particular. There are houses there which were severely damaged during the time they were vacant. I wish to request the hon the Minister to look into this matter in particular.

Mr Chairman, we consider this to be a necessary Bill, as the housing is needed. The hon the Minister, I believe, has shown sweet reasonableness in his acceptance of various amendments. As far as we are concerned, we feel that a little emphasis on White housing was overdue and therefore we are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members who participated in the Third Reading debate. I thank the hon member for Umbilo for his comments now.

The hon member for Rissik referred to Charlesville in the vicinity of Jagersfontein. Earlier this year he had a question on this in the Question Paper, to which we replied. We are attending to this matter. Where residential units are vacant, from the nature of the case we plan to use them.

I wish to thank the hon member Dr Rina Venter very heartily for her positive contribution. I should like to associate myself with her in extending good wishes to the chairman of the National Housing Commission. In fact, I also believe this measure will create the opportunity of examining specific housing needs of particular population groups more intensively. I take note with pleasure of her appeal for greater decentralisation at local level as well as her appeal on the development of communities. I should be pleased to make more detailed information in this respect available to her at a future date. I thank her for her contribution and for her interest in the activities of the department.

†I should like to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North for his supporting the third reading of the Bill. I should also like to thank all hon members who have participated in the debates on this measure which is now being approved.

*In closing I should like to express my hearty thanks to my departmental head, Mr Gerber, and the Director of Housing, Mr Karsen, who were closely concerned in the preparation of this legislation, together with other members of the department, for the work they did in this connection. We are looking forward eagerly and with great expectation to the establishment and activities of the new board.

Mr Chairman, we shall vote specifically against this clause because this is the crux of the Bill since it provides for an increase in GST to which we object.

I should like to respond briefly to a couple of things said by the hon member Mr Aronson and the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon member Mr Aronson is not present in the Committee, but if my memory serves me right this is actually the first occasion on which he has spoken during this session due to his illness. I should like to tell him that I am very happy that he is again able to participate in debates and that he has recovered from his illness. [Interjections.] This does not mean that I agree with what he said, but I think he should at least be able to say it.

The problem which arises insofar as alternative income is concerned really comes to the root of how taxes are going to be raised in order to achieve the greatest degree of equity and to serve the greatest degree of efficiency in the tax system.

With the Margo Commission report pending and the issue of value added tax now being raised again to the foreground, we hope that that concept will be examined fully. What took place yesterday was that the hon the Deputy Minister was a little naughty in his quotation from comparisons with Europe because he actually quoted increases in value added tax and not increases in GST. An increase in value added tax of larger amounts has a lesser impact than an increase in GST of the same amount. Therefore, with great respect, his comparison is not a fair one. In fact, it is an incorrect one.

What I hope will be done is that the Margo Commission will fully examine—I am sure they will—the alternative systems which are available in respect of indirect taxation.

The appeal which I make here now arises from the one danger which I fear and that is a multiplicity of taxes because a multiplicity of taxes causes one to have not only more bureaucracy to collect those taxes and an inspectorate to monitor those taxes but also to creating a greater burden on the private sector in order to make the necessary calculations and returns for which they must have the necessary staff available. With the kind of manpower shortage which exists in that field it seems to me that the smaller the number of taxes we have the better it will be from the point of view of the administration and collection of those taxes and from the point of view of trying to do away with the people who evade their tax responsibility. Here I want to touch on the question of losses incurred by the State in respect of taxation. The hon the Minister of Finance said that the IMF delegation had indicated that a loss of 10% was within acceptable limits. One must realize that a loss of 10% in South Africa on the present rate of tax actually means a loss which is equivalent to an increase of 1,2% in GST. In fact, when you do the calculation, it is slightly more. What I would like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister, is what his estimate is of what it is. Are we within the 10% limit or is it at the level alleged in the Press where it is suggested that very large amounts are lost as a result of this? The more we demonstrate how we are catching people with large amounts of money with a small staff and with relatively few spot checks, the more one gets concerned that if one really had the staff and could do the checks, the amounts involved would be very high. We would like to have some answers in this respect from the hon the Deputy Minister.

The last point I want to make concerns the figures from New Zealand quoted by the hon the Deputy Minister. I hope he does not listen to everything they do in New Zealand, because that may be a little disadvantageous to us in many respects. However, what I find fascinating, is that yesterday was apparently the day for the social democrats in the NP. Instead of talking about exemptions from sales tax, they talked about subsidizing the poor so that they will have money in order to buy things. This is a nice social democratic principle. We also had the discussion by the hon the Minister of Finance about the redistribution of income and the redistribution of wealth. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning got quite ecstatic about the concept of the redistribution of wealth and the redistribution of income. I only hope that this is not a temporary lapse merely to have a fight with the CP, but that it is actually a change of philosophy in terms of which we accept that South Africa is not a capitalist state but is a mixed economy. The sooner we accept this fact as a reality the easier it will be to solve South Africa’s economic problems.

Mr Chairman, the CP also protests strongly against the increase in GST from 10% to 12%. I have said before that, if the Government did not waste money, it would be unnecessary to increase this type of taxation.

There is a further question I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister. I have referred before to the question of the exemption of certain items from sales tax. I have been informed that investigations were conducted abroad into the matter of exemptions and that it was found they were of little avail; on the contrary, it was found that if there had been no exemptions and everything subjected to this tax, the rate would have been lower while the same income or even more would have been derived from it. I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether the department carried out investigations in this regard. Did they establish what the actual situation would be if no items were exempt from sales tax? It is true that the poor man spends more on food than his rich counterpart but it is equally true that the poor man also has other expenses. Was such an investigation carried out and, if not, will the Margo Commission go into this and report on it later?

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I gave a clear enough indication of why we believe we cannot support this clause. The hon members who have spoken immediately before me have advanced further reasons and it is basically for the same reasons that we cannot support the clause.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Sunnyside that if all items were subject to sales tax, the tariff would have been much lower. What he wanted investigated by the Margo Commission, however, is being done already and therefore we can speak about this in more detail next year.

†The hon member for Yeoville objected to VAT equivalent which he does not regard as equivalent. I was using the standard percentage. We know that that is collected at various stages. This is what is collected at the end of the day after the various stages of collection. Therefore, a comparison can quite fairly be drawn.

As far as the Margo Commission is concerned, they are looking at this matter. I agree with the hon member that a multiplicity of taxes is wrong. It is administratively difficult; it is difficult to supervise and to inspect; it is costly; it is time-consuming and it leads to iniquities of a variety of kinds. We share the hon member’s view and I think one of the things which the Margo Commission will look at will be to try to simplify the whole tax structure which has become rather distorted as it has been added to over the years. It is good that we start again de novo.

As far as the IMF is concerned, the hon member quoted the hon the Minister as having said that 10% was an acceptable limit for loss or leakage. I want to tell the hon member that we do not know. I do not have any figures to give him as to what the tax leakage is. We have an idea in the department as to what it is in the various areas where revenue is collected, but I cannot give him any specific figures at this stage. The IMF report in that regard was not very helpful if I may say so.

Do you think it is more or less than 10%?

I would rather not say because frankly I do not know, but the IMF report was not very helpful in that regard. As a matter of fact, I could say something amusing about that report in respect of this, but I think I should rather refrain from that.

The hon member said that I quoted New Zealand. Well, everything in New Zealand is not bad. What is interesting about New Zealand, of course, is that they are starting de novo. They have had the benefit of hindsight as well as the benefit of looking at our system, the Australian system, the British system and various systems in Europe. They are starting de novo. The White Paper is therefore interesting because they are constructing their new VAT—or a sort of hybrid VAT—in the light of the experience of everybody else. In that regard it is very interesting because they do not want to make the same mistake that other people have made. They say in their White Paper that no exclusions is the best system. In fact, Lord Barber made the same statement at a tax symposium in Great Britain the other day. He was one of the architects of the whole thing and yet he said that, looking back with hindsight, no exclusions was the best system.

I think we must leave it at that. The Margo Commission will have to address the subject and we can then debate the subject more fully when we meet again next year.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition, Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time

Fair copy of Bill certified and transmitted to the State president for his assent.

Business suspended at 12h45.

Report of Proceedings at Joint Sitting

Members of Parliament assembled in the Assembly Chamber at 14h15.

Order! The State President has called this Joint Sitting in order to address Parliament.

†I now afford him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Speaker, I wish to announce that when the proceedings come to an end later today, Parliament will not be prorogued but will in fact be adjourned until not later than 31 January 1986.

Mr Speaker, today is the last sitting day on which Mr J J H Victor will act as Secretary to Parliament. Upon his retirement, with effect from 1 October 1985, Mr Victor will have had 44½ years’ service in both the Public Service and Parliament. His Parliamentary service extends over 39 years, 35 of which he spent at the Table of Parliament.

During all that time he has been a competent officer, conscientious, helpful, friendly and accessible. He has at all times been at pains to uphold the dignity and the traditions of Parliament. I extend my best wishes to him, and we also want to wish his family everything of the best for the future.

Hear, hear!

Before hon members leave for their different destinations for the recess, I consider it my duty to take a stand on certain matters concerning our national life.

First of all I want to thank hon members for their contributions during the past session. In spite of differences of opinion, the Parliamentary session was successful in more than one respect and the value of discussions, especially in committees, was proved once again.

Much of this work is being continued in the recess and I want to convey my best wishes to hon members who will participate in this task. I also wish all hon members’ families everything of the best during the recess.

The democratic basis of our system of government was again broadened and in spite of natural prejudices and mistrust which may have existed and still exist, it was proved that co-operative co-existence is better than confrontation politics.

It is clear that South Africans are increasingly making a choice between the powers that want our country to end in disaster through violence and choas, and those who are searching for peace for our country with its different cultural groups and minorities through the sensible way of co-operation and co-existence.

I have personally gone out of my way to help foster a better spirit over the past months through personal interviews with leaders from all population and economic groups.

It is also my intention to continue this process during the recess and to visit different population groups and their leaders. Through the direct contact which I intend to make, I hope to improve the spirit of discussion and mutual respect between population communities. A summit conference between myself and heads of other Governments of National States as well as heads of Governments of TBVC states is planned for the second half of November. At the same time, however, I do not want to raise any false expectations. I am prepared, as far as is humanly possible, to listen to everybody and to improve discussion. In my opening address this year I envisaged further reform in an evolutionary manner. During the discussion of my Budget, I indicated ways in which discussion can be facilitated. The objective of a fair dispensation of justice and human dignity will be pursued for our country. Prosperity, progress and safety remain our objectives.

I do not believe, however, in an artificial unitary state based on one man, one vote. I do not believe in a system in which minority groups can be dominated. I do believe in participation without domination. Other leaders of South Africa and I agree that we cannot force communities into artificial units against their will, but we also do not say that communities which want to be united must be prevented to do so. I do not believe in a way in which already acquired stability and Christian civilized norms are dumped on the scrap-heap because we are threatened from all sides by Governments and organizations which do not have the welfare and interests of our people at heart, but which seek the furthering of their own selfish interests.

I do believe, however, that we must continue to establish improved structures of government through discussion, so that everybody in South Africa can participate in decision-making that concerns their own needs and interests.

I maintain that the vast majority of South Africans and citizens of the TBVC states do have structures such as these at their disposal, either in this Parliament or in the TBVC states or in the National States, and that these structures can be extended to express the aspirations of all our communities more effectively and satisfactorily.

†The moderate leaders of South Africa do not believe that the objective of self-determination for our communities and participating in matters affecting the interests of all the communities can be achieved by forcing all our people into an artificial unit to be ruled on the basis of one man, one vote. It is clear that any such attempt would be disastrous for all of us. I reject emphatically the charge that our constitutional objectives run counter to civilized conceptions of human rights, dignity and freedom irrespective of race, colour or religion. Our fundamental aim is to enable our peoples to co-operate with one another in such a way as may voluntarily be agreed between them. In other words, we stand for participation without domination.

The South African Government has no rigid ideas about the type of franchise to be enjoyed by each of our peoples and communities. It may be universal adult franchise or a qualified one or a mixture of systems. That is a matter on which the group in question may indicate its own preferences even if the result be a system of election and voting procedures which has no exact counterpart in Western democratic countries. The important thing is to meet the needs and aspirations of South Africa’s peoples. Consequently, my Government is averse to the indiscriminate transplanting of political institutions from one continent or people to another. My Government stands for an evolutionary process of adaptation and innovation based upon and tailored to our circumstances. The principle of self-determination to which the South African Government is committed leaves the way open for unlimited possibilities compatible with the choices which each population group or community may eventually wish to make.

It is not an inflexible approach but one designed to cope with changing circumstances. It indicates a direction and formulates certain basic principles which allow for evolutionary development. There is no question of forcing together peoples who do not wish to be joined, or of keeping peoples apart who wish to come together.

The real point at issue is therefore not one of objective but of method—the best practical way of ensuring political participation without destroying stability and progress in all spheres of life for all our communities.

The international community should be in no doubt with regard to South Africa’s resolve and ability to maintain itself at home, now and in the future. We can solve our problems without international meddling. They should bear in mind that little can be achieved in our part of Africa without our co-operation and involvement.

We are threatened by foreign interests and even governments, because we do not follow their prescriptions for our country. They should consider that our will to maintain our right to self-determination has been strengthened by more than three hundred years of adversity and that we have one of the relatively few self-sufficient resource bases in the world.

We are exploring ways and means to improve our own form of democratic institutions, peculiar to our specific circumstances. It is because we are achieving success on the road of reform and because a stable South Africa is in sight in which our diverse communities can co-operate with one another in all spheres of common concern, that forces antagonistic to these developments are bent on destroying the progress made.

It is a sad reflection on the Western powers that their vision is so blinded that they profess not to be aware of the forces inimical to reform and stability operating in South Africa today. Indeed the Soviet Union has succeeded in manoeuvring Western Governments into a situation where they promote Soviet aims in Southern Africa. They are even taking threatening steps against us. Are these forces and governments really interested in the well-being of our peoples? Are they really perturbed about fundamental human freedoms? How do they then explain the co-operation with one-party states, where in many cases no elections are ever held, no independent judicial systems exist and where in many cases people are dying of hunger and lack of health services?

Some of them say they find our policies abhorrent. Well, we find their double standards and opportunistic policies abhorrent.

Concern for the political rights of South Africa’s Black peoples has been used by terrorist organizations as the pretext for launching a campaign of terrorism and sabotage against South Africa. In this they are encouraged and assisted by elements of the communist world. These terrorist activities are directed indiscriminately at members of all the population groups.

Their purpose is to eliminate all leaders who do not agree with their objective of transforming this country into a totalitarian Marxist state to be ruled by a small clique. Not a single political party in this Parliament nor any of the elected responsible leaders of the Black peoples can satisfy their demands or associate with their objectives. All of us, including our various party policies, are targeted to be destroyed by them.

How does a Government deal with people having only one aim, namely anarchy and chaos? Which is preferable: the murder of innocent civilians or appropriate measures to protect our country and our citizens? How are terrorists combatted elsewhere in the world? Ignoring the incontrovertible evidence as to the actions and plans of ANC terrorists in Botswana they are portrayed as “freedom fighters” or “refugees” in emotional attacks against the alleged tyrannical rule of the South African Government. Measures which we are taking within the framework of established principles of international law to protect our population and our property are described as violations of the sovereignty of other states. In other words, Botswana has the sovereign right to harbour terrorists and South Africa is expected to sit back and allow those terrorists to cross our borders and murder and kill our citizens with impunity. My Government does not accept this warped concept of sovereignty. And if the Western countries were true to the norms and standards which they insist on and which they apply in similar circumstances, they would agree with my Government. I am referring to Central America, the Middle East, and other parts of the world. It is and remains the responsibility of each Government to ensure the security of its peoples. My Government will not abdicate this responsibility.

It is simply unacceptable to us that our neighbours pay lip service to the principle that states should not make their territories available for the launching of terrorist attacks against their neighbours, while at the same time they harbour terrorists in their countries. We shall at all times be on our guard and shall retaliate to maintain and uphold what is dear to us. No self-respecting people or country would act otherwise.

We are not a super-power, nor are we associated with any power bloc or alliances. We are however a state of the Southern Africa region with regional interests willing and ready to use our resources for the promotion of the interests of the region as a whole. I believe that there exist in our region sufficient common interests to form the basis for a realistic alliance of the states involved. We have the choice of resorting either to violence or to discussion to resolve our differences.

My Government does not make unwarranted public statements condemning or criticizing the internal economic, political, social and judicial systems in our neighbouring states. That does not mean that we agree with those systems. Is there a single member of this Parliament who can say that he or she supports those systems unequivocally? In other words, South Africa is prepared to abide by the rule that we should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs but rather concentrate on the momumental task of improving the moral and material well-being or our peoples and developing our infra-structures.

On behalf of the South African Government I once again offer to all our neighbours a hand of friendship and a readiness to come to an understanding on the basis of certain ground rules which in my opinion ought to form the guidelines for regulating and normalizing our relations. These ground rules include an unqualified prohibition on support for cross-border violence or the planning of such violence; the removal of foreign forces from the region hostile to any country of the region; the peaceful resolution of disputes; regional co-operation in meeting common challenges; and toleration of the different socio-economic and political systems within our region.

Regarding the disinvestment campaign which is currently centred on Washington, it is important to draw attention to the basic principle which is involved here. And that is that no self-respecting nation can allow any other country, large or small, to dictate to it how it should be governed. If there are elements in Washington who think that South Africa is going to be run by the United States, then it must be made quite clear that those elements are heading for a confrontation with the South African Government and people.

The message from responsible people and communities in South Africa in response to the disinvestment campaign is simply this: “Notwithstanding our differences, we stand together in the defence of our common interests which are peace, prosperity and evolutionary progress towards a better South Africa.”

*As we are gathered here, we have all taken an oath or made a solemn promise to the Republic of South Africa. By doing so, we did not sacrifice our right to freedom of conscience, but without loyalty to our father-land we cannot expect respect from others.

Here in South Africa lies our first responsibility. This country is the corner-stone of our life, progress and future. I say this without losing sight of the fact that, as part of the modern world, we also have wider responsibilities towards the rest of our subcontinent and the world. However, our main obligation is to the Republic of South Africa. Our attention and involvement are primarily directed to it. We have an obligation to our country from which not one of us can escape.

This obligation entails specific crucial choices, choices on which the future of our fatherland and all its people depends. I want to mention briefly a few of the most important of these choices.

The first choice with which each South African is confronted is whether we are going to decide on our future by ourselves or whether we are going to allow others to decide for us.

Will we allow others to prescribe the values and norms according to which we must live, and to determine the systems and structures which we must erect to let all our communities live together in peace and prosperity?

Will we allow others to determine our aspirations and limitations, what is possible and appropriate, and what is not?

My Government is determined that South Africa and its people will determine their own future by the grace of God. I believe that our recent actions adequately support this statement. Nobody will be allowed to dictate to us our future actions as long as it is humanly possible for us to prevent this. Not only will we not be dictated to—we will also not experiment with inappropriate demands and blue-prints from outsiders. South Africans will use their own sound judgement to find suitable solutions for our unique requirements and circumstances.

In my opinion, it is wrong to take our differences to the ranks of foreign organizations and encourage interference on their part. I ask all South Africans to follow and support the Government in this approach. It is the only honourable and acceptable way to our appointment with the future.

But to be able to decide for ourselves we need vision, determination and faith. Our history has shown that South Africans never lack these qualities when it is most needed. I am convinced that this will again be the case.

†The second choice before us is equally clear. Do we in South Africa want a society governed by law, or one controlled by force? Do we foresee a society in which the rights of citizens are defined and protected by law and in which citizens govern themselves in terms of structures defined by law? Is the society we have in mind characterized as far as is humanly possible by justice for all? We do not say law is in itself a source of peace and order, but we see it as a means to peace and order. Or do we choose for the alternative, namely a society in which the individual has no guaranteed rights? A society governed by fear and brutal force foisted on us by forces from outside our country?

This struggle for the soul of South Africa is evident in processes which have already begun. On the one hand we witness the process of peaceful, constitutional change led by this Government. On the other hand, we see a process of unrest, aggression and anarchy unleashed by forces with violent revolution in mind.

I believe that, for all those South Africans who desire evolutionary change and who choose a society governed by law, the Preamble to the Constitution contains ideals to which we can jointly subscribe. Although different peoples and communities share this fartherland, they can all identify with these ideals. Let this be our common point of departure in the ongoing process of reform.

Under the national goals set out in the preamble to the Constitution, all communities can be protected and can share responsibility for the government of South Africa. Under these goals a democratic solution is indeed possible, provided that the South African realities are acknowledged. That is why we regard a unitary, melting-pot system as unsuitable and unacceptable.

Our third choice concerns our responsibility to contribute towards progress in our country. Sharing in the fruits of progress and in the opportunities created in South Africa requires a contribution from each one of us.

That contribution is necessary in all walks of life, but is at present particularly necessary in the economic field.

Without everyone’s sacrifice and everyone’s sustained efforts with regard to austerity and productivity, we cannot successfully overcome the difficult economic circumstances South Africa is experiencing at the moment. In this respect I am grateful for the sacrifices already made, also by employees in the public sector. Already there are signs that our joint efforts are bearing fruit.

*The policy is proving effective, Mr Speaker. The results are most encouraging. The excess spending in the economy has been totally eliminated. South Africa is once again living within its means. The balance of payments on current account is currently showing a surplus of about R4 billion at a seasonly adjusted annual rate.

South Africa has reduced its foreign debt during the past eight months by about R5 billion. Many other countries cannot even pay the interest on existing debts today. Our country is not only paying the full interest, but is even repaying the debt itself! This has kept our overseas credit rating high, despite the disinvestment campaign.

The net gold and foreign exchange reserves have shown a substantial increase since the end of March. In April, for example, they increased by more that R900 million. The rand has maintained its value in the foreign exchange market. Interest rates are now declining for the right reasons— proof of the success of monetary and fiscal policy. The prime rate of commercial banks has been reduced three times during the past seven weeks.

On the basis of these favourable results it can be expected that the rate of inflation will begin to decline later this year and that the rate of economic growth will rise next year. The South African economy remains strong and the prospects for 1986 have improved considerably.

†Thus the choices before us today are the following: Firstly, shall we ourselves decide on our future by way of deliberation and mutual respect for one another? Secondly shall we shape our future in a democratic way, with the maintenance of the sovereignity of law and proper independent judicial institutions? Thirdly, are we willing to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve our goals? Fourthly, whilst putting South Africa’s interests first, are we willing to co-operate peacefully with others on common interests?

Our reaction to each of these choices will not only shape our future, but will also determine whether this land has a future at all. South Africa expects a positive reaction to these challenges from each of her children.

The Government regards it as its solemn duty to maintain order and stability through effective security. We shall not shirk our duty to maintain an effective Police and Defence Force. We have to do this not for the sake of the State itself, but in the interest of our people. After all, the people are the State.

The task of our security forces is not only to ensure our physical security, but their actions and vigilance also provide the climate and opportunity for socio-economic and constitutional progress and development.

I shall neglect my duty if I do not, on behalf of all South Africans, all decent-minded South Africans, extend my gratitude and appreciation to our security forces—which include the SADF, the SAP, the Railway Police as well as our Intelligence Services— for the way in which they have fulfilled their difficult task in recent years.

We shall continue to equip them with even better means to enable them to carry out their heavy responsibilities.

Sir, none of us can foretell what the future has in store for our fatherland and its different communities. We do, however, have the natural resources and we have the people. Let us now also develop the faith and the love for real freedom. Freedom is not possible without discipline. Faith is not possible without God.

Business resumed at 14h59.

Mr Speaker, on 13 June I asserted in the House that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, during an investigation he carried out into certain events in Cradock, had not been interested in the murder of a Black policeman at Cradock, and I said inter alia: “He did not even mention it in the House”.

Mr Speaker, to be fair and to put the record straight, I draw your attention to the fact that on 13 February 1985 (Hansard, col 899) the hon member did mention the murder of the Black policeman at Cradock.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

*Joachim Jan Hendrik Victor was born in Merweville in the Karoo on 3 April 1918. He is the son of a sheep-farmer. He is married to Andrée Henn from Parow—a lovely person—and they have two children. [Interjections.] She is so beautiful that somebody said the other day that he though that she was the daughter of our esteemed Secretary. [Interjections.] He received his school education at the Secondary School in Merweville up to Standard 8 and matriculated at the Paarl Boys’ High School. He obtained a BA degree at the University of Stellenbosch. At university he was secretary to the Junior Day Committee in 1938 and winner of the public speaking competition of the Uniedebatsvereniging in 1939—a speaker who has been sitting here for 40 years listening to how we speak. [Interjections.] He was secretary to the Uniedebatsvereniging of the University in 1940, secretary to the Dagbreek House Committee and also a member of the Students; Representative Council in 1940.

He started his career in the Public Service in 1941. In 1946 he became a clerical assistant in Parliament, which post he occupied until 1950. He held the third post at this Table of the House from 1950 to 1959, the second post at this Table from 1959 to 1971 and from 1971 to 1974 he was Secretary to the House of Assembly. After the amalgamation of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly in 1974, he became Secretary to Parliament, an office he has occupied up to the present day. He has served at this Table for 35 years. He is the first Secretary to the new tricameral Parliament and has a total of 39 years of Parliamentary service. He began working in this Parliament when the Leader of the Official Opposition was a small boy in Pietersburg. That was years ago—I wonder whether he had been born yet. [Interjections.] His total period of service in the Public Service and Parliament is 44½ years.

During this period he paid 15 study visits to the Parliaments of the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Denmark and Sweden. He visited the Parliament of the United Kingdom three times and those of France, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland twice.

I think that I speak not only on behalf of our House and Parliament, but on behalf of South Africa when I say that he is a son of the harsh world of the Karoo who has made his mark and who has rendered a lifetime of service to the highest council of our country. I wish him, his wife, Andrée, and their children well in his retirement.

Mr Speaker, it is my privilege to second the motion of the hon the Leader of the House on behalf of the members of my party in this House.

When I came to this House in 1974, I knew absolutely nothing about Parliament. I would not say that I know everything about Parliament now, but then I knew nothing at all. [Interjections.] One of the members of the House who is today the oldest serving member in the House told us, however, when she shared with us the privilege of all her wisdom and experience in the House, that if we should ever land in trouble, experience problems or not understand something, we would get the necessary information and assistance from Mr Victor in a courteous, obliging and thorough fashion. And that has been my experience in my relationship with Mr Victor. I personally want to thank him sincerely for the way in which he has treated me.

I must say that the words of the tribute paid by the hon the Leader of the House brought me to a great understanding of something, in that the hon the Leader of the House said that Mr Victor was also an excellent speaker. Now I can understand, when listening to how we sometimes speak in this House, why he had never himself decided to become a member of this House. [Interjections.] I must say that Mr Victor’s presence in this House during debates, and even during my own participation in debates, has always reminded me of the necessity that, no matter how difficult it might sometimes be and how strong the provocation might be, we should try above all else to maintain the dignity of this House—for the very reason that he is one of the people in this House who lend so much dignity to Parliament.

When one considers how long he has been here and how many people of different points of view, natures and personalities he has seen performing here, I think it makes one feel humble when speaking and acting in the presence of such a person in this House.

†I am always reminded, Mr Speaker, of a tightrope act when I think of the contribution and the role of someone like Mr Victor and his personnel. Everybody watches the person walking on the tightrope, but very few people actually pause to reflect that that person would not be able to walk there— even allowing for his or her undoubted skills—if somebody else had not built up the structures, looked after them, maintained them and made sure that they were safe and that people could use them with security. I have come to appreciate the massive contribution that Mr Victor and his personnel have made and are making in simply keeping the infrastructure of Parliament going so that we can use it for the purposes of pursuing our own goals as different political parties.

I am told that his interests include reading. He is apparently an avid reader, particularly of South African history. I think he will find it pleasing in his retirement to read of the South African history of which he was such an integral part himself, having sat here and watched history being made and having also observed great break-throughs and great mistakes being made.

I am told also that he and his wife are going to retire to Oranjezicht. We wish him well in his retirement, and we hope that both he and his wife will often be distinguished visitors and guests to Parliament, also to see how we conduct affairs in the way which he has helped to maintain over such a long period. I have the honour of seconding the motion of the hon Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I have great pleasure in associating myself with the motion by the hon the Leader of the House, as seconded by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Somebody said here that when a Wilgenhoffer praises a Dagbreker like this, he must be very good! [Interjections.] I should very much like to associate myself with that.

The complimentary words uttered by the hon the Leader of the House in regard to Mr Victor in his student years relate to things which I saw and experienced at a distance as a greenhorn. I just want to say that I was one of Mr Victor’s silent admirers at that time. From that hon members can also work out my own age more or less!

Mr Speaker, Mr Victor distinguished himself as a leader in those years already. What I shall always remember together with all his talents is, of course, his immaculate appearance and his impeccableness in that regard. I want to associate myself with the tributes paid to him as regards the thorough manner in which he did his work and the experience on which you and Parliament and we as members could draw. I also gladly associate myself with the words addressed to him by more persons than one regarding his courtesy and his refinement.

We gladly pay tribute to a man who has rendered a great service to this Parliament and to our country. We on this side of the House are absolutely unanimous in our tribute and thanks to him and his charming wife and in extending to them our very best wishes in the years of retirement ahead of them.

Mr Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to support the motion before us today. I should like to continue a little in the same vein as the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. I glanced at the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I think most of us have in our offices, and looked at the word that I think more than any other describes the man, Mr Joggie Victor, and that is the old English word “dignity”. The dictionary defines it as follows:

I believe that all that describes the dignity of the man who has served us so well all these years. I think it also describes in a measure the dignity that he, by his actions, has brought to the very office he occupies at present and the offices he occupied in years past.

I remember coming to this House as a visitor in the 1950s as a guest of the late Jack Lewis, who was the member for Durban North, I was sitting in one of those bays up there, and I remember the late Jack Lewis coming to me and pointing to a young gentleman at the Table and saying: “That man will go far.” I do not tell a tale when I say so. I asked what his name was and he told me. I said: Oh, Victor, pronouncing it as in “victory”, and he corrected my pronounciation. So I learnt the correct pronounciation almost as far back as 30 years ago.

The dignity that he has brought to this office, has also resulted in the correct measure of respect being accorded him and his office by hon members of this House. Mr Joggie Victor represents all the best traditions of Parliament and I have never known him to be too busy to see to the affairs or problems of any and every member in equal measure. He has never shown favour towards anyone. As far as I personally am concerned, he has been a true friend to me, a sincere and good friend.

I want to add that I agree with the hon Leader of the House as far as Andrée Victor is concerned, but I want to say that if I had a daughter who looked like her, I would carry my shortgun around with me all the time and I would certainly watch for any overtures from the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] It remains for me to wish, on behalf of the NRP, the very best things to both Joggie and Andrée Victor, and to wish them contentment, happiness and, above all, health in the years that lie ahead.

Hon members, so many fine things have been said about our able Secretary that I do not have much to add, but believe me, it is a heartfelt need of mine to add a few words too. The hon member for Umhlanga mentioned the word “dignity” or dignitas, and I just want to add to that: Integrity. I want to give you the assurance that I have come to know Mr Victor as a man of integrity, a man of principle, who has made an indelible impression on the history of this Parliament. I am not saying that his successors should follow the exact line of his footsteps—I do not expect that from anybody—but they are footsteps that have indicated a direction and it will be good to follow that direction.

I want to thank him very much indeed for two and a half years of intensive co-operation. It was a pleasure. It has always been a pleasure to work together with him and other members of the staff, but we are speaking about Mr Victor today and I want to say to him: Thank you very much indeed for what I have learned from you regarding this Parliament. My wife up there in the gallery and I wish you and Andrée only the best for the years ahead. We wish you good health so that you can be of service to the community for many years to come.

As the Secretary is not in a position to do so himself, he has asked me to thank a few people on his behalf. He expresses his sincere thanks and appreciation to the State President for his kind remarks earlier this afternoon at the joint sitting. President Botha now has the longest Parliamentary service and it was the privilege of the Secretary as the longest serving Parliamentary officer to serve Parliament together with the State President for about 37 years. It is with great respect that Mr Victor pays tribute to State President Botha as a parliamentarian, Cabinet Minister, Leader of the House of Assembly, Prime Minister and now State President.

Mr Victor also expresses his thanks to the hon the Leader of the House, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon members for Waterberg and Umhlanga for their kind words of appreciation and good wishes to him.

†It was an honour and a privilege for Mr Victor to serve Parliament in various capacities, inter alia, for 35 years at the Table and for 14 years as Secretary to the House of Assembly and later as Secretary to Parliament.

Mr Victor thanks all hon members for their friendliness and kind co-operation in facilitating the smooth functioning of Parliament. In this connection he expresses a special word of thanks to Mr Speaker, the other presiding officers, the hon the Leader of the House and the Whips.

*In conclusion the Secretary wishes his successor, Mr De Villiers, and the Parliamentary staff everything of the best for the future. He extends his best wishes to the Parliament of South Africa. As the hon the Leader of the House did, the Secretary and Andrée in their turn say to all of you as hon members: You are beautiful people.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on a point of order?

I thank the hon the Minister of Law and Order for correcting his misstatement in this House. However, I would like to point out that in repeating his statement—I do not blame him for this—he did not repeat the words which I had used on the occasion concerned. In view of the impression which his misstatement might have created I would like to seek the opportunity briefly to say what I said on that occasion. This will probably take a minute of the House’s time.

Secondly, there was a second portion to his statement to the effect that had described the scene of the policeman’s death as, I think his words were, “’n vreedsame toneel”. I would like to state that I also did not do that. May I therefore have the opportunity to speak for one minute?

Order! The hon the Minister quoted the column of Hansard but I am nevertheless prepared to allow the hon member to do so.

Thank you, Sir. On 13 February I said, and I quote (Hansard, col 899):

I thank you for the opportunity.

We are starting a new debate now. Why does the hon member not sit down?

Order!

Mr Speaker, I can in fact go further …

Order! No, there is no need to go any further.

*I may just say to the hon the Minister of Law and Order that that is also how I read this and that he quoted the column number. However, I think that on a day like this we clear up everything.

That hon member must not look for trouble now! [Interjections.]

No. Everything is in order now.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill now before us has been a hardy annual since 1943. Until last year it was, without exception, called the Pension Laws Amendment Bill. This year, however, it is being called the Pension and Related Matters Amendment Bill.

The related matters to which the title of the Bill refers are the deductions in the salaries of members of Parliament and political office-bearers referred to in clause 5. I need not say very much about the proposed 3% reduction because it is taking place with the concurrence of all the parties in the three Houses of Parliament, and was announced by the State President on 4 March 1985. In order to disrupt salary offices as little as possible, the Bill leaves the date on which the reduction is to come into operation to the discretion of the State President. This will ensure that a date can be fixed after consultation with those who are responsible for the payment of the salaries of the persons concerned.

Similarly I need not say much about the increases in the benefits and payments in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973. These increases were announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech and were agreed to when the “Health and Welfare” Vote came up for discussion in the Houses of Parliament.

The object of clause 3 is obvious. In my opinion it is only reasonable and fair to compensate persons such as Ambassadors, Commissioners-General, etc, who are appointed from the ranks of the older and leading members of the community, if they are discharged prematurely through no fault of their own.

As may be inferred from the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, the remaining clauses are in essence textual improvements to the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973 and the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1984.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, there are three aspects to the Bill before us. The first relates to persons who are not members of Parliament, who are appointed for a five-year term, who do not serve that term and are then deemed to have five years’ pensionable service to their credit. The second one relates to the 3% cut in salary affecting members of this House and others as well. The third one relates to occupational diseases in mines.

May I say at the outset that I want to express the sincere regret of members on this side of the House that this Bill was not referred to a standing committee. I think it is a great pity, because this Bill contains one important provision, namely an increase to the mine workers who are able to claim compensation. That clause has a lot of flaws in it and needs a lot of amendment; We cannot move amendments at the Second Reading stage and there is no Committee Stage. The three items that I mentioned are totally unrelated to each other. Let me dispose of each one in turn, if I may.

The first aspect refers to clause 3, which specifies that an office-bearer who has been appointed for five years and whose post has been phased out for some reason, or whose service has been terminated by the State President, shall be deemed to have five years’ pensionable service. In the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he referred to those people falling within this category who may be affected such as ambassadors and commissioners-general. I think this needs a bit of studying because if a person in that particular post has served for only a few months, or in fact for only a day, in terms of this deeming clause he will be entitled to five years’ pensionable service. I do not think that it is the intention of the State to give such a golden handshake in those circumstances. There may be occasions when a man has served for a minimum period of, say, three years. I do not think that anyone could quarrel if he should then claim the balance of two years. Do, although one has accepted the broad principle of a deeming clause in respect of pensions for members of Parliament and it is therefore hard to oppose the principle here, I think there should be some form of limitation to a deeming clause of that nature. I am sure that, had it been referred to the standing committee, they could have come up with an amendment and made a minimum qualification which I think this clause should actually contain.

The second aspect I want to refer to—not necessarily in order of the clauses—is in connection with clause 6, the one which lays down provisions for the paying of compensation to people suffering from occupational diseases in mines and works. The hon the Minister has passed over this problem very simply by saying that it was referred to in the Budget and was approved in the Health and Welfare Vote and so no more need be said about it. I do not know whether we can really allow the hon the Minister to get away with the simplicity of that statement. I should like to ask the hon the Minister if he is aware whether the Chamber of Mines, who obviously are particularly concerned about the mine workers, were consulted about the proposed amendment, whether the chamber of Mines approved of the amendment, and whether the Chamber of Mines had any recommendations to make with regard to the proposal, which apparently was published earlier in the year. I do not know whether the hon the Minister is able to answer me at this stage.

I will reply to you in the normal way.

That is all right I just thought he would be able to give me some indication, because what I would like to do is to draw his attention to the misgivings that the Chamber of Mines has over this Bill.

Which arrived yesterday.

Our difficulty is that we are asked to approve of an increase which is contained in subsection (3) of clause 6, which states:

On the face of it, it sounds very nice. It sounds as if, although the percentages are differential, the Blacks are going to get more than the Coloureds and Indians, and the Coloureds and Indians more than the Whites. However, on analysis of these provisions, and in terms of the document presented by the Chamber of Mines, of which the hon member for Durban Point is apparently also aware, it has been pointed out by them—and it is my duty to point this out to the House—that those increases in fact mean that the gaps have increased even more. They go so far as to say that the increases have a highly undesirable effect and that the gap between the benefits payable to Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks has increased substantially yet again. In the case of certification in the first degree Whites will receive an additional R2 237, Coloureds and Indians an additional R1 789 and Blacks, for whom there is no distinction between certification in the first or second degree, only an additional R411. The gap has thus in fact increased although, as mentioned in clause 6(3), the percentage increases for non-Whites are greater.

Another real difficulty which the standing committee could have dealt with and which has been pointed out, is that the increases which are proposed in this Bill are in fact based on race and not on salary. As the Chamber of Mines suggested, what is probably required in this regard is a revision of the entire aspect of the Act relating to this. This would cure the initial defect, which relates to the fact that a lump sum benefit, payable on certification in the first degree and in respect of treating tuberculosis, should not be increased at all. The reason for this is that in that case as regards Blacks—unlike Whites, Coloureds and Indians—no distinction was made certification between the in second and third degree. In the case of Blacks benefits should be increased in respect of all compensatable diseases other than treatable tuberculosis. Those are the defects to which I feel I must draw the hon the Minister’s attention. A different approach is possibly required in regard to this whole matter.

We have been placed in the difficult position today of having to decide whether to oppose this measure or to agree to it. This measure is a very important one. It has come before the House at a late stage of the session and, as I have mentioned, it has not gone to the standing committee. We do not have a Committee Stage and thus have to deal with legislation on this basis. Quite frankly, the only reason why we are compelled to approve of the Bill at this stage is that it makes provision for an increase. Had there not been an increase, I assure this House that we would have opposed this Bill bitterly.

If there had not been an increase, there would not have been that Clause.

Yes, that is exactly what our problem with this Bill is.

The third aspect of this Bill which I should like to discuss relates to the 3% decrease to which members of Parliament agreed. I think the announcement of this decrease was made by the Minister on 4 March 1985. Clause 5 in the Bill before us provides as follows:

1. (a) the salary of the State President or of a member of Parliament or of a Minister or Deputy Minister …

It then goes on to the 3% to which I have referred. I assume—correct me if I am wrong—that this is post-de facto, it relates to what was done in March and this measure is being passed to give legality to the decision that this 3% would be deducted from that date.

However, there are several aspects which I should like to mention in regard to this decrease of 3%. Firstly, I should like to ask the hon the Minister or a member of the Cabinet to tell me whether this 3% reduction was a meaningful or a meaningless gesture. I am not sure, but one’s general impression, judging from the state of the economy, is that this was in fact a meaningless gesture. However, the other salary earners found it difficult to swallow this 3% decrease. I am referring particularly to the teachers and nurses. I doubt whether this decrease had the desired effect, because it came at a time when the cost of living is high, things are expensive and these people’s salaries have not been improved.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consult with his hon colleagues in order to restore this 3% to those people—at least to the nurses, teachers and other officials who are not getting the benefit of automatic increases by way of the Patterson method or any other kind of grading.

[Inaudible.]

Well, they still require that.

Then, Sir, the effect of this amending measure will be that, having deducted the said 3%, the pensionable allowance paid to members will not be affected. I do not believe it was ever intended that the pensionable allowance paid to members would be affected at all. That being the case, however, we find it repugnant that we should act as judge and prosecutor in our own court. We have always maintained that members of Parliament should not be put into a position in which they themselves have to decide on the improvement of their own conditions of service. Therefore we state emphatically that we welcome the adoption by the Government of a suggestion made by hon members of this party that in future all pensionable allowances and renumeration Payable to members of Parliament should be taken out of the hands of this Parliament—which is now being done—and placed in the hands of the Schlebusch Commission.

We also welcome the news that the Schlebusch Commission has engaged the services of consultants—experts who have examined the position of members of Parliament in other parts of the world—and that it will itself decide what recommendations it will make. We are therefore quite happy to leave that matter in the apt hands of the commission.

We also find now, Sir, that although there are various defects in this particular measure—defects we would have liked to see obviated—we nevertheless agree—not without considerable reluctance, however—to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I merely want to mention one other point which I have omitted in respect of the increase itself. I believe the Government recently accepted the principle of an increase of R14 a month in the pensions payable to people of all races. There was no distinction made on the grounds of race or colour. I only regret the fact that the same principle was not adhered to in relation to the increase in this case so that the existing gap could have been closed here as well.

Mr Chairman, you will allow me to respond just briefly to what the hon member for Hillbrow has just said here. I should like to put it to the hon member for Hillbrow that I find it very strange that he is adopting that particular attitude here today, while an hon member of his party who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare—some one who is present in the House here today—is not addressing the House in this regard, the hon member for Hillbrow raised a whole series of matters here this afternoon. He also referred to the joint standing committee and asked why this measure was not referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.

A meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Welfare was in fact held, at which we discussed this particular matter informally. An explanation was given why this measure had not been referred to the relevant committee at an earlier stage. Then the question was put in the committee— although the discussion was informal—as to what the view of every member present on that committee was. Although it was unofficial, there was a unanimous decision that, as people would be detrimentally affected if the measure was not passed at this stage, it was accepted that it should be done now.

I also want to make a further statement. The hon member for Hillbrow mentioned a document that was circulated among members of the standing committee by the Chamber of Mines. I want to point out to the hon member for Hillbrow that the meeting of the committee took place on 17 June, while the document to which he referred— that of the Chamber of Mines—and from which he quoted, was only received a day later by the Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. That was yesterday—18 June. I have taken note of the point of view. I have also taken note of the point of view of the Chamber of Mines. In the case of Blacks, as the hon member rightly stated, no differentiation is made in respect of the financial implications involved, between persons certified as first degree and as second degree. I should like to say to the hon member for Hillbrow that I, as a member of that standing committee, believe that it is important that we should look into this matter. I have an open mind on this matter. I have appreciation for the point of view of the Chamber of Mines and the committee will pay attention to this.

As I see it, there is only one new principle contained in the measure before the house. The other amendments are of a consequential nature. The new principle is contained in clause 3, which provides that an office-bearer, for example an ambassador or a commissioner-general, who has been appointed for a term of office of at least five years and whose tenure of office has to be prematurely terminated through no fault of his own, may be compensated by means of pension. I do not find anything wrong with that at all.

I should like to say to the hon Minister this afternoon that I as a member of Parliament have only the highest appreciation for the manner in which the Cabinet and the department dealt with the pensions of members of Parliament and political office-bearers in the past year. It is important that we take note of the fact that the families of political office-bearers make great sacrifices. One therefor wants to ensure that if a member of Parliament or a political office-bearer should pass away, his next of kin will be able to maintain the standard of living to which they are accustomed. I gladly support the measure before the House.

Mr Chairman, I am very glad to hear from the hon member for Witbank this afternoon that there was in fact a meeting of the standing committee on Monday morning. I think we should place it on record here that, if we receive notice on a Friday afternoon of a standing committee meeting for the Monday morning, we cannot be expected to attend it. I think it is an absolutely ridiculous situation. I am surprised that there were enough members present to hold the meeting. [Interjections.]

The amending Bill before us deals with a number of matters and mainly contains consequential amendments which …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I should like to refer you to the remarks just made by the hon member for Paarl, namely that the hon member for Pietersburg had to recover after the weekend and therefore could not attend the meeting.

Order! Did the hon member for Paarl say that?

Sir, I only asked a question, but if it was interpreted wrongly, I gladly withdraw it. [Interjections.]

You are a filthy (smerige) … [Interjections.]

Sir, the amendments before us, I said, are mainly consequently amendments …

Order! The hon member for Rissik has made an interjection which contained the word “smerige”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Sir, I shall start from the beginning again. The amending Bill before us contains consequential amendments with regard to matters that have already been announced and mistakes that were inadvertently made in previous legislation and are now being rectified.

Clauses 1, 4 and 6 relate mainly to the Occaptional Diseases in Mines and Works Act and rectify certain matters which were accidentally omitted. Clause 4 realtes to the fact that the compensation for a compensatable disease in the second degree was increased by 10% last year. Lump sum benefits in respect of such diseases in the first degree, however, were not increased at that stage, which was a mistake. It was omitted by mistake.

I should like to enquire from the hon the Minister whether that increase which should have taken place then is being put right and whether such a person is now again being brought into line completely with the other beneficiaries.

Clause 6 enacts the Minister’s announcement that persons who are in receipt of benefits will as from 1 October 1985 receive an increase of 12,5% in the case of Whites, 20% in the case of Coloureds and Indians and 25% in the case of Blacks. I want to point out that there was an increase of 10% last year, which was quite a few percentage points less than the inflation rate at the time. The increase in the case of Whites is 12,5% this year, and if we consider that the current rate of inflation is between 16% and 17%, it is indeed the case that these beneficiaries are falling behind as time goes on. I think the hon the Minister should definitely take this into consideration in the future.

Although the principles contained in the legislation relating to occupational diseases in mines and works are certainly not under discussion now, I think that we should definitely take a look at the provisions of that legislation in future, because in my opinion there are many people in or near the industries concerned, such as members of families, who are in the same circumstances and in fact contract those diseases but are not compensated in terms of the legislation. I am just pointing this out on this occasion, so that the relevant provisions may again be examined in the future.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, I want to point out to the hon member for Hillbrow that it only affects the State President, the former State President and Vice State President, and members of the former President’s Council, as well as members of Parliament, members of the provincial councils and the President’s Council, ambassadors, administrators, commissioners-general and administrators-general, and nobody else. What is involved here, is a reduction of 3% in their remuneration, which will be announced. In the case of members of Parliament I have calculated that it will amount to a reduction of approximately R810 per year in our salaries. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is perhaps any specific purpose to which this R810 which each member of Parliament has to contribute to the Treasury will be applied, or whether it will simply be paid into the Treasury.

Since this Bill contains an improvement in the benefits of other people and since we cannot ask for an improvement in our own benefits and our own remuneration is in fact being reduced here, we have no option but to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, firstly, I want to put the record straight as regards the point raised by the hon member for Pietersburg, as the chairman of the standing committee and the chairman of the select committee of this House, which forms part of the standing committee, are not present. The chairman of the standing committee is in any case not a member of this House. The chair man of the select committee is absent owing to illness.

I think it is essential to put the record straight. The notice of a meeting to which the hon member for Pietersburg referred, was not really a notice of a meeting. It was sent out to the members of the standing committee for an informal discussion. The agenda also indicated that it would be an informal discussion. Secondly, I say—this is also meant for the information of the hon member for Hillbrow—that we as a standing committee were not allowed to work on the Bill.

†Three days must elapse after a Bill has been tabled before it can be dealt with by a standing committee. That was not possible in the circumstances, because we would have had to have a meeting yesterday and would have had to introduce the Second Reading today, while both the parties who have objected have said that they are going to vote for the Bill because it simply places on the Statute Book decisions which have already been taken and announced.

I want to take exception to what the hon member for Hillbrow said. What is wrong with that party that their spokesman on pensions did not speak on this measure? They have two members on the standing committee. The reason for it is that they were party to the informal agreement that this matter should go direct to each House.

That is not the reason.

They were party to an informal agreement… [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot have the hon member for Durban Point being shouted down. The hon member may continue.

They will not silence me, Sir, but thank you for your protection. They cannot run away from the facts and the facts are their representatives who got together with us on an informal basis on Monday morning were both agreed, as we all were, that there was no need to follow this whole procedure in respect of legislation which merely confirms the factual position. The hon member for Edenvale, who has just come in, will agree with me that unofficially…

He was not there.

Yes, that is true. The hon member for Parktown represented that party. [Interjections.]

Order! I call on the hon member for Groote Schuur to moderate his voice.

In order that the hon member for Hillbrow could posture here and make a bit of propaganda, he became their spokesman on pensions.

As the hon member himself said, the only objection came after Monday, yesterday in fact, from the Chamber of Mines. The only other relevant objection relates to the insertion of a new clause. This contains a new principle dealing with the situation of somebody who is appointed by the State President for five years, excluding members of Parliament, and who is removed from that position through no fault of his own before the termination of the five years. Such a person will get credit for the full period. That seems reasonable and we would support something like that.

The reduction in the salary of members of Parliament is almost exactly the same as in the Public Service, in respect of which it is one third of the thirteenth cheque. We do not get a thirteenth cheque, so the reduction is worked out at about 3% of our salary. This reduction does not affect our pension, the same as the reduction in respect of Public Servants. This brings us into line with the rest. However, we now get a big harangue from the hon member for Hillbrow here that we must not be our own judges. This position is exactly in line with what happened to public servants and we all accepted it and agreed to it. The PFP agreed to it, the CP agreed to it, the NRP agreed to it and I assume the NP had no option but to agree to it. All four parties accepted it. The degree of enthusiasm with which it was accepted is another matter and I will not belabour that point. Now, however, the hon member says that we are judges in our own cause. I agree that I would like to see our salaries taken right out of our own hands. That would be a far better position. However, here we have this posturing about something which that party agreed to and their complaints about not having a meeting, which their own representative agreed to informally

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he agrees or disagrees that it is the obligation of a right-thinking member of Parliament to draw the points made by the Chamber of Mines to the attention of Parliament.

The memorandum was addressed to the standing committee. There is nothing to stop a member of Parliament from raising it but it can make no difference to the decision of the House unless one is going to say that the increases announced by the Minister in the Budget will not be paid until next year.

This measure is not coming to the House—am I not right?—from the standing committee, and therefore we will deal with all the stages here. So there will be a committee Stage. There is a Committee Stage— as I understand it—if a Bill comes to this House without having gone to a standing committee. Whether that is so or not, however, this House could not in practice amend this Bill. [Interjection.] No, the hon member is correct; it is not an own affair.

You are talking nonsense again.

It is not an own affair. I was querying the fact. However, in practice we cannot change this Bill. So why come and posture here and try to score political points about something which cannot be changed?

The hon member spoke about the increase. If there is no Bill, however, there will be no increase. So we have to pass this Bill in order to place on the Statute Book the increases that must be effected to correct an omission which happened previously and which has to be corrected and in order to regularize the reduction in salaries. I was not even going to speak on this measure at all, but I cannot stand listening to the exploitation of the parliamentary situation for a little propaganda. We shall vote for the Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should just like to thank the four members who participated in the debate, the hon member for Hillbrow, the hon member for Witbank, the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Durban Point, for their participation. I think the hon member for Durban Point mentioned a number of very interesting things at the end of his speech which I should like to put to the hon member for Hillbrow.

It was clear to me that owing to the fact that he had to participate in the debate at short notice—which he mentioned specifically—he was not fully au fait with the contents of the legislation. One of the points he mentioned was that I should do my best to ensure that the teachers and nurses be given back 3% of their salaries, while we have not taken away 3% from them, but a third of their thirteenth check.

I accept full responsibility for the fact that the measure was not referred to the standing committee and I shall tell the House why. This is unfortunately a sort of omnibus Bill, because the three aspects have nothing to do with one another. They are the result of announcements by the Minister of Finance as well as a number of things which are picked up along the way at the end of the session. More over, this is a new dispensation and at the end of the session the work suddenly streamed in tremendously. I personally decided that this legislation was to be referred to the standing committee in the recess so that they could mull over it and my successor, Dr Van Niekerk, could introduce it next year. This decision elicited a reply from the department after two or three days to the effect that it was virtually impossible to do it in that way for the specific reason that the people affected by the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act would not be able to get that increase in the next twelve months. They would not be paid out either even if the Act were made retrospective.

There are also further complications. If a member of Parliament were, for instance, to die in the meantime, his pension and gratuity would be calculated according to the reduced salary which he now receives. It would be a lot of trouble to have to make it restrospective next year, which would be the first opportunity for us to introduce it. I took the matter to the Cabinet and also pleaded with the State president to allow the Bill to go through. I again spoke to the department and the officials and they said that it would be best to get an informal standing committee together—as the hon member for Witbank explained very clearly—to explain the situation to them. The hon member for Parktown was present there, and the other parties were all represented. They discussed the matter sensibly. They kindly said that they felt that it need not be referred to a standing committee. As the hon member for Durban Point explained, if the Bill had had to go to the standing committee it could only have come before us on Monday, and by that time all of us will have left for home.

We therefore actually tried to find a quick solution, but we did it with the co-operation of the parties. The same has happened with the 3% which was deducted with the cooperation with all the parties. The Chief Whip was there then and he was one of those who were consulted together with his caucus. After consultation all the parties agreed that 3% should be deducted. [Interjections.] Now that hon member comes here and tries to use it for political gain.

The hon member wants us to look at the nurses and the teachers now. The hon the Chief Whip should not come with petty politics now.

What are you trying to say?

The hon member should just keep quiet. I did not interrupt him. He has a habit of trying to disconcert one when one is speaking, but I will not allow him to do that to me. I will shout him down too if the Chairman does not contain him. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not prepared to answer questions. I have already explained why we are proceeding so hurriedly with the legislation.

The hon member for Witbank also made this point. There was only one clause which the standing committee could have amended in any way. The standing committee could have done nothing to the other clauses, unless they did not all want to pay out those people in receipt of pensions for occupational diseases in mines and works—and I do not believe they would have been so unscrupulous about that.

The hon the Minister of Finance has after all announced what the increases will be. Those increases merely have to be defined in an Act. At the same time we have corrected a mistake which crept in last year. The mistake was that when the increase was announced last year, Whites were left out. The non-Whites did receive it. We therefore merely had to legalize it.

In reply to the hon member for Pietersburg I want to refer him to clause 7, where he will see that the dates of commencement are set in such a way that these people will be accommodated. I concede that they would eventually have received their back payments, but surely we could not have let them wait another year for a back payment. This would after all have meant that they would have had to go for two years without the payment of an additional amount.

The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act is an Act which the Department of Health and Welfare inherited from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs a short while ago. The Act is ten years old. It may contain a few provisions which can be changed, and the department is now giving attention to that.

†The hon member for Hillbrow made representations in respect of the note sent by the Chamber of Mines. Obviously we are looking at the whole Act. It is one we have just inherited from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. It will be looked at very carefully during the recess and, if alterations have to be made, these will be placed before the standing committee at a very early stage. The whole Act, however, will be rewritten, because it contains a number of anomalies that have arisen as a result of amendments and so on.

Thank you.

Very good.

It is not the ordinary sort of Pensions Act one would get from the pensions department because many additions have been made to it.

Very good.

Yes, but the hon member does not give me any time to tell him that.

†A very important point in clause 3 which the hon member for Hillbrow overlooked, relates to the person who can get added time for pension purposes. Even in the case of the person who is laid off through no fault of his own—for example, an ambassador may have had trouble with the country to which he is ambassador and have been recalled by his own country—the provision is clear, namely” … if the State President so approves”. The State President will not give somebody an additional five years’ pensionable service if that person has only been serving in the particular capacity for two or three months. However, if the person has been serving in that capacity for two, three or even four years and is not entitled to a pension, the State President must surely take a different view. In other words, the State President must take a different view of a man who has been fired or has been incompetent than he would of a man who has been doing his best but has suddenly encountered a particular problem. The important provision there is: “If the State President so approves.” I have dealt with most of the other points the hon member mentioned, but I think what he said about us having to sit as judges or alternatively as people on trial, is important.

*It does not matter what the Schlebusch Commission’s findings on salaries are, this Parliament will still have to pay those salaries and pensions in one way or another. Where will we get our pension otherwise? Surely we cannot go to the Kremlin or the House of Lords. We must get it here. There is only one Parliament in the country that can do it. No legislation can be passed in a different way, and irrespective of what we decide this Parliament will have to determine the mechanism. Legislation for pensions will still have to be passed in this House from time to time. If there has not been a problem with the Increase of pensions to people suffering from occupational diseases, it would not have appeared here, because this actually deals with that increase.

The hon member for Witbank gave a very sound exposition of the matter and I thank him for the explanation he gave about the informal meeting of the committee. I think that clarified the whole issue. It also gave the hon member for Durban Point the opportunity to put the record straight as to what had actually happened.

I think the question of the Chamber of Mines has also been dealt with. The hon member for Pietersburg will now be satisfied with the fact that it was such a short notice, otherwise we would not have been able to pass this legislation. There is nothing sinister in the whole affair.

†I think that covers the whole field. I dealt with members as I went along, but it is interesting to note than the hon member for Pietersburg said …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? I am sorry I did not raise it earlier; I meant to. In clause 5(1)(a), where the State President is given the right to make a reduction in salary, it says the following:

This seems to suggest that a single member of Parliament can have his salary reduced. I am sure that is not intended, but if it said “members of Parliament” I could understand it. Is there any reason why it should say “a member of Parliament”?

I cannot find that immediately, but I am sure it is …

It is on page 4, line 45.

I do not see anything wrong with that; it just says:

Is that what he is referring to?

No, it says:

I think it is just legal jargon. There are lots of legal people in the House, but I am only a doctor and I find it difficult to read acts at all times. However, according to the note I just got, these things have to be written in the singular, and the singular also refers to the plural.

The law of interpretation.

I got such a fright now when I got the advice from the hon member for Houghton, because when I looked up and saw her red hat I thought it was Little Red Riding Hood. [Interjections.] I want to thank the hon members who participated. I think we now tried to solve in a sensible way the things about which there was still some uncertainty.

Mr Speaker, I move, on behalf of the Minister of Justice:

Rules of court for the provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa are at present being made in terms of section 43(2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959 (Act 59 of 1959). The rules of magistrate’s courts are, on the other hand, made in terms of section 25 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944 (Act 32 of 1944). The Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts inter alia instituted an investigation into the delays in the disposal of civil matters and arrived at the conclusion that the existing rules of court were one of the reasons which gave rise to delays. After considering the matter the commission recommended that a single permanent rules board be established for both the Supreme Court, excluding the Appellate Division, and the lower courts, which would meet regularly to review the proceedings in the said courts in order to create a uniform and simplified procedure. The Bill now before Parliament gives effect to this recommendation.

Great things are expected of the board since it is foreseen that such a board will probably have a considerable effect on the question of litigation costs and will be conducive to the efficient, expeditious and uniform administration of justice.

†In constituting the board, and for the sake of the proper functioning thereof, the Hoexter Commission, among other things, took account of the fact that the board should not be too cumbersome. On the other hand, the proper functioning of such a board calls for the co-operation of experts in all fields of the administration of justice. From the motivation of the commission for the composition of the board, it is clear that the board should not be representative of vested interests but should bring together expertise from all spheres of the administration of justice.

In order to give proper effect to the aims of the Rules Board, the board has the benefit, in terms of clause 4 of the Bill, of the membership not only of judicial officers and practitioners in both the Supreme Court and the lower courts but also of a legal academic. In order to take the aim of expertise to its fullest consequence, provision is also made for the appointment of a further three persons who have the required expertise. In addition, clause 9 makes provision for a secretariate as an administrative and research component which will consist of officers of the Department of Justice. In order to ensure administrative proficiency and liaison between the board and the secretariate, the Hoexter Commission recommended that the membership of a senior officer of the Department of Justice is essential.

Clause 5 also provides for the establishement of committees of the board and for the possible appointment of ad hoc members on such committees. A principle underlying the committee procedure is, among other things, to enable the board to assign particular tasks to such committees and to comply with the audi alteram partem rule where professional and other group interests are in issue.

The powers conferred on the board by clause 6 amount to a consolidation of the powers presently conferred on the Chief Justice in terms of section 43(2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, and on the Rules Board for Magistrates’ Courts in terms of section 25 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944. The establishement of the Rules Board therefore makes possible the repeal in clauses 10 and 11 of these provisions.

In addition to the power conferred on the board to make recommendations for adjustments in the monetary jurisdiction limits of lower courts, the Minister of Justice may also in terms of clause 6(6) obtain advice from the board regarding other matters affecting the administration of justice. Although this wider power was not recommended by the Hoexter Commission, a matter such as this will, generally speaking, be in accordance with the principle of the commission’s finding that the authorities in their involvement with the administration of justice ought to have the benefit of the advice of competent persons who are directly involved with the administration of justice. This provision will also enable the Minister to be advised by the Rules Board for Courts of Law on those matters which the Council of Justice would have advised him on in terms of the Hoexter Commission’s recommendations.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is to be complimented on the serious attention he has paid to the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission in the past year.

This is the last piece of legislation to come before Parliament this year which emanates from the recommendations of that commission.

As is stated in the Bill itself and as has been explained by the hon the Minister, this legislation creates a situation in which a board can be constituted to review, on a regular basis, the rules of the various courts. It can also make recommendations to the Minister with regard to various specified matters relating to the administration of justice.

The establishment of this board is to be welcomed. If we look at clause 3 of the Bill, it can be seen that the board will be composed of people of standing within the profession, such as judges, magistrates, advocates, attorneys, university lecturers and various other persons who are skilled in the law. All these appointments are to be made by the hon the Minister.

In this regard there is one question I would like to ask the hon the Minister. I have not personally received a Bill as amended by the standing committee—something must have gone wrong—and I just wish to be assured that the one or two amendments that were decided upon in the standing committee are to be incorporated in the Bill.

As I have said, the hon the Minister appoints all these people and I trust and have confidence that these appointments will be made in an even-handed manner so that they will reflect a broad spectrum of legal opinion and of expertise within the law.

Finally, in welcoming this legislation, I would like to say that I hope this Rules Board is set up reasonably quickly and that it does good work in the very near future, particularly in the improvement and streamlining of the rules so as to ensure that legal matters are heard more expeditiously. I also hope that it will do good work in the very important field of trying to reduce the cost of litigation and the cost of appearing in court. I believe this Rules Board will make a contribution to the administration of justice and we accordingly support the passage of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill under consideration is a model of irreproachable origin, thorough preparation, objective and penetrating contemplation, convincing motivation and total accord. This measure is, as the hon member for Sandton has just said, a consequence of and in accordance with a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts, the so-called Hoexter Commission.

Subsequently, thorough preparation was done by officials of the Department of Justice, in the closest collaboration with the Bar Council and the Association of Law Societies, which agree with the measure and its provisions.

Furthermore the measure was considered objectively and thoroughly by members of the Standing Committee on Justice. I emphasize that members of the standing committee did not approach this measure merely on a party basis, but that they put their points of view on the provisions of the measure individually and freely. As chairman of the standing committee I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the members of the standing committee for the contribution they made in regard to this measure, as well as for their co-operation on other measures that received the attention of the standing committee during this session.

At the request of the standing committee, the hon the Minister motivated and explained a few provisions of the measure about which members of the standing committee had misgivings. He did so to the complete satisfaction of all the members of the standing committee. Eventually, there was complete agreement in the standing committee on the measure and its provisions.

I therefore have pleasure in supporting the measure on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, since all of us on all sides of this House apparently support this legislation, I think it would be dangerous if those of us with a legal background should now begin advancing too many reasons why we support the Bill, because we would be running the risk of eventually beginning to advance different reasons and in that process starting a debate in due course. As I know lawyers, such a debate can sometimes last quite some time. Our side of the House believes that this is good and necessary legislation in the interest of the administration of justice in South Africa. Hence we support it gladly.

Mr Chairman, I claim a certain amount of licence because the three hon members, who preceded me, being legal practitioners, were no doubt very happy to allow this opportunity to pass.

The matter we are discussing has two legs to it. The one, of course, is the fact that, after Union, the position was that the rules which applied in the former colonial superior courts remained in force in spite of the passing of the South Africa Act. One see that that is so, according to J D Thomas, who summed up the situation as follows in the 1960 Acta Juridica:

The Justice Van Winsen Commission advanced the situation further, and more recently the Galgut Commission also reported upon the rules of court in South Africa. On page 245 of the Van Winsen report in regard to the creation of a permanent rules board there is a very pungent paragraph reading as follows:

That is an interesting statement, because right at the commencement of this chapter on page 238 of the Fifth and Final Report Part A, of the Hoexter Commission the heading of paragraph 2.2.2.2 is: “Conduct of legal practitioners”. At the bottom of this page, in paragraph 2.2.2.2.2, it says:

I wondered just what these fellows in the legal profession were on about, so I turned back to page 170, where I found something very interesting. The second leg of the requirement for the Rules Board appears there, with some very clear observances about a practice somewhat similar to parliamentary filibustering. I think what we are debating here is a Standing Committee for Rules and Orders for the Administration of Justice, because when one reads paragraph 6.3.4.3 from the hon Justice Hoexter’s report, one finds the following:

Subparagraph (c) reads:

In paragraph 6.3.4.5. on page 171 the following is said:

I also want to quote from paragraph 6.3.4.6. as follows:

It goes on with some very interesting points, which include references to “rambling, pointless and repetitious cross-examination”. Having spoken about legal aid during the de bates on justice and other legislation, I want to refer to the very interesting subparagraph under the heading “Abuse of legal aid”, which reads:

Lastly, I want to quote from paragraph 6.3.6.2., which contains the very illuminating testimony of a Cape judge. He says:

I would suggest that the Rules Board for Courts of Law, which has had a long build-up through various commissions, has a second leg apart from the ongoing updating of procedure: and that is to prevent the filibustering of the legal profession which increases costs in court.

We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for supporting this Bill. Firstly, I want to say that the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Mossel Bay, with the committee, dealt not only with this Bill but also with others, and did their work very thoroughly. The mere fact that this Bill was one of the first to be introduced but one of the last to be subsequently resubmitted to the House, indicates that the standing committee really studied and considered it thoroughly. I presume there were also continuous efforts to reach consensus and that centrifugal forces were active. [Interjections.]

Where did you get that phrase from?

I got it from my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that it eventually led to this Bill being accepted.

†I want to give the hon member for Sandton the assurance that the new Bill which has reached me indeed incorporates two amendments, namely those on page 4 to paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 3(1), to the effect that two practising advocates and two practising attorneys will be appointed after consultation with their respective representative bodies. I hope that that will now ease the fears of the hon member for Sandton and pacify him into complete submission in respect of the work which the Department of Justic has been rendering to the benefit of the legal profession.

*Allow me to pause for a moment at another point. I want to point out that this Rules Board does not intend to serve any particular group interests. This body intends to serve the administration of justice, to try to bring about prompt and efficient adjudication and in that process also to promote uniformity. It will also be an advisory body that can either on request of the Minister or of its own accord furnish advice. The fact remains, however, that this body does not represent a specific profession. It represents the administration of justice. Accordingly the members of this body are not appointed with a view to serving particular interests. This I want to place beyond all doubt, and I hope everybody will take note of it.

Regarding the hon member for Sandton I want to say in conclusion that he did surprise us when he praised the Ministry for the attention we paid to the report of the Hoexter Commission. He does sometimes surprise us in his clear-thinking moments. At one stage today, while he was speaking, I even thought of dedicating a certain quotation to him. Subsequently, however, I decided rather not to do so. The quotation I have in mind is such a gem that I nevertheless want to proffer it to hon members here:

The fact remains that the hon member for Sandton gave us the necessary support in this case. We sincerely appreciate it.

The hon member for Barberton is right. We did not need to look too far for a reason for our concurrence and agreement with regard to the measure under discussion. It might just happen that it is reported that a heated debate took place on the reasons why we agreed with one another. I accept the hon member’s point of view in this regard.

†The hon member for King William’s Town is of course a short way ahead of us in the sense that he is not a lawyer. Hence he can really enjoy Hoexter’s recommendations, and particularly Hoexter’s reprimanding of the various professions. I should therefore really not like to detract from the joy the hon member obviously experiences when he quotes from the Hoexter report. Ultimately of course the hon member cannot but arrive at the conclusion that this new rules board is going to bring about the change for which we have all been hoping for so long. Yet, Sir, he will forgive me for not joining him in his meanderings through the labyrinth of Hoexter’s recommendations because at the end of a parliamentary session such as this one, Mr Justice Hoexter, I am sure, will not blame me for what I am going to say now. I am not referring to him personally or to the members of the commission. All I want to say, however, is that we have had enough of Hoexter for this current session of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, it is perhaps the right time now to pay tribute to the Hoexter Commission. They will still keep us occupied during the next few months, because we still have to deal with one or two pieces of legislation involving the commission. As a matter of fact there are right now a few Bills before the joint standing committee which, I trust, will reach us improved to such an extent that the public will find them quite acceptable.

*In conclusion, the right is still reserved, in terms of section 43 of the Supreme Court Act, by the Judges President and the Chief Justice to make rules with regard to the proceedings in their courts that do not relate to process, the prescription of process and the arrangement of the conduct of a court case. The rules board will pay attention to that. Section 43 of the Supreme Court Act still gives the Chief Justice and the Judges President the power to make internal arrangements regarding the sitting hours and all other factors relating directly to the proceedings of their courts. I just want to place this beyond all doubt.

In addition, I just want to put on record that a working committee, consisting of one of our senior departmental officials as well as a representative of the two legal professions, is still studying the Galgut recommendations regarding the rules of court. If they finish their work in time, we shall proceed with their application and not wait for the rules board to be established. I say this specifically to prevent any premature espectations that the rules board should begin functioning tomorrow or the day after. Besides, we still have to establish a secretariat and lay the foundation for the rules board to be able to function.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill makes provision for three matters which are closely associated with the process of political reform which we are passing through in our country. The divergent provisions of this Bill, which address various constitutional matters, once again illustrate two truths. Firstly, constitutional structures as well as processes must be adapted to changing circumstances. The Bill deals with structures as well as processes. Secondly, adjustments on all three levels of Government are essential. The Bill deals with the local, provincial and central levels of government.

Municipal Elections

The first matter is a proposal for the holding of general municipal elections throughout the entire country, and in particular among the communities represented in this Parliament, during 1988. A committee of enquiry of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, under the chairmanship of the honourable J C G Botha, former Administrator of Natal, made the following recommendation in regard to the periods of office of council members:

On 10 May 1984 the Co-ordinating Council unanimously supported this recommendation and the Government accepted the recommendation that a uniform five-year period of office for the council members of all local government bodies be introduced.

The question which arose from this decision was which date would be the most suitable, taking into account the circumstances of the respective provinces, for holding general municipal elections, and which would be the most acceptable to all the parties involved. Taking into account the respective dates on which elections were to have been held, it transpired that 1988 was the most suitable year.

On 26 October 1984 the Co-ordinating Council met in Durban and recommended unanimously that general municipal elections be held in 1988 on dates determined by the respective administrators. What it amounts to therefore is that elections for White, Coloured and Indian council members of all local government bodies will be held on the same day in a specific province during 1988. This recommendation was accepted by the Government in December 1984.

Contradictory representations on this matter were subsequently received and at an ensuing meeting of the Co-ordinating Council, which was held in Cape Town on 26 March 1985, the matter was again discussed. As a compromise in an effort to resolve the contradictions, a recommendation was made to the Government that in some cases general municipal elections should in fact be held prior to 1988. In some circles this amended recommendation of the Co-ordinating Council was interpreted in good faith as being a resolution of the Government.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the Government considered the amended advice of the Co-ordinating Council and, taking into consideration all the facts at its disposal, including the contradictory representations, decided to reaffirm the previous Cabinet resolution of November 1984.

Clause 7 of the Bill gives effect to the Government’s resolution, and entails that general municipal elections for council members of White, Coloured and Indian local government bodies will be held in 1988 on dates which will be determined by the respective administrators after consultation with the respective Ministers of local government in the Ministers’ Councils. This arrangement also provides local governments with sufficient time to take preparatory steps to apply the new uniform franchise qualifications, as contained in the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, 1984 (Act 117 of 1984), during the 1988 election. It will still be possible to fill casual vacancies which may arise in the interim by means of by-elections.

Provincial Elections

A second aspect with which the Bill deals stems from the announcement which I made on 6 May 1985 in the House of Assembly that the four provincial councils would be abolished as elected legislative bodies with effect from a date between 29 April 1986 and 30 June 1986. The filling of any casual vacancies in the provincial councils which may arise during the short period between now and next year is not justified if the cost, both for the State and for political parties, is taken into consideration.

This is merely a practical measure which follows logically from the abolition of the provincial councils for which provision will be made in legislation which will be introduced in Parliament during 1986.

It seems to me that this measure is more acceptable, even for those who are not entirely satisfied with it, than the alternative proposal of having the vacancies filled by means of nominations from the specific political party which held the seat immediately prior to the vacancy arising. Section 69A is therefore being inserted in the Provincial government Act, 1961, to provide that vacancies will not be filled.

†Change and Instability

Sir, I come now to the changes proposed at the national level. It is apt at this stage to make a few general remarks with regard to the relationship between political reform and instability.

It has been empirically proved that reform in any country is always accompanied by a measure of uncertainty and instability in society. The reason for this is very easy to understand. Reform demands changes, sometimes substantial changes, in people’s lives, their traditions and their ways of thinking. It demands acceptance of unproven and untested ways of doing things in the place of well-known traditions. It demands acceptance of some risk in place of security. It demands a high degree of trust in elected leaders and their commitments to work towards democratic, evolutionary change in society.

The process of reform is, in other words, very fragile and is fraught with the dangers of impatience, frustration and violence if it is not handled in the correct way. The success of political reform depends on the co-operation and bona fides of all communities and political leaders who accept non-violence as an instrument of change, irrespective of party political affiliations or convictions.

I wish to appeal to the communities and leaders represented inside and outside this House not to exploit or fuel the fires of conflict, disagreement, distrust and prejudice. We should all rather work in a constructive way within our respective policy frameworks towards the elimination of differences and the finding of areas of agreement and consensus. In this way we can systematically improve the quality of debate and decision-making and therefore of the society in which we find ourselves and the places in which we have to live.

The third aspect of this Bill is a manifestation of this Government’s approach of constructive and pragmatic reform.

The Bill provides for the repeal of sections 1 and 2 of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which deal with the financing of political parties from abroad, are re-enacted with technical amendments.

The name of the Act is changed to the Prohibition of Foreign Financing of Political Parties Act so as to reflect the amendments to the substantive sections of the Act.

The approach of the Government towards measures aimed at differentiation between the various communities is that these measures should not be seen as goals in themselves. Whenever such measures are no longer necessary due to changed perspectives or circumstances or when they do not contribute towards the protection of minority rights and therefore serve no purpose, they should be removed.

The Government has translated its words into deeds, and during this session of Parliament has demonstrated its commitment to the removal of statutory discrimination through the repeal of various outdated measures.

Certain aspects of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968, are examples of such measures which were enacted during an entirely different historical period and value system to the constitutional position prevailing in South Africa since 1983. The Act was passed almost two decades ago in 1968 as part of a trilogy of Acts in order to provide for a peculiar confluence of events which occurred during the years 1966 to 1968.

Since then circumstances have changed drastically. In terms of the 1983 Constitution, the Coloured and Indian communities now have their political rights entrenched in various sections of the most important Act of all, namely the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The 1983 Constitution, inter alia, contains explicit stipulations concerning representation of the three communities in question, which do not depend on the existence of sections 1 and 2 of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act at all. These provisions of the Act are therefore no longer necessary and can be repealed.

A further consideration is the necessity for effective communication in the new dispensation and effective interaction among the various participants and political parties in the spirit that I have just explained. Any measure which obstructs such communication should be reconsidered.

The repeal of sections 1 and 2 of the Act implies that political parties themselves will in future decide upon the conditions for membership and will no longer be bound by statutory prescriptive provisions in this regard, although conditions for registration will still be laid down by electoral Acts.

This does not mean that the Government has abandoned its declared view that communities as such should take part in the decision-making processes. This step reiterates the Government’s commitment to repeal obsolete and discriminatory measures and to carry through the reform process, with the aim of establishing a society in which each community has an effective participation in the decision-making processes affecting its own interests, which includes participation in matters of mutual concern.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, considering the furore that accompanied the introduction of the original Act way back in 1968, one would have expected the galleries to be full and this House to be tingling with excitement as we repeal that law. This law has gone through disrepute, and we have become so accustomed to the Government making ad hoc adjustments under the pressure of circumstances that this Bill is almost going by unnoticed.

This Bill has three essential features. One is the repeal of the major sections of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. That is done by clauses 1 to 5. Secondly there is clause 6, which makes provision for vacancies in provincial councils not to be filled between now and the time of the abolition of the provincial councils. The third is the unique, fascinating and disturbing clause which makes provision for all municipal and management-committee general elections to be suspended until some time in 1988. That is in essence what the Bill is about.

I want to make some comments on the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. We and, I think particularly the hon member for Houghton, sitting under her red bonnet here today, who opposed the Bill way back in 1968, hold that that law should never have been on the Statute Book of a country like South Africa. It did not belong there then and it does not belong there today. Those of us who know the modern political history of South Africa will know how much this particular law contributed to the suspicion, the mistrust, the division and the polarization which exist in politics in South Africa today. Its design created that situation, for it was designed to put people into separate political, racial compartments in South Africa.

At the time when this law was passed, in 1968, it was actually, in retrospect, understandable, because we were living in the weird aftermath of the era of Dr Verwoerd. At that time people were mesmerized by that weird philosophy of apartheid or separate development of Dr Verwoerd. It only made sense against that background. Let me remind the hon Ministers, the hon Chief Whip opposite and the hon Deputy Minister how zany we were in those days. Officials could not shake hands with Blacks. They had to say “molo”. If one ran in the Comrades Marathon, one had to run with something on one’s chest that said “Zulu”, “Xhosa”, “Fingo” or whatever it was. Otherwise one could not run at all. The trade unions were separated. There was job reservation. There were separate Christmas parties. Everything was separate. There were separate libraries, separate museums, separate Boy Scouts and separate Girl Guides for each of the racial communities. The hon Chief Whip opposite, who comes from the Free State, will remember how they cheered Mr Vorster when he said: “In South Africa we do not play mixed sport; Basil D’Oliveira will not come to South Africa”. That was only 12 years ago. In the same year the present State President rushed into this House and, to hammer the four HNP people, said: “I have persuaded the Federal ‘Raad’ of the NP to make clear that NP policy is: No mixed sport in South Africa”. In those days, may I say—these hon gentlemen need not worry about mixed dining-rooms—there was an instruction that no Government official and no member of the NP could attend any diplomatic reception if there was a single person of colour present other than in the capacity of a waiter. That was when we had the “church clause” and all the nonsense of that particular era.

Against that background of total Verwoerdian apartheid, this law actually made sense. It made sense only because of all that nonsense in society. [Interjections.] I am saying this because the hon the Deputy Minister has to explain to himself how this could possibly have happened. When people were separated in every other field in life, it was a natural corollary also to separate them in the field of party politics. I am trying to explain the situation to the hon the Deputy Minister who was not here at that time. He was then still an aspirant verkrampte from Oudtshoorn. He has come a long way. What he has managed to do—I am proud of him—is to keep pace with the South African society. What we hope is that he will one day be leading instead of just keeping pace.

If one had separated everybody from the cradle to the grave it was not illogical that one should also separate them in politics. We found that the salvation of South Africa and the salvation of the White man in particular was to be achieved by putting people in separate political parties. By this means they hoped to secure the future of White South Africa. This is what it was basically about.

Whether the Government believed that it would work or not, the reality of South Africa has firstly eroded the law and it is the reality of South Africa that is now abolishing the law. Whatever White politicians may themselves believe the reality is that we are one country, one people and we have one economy and one destiny. We can have divisions among ourselves on ethnical or political lines, but there is a oneness about South Africa which no White party in South Africa can any longer deny.

We welcome this Bill. We have twice moved private members’ motions in this House asking the Government to repeal this legislation. On countless occasions we have called for it. I myself introduced a private member’s Bill this session calling for such repeal.

The fact is that the reality of South Africa has triumphed over the myth that was left to us by Dr Verwoerd, but unfortunately not before untold damage has been done. I think it is important that we should realize how it came about. This gives us some indication of the tensions which exist in and around our new Constitution, in and around our local government system, especially insofar as the Coloured people have been concerned. This legislation more than anything else was directed at the political rights and aspirations of the Coloured community.

What happened? There were multiracial political parties operating quite happily within the framework of the law until 1966 when the Government realized that the Coloured people in the Cape might elect to represent them in this House four members of the then Progressive Party. They appointed a commission under Louwrens Muller, who now has joined another political party, and the hon member Mr Van Staden as well as Mr Pen Kotzé were members. [Interjections.] They said first of all that political parties had to be made uniracial—apartheid had to be applied to political parties. They then went further to say that the last remnants of Coloured representation in Parliament had to be abolished. They recommended the abolition of the last four representatives of the Coloured people in this House. After that had been done the next thing was to take away Coloured representation in the Provincial Council of the Cape. This happened two years later, and a further year later they took away Coloured representation in municipal affairs right throughout the Cape Province.

We should not underestimate the damage that was done to race relations and particularly to the Coloured people as a consequence of this measure. Perhaps it can be partly healed. Perhaps there are steps being taken to try to get South Africa to recover, but I think this measure set the clock back in political and race relations at least a decade if not 25 years. That is what it did.

I believe that we now have the opportunity to repair the damage. With the exception of the hon members for Houghton and Berea I am perhaps the only member here who has had the privilege and the pleasure for more then a decade of being an active member of a multiracial political party. I want to say that although for a part of that period, because of an ungrateful electorate, I was not sitting in this House, those years when we were active in multiracial politics together with Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were both the happiest and most rewarding years of my political career.

I believe that the impact, not of talking together but of working together, of sharing common political objectives, of trying to isolate the things on which we differ from the matters on which we agree, will make an indelible impression on human relationships, on political perception and on a unity of purpose which it is necessary to generate in South Africa. As in other walks of life, we are becoming more adult. I include the hon the Deputy Minister. We play rugby and other sports together, we share culture, we share educational institutions, we share the labour field, we share the consumer field, we are sharing a large number of things and I say, therefore, that on the basis of voluntary and free association we now have an opportunity to cast aside our prejudices and form political parties irrespective of the race or colour of the members.

We in this party have made our position quite clear. We feel that by repealing the Prohibition of Political Interference Act today, Parliament is reflecting two realities in South African politics. One of the realities has to do with the scope of politics, and the other with the nature of politics. We believe this Bill is a clear indication of the acceptance that the days when political decisions could be made by one dominant racial community are over and that the time has to come when negotiations on decisions have to the entered into and that these negotiations should be with representatives of all communities. The days of a political arena limited to Whites have already gone and we are now moving into the era of a much wider multiracial political arena in South Africa. The PFP is not going to run away from the challenge which is presented to all parties in South Africa, neither is it going to run away from the opportunity presented to all parties in South Africa, by the repeal of this measure. We as a political party are going to see to it that we become a truly South African based political party. We are going to go all out to meet the challenges and the opportunities by broadening our membership and extending our powerbase throughout the length and breadth of the country. We would like hon members on the other side to know that that is our intention and resolve.

The second element in the Bill is the question of not filling casual vacancies in provincial councils should they occur between now and April or May next year when provincial councils are to be abolished. We would have preferred the matter to be left as it was. I think it is unlikely that there is going to be a great number of by-elections and it would have been easier to just let it run. However, we can also see that there is a case for saying that there is no point in having by-elections just a few months before those councils are going to be abolished. While this is not our first choice as a way of handling this, we have no specific objection to clause 6, which provides that henceforth there will not be by-elections for provincial councils because they are going to be abolished in any case. It is our second choice and the Government’s first choice. We will agree with it on these small things, but we will fight with it on the big things.

In my opinion clause 7 in a highly disturbing clause, and had there been an opportunity to debate this clause in Committee, we would have rejected it out of hand. The clause provides that as from the time the Bill is passed there will be no more municipal general elections or management committee general elections until some time in 1988. That is what the effect of this clause is. This does not affect the Transvaal to any great extent, because in the Transvaal general elections are only supposed to be held in March 1987. For the members of local authorities in the Transvaal it involves an extension of their life for a year or so. There are other areas such as Natal where they have a three year cycle and are supposed to have elections in October, so that instead of having a three year span of life they are going to have a six and a half year span of life. We can see absolutely no reason why there should be an abolition of the general elections of municipalities in those circumstances.

The area that disturbs us and should disturb the Government even more is the question of management committees. This is something which largely affects the Coloured community in the Western Cape. These management committees are all due to have their elections in September of this year. However, the Government says: No more elections for you until way in 1988. This smacks of the worst kind of political horse trading that I have heard of in years. [Interjections.] It is all very well to say that the elected people have asked for it, but I say it is not for city councillors or management committee members to ask for their lives to be extended. It is the voters who should say whether they want the lives of these bodies to be extended or not.

The Government says it is trying to build up a new, sound, solid base for local government in South Africa. We hear repeatedly from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that they want to see local government as the real powerhouse for politics in South Africa. If one wants to do that, one has to give the local institutions credibility. One does not give them credibility when one extends their lives in this way. Whether we like it or not, the management committee system which was given to the Coloureds when they were thrown off the voters roll in the Cape Province and lost their full municipal franchise was an advisory system within local government and no more. The fact is that, while some of these management committees are operating reasonably, particularly in the rural areas, in the main these management committees carry a certain amount of odium in the urban areas, not because of the people who sit on them, but because they are seen and perceived by the Coloured people to be a shabby substitute for full political participation at municipal level. The hon the Minister knows that there has been almost no participation in elections in some of them. Some of the people who serve on them are the only people who offered themselves for nomination at the time. This is the base on which the Government is now going to build local government.

What is it doing? It has three Bills. One is next on the Order Paper and says to us that one can now transfer full municipal powers from a fully established local authority to these management committees. So one is actually converting them from advisory bodies to fully executive, and I would say taxing and legislative authorities with similar powers as the other local authorities have. One is transferring powers to them. Secondly, one is making those management committees the basis for forming the new regional services councils. There one is going to find the electoral platform on which it is going to be based and they are going to provide the personnel, because one has to be a member of the management committee in order to be elected unless one lives in the White community. If one is in the Coloured community one has to be a member of a management committee in order to serve on an RSC. I would have thought that, especially in those circumstances, if the hon the Minister did not want the RSC’s to start on a note of disrepute, it would have been wise of him to have general elections for the management committees as they are required to have, in terms of the law, in September this year. Instead of that the Minister refuses. In spite of their extended powers, in spite of the fact that they are going to form the basis of the RSC’s, there must be no elections for them for at least three years. To us that is not only disgraceful, but we also feel that the Government is doing something which is going to undermine the respect for and authority of the new RSC structure when it does this kind of shabby thing. People are being allowed to carry on when they should offer themselves for re-election in September of this year. The Government tells them that they do not have to; that they will be allowed to carry on for another three years in order that they can form the base of the RSC’s, not the people whom the Coloured voters might want to elect in September.

We believe this is a dangerous game which the hon the Minister and the Government is playing. We would also like to see good, decent, sound local government in South Africa. However, we are not going to get sound local government in South Africa unless it is based on free and fair elections regularly held. We are not going to have sound local government if we are going to get the kind of gerrymandering which is involved with clause 7 of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we have a practical dilemma. In terms of the new Rules of the House, there is no way we can vote against this clause. We must obviously vote for this Bill, because it involves the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. At least, however, we on this side of the House can use the opportunity to voice our protest against clause 7 and to say to the Government that we believe they are going to rue the day they passed this clause. We believe it is going to undermine respect for and the effectiveness of local government in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point said it was the realities that had eroded the law and that it was the realities that had led to its abolition. I would also like to draw the hon member for Sea Point’s attention to the fact that it is the realities of the South African circumstances that have brought with them the different groups with their different identities that form the South African nation.

If, in the whole political system of this country, the retention of identities, the retention of values and the retention of value systems is part and parcel of the legal process, then it is high time that the hon member for Sea Point and the party he stands for at least tried to recognize that fact. The hon member for Sea Point should know very well—in any case, the hon member for Berea should—that there was a time when a man by the name of Mr Leo Boyd supported the introduction of the Group Areas Bill. As an independently elected provincial councillor and former mayor of Durban, he was in favour of the introduction of the Group Areas Bill. Subsequent to the establishment of the Progressive Party he became its leader. Nevertheless, as political inclined as he was, he supported the retention of group identity. [Interjections.] When this law was introduced in the 1960’s, it was also as a result of the political system then operating in this country.

We had the Westminster system and this meant a single parliamentary structure wherein all political development had to be accommodated. It was because of the very efforts of the then Progressive Party, as it was purely and simply then—not yet the Progressive Reform Party or the Progressive Federal Party—to try to use other groups in this country to upset the balance of power that it was deemed necessary at that time to introduce such a Bill. The legislation was to remain until such time as the political structure of this country was based on the foundation of the recognition of the various identity groups in this country.

Through the referendum, which elicited a response from a two-thirds majority of the White electorate, it was made possible for a political structure to be developed on such a basis that it would be less likely that the balance of power would be determined by the interference of one group in the political affairs of another group. It is for that reason— because of the realities of political developments in this country—that it is now practical, advisable and desirable for this Act to be abolished. [Interjections.] This became possible because a two-thirds majority of the White electorate of this country accepted a change in the structure of the South African political system. It is for that plain and simple reason that its repeal is now desirable. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sea Point is thus quite correct; it is indeed the realities of the circumstances that have made it necessary and advisable to repeal this law now. The only exception is that he reads the realities differently from the way in which two thirds of the White electorate read the realities of this country. [Interjections.]

It is not really necessary to elaborate on this to any great extent, except to say that we now have a system whereby real participation can be given to each group, and it does not matter any more whether there is a linkage between parties across the colour line. [Interjections.] Each party can make its own choice and consequently it does not in any way affect…

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to ask the hon member for Klip River whether people of colour may become members of the NP, and if not, why not?

If the hon member for Rissik reads his newspapers, he will see that the NP indicated that as a result of its composition the NP is not prepared to include members of other population groups in its ranks. It is the free choice of any party to determine this, and this is the choice of the NP. [Interjections.]

Why not?

The NP is a party which primarily maintains the interests of the Whites in this Parliament. This has been the decision of congresses for years and is stated in the constitution of the party. It is also our intention as the governing party to maintain the interests of the Whites in this Parliament in the future, but at the same time to enter into discussions in a responsible manner with the leaders of the other communities in order to fulfil the political ideals of all in a responsible way. However, for this it is not necessary to have multiracialism in a single party structure.

Is this not discrimination?

It is not discrimination at all, because membership of a party is in any case subject to approval by the head committee and the branch committees of the party. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Rissik cannot see the difference between party membership and other discriminatory measures, I must say he is either being mischievous or perhaps suffers from a certain handicap. [Interjections.]

Clause 6 provides that provincial vacancies will not be filled, and this is a logical result of the announcement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that provincial councils as they exist at present, will be done away with between the end of April and the end of June next year. Although the legislation for this has not been introduced yet, it is an inherent part of the new constitutional development which was accepted and approved by two-thirds of the White electorate of South Africa in the referendum held in 1983. A decision that reform on local authority level or in third level government would take place was inherent in that referendum. Because that reform in third level government was accepted in the referendum, attention naturally has to be given to the change-over procedure.

The hon member for Sea Point now intimates that he is opposed to the term of office of representatives of local authorities being extended by three years. His own parliamentary life has been extended, not by three years, but from 1986, when the term of office would normally expire, until possibly in 1989. [Interjections.] It does not matter whether he voted against it. He also voted against the referendum question. However, two-thirds of the White electorate of South Africa did support it because it is part of the constitutional reform procedure that we accept. The position is that the relevant bodies that were involved in this, including each of the municipal associations of all the provinces, as well as the ad hoc committee, have accepted the principle. All of them accepted the principle that the normal re-election of local authority representatives be postponed. I want to quote from the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Municipal Electoral Qualifications. I quote Recommendation No 461, as follows:

This is part of the process of reforming constitutional structures in this country.

That is why it is also essential, in spite of the fact that the actual legislation dealing with the structuring of the new third level structures has not yet been accepted in this House, that we give early attention to the implementation of decisions of bodies that have been concerned with this. It is therefore a pleasure and a privilege for me to support this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klip River said that the realities of today make it possible for the NP to remove this legislation from the Statute Book now.

On 4 March 1983 the hon member for Pinelands moved a motion in this House. I quote from Hansard, 1983, col 2309, as follows:

This was in 1983, when the new constitutional dispensation had already been accepted by the NP. It had already been approved by the congresses of the NP. I cannot understand how the realities could have changed so much between 1983 and today that it is now possible for the NP to change this Act. [Interjections.]

The NP says it is not prepared to open its membership to all parties; they issued this statement early. The realities of today do not make it possible for the NP to open its membership, but in two or three years’ time the realities of the day may in fact make it possible for the NP to open its membership to people of colour. [Interjections.]

The CP would like to move that this Bill be read this day six months, because we should like to indicate our strongest opposition to the repeal of this Act.

I should like to read to the House the amendment moved by the hon member for Turffontein in 1983 to the motion by the hon member for Pinelands that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act be repealed. I quote from Hansard, 1983, col 2323:

1. (1) it is desirable that normal party-political actions and election processes be carried out within a group context in order to afford the various peoples and population groups the opportunity of each developing along its own lines to the full realization of its potential, as well as for the sake of good order and the elimination of group domination…

This is what the hon member for Turffontein moved as an amendment to the motion by the hon member for Pinelands.

When the hon member for Turffontein subsequently addressed himself to the NRP, he said the following (Hansard, 1983, col 2324):

[Interjections.]

This is what the hon member for Turffontein said in 1983. The hon member for Winburg must just listen carefully. He said:

This is what this hon member said. Now I should like to ask my friends in the NP to listen carefully … [Interjections.] I want to put the same request to him that he put to the NRP at that time. I want to ask the hon member for Turffontein, and the NP members who supported this amendment of the hon member for Turffontein at that time, to think very carefully today, because they are going to be tested on the standpoint they are adopting today. Therefore I should like to move an amendment.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment—

That is a gimmick!

I should like to see whether that hon member meant it as a gimmick when he voted for it in 1983, and whether he will vote against it today. [Interjections.]

The amending Bill that we have before us today, gives perfect expression to what the hon member for Pinelands and the Progressive Party proposed in 1983. The repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is a further triumph for the hon the Rev Hendrickse and his Labour Party. It is also a triumph for the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and therefore a further humiliating defeat for the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. In the debate in which he supported the amendment of the hon member for Turffontein, he said the following (Hansard, 1983, col 2364):

This is what the hon the Minister said. I should like my friends in the NP …

Who are they?

The hon member for Randburg!

Thank you!

I want them to test it against this. [Interjections.] I want them to test it against what I am going to say in the next few minutes. I said that this is a crushing defeat for the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education, and a triumph for the hon Minister the Rev Hendrickse. Before the election of Coloured and Indian members of Parliament the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education clashed with the Rev Hendrickse, when he was only the leader of the Labour Party, about the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. The Rev Hendrickse said that he and his Labour Party were going to nominate candidates for the Coloured as well as the Indian House of Parliament. He did so, and he has at least two members of the Labour Party who have seats in the House of Delegates today. As a matter of fact, two of the five Indian members who were on the standing committee that considered and judged this amending Bill are members of the Rev Hendrickse’s Labour Party. The Rev Hendrickse and his Labour Party won the election, and he was appointed to the Cabinet of State President Mr Botha. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act was placed under the jurisdiction of the crown prince of the Cape NP, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Today the NP says, as the PFP did in 1983, that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act must be abolished. Within two years the NP has swallowed the PFP’s standpoint holus bolus. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education has to swallow everything that he said. The hon member for Turffontein has to swallow everything that he said in 1983 or he will have to vote in this House of Assembly today for the amendment that he moved in 1983. [Interjections.] This is indeed a triumph for the Rev Hendrickse and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I feel very sorry for my friends in the NP, because they will continually have to explain why they said this yesterday and must say that today. [Interjections.] I know now already that the only explanation that they will be able to give to the people outside will be that times have changed. [Interjections.] If one says to a Nationalist that the NP once said that leasehold in the Western Cape was out, but is now saying that it is in order, that Nationalist answers you by saying, “But times have changed”. [Interjections.] If one says to a member of the NP that they said that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act would not be repealed, and that it has now been done, they say to you, “But didn’t you know? Times have changed.” [Interjections.]

If one says to the NP now that they said in 1983 that this legislation should be retained, but that they are now saying it should be abolished, they will say to us, “These are the realities of the day. Times have changed.” [Interjections.] I should like to say to those hon members that times have not changed. The points of view of the NP and the principles by which they stood have changed. [Interjections.] I repeat that times have not changed. The principles that still mattered to the NP last year, are still valid and true today. Principles do not change with the times.

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

No, I do not have time for questions now. Times have not changed; the leadership corps of the NP has changed. The Cape liberal establishment has taken over control of the NP and has taken all those hon members in tow. The hon the Chief Whip of the NP, who was so verkramp that he could almost have a fit when we were still in the NP together, has also been taken in tow. [Interjections.]

In an interview with Deurbraak, the monthly publication of the PFP, the Rev Hendrickse said the following in 1984:

Well, today we are conceding that to them. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has disappeared; the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is disappearing today. The Group Areas Act is already before the President’s Council, and so is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. [Interjections.] These Acts are already busy disappearing. What more does the Rev Hendrickse say further? He says:

Sir, they are demanding one man, one vote in a confederation. The Rev Hendrickse and his party have until now had their way in respect of every demand they have made. [Interjections.] Every challenge they have directed at the NP has been greeted by concessions by means of consensus decisions.

Secondly the Rev Hendrickse says in this article that Blacks must be brought in. He says:

The Blacks have already been brought into the regional services councils. Legislation in that regard has already been adopted by Parliament. On the second level of government provincial councils are disappearing and executive committees in which Black people will also be able to sit will be appointed.

There is also a fourth point. I want to point out that the Rev Hendrickse has had his way in respect of every matter. He said that he was working for a system of one man, one vote in a confederation. That is all that he still has to carry into effect. At the moment ways and means of involving Blacks in the highest level of Government are being worked out. A Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, on which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, has also taken a seat, is in operation. The only guideline that we have received from the National Party was that the answer lies in finding a system in which everyone living permanently in the country can have the franchise in such a way that one group does not dominate another—therefore, one country, one government. This is also important in our evaluation of the legislation under discussion, this reference from the guidelines by “prof” Stoffel van der Merwe, the hon member for Helderkruin.

The hon member for Dowwe Kruin!

I am afraid that if the National Party again going to bow to the demands of the Rev Hendrickse and the Labour Party every time—as, in fact, has been proved right through this last session of Parliament—South Africa will eventually land up in a situation of one man, one vote. We already have a situation of one man, one vote with reference to the present Parliament. This we have already. We already have a unitary state of Whites, Coloureds and Indians—a unitary state with a single Parliament. In fact this Parliament is also compared on a basis of one man, one vote— albeit on separate voters’ rolls. [Interjections.] Moreover, the National Party tells the people outside that it is still a supporter of separate voters’ rolls. They are ostensibly in favour of separate voters’ rolls, but in accordance with their commitment to separate voters’ rolls the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi are sitting in the Cabinet today, and there is a Coloured and an Indian Deputy Minister of general affairs. On the basis of separate voters’ rolls there are 78 Coloureds and 45 Indians in this Parliament. There are 26 multiracial standing committees, with at least 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians in each of those standing committees. This has happened on the basis of separate voters’ rolls!

The hon member for Randfontein has said on occasion that in terms of the policy of the National Party many more Coloureds will come into Parliament—naturally, also on separate voters’ rolls—than in terms of the policy of the PFP, which stands for common voters’ rolls. I want to make the statement today that a multiracial Parliament, composed on the basis of a separate voters’ roll, is much more dangerous than a multiracial Parliament composed on the basis of a common voters’ roll. As a matter of fact, the hon member for Randfontein has confirmed this. [Interjections.]

The consequences of the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act will be far-reaching with regard to the composition of this multiracial Parliament—whether it is a unicameral or a tricameral Parliament, with other structures for conducting liaison with Blacks, whether on the basis of separate or common voters’ rolls. I want to ask my friends in the National Party to reflect very carefully before supporting this legislation today. Until now the Rev Hendrickse and his Labour Party have had their way as regards every demand they have made. The Rev Hendrickse and his party demand a system of one man, one vote in a federal system. When I listen to the noises made by the South African ambassador in Washington, it seems to me as if South Africa is on the road to a federation among Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Indians. Without a law prohibiting political interference the Whites are in great danger—as are the other peoples living with us at the southern point of Africa.

The National Party gives in to every demand made by the Rev Hendrickse, and we fear that the National Party will give in to these demands as well.

Do not give Hendrickse all the credit. What about us?

Mr Chairman, I do want to tell the hon member for Bryanston that the National Party does not take much notice of him and his party—not in the standing committees either.

But that is not true …

The Rev Hendrickse is right inside the Cabinet. However, the hon member for Bryanston does not have to worry. As soon as he has established his mixed political party and has won the elections for the Indian and Coloured Chambers, State President P W Botha will be obliged to include one of the caucus members of the PFP in his Cabinet. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. The hon member does not have to worry about that now. Then the National Party will, however, have to take notice of him and his party. At this stage, however, the National Party takes no notice of the PFP. Incidentally, I may mention that there are people sitting in the National Party who are far more leftist than the hon member for Bryanston. [Interjections.]

Who are they? Who are they? Tell us! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, calls were made from various quarters this year for general legislation to be dealt with fully in joint sittings of the three Houses. I have stated on several occasions that when the new chamber which is under construction has been completed, all legislation relating to general affairs will be disposed of in joint sittings of the three Houses. We have already said that practical considerations will force the National Party to do so. Before the referendum they said that joint sittings would only take place on ceremonial occasions. In 1984 it was decided that all Second Reading speeches of Ministers would be delivered at joint sittings. When the new chamber has been completed, we shall— under pressure from the PFP, the Rev Hendrickse and certain members of the National Party, as well as academics who support them—have one multiracial Parliament— complete in one chamber, at least as far as general affairs are concerned. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will say to them, “Gentlemen, you will sit together on the same committees, you will discuss together and you will decide together”. He will say to them, “You sit together in the President’s Council. There you discuss together and decide together.” He will tell them that in the regional services councils Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians sit together in the same council chambers; they discuss together and they decide together. He will say that the NP accepted the principle long ago; so we must accept that there will be one Parliament. Therefore there will eventually be one multiracial Parliament to deal with general affairs.

Certain members of the NP, as well as academics that support the NP, agree with this. I quote from the Financial Mail of 22 March 1985:

Then he says:

The writer says that two MPs of the NP told him that if the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is abolished, a tricameral Parliament will no longer make any sense in view of the reforms that have taken place. This professor says that once this Act has been abolished and the reform of the past six months has taken its course, a tricameral Parliament will no longer be necessary. One reads further in the Financial Mail:

[Interjections.] I think one can take notice of these professors and of what is written here, because they said in March that this Act would be repealed when not one of us thought that the NP would ever do that. Now one reads here:

It continues:

[Interjections.] Frivolous hon members like the hon member for Wellington, who laughs about everything in this place, should pay some attention to what is stated here. Prominent and leading Nationalists are already discussing the possibility of broadening the NP’s power base by the addition of conservative Coloured and Indian members. Some of the hon members opposite said today that it is not so, but prominent members in their caucus are discussing this possibility. It is very clear that prominent Nationalists are already toying with the idea of, firstly, transforming Parliament into a multiracial unicameral Parliament and, secondly, expanding the power base of the NP so to include Coloured and Indian members.

To cope with the problems of a continuing coalition government as exists at present among the NP, the Labour Party and the National People’s Party, the NP will be obliged to extend its membership to Coloureds and Indians, or to establish a type of alliance like the DTA alliance with Coloureds and Indians, according to Mr Dirk Mudge’s SWA recipe.

Now hon members must listen carefully to what Dr Kotze says. His father was a prominent leader of the NP and and also an MPC. I quote:

This professor in political science—he was here recently—is Stoffel’s great friend. Pardon me, Sir, I mean the hon member for Helderkruin’s great friend. [Interjections.] He says the NP are losing their power base and will have to do something. They will possibly establish a type of DTA alliance if they do not want to throw open their membership as the PFP has done.

This is most probably the option which the NP and particularly the hon member for Johannesburg West has in mind.

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

Unfortunately I do not have the time available to answer questions.

I can see the day coming when the NP will be explaining here and outside that the NP has a wing for own affairs and a wing for general affairs, as the DTA has. I foresee that the NP will hold two congresses, an NP congress on own affairs and a DTA-type congress that will be multiracial, on general affairs. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley is laughing, but I want to tell him there are already men in his party—he must keep his ear to the ground …

You are gossiping now.

No, I am not gossiping. One is not gossiping if one says something to someone to his face. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Kimberley South to his face, and then I am not gossiping, that he does not know what is going on in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

The PFP is honest and sincere. [Interjections.] Their membership is open to all, and the hon member for Sea Point said so. With the organizational ability of the PFP, with the kind of financial support that they have, with the support of large sections of the English-language Press that they enjoy, it may happen that the PFP becomes the majority party in the Coloured and Indian Houses after the next general election. If the NP still has the majority in the House of Assembly then, President Botha may be forced to include a Coloured and an Indian Prog in his Cabinet, but who will be sitting in the caucus of the PFP. This can happen if this Bill is passed.

That will be interesting.

The repeal of the legislation on the prohibition of political interference also makes it possible now for the UDF to have itself registered as a political party. The PFP may decide to form a type of DTA alliance with the UDF. This is also possible. All sorts of things are possible with the UDF/PFP alliance taking the majority of the seats in the Indian and Coloured Houses of Parliament as well as in the structures set up for Blacks. It is also a strong possibility that the CP will win the majority of the seats in the House of Assembly at the next election. The CP may then be instructed by the Whites to govern this country according to a specific policy.

You have a very lively imagination.

I do not even have to stretch it that far. The NP may still have its majority, but how can one imagine that the NP’s members who go to a standing committee will achieve consensus with a PFP/UDF alliance in all three Houses as a majority party in the Coloured and Indian Houses?

With great difficulty!

I should like to see how those hon members are going to achieve consensus with them.

What will happen if the political parties are opened—we predict that it is going to happen—and a common Bill is debated in a common Parliament? Prominent members of the NP are already envisaging a common Parliament. Membership of the PFP is open to all. They said so today. A party’s policies and principles are determined by its congresses. With our population structure it is possible that the PFP, in its new composition and as the invitation was made today, will have far more Black than White, Coloured and Indian members. At a congress of the PFP the Black members can push through a resolution which becomes the official policy of the PFP. That policy will have to be adhered to by the PFP representatives in the Coloured, Indian and White Houses. A resolution passed at a PFP congress by a Black majority could therefore be enforced in respect of the own affairs of Coloureds in their House and in respect of the Indians in their House. The PFP members sitting in the State President’s Cabinet in such circumstances, will also be bound by the congress resolutions adopted at a congress where there is a majority of Black members. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before reacting to what the hon member for Kuruman said, I just want to say that I am very glad that the hon member for Bryanston is back. I do not know whether his fever has broken, but I hear him making a lot of noise and interjections again.

With reference to the speech of the hon member for Kuruman it seems necessary to me that a number of facts be emphasized very clearly before emotion gets the upper hand in our discussions. The NP proposed a new Constitution which passed through all the stages of the democratic process. The road led from the party congresses to legislation in Parliament, the referendum and its implementation. It is now almost a year since the new Constitution was put into effect. The hon member for Kuruman now makes a big fuss about an amendment that was proposed under my name in 1983 …

Was that now the time of the ox wagon?

I think the hon member for Rissik must give me a chance to speak now. The amendment moved by the hon member for Pinelands at that time, was aimed at the total abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. I do not, however, want to take that line in my argument. What I do want to tell him is that since 4 March 1983, when that motion was debated, we got a new Constitution … [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon member for Rissik could ask his Whip for a turn to speak.

Order! I cannot allow this running commentary. Only the hon member for Turffontein was called upon to speak, and he may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Since 4 March 1983 South Africa got a new Constitution and it came into operation a year ago. The Constitution acknowledges South Africa’s diversity and we cannot debate that, because it is a fact. Concrete substance is given to separate structures in the Constitution of South Africa. There are three chambers of Parliament, there are separate voters’ rolls, there are own constituencies with own representatives for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. This specific aspect is in fact an entrenched clause in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Under no circumstances therefore can a member of one population group stand as a candidate in an election for another population group or be elected to that House. For the information of the hon member for Kuruman I therefore want to point out that a Coloured person cannot be elected to the House of Delegates and that an Indian cannot be elected to the House of Assembly. In terms of the Constitution all measures are debated separately in the new Parliamentary system and voting also takes place separately. Joint sittings are held occasionally for the purpose of Second Reading speeches or for a speech by the State President, but no joint discussion or decision-making takes place there. Even in the standing committees, although joint deliberations take place there, voting takes place separately when the three groups vote. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has replaced the Westminster system of “winner takes all” or the system of one man, one vote and has given concrete substance to separate political structures on a group and community basis.

I am sorry that the hon member for Sea Point has disappeared so quickly now.

†What did we get from the hon member for Sea Point? All he could do was to indulge in the events of the 1940’s, the 1950’s and the 1960’s. He spoke about division, about sport segregation and about diplomatic functions that members of the NP could not attend. He spoke about political separation in every piece of legislation. He had a ball! However, the question that we must ask ourselves is whether we really have to go back to the colonial era where Blacks were the slaves of Whites in this world. It does not redound to his credit or to that of the House for him to indulge in the past history of South Africa.

This Government may be ridiculed but an orderly political system has evolved under the regime of the NP. Evolutionary development has taken place in South Africa and proper order has been established in the political system of South Africa.

*A maturing process has set in in the Republic of South Africa. Coloured and Asian political parties have arisen in their own right in the Republic of South Africa. There has been an emancipation of the Coloured and Indian communities in respect of party-political organizations. Coloureds and Asians are no more, as the PFP wants, the camp-followers, the hangers-on and subsidiaries of White political parties.

Consensus, co-operation and contact in respect of matters of common concern are of course extremely necessary. But what do we find now? The CP with their emotional outburst, specifically that of the hon member for Kuruman, are so upset that they can no longer debate rationally in the political situation of South Africa. All they can do is to brand the NP as a politically integrationalist party. That is all they can say. But they cannot debate rationally.

The PFP, on the other hand, through the hon member for Sea Point, says: “This is an ad hoc decision, under pressure as usual”. His party has once again proved that their whole approach is one of weakness. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. [Interjections.] I want to ask them whether this sudden decision that they are going to open their party’s membership to all is also an ad hoc decision. I want to read to hon members what was stated in The Argus of 13 June under the heading “PFP in major bid to control Parliament”. Hon members would do well to listen what these people say:

Then they say this:

One can understand that, because it does not seem to me that any of the political parties in the other Houses in any case feel like entering into an alliance with that party. But what is the reaction of their friends in politics? I want to hold up to them this afternoon the reaction of the UDF. I am sorry the hon member for Pinelands is not here, because he is after all a great friend of the UDF. In The Cape Times of 17 June I read what the UDF says, and I think the PFP should listen to what their friends have to say to them. Under the heading “UDF warns off PFP” it is stated:

They are after all also friends of that party:

The UDF says:

That is what Prof Coovadia says. He then concludes with this paragraph and says:

That is the UDF’s approach. That is the typical reaction of the PFP with their old colonial, paternalistic mentality. They are already prescribing: we are the party of the White man; you, the Indian, Coloured and Black communities, come in and join us; we want you to become members of our party.

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

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

No, Sir, the hon member can make his own speech. I am just glad that he has taken off his Black sash. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein may continue.

Instead of allowing the evolutionary process to take its course in South Africa, those people are rapidly jumping into the deep water.

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

Order! Is the hon member for Turffontein prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Chairman. That hon member never answers my questions.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein is not prepared to take a question and the hon member for Rissik must abide by that. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

However, Sir, I understand the dilemma of the PFP. The hon member for Sea Point said they were going to become a truly South African party. [Interjections.] I want to know what they have been until today. Have they not been a truly South African party? [Interjections.] I want to say to them that they have no base of support left among the White electorate and are now looking for new avenues of support. [Interjections.]

*I want to say to those hon members that in them we have a party that has become obsolete in White politics. [Interjections.] They have over the years appointed themselves as the spokesmen for people of colour in South Africa and they can no longer fulfil that role. Now they want to exploit a new opportunity to see again whether they cannot get those people with them. Now they want to use this opportunity to throw overboard completely those opportunities which they had.

What role will a White political party with a majority of Blacks as members of the party be able to play in South Africa? [Interjections.] I want to say to the PFP that if they throw open their doors while they have to participate in a political process in South Africa where there is a tricameral Parliament, they will surely be the puppets of the Black radicals in South Africa if the majority of their members are Black. Surely that is a fact. [Interjections.] What are they going to do if they throw open their doors to Blacks and those same Blacks take a majority decision at a congress that they are no longer going to have nomination procedures in their party and then summarily decide to appoint an executive to decide whom they should appoint? I ask those hon members: What chance will they then have of having a say in the future of South Africa? They are going to become prisoners of their own judgement. [Interjections.]

Order! To my knowledge 12 hon members— of all the parties—are still going to participate in this debate. Each party will therefore get an opportunity of presenting its view. It is not necessary that hon members shout at each other here across the floor of the House, and I am not going to allow that either. I now make a final appeal to hon members to contain themselves as far as this is concerned. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude with just one question. That is also the question that is bothering the CP so terribly now, namely the possibility of alliances between political parties represented here in the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Far be it from me to stand up here and say what the NP will do in the evolutionary process that lies ahead of us. I want to ask the CP: If a Coloured or Indian party accepting a policy for homelands for Coloured and Indians comes into existence in South Africa, is the CP going to enter into an alliance with such people in order to gain support for the view which it is trying to carry into effect?

I will reply to you.

The hon member must reply to me on that. If such alliances come about, it will surely be an absolute opportunity for the CP to propagate its policy of a Coloured homeland in South Africa and to say that there is a Coloured and an Indian party that agree with them and that they will carry out this thing in the politics of South Africa. I want to say that it may happen that political alliances come about between rightist elements, between moderate elements and between leftest elements in South Africa, but the NP has announced its standpoint, namely that it is not going to throw open its membership to people of colour, as the PFP is in fact going to do. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member on what grounds the NP does not want to admit the Rev Hendrickse, if he asks to become a member of the NP?

I want to ask the hon member whether he has asked the Rev Hendrickse whether he supports the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] That is after all the question.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member is free to take part in the debate.

However, I want to conclude by saying that it is politically fatal in South Africa summarily to throw open the doors to mixed membership as the PFP wants to do or, on the other hand, summarily to reject any form of co-operation or alliance in the year 1985. All we are saying is that protection and security for South Africa’s diversity of people are enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa. The standpoint of the NP is also that all legislation which is not necessary for the protection of minority groups in South Africa is no longer necessary. We shall therefore continue to remove it from the Statute Book of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein enjoyed himself, as he usually does, by hurling political broadsides to the left and to the right. Unfortunately, I do not think that the broadsides achieved the effect he wanted; in other words, I do not think he has convinced anybody at whom he was firing.

At this stage I should like to say a word to my hon friends in the CP. There is an expression used in flying or any long distance travel, namely the “the point of no return”. This is the sort of situation in which we are at the present moment. I believe in the absolute sincerity of the hon members of the CP. They genuinely believe that what they sponsor is the right thing for South Africa. Although I disagree with their point of view, I do not for one second question their sincerity. However, I must make this point: I believe that the politics of South Africa have developed along a certain road in a particular direction to the extent that there is no return. We have passed the point of no return.

That is what people said in 1902.

Right. Then I would go one step further and say that, if hon members of the CP cannot accept that point of view, they are adopting the policy of a certain king of England of many years ago, called Canute. He endeavoured to stop the waves. He was a very good king in many ways, but he was not very successful at stopping the waves. The result is that, 1 000 or so years later, he is remembered for trying to do the impossible and his bones are interred in the upper rafters of one of the great cathedrals in the south of England. So, I would suggest that they really do give a thought to this aspect of the point of no return.

Insofar as the Bill itself is concerned, the major issue is the question of the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the replacement of that Act with another called the Prohibition of Foreign Financing of Political Parties Act. That is, roughly speaking, the main purport of this Bill.

There is also the question of the non-filling of vacancies in provincial councils and the postponement of any elections for municipalities until 1988.

Insofar as the main purpose of this Bill is concerned, we are 100% behind it; not that we believe there will be hundreds upon thousands of people from different race groups rushing to join political parties of other race groups. There may well be some who will do so, but I think that, having had a taste of their own political freedom in their own political power bases, the majority of people will prefer to adhere to that. There may well be electoral pacts and in some instances coalitions for all I know, but for the most part I believe that, for some time in the future at any rate, there wil be this adherence to one’s own political power base. For the future so far as we can reasonably see it, we believe that that is a desirable state of affairs.

That is about six months!

Why does that hon member explain his inanity? Keep quiet and let people only think it; they are convinced now. [Interjections.]

The position is that people may well in due course find that it is in the interests of South Africa to forget all aspects of separate power bases, but I cannot see that happening for some time. As far as we are concerned, it was wrong to put this on the Statute Book in the first place, in spite of the explanations given by various hon members, in particular the hon member for Klip River. As far as we are concerned, we felt that it was an unnecessary piece of legislation, so we are quite happy to see it go.

However, insofar as the retention of the Act under a new name, the Prohibition of Foreign Financing of Political Parties Act, is concerned, we strongly support that clause too because we consider that foreign financing in this field is tantamount to having overseas interference in South African politics. I would just like to sound a warning to the hon the Minister in this regard. There is a way, I believe, in which one can get around this. It would seem to me that if an organization is substantially funded—not necessarily a political organization; it could be a church organization—from overseas to perform its functions and it also collects within South Africa, it could increase its funds from overseas to run its business and use its locally collected funds for political purposes. That may be a point that will have to be considered. I would suggest there is a way around that particular point.

The next principle in the Bill is one about which we are not happy, although obviously we must accept it. I refer to the question of not filling vacancies in provincial councils. It makes no sense to spend either the energy or the money in fighting an election to sit for just a matter of a few months in a provincial council. We are not happy about that, because we believe that it was unnecessary and undesirable to abolish the provincial council system. Change it, yes—abolish it, no. This is our attitude.

Obviously, the hon members on that side of the House believe that it was necessary. Apparently they do not have the adaptability and flexibility of mind to adapt a system that has worked very well. It would have been easier to adapt it than to impose the new system within which we now have to operate. However, we must accept it. It has clearly been announced that provincial councils are being phased out and we accept that it would be rather silly to have elections in the interim.

A point with which we do not agree, and which is of considerable importance to us, is the question of the suspension of elections in municipalities. We believe this to be very wrong as far as certain provinces are concerned. In the Transvaal, for instance, it is fair enough, because they would not be eligible for elections until 1988. However, in Natal, there is a problem in that members of municipalities who have been elected for a three-year term will serve for six years without an election. I know the hon the Minister may well say that this is supported by the NMA, the UME and all the various municipal organizations, and I would imagine that to be so. Given the option, if I had been there, I would probably have supported it too. After all is said and done, if one can double one’s term of office without having to stand in an election, why not? However, I believe that, insofar as the public are concerned, particularly in a province such as Natal—there need not have been unanimity; it could have varied from province to province to some extent—to double the term of office for the majority of municipalities was unnecessary and unreasonable. Had the suspension been till after 1986, or even after this year, it might not have been so bad, but such a long delay we consider to be unnecessary and undesirable.

To conclude, I should like to say that we will support this Bill. The major clauses are acceptable to us, but I want it clearly placed on record that we are most adamantly opposed to the clause in respect of municipal elections. Were there a Committee Stage, we would positively vote against the clause.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Umbilo, who is the NRP’s Natal leader, whether membership of the NRP will be open to all races?

A statement on that issue has been made, and I hardly think that it is my function to issue party policy statements here before the question has even been before our congress and the Act has not yet been repealed. [Interjections.] We have issued a statement to the Press, as well as to the radio and TV.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say, with reference to the speech of the hon member for Turffontein, that personally I do not believe that we shall get very far with acrimonious politics in this House. I therefore do not intend reacting to what the hon member for Turffontein said.

As the hon member for Sea Point has said, we welcome the removal of the Act that places restrictions on political associations. However, I want to say to the hon member for Klip River that he should not link his ideological standpoints to the “realities of South Africa”. There are enough realities, such as the demographic and other realities. As soon as one wants to make a reality of an ideology, one ends up in the problematic situation facing the NP at the moment. Now they have to seek justification for the repeal of this measure, which should never have been placed on the Statute Book. The hon member for Klip River said that the justification for this measure was the various groups with their various identities and systems of values. The hon member for Klip River must tell me in what respect the Coloured group constitutes a separate group with a separate identity and a separate system of values. I think this is nonsensical. The hon member for Klip River should not try to defend the indefensible in this manner and then talk of the preservation of the identity of a group. The identity of a group cannot be lost through association with other people. He also referred to danger concerning the balance of power. This legislation was adopted in 1968, and I want to know in what respect the balance of power of the NP was in danger. Surely this is nonsense! I am sorry that I have to tell the hon member for Klip River that he really talked nonsense in this respect. [Interjections.]

However, I do not want to dwell on this. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Umbilo said, namely that we do not feel happy about the abolition of the provincial councils. As regards clause 7, we are certainly not happy. I associate myself with what the hon member for Sea Point said, namely that with this we are delivering a fatal blow to the status that executive committees could have enjoyed. This is my honest opinion.

If we take the facts into account—and the hon member for Sea Point furnished some of them—we see that the term of the municipal councils in the Cape expires in September 1986 and that of the divisional councils in October 1986. The term of the management committees expires in September 1985 and that of the Indian bodies on various dates in 1985. In the OFS the expiry dates of the White councils are in March 1988; those of the Coloureds in March 1987. In Natal the term of office of White executive bodies expires in September 1985, except those in Durban and Matatiele, which expire in September 1986. The term of office of the councils of the Coloureds, as well as those of the Indians, expire in October 1985. In the Transvaal the dates are as follows: For the Whites, in March 1987; the Coloureds, October 1989; and for the Indians in Actonville and Lenasia, October 1989, and the other management committees of the Indians in October 1985.

This is what the picture looks like. There is therefore no justification indeed for these dates. On the standing committee the hon member for Klip River tried to draw an analogy between the postponement of these elections and the postponement of the election of members of the House of Assembly. However, this is nonsensical. The two issues are really not comparable. In addition to what the hon member for Sea Point said by way of an interjection, I want to say that we opposed this extension of time for members of the House of Assembly—on the standing committee and in the debate in this House.

The hon member for Klip River apparently forgot that the Constitution provides that the State President may dissolve the Houses at any time. There is no provision that the first election will only take place in 1988, 1989 or 1990. He can dissolve Parliament at any time. In fact, under certain circumstances he has to dissolve Parliament. There is also the possibility that he can dissolve Houses of Parliament under particular circumstances.

To say in the light of these facts that this is comparable to a situation that is determined by means of legislation, namely that all elections for local authorities will take place in 1988, is nonsensical and the hon member for Klip River ought to know that.

However, we welcome this Bill, because what the hon member for Klip River and other hon members did not realize is involved is the fundamental principle of free association in the political sphere. This is the fundamental principle involved. Just as the Labour Party and the other parties in the other Houses have every right to decide, in accordance with the principle of free association, whom they want as members—whether those members are Whites, Blacks or whoever; that does not concern us, because it is their right—it is likewise the right that the PFP claims for itself. If the NP and the CP decide that they do not want to allow free association within the compass of their parties, it is their choice. However, this is the fundamental principle that we accept, and I believe that in the future this will be the most important principle on the road of South Africa that will enable us to handle the conflicts existing in South Africa owing to the differences in race and colour. I believe that that fundamental principle will enable us to find the mechanisms to enable us to deal properly with those conflicts in South Africa. For that reason I welcome, in principle, the repeal of this Act, because this makes it possible for us properly to accommodate those conflicts in South Africa on the principle of free association.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Umbilo. I have very limited time at my disposal, but I just want to say, with regard to the problems that he raised in connection with the retention of section 3 of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, that we are making a rod for our own backs, because as the section reads it is really open to so many interpretations. It provides:

So what is there to prevent any person from receiving a sum of money that he can use in his discretion for whatever he wants to use it? But now he decides in his discretion that he will use it for promoting a political party or for combating a party. I want to assure the hon the Deputy Minister that this is a measure that will simply not be capable of being applied in practice. It was said a moment ago—and we expected the Government to give attention to it, which it did not do—that we are faced here with a problem of the TBVC countries, the independent countries. According to this measure, a White voter residing in those areas and registered as a voter in the Republic of South Africa may not contribute money for the election campaign of a party in the Republic. This is totally ridiculous. A member of the NP who lives in Bophuthatswana may therefore not send money to help the National Party in the Republic with an election, although he is registered as a voter in the Republic. I want to continue by referring to the words “in the discretion” in clause 3 and the provision “or to combat any aim or principle of a political party”. Let me now give you a simple, ridiculous example: I may not receive money to establish or to promote a mixed private school in South Africa, because that is contrary to the policy of the Government. Mixed schools are contrary to the policy of the Government. I would therefore be contravening the law—this is a ridiculous example—but I would be contravening the law if I received money to promote mixed schools in South Africa. If we retain the provisions of this clause, it will create more problems for us that it will solve.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member the following question: Suppose one million Zulus join the PFP and throw out the present leader, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, and elect their own leader, how will it work then?

Our approach is very simple: any person who is prepared to subscribe to the principles and the policy of the party is welcome. It does not matter to us to which race, colour, ethnic or other group such a person belongs. He has to subscribe to the principles and the policy of the party. I want to suggest this to the National Party as well. Their criterion should be not to select people on the grounds of race or colour, but if a person is prepared to subscribe to the policy of the NP, he should be welcome there.

Hendrik, are you going to include him in the Cabinet?

Mr Chairman, with regard to the last point made by the hon member Prof Olivier, it is of course also true that those persons who join the party in that they support the principles of the party, can change the principles of that party as it suits them as soon as they form a majority in that party. I do not want to go into that point any further; I am only bringing it to his attention. [Interjections.]

To start with, I just want to return to the speech made by the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member for Sea Point was in the dilemma that he was terribly keen to hammer the National Party about something, and then there was nothing about which he could hammer us. So he had to go and delve in the past and dig up a whole lot of things out of the past. In the process it was nevertheless interesting that, with his typical language skill, he painted a slightly distorted, but nevertheless gripping picture of what the political situation was 15 years ago.

If one compares that picture of his with the situation existing in South Africa today, one has to admit that the present picture is a totally different one from the one that existed 15 to 20 years ago. That underlines the fact that this Government is engaged in meaningful, dramatic reform. On the other hand it proves once again—to make the point on which I dwelt yesterday—that, if one described the situation in those days with the word “apartheid”, it is totally inappropriate still to do so today, as we are dealing with a completely different situation now.

I just want to return for a moment to the hon member Prof Olivier, who made a point with regard to the word “discretion” which appears in clause 2 of the Bill. I must honestly say that I had problems following his argument. That clause is imple and there can be no misunderstanding. The only valid point which I think can be raised against or about it, is the point made by the hon member for Umbilo. That is that the object of this clause—which is a good purpose—can possibly be circumvented in the manner he mentioned. I really found it difficult to follow the point raised by the hon member Prof Olivier.

I also just want to put a point of view with regard to the consequences of the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Sir, we believe that a group of people can be best represented by someone from that group. I think this is illustrated very well by the fact that the PFP have tried their best over the past few years in this House, also to represent inter alia the Coloured and Indian groups in this Parliament. However, the moment when the Labour Party came to Parliament under the leadership of the hon the Minister the Rev Alan Hendrickse, who happens to be present in this House, we saw that group being effectively represented for the first time. In other words, this system clearly proves the correctness of our point of view that someone is best represented by someone from his own group. Sir, if one develops that point of view, one reaches a point where one can say as it is put in this booklet “… And what about the “Black People?”:

Surely you are being racist now.

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

No, unfortunately I do not have time for irrelevant questions. We therefore believe that the National Party can function best if it continues to represent the White electorate and then to co-operate with other parties which properly represent the other groups as is set out in this system. We believe that in that way we can eventually achieve the best results for South Africa as a whole and for every group in particular. As soon as one has a party the members of which come from more than one group—as has been demonstrated and as will shortly be demonstrated when the other parties throw open their doors officially—then either the one or the other group is in effective control of a particular party. That party can best represent the interests of its own group of people and the other groups will then soon realize that their interests are not being properly represented and will then turn away from that party. I am only making a little prediction, Sir. They can do whatever they like with this summary of mine and within a year or three we can see whether this summary of mine was true and whether that is in fact the case.

Or an alliance with the Labour Party.

Order! There has now been enough shouting across the floor of the House. The hon member may proceed.

I just want to make one or two further points. The point has been made here that the clause in terms of which elections on the local government level are postponed until 1988 will in fact prejudice the position of management committees at a very critical stage. This is certainly a question of judgement. One can argue like that, but one can also argue differently. Sir, when one is establishing a new system, elections at a particular stage can affect it positively or negatively. They can have a beneficial or a disruptive effect on it. The Government was of the opinion that at this stage it would probably be beneficial that elections were not held again, as the system in which those bodies would have to function in the future had not been properly established yet. As soon as it has been properly established, it will be the right time to place it on the proper basis by holding elections for a next term. We believe, in other words, that at this stage it can be beneficial for the development of the system not to plunge those people into elections now.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon member for Turffontein, because in a very effective speech he referred to the great ideal, the great future which the PFP sees for itself now that this obstacle has been removed, and said that that party was now going to try to obtain effective control over Parliament by obtaining majorities in the other two Houses. That is a beautiful picture they paint for themselves. On our part, we see our way clear to handling any situation of this nature, if it should arise. It really does not bother us. But it will mean that by that the PFP will finally admit that its role in White politics is a thing of the past and that it can at most be a footnote in history.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin has just uttered a wishful thought, but I am afraid we are not going to oblige him in the PFP. We are, in fact, gaining votes as it becomes more and more apparent, even to those starry-eyed businessmen who attended the Carlton and the Good Hope Conferences, that this Government has made an unholy mess of South Africa. Therefore they are turning to a party which has a far more realistic economic policy and a far more moral and acceptable political philosophy. I was rather shocked to listen to the hon member for Helderkruin this afternoon. I did not think that he realized it, but he made a purely racist speech. I am sure he did not mean it that way. I am sure he is considered as an enlightened member. If I am not much mistaken …

That is only on the surface.

He did not coin “healthy power-sharing”, did he?

He almost did.

He almost coined “healthy power-sharing” which led to such a split in the National Party. However, he certainly supports healthy power-sharing. Unfortunately, it is all on a racial basis. He can only conceive of each racial group being represented by someone of their own race. The idea of a common citizenship, the idea of a broad South Africanism, the idea even of merit as the yardstick does not occur to him. That is, of course, where we differ. I have to admit that I cannot follow his line of argument. I must also admit this afternoon to a wry feeling of satisfaction. I have to say it. I say this because in this House today—and I have counted and was aided and abetted in my count by experts—according to Hansard of 1968, the year that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was passed, there are 16 survivors of this House as well as of course the State President who was here as well and is no longer a member of this Assembly. There are only 16 survivors.

The old guard.

The old guard; the very old guard in some cases. When the Prohibition of Political Interference Bill was put to the vote at Second Reading, 9 of those 16 here were present and voted for the Bill on that day, and there were only 2 who voted against the Bill. They were the hon member for De Kuilen, who is sitting there …

That was the only time that he was right.

Yes, that was the only time, or one of the very few times, that he was right. The hon member and I voted against the Second Reading. He voted—believe it or not—for my motion, which was that the Bill be read this day six months. He voted for that, and so did the rest of the Official Opposition. I am sorry the hon Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism is not here, because he, in fact, did not vote with the Official Opposition, but I think he was just out fishing or something. I will not say that he did not want to vote with us; he was out fishing. The hon member for Durban Point was not here either on that day, but I will not ascribe any sinister motives to his absence. I must say it is very interesting to go through this Hansard and read some of the speeches. One finds that they are very much like the speeches that have been made today from the CP benches. So, let us give credit where credit is due: The NP has moved, ponderously and for reasons of its own, which we will not go into—mostly, I should think, because Ministers here are breaking the law every day of the session when they go across the road or down the hall to the old Senate chamber to address members of another population group who outnumber them. Right now, in fact, they are breaking the law. They probably find that a bit uncomfortable and that may be one of the reasons why they have decided, at long last, to scrap this ridiculous law, this totally ridiculous law.

When it was introduced, the then Minister, who was Mr P K le Roux, told us there were three major principles involved. He said it was to prohibit a person from being a member of any political party which was run by another population group; and to prevent persons of any one population group, for personal gain or improper aims, from aiding persons belonging to another population group at an election, and to prohibit a person belonging to one population group from addressing a group belonging to another population group. It is the most absurd nonsense. Those were to of the principles, and the third—which we are leaving intact—was to prohibit financial assistance from abroad for political parties. That remains untouched and I may say I voted for that clause when the original Bill was introduced. Political parties must, I think, get their support from within South Africa, and we are leaving that intact and we agree with that.

Well now, those may have been the principles involved. Of course, there was a long and sordid history behind all this, which I do not want to go into now, because I can feel the beady eyes of the Whip boring into me and I have not been given very much time. We all know the sordid history of the Coloured vote in South Africa, how the limited vote which, of course, extended only to the Cape Province, was removed by packing the Senate, how thereafter the Coloured people were given four White representatives in the House and were put on a separate roll, and how those four representatives remained until it became obvious that the Progressive Party, of which I was then the sole MP, was about to get another four members, and that was a fate too ghastly to contemplate. Therefore, all sorts of manipulations went on and by-elections were delayed. A couple of Coloured representatives dropped dead in the interim period, but there were no by-elections as they were delayed over and over again. Ultimately, since the Government could not think of anything else, it simply abolished those four separate-roll seats. What a disgusting history that is. Anyway, thereafter came the improper interference provisions—in case there could be manipulations behind the scenes—for the Coloured Persons Representative Council which was dissolved by the Coloured people themselves.

Now we have come to the point where we have a tricameral Parliament, Coloured members of Parliament, Coloured members of the Cabinet—a Minister and a Deputy-Minister, and also a Minister and a Deputy-Minister in the House of Delegates. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act is now being abolished and our party will go back to what it was originally, namely a multiracial party. We hope that members will join us and only people who believe in our aims and our principles. Those are the only people whom we are interested in having. We do not just want numbers and we do not want people to come along for expedient reasons, thinking that they can ride into Parliament on our credibility and what they fondly believe to be our financial recourses, which alas are not nearly as great as an hon member who spoke earlier seems to think they are.

The principles involved may be what the then Minister said they were, but what has the practice in fact shown as a result of the passing of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act 17 years ago? There has firstly been a loss, a very sad loss, of 17 years of political association across the colour line. Secondly, it has meant the loss of 17 years of getting to know our fellow South Africans. It has been a loss of understanding of their grievances and it has been a loss of appreciating their aims and their ambitions. I believe that is a tremendous loss by any human standards. What is more, it has proved to be extremely harmful because what it has done is to deny moderate Coloured, Indian and Black people the opportunity of discussing politics with an aim with moderate White people. It has, as the hon member for Sea Point pointed out, polarized the situation to a tremendous extent, indeed to such as extent that the majority of Coloured and Indian people objected to participation in the Coloured and Indian elections last year, thus demonstrating a complete hostility towards the system which had been set up by Whites alone.

In his closing speech during the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, the Minister at the time said, and I quote:

He was referring to the Official Opposition at the time:

The only revolt which we are getting against the repeal of this Act, has been from the Conservative Party and I do not think that that will prevent…

It is a revolting party!

That may be so, but it will not prevent the repeal of this Act because it is my view and that of my party that the repeal of the Act is long overdue and we are glad to be here to support the withdrawal of an Act which should never have come onto the South African Statute Book in the first instance.

Mr Chairman, it appears to me—and I am putting it mildly—to be a particularly joyful day for the PFP today, and indeed it should be.

It was an experience to listen to members of the National Party in their frantic attempts today to try to explain why they have completely changed their standpoint within a short space of two years. I remember the days when all of us were still Nationalists— and fervent Nationalists—and how we put up our election posters with the photographs of our leaders. They carried the words: “Steadfast on the same road”. Can the National Party still say that tonight? Since 1978 the National Party has followed a new road, steadfast on the downhill road of capitulation.

Of all the members sitting on the opposite side—and the hon member for Houghton referred to this—there is only one who has at least remained consistent in his standpoint on the legislation under discussion, namely the hon member for De Kuilen. I do not think he has any reason to have a guilty conscience. [Interjections.] Let us just go back two years to when the hon member for Pinelands moved a motion in this House that the legislation concerned be abolished. On that occasion, on 4 March 1983, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, who is not here tonight—and I am glad for his sake that he is not here—in reply to the debate convincingly defended the existence of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

What does the Constitution say?

I shall come to that. Just give me a chance. The Minister said the following (Hansard, 4 March 1983, col. 2357):

That is right.

The hon member says that is right, but now he is abolishing that Act. The Minister went on to say:

He was referring to members of the PFP:

The Minister was justifying the existing Act, which is now to be abolished, and said that it did not prohibit healthy communication among the various groups, but that the purpose of the Act has always been to prevent unhealthy manipulation. Now hon members taking part in the debate tonight are saying that times have changed and that we now have a new dispensation. The National Party has—and I believe quite craftily—anticipated this debate in the Press in announcing that it will not allow Coloureds, Blacks or Indians as members of that party. Then, Mr Chairman, I want to take you back to the same debate of 4 March 1983. The Minister of Home Affairs in his argument in relation to the NRP, and in particular when he referred to the hon member for Durban Point, who had said that he was in favour of the repeal of the Act, asked the following question (Hansard, 4 March 1983, col. 2358):

The hon the Minister then used that same argument in relation to the NRP. The then Leader of the NRP replied and stated their view of separate parties that can co-operate, whereupon the hon the Minister replied as follows (Handsard, 4 March 1983, col. 2358):

The Minister continued:

That is why I ask the members of the National Party tonight: Why do they want the Act repealed?

It has become impractical.

The hon member now says it has become impractical. [Interjections.]

But you had the Constitution in 1983 as well. It was on the Table.

During that debate in 1983— I am again referring to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and I want to repeat that mercifully he is not here tonight—he specifically referred to the coming new dispensation. What did the hon Minister say? He said (col. 2362):

Completely in line, Sir? This is what that hon Minister said. That hon Minister has however lost the battle within the NP.

Yes, yes.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has won that battle.

Eli Louw has already passed him.

What battle, Cas? What battle?

The battle between left and right. The hon member should know what I am talking about. Now we should like to see tonight what happens. When the hon member for Turffontein moved an amendment to the motion of the hon member for Pinelands in 1983, I do not think he did so of his own volition or without the leave or permission and consent of the Minister or the Whips of the NP.

But you know how the NP operates.

Of course I know. I know. Of course the hon member had permission.

We have discipline in the NP.

But that was the hon member’s standpoint and I should like to assume that it was a considered one. We should like to hear tonight what argument will be coming from the NP. What has happened in these two years that has caused that party to change its standpoint completely?

But did you not listen? I told you what has changed.

I listened to the hon member. While I am with that hon member now, the following: While he was speaking, the hon member for Rissik asked him whether he would allow it if the hon the Rev Alan Hendrickse wanted to join the NP. What was the hon member for Turffontein’s reply? He said: Have you asked the hon the Rev Alan Hendrikse yet whether he accepts the principles of the NP?

That is a reasonable reply.

A reasonable reply. But now it goes further: If a Coloured person accepts the principles of the NP, will you allow him as a member?

But there is no law that says that you must allow someone.

Now we get a further reply. That hon member says he doubts whether the hon the Rev Alan Hendrickse will accept the principles of the NP and now he is evading the question. Now the hon member Dr Vilonel comes along and gives a different reply. We moved exactly the same amendment today as the hon member for Turffontein did two years ago.

Why do you not debate like a lawyer?

Now we shall await a reply from the NP, who profess to the voters that they have not cast aside their basic standpoints on matters of principle, why today they are going to vote against their motion of two years ago. That hon member …

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

Mr Chairman, I shall give the hon member for Turffontein a chance in a moment. The hon member for Turffontein says circumstances have changed.

No, the Constitution has changed.

Oh, the Constitution has changed.

But Tino Volker said the realities have changed.

Then I just want to remind that hon member: He then spoke to the PFP, and what did he tell them? He said:

Take careful note, Mr Chairman, it is the hon member for Turffontein who said that:

It remains true.

It is still in the Constitution.

The hon member for Helderkruis says it remains true. See how these hon members argue. The hon member for Turffontein said that if the policy of the PFP were to triumph, this Act which they are abolishing tonight would be unnecessary. But now they say that we now have a Constitution and that the argument no longer applies. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

And that same hon member for Turffontein then tries to cross words with the NRP. Referring to the NRP, he said that because in that debate they were in favour of the repeal of this Act, they had a Nat day the one day and a Prog day the next. I want to predict that it will be their Prog day in the House today, because they are committed to the abolition of this Act, it is not a Prog day today, but a Prog festival. It is a Prog era which the National Party want to introduce. Consequently we are not amazed that a political commentator wrote an article in the Weekend Argus of 9 March 1985 under the heading “When Progs sound like Nats”.

“When Nats sound like Progs”.

I should just like to read a few of the findings of this political commentator. He says:

He goes on to say:

The National Party has not come there with a reform measure. The National Party has come here with total capitalation. For the time being they now say to the voters that a Coloured will never be able to become a member of the National Party.

The term “never” was not used.

You did not say “never”. That is interesting. That hon member expects the realities to change.

In two years time.

He is waiting for the realities to change. The CP is accused of racism because of its political standpoints. I challenge the National Party to say and to motivate that its standpoint that it is not prepared to allow membership of the National Party to people of colour in this country is not racist.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, that hon member says it is not racist. The only criterion, apart from acceptance of the policy of a party, is that you have to be a White person. I do not apologize for the fact that that is the standpoint of my party. It is our standpoint.

You are a racist.

Sir, but then I am not a dishonest racist. I am not a dishonest racist like the hon member for Randburg. The hon member for Randburg is temporarily satisfied with the progress which has been made within the National Party up to now. He is satisfied with the temporary progress.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I withdraw the word “dishonest” and I shall say a “cunning” racist.

The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I just want to know from the hon member for Barberton whether he is a legal expert. If so, why does he not argue rationally? Why does he not also mention in his argument the provisions of the Constitution which deal with this particular situation? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member paid me an undeserved compliment by suggesting that I am a legal expert. I am not so presumptous as to try to give that impression

A far-right expert, yes! [Interjections.]

I do not know, of course, what the hon member for Turffontein is trying to suggest with that question of his. We have a new constitutional dispensation and naturally one also has to judge all measures which are taken, in the light of the new constitutional dispensation.

Then why do you not do it in your argument?

The hon member clearly did not listen to what I said. I pointed out to the hon member the argument advanced by his own hon Minister—the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education. He said the existing Prohibition of Political Interference Act was in keeping with the new constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] The Constitution was in fact brought into the matter [Interjections.]

But practice has proved it to be different.

The hon member says practice has proved it to be different. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow so many and such incessant interjections. The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

Mr Chairman, even at the time of that debate—it was in 1983—a compromise had been arrived at among the National Party, the NRP and the PFP. The Progs were implacably opposed to all the provisions of that legislation. Then the NRP put forward the argument that clause 3 of the Bill had to be retained—which is also to be retained in the present legislation—but that the rest had to be abolished. At that time already—contrary to the argument advanced by the hon member Prof Olivier tonight—the hon member for Pinelands said that the retention of clause 3 would make the Bill acceptable to him, provided clauses 1 and 2 were deleted. We know what the reason was why this Act was originally put into operation. The National Party knows it. The PFP knows it. In fact, we want to know from the National Party what has happened in the meantime that has caused that party to change its standpoint.

The CPs have walked off! [Interjections.]

Well, now that is an interesting argument. Does that then mean that when the members of the CP left the National Party, that party immediately jettisoned some principles? [Interjections.] I can draw no other conclusion at all from that. This legislation that the Government wants to repeal tonight was one of the basic corner-stones—that is how the National Party viewed it—for the maintenance of its policy. Without any sufficient reason, except that the National Party has decided that separateness is no longer in line with its policy—and that is what it has decided—this legislation is now simply being repealed. Because the National Party has decided that separateness is no longer in line with its policy, it now finds itself in a process in which one piece of legislation after another passed by this Government itself is being repealed—and this under the banner of the new movement of so-called reform.

For this very reason we on this side have no choice—we can simply never accept this particular measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton gave me much pleasure. He is a master of the art of speaking—more so, of course, than of the art of reasoning. He simply performs beautifully. It was a privilege to all of us to listen to him. He is really a little bit like a circus—but a very good circus. [Interjections.] The humorous interjection by the hon member for Swellendam in connection with the defection of the CP, which happened, as the hon member knows, before 1983—not after that—he took terribly seriously. His objective was to try to blow up the whole thing to such an extent that hon members of his party would probably read it from Hansard at public meetings. He apparently wants to make it possible to say: “Just listen to what the hon member for Swellendam said! He said the National Party had changed its principles since 1983 only because the CP subsequently defected”. But the CP defected before 1983. Did the CP not defect in 1982? But let me just say to the hon member: This party has not jettisoned its principles, it has jettisoned its misconceptions. The hon member for Barberton must please sit still for a while, because I shall come back to him in a moment. He must please not leave.

But before coming to that, I just want to refer briefly to the speeches of the hon members for Sea Point and Houghton. What the hon member for Houghton said, namely that only she and the hon member for De Kuilen voted against the Bill in 1968, is interesting. It is interesting that, while they agreed then…

I refer to only those that are here today.

Yes, certainly—those that are here today. The interesting point is that they again agree. I do not know what she is so concerned about, but there is a touch of irony in it. What is more ironic is that these two hon members, the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Sea Point, feel that they have gained a victory. But the victory is obviously not their victory—if one can speak in terms of a victory. The victory in fact belongs to the Rev Hendrickse. It is not a victory arising from a situation of confrontation, but a victory resulting from the working of this system, where you have to have an assenting majority in every House to get a resolution adopted. These people insisted on this; in fact, they participated in the election on a basis of a contravention of the provisions of the Act.

Mr R M BURROWS. That is what we should have done, is that what you are saying?

No, the hon member should not disturb me, because I have very little time at my disposal and I really do not want to keep him here longer than necessary. I shall come to that now. The hon member for Kuruman did refer to the fact that the victory belonged to the Rev Hendrickse. That is one of the points they feel very strongly about. They also feel very strongly about the repeal of the Group Areas Act. They feel very strongly about a unicameral system, but they have not got that yet in any case …

It is still coming.

No, I do not want to say that something is coming or not coming. We have a point of view that we want certain things; they have a point of view that they want other things. And in the process of give and take one gets answers that are not necessarily everyone’s first choice and that are very often second and third choices for everyone, but that at least give one a system in which all the people in this country can live together happily and relatively satisfied in future and get away from violence and revolution. This remains the challenge of the future and this is the way in which the system operates. But let me say this to these hon members: They say that we say times and circumstances have changed, and now they ask whether we are going to change things whenever circumstances change. Surely these members were all members of the National Party at a certain time. They heard—this was very interesting to me—that at a certain stage a directive was given to members of the national Party that they were not to attend a cocktail party if a black person other than a waiter was present. But these members were then also members of the party, and today they go to a cocktail party where black people other than waiters are present.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Langlaagte must please give me a chance. We can point out many other things too. We can point out participation in sport and their sport policy compared to what the sport policy of the National Party was. They will concede that their sport policy is more liberal than the sport policy of the National Party was at one stage. Why Sir? Have things changed or have things not changed? Let us not try to score points off one another about this. I just want to say to hon members: Things are going to keep changing, and as long as circumstances change, the measures and the arrangements and the legislation will have to change to keep pace with changed circumstances. The question is whether they are right with their policy of changing slowly, which they are in fact doing, or whether we are perhaps right with our policy of changing a little more rapidly …

Or the Progs?

… or whether the Progs, who say that we must change much more rapidly, are perhaps right; or whether the ANC, which says that we must now have one man, one vote, is perhaps right. That is what we have to debate. At the moment, however, we as members of the National Party are debating with that party not the question whether we have to change or not, but the rate of change.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I do not want to spend much more time on this issue.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik must please control himself.

I just want to say to the hon member for Sea Point in his absence—hon members of his party can convey this to him—that I also enjoyed his speech. I think that even to him it was the most pleasant speech he has made this session—and perhaps even the past few years—in this House. He really enjoyed it. He enjoyed speaking and delving into history, especially when he could refer to the story of the Black waiter who was allowed to be present. From that historical analysis of his I could not but get the impression that not even Mr Jaap Marais could get so excited about history as the hon member for Sea Point. It was indeed a pleasure to listen to him. [Interjections.]

Back to the hon member for Barberton, Mr Chairman. This hon member put the question—he put it a few times, and other hon members also referred to it—whether we will accept those Coloureds who support the principles of the National Party into the ranks of our party. The answer is of course no.

Why not?

Oh, will you please give me a chance to reply to you on this? Please! I am sorry, Mr Chairman, that I allow the hon member for Rissik to upset me when he asks me “why not” and wastes my time in that way. No, we will not do that. I want to say, however, that when one only takes the system of political parties into account, it is something which one ought to do, because you do subscribe to certain principles after all. I concede that immediately and unreservedly. But we will not do that. I agree, of course, with the hon member Dr Vilonel that we cannot say we will never do it. In the given circumstances we will however not throw open our membership at the moment. There is of course a very practical reason why we will not do so. The hon member for Barberton said he was an open racist. He said I was a dishonest racist, and subsequently substitutd it by “a cunning racist”. He, however is an open racist. I accept what he tells me. Unfortunately I cannot say that he told a lie here in this House. Something like that would be inadmissible according to the rules of this House. [Interjections.] I therefore accept that he is—as he said—an open racist. I deny, however, that I am a cunning racist. I also deny that hon members on this side of the House are cunning racists.

What is the political game about, Mr Chairman? Politics is about power. Now I want to motivate why we are not throwing open our membership. Politics, as I have said, is about power. It is about the exercising of the power in relation to decision-making.

White domination, in other words!

No, not White domination. I am talking of every form of decision-taking. I wish the hon member for Barberton would also keep quiet just for a moment so that I can complete this argument. Then he can ask me as many questions as he likes. Politics is a game of power. To be elected, a politician needs a power base. Not one of us will argue about that.

Not the CPs!

Yes, the CPs also need it. That is why they will not be here after the next election … [Interjection.] In politics one needs a power base. Every politician obtains that power base most easily in his natural surroundings, among the people of his own kind. Everybody will agree with me—that is after all our experience—that people also like to vote for a candidate of their own kind. Their own kind of course includes colour as well. But it definitely does not include things like cultural attitude, the environment in which the person finds himself, the language he speaks, his social standards, his economic standards, etc. In every divided community in the world—we can look at all the examples—political parties that try to be all things to all men are the rare exception.

Like the National Party!

No, not like the National party. To win any seats at all—let alone an election—the candidates of a political party definitely have to have a power base. Nowhere could I find an example of an election that was won by a party that tried to be all things to all men. I believe the decision of the PFP to open their membership to everbody is a noble one. It is a morally justifiable decision. I do not believe, however, that it is a practical political decision. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment, they are going to pay the price in White politics. By that I do not mean to say that what they propose should not really be the ideal for everybody, namely that one can form a party on the basis of certain principles and that anyone who really subscribes to those principles can then join that party. After all, that is in accordance with Dr Malan’s standpoint of bringing together those who belong together. If people subscribe to all the same things, they should be able to be together like that. As far as the moral aspect is concerned I would therefore say “yes”. In practice, however, they are going to get a hiding. Then the question is again: How are we going to develop in the future? There are many instances of elections in which the slogan was “Vote for your own kind”.

I should have liked to have argued on one or two more points, but like other hon members I am also keen to go home.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to reply to any great extent to the speech made by the hon member for Randburg. In general he dealt very reasonably with the Bill before us. I just want to say that, from the way he dealt with the question of open membership of political parties, I somehow got the impression that he spoke about the matter with a measure of reservation. I am not quite sure whether he is so happy with the decision taken on it by his own party.

No, I am very happy with it.

I am very glad to hear the hon member is happy with it. It makes me happy when he is happy. However, I do not know how long he will be happy.

I also want to react briefly to the speech of the hon member for Turffontein. Today that hon member once again spat venom in a really distasteful manner. He has a noisy manner of speaking and when he makes the most noise, it is without exception in order to conceal some or other political embarrassment. That was again the case today. He had to speak after the hon member for Kuruman and I want to concede that he succeeded very effectively in making the hon member for Turffontein look like an absolute fool.

I have appreciation for the fact that people change their points of view. The hon members on the opposite side have all changed their points of view.

That applies to you too.

Yes, of course. They have changed their point of view quite drastically. Just for the fun of it I paid some attention to the standpoints that were in fact adopted. The hon member for Turffontein in particular squirmed about regarding the way in which the nature of the Constitution has now changed the situation with regard to the prohibition of political interference. One only has to read what the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs said about it last year—not in 1983—during the discussion of his Vote. He laid down certain minimum conditions for the continued existence of this legislation. At that stage there was already talk that the legislation would be examined on account of the fact that there were obvious contraventious and uncertainties in connection with it. He said that an investigation had to be carried out, but that there were certain minimum conditions. Those minimum conditions appear in Hansard of 5 May 1984. I want to tell the hon member that nothing has remained of those conditions.

If I can therefore give the hon member some advice, I just want to say that one should perhaps be a little more careful and not rush into a situation so noisily as he again did today. He should remember that he is a man who once had to abandon his entire political philosophy, when he had made a fiasco of it in the old United Party and joined the NP. Since then he has on many occasions made a blatant fool of himself in-politics. The other day he again said something in connection with Coloured Afrikaners, i.e. that there is no such thing. Within seconds the hon member for Randburg made a statement contradicting that. The hon member for Turffontein should be a little more careful. All of us sometimes have to make changes, but if one is a little more careful, one can at least retain some credibility in the process. I must tell the hon member for Turffontein that nothing will remain of his credibility if he carries on as he did tonight.

Naturally I should like to give my wholehearted support…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, you have heard how the hon member has been arguing. Is it permissible to attack a person’s character and to speak about his credibility in that way?

Order! No, I have heard nothing that is not permissible, but I shall continue listening. The hon member for Green Point may proceed.

Sir, I think I was very careful.

I should like to express my wholehearted support for the repeal of this prohibition of political interference that is contained in the Bill. The abolition of this prohibition is not only desirable and appropriate today, but was even desirable when the prohibition was introduced. Such a prohibition should never have been placed on the Statute book, and hon members on this side have already said so.

The hon member for Klip River is not here now, but he attempted to show that originally there had been good reasons for the existence of this prohibition. I must say those attempts of his sounded fairly pathetic. The hon member referred to the position regarding the balance of power in politics and said that the Government had to be careful not to disturb such a balance of power. I want to say in all honesty that this only underlines the total lack of moral justification for the imposition of this prohibition in the first place if one argues that the balance of power, which at that stage related virtually exclusively to White politics, gives one a moral right to impose a prohibition of this nature. Such an argument amazes me.

The name under which this prohibition was put on the Statute book is of course another element which perhaps deserves comment, because it was one of those incredible examples of semantic manipulation for which the NP is so well-known. To describe this prohibition as a prohibition of political interference surely suggests something improper. It suggests that if people organize political affairs jointly across racial lines, something is prima facie wrong with it. The mere use of the word “interference” already suggests that there is something quite improper and virtually immoral involved. I think it was unfair to use such terminology in that prohibition.

As has been proved and clearly indicated today, this prohibition has of course not stood the test of time, and it is for this reason—there must be no mistake about this—that we are repealing this legislation today, and not because circumstances have changed nor because there is a new Constitution, because in actual fact the political threats facing the Government after the repeal of this legislation are infinitely greater than any political threat that the absence of such a law could have presented to them in the past under the old constitutional system. Hon members only have to pay some attention to the comparison I am drawing now, and they will realize that it is valid indeed.

Not even the NP could keep to the spirit or the letter of this prohibition, because it is general knowledge that in the early stages of the existence of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Nationalist and organizations to which they belonged, and quite possibly the NP itself, were already actively involved in granting support to certain Coloured political parties and individual candidates against the then Labour Party, which is today to a certain extent a coalition partner of the NP. We know that happened, and there is more than ample proof of it. It has already been conceded that that existed.

Even at an early stage, therefore, practical problems arose in connection with this legislation and with the ability of even the Government and the governing party to keep within these restrictions. We also know that certain lectures were given to potential Coloured politician last year. Certain consultations also took place and they were also even given certain advice. As early as that it was stated very clearly that there were problems with this prohibition. Over the years this prohibition has in fact caused the Government much more embarrassment than any good.

Finally I want to refer briefly to a few matters relating to the Electoral Act, but which I believe should in fact have been in the Bill before us. This is a comprehensive Bill dealing not only with political interference, but also with local authority elections and provincial matters. A matter which is closely related to the prohibition of political interference is something which relates to the provisions in section 36 and section 128A of the Electoral Act. Section 36 deals with the registration of political parties for the purpose of conducting elections. Hon members will know that it was in fact section 36 and its interpretation that gave rise to a crisis regarding the prohibition of political interference last year when the Labour Party decided to put up candidates for the House of Delegates as well, opened their party to Indians and in fact put up Indian candidates. They went further and applied for the Labour Party to be registered as a political party for the second time in order to take part in elections for the House of Delegates. If one reads section 36 of the Electoral Act carefully, there is, in my opinion, room for such an interpretation. There is doubt as to whether section 36 means that a political party can only be registered once to be able to hold elections for one House of Parliament. I believe that the other possible interpretation can also be attached to it, ie that a political party can in fact register more than once if it satisfies the requirements laid down in the section, in order to take part in elections for the other Houses of Parliament as well. I am convinced that the mere fact that that application of the Labour Party was not rejected in 1984, already suggests that my interpretation of that section has some validity. The fact that the hon Minister of Internal Affairs threatened in 1984 to introduce legislation to clear up that situation, suggests that there is still uncertainty about the interpretation of section 36. A Bill was in fact introduced at the time to make it very clear that a political party could not register to take part in elections for more than one House of Parliament, but obviously a compromise was then reached between the NP and the Labour Party that the Labour Party would withdraw its application on condition that the hon the Minister would agree to refer the Prohibition of Political Interference Act to a select committee of Parliament. That is how I interpreted the compromise at that stage. For some or other reason that Bill was withdrawn, and as a result we now still have the situation in section 36 which is, in my opinion, somewhat obscure. I should very much like the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to reply to this. If he should concede that there is uncertainty about his or if his interpretation is that a political party can register only once for the purposes of taking part in elections for one House of Parliament, I want to suggest that such an interpretation or provision is not reconcilable with the repeal of the prohibition of political interference and that the Government should do something about it as soon as possible.

The second section in the Electoral Act to which I want to refer is section 128A. This section is an absolutely straightforward apartheid section and is in complete accord with the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. It prohibits, inter alia, the appointment of persons across the colour lines as electoral agents, polling agents, presiding officers for postal votes and to quite a number of formal posts which is made in terms of the Electoral Act. It therefore means that a Coloured person cannot be appointed to one of those posts for an election for the House of Assembly or a Black for an election for the House of Delegates. I believe that that kind of prohibition is senseless against the background of the prohibition we are repealing here today and I sincerely hope that the Government will as soon as possible do something to repeal this section in the Electoral Act as well, so that the situation can be put right completely. To use a word that was frequently used on the other side today, I think the realities demand that we should repeal these sections as well.

Mr Chairman, at the very beginning I want to say that I differ radically from the hon member for Green Point. I shall illustrate this on the basis of two facts.

As far as the NP, the PFP and the CP are concerned, our points of departure differ fundamentally and that is why we evaluate the facts quite differently. The PFP, for example, sees South Africa as one community. Actually they see South Africa as Black. [Interjections.]

Order!

The CP sees South Africa as only White. [Interjections.] The NP sees South Africa as a variety of peoples and minority groups. The same facts are evaluated differently because our points of departure differ radically.

What does Jaap say?

I shall come to Jaap Marais. The same applies to the speech of the hon member for Turffontein. I want to congratulate him on an excellent speech and hon members are welcome to study that speech once again during the recess.

The CP disappointed me again this afternoon and tonight by referring in a mocking way to the history of South Africa. They have not seen the point of the history of South Africa. They say we always say times have changed, but they forget historic dates when things did change: 1652, 1806, 1902, 1910, 1961 and 1983. They do not see the point of history.

This Bill is an excellent example and proof of political development and political growth in respect of our country’s political problems.

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may not read the newspaper in this House.

Mr Chairman, may I address you? I am reading up in connection with this debate what the various political parties have said about opening their ranks to people of colour with a view to abolishing this Act.

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein East may proceed.

This Bill is proof of political dynamics and therefore we must evaluate this Bill according to this perspective. It is a fact that the interaction in the relations between peoples and population groups in South Africa has experienced constant growth and development from the beginning. It has been established mainly in State institutions, constitutions, Acts and various offices. There are too many to list. This applies for example to the relationship between Afrikaners and English-speaking people, Whites and non-Whites and among the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In this process Acts and State institutions which have been established have had to and will have to be amended and even abolished. South Africa’s main problem throughout our history has been the relationship between peoples and groups. As the relations have undergone great changes through the years, Acts and also the resulting State institutions associated with them, have often been amended. As an example one can look at the political development and history of the Afrikaners and their relationship with the English-speaking people. It has changed from conflict to harmony. This has always characterized the political process: A Crown Colony, Boer Republics, a Union, a Republic, a Governor-General, a President, and now a State President. [Interjections.]

Let us take the Coloureds’ political development into consideration. Coloured representation in the Parliament at the time was ended in 1968. Today they share in a new political dispensation.

Let us take the Indians as an example. I want the CP to listen to this. In Dr Malan’s time and in Adv Strijdom’s time the NP policy—it was a policy with which that party agreed—was a policy of repatriation; back to the fatherland. Then Dr Verwoerd came and changed the policy in respect of the Indians. Does the CP stand by Dr Verwoerd or do they stand by Adv Strijdom and Dr Malan? [Interjections.]

The same applies to the various political developments as far as the Black peoples are concerned. As the relations between peoples and population groups in South Africa change, Acts and institutions will constantly change, be amended and even abolished. It is a fact that we have had a rich history of political models, processes and offices in South Africa. Some of them have been abolished too. We abolished the Senate. We abolished the office of Prime Minister. Provincial councils are being abolished. This forms part of this legislative process. There have been and will constantly be developments, changes and adjustments. [Interjections.]

Another reason for this legislation is that since 1983 there has been a new dimension in our political relations. Our Constitution Act rests on two pillars, viz own affairs and joint affairs. In conjunction with this Bill, the position of provincial councils and local government institutions is being amended radically and will be changed radically in future. This is already part of the history.

The Constitution Act of 1983 affected the Government not only on central level, but also on provincial and local level. It was already spelt out clearly in the well-known speech of our hon leader on 30 July 1982 at the federal congress in Bloemfontein that changes would take place on provincial and local level. The repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act had its commencement in 1977 when our party’s constitutional proposals—the hon members of the CP were co-responsible for this—envisaged that a president who could be either a White, a Coloured or an Indian could be elected. This provision was the beginning of the end of this Act. It is logical, after all, that by virtue of his office, the actions, government and work of a president of this kind with his Council of Cabinets—at the time his government, his politics—would come into conflict with this Act. It was an untenable position.

The real, correct government task is juridical integration. That is why on political and also on party-political level we have juridical integration as it has manifested itself in the new dispensation. There is an intertwinement of interests with retention of identity. The PFP believes only in intertwinement of interests, whereas the CP believes only in the retention of identity. The NP believes in intertwinement of interests and the retention of identity. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my time has expired, but I should like to conclude with this quotation. The hon members for Barberton and Kuruman are not here now, but they quoted a number of times tonight what we are supposed to have said. I should like to quote from what is a good source according to them, viz The Afrikaner of 6 October 1982. I shall read it very slowly so that the hon members can hear it well:

Mr Chairman, I want to remind the hon member for Bloemfontein East of what he wrote after the youth congress at Blyde River. I want to ask the hon member whether he would also say in regard to what he wrote after Blyde River: “So what?”

I shall answer you with the synonym that…

So, the hon member says “so what” about what he wrote at that time. Having listened to the hon member, I want to ask him whether he would not be so kind as to appear with me either at Sasolburg—I shall ask my friend, Louis Stofberg—or at Bethlehem—I shall ask my friend, Adv Pienaar—and talk about the standpoint he put here this evening. [Interjections.] The hon member can give me his answer later on.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to put this question and tell the hon member …

Order! No, the hon member may not make a statement now.

I just want to inform the hon member that I cannot, because I cannot come down to his level.

The hon member is honest and says he cannot come down to my level. I accept that the hon member is much better qualified to put these standpoints, but I would like to ask him then if he would not like to go and make a speech at Bethlehem or Sasolburg and, on his own high level, inform those voters about his changed standpoints and also explain why he now says “so what” about what he wrote at Blyde River.

What did he write there about the question of ethnic identity versus multiracialism? He wrote the following, and I quote:

Is that a question of “so what” for him? [Interjections.] Oh, but he said that. He says further:

The hon member then goes on to mention a few laws:

I do not know if that is also a question of “so what”:

Everything has now become “so what” for that hon member. [Interjections.] The hon member goes on to say:

When did he write that?

He wrote that just after the Blyde River episode at the beginning of 1970. Now I should like to ask that hon member, who does not want to come down to my level because he is a high-and-mighty member of the “bont-broeders”, whether he will come down to the level of the voters of Bethlehem and Sasolburg and go and put forward these arguments of his there. He may as well also tell us this evening why he deviated from those principles.

I want to go further and thank my hon colleagues from Kuruman and Barberton for, and congratulate them on, two splendid speeches. The hon the leader of the House, who is not here at the moment, very anxiously asked the hon member Prof Olivier what would happen if a million Blacks were to join the PFP. Surely that is irrelevant because, as a result of this provision, a million Blacks could join the PFP if they wanted to. That is not against the law; it is a matter which the PFP itself would have to handle. The other interesting thing, however, is that, if a million Coloureds or Indians were to join the PFP and win the election in regard to the other two Houses, President Botha— or perhaps it will be President Heunis by that time—would surely have to accept Coloured Progs or Indian Progs in his Cabinet. South Africa would then have a multiracial coalition government consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians belonging to two parties, namely the PFP and the NP. [Interjections.] I do not actually want to talk to the hon member because I am not on the same level as he is. However, I should like to ask him: If I were to go to Bethlehem and Sasolburg now and say that it is now theoretically possible for the NP to enter into a coalition government with the PFP, would I be right or would I be wrong? [Interjections.] Theoretically I would be right. It is therefore possible for the NP to enter into a coalition with the PFP in order to govern this country.

The amazing fact is—my hon colleagues from the PFP and the NRP will just have to pardon us for this—that the struggle in White politics and especially in Afrikaner politics has not yet been resolved. The past few years have been a traumatic experience, especially after Pres Botha became leader of the NP and then Prime Minister. I refer especially to 1982.

I refer to myself when I say that I was suspended from the NP because I stood by the principles of that party. [Interjections.] The struggle for credibility in this country is still continuing. Who are the credible people: The hon member for Waterberg or Pres Botha? This struggle is about the credibility of the leaders in South Africa.

I say it was a traumatic experience to be kicked out of one’s party while one served it just as faithfully as any other members of that party did. One had to start building up a party again from scratch. [Interjections.] However, we are sitting here today and we are winning.

The second traumatic experience is to sit here on the Opposition side of the House and see how the once mighty NP now, under the leadership of Pres Botha, is breaking down one principle after another of that party. One piece of legislation after another introduced by the NP, is now being abolished. The strangest thing of all is that this is being done in the name of the NP.

I said before and I say again this evening: There are two things in life from which one cannot escape, namely death and the truth. [Interjections.] The CP is growing. It is not because we are so good; after all, we are inferior to the hon member for Bloemfontein East and we are not of the same quality as he is. An hon Minister said at the time that we were the lesser lights in the NP. So we are not people who count. However, we are growing and we are winning elections, not because we are so good, but because we have told the truth to the public outside. [Interjections.] Our credibility is on the increase.

The NP is like a kaleidoscope with dull crystals. The image of themselves they project to the outside world, is a faint one. This is the case time and time again. Every speech delivered here this evening brought forth a faint image, except for that of the hon member for Randburg who on occasion shines just a little bit. The NP is a party with a faint past and a faint future because their policy is faint.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that hon Minister can say such things because he knows what is going on in the NP. When we are alone, he must tell me what he said about Adv John Vorster.

You should not even mention John Vorster’s name.

I can mention his name, because when he died he was a friend of mine and I of his. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is one of the inner circle of the NP; he is one of the members of the Cabinet in the inner circle. There is, after all, an inner-circle Cabinet and there is an outer-circle Cabinet. Under this hon Minister the meaningful measures which were instituted with care by the old NP are being purposefully abolished to make way, it seems to me, for a colourless Tower of Babel here in Southern Africa.

The three opposition parties could without difficulty put their standpoints in principle today. The NRP and PFP were consistent with their initial approaches to this legislation. The CP, as the party which is still based on the old principles of the NP, also experienced no problems in putting its standpoints in principle on this today and in saying how it interprets the legislation.

Where, however, does the NP stand this evening? It no longer stands by its old principles. It rejects us as untouchables; it does not want to come near us. It says it rejects both the PFP and the NRP. What we shall have to discover in South Africa during the next few months and years, is what place and role the NP is going to fulfil in South Africa and what it still wants to do. That place it still has to carve out further for itself.

The legislation with which we are concerned this evening has a definite background, namely that in 1966 a Bill was introduced in Parliament to prevent the members of any one population group from interfering in the political affairs of other population groups. The committee could not complete its work and was therefore transformed into a commission. On 20 November 1967 this commission issued its report, and a majority report was issued wherein the principle was expressed that the commission was convinced of the desirability of legislation against improper interference by others. Mr Pen Kotzé himself, who was then the member for Parow and who is now a big gun in the President’s Council, said that in his report at the time. The legislation in regard to the prohibition of political interference became law on 5 June 1968.

As a result of the placing of this law on the Statute Book, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party were placed in a big dilemma at the time. If my facts are correct, the Liberal Party decided at the time rather to disband than alter its constitution, while the Progressive Party, after consultation with its Non-White members, decided to continue as a party. Furthermore, the Progressive Party said at the time—the promise was made— that, as soon as this law was repealed, those who were members then would automatically be recognized as members of the party once again, should they so desire. I do not know whether it is true or not, but someone told me that a report appeared in The Star during the past week or two in which it is alleged that the PFP is establishing a fund in order to raise an amount of R10 million which they want to use specifically for recruiting Coloured and Indian members.

It is not important for the purposes of this debate only, but tonight the NP reminds me of a group of WP supporters at Newlands whose team is losing and who walk out one after the other rather than watch how their team loses. Unfortunately, the game being played here is one which will still go on for a long time. Just as the NP members are conspicuous by their absence here this evening, so they will be conspicuous in the future, as far as support for them is concerned, when they have to canvass for votes. We say these things because we want them recorded in Hansard so that the historical background to these things will be known. [Interjections.]

Who were the important NP people who aired their views at the time that report appeared? I asked the Whips to ensure that certain hon members were present here this evening. The first hon member I would like to quote is that grand old giant of a frontbencher from the NP, the hon member Mr Koot van Staden. What did he say at the time? He did not talk about “realities” then. He said (Hansard, 1968, col 1324):

That is what the hon member Mr Van Staden said. Yet he is already repealing the measures even though the children have not yet begun to seek the solutions. He is already destroying the principles of separate development.

Then we also have Mr Pen Kotzé who is today a bigwig—if I may refer to him as such—in the President’s Council. What did he say at the time? He was an NP frontbencher. He said (col 1340):

He then went on to say that he had very little time left. However, he also said (col 1340):

He went on to say (col 1341):

Mr Dougie Carr, who is still a member of the NP today, also said at that time (col 1367):

I come now to the hon member for Klip River. That hon member and I, and also the hon member for Vryburg, who is here for the last time today, all came here in 1966. I wish to the hon member for Vryburg everything of the best. I want to say, however, that the hon member for Klip River, who came here as a Member of Parliament at the same time as I did and to whom we have listened over the years, put in a pathetic performance this evening. The hon member talks about realities. Does he not realize the extent to which he cast doubt on the credibility of the NP when he confronts me with his argument about realities? Does the hon member think that, when, as young men, we got in as NP representatives of our constituencies, we did not appreciate the realities of this country? Does he think that Dr Verwoerd, his predecessors and also we ourselves did not realize just what realities we had to contend with? After all, those realities have not changed. The fundamental reality that there is a White people in South Africa, a White nation that has fought for its own survival for centuries, has surely not changed. Surely it is also a reality that there are Coloureds, Black peoples and Indians here, and that a solution has to be found for them. Those realities have surely not changed.

What the NP labelled as Prog policy then, is today being called the broadening of democracy. [Interjections.] What we termed Sap-policy then, is today being presented as justice. No a single element of the arguments used by the NP during the past four years is new for anyone familiar with politics in South Africa. There is not one new argument. The PFP and the NRP used those arguments ad nauseam against the old NP. However, the NP now comes forward and says that those are new arguments. They call it reform.

What does the hon member for Klip River say? A number of years ago he did not talk about realities, but said (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 22, col 1380):

In response to that, the hon member for De Kuilen put a question to the hon member for Klip River:

This question, which was put at that time to the hon member for Klip River by the hon member for De Kuilen, has been put to us for the past three years by NP members and their supporters. What was the hon member’s answer at that time to the hon member for De Kuilen? He said (col 1380):

Then Mr Hourquebie put a question to the hon member for Klip River:

What did the hon member then say in reply? Sir, you know how often in recent times we in the CP have been told that we are unchristian and unjust, and that we hate the people; we are suffering from this syndrome. [Interjections.] What was the hon member for Klip River’s answer at the time when Mr Vorster was still in power? He said (col 1381):

Now, today, when the Conservative Party is advocating geographical partition, it is considered to be completely wrong. Because of a lack of time I wil unfortunately not be able to cite other examples in this regard. I should just like to come back briefly to the hon member for De Kuilen. Of course I can also cite the example of Piet “Weskus” Marais, who is also one of the shining lights in the President’s Council today, and the remarks of Mr Nic Treurnicht.

Oh, come on man, that is history!

Yes, it is history. Of course, that hon member no longer wants the history of South Africa to be written. He cannot learn anything from history any more. Paul Kruger at least said: “Take from the past what is good and fine, and build the future on that.” That hon member and those with him, however, no longer have a past or a future. [Interjections.] So they say that the policy of separate development is no longer a fine thing from our past. [Interjections.]

What does the hon member for De Kuilen say now? After the then Minister of Defence—he is now the State President, of course—spoke in the House on 4 March, 1968, the hon member for De Kuilen—he was then still the United Party’s member for Newton Park—took the floor and said (Hansard, 1968, col 1509):

That, Mr Chairman, is what the hon member for De Kuilen said at that time. The problem in South African politics, of course, is that people become subservient to their leaders. In the days when the National Party still had leaders of the stature of a Malan, a Strijdom, a Verwoerd and a Vorster—I have said this often in the past already—everyone applauded them. Years ago, when some of the hon members of the National Party were still sitting in the Opposition benches, they said that the hon members in the Government benches created confusion. What has the hon member for Turffontein not said in his time about the present State President! However, that is the problem, Mr Chairman. In South Africa the members of Parliament have become subservient to the man who is dishing out the jobs at the moment. [Interjections.]

This history will still repeat itself. We will say that every time. The conservative voice in South Africa will never be silent. We will go on saying these things because we are the continuation of the old National Party. Our principles are a continuation of the principles of the old National Party.

Once the referendum was over and the new constitutional dispensation came into operation the Conservative Party warned that the demands of the Coloureds would be systematically yielded to in order to ensure the success of the new Constitution. In this way, we warned, South Africa would move even further along the path of integration and the abdication of the White man. The Conservative Party has already been proved right in that Rev Hendrickse’s Labour Party said at their congress last year that they were very optimistic about the repeal of the following discriminatory legislative measures during the first session of the new Parliament, to wit, Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. He was just a little hasty with his supposition in regard to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. However, the repeal of that measure must apparently still come about.

These standpoints of Rev Hendrickse were preceded by his setting out his objectives for the new dispensation, on which occasion he also pointed out the following achievements of his party. It was the Labour Party, he said, which quashed Mr Vorster’s idea of a Cabinet Council. Other achievements he pointed to were the quashing of the planned Coloured Council of 1977 and also the constitutional proposals of 1977. Something which he also regarded as an achievement was the split in the National Party over the so-called Coloured problem. According to him, the Labour Party was also instrumental in the abolition of apartheid in public buildings. He also felt that the Labour Party pressurized the Government into accepting the latest constitutional proposals. Unfortunately, I do not have the particular source to hand right now. However, in the House of Representatives, Rev Hendrickse praised the State President and said that the State President admitted, in a conversation they had in August, 1980, that the National Party erred in terminating the representation of the Coloureds by their own people in this House of Assembly. According to him State President Botha said that the Coloureds should at that time already have been represented directly by Coloureds in this House of Assembly. All those years, however, the State President sat in the National Party and kicked out all those who opposed him or at least ensured that they got stranded along the political road; he did not keep his caucus informed, however, and now there is talk in the outside world of the unchristian, unjust and unreasonable attitudes of the Conservative Party, while the National Party are supposedly the bearers of those grand and exalted principles of civilization.

In April, 1984, the Labour Party decided at a meeting of its executive that people of all races could be admitted to the ranks of that party. On 16 May, 1984, Die Volksblad reported that the Labour Party had established two branches for Indians. Mr Jac Rabie of the Labour Party summed up their standpoint as follows:

He did not refer to the image of apartheid that existed, but to apartheid which also entails separation in the so-called non-negotiable principles which the National Party purports to hold up to us.

This is why Mr Jac Rabie asks: Why not begin with ourselves? I have already asked the question: Why does the NP not admit Rev Hendrickse as a member of the party? My friend and colleague has said it is a question of racism.

How many times have we not asked these questions already? The NP says that the Coloureds talk their language, they belong to the same church, they form part of the same economy, they fight on the border, and so on. So we ask the NP: Why do they not sit in the same Parliament? On the strength of what difference in the case of the Coloured man who subscribes to the principles of the NP, talks Afrikaans, belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church and fights on the Border, can the NP then say to him that he cannot belong to the NP? They can then say this only on the grounds of the colour of his skin, and that is the concealed racism the hon member for Barberton talked about.

I want to say that the NP is saddled right now with a coalition partner who does not agree with the NP. Rev Hendrickse says his party is open. The hon member for Randburg said that it was Rev Hendrickse who achieved these things, but I say there are greater forces at work in this world whose aim is the destruction of my nation and my people. This has been the case for 300 years.

The other problem with which we in South Africa are confronted is that the NP no longer has the courage to try to put the principles of the old NP into effect. The NP is made up of a number of political bullies and a great many political weaklings. People are simply being bullied into doing certain things and they have no resistance left to say in the NP caucus: The king is naked; he has no clothes on. Those who are held in contempt and with whom that hon member no longer wants to talk said, like the little boy: The king is naked. I say that the NP and its leaders are standing naked, not just before the NP supporters and before us here, but also before the peoples of Southern Africa and the world.

I listened to the State President when he addressed us today. There are many things with which I do not agree. When all is said and done, one cannot retain political power in one’s own hands as the hon member for Randburg says. For me it is not a question of the political power of the CP. For me this struggle—it is not very pleasant in some respects—is about the survival of my people and my nation. I do not want power over other peoples. The hon member for Bloemfontein East is now too grand, too elevated, to talk to us, but I want to say to him that we are not after a White South Africa in which we want to dominate other people. We do not want to dominate other people.

The NP is thus rejecting another of its own creations; but then it says that the realities have changed. Tomorrow or the day after they will discard the last fundamental principle, namely that of own schools. After all, Rev Hendrickse does not want own schools; he wants one educational system in South Africa. In two years’ time the NP will say the realities have changed. Then, a few years later, more realities will have changed and we can bring in the Blacks. A few years after that a number of them will be in New York or in Canada and they will then say that the realities in South Africa changed and so they founded a club for ex-Afrikaners in New York.

They no longer have a policy; they only have realities.

Precisely. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is not my intention to speak for very long—our Whip has restricted us on this Bill—but I think it is worth making one or two points concerning the speech of the hon member for Rissik. First of all I think that one must say from his point of view he and his party are in the position to rub salt into the wounds. They are exploiting everything they can out of this situation. I am not going to enter into the clash between the NP and CP except to say I think that the CP should look at this legislation and worry a little more than they are because to me it is possibly an indication that the NP is beginning to take the view that the situation has been reached in South Africa that a party such as the CP could never come to power. One wonders whether it is the intention of the NP that the CP should never come to power in this country.

Whilst we are speaking on the removal of this legislation, I think it is only fitting to say that the Liberal Party is the one political party in this country that disappeared as a result of this legislation. We in the old Progressive Party and the Liberal Party differed very strongly on political tactics, on political strategy and on political views. One must assume that those who know anything of political history in South Africa will know the differences between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party 17 years ago. That political party disappeared because of this legislation. Now that this legislation is being removed, I think I must say to people like Alan Paton, Peter Brown, Selby Msimang and others in the Liberal Party: “Now that this Act has disappeared, this is your chance to come back into politics.”

I think that the kind of view expressed by the hon member for Bloemfontein East, the ethnocentric view of history, the White man’s view of South African history, has not taken into consideration the fact that the 17-year period during which this legislation applied is the aberration, not the norm. Normal South African politics did involve people of colour across the line in all political activities throughout South Africa and throughout the South African colonies and republics in the past. I believe that, when historians come to view South African history over a period of time, we will see that this was a period of aberration.

On 14 March last year my colleague, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, drew the attention of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs to the fact that the offices of the NP in his constituency, Bezuidenhout, were being used to collect moneys for the Labour Party to help them in their election campaign and that the Political Interference Act was being transgressed. He pointed out that the NP was in fact breaking the law. Personally that member saw nothing wrong with it, but the law was being broken. I turned this round and challenged the hon member for Randburg on it a little earlier and he replied that we in this party should take our hats off to the Rev Hendrickse because he was the one who got rid of the Act “because he defied the law”—his words. I want to ask again: Does the hon member and the NP itself believe that this law was removed because it was deliberately broken?

No.

Fine, thank you.

I believe that this Bill marks not the beginning of the end, but the end of a beginning phase. It will require courage on the part of the NP to look at other discriminatory legislation and to dismantle it. However, as surely as night follows day. It is going to happen. The question is: What legislation is next? That is the problem of the CP. They talked about the Group Areas Act and the Deparate Amenities Act.

What will politics in the future be like in this country without this Bill? There will be parties that will participate in all three Houses by registering for all three Houses. There will be parties in one House that will have agreements with political parties in other Houses. There will be parties that will have nothing to do with people in other Houses, such as our colleagues in the CP. There will also be organizations not named as political parties that will not fight elections. We must not forget them in South Africa’s political future.

Members of all Houses are going to experience many problems as they come into closer association with other South Africans in trying to solve South Africa’s many problems. Members will overcome the obstacles. I think that we in this party view with enthusiasm the challenge of a political future in South Africa in which we, all of us as South Africans, can come to grips with the realities not based entirely and dogmatically, as the NP has emphasized, on a racial basis. Let me make the point that it is race, not culture, the NP is talking about. We are a multicultural party and we in this party believe and have recognized in the constitutional proposals of this party the diversity of the South African population. The NP says that it has chosen to be an exclusively White party and that it represents White faces and the White population group. This makes nonsense of their representation of Blacks through the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education. This change in the Act means that all of us will have to come to grips with a changed political future. I believe we must meet it with enthusiasm, with verve and with vigour. We have to come together to face the political challenges of South Africa so that we can solve them together.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinetown must excuse me if I do not react directly to what he said.

Before I deal with certain aspects of the last principle contained in the Bill, I want to return for a moment to what the hon member for Rissik said. I want to put a simple question to him to which I hope he will do me the honour of replying across the floor of the House. In the hon member’s opinion, the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act will result in the disappearance of “the people”. The hon member spoke of “my people” in his very melodramatic address. Does the “my people” of which the hon member was speaking also include people of Semitic Descent, Portuguese descent and Italian descent?

My sister is married to a Greek, but her children are Afrikaans.

Just say yes or no.

Do you still hit your wife?

The hon member cannot reply to this cardinal question because the whole CP policy breaks down completely on this point.

I should like to refer to the third principle contained in this measure, viz the postponement of local government elections to a date in 1988. The hon member for Sea Point contended that their opposition to the measure has as its basis that the democratic process is being withheld from Coloured management committees in particular and that these committees’ term of office is being lengthened. He objected to this. I want to contend that this date in 1988 was determined upon request of the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs in which the management committees and local affairs committees do have representation. The postponement of elections until 1988 is therefore a direct request from people who are involved in local authorities for Coloureds. The PFP therefore has no call to agitate in regard to this matter on behalf of management committees. The management committees themselves addressed this request by means of their participation in the Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs.

That is a very poor argument.

In addition the argument about the postponement of the elections holds no water at all, for the chief object of this policy measure is to introduce uniformity in the whole system of local authorities as far as representation is concerned. At present the White local authorities and their management committees and have provinces different terms of office. There are differences of two years, three years and five years. This measure is aimed at introducing uniformity and as from a date in 1988 all elections for local authorities will be held every five years, thereby introducing uniformity on local government level which is very essential for the whole process of constitutional reform which this Government is engaged in at present.

Mr Speaker, I want to address my remarks in the main to the repeal of the Political Interference Act, so the hon member for Bellville will forgive me if I do not now deal directly with his comments on the management committees except to say that I have heard him argue a great deal more successfully and intelligently than he did tonight.

The hon member for Kuruman has already made reference to the fact that two years ago I introduced a private member’s motion in this regard.

Just say thank you.

I should like to thank him for doing that. I was even more interested in the fact that he introduced an amendment which reads exactly like an amendment which was moved against my private member’s motion a couple of years ago. I think that illustrates the flexibility, the fluidity and the changes that are taking place in South Africa where many of us are having to rethink certain fundamental viewpoints that we have held in the past. One of the main reasons why I have not spoken a great deal in the debates this session of Parliament is that, every time I raise an issue, the NP immediately follows it up and repeals a law. I am just getting a little nervous about what I should introduce and what I should ask for because when I raise an issue, the relevant law is gone the next day. So I have to be very careful about that indeed.

To be more serious, I think the movement towards freedom of association which is implicit and, for me, explicit in the scrapping of this particular piece of legislation is a giant step forward. It means that a last it is possible for people to join political parties and to associate with parties, not on the basis of race or culture, but on the basis of party principle, party policy and party strategy. That, after all, is surely how it ought to be. If this is going to usher into the South African arena this kind of approach, then it can only be good for all of us.

The hon member for Randburg referred to the decision by the PFP, which we announced in a Press conference at midday today, that our party was reverting to where we were before the Act was introduced, namely that our membership would be entirely open. I remind this House that that was our position from the inception of the old Progressive Party; so this is nothing new. It was merely interrupted. What the NP succeeded in doing by this legislation in 1969 was to destroy a very small but important pioneering attempt to bridge the yawning gap between Black and White South Africans. This is cause for deep regret. I do not want to dwell on that, but can this House begin to imagine what it would have been like if it had been possible for a political party represented in this House to have an open membership, to learn from one another, to influence one another, to listen to aspirations and hopes—not from a distance but together—and to work for those aspirations and hopes? I think we have lost enough time as a result of that legislation.

The hon member for Randburg went on to argue that, in his judgement, the decision made by the PFP in this regard was morally defensible. Indeed, it was in his view even an ideal which other parties should take note of and perhaps even follow. However, to be fair to that hon member I must admit that he went on to argue that, whilst it was morally desirable and an ideal, it was not practical. I want to ask that hon member, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister when he replies to this debate and I also want to ask the NP as a whole where they draw the line when they seek to distinguish between what is morally right and what is an ideal if that ideal is shared by all and yet is not practicably possible. Is it a line of expedience? I do not think it is for the hon member for Randburg. [Interjections.] What is it we mean then when we say that it is morally right by practicably impossible? In what sense? Is it because, as some commentators are suggesting, the NP refuses to open its ranks to all races as it believes there will be no takers from the ranks of Coloureds, Blacks and Indians? I cannot believe that. I do not accept that argument which has been put forward in a newspaper today. I, for one, am convinced that there are many people who may be Coloured or Indian or Black who would actually seek membership in the NP were it to be opened.

I think, Sir, when the time comes that the NP actually does open its ranks—as it will— it will find to its astonishment that it has so successfully brainwashed many people in this country that it is going to be embarrassed by the number of people who want to join. [Interjections.] Perhaps that is one of the reasons, namely that it may well be embarrassed, particularly on the platteland “waar daar die mede-Afrikaners is, die Bruinmense van ons land.” [Interjections.] I am convinced that that is what the NP will find. So why does it wait?

The other practical reason why membership is not to be opened is that the NP’s doing so will be exploited by the CP, both inside and outside of this House. Or course the CP will exploit that. We have heard it to night. They will go on doing it. However, the NP has already introduced changes in other legislation; and in so doing it has had the courage to say: “Despite what they say we are going to go ahead. Why? Because it is morally right.” It has had the courage to say that it is morally right to scrap the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and that it is morally right to scrap section 16 of the Immorality Act. If it was morally right to do that, when is the NP going to take the decision that it is morally right to open its ranks to all South Africans—even though it may present certain practical difficulties such as finding it difficult to retain a seat in a rural area—despite the practical difficulties? [Interjections.]

I say to the hon member for Randburg and his hon colleagues that if they are not going to do it now because it is impractical, then when are they going to do it? [Interjections.] When is it going to be morally right and practicably the right time? [Interjections.] I want to say to that hon member— and to those of his hon colleagues who think like him—that, while he is waiting to make up his mind, there is place for his here. [Interjections.] We have decided to open our ranks to all who support our principles, our policy and our strategy. [Interjections.] I want to say to those hon members that we do not discriminate against Whites—not even a White nationalist! We are not prepared to discriminate. [Interjections.] There is place for them, even for the hon member for Turffontein, and we are waiting for them. [Interjections.]

My Whips made me promise that I would be brief tonight, so I finally want to revert to a point made by the hon member for Randburg. He is absolutely right that there are enormous practical difficulties in opening the ranks of a political party to people of all race groups. We know that. We are perhaps not even fully aware of just how difficult this is going to be. [Interjections.] We make no claims. We realize that we are going to be in open competition. We also realize that there is going to be considerable misunderstanding and we realize that we have a great deal to learn, because the divide is so great, but we believe that it is infinitely worthwhile for one party at least a party that has the courage, to pave the way and break the cycle of violence that threatens our very future. We are going to do it with enthusiasm and courage. We shall make lots of mistakes, but we are going to do it, and we wait for the NP to do the same.

Mr Speaker, the loquacity of hon members at the end of the session has really surprised me. No fewer than 16 hon members participated in the debate this evening. I wondered why they were all so talkative and then remembered there were by-elections later this year. It was probably with a view to these by-elections that some members were practising meanwhile. I was looking at the television camera that had not yet been removed and thinking that some hon members were perhaps under the impression that it was switched on. [Interjections.] Fortunately it was not because I think the public out there would not actually have been impressed by some of the speeches.

I wish to thank hon members. The hon member for Bryanston seems to want to say something.

Do the Cango Caves still have two entrances?

I should very much like to reply to that because it also offers me the opportunity of advertising the Cango Caves. No, we have only one entrance and, if the hon member arrives there, we will permit him to enter by it as well.

I wish to thank hon members who participated in the debate. We had truly positive contributions but it is impossible to reply fully to this debate. Some hon members used futile arguments and reached far back into the past to what this or that person had said and I find it unnecessary to respond to that. It sometimes sounded as if we were at the start of the session and conducting the no-confidence debate. Consequently I wish to respond only to something here and there.

The first point I should like to deal with is related to the membership of political parties. The hon member for Pinelands also referred to this. He looked as excited as a child who had received a new toy but I wish to tell him not to cherish excessively high expectations that the membership of his party is now going to increase very dramatically. I see he has actually invited the hon member for Randburg to sit there. It appears there is really a need for members and expansion and such matters. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon member that an increase in membership occurs only through hard work and conviction. They will agree with me that they have been struggling for years—probably a few decades. [Interjections.] They were unable to penetrate the White electorate easily and I wish to tell them I do not think they should retain the impression that they are now going to penetrate easily to the Coloureds or the Indians and that they will join the PFP in vast numbers. [Interjections.]

There is one point which I cannot understand in South Africa and that is that there are people here who are under the impression that members of the population groups of colour will stream away from their own and pour into anything thrown open. They are well aware this does not happen. [Interjections.]

A second point I should like to raise and to which the hon member referred is: Grant every party the right to decide which population group it wishes to serve. [Interjections.] Do not begrudge any party the right because it is the PFP prerogative to decide to admit members from other population groups to the PFP. If the NP decides it wishes to serve the White population group, permit it to do so. That is its privilege. Why do we always want to say it should be otherwise? Why do we always want to dictate our actions to one another?

We are now repealing this Act and it is the privilege of the PFP to throw open its party and permit members of other population groups to enrol in the PFP. If the NP should decide, however, that it wishes to serve the White population group and guard its interests, as in the past, it should be entitled to do so.

The hon member for Barberton remarked that we were taking a racist stance in this respect. Now I wonder. Is it also racism if the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk provides in section 3 of its church statutes that only Whites may become members of the Hervormde Kerk? Is Rev Mossie van den Berg’s church a racist church if it takes this decision? I do not think so. I think it is their privilege to decide whom they wish to have as members. [Interjections.] Surely it was the privilege of the Rand Club at the time to turn down the application for membership of the hon member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] Why do we want to force a club or an institution or a party to do things as we want them done? [Interjections.] Surely each has the right to decide how it wishes to control its affairs and whom it wishes to admit as members. I think we should accept that principle and carry it out in South Africa. Surely one can justify it morally; it is so.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the NP in earlier days did not, in fact, have Coloured members?

I cannot remember that far back. [Interjections.] Since I have belonged to the NP, there have been no Coloured members. I do not know whether there were Coloured members years ago. If that hon member is under that impression, then that is as well. [Interjections.]

The legislation we have dealt with here this evening consists of three parts. Firstly it deals with provincial by-elections on which few hon members spoke although the hon member for Umbilo did express his opinion. He did not express the dissatisfaction of his party but actually disappointment that the system of provincial councils would now disappear. I think the hon member is probably concerned about Natal but I wish to assure him that there are many good hon members, like the hon the Leader of the NP in Natal and other hon members, who will take care of Natal very well. I think the hon member for Umbilo need have no concern over the future of Natal. [Interjections.]

I think there is unanimity on by-elections which are not to take place. I think it would be senselss to hold by-elections now and elect people for a few months only.

Another part of the legislation deals with municipal elections which have now been postponed to a date in 1988 for all provinces. The hon member for Bellville responded to this. I should like to repeat briefly what was said in the Second Reading speech, namely that we arrived at this decision after very thorough investigations and consultations.

In this respect I wish to mention a committee of inquiry of the Council for the Co ordination on Local Government Affairs, under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, the then Administrator of Natal. They investigated the question of the term of office of councillors. They decided that a councillor’s term of office would be five years and that elections would be held every five years on the understanding that in the case of an authority which at present applied a different system— for example in which the term of office was three or four years—the term of office of the relevant number of councillors should be extended up to a point at which the councillors of a province would have to retire simultaneously and subsequently hold elections at five-year intervals. These elections should be held on the same day in the entire province every five years.

The co-ordinating council then unanimously accepted this recommendation of the committee of inquiry and the Government accepted the recommendation that a uniform five-year term of office be instituted for councillors. The question which then arose was on which date those elections should be held with regard to the circumstances of the respective provinces. The co-ordinating council examined this entire matter very thoroughly and decided that 1988 appeared to be the most suitable date. The co-ordinating council accepted this and it was also agreed to by the Government. Now the dates have been proposed on which elections should take place in the respective provinces. In some cases hon members will find that the period of office has been extended by quite a number of years whereas in the case of others there has actually been no extension of the term of service. The great advantage of this, however, lies in the fact that we shall now have uniformity. 1988 will be the election year for all municipalities in all provinces. The divergent systems in the respective provinces are now being abolished and we shall therefore have uniformity. I think we would do well to comply with this system to eliminate much of the confusion of the past.

This evening’s debate actually dealt with the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Discussion on this matter ranged widely. I wish to reply briefly by first stating that the National Party and the NP Government have always acknowledged and accepted the group character of the population groups of South Africa. I recall that at a committee meeting the hon Minister Curry stated that, even if we were to remove all the Acts from the Statute Book, the existence of separate population groups would always remain a reality in this country. No one can cancel or eradicate it—it exists. That is why the NP Government has worked over the years to enable groups to develop in their own right in the first instance. [Interjections.] The Government has enabled them to decide for themselves in all spheres, inter alia the political sphere as well. That is why I wish to say tonight that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was essential in 1968. [Interjections.] At that stage and during the proceding years, the Coloured vote in this country was greatly abused. It is a fact that in certain constituencies in the Boland Coloureds were carted to the polls to vote and in some cases they were not even taken home again. They were abused and there was interference in an improper way so that the Coloured population could not develop politically and was unable to develop its political structures and political parties.

Order! Hon members will have to speak more quietly or otherwise use the corridor for that purpose.

Consequently we do not apologize for this Act having been placed in the Statute Book. We have to admit, however, that during the past 17 years since 1968 enormous progress has been made. I wish to say this evening that we find political parties with good, thorough organization established in the ranks of Coloureds and Indians. They are political parties of which their members are proud and which they support; political parties which have participated in elections and which will make a greater success of elections in future as has perhaps been the case in the past.

I wish to say a few words this evening on the amendment moved by the hon member for Kuruman. I am referring to the amendment he took and which the hon member for Turffontein had already moved to a motion of the hon member for Pinelands on 4 March 1983. I wish to say to the hon member for Kuruman and the hon members of his party that, when one studies their amendment, it emerges clearly that they have not kept pace with events of the past two years in the constitutional sphere in South Africa. Let us listen to this amendment as moved by the hon member for Turffontein two years ago on 4 March (Hansard, Assembly, Vol 105, col 2323):

Sir, where have we ever had a better demonstration of “normal party-political action” than precisely in the new dispensation? [Interjections.] I appeared in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates on various occasions and there the representatives of the respective political parties conducted themselves in a dignified manner. They participated in debates, differed with one another and took decisions. They were not always satisfied with all legislation but the fact is that normal party-political action occoured there. The amendment continues as follows:

That took place too. We had elections for Coloureds and Indians. Now hon members of the CP come and say this Act may not be repealed because these actions first have to take place but they have already occurred. One actually wants to ask whether the hon member for Kuruman is really in South Africa? Is he actually in the Parliament of South Africa? Is the CP a part of politics in South Africa and part of the development which has take place? One wonders whether its members are, in fact, aware of what has taken place in this Parliament.

Everything contained in this amendment has taken place over the past two years and for that very reason the hon member for Turffontein cannot vote for this amendment which he formulated in 1983. That is why not one of us can vote for it and the CP cannot vote for it either because then it is rejecting what has taken place over the past two years. [Interjections.] Let them laugh about it and come up with this amendment. Nevertheless I wish to tell them this evening that they cannot cancel what has taken place. Let us follow the amendment further, however:

I wish to stress that it says that each group should be afforded the opportunity of “developing along its own lines to the full realization of its potential”. Surely that is precisely what is happening in the ranks of the other population groups. They are developing their politics and bringing them to full realization.

For that very reason we have to retain this Act!

No, the hon member should stand in the proper way and put a question to me. Why is he shouting like that? This is not as I know him. What is happening to him now?

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what has changed that it is no longer necessary in the light of the fact that on 4 March 1983 the argument was that the existing laws were necessary especially for the sake of proper political development of the separate groups?

Sir, I have just attempted to explain to the hon member how, over the past two years, we have seen these political parties participating in their elections. Surely he has experienced this as well. Surely he saw their parties being organized. [Interjections.] Let me say honestly that we were not satisfied with the percentage poll but we have seen these political parties in action. The hon member has also seen them in action in the respective Houses of this Parliament. Surely an enormous amount has occurred to place us in the position of being able to repeal these Acts.

Now I wish to take it further this evening. In fact, I am not attempting to justify the repeal; I believe it is right and fair that the relevant laws be repealed. In addition, I believe the repeal is not negating the principle of political participation in a group context, as regulated by other legislation. Each group is placed in the position of exercising its own politics.

Let us note what the Constitution provides.

Mr Speaker, will the hon the Deputy Minister be so good as to tell us on what grounds a Coloured and an Indian are not permitted to become members of the National Party and how long that regulation will continue? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, but I expanded on this at length at the start of my speech. Surely I explained that the National Party was a party attuned to promoting the interests of the Whites. I also said it was the prerogative of a political party to decide whom to admit as members. I pointed out that the Hervormde Kerk stipulated clearly in its statutes that only Whites were permitted as members of that church. Does that make this church racist? Does that make Mossie van den Bergh’s church racist? [Interjections.] When the National Party decides that it wishes to serve the Whites and that Whites should be members of the party, it should have the right to do so and, when the PFP decides that its party is a party open to all, it has the clearest right to do so.

Is Alan Hendrickse an Afrikaner or not? [Interjections.]

Oh, Mr Speaker … [Interjections.] I repeat that the Constitution provides for the exercising of politics on a group basis. Section 52 of the Constitution provides who has the vote and also lays down the principle of separate voters’ rolls for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Section 37 of the Constitution provides that Parliament will consist of three Houses—one for each of the three population groups. Sections 41, 42, 43 and 53 provide that only members of the relevant population groups may be members of a specific House of Parliament. In addition sections 31, 32 and 65 regulate the way in which each House takes its decisions separately. All these provisions to which I am referring are entrenched in terms of section 99 so that they can be amended only with the approval of all three Houses. This confirms the policy of the National Party that everyone should be placed in a position to exercise his politics.

Piet, may I ask you a good question?

That is why, Mr Speaker, I wish to agree with the hon member for Randburg in saying that we live in changed circumstances.

Mr Speaker, I am trying very hard to follow the hon the Deputy Minister’s argument but I want to know of him on what grounds a member of the Cabinet of the Government is not also permitted to be a member of the governing National Party.

But he is a member of the majority party in his own House. The hon Minister Hendrickse is the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives so he is a member of the ruling party there. That is why the State President requested him to serve in his Cabinet. Similarly the hon Minister Rajbansi was drawn from the ruling party in the House of Delegates.

Yes, but he is still not a member of the ruling National Party!

But he is a member of the majority party in the relevant House of which he is a member. [Interjections.] I think we have long since passed that point. I said it was the right of every political party to decide on whom to admit as members or not. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Mr Speaker, I have to finish. [Interjections.] As I have said, for that reason I agree with the hon member for Randburg in saying we live in changed circumstances; changed circumstances which have resulted in the repeal of the relevant legislation. I explained the process we had experienced as well as the abuse in the ranks of the other population groups. That has been eliminated. I think we have made enormous progress along this road.

It remains for me only to refer to the hon member for Green Point who spoke on section 36 and also section 128(a) of the Electoral Act. As regards provisions of the Electoral Act and the registration of political parties for election purposes, I may only mention that, if amendments to those provisions arise in future, it will actually be the duty of the Minister of Home Affairs to pilot them through. I wish to inform the hon member that, as far as my knowledge goes, the hon the Minister is already paying attention to this. He will therefore understand that I do not wish to anticipate the hon the Minister of Home Affairs at this stage. As I have said, this matter is already receiving attention.

It is impossible to reply to all hon members. I wish to thank all who participated very heartily for their contributions; I am particularly grateful for the positive ones. With the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act we can proceed to exercise our politics. I do not fear the future. I simply believe that we are building a finer and happier South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill provides for three matters related to local government affairs. Firstly, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Demarcation Board for Local Government Areas. The demarcation board shall at the request of an Administrator or any of the Ministers of Local Government or the Minister appointed to administer local government matters in respect of Black communities, be responsible for advising the particular Administrator or Minister who requested the investigation on the demarcating, altering or withdrawing of the demarcation of a local government area or of an area relating to local government affairs.

Existing legislation enables the Administrators of the various provinces to demarcate areas of jurisdiction for local authorities and sets out the procedures that have to be complied with as stipulated in the various ordinances. However, the provisions of the Bill seek to improve the present procedure and to assist in better decision-malting in two respects, namely, firstly, the establishment of a demarcation board to advise the decision-makers on issues affecting boundaries, and, secondly, requiring that specific objective criteria be taken into account in taking decisions.

In terms of item 6 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Constitution certain aspects of local government are own affairs. The demarcation of the geographical area of a local government body normally affects the rights of more than one population group and the demarcation of boundaries is therefore a general affair. The demarcation, alteration or withdrawal of the demarcation of any area should be dealt with on the advice of an unbiased, independent statutory body. The Bill provides that the demarcation board will be appointed after consultation with the Action Committee of the co-ordinating council and with the concurrence of the Ministers of Local Government. To avoid arbitrary decisions the demarcation board will have to exercise its functions taking into account the directives issued in terms of section 17A of the principal Act, which directives were published in Government Notice No 1111 dated 24 May 1985.

*These directives provide inter alia to which matters regard should be had in the demarcation of the areas of jurisdiction so as to promote and improve their viability. In terms of an amendment passed by the standing committee, the demarcation board will not only investigate and advise on primary local authority areas but the council will also be used to demarcate the regions of the regional services councils. Since the standing committee recommended that the services rendered by a regional services council to central business areas and industrial areas should not be taken into account in calculating the voting power of the constituent members, such areas will also be demarcted by the demarcation board for the implementation of the Regional Services Councils Act.

This legislation goes back a long way. During February 1981 the Government directed the previous President’s Council to institute an investigation into the development of local and regional management systems, with due regard to geographic, financial and representational aspects. In drafting its 1982 report the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, in its turn, consulted several reports in the process of their investigation. In its 1982 report the President’s Council made several recommendations concerning the demarcation of the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities.

The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs appointed six subcommittees during 1984 to investigate specific matters on the level of local government. One of these committees investigated the demarcation of the geographic areas of jurisdiction of local authorities.

In pursuance of specific premises and having regard inter alia to certain social financial and planning factors, the committee arrived at the conclusion that an impartial and independent demarcation board should be established to attend to the demarcation of the areas of jurisdiction of local government bodies.

The proposed demarcation board will be an expert, objective board which will improve decision-making on demarcation matters throughout the country.

†The second aspect with which the Bill deals is the assignment of additional rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations to management, local affairs and consultative committees, which committees are referred to in the Bill as “management bodies”.

Section 17 of the principal Act provides for the publication of measures to improve the communication between White local authorities and Coloured and Indian management bodies. Such measures were published in Government Notice No 2451 of 9 November 1984.

There are regrettably, however, still local authorities which either do not apply any of these measures or do so inadequately with the result that Coloured and Indian communities do not have a proper say in those matters affecting their lives. This disregard of the management committee’s recommendations causes frustration within the communities which they are supposed to serve and on 26 March 1985 the co-ordinating council discussed this matter and recommended unanimously to the Government:

The Select Committee on Housing Projects under the chairmanship of the hon Minister Curry also investigated the functions and responsibilities of management bodies and in paragraph 5 of its report which was approved by the House of Representatives on 27 May 1985 recommended, inter alia, that—

1. (a) management, local affairs and consultative committees be granted definite and wider executive powers;
2. (b) these power be binding and mandatory;
3. (c) management, local affairs and consultative committees have the authority to exercise these powers.

The Government accepted these recommendations and in the Bill provision is being made in clause 5 to provide for the transfer of additional powers and functions to these bodies to enable them to exercise the final decision-making powers over those functions transferred to them.

On behalf of the Government I wish to emphasize that this amendment provided for in the Bill is not intended for the purpose of establishing autonomous local authorities. In fact legislation for that purpose has already been in existence for many years. The Bill simply provides for the transfer of specific powers, functions and duties to management bodies.

The management body concerned will be assigned specific powers, functions and duties with the concurrence of the Ministers of Local Government and after consultation with all local authorities concerned.

*A management body which wishes to deal with the housing matters of its own community itself may therefore in terms of clause 5 of the amending Bill be vested with the requisite powers and duties for that purpose, and all the assets, liabilities and personnel required for the performance of that function may also be transferred to that body.

The fact that clause 5 forms part of the Bill is attributable largely to the contribution of those who are participating in the system. The hon members will realize that whatever progress is made with the new dispensation on the first level of government, it is also of course strongly influenced by the evolutionary process on the third level on which services are being rendered to the communities.

This aspect of the amending Bill is therefore in line with the principle of the devolution of authority to as close a proximity as possible to the people affected by it.

Finally the amending Bill makes provision for the amendment of section 2 of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, to empower the Administrator of a province to determine or to alter, after consideration of a report from the demarcation board, the areas of jurisdiction of such Black local authorities.

†Mr Speaker, this aspect of the Bill is in line with my announcement in the House of Assembly on 6 May 1985 that more functions are to be devolved to the provincial administrations who will be dealing with general affairs.

As institutions for the administration of general affairs, Administrators’ powers and duties are, in terms of the Bill, extended to the demarcation of the areas of jurisdiction of all local government bodies, including regional services councils.

*In the report of the Select Committee on Housing Projects it was also recommended in Paragraph 5 (d):

I should like to point out that this recommendation is completely in line with my announcement in the House of Assembly on 6 May 1985 when I made specific announcements on the future role of the provincial administrations and inter alia announced the following Government resolution:

This transfer of own functions to the Ministers of the Ministers’ Councils will take place in terms of section 98 of the Constitution and is at present a matter of high priority. As regards the transfer of powers in connection with local government affairs to Ministers’ Councils, talks were held this morning between senior officials of all the government departments involved so that the necessary preparatory work in this connection can be done.

Mr Speaker, this amending Bill therefore deals with three matters, each of which is important to the constitutional development process on local government level, and which also have a bearing on other Bills which are at present under discussion.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, may I address you on a point of order?

Yes, the hon member may speak.

I have received a Press release in my post box concerning the Bill which is to be discussed now. The release reads:

Press release by Mr J S Bauermeester, Secretary to the President’s Council

It is hereby notified for general information that the State President has, in terms of section 32(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), referred the Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill which was passed by the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives and rejected by the House of Delegates, to the President’s Council for a decision.

Issued by the President’s Council Secretariat.

19 June 1985.

The relevant reference number is 1/2/2/2.

According to this release the Bill is being referred to the President’s Council as if the Housing of Assembly has also passed the bill. I therefore move:

Mr Speaker, I should also like to address you on a point of a possible breach of privilege. It has come to our notice in the same way as it has come to the notice of the hon member for Kuruman that this particular Press release has been made. I should like to address you on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.

I should like to refer to the 20th edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice at page 153. I may say that this is the authoritative work on parliamentary practice. On page 153 it deals with the whole question of what constitutes a breach of privilege. One of the heads under which breaches of privilege are discussed reads “Publication of false report of debates”. It reads as follows:

In my submission, with great respect to the office of the State President, the wording of the statement, namely “it is hereby notified for general information that the State President has in terms of section 32(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act referred the Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill, which was passed by the House of Assembly …” can be construed as being a Press release. This is a publishing of a false account of the proceedings of this House. There is at least a prima facie case for a breach of privilege and I accordingly move, and here I differ from my colleague, the hon member for Kuruman:

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Kuruman that he does not have an original letter in his possession accompanying this document. I have ascertained that this document was drawn but that it was not meant to be released until tomorrow, pending the procedures in the House of Assembly. I therefore do not find that there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege.

*It is very clear that a mistake has crept in. Many documents are drafted in advance pending events which could take place, and depending on whether those events take place or not, a document is released or not. That is all that happened in this case. I therefore regard the matter as being one where a mistake has crept in with the release of the document. I have ascertained from the Secretary that this document was meant to be released tomorrow depending on whether the House of Assembly approved the measure tonight or not. I am therefore quite prepared that this Order of the Day be discussed now.

Mr Speaker, we in these benches accept the ruling you have given in respect of this particular issue insofar as it is or is not a breach of privilege. We in these benches are shocked that the State President should have been in contact with the President’s Council today before we have considered a measure to say that the measure was to be up for consideration and decision by the President’s Council. I am absolutely shocked…

Why?

Because this House has not yet considered it and has not even considered certain amendments that are on the Order Paper. For the State President to refer a matter, whether the Press statement was released or not, to the President’s Council prior to this House having had an opportunity of debating and deciding on it, I think is a disgrace whether it is a breach of privilege or not. I think it is a “minagting” of the stature and the function of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to contend that the hon member for Sea Point has ignored your ruling of a moment ago. [Interjections.] I am speaking now. I can understand that the hon member for Sea Point cannot understand the rules, but you ruled that a prima facie case could not be made out for a breach of privilege of Parliament.

Order! I merely want to make sure of something. I am sorry, but I was writing. Is the hon member for Sea Point dealing with Order of the Day No 6?

Yes, Mr Speaker, I said the hon member was ignoring your ruling.

Mr Speaker, I am not in any way challenging the ruling that you have given. This is not a breach of privilege and I am not arguing that it is a breach of privilege. I am saying that for this House to find out, before it has debated a matter, that it has been referred to the President’s Council is a reflection on the stature of this House and I am offended by it. [Interjections.] I am not arguing a breach of privilege. Whether there has been a publication or not, that is the issue which our hon Chief Whip raised as a matter of privilege. I am not talking of whether there was a publication or not. I am arguing about whether this matter has been referred to the President’s Council or not. [Interjections.]

I want to say something more. I have just been handed a note …

Order! I am prepared to allow the hon member for Sea Point, by way of introduction, to say a few words on the matter. I shall stop him as soon as I consider it necessary. The hon member may proceed.

We are required, as one of the constituent elements of this tricameral Parliament, to consider a Bill. It now appears that, prior to our having considered that Bill, this matter has been referred to the President’s Council. As to whether it has been published or not, what worries me is that I have received a subsequent note saying that the embargo has now been made for 7 o’clock tomorrow morning. I want to know whether that changes the substance of the referral or whether it only changes the issue of whether the public is entitled to know about that referral. I accept that it has been referred. There has been a release which has gone right round the world, irrespective of whether it has now subsequently been re-embargoed. It is not a question of whether it has been a Press release or not, but has this matter been referred? On all the evidence, it has been referred.

I want to ask how we, as an element of Parliament, can seriously debate a situation when we come under the impression that our debate has been anticipated and our decision referred to another body. Certain amendments which appeared on the Order Paper have not even been presented to this House. So it is not only a question of whether we can debate the Bill, but the standing committee did not consider certain amendments. The amendments on the Order Paper have not even been put to this House. Yet we find that our decision has been anticipated.

I have looked at the two amendments. One is consequential. It has been on the Order Paper for some time and the two-day period has elapsed. The second amendment, which is the one that limits this legislation to Coloured people only, appeared on the Order Paper yesterday and in terms of Rule 31(5) two days’ notice has to be given and it cannot be recommitted unless it is by the unanimous decision of this House. I want to announce now that we will object to that clause being committed because this House has not had the required notice which in terms of its own rules it is required to have. We give notice now that we shall object to that particular clause being committed at this stage.

I am delighted that the hon the Minister is here, even though the hon the Deputy Minister was doing well. I must draw attention to the fact that for the past four years—one can go through the Hansard—the last night of every session we were dealing with Bills from this hon Minister. It has happened time and time again. There was the Black Local Authorities Bill, the Constitution bill, Regional Services Councils Bill and now it is this Bill. I want to tell the hon the Minister that, if he wants the positive co-operation of all the members of this House and if he wants good legislation, he must regulate his own timetable so that legislation of a sensitive constitutional nature comes to this House before the last night. [Interjections.] We object to being constantly bulldozed by this hon Minister to take decisions of this kind. It is in fact for this reason that we will, from our side, assert our rights and apply the rules as we anticipate they should be applied. [Interjections.]

The Bill under consideration contains two elements. One is the setting up of a demarcation board while the other one deals with the extension of powers to management committees. There are also certain amendments relating to Black local authorities. We see the latter as being consequential upon changes that are taking place. I want to deal with the first two elements, that is the demarcation board and with the extension of the rights of the Coloured and Indian Management committees.

One cannot consider the demarcation board provisions separately from the regional services councils neither can one consider it separately from the whole concept of the Government’s policy of apartheid at local authority level. The purpose of the demarcation board is, after all, to determine, to revise, to change boundaries in order either to set up local authorities on an ethnic basis or to set up regional services councils. Because we think the establishment of demarcation boards is an instrument in the hands of Government for pursuing its policy of separate ethnic local authorities, we will oppose that provision. It is opposition on a matter of principle and it is also opposition on a matter of detail.

I want to look at one or two of the details in regard to this particular provision. As we said yesterday and the day before, much of the problems which the Government has in respect of the interface between first and third tier of government—the provincial system—is because this Government is scared to allow people who are not White to participate in the provincial system. The easy way of resolving the problem would be to allow Coloureds, Indians and Blacks to participate in some way or another in the provincial system of government. However, because the Government is scared of doing this since this does not fit into its pattern, the Government now has to create extra structures.

The question of demarcation for local government purposes has been handled perfectly well through provincial administrations for the past 70 years. There has never been a problem in this regard. They had the personnel; they had the machinery; they had the precedents; and they had the information that was available to do demarcations. This is what they have been doing. I have never heard the complaint—neither at provincial council level nor at parliamentary level— that the provincial councils have not been doing a reasonable job in demarcating the boundaries of local authorities. Suddenly we have to have a new infrastructure to deal with demarcation; in other words, a whole new and costly bureaucracy.

We are setting up a delimitation board. It is going to have a chairman. It is going to have a deputy chairman. It is going to have subcommittees. It can also co-opt additional people. It is thus a complete and new bureaucratic infrastructure to deal with something which can be catered for within the existing infrastructure of the administration of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I see the hon the Minister, the former Administrator of the Cape Province, is here. Did he have any problems with demarcation of local authorities when he was the Administrator?

They are being phased out. [Interjections.]

They are being phased out because the Government does not want to include Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in them. That is the point we are making. What the Government is doing is creating a new infrastructure.

You and I have made ordinances. There are no more ordinances to be made any more.

There are ordinances. They are all there. All we are saying is that the Government is looking at a new and costly infrastructure to deal with a problem which we do not believe requires this extravagant approach.

Then we also have the conditions under which the delimitation boards can arrive at decisions in respect of the new boundaries that are going to be drawn for either local authorities or regional services councils. I want to say that these regulations have already been issued in Government Gazette No 9751 of 24 May 1985. I must say that I am appalled. We have often heard the Government saying that it wants to move away from discrimination. Yet, what does the Government say when it comes to the drawing of the boundaries of local authorities? It says in relation to the question of group areas: “The boundaries of existing group areas for the community concerned”. There is in other words an injunction to the demarcation board not to consider necessarily the features which will make a local authority viable but to base their recommendations on the findings of the Group Areas Act. Once again the Group Areas Act is being built into the infrastructure of the demarcation of local authorities.

There is something else I want to read to the House, because when we dealt with White local authorities we said if somebody was White, 21 years old and owned or occupied property, he could have a municipal vote. To Black local authorities we said if somebody was 18 years of age and legally resident in a Black local authority area for a certain period of time, he could have the municipal franchise. However, when it comes to Coloureds and Indians, these are the conditions that have to be taken into account:

What are we talking about? We have to take the level on which public representatives can be controlled as the basis for whether one can have public representatives. I want to quote further:

Are we now starting to dictate to other communities that we must be the judges as to whether they can produce responsible and effective public representatives? No, we are totally opposed to this concept because on the one hand it bases its findings on the Group Areas Act and, on the other hand, it bases its findings on the kind of mumbo jumbo which is contained in the earlier provisions of this clause. How can we be arrogant enough to determine whether a community is responsible and will treat its local affairs effectively?

That is the first part of this Bill. The other part which disturbs us and concerns us even more is clause 5 which amend section 17B of the principal Act. Let us get clarity on what this is all about. At the moment Coloured and Indian people cannot have a full local government franchise. They are required to exercise their local government influence and power via management committees, and these management committees fall within the boundaries of a White local authority. This Bill allows the Administrator to transfer powers from a full local authority lock, stock and barrel to a management committee. First of all, every management committee, whether we like it or not, is structured on race and the group area to which that community has been allocated. What this Bill says, is that a subordinate management committee must now grow in stature taking over powers from the parent local authority and in fact become a local authority in its own right. It will be called a management committee but it will take over total power in respect of specific areas from the parent local authority, whether it is housing, planning or, in the end, the levying of rates and taxes. So, this Bill is a device or strategem to develop ethnically separate local authorities for the Coloured community of South Africa.

What do the Coloureds say about the management committees? Why did you not listen yesterday?

I am asking, which Coloureds? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon the Minister.

I am talking about management committees.

It is one thing for management committees to want more powers and another thing for the Coloured community to want the management committees to be built up into Coloured local authorities. The hon the Minister knows that in terms of the Cape Provincial Ordinance of 1984, section 11, Coloured people can have municipal franchise and separate local authorities. They can have full local authority status, but there is a proviso that they do so within their own separate group areas. The Coloureds have rejected this, and the hon the Minister knows this. It is like saying to the Black people: “You can have full autonomy, provided that you have independence.” That is not a real choice. The choice should be that they can have a full municipal franchise on whatever basis they wish. One cannot just say to them that it should be on the basis of the group area in which they live. It should be the free choice of people to form local authorities and to reform or regroup them. The Group Areas Act and separation on the basis of race should not be made an absolute determinate.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will agree that the Coloured people want full local government rights. I think he admits this. However, they do not want this if it means that they have to accept the Group Areas Act as the basis of determining those rights. This provision is the start of a process of giving management committees structured on group areas more and more local government rights until they become local governments.

We reject this concept. We believe that many of the management committees, especially in the smaller rural areas, are operating reasonably effectively. We accept that there are many individuals who deserve some praise for the role that they are playing in local government, but we are not prepared to be party to a Bill which extends the separate group areas oriented management committee system until they become local government bodies in South Africa.

The hon the Minister may argue that this is not local government. I want to put to him: If a parent local authority has ten different powers such as housing, electricity, water, management, sewerage etcetera and five of those powers are handed over to a management committee and the remaining five are left with the local authority, then the management committee has, in respect of those powers, exactly the same power, authority and status as the local government in respect of its powers. It is a sleight of hand to say that it is not local government.

I believe that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has painted himself into a corner. Because of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, because of the provincial ordinances and because of NP policy he is denying the Coloured and Indian people free access to full local government authorities, and he knows that that is their first choice. He is saying to them: “I am squeezing you into accepting the second choice.”

We on this side of the House are not prepared to be part of that squeeze-play. We are not prepared to be part of the game which says to the Coloured people: This is the only option you have, and if you do not take it you will have nothing at all.

In these circumstances we have no option but to move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, when we discussed this Bill in the standing committee, it was clear that there was a sharp division between the philosophy of the PFP on this affair and the approach of the hon members of the House of Representatives for example, who served in the standing committee. The hon members of the House of Representatives were very strongly in favour of passing this Bill. They put it very clearly and unequivocally that they were strongly in favour of it because they had had certain experiences in which the advice they had been permitted to give up to the present moment, was simply ignored or not implemented by the parent local authority. This applies particularly to the action of the Cape Town City Council inter alia, where the PFP’s kindred spirits are in the majority.

This kind of paternalistic attitude the PFP has also filters through in their attitude today. They ask for there simply to be mixed local authorities—that or nothing. The Coloureds who act pragmatically concerning this matter, say, however, they are not interested in autonomous Coloured local authorities at this stage, because there are still many deficiencies and many demands which have to be complied with before they can take such a step. As is their right, however, they ask to be invested with specific rights, powers and responsibilities. I read from the report of the Select Committee on Housing Projects, which was printed by order of the House of Representatives, which sat under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister Mr Curry. One of their recommendations is the following:

1. (a) Management, Local Affairs and Consultative Committees be granted definite and wider executive powers;
2. (b) these powers be binding and mandatory;
3. (c) Management, Local Affairs and Consultative Committees have the authority to exercise these powers.

This was the unequivocal standpoint of the members of the House of Representatives in the Standing Committee.

What was the motivation behind it?

If the hon member for Bezuidenhout had listened, he would have heard me saying they had experienced disappointment upon disappointment as a result of their pleas towards local authorities such as the Cape Town City Council, which is a Prog city council, being ignored absolutely.

Is that all?

It was not the only motivation, but it concerned their not wanting to act purely as consultative bodies. They want to be invested with powers, and the associated responsibilities.

They should have been elected as ordinary city council members of Cape Town.

As this is their outspoken standpoint, I now ask the hon members of the PFP whether they are really so paternalistic that if they do not want the full autonomy, they will also keep them from being invested with powers and responsibilities, if they ask for these, in respect of certain specified limited matters. It is not being made compulsory. It is not being forced upon any management committee. Only upon their request will matters be investigated, and the surrounding circumstances and the advisability thereof be considered. If it is then found to be desirable, the Administrator, in conjunction with the relevant own Ministers, has the right to transfer these powers to the management committees.

Why did you not allow them?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout was not in the standing committee, and it is clear that he also does not have a thorough knowledge of the political questions in this case.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member who is prepared to accede to requests from the people, whether he is prepared to accept a request to dissolve a committee in favour of a common vote on a common voters’ role in a municipal area?

At this stage that is not under discussion at all…

That is the point!

What is under discussion here, is the Bill before us.

Ordinary city council members of whatever colour in one city council.

The hon members are more successful in making a noise than in arguing logically.

The issue in question is that if they ask for certain limited powers themselves, the PFP is not prepared to transfer those limited powers to them. They are opposed to it so absolutely that they say this Bill should be read six months from today. [Interjections.] It concerns their wanting specific powers. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, after this I shall not enter into the interjections of the hon members for Bezuidenhout and Constantia any further, for it is important that aspects of the Bill itself be debated now.

In essence this bill provides for two matters. Firstly it makes provision for the establishment of a demarcation board for local government affairs. Provision is being made for the appointment of a permanent demarcation board, consisting of seven members who have the right to co-opt additional members under certain circumstances. They can co-opt local persons, for example, when a certain affair has to be investigated, or when a specific task has to be performed.

Any rights that come under discussion are area bound. For that reason the demarcation board will have the right to demarcate areas of jurisdiction. On the one hand it will demarcate the areas of jurisdiction of regional services councils. In this connection the Regional Services Councils Act has been passed by the three Houses of Parliament. On the other hand it will demarcate the areas of jurisdiction of management and similar committees. I must add that the bodies concerned have different names in the respective provinces. The demarcation board therefore has the right to demarcate areas of jurisdiction over which the management and other committees will be able to exercise their powers, which are also limited.

When a request is received in this context, thorough investigations are made. The relevant aspects are investigated thoroughly. The financial aspects receive attention, and it has to be determined whether or not the body in question has the ability to deal with the associated activities. This does not mean, however, that this Bill makes provision for the establishment of autonomous local authorities from the management committees, the consultative committees or the local affairs committees, as they are known respectively. The question of the establishment of autonomous local authorities—whether for Coloureds, Indians or Whites—is a consequence of powers which already exist in terms of the four separate ordinances of local authorities. I refer here to the ordinances of the four provinces. The Natal ordinance of local authorities reads as follows in section 307:

The power to establish autonomous local authorities is therefore covered by existing provincial ordinances. It is therefore not something dealt with in this Bill. In addition no effort is contained in this to force the local affairs committees or local management committees to take over authority, legislative powers or decision-making powers in an underhand way.

The Bill only provides for their being able to be invested with these powers if they ask for this. That is why I find it strange that the PFP, who always acclaim loudly their feeling of goodwill towards increasing the rights of the non-White peoples of Southern Africa, refuse absolutely here, especially in view of the fact that the House of Representatives expressly asked for this, and is waiting enthusiastically to be invested with powers of this kind. The PFP is refusing absolutely, however. In addition they have succeeded in negotiating with representatives of the House of Delegates to such an extent that the latter House has rejected the measure totally; that they were not prepared to accept this Bill at all. That is their own affair, however.

The idea has been expressed that the powers and the rights for which provision is being made in terms of the Bill under discussion, should be limited; that they should not be transferred to the Indian population group in South Africa, but should be restricted exclusively to that population group which unanimously and enthusiastically asked for them. The hon member for Sea Point has also indicated that if that amendment were to be moved tonight, he would oppose it. He is therefore not prepared to transfer the rights and powers for which the Coloured population group’s own representatives are asking, to them. He is so paternalistic that he says the only opportunity by which rights and powers will be transferred, is if this is done according to the formula as prescribed by the PFP.

Now the PFP is opening its membership to everyone—to the members of all the population groups—but is trying to use this as a lever to canvass votes. They are going to look very sheepish because the members of the House of Representatives and the coloured community discovered a long time ago how paternalistic the hon members of the PFP are. They also know that hon members of the PFP are not at all interested in the true elevation of the non-White population groups, but are only interested in playing at politics, and mainly, of course, for the sake of overseas consumption.

This Bill makes provision for the increase of power, for the transfer of staff where necessary, for the transfer of powers, duties and responsibilities, as well as for matters associated with these. In addition it makes provision for Black local authorities which are autonomous already, also to share in this authority and these powers for which provision is being made in connection with their own services. It is therefore a pleasure for me to support the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a question. Have they already decided that the Bill in question should be referred to the President’s Council? I request the hon the Deputy Minister to please answer me; it will very much assist the debate. I now ask him directly whether they have already decided that the President’s Council should consider this Bill. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister can merely tell me whether such a decision has been taken—yes or no. [Interjections.]

Make your speech, man!

When this House passes it, it will naturally go to the President’s Council for consideration. [Interjections.]

Quite correct! If this House passes this Bill, certain procedures have to be followed thereafter. However, I now want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me whether they have already decided that this Bill has to be referred to the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

What happens to this Bill, is decided upon in this House.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has not yet answered my question.

Man, go on with your speech! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has now asked his question several times. He must now decide whether or not he wants to continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon the Deputy Minister is not prepared to give me an answer to this question. [Interjections.]

No, you are too much of a baboon!

Order! It is the hon the Deputy Minister’s prerogative to decide whether or not he will answer questions.

Mr chairman, the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works, who thinks that the elderly people of South Africa can make a living on R20 a month, is now trying to help the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

Oh, but you remain a baboon!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman has now made his point. However, I ask him to continue with his speech and to discuss the Bill itself.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works permitted to call another member a baboon?

If the hon Minister said that, he must withdraw it.

Sir, I would like to repeat what I said. After the hon member had ascribed a certain thing to me, I said that he remains a baboon. If that is not parliamentary, I withdraw it.

Order! It is not parliamentary. The hon the Minister has withdrawn it. The hon member for Kuruman may continue, but he should come closer to the Bill.

The hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works can continue with his insults, but I want to say that it is because of a lack of arguments in the House that hon members come up with such things.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here now. I want to ask him: Has it already been decided that this Bill should be referred to the President’s Council? [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member for Kuruman intend continuing with is speech?

Sir, the hon the Minister who so readily asks questions across the floor of the House and who so readily demands replies to the questions he puts …

… cannot get it.

The Minister cannot give an answer now. I can thus assume that this hon Minister and the State President have already decided—I do not know whether the embargo is in respect of tonight or tomorrow—that this Bill will be referred to the President’s Council. To my view this is contempt of the House of Assembly and it is not necessary …

Order! The hon member must withdraw that. Mr Speaker has already given his ruling in this regard.

I withdraw it, Sir. Since it has already been decided that this Bill will be referred to the President’s Council, I see no reason why the House of Assembly should debate it any further and the CP withdraws from any further debate on this in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] We withdraw from it. Now members on the other side are laughing.

We are laughing at you, man.

The hon member for Kimberley South is prepared to be a rubber stamp. The members of the CP are, however, not prepared to be rubber stamps.

You have no backbone.

The hon members opposite are yes-men. The NP government can say anything and the hon member for Kimberley South will just say “yes”. The old choir opposite will clap hands for all that is said. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Kimberley South said that the hon member for Kuruman has no backbone.

Order! What does the hon member for Kimberley South mean by that?

Exactly what I said, Sir. He has no backbone.

Does the hon member mean by that that he is a coward, or that he is a weakling? What does he mean by that?

No, Sir, he is a milksop. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! He must withdraw that he is a milksop and also that he has not backbone. Does the hon member withdraw both words?

I withdraw them, Sir.

*The hon member for Kuruman may continue, but he must now come back to the Bill.

Sir, it has already been decided that the President’s Council should make a final decision on the Bill before the House at present. We withdraw from the debate. We are not prepared to be rubber stamps and to debate the Bill any further. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works made a remark at the hon member for Kuruman earlier, which you asked him to withdraw. He withdrew it then, but now he repeats what you asked him earlier to withdraw.

Mr Chairman, that is not true. I just told the hon member that he still remains that thing that I may not say. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon the Minister is busy evading your ruling.

Order! Let me put it this way to the hon member for Rissik: I do not have the faintest notion what the hon the Minister meant by that. The most I can do is to ask the hon the Minister what he meant by that because I really do not know what he meant. If he tells me that he meant nothing, I can do nothing. What did the hon the Minister mean by that?

Mr Chairman, if I must explain everything that I thought, which I may not say the hon member was, then I would have to withdraw from tonight until tomorrow morning, and therefore I have decided that I will simply withdraw everything now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman now withdraws his party from further debate because the debate would be irrelevant in the House of Assembly. I must say that we are certainly glad about it in the sense that we will probably be able to go home a bit earlier.

The situation regarding this point is that one House of Parliament has already passed the Bill while another House has rejected it. In terms of section 32 of the Constitution the State President is therefore entitled to take a decision in principle that the Bill be referred to the President’s Council, because whether the House of Assembly passes the Bill tonight or not, at the most it can differ…

Order! There are hon members who are talking too much, and I shall have to call out their names. I can hardly hear the hon member for Helderkruin back there.

What I was busy saying is that whether the House of Assembly passes the Bill tonight or not, at the most it can differ in the words used in referring the Bill to the President’s Council. Thus any insinuation, regardless whether it comes from the hon member for Kuruman or the hon member for Sea Point, that the State President holds the House of Assembly in contempt in the process, is made without proper thought, and I think it is a reflection on the integrity of the State President. Moreover: All the hon member for Sea Point based his argument on is the fact that a Press statement was accidentally issued prematurely.

Order! Just as it is unnecessary to question Mr Speaker’s ruling, it is unnecessary to praise it. The hon member must leave that aspect and continue with the discussion of the Bill.

Sir, I will do that with pleasure.

There is a further point and that is the reflection which the hon member for Sea Point to my mind has cast on the business of the House of Assembly in the sense that he took offence at the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about the fact that legislation such as this is being discussed on the last evening of the session. His insinuation is very clearly that the House of Assembly is not able to do proper work on the last evening that it meets. I take exception to that.

I want to return to another point. The House of Representatives has already passed this Bill, but the hon member for Sea Point argues that this measure would be against the wishes of the Coloureds in the sense that he asks who the management committees are which have asked for it. He asks this question while the elected representatives of the Coloureds have already passed this Bill. This again is proof of the paternalism of the PFP on the one hand and their futile attempts to speak on behalf of other population groups on the other hand. We no longer have to take note of that sort of objection that they raise. If they oppose the amendment on the Order Paper, they will once again attempt to decide on behalf of other population groups what is good for them.

The Coloureds did not ask for it.

No, such an amendment did not come before them and in that respect the hon member is right, but the PFP’s attitude towards the amendment is again proof that they want to decide what is good for other population groups.

In closing I want to underline the point made by the hon member for Klip River, namely that the PFP is prepared to grant all powers to the Coloureds as long as it takes place within the policy of the PFP. They say that the people can ask what they want and that they should be given what they want, but when they ask what the Government is prepared to give them, they may not ask for it or receive it. I do not want to waste the time of the House any longer, because I feel the matter has been put very clearly, and I support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, at the outset and before I start my address on the Bill itself I would like to make some reference to the statement which was apparently prematurely released. As far as this party is concerned I want to put it on record that no member of this party has received a copy of the Press release. We have had the motion regarding a possible breach of privilege and we accept Mr Speaker’s ruling that no prima facie case has been established. However, we do believe that there has been blatant carelessness on somebody’s part and presumptions which must never be allowed to occur again. In so far as the statement of the hon member for Heldenkruin is concerned that it is a reflection on the integrity of the State President, I frankly have not understood it to be so. I gained the impression that it was more a question of somebody’s carelessness rather than an impugnment of the State President. [Interjections.]

In so far as the Bill is concerned, there is the question of the Demarcation Board and that of the decision-making authority for LAC’s and management committees. The hon the Minister knows perfectly well that since the word go I have been completely against the idea of a demarcation board. I do not believe that the demarcation board is necessary. I believe that its function can be performed far more adequately by people based in each province who have the appropriate staff, who can do the job and who know the problems well. As far as we are concerned, the demarcation board is totally unnecessary and a total waste of money, and I do not believe that it could do the job as adequately as a local provincial body.

The argument has been put forward that one of the reasons why it is necessary to do this is that Black local authorities are being brought in to local Government whereas previously provincial administrations were not involved with black local government. I do not think that makes any difference whatsoever in that the provincial administration officials and, mostly, the executive committees know their provinces pretty well—probably better than strangers from other provinces who come to sit on this demarcation board. So as far as the demarcation board is concerned, we are not happy about it and we would not support it if there is going to be any question of a Committee Stage. I am not sure whether this Bill is going to have a Committee Stage or not because there is an amendment here which, apparently, is illegal in terms of the time factor. I am not too sure what is going to happen. I might mention that, as far as I can see, it is numbered incorrectly as well as not having been put forward in sufficient time. The amendment should be to fine 35 and not to line 62 of the Bill. So I am not too sure what the situation is there.

As regards the question of the decision-making authority, this is something on which one has ambivalent feelings because I believe that many of the Indian and Coloured people feel that this is purely and simply a system whereby they can be compelled to establish ethnic local authorities. On the basis of what is in the Bill—not of the intention of whoever is promulgating the Bill—there is no machinery compelling anybody to accept an ethnic local authority. People will have to choose whether they are going to be a separate local authority, although, as I have indicated, that does not give an indication, of course, of what the real motivation is.

However, I think it would be as well to give us an indication of the background as to why this is necessary. The local affairs and management committee system came into being in 1963. It was never intended to be a permanent system. It was intended to go through phases—first, advisory with limited powers and authority, ultimately, in many instances, to become fully-fledged local authorities. In Natal it went through various phases and at certain stages all those phases came into effect. However, the real problem lay in the Northern Natal areas which were under the control of members of the NP who were very reluctant to grant those powers that had already been given to the management committees, or local affairs committees as they are called in Natal, in places like Durban where they sat in on the standing committees where they could speak and did actually vote although it was not an official vote. The chairman sat in on the city council itself. So, as far as was practical and humanly possible, they were in fact treated as councillors. The problem was that other local authorities, as I say particularly to the north, were not prepared to bring those people in and give them the advanced training.

In the Natal ordinance relating to local affairs committees all the authorities that are set out here could be handed over to management committees. There is nothing new here as far as Natal is concerned, although I concede that it may well be very new for other provinces.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that the amendment before us does not make it mandatory for the Administrator to give them those powers. The Administrator “may” give them those powers if he is satisfied that they are capable of exercising them. The Administrator in executive is the person who has to decide whether they are so capable. Having given them those powers, he can, if they are not exercising them correctly, substitute those powers for something else. So, as far as I can see, the question is really whether or not to continue the training of local affairs management committees rather than give them the right to power or the right to accept power if it is offered to them. This, in fact, is what is in this Bill.

I have taken the trouble to have discussions with members of the other Houses to get an indication of what attitudes they have adopted and why they have adopted these attitudes. It seems clear to me that the members of the House of Delegates are opposed to it because they are convinced that it is going to make it compulsory for them to have ethnic local authorities. I do not believe that that is in fact the case. They can certainly not be compelled to do so in terms of this Bill. So far as the House of Representatives is concerned, the members there are convinced that they definitely want this to go through. As they are the people affected and as the decision in the other House is, I believe, a consequence of a misapprehension, we will, as far as this clause is concerned, support the Bill.

That then is the situation I have at this Second Reading to say that the more important aspect concerns the powers to the management committees. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Umbilo referred to there being a wrong reference in respect of the last amendment. I think the reference is correct as it stands—on page 12, line 62. [Interjections.] In think the reference is correct. However, that is a minor point.

Later on this evening we will debate the question of the amendment placed on the Order Paper. It seems to me in actual fact that unless the House agrees unanimously, that amendment cannot be put. Anyway, Mr Chairman, you will have the last word in that respect.

*Let me now return to the point with which I began here tonight, namely the question of the President’s Council. Obviously I respect the ruling of the Speaker, and I do not want to try to get round it. I also understand that the hon member for Klip River wants to be on his way to Natal and I do not want to detain him here unnecessarily.

I now want to respond to the point raised by the hon member for Helderkruin. The hon member said that what has happened is quite in order, constitutionally speaking. Therefore it has nothing to do with the question of breach of privilege. I am only responding to the statement made by the hon member for Helderkruin. He referred to section 32 of the Constitution. Section 32 is very clear. Section 32(1)(a) reads as follows:

Therefore the implication is always that the Bill should have been before three Houses before it is referred to the President’s Council. This is the obvious intention.

I want to ask the hon member whether he agrees with me that if one House has already rejected it and another House has already accepted it, then whatever the third House does, there will be two on one side and one on the other.

No, that is not the point. That is not what it is about. As I understand the hon member for Helderkruin, it is in order that the case has already been referred to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] This is how we understand it.

[Inaudible.]

Then I apologize. I did, however, understand from the hon member that, in terms of section 32, it is in order that the matter has already been referred to the President’s Council. [Interjections.] I am sorry about that. Possibly I misunderstood the hon member. However, I want to state very clearly that, according to my interpretation of section 32, the Bill should first have been before all three Houses before it could be referred to the President’s Council. The dilemma outlined here by the hon member for Sea Point remains, in other words, not the question of breach of privilege of the House, but the propriety or not of the Cabinet’s considering whether to refer a Bill to the President’s Council when that Bill has not been dealt with by all three Houses in terms of the provisions of the Constitution Act. This is not an issue involving Parliament or the Speaker, but—and I say this in all responsibility—improper conduct of the Cabinet to consider such a referral before the measure has been before all three Houses.

Order! The hon member Prof Olivier will realize that he has now said enough about that. He must now please confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will not agree that the very fact that a particular House has or has not agreed to a Bill, must be a relevant consideration in the mind of the State President in deciding whether to refer it to the President’s Council?

Of course.

Order! Be that as it may, the hon member will return to the Bill under consideration.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Of course I agree with the hon member.

I want to return to the Bill and start with the hon member for Klip River. It seems to me that it so happens that, now that the hon member is chairman of the standing committee, he speaks before me so that I have the opportunity to react to his speeches. In previous years the position was reversed and the hon member spoke after me every time. The hon member for Klip River must understand that I do not have a personal grievance …

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon the Chief Whip want to ask a question? [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to point out that the time is passing and that we shall finish late, therefore it will be in the interest of all of us if hon members will exercise patience.

The hon members for Helderkruin and Klip River were presumptuous enough to accuse the PFP of paternalism because—let us leave the amendment aside—the House of Representatives had asked by way of the report of Minister Curry and the resolution contained in this Bill, that those preferences should be transferred to management committees, while we are against it. Coming from the hon members for Klip River and Helderkruin and the NP I cannot comprehend it, because the Coloureds have been asking throughout the years for direct representation, but the NP was apparently never paternalistic when they said to the Coloureds: No, you may not. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley South may calm down. I am very sorry if I am treading on hon members’ toes, but to accuse other people of paternalism while they themselves are a source of paternalism, is beyond all morality as far as I am concerned. I cannot understand that people really display that ugly arrogance. How can they accuse other people of paternalism when they have refused over the years to accede to the request of the Coloureds, and are still doing so?

Every member of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates said on that standing committee and everywhere else that they do not want separate autonomous local authorities, but direct representation in the normal local government institutions. [Interjections.] This is what they said. They established management committees in the first place because the policy of the Government has always denied them that on ideological grounds. The management committees would not have come into being if those people had direct representation in the normal local authorities. Now the NP comes along in all innocence and says that we are paternalistic and that we do not want to do what the Coloureds are asking. I am sorry to say this, but how someone can make such a statement is beyond my comprehension.

If I perhaps misunderstood the hon member for Klip River he must please tell me. At the same time he referred somewhat sneeringly to the decision of the House of Delegates. He said that we had influenced (bewerk) them—this is not the exact word that he used, but it is a good Afrikaans expression that conveys the idea—so that they would vote gainst it. What selective paternalism! They can get in touch with the House of Representatives to persuade them, but if we should do it—I want to assure the hon member that we did not do so—then …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, who is also a member of the standing committee, whether it is not a fact that, barring one part of a clause, the hon members of the majority party in the House of Delegates on the standing committee accepted all the other clauses?

That is substantially correct, but it has nothing to do with the hon member’s accusation that we had persuaded them, when they debated the matter in the House, to reject it. If the hon member had really meant that paternalism was wrong, then that hon member should without further ado have accepted the right of the House of Delegates to decide what they did.

They have the right.

That is correct, but then the hon member should not on the one hand accuse us of paternalism and on the other hand claim for himself the right to query their own right to decide. This is what he did.

I have one further comment. The hon member referred to the City Council of Cape Town and the hon member was quite right. The members of the management committees have frequently complained about the fact that the City Council of Cape Town did not carry out those other decisions properly. Why did they not do so? The hon member for Klip River knows what the answer is. It is not my task, nor have I been briefed, to defend the City Council of Cape Town. The City Counc of Cape Town made it very clear that their basic point of departure was that all the people living in the area of the City Council should have the normal vote as well as normal representation in the City Council of Cape Town. That was the point of departure of the City Council.

It is once again the Government, of which the hon member for Klip River forms part, which denied that right not only to the City Council of Cape Town, but also to all the people in the vicinity of Cape Town who had asked for that direct representation. This is the crux of the problem.

That is the same paternalism!

There is no paternalism involved there. I think with that I have also replied to the use of the word “paternalism” by the hon member for Helderkruin.

Let us return to the Bill. I know it is late, but I am not to blame for the fact that every year, as the hon member for Sea Point pointed out, we have to deal with important measures in the House of Assembly in the dying moments of the last hours of the session. We are all keen to finish. [Interjections.]

Let me come back to the Bill. It has two aspects: The establishment of the demarcation board and the transfer of functions to the management committees. As regards the demarcation board, I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s introductory speech at the Second Reading. He said inter alia, and I quote him:

These directives stipulate inter alia the matters to be taken into account in demarcating local authority areas, in order to promote their viability. The hon member for Sea Point has already pointed that out. However, what I cannot comprehend—the hon the Deputy Minister must not take it amiss of me; it is not a personal grievance that I have against him—is contained in the indication given to the hon member for Sea Point as well as to the hon the Deputy Minister that in those directives there is a clear reference to the fact that one of the things to be taken into account is the demarcations made in terms of the Group Areas Act. If the hon the Deputy Minister has the relevant document in front of him, he should look at Schedule 2 thereof. I am referring to the directives issued by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in terms of section 17A of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983 (Act 91 of 1983). These directives were published in the Government Gazette of 24 May 1985. The first point referred to in Schedule 2 is the group areas specifically.

Well, Mr Chairman, of course we all make mistakes. I have the relevant documents here in front of me. I refer to the first paragraph in Schedule 2, which reads as follows:

1. 1. The boundaries of—
   1. (a) an existing group area for the community concerned …

Well, we all make mistakes. That I concede quite readily. When the hon the Deputy Minister—this is according to his unedited Hansard speech—put this case in the House of Delegates on 18 June, he said:

Those are the hon the Deputy Minister’s own words that I am quoting here. He went on to say:

Mr Chairman, how could the hon the Deputy Minister make this statement in the House of Delegates? Here it stands quite clearly. I therefore assume that the hon the Deputy Minister made a mistake. That is the only possible interpretation I can attach to this. [Interjections.] To sell something to a body with what basically amounts to a misrepresentation … Pardon me, Mr Chairman, but I do not want to be unfair to the hon the Deputy Minister. However, he knows what he said in the House of Delegates. He intimated that they need have no fear, that they could vote for this measure because it had nothing to do with group areas. This he said, while group areas are in fact the first element that crops up in the whole approach to the criteria to be applied by the demarcation board.

This brings me to the second point on which we mainly base our objection to this measure, and that is the question of the transfer of functions to the management committees. In this connection I refer to the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, in which he mentioned inter alia the co-ordinating council and also the report of the Select Committee on Housing Projects, from which the hon member for Klip River also quoted here fairly comprehensively. I have no objection to that, Mr Chairman. All I want to say in regard to that, is that the recommendations of the co-ordinating council carry no more weight than do the people who are members of the council. To hold up the recommendations of the co-ordinating council to us every time as being the last word—the alpha and the omega, that nobody dare doubt because they come from the co-ordinating council—is therefore simply ridiculous. I said this in the meeting of the select committee and I now repeat it here: Those resolutions or recommendations of the co-ordinating council have no special sanctity and therefore cannot replace the functions of this House as a legislative body. I want to repeat that this whole problem of the transfer to the management committees would never have arisen had it not been for the fact that because of Government policy Coloureds cannot serve in the normal local authorities. The objection raised against our rejection of the bill is based on the fact that we said that the hon the Minister had said in the House of Delegates that it was not the intention to create autonomous authorities. Certainly that is not the intention; that is stated in the legislation. The hon member for Sea Point indicated what problems can develop when one transfers functions within one local authority area to another subordinate body. That is an issue on its own, which we unfortunately cannot discuss here, for lack of time.

The whole idea was that what is really involved here is not separate local authorities—in other words, the whole policy of apartheid. I want to read from his unedited speech what the hon the Deputy Minister said about this in the House of Delegates on 18 June 1985:

If what was involved was merely the transfer of powers and nothing more, for example not the policy of apartheid, why does the hon the Minister talk of “different communities in this country with different cultures and different traditions”? I want to repeat the question that I have already asked several times: Where do the Coloureds have another culture? I should very much like to know that.

I spoke to the Indians.

The hon the Deputy Minister tells me that the spoke in the House of Delegates. Those people most certainly have a different culture. Does the hon the Deputy Minister want to tell me that he makes two kinds of speeches—one kind in the House of Delegates and another in the House of Representatives? Does he imply that the basis on which he is going to call on the two Houses to support a matter, will differ? That does seem extremely illogical to me, with all due respect to the hon the Deputy Minister.

In the same speech on 18 June 1985 the hon the Deputy Minister went on to say:

There he included the Coloureds.

This is not concerned with the protection of minority interests—it is concerned with the group character—because what the hon the Deputy Minister says here, is that the Coloureds represent a separate group. After expressing his disappointment at the fact that the House of Delegates were rejecting the Bill, he said:

Then there was an interjection:

The hon the Deputy Minister replied to that:

He repeated:

Now I ask in all honesty and fairness …

But surely it is clear!

Well, it is the policy of the Government to create separate local authorities—that is what it is about— and therefore the Government is not prepared to give direct representation in the local authorities to the members of the other population groups. If they are not prepared to do that, the logical conclusion is that they want to create separate autonomous local authorities for those communities. Surely we cannot play with words.

Consequently I associate myself completely with the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Chairman, in view of the lack of time I will content myself with a few remarks about the merits of the measure, and consequently I will not be able to react to the argument of the hon member Prof Olivier. The hon member, inter alia, argued about the preference of the Coloured group as regards their participation in local government. I do not believe that to be really relevant in this discussion and it can therefore at most be of academic significance.

If the Government is in earnest to make provision for fully-fledged local authorities for the Coloured and Indian groups—I believe we can assume that the Government is indeed in earnest about that—it is necessary in my opinion that legislation of this nature be put onto the Statute Book. I want to add immediately that the reason therefore is not because statutory provision for such local authorities does not exist already. In that respect the hon member for Umbilo is quite correct, as he put it this evening that there is statutory provision, in the sense that the provinces have authorization for such legislation in terms of the Financial Relations Act. The hon member mentioned that Natal already has such legislation on its Statute Book. The same applies to the Cape Province, because Ordinance 6 of 1963 makes full provision for the establishment of fully-fledged local authorities for the other population groups.

The fact remains that practice has proved that the legislation on the Statute Book has not ensured the desired results. That is why it is necessary that legislation of this nature be put on the Statute Book.

People could ask why the powers which exist in the provinces have up to now only been used on a limited scale to establish such fully-fledged local authorities. There are only a few in Natal and a few in the Cape. Those in the Cape were not a very successful experiment. I believe one of the probable reasons therefor is the fact that there have been, inter alia, inclinations to resistance on the part of mother local authorities. The hon member for Klip River called it paternalism. It is a fact that there is indeed a measure of resistance. I am not saying that there is not a sound reason therefor. The mother local authorities may well have sound reasons why they are hesitant to establish such local authorities, especially since great financial implications are also involved.

A second reason therefore, I believe, is the fact that there is a lack of inherent viability, so that local authorities cannot undertake such an exercise. It is, therefore, specifically a question of financial considerations.

When I say that legislation of this nature is necessary, I say that because, although that provision already exists on paper in the provincial legislation, something is indeed lacking to make this type of local authority viable. The legislation serving before us this evening will not solve the problem entirely, but seen against the background of other legislation introduced during this session, especially the Regional Services Council Bill, I believe that all this legislation together will make the difference to give effect to this concept, namely to get these local authorities on stream. It is also important that a much more favourable climate has been created over the past couple of years for the transfer of such powers to get them on stream. In this regard I do feel that the Coordinating Council for Local Government Affairs should be given credit for the improvement of the climate to ensure the success of this exercise.

What is the position at present? Up to now there has been little positive encouragement from the mother local authorities to get the other local authorities off the ground. Financial considerations in particular have hampered matters. I believe we should place the emphasis very strongly on the viability of local authorities. It is no use establishing it on paper if such a local authority is not viable and has the ability to hold its own.

With these few remarks I want to associate myself with the arguments that this is a measure which has merit and which should be put into effect. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sundays River must forgive me if I do not react to his speech. At this late hour I want to get on with what I have to say. In the first instance, I want to deal with specific parts of the Bill. Once again we have a board being established here, in terms of clause 2. It is a board which is to consist of not more than seven members, including the chairman and the vice-chairman, all of whom are again nominated by the Minister.

Concerning clause 1, a number of questions have to be asked. Firstly, will the board be full-time or part-time? Can members of Parliament serve on the board, and, if so, will they not be transgressing the provision in respect of the holding of an office of profit under the Republic, because I have been told that members of Parliament are likely to be appointed to this demarcation board? The third question I want to ask— this is in connection with clause 2—is whether it is desirable that a board of this nature should be allowed to have public servants serving on it. Surely this is a board of which a public servant should not be a member, particularly since the board will be dealing with the demarcation or delimitation of new towns.

One of the good features is that the board may co-opt members to do a particular job. This means that the board is able to obtain the services of additional people from an area in question who might have good knowledge of that area. Another very good feature of the Bill—and I give the hon the Minister credit for this—is the fact that the members of the board act under the powers of the Commissions Act of 1947. This means that the board may sit anywhere in South Africa and has the right to call witnesses. Most important of all is the fact that all sittings must be held in public, except where it may be necessary to take evidence which may affect national security, in which case the evidence is heard in camera. The public will therefore have full opportunity to appear before the board, to give evidence and to hear the evidence of others. There is another aspect on which the hon the Minister must please inform me, namely whether members of the public will have full access to all the documents handed in to the demarcation board, so that they may know what other evidence has been submitted which may affect their lives in the future.

The functions of the board are clearly set out in the Bill, but only at the behest of the Administrator, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education and the respective Ministers of Local Government Housing and Works, in the three Houses, can they get the demarcation board to act in terms of section 17A of the principal Act, which states that the Administrator has the right—

1. (a) to establish or dissolve any local authority or to combine two or more local authorities into a single local authority;
2. (b) to determine or alter the area of jurisdiction of a local authority; or
3. (c) to classify local authorities or any category of local authorities according to grades.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether there are going to be second grade municipalities, third grade municipalities, low grade municipalities and high grade municipalities, because to me it is not clear what is meant by “local authorities according to grades”.

The actual heart of the legislation on the strength of which one can establish what it implies, however, is not to be found in the legislation because, as the hon member Prof Olivier has pointed out, in terms of section 17A the criteria, norms and standards have to be determined by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette, and that notice is Government Notice No 1111 of 24 May 1985, which I have here.

Let me say if I were the chairman of the town council of a new town like Sandton and that town had to be established on the basis of this Government Notice, I would have taken this piece of paper as an insult. Let me point out a few of the things it says.

Schedule 1 of the Government Notice deals with the factors to be considered for the purposes of demarcating, establishing or dissolving any local authority or combining two or more local authorities into a single authority. I should like to know what they mean by “the existence or not of a fairly homogeneous community”? Does that mean on economic grounds or is it on the basis of colour? I maintain without any hesitation that “homogeneous” in this case means “colour”, because when it comes to Schedule 2, the first thing it says is “an existing group area for the community concerned”. Therefore the whole basis of homogeneity here is the basis of colour.

I now turn to paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 1, which reads:

Sir, I ask you! I want to read this in Afrikaans too so that every hon member of the House can understand it:

What absolute nonsense! There is only one way in which one controls one’s elected representatives: If one does not like them, one kicks them out at the next election. That is the only way one does it. There is no such thing as being able to bring about an organization where the public must have control over their elected representatives. Once those representatives have been elected, they are members of the organization. Take for example a member of this House. Once he has been elected, he can say and do what he likes. The only factor that he has to bear in mind is that he stands a chance of losing at the next election. While he is here, who can touch him? Who can touch a member of a city council? What does this mean? It is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

I come now to paragraph 1(c), which is also nonsense:

The results of the elections for the Coloured management committees, various Indian local affairs committees and the Black community boards have shown that the population do not want to vote for something which does not allow their people to have absolute and full representation such as the Whites have. That is why there are low polls. What is the use of electing a body on such a basis? Will it really be representative?

The next point is a local authority’s capability, financial or otherwise, to provide by itself or—here comes the catch—through regional services councils another local authority or any other person with certain basic services. How can one expect a Coloured local authority with no industrial or business base to have sufficient income in order to provide the services? The services that are required are quite comprehensive. Schedule 2 deals with factors concerning demarcation to determine or alter the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. The first item—this was brought to the attention of the House by the hon member Prof Olivier—is the boundaries of an existing group area for the community concerned. This shows without any doubt whatsoever that this Bill is a total apartheid measure. One can understand why the House of Delegates threw it out—because its representatives would have to tell their voters that the Government are going to force them to be elected on an apartheid basis and that there is no opportunity for them in future ever to participate as full citizens of the country.

These directives show in no small measure how poor this Bill is and why it should be read six months hence.

Mr Chairman, I want to respond to only two aspects raised by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Firstly, he referred to the directive which I think was published on 24 May and said that he would read it in Afrikaans so that every member in the House could understand fully what he was saying. I take the strongest exception to that statement. I think he should reconsider and avail himself of the first opportunity to tender an apology to the members of this House.

His second argument, which was also advanced by the hon member Prof Olivier, was that we are accusing that party of being paternalistic. However, when he dealt with the directive his refrain was how could we expect the Coloureds to do this, that and the other. The Coloureds have already decided for themselves and have unanimously accepted the Bill as published and as it came back from the standing committee. If we are not paternalistic, let us prove it in this debate. This goes for members on the other side as well.

I really want to deal with only one aspect of the Bill, namely clause 5. This is the clause at issue and there is an amendment on the Order Paper relating to it. But we have not yet had any indication of whether the amendment will be accepted. The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the possibility of it being accepted unanimously, but I want to suggest that if that amendment should be accepted by the House of Assembly, then we will have three approaches: One is a rejection, another an acceptance of the Bill as it is, and the third the possibility to let both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives have exactly what they have asked for. The amendment was not on the Order Paper when the Bill was considered by the House of Delegates. So, if the State President should decide that the Bill be referred to the President’s Council, the President’s Council can call for evidence, consider all the arguments of the interested parties and decide for themselves which of the two versions they want to place before the State President. They can also decide to reject it.

I am advancing this at this point and, since neither the hon member for Sea Point nor the hon member Prof Olivier, who spoke on this aspect, is present at the moment, I want to ask the Whips to consider the matter at this stage so that when we get to the Committee Stage we will not be faced with an immediate decision.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg has stated that the NP does not accuse us of being paternalistic. That is a slightly different refrain from what we heard from the hon member for Klip River. He also said that the House of Representatives unaninously agreed to this matter.

For the purposes of debate I think it is necessary to put quite clearly what the majority party in the House of Representatives were looking for. Let me quote from the Hansard of the House of Representatives for the significant date 21 March 1985 what Mr J A Rabie said when he spoke on the motion before that House which was on local government (col 1296):

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, is it in order if an hon member addresses the House from a seat other than his own?

The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. I quote further:

this is Mr J A Rabie:

Secondly, for those who have heard the name of Cape Town thrown around I should merely like to quote from the speech of the hon member Mr J D Johnson (Hansard: Representatives, col 1312):

that is the Association of Management Committees:

I want to ask what Stellenbosch says about that. What does Paarl say about that, or Worcester, or Swellendam?

I should also like to quote from the speech of the hon member Mr Lockey. [Interjections.] As I say, these members can speak for themselves. I am not being paternalistic; these are their speeches. Mr Lockey is talking about a spot where a by-election is going to be held, viz Vryburg. He says (Hansard: Representatives, col 1317):

Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to hon members. I do not think hon members have, in their consideration of this measure, considered it on its own merits. Here I want to refer in particular to what this Bill is saying about the granting of additional rights, powers, duties and functions to management bodies.

The Bill makes it possible for the Administrator of a province, by notice in the Gazette, to grant bodies generally or any specific management body additional rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations. He may also remove—naturally enough— these powers from the local authorities.

What, however, may he also determine in these notices? He may also determine—and this relates to clause 4—the manner in which these rights and duties are to be performed. Secondly, the Administrator—and this is a very important point in this Bill—may amend any law regarding such rights, powers, duties and obligations. Ignoring the law, he becomes a law unto himself. There is obviously a proviso which is contained in the Bill, and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister is aware of this, that the department has to bring it before Parliament within 14 days if Parliament is sitting or, if Parliament is not sitting, within 14 days after the new session starts. There is, however, another proviso, namely that if Parliament disapproves of what the Administrator has done in amending a law, that ceases to be of force and effect. However, everything that has been done up to that stage still remains valid— even if Parliament disapproves his action!

Thirdly, in the notice the Administrator may issue all assets and obligations of a local authority will devolve upon a management body with or without compensation as agreed upon. Here we have a case where every local authority in South Africa will have to look very carefully at its needs, its assets and at the functions it will need to carry out in its particular area, taking into account those assets that may be taken from it.

Finally, the Administrator may also issue instructions that any officer or employee be transferred from the local authority to the management body.

These are very wide-ranging laws, and there are very wide-ranging obligations upon the Administrator to carry out his functions. I am prepared to guarantee it to the hon the Deputy Minister that if and when these measures are promulgated as law, they are going to cause tremendous friction at the local level. Here again I indicate the effect at local level where there may be two management committees namely an Indian and a Coloured manangement committee. The Coloured local authority wishes to take its assets and to carry out its work in its own area while the Indian local authority does not wish to do that. However, these areas are co-mingled. [Interjections.]

What obligations are being placed upon the Administrator in order to enable him to carry out these functions? Firstly, he has to have the concurrence of the Minister of the population group concerned. Secondly, he can do it after consultation, not in concurrence, with the local authority and the management body concerned. So the local authority may squeal or complain but this will simply be put into effect.

I believe that we have a situation here where this party and the parties represented in the House of Delegates have spelt out quite clearly our position on representation at local level: Each individual person should be represented in his own right on a local authority. The NP has said that this cannot be allowed, and we believe that the NP is the party that is out of touch with other parties in all three Houses of Parliament. It is the NP that should be reconsidering and accepting the fact that all individuals in South Africa need to have the right to vote and to be represented at local level.

Mr Chairman, I want to give hon members the assurance that if they listen peacefully and calmly, I shall speak for a very short while. I now have the adjournment in my hands and we can go home quickly or sit here for a very long time.

Once again I want to thank hon members who took part in this debate on a matter which is very important to all of us. Local authorities, which control and manage local communities, are of great importance to all population groups in this country. I want to make one thing very clear. It was my task to pilot this Bill through the three Houses, and I shall therefore not deal with whether or not it is to be referred to the President’s Council. That is not my task or responsibility.

I dealt with this Bill in the House of Representatives, where it was passed, and it is a pity that hon members did not read the speeches that were made there, for many of the hon members who spoke there, have had years of experience of local authorities. I think for example of a person like Mr Curry who has devoted his life to local government. [Interjections.] The hon members for Reigerpark and Gelvandale also made excellent speeches. They are people who, as I have said, devoted their lives to serving their communities and devoted all their energies to serving the interests of local authorities. They passed this Bill, because they are keen to have more power for their management committees. Hon members complained persistently, in every speech that was made, that management committees could not make any progress because they did not have the necessary power, status and funds—the hon member for Pinetown also referred to this—to provide facilities in that community. It is a fact that there are many communities where there is a great shortage of these facilities.

I want to pay tribute tonight to the management committees throughout South Africa that have worked very hard in the interests of the Coloured community and have accomplished fine things. I think the passing of this Bill, which is going to give management committees greater powers, will enable management committees to achieve even greater success.

It is true that this Bill was rejected in the House of Delegates, but interestingly enough this idea of greater power actually originated with the hon member for Rylands who is a member of the opposition party in the House of Delegates as well as President of Assomac, the Association of Management Committees. I should like to quote from a speech which was made by the hon member for Rylands in the House of Delegates on 2 May 1985. It is in Hansard: House of Delegates, 1985, col 2683:

Precisely because of this the co-ordinating council passed a unanimous motion on 26 March which read as follows:

This is actually what was asked for, this is the resolution that was adopted and this is what is embodied in this legislation. Greater powers are, in the first instance, being promised to the management committees. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates also asked for this, and so did the member Mr Abram. That hon member said inter alia, and I am quoting from the English version of Hansard: House of Delegates, 1985, col 2688:

It is a pity that the House of Delegates then put the emphasis on autonomous local government and not on the greater powers which this legislation is going to give local management committees. I want to believe that the decision in this House was simply the result of a misunderstanding.

The hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Sea Point referred to the demarcation board and to the groups areas. They referred to the criteria for this demarcation and they place particular emphasis on the following words in Schedule 2 of Government Notice 1111 of 24 May 1985: “The boundaries of an existing group area for the community concerned.” This is merely a given fact which the demarcation board has take into consideration. It is not the task of the demarcation board to demarcate group areas. That is the task of the Group Areas Board. They deal every day with applications that have been submitted to them. They are now working on section 19 areas. All the demarcation board has to do is determine the boundaries of a board area within which that board may then exercise its powers.

That is not the point I made.

Now the hon member Prof Olivier is saying that that is not the point he made, but he did after all refer to a speech that I made in the House of Delegates. He said that I had given the House of Delegates the assurance that this was not applicable to groups areas. Of course I gave them the assurance in this sense that the demarcation board was not being appointed to demarcate group areas. That remains the task of the Group Areas Board. That was the assurance I gave them.

Surely the hon members of the House of Delegates have the criteria at their disposal and they can see for themselves that it is stated here that they have to take the boundaries of an existing group area into consideration. [Interjections.] They will have to consider the existing boundaries and areas. Surely we cannot cancel that now. We have the existing group areas in this country and this demarcation will have to take that into consideration. I do not think there are any other criteria.

Mr Chairman, It seems to me that the hon Deputy Minister did not understand me. He said in the House of Delegates: “Nowhere in these criteria or this directive will one find the mentioning of group areas.” Is that what the hon Deputy Minister meant?

Yes, but the hon member is misinterpreting it. [Interjections.] In the House of Delegates I was talking about the demarcation board. I know that group areas exist—I have just said it. I cannot convince members of the House of Delegates that groups areas do not exist. They do exist, and they know that as well as I do. They five in group areas and I live in a group area. The idea that I want to bring home to them was that the demarcation board is not there to demarcate group areas. What is more, the hon member Prof Oliver objected because I had discussed separate communities and cultures in the House of Delegates. Yet once again it is merely the reality. It is a given fact which we have to take into account and which those members also have to take into account. I was speaking specifically to the Indian community and we certainly cannot deny or dispute here tonight that they are a community with their own culture and customs. Let us take something like pleasure resorts or a swimming pool as an example. In this community there has to be separate swimming pools for men and women. The women’s swimming pool must even have a wall built around it. It is completely different to a swimming pool for Whites. So all these things have to be taken into account.

There will have to be separate swimming pools for Hindus and Moslems.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to discuss swimming pools any further. What I want to stress is that there are separate communities in this country with separate cultures. It remains the task of the respective local governments to look after the interests of those communities. Mention was made of the demarcation board and various questions were put to me, inter alia by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. He asked among other things whether it would be a full-time or part-time body. The demarcation board can be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis, for a maximum period of five years. The hon member asked whether members of Parliament could serve on the demarcation board and the answer to that is no. It is a statutory body that must be able to make objective judgements. Therefore members of Parliament cannot serve on it. The hon member also asked whether members of the Public Service could serve on the board and the answer to that is yes, because we need people with a professional background. I want to say to the hon member for Bezuidenhout that he made generalized statements on parts of the legislation. I want to invite the hon member to come forward with those deficiencies and make a written submission to our department in Pretoria. We do not have time to go into that tonight, but our department in Pretoria will gladly do so.

I personally believe that we are dealing here with a very thorough piece of legislation which can only be in the interests of all the communities. I gave the assurance that the Coloureds and Indians did not want autonomous local authorities, but they are in fact serving management committees. I think there are many city councils and municipalities in this country that could have done more for management committees. The City Council of Cape Town is proof of this. I think the City Council of Cape Town could have done more with regard to its management committees, because a complaint was lodged with us by members of those management committees that even when members of the public were being interviewed, the members of those management committees were not even invited to be present. I believe that when city councils and municipalities come forward and display a greater degree of goodwill in regard to management committees, we will be able to create a much happier situation on the local level in South African local government.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed on the Order Paper under the name of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as follows:

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 3, from line 22, to omit “en met die instemming van die Ministers bedoel in artikel 3(2)(aB)”.
2. 2. In the Afrikaans text, on page 3, in fine 27, after “raad” to insert:

The only purpose of the amendment is to correct a misprint that crept into the Afrikaans text.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

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

I would like to motivate the motion. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member want to speak to the motion? [Interjections.] The hon member moved the motion, and he should sit down now so that I can put the question. I put the question.

Mr Chairman, I am not completely sure what the hon member has in mind with his motion that the Bill be considered in Committee of the Whole House, but I oppose his motion because I do not believe it is necessary since the Bill has already passed through all the various processes. It served before the Standing Committee which took certain decisions. The Bill has been discussed and passed in this House as well as in the other two Houses. I think the hon member has moved this motion only because he could not achieve what he wanted to achieve earlier because he landed up in the minority.

Does the hon member for Pietersburg want to reply?

Mr Chairman, I would like to reply because a very important aspect of this Bill could have been covered by the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, namely:

This is the crux of the whole matter. As people who are concerned about the first level of health services in South Africa we very much wanted to see that someone who provides health services must at least be examined by a recognized tertiary educational institution in South Africa before he is allowed to practise here.

The hon member for Parktown, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, told me that the proposed amendment is in full accordance with his view of this whole subject. The hon the Minister said himself that he would very much like to see the Medical Council to be the umbrella controlling body in this case. During the Second Reading debate I put a number of questions to the hon Minister, and one of the reasons why we have a Committee Stage, is because the hon the Minister did not answer those questions and we now have the opportunity to put them to him once again. Amongst other things I asked the hon the Minister whether it was still his view that all professions providing a medical service should be controlled by the Medical Council, to which I did not receive a reply. The second question I put to him was whether there are chiropractors and homeopaths who are at present waiting to be registered, having completed their training abroad. The hon the Minister did not answer this question either. I asked him whether he sees these professions as members of the primary health team in South Africa or would classify them as natural scientists. Fourthly I asked him whether he could quote or name any scientific research works which could indicate that some research has indeed taken place. Lastly I asked him how he was going to control the training that takes place abroad.

We know that the Medical Association on 17 May sent a letter to the secretary of the standing committee asking that the Minister of Health and Welfare be requested to grant an interview with a delegation of the MASA to discuss the draft Bill and the effects thereof on health services on the RS A, if it were accepted. Has the hon Minister given any attention to this at all?

I will now deal with what the hon the Minister said in his reply. The hon the Minister quoted from a letter and I am going to quote it again now as it appears in the unrevised version of his Hansard. A doctor wrote to him as follows:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for members on the Government side to throw paper aeroplanes around here?

Order! I would like to remind hon members at this late stage that we are here in a debating chamber and not on a runway. The hon member for Pietersburg may continue.

Mr Chairman, I quote again from the letter, as follows:

The doctor concludes his letter by saying:

I ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with that letter. What did the hon the Minister say then? He said that of course he agreed with it. He would after all not read something if he did not agree with it. Would he then now read something which he does not agree with?

What does the hon the Minister say to the medical profession now? Firstly the hon the Minister says that he agrees whole-heartedly with the letter-writer that our colleagues outside are spreading nonsense with regard to homeopathy. This is what the hon Minister says here. In the second place the hon Minister agrees that the Medical Council’s antagonism towards the homeopath is based on ignorance. Further in his speech he quotes from a previous speech of his and says:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to submit that the hon member is not busy with a motivation for a Committee Stage. That is impossible.

Order! I was on the point of saying that to the hon member myself. The hon member must now motivate why we must go into Committee. He must thus not reply to what the hon the Minister supposedly said. The hon member must now motivate why we must go into Committee.

Mr Chairman, I shall motivate with pleasure. We want to make it clear to the hon the Minister that we are not against homeopaths and chiropractors per se. Some of them do fine work, but even the hon member Dr Vilonel said in the House that he did not agree with the philosophy of homeopathy. Not so? The hon member confirms it. Our standpoint is thus that we would like to see in the interests of the homeopathic and chiropractic professions that their training be recognized by other scientists. That is why we say that in their own interests it would merely be the appropriate thing for them to receive training in basic medicine at educational institutions in South Africa. Thereafter they can specialize further in specific areas of their choice.

Our standpoint is that it has always been the case that people practising in any medical profession in South Africa should at least be examined so that we can be satisfied that they have received scientific training as we want to ensure that the public is protected and that such people will not in the distant future be viewed as non-scientists and as attachments who are not scientifically founded, to the medical profession. This could be accomplished if this amendment which we have moved here is agreed to by this House. Therefore we would like to see my motion agreed to by the House.

Question negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

At this midnight hour I would like to express a few words of thanks. I want to thank you and Mr Speaker where we have now reached the end of the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the House that item No 11 on the Order Paper, the report of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, has always been discussed in this House and, in fact, in the course of the discussions in that committee the point was made that certain points should rather not be discussed in the committee because those matters of difference could be discussed when the report was presented for consideration to this House. In the years I have been here this report has always been put for consideration.

Order! The hon member has made his point of order. I have seen the hon the Leader of the House and I continue seeing him. The hon the Leader of the House may continue. [Interjections.]

Can the hon member for Hillbrow tell me whether there were any arrangements between the Whips with regard to this?

No, there were no arrangements. [Interjections.]

So there were no arrangements in regard to the matter the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has just raised? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order. There seems to be some dispute as to whether at the end of the session these reports are put or not. I understand from my hon colleague that this Report of the Scof is usually put and there is usually discussion. Perhaps you will give us your ruling as to whether or not we have discussion on this report at the end of the session.

Order! I want to point out that all that is happening at the moment is that I have given the floor to the hon the Leader of the House. What he intends doing with it we shall find out presently. The hon the Leader of the House may continue.

He might give it away.

Sir, I moved the adjournment. There was no arrangement among the Whips that any of these points be discussed. In all the years it has never been the case. [Interjections.]

It is on the Order Paper.

On the Order Paper? None of these were discussed in the past.

Public Accounts was always discussed. [Interjections.]

The reports were not discussed, Sir. They were never discussed in the past. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Leader of the House is speaking.

Mr Chairman, I would like us to rise in peace. I want to express my thanks to Mr Speaker, to you Mr Chairman, and to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees. I also want to thank the Opposition. I want to thank the Whips of the Opposition and also the Whips of the CP and the NRP. It was a privilege for me to attend every Thursday’s meeting with the Whips. I would also like to thank the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, Mr Van Breda, who made this new dispensation run smoothly.

Smoothly? [Interjections.] Smoothly?

I also want to thank the officials. We said goodbye to Mr Victor in an appropriate way today. I want to say to Mr Attie de Villiers that we look forward to his co-operation from September. I also want to thank all the other officials who worked quietly behind the scenes. Our service officers, Sir, are the people who never “catch shine”. I want to thank each and every one of them. I would also like to thank all the members—on both sides. [Interjections.] It is a privilege to be leader of the House of Assembly with such members. There were differences, but there was no hatred. There is no bitterness here. [Interjections.]

We understand each other and we agree to differ. However, we differ in such a way that things are not said that offend. That to me is important in politics. It is a pity that it happens sometimes, but I do not think it is because of carelessness, but rather because it is said in the heat of the moment. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to thank everybody who had a part in this.

Mr Chairman, while we cannot discuss the report on a breach of privilege, I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether he would be angry if someone outside Parliament would say that members of Parliament throw around paper aeroplanes in the Chamber? Can he blame them if they write that in pamphlets? [Interjections.]

Order! I have never been under the impression that the hon Leader of the House needs any help from his side of the House to make his speech. The hon Leader of the House may continue.

Sir, I certainly did not throw an aeroplane. [Interjections.] That I promise. I also did not see any. Why do we have to spoil this last moment? Perhaps somebody threw a little aeroplane. Surely that is not a sin. [Interjections.] King David sinned much more than this. [Interjections.] Let us now not be cross with one another about that. The aircraft are leaving soon from DF Malan Airport to Johannesburg and we must therefore finish off in good spirit now.

Order! Does any hon member perhaps wish to make a final remark in this regard? Since there is no one, I would just like to say at this stage that I wish all members a pleasant recess and I hope they will return in good health.