Order! The Houses will now proceed to vote on the Second Reading of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill. As this is the first occasion on which this procedure is being implemented, I accept that all hon members will co-operate wholeheartedly in order to ensure that matters will proceed smoothly.

In terms of the Rules, we have tried to spell out the proceedings to hon members as clearly as possible. I hope that as we progress, matters will proceed accordingly. I thank hon members in anticipation for their co-operation.

Before we proceed I should also just like to point out that hon members may only participate in the vote from the seat allocated to them officially by the Chief Whip of Parliament and the Whips.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it has always of course been the case in the House of Assembly that one has been able to sit in any seat in order to vote. May I therefore ask in terms of what rule it has been decided that hon members may only vote from the seats allocated to them by the Chief Whip of Parliament?

Order! May I refer the hon member to Rule 2. Mr Speaker’s decision is in accordance with that Rule.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: In terms of Rule 2, Mr Speaker can only make a special ruling in the event of there being no rule. I submit that in terms of the Rules that have obtained in Parliament for some considerable period of time there is a rule that has been established by precedence and by convention that hon members may vote from any seat in the House. In fact, Sir, you are well aware that one sometimes has to cross the floor of the House during a division when one wants to cast one’s vote with another party.

Order! I wish to refer the hon member to the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 105. Rule 2 (1) reads as follows:

Rule 105 reads as follows:

I have decided to determine the procedure as I have explained it to hon members.

Mr Speaker, I understand that Rule 2 only obtains until such time as a meeting of the Rules Committee …

Order!

I wish to ask if that is correct, Sir.

Order! I have given my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon member.

Mr Speaker, I am addressing you on a further point of order: I accept your ruling, but may I ask how long it will remain the rule? Will it in fact only be until there is a meeting of the Rules Committee?

Order! Mr Speaker is not to be questioned in terms of a ruling he has given. The hon member must resume his seat.

Mr Speaker, the CP unquestionably rejects the Bill because:

The Government’s acceptance of one undivided Republic of South Africa with equal rights for all it inhabitants, in accordance with the free operation of democracy must inevitably, because of the numerical factor, lead to a Black-dominated South Africa.

In such a system the Afrikaner people and other Whites would be the victims of Third World value systems and would lose their freedom in all walks of life.

As far as the Afrikaner people and other Whites are concerned it would mean a fatal break with the proved constitutional development of the past, which guaranteed the various peoples separate freedoms.

The Government’s assurances with regard to the protection of minorities is mere lip-service, while it goes to the negotiation table without laying down any non-negotiable prerequisites in respect of White self-determination.

The numerous failures of attempted powersharing in the African context and elsewhere speaks out in no uncertain terms against any similar efforts in South Africa.

It prepares the scene for continuous conflict and a continuous power struggle among the various peoples and groups.

It contains no planning for the political independence of the Afrikaner people and other Whites; on the contrary, it plans White submission to multiracialism and Black domination. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, much has been said during the debate on this Bill about the need not to prescribe to Blacks as far as their leaders are concerned. With this in mind, the hon member Prof Olivier moved an amendment which would have allowed Blacks to elect their leaders on the basis of popular vote. That amendment has been rejected and we therefore have to deal with the Bill as it is before the House at this moment.

The PFP is totally and irrevocably committed to achieving a democratic and representative Government and Constitution for South Africa. It goes without saying that all South Africans should be included, including Black South Africans.

Secondly, we are totally and irrevocably committed to try to move the Constitution away from the racial structures and minority domination which is the feature of the present Constitution. We believe that this can best be achieved by a nonracial, federal constitution in which the rights of all South Africans are guaranteed.

Thirdly, we believe that to be effective and to survive a constitution has to be a product of genuine negotiation by the genuine leaders of all sections of our community. The question is whether the Bill before us will create that machinery. We believe it will not, for two prime reasons.

Firstly, the membership of the new council is confined to those people who are already functionaries within the existing racial structures or who are elected by members from those racial structures. It excludes all people in South Africa who are outside of the present system of government.

Secondly, there is a climate surrounding the enactment of this Bill, dealing with the participation of Blacks and the political mobilisation of Blacks, which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for significant Black leaders to take part. I refer not only to Black leaders outside of the present structures but to Black leaders who, at this moment, are still functioning within those structures.

I call upon the hon the State President, because he can time the functioning of this Bill, to take one major step of reconciliation from which he could save something from what might be a political wreck. That would be to release Mr Nelson Mandela. I believe it would be an act of political reconciliation which might justify much of what has gone before.

In the absence of that, however, against the background of the political environment of this Bill, the commitments of this Government and the limited nature of the representation which Blacks can enjoy in terms of this Bill, we believe it is flawed and that, whatever the intentions may be, it is going to postpone and delay the date of political reconciliation in South Africa. It will not lead to a new non-racial democratic constitution. For those reasons we shall oppose it. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I think it is significant that now the euphoria surrounding the first joint debate has settled, it might be relevant just to reflect on certain aspects of that debate. There can be no doubt that a great deal has been learnt from this new experience in the annals of Parliament. I feel that, generally speaking, one of the most significant aspects of the debate was the excellent spirit in which the majority of speeches were delivered. It was appropriate too that the first joint meeting was required to deal with a matter of such importance as the National Council legislation which, in itself, required a commitment from those who sought a solution to this country’s political problems in the form of negotiation.

While one admits freely that there are aspects of the legislation which can be criticized, in that representation on the council may be considered to be too prescriptive, and that it may be deficient and flawed in some respects, one must bear in mind the fact that this legislation heralds a new era in negotiation politics in this country.

For that reason alone it is worthy of support. As I stated in my First Reading speech I am satisfied that the Government’s intentions are sincere and that it is genuinely committed in its attempts to initiate a forum where negotiations can take place which will lead to the finding of a formula for including Blacks, particularly the non-homeland Blacks, in the decision making process of Government.

The stakes are high and the Government will find that the road ahead will be rough and tough. Negotiation politics at this level, once commenced, cannot be allowed to fail. One must not underestimate, therefore, the serious implications that this legislation will have on the future of South Africa, because it will only be on its successful outcome that the internal and external pressures will be relaxed and we shall be able to regain the international credibility that we have lost over the years. This is vital if the country is to be able to meet the economic and social challenges of the nineties.

It is for that reason that I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I believe I am speaking on behalf of all the hon members of the House if I place on record our appreciation of the way you and your fellow chairmen handled the debate last week.

Last week the Bill was discussed in depth during an historical debate. With the exception of a few of the opposition parties we reached unanimity on the Bill itself. I think that the unanimity we reached was concerned with the necessity of an institution for negotiations, and in my opinion that unanimity can in turn be converted into the unanimity that exists in this House on certain fundamental points of departure that we share.

In the first place we are agreed that we need change in our political and constitutional system to ensure that all South Africans may share in such a system.

Secondly, we agree that the changes that we want in our country should take place in a peaceful, evolutionary and constitutional way, and that we take a stand against revolution and violence in exercising that choice. We also agree that if the change is to be lasting, Parliament, as it is constituted at present, should give final approval to such changes.

Thirdly, we agree that the changes ought to be brought about by a process of negotiation. We reject, by accepting the Bill, unilateralism and prescriptiveness, and we are in favour of the leaders of all the population communities planning the future around a conference table. Although we know that the final blueprints are not attainable overnight, we agree that Parliament should create forums and opportunities for consultation and negotiation.

The Bill seeks to give effect to each of these points of departure and therefore represents the consensus we have at this stage with regard to the steps that are now necessary.

We are now being asked to make a decision in this Parliament about the unanimity that we have achieved and what it represents. We are being asked to give expression in our lives to the points of departure on which we agree. We are being asked to tell our country and its people and the outside world that we are in favour of peaceful negotiations, and we must hereby demonstrate it. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the United Democratic Party does not support the Bill before Parliament for these reasons advanced during the debate by the hon the leader of the party, the hon member for Reigerpark. The reasons can be summarised briefly as follows. Firstly, we believe that all South Africans, irrespective of political beliefs or persuasions, should be allowed to serve on the proposed National Council. To achieve this end, we believe that the state of emergency and the restrictions placed on certain organisations should be lifted. [Interjections.] Secondly, all Blacks over 18 should be allowed to vote and elect representatives, and not only those specified in the Bill. Thirdly, only majority parties are represented on the proposed National Council, and we believe minority parties should also be represented. As it is, as far as the House of Delegates is concerned, we do not know whether a majority party or a minority party is now in control! [Interjections.]

We believe a final constitution for this country cannot be drafted in the absence of participation by the ANC, and we call upon the ANC to abandon violence and to engage the South African Government in meaningful dialogue to achieve an acceptable constitution for the benefit of all South Africans. We do not believe that this statutory council in its proposed form will be the answer to the country’s problems. We believe that all South Africans of all political persuasions will have to get around a table eventually to determine a constitution for this country, and not in a prescriptive manner as set out in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, what happened here last week and what in all probability is going to happen here again today must be seen as an act of faith. Unless one has faith in oneself, in other people and in one’s country solutions to our problems will definitely not be found.

For that reason I want to point out to certain hon members at this meeting that faith is described as follows. It is a steadfast confidence in the things for which we hope and a proof of the things that we do not see. That is why I describe the decision that is now going to be taken as an act of faith.

I want to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that Dr Allan Boesak, for example, in a statement at one of the universities in America, said that it would be to his and their advantage if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly were to come into power because then the revolution would come sooner. [Interjections.]

This party which it is my privilege to lead is devoted to the whole question of reform. We see this action we are taking as an effort to make reform a reality. We say very clearly and unequivocally that we will not permit any person or any party inside or outside Parliament to prescribe to us as far as our decisions are concerned. [Interjections.]

Notwithstanding all the criticism, we stand by the fact that we are prepared, out of the love we bear for our country and our fellow-man which is vested in the hope that is forever burning in us and in the strength of our faith, to go forward from here. I want to quote to hon members of this House a translation of an English poem by Helen Steiner Rice:

I now put the question to the House of Delegates … [Interjections.] Order! I am addressing the House of Delegates. Are there any objections from the House of Delegates? [Interjections.] Order! I am sorry, I cannot hear both parties at the same time. I again put the question to the House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time. Are there any objections? [Interjections.]

I object, Mr Speaker! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! I am putting the question to the House of Delegates …

Mr Speaker, may I address you on that?

Order! I am addressing the House. Will the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central please resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! I am putting the question to the House of Delegates, not to hon members sitting among members of any other House. [Interjections.] I have already ruled that hon members who wish to take part in a division must do so from the seats allocated to them by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and the Whips of their House. That also applies to hon members who wish to object to the question. Wherever they may be seated according to their own choice, they may only address the Chair on this issue from within the ranks allocated to their House in this main Chamber.

It is an apartheid Parliament!

Order! Who made that remark?

I said it is an apartheid Parliament, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills please resume his seat. What is the hon member for Berea inferring?

I am saying that the voting system is an apartheid voting system.

Order! Is the hon member for Berea reflecting on the Chair?

If that is a reflection, Mr Speaker, but I said …

Order! The hon member will withdraw that remark.

I cannot do that, Mr Speaker.

Order! Then the hon member will leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

I will gladly do that.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may now address the Chair.

Mr Speaker, I understood your ruling was …

Order! Before the hon member proceeds, is the hon member addressing me as an hon member sitting in another part of the Chamber, or in the seat officially allocated to him?

Mr Speaker, I am addressing you as a member of this honourable Parliament.

Order! Then I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon member. If the hon member is prepared to accept my ruling on this issue I will gladly listen to him.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! If the hon member is prepared to address me in terms of my ruling I am of course quite prepared to listen to him. I am asking the hon member to abide by my ruling.

Mr Speaker, I have not refused to abide by your ruling. What I am explaining is …

Order! Must I therefore accept that the hon member is for the purposes of his point of order addressing me as if from the seat allocated to him officially?

Mr Speaker, I think you know full well that I do not flout rulings of the Chair. It is not my habit to do so. I was trying to explain …

Order! I am seeking the hon member’s assistance. The hon member must either co-operate with the Chair or resume his seat.

Mr Speaker, naturally I abide by the ruling of the Chair. What I am trying to explain, is that I understood the ruling of the Chair to be that hon members must vote from the seats allotted to them. When I stood up to object I was therefore not at all disobeying the ruling of the Chair. I merely wish to, as if I am seated …

Order! I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills and I must understand each other. Is the hon member addressing the Chair from the seat which he left to go to the microphone or is he addressing the Chair from the seat allocated to him by the Whips? [Interjections.]

I am addressing the Chair in terms of your ruling which therefore means from the seat which was allotted to me.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, all that I wanted to convey, was that we object to the question and therefore we ask that you proceed on the basis that there was an objection.

Order! May I ask the hon member one question again? Did the hon member now address the Chair from the seat allotted to him by the Whips of the party with which he is presently sitting or by the Whips in terms of my ruling? The hon member must now please give me a clear answer.

My answer is in the affirmative. As I have said I have never ever disobeyed a ruling of any chairman and I do not propose to disobey the ruling of the Chair now.

Thank you. I once again put the question to the House of Delegates. Those in favour will say “aye” and those against will say “no”.

No!

Order! I did not hear any objection from the ranks of the House of Delegates. Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills please resume his seat. I did not hear any objection from the House of Delegates and the question is accordingly agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I collected my card and came back to the seat allotted to me from which I lodged my objection.

Order! I shall accept that but I want to advise the hon member not to play games with the Chair.

Mr Speaker, I lodged my objection from the seat allotted to me.

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat!

This is ridiculous!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Sandton say: “This is ridiculous!”?

It is a farce!

Mr Speaker, may the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central say: “It is a farce!”? I submit that that is a reflection on the Chair.

Order! Did a particular hon member or members make those remarks?

I said it is a farce, Mr Speaker, and it is a reflection on the racist Parliament and not on the Chair.

Order! The hon member will withdraw that immediately.

I am not prepared to do that, Sir.

Order! Then the hon member will leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, I also made the same remarks as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Order! Is the hon member prepared to withdraw those remarks?

No, Mr Speaker, and I am not reflecting on your ruling but on the operations within this Parliament.

Order! If the hon member is not prepared to withdraw the remarks he will leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you wish to listen to me as well but I also averred that the proceedings here at the moment were ridiculous.

Yes, I heard that remark myself.

Mr Speaker, I also said that the proceedings were ridiculous.

Order! The hon member may resume his seat. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I also said that the proceedings here were ridiculous.

Yes, I think we have had enough of this now; the hon member may resume his seat. [Interjections.]

†Order! I have given the hon member for Reservoir Hills enough opportunities to inform the Chair in clear and understandable language what he really wishes to tell the Chair. I have already put the question on three occasions. [Interjections.] Order! If the hon member for Reservoir Hills does not keep quiet whilst I am addressing the House the hon member will withdraw from the Chamber immediately. I have asked whether there were any objections and the hon member did not object from the seats allocated to the hon members of the House of Delegates by either the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and/or his own Whips. There was no objection and the question is accordingly agreed to.

Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party and Mr J V Iyman dissenting.)

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—95: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Blanche, J P I; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Hardingham, R W; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Kotze, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Clemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, E van der M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Mat thee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Deventer, F J; Van Breda, A; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Vyver, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G van N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—35: Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malan, W C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Snyman, W J; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Walsh, J J.

Question agreed to.

The House of Representatives divided:

AYES—66: Abrahams, L C; Abrahams, T; Adriaanse, A P; Andrews, B J; Balie, A; Buis, E P C; Carelse, G M E; Curry, D M G; Da Gama, P R E; De la Cruz, D T; Dietrich, W J; Douw, J; Dunn, E D; Ebrahim, C H; Essop, A; Essop, I; Friedberg, M; George, T R; Green, C E; Grobbler, B; Harmse, P S; Harris, P C; Hendrickse, H J; Hendrickse, P A C; Hollander, L J; Hoosen, S; Isaacs, N M; Jenneke, L J; Johnson, J D; Josephs, D W N; Koeberg, C; Landers, L T; Lategan, K H; Leeuw, G L; Lockey, D; Loonat, M; Louw, S K; Macalagh, G J; Mateman, D H; Mckenzie, P C; Meyer, P; Morkel, G N; Nasson, C I; O’Reilly, R; Oosthuizen, J C; Padiachy, N J; Peters, F E; Pilcher, J; Poole, A E; Reeves, A E; Richards, I; Ross, H P; Sass, V; Solomon, I; Stanley, A; Swartz, J J; Swartz, M H; Swigelaar, J D; Van den Heever, J G; Verveen, S H; Wessels, G R; Whyte, W L; Williams, A; Williams, R D; Wyngaard, C A; Young, D C.

NOES—4: Herwels, F G; Kippen, C J; Mopp, P A S; Müller, P J.

Order! The outcome of the division in the House of Assembly is: Ayes—94; Noes—34. The Question is therefore agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We in these benches will appreciate it if the outcome of the division could be examined, because we are of the opinion that there should be 35 dissentient votes.

Order! I shall have it examined with pleasure. Perhaps I must explain to hon members that after approximately six minutes, the complete and specified count, as hon members voted, will be available at the Table. If necessary, a correction will be effected after the names of hon members and an indication of how they voted become available in a few minutes time.

Mr Chairman, I move on behalf of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, clauses 1, 5 and 19 of this Bill amend the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963, the Government Service Pension Act, 1973 and the Temporary Employees Pension Fund Act, 1979, so as to provide that the Minister of National Education shall also be consulted when regulations are made.

In addition, clauses 2, 3 and 4 provide that certain teaching staff who were previously members of the Government Service Pension Fund because they occupied posts on the fixed establishment of a provincial administration, are now being transferred to the Minister of Education and Culture: House of Assembly.

Clauses 7 to 14 amend certain provisions of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973. At present there is a compensation fund for Blacks and one for Whites. Provision is now being made for the establishment of only one fund, which will facilitate administration, and for keeping of only one set of books.

Certain objectives are set out in clauses 15 and 18. The first is the adjustment of certain definitions.

The second is the amendment of the formula in terms of which benefits for dormant members are calculated and preserved. The good news here is that the percentage is being raised from 6% to 10%.

Thirdly, it is intended to provide that in the regulations on the financial management and control of pension funds, certain functions shall be transferred to the Director-General of National Health. Fourthly, provision is being made enabling the responsible Minister to delegate certain powers to the Director-General. The legislation before us also provides for the pension to be paid to the future Vice-State President.

The CP supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to the CP for their support for the legislation under discussion. The Pension Laws Amendment Bill now being discussed in the House is essentially a financial measure. It is one of the measures which comes before the House regularly at the end of each session.

The Bill under discussion aims at amending and improving five so-called pension laws and bringing them into line with conditions prevailing in the country. I just want to make the general remark that it is an accepted fact that the Department of National Health and Population Development is in actual fact a service department. As such, the Pensions Division of this department is a service department par excellence.

The intention of the proposed legislation is specifically to provide a better service, as the hon member for Carletonville has pointed out.

Another general comment I want to make is that there was complete consensus on all these matters in the Joint Committee on Health and Welfare. As the hon member for Carletonville indicated, there was a measure of uncertainty about certain teachers, and in particular about certain White teachers, because they previously fell under the provinces and now fall under the Department of Education and Culture. They are therefore neither provincial officials nor Public Servants. There was, therefore, some uncertainty in that regard.

One could say, of course, that according to legal processes these members were covered by the pension scheme. But new members who were appointed would not fall under the scheme. As the hon member indicated, clauses 2, 3 and 4 remove this legal uncertainty.

A very interesting thing happened in the joint committee. The original Bill provided in clause 4(b):

Here again there is specific reference to the House of Assembly. That is legally correct, because it is the White teachers who are involved. The reference to the Minister of Education and Culture: House of Assembly, therefore, is quite correct.

Nevertheless, some hon members of the other Houses felt that their Houses should also be mentioned. That showed that these people are still very sensitive—perhaps somewhat oversensitive—about this sort of legislation.

All the members of the joint committee felt that the respective own affairs Ministers should, of course, have the same rights. It was pointed out to us that once the other Ministers had altered their own affairs legislation to bring about the necessary adjustment we could subsequently make similar amendments to this legislation. On the very sound basis of the principle of consensus and because we had no objection to the same rights for all, the joint committee consequently effected an amendment. I do not want to go into it fully now, but in the long title of the Bill, for instance, the words “departments responsible for education” are substituted for the words “Department of Education and Culture: Administration: House of Assembly”.

Hon members can see therefore that in the strictly legal sense the amendments do not really make any fundamental difference, but I think it is a question of justice not only being done, but also being seen to be done. We have brought about this change, although it really makes no basic legal difference, to make sure that justice is seen to be done.

I do not want to dwell for too long on other aspects. The hon member for Carletonville actually referred, although he did not put it in these precise terms, to the elimination of unnecessary red tape. Previously different departments dealt with different matters—there was a so-called Black affairs authority, and so on—but because the Department of National Health and Population Development is now dealing with the whole matter, there is no longer any need for that sort of thing. We have therefore not only dispensed with unnecessary distinctions, if one may put it that way, but also with unnecessary red tape.

The hon member also referred to the question of the former Vice State President to whom, I think, we can take our hats off. The State President’s pension is dealt with in terms of the Constitution, and that of other hon members, such as the hon members sitting here, by pension legislation. Because he was Vice State President and then a Minister, he is, strictly speaking, legally entitled to a pension as previous Vice State President and former Minister. The former Vice State President has flatly rejected it—of course, logically speaking, that is correct—and we commend him for doing so. The legislation is now being rectified. Mr Schlebusch will now only receive a pension as a Minister.

The hon member for Carletonville has also referred to the so-called dormant members. That is a member who has retired, say, at the age of 53 years, and then has the choice of immediately taking his gratuity or continuing until he reaches the age of 65 years and thus being a dormant member. This legislation alters his position in such a way that if, for instance, he was to have received a gratuity of R50 000 at the age of 53 years, he could become a dormant member and more than treble that amount to something like R157 000 if he did not take the money immediately. It therefore makes much better provision for those specific members, because it encourages them not to take their money at a young age—if I may call it that—but to save the money in the long term and so make better provision for themselves.

This Bill therefore introduces legal certainty where previously uncertainty prevailed, as was the case with these White teachers. It eliminates red tape by doing away, for example, with the involvement of the Black affairs authority. It considerably improves the financial position of so-called dormant members, as I have pointed out. What is more it ensures that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done. Therefore, on behalf of the NP side of the House I wholeheartedly support the Bill, and sincerely congratulate the hon the Minister on having introduced it.

Mr Chairman, I have no axe to grind with anything the hon the member for Langlaagte had to say. We will also be supporting this piece of amending legislation.

It is fairly wide-ranging, as has been indicated. It deals with a number of issues, many of which have arisen as a result of amendments to other Acts and other issues, in particular the case of the teaching profession to which the hon member for Langlaagte referred. It has been affected by other pieces of legislation which came to this House this year. I refer in particular to the Education Affairs Act (House of Assembly) of 1988, and, of course, Proclamations Nos 53 to 56 of 27 March 1986. These have had the effect of transferring White teachers and the control of White education from the provincial administrations to the Department of Education and Culture of the House of Assembly.

I want to talk on this for a moment because members of the teaching profession were in fact very concerned that this transfer to the central department would affect their pension rights to some extent. As mentioned before, teachers have always had the right to retire between the ages of 60 and 65, with 65 being the compulsory age for retirement. I know this has often been a contentious issue with other departments in the Government service, but I believe this is in actual fact a justifiable case.

There are certainly many teachers at the age of 60 who believe that their best teaching days are over and who no longer have the same inclination to discipline and control their pupils. I speak from experience when I say that teaching is a job in which one gives of oneself tirelessly and constantly. It has to be that way if one is a dedicated teacher and if one wants to be an effective and successful teacher.

For the sake of the teachers, and perhaps in particular more for the sake of the pupils, it is therefore important that, once a teacher decides that he or she has reached this particular stage of his teaching career, he can in fact retire. Of course, there are no special benefits attached to this because the pension one receives is based on the years of actual teaching service. Therefore, by retiring before the age of 65, one is decreasing the number of years of actual service and one will receive a smaller pension and a smaller gratuity.

As I have said, teachers were concerned that this privilege would disappear with their transfer from the control of the provincial administrations to the Department of Education and Culture, but this problem has been solved in clause 4 of this particular Bill.

Certainly with regard to other aspects of clause 4, there were certain areas about which we were concerned. The hon member for Langlaagte, again, has referred to this. Originally this clause referred only to teachers in the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. This meant that White teachers would have had an advantage that Black, Indian and Coloured teachers would not have enjoyed. However, as again I point out, the joint committee had good sense on this particular occasion. Good sense prevailed and the Bill has been amended accordingly to include teachers under the control of the Department of Education an Culture in the House of Delegates and in the House of Representatives, as well as the Department of Education and Training.

Had this not occurred, it is unlikely that the Bill would have received the same support on the joint committee. I support the hon member for Langlaagte wholeheartedly when he says that justice was not only done but was seen to be done as well.

As far as other matters in this Bill are concerned, the PFP supports the fact that the Black Compensation Fund is now likely to be abolished, and we believe that the transfer of its funds, rights and liabilities to the Mines and Works Compensation Fund is certainly a step in the right direction.

We agree that the amendments to the General Pensions Act of 1979 as proposed in this Bill, too, seem to be necessary and we are happy to support them. In general we therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, permit me, first of all, to thank hon members for their contributions and also for their support of this amending Bill.

I should like to thank the hon member for Carletonville. It is very clear that he made an expert and very thorough study of this amending Bill and he also discussed it in great detail. I want to thank him for the support of his party, the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Langlaagte, the vice-chairman of the joint committee, made a very valuable contribution on the committee and I thank him for it. I think this once again proves the value of a joint committee because the joint committee moved an amendment which I found totally acceptable, it was incorporated in the amending Bill, and I think this is very good parliamentary procedure. Consequently I wish to thank the hon member for Langlaagte.

The hon member for Durban North is very obviously an expert on educational matters and I thank him for his contribution and also for his party’s support.

I want to point out that, as he knows, this amendment in clause 4 brings pension rights on a par with those provided for other education groups by other legislation. It is therefore easy, if they change their laws, to have the Pension Act keep pace and enable us to be able to change it easily.

I consider it a great privilege to thank all hon members for their contributions. [Interjections.] It seems to me that, if there are questions on the subject, this is the opportunity to put them.

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

Just before I reply to the hon member’s question, I feel I should discuss clause 4 somewhat further. There will be enough time to reply to that hon member’s question.

I should like to expand on clause 4 a little. Section 6 of the Government Service Pension Act—this is a very important section—provides for the retirement ages of members of the pension fund. Clause 4 places members of an education service on an equal footing with members in the provincial service. I think this is very important to teachers.

During the meeting of the joint committee, this clause elicited considerable discussion. Hon members of the House of Delegates and of the House of Representatives were very positive; in fact, I think the vice-chairman of the joint committee would agree with me that they raised very good arguments there as to why changes should be made to pension rights.

There is actually no difference between the pension rights of teachers of the various groups. The most obvious difference lies in section 6 (9) (d) of the Act, which is being replaced by another in terms of clause 4. In terms of this, a White teacher may be retired at the age of 55 with the approval of the Minister involved, the hon the Minister next to me here. Other teachers may be retired at the age of 60 in the same way. The vice-chairman of the joint committee will agree with me again.

The object of this amendment, which was accepted by the joint committee, is that all teachers are to be judged by the same yardstick. You will note that, in terms of the amendment, pension and retirement ages will in future be regulated by the laws which control the conditions of service of the teachers involved. [Interjections.] Clause 4 is a very important one.

I should like to continue and discuss clause 5. This clause amends section 17 of the Government Service Pension Act.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question relating to clause 4?

I shall first reply to the other member’s question and then to that of the hon member for Langlaagte.

Mr Chairman, I want to know whether the hon the Minister would not agree to our voting in the Chamber of Parliament because the NP could be rescued there from the situation in which it now finds itself.

Mr Chairman, I do not agree with the hon member for Brakpan at all; in fact, I am dealing with legislation very intensively and to his advantage. [Interjections.] I think he owes me a very big “thank you”.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon the Minister something. In the Afrikaans text there is mention in line 54 of clause 4 of “sy afdanking met pensioen” whereas the English text mentions “retirement on pension”. “Afdanking” does not seem to me to be the same as “aftreding”. “Retirement” is “aftrede”. Therefore it seems to me there is a difference between the Afrikaans and English texts.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the hon member for Langlaagte who has indicated the language problem. [Interjections.] We shall discuss the matter with our law advisers. I think there are traces of an anomaly here and we shall clarify it with our law advisers.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support this initial Report of the Joint Committee on Environment Affairs. I shall now tell hon members why. [Interjections.]

Firstly, a permanent right is being granted to the Divisional Council of Kaffraria for the construction and maintenance of a public road across the Fort Pato Nature Reserve in the East London Coast State Forest. The divisional council has given the assurance that no environmental pollution will take place in respect of the construction and maintenance of this road.

Secondly, a servitude is being granted for the erection of a weir and dividing box, the laying of a pipeline, the building of a water-furrow and the use of certain sections of an existing water-furrow in favour of Mr G S Ferreira and others on the farm Kromme Riviers Hoogte 375 in the Formosa State Forest. These farmers are entirely dependent on this water for irrigation purposes. They abstract only their lawful share of the water in terms of the Water Act of 1956.

Thirdly, there is the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of the Forest Act of 1984 of the farm Annex Vlugt 257 of the Langkloof State Forest, situate in the division of Uniondale. This land intrudes into private land and is situated far from other State Forest Land and has no particular conservation status. These portions now fall under the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs again for further disposal.

Fourthly, there is the proposed withdrawal from setting aside as a nature reserve in terms of section 15(2) of the Forest Act of 1984 of the Helpmekaar Nature Reserve and the Patatabos Nature Reserve, situate in the Districts of Letaba and Pietersburg. The nature reserves mentioned above form part of the Woodbush State Forest. The portions mentioned comprise 13 hectares and 32 hectares respectively and have been totally invaded by self-seeded gumtrees. The indigenous forest has been overrun in the process.

This side of the House would like to support the recommendations previously mentioned, as contained in the report.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member who has just resumed his seat for his support. As he so clearly explained, this measure comprises nothing but practical steps to resolve a situation which has caused great inconvenience to both the department and institutions and persons involved in it. That is why it is essential for this measure to be introduced. I thank the hon member for his support and I should also like to support this report.

Mr Chairman, the transfer of land or a change in the use of State Land, especially forestry land, is a very serious matter. That is why Parliament has to agree to this. I think our forefathers decided in their wisdom that Ministers or departments which have this specific land under their control cannot do this indiscriminately. Under the current system of joint committees we have actually refined the matter even further because I have the impression that, before these committees existed, many of these types of changes in land use or the sale of land were frequently agreed to quickly by Parliament, often at the end of a session.

Under the present system this change of land use or the sale of it is now handled in very great detail by the joint committee. It happened in this case too that when these few matters which the hon member for Nigel has just mentioned—he accorded them his support—were referred to the joint committee by my department for the first time, the joint committee had objections. They were then rereferred to the department for the latter to provide the joint committee with more clarification and more detail. On reconsidering these matters, the joint committee then approved of our taking these steps.

I want to assure hon members of this House that what has happened here is in the best interests of the country. In certain respects it improves the administration of the area. In some cases it provides urgent needs of our farming community and also the needs of our travelling public as in the case of the re-routing of the road.

I should very much like to thank the two hon members who participated in this debate for their support. I also want to thank members of the joint committee for the work which they did in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the CP also supports the recommendations contained in this report.

Firstly I should like to thank the officials of the department sincerely for the work they have done in carrying out this investigation and drawing up the report. I should also like to thank the House Committee for their adoption of the report and recommending its adoption to the House.

It is clear that the intention in this regard was to expropriate the additional overflow water at the Buurmansdrif irrigation scheme and allocate this water to Bophuthatswana. The result of this was that there was no longer any water available for the irrigation scheme.

The original intention was to use only the overflow, and not to use up the available water in the scheme. The farmers’ standpoint was that water in excess of the overflow was being taken. The department felt that when it rained again the matter would rectify itself, because the problems had only arisen as a result of the drought.

However, the rains have come and there is still no water. We are therefore very grateful for the recommendation that this report be adopted so that the irrigation scheme’s outstanding debt, which is not a very large sum, can be written off. We are very thankful for that.

While on this subject, I should like to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. There are still certain problems in that region. At this stage there is insufficient drinking water either for the people or the animals. The people in the area have asked the department for assistance, to accommodate them and to negotiate some plan to meet their needs, either by way of boreholes or by tapping water from the pipeline to Bophuthatswana.

I understand the department is investigating the matter, but I should also like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give favourable consideration to this matter and, as was the case with this report, to make a favourable arrangement which will prove beneficial to the people concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Lichtenburg for his support for this report. I should also like to associate myself with his courteous request to the hon the Deputy Minister for the department to assist in solving the drinking water problem which exists there at the moment. We on this side of the House appreciate the thorny problem and we should like to support the request for relief. I am sure that the hon the Deputy Minister and his department, where possible, will assist in alleviating that problem. I have pleasure in supportin g the report.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Lichtenburg for his support. Owing to force of circumstances, and through no fault of their own, these people are confronted with this problem. It is not their fault and, as the hon member has said, the amount to be written off in this case is a small amount of approximately R2 000.

Insofar as the request of the hon member is concerned, I undertake to follow this matter up with the department. We shall ascertain how we can best assist these farmers.

I thank the hon member for Caledon who put the same request to me. I also thank him for his support and for the work he has done in this connection. I give the undertaking that we will go into this matter.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few general comments on this Bill and also say right at the outset that under the circumstances the CP supports the Bill.

The object of this Bill is obviously to find a method to ensure that Black elections later this year will have some measure of success. The result of this is that polling day is no longer 26 October, but that there are 12 more effective polling days in addition to that. Instead of municipal elections therefore taking place on one day, they will actually be taking place for 13 days. [Interjections.] We have no objection to this. If people want to vote, they must do so and I want to tell the hon member for Turffontein that the more polling days there are the more the CP supporters who will vote and the greater the NP trouncing will be. [Interjections.]

Are the CPs ashamed to vote too?

No, we are not ashamed to vote and the hon member will still come to realise this.

Nor are we ashamed to stand for election! [Interjections.]

Order! I do not know whether the hon member for Overvaal wants to say anything more. [Interjections.] If so, would hon members give him the opportunity to do so.

I have a great deal of assistance, Mr Chairman.

If people want to vote or stand as candidates, one must afford them the opportunity of doing so. I want to say, however, that the panic in the NP is starting to become apparent everywhere. These drastic measures have been instituted with only one object and that is to try to save the sinking NP ship of consensus, because the NP is facing serious crises.

The first crisis is the Black municipal election at the end of the year. I want to ask today what will happen if Blacks do not come to vote and this results in an exceptionally low Black percentage poll in the municipal elections. What implications will this hold for the Government? It holds only one important implication and that is a further rejection of the NP. At this stage the NP is struggling specifically to involve Blacks in its “indaba”, but that appears equally unpromising. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Parys, who is shaking his head, whether he knows what is going on in his constituency at municipal level. [Interjections.]

Yes, I know very well!

Does that hon member know that he is serving his notice? I want to tell him that he had better enjoy his last year or so in Parliament because he will never return. [Interjections.] I have a great deal of assistance again, Sir. [Interjections.] The NP’s entire Black plan stands on tottering legs.

Where does that stand in the Bill?

There is a second crisis, however, which will arise from this Bill and the municipal elections. [Interjections.] An hon member over there is asking how my divisional executive committee is faring. I want to tell the hon member that since I have been in Overvaal all the members of my executive there have had only the fullest confidence in me. [Interjections.] I know that there is a member here now with a story and I merely want to say that anybody who says there is a problem in the divisional executive committee of my constituency is a blatant liar— and I shall say this outside the House too. [Interjections.]

Order! That is very interesting but we cannot continue like this. The hon member must now be given an opportunity to proceed with and complete his speech, and the hon member can also start confining himself more closely to the Bill under discussion.

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

Yes! [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to know from the hon member whether Mr Chris Ballot enjoys any confidence in Overvaal. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, he enjoys no confidence there; he is “over the wall” (overwal). [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I must point out to you that when I make these general comments they do deal with the municipal elections.

The second important crisis to the NP in the elections in October is the White election. The issue is not only the problem with the Black election; the White election is also involved because what has happened is that the NP initially climbed into the ring with clenched fists to crush the CP in this election. [Interjections ] I could quote to hon members how the hon the Minister of Defence … I hear he has blossomed as an excellent camel rider and we hear many stories about this camel riding which I unfortunately cannot relate here. [Interjections.] The NP has apparently evaluated its canvassing results now.

Order! If the hon member does not come back to the Bill, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, may I tell you what clause I am dealing with?

I do not care what the hon member tells me; he has digressed a long way from the Bill.

But I shall tell you what clause I am dealing with, Sir.

What clause is the hon member dealing with?

Sir, I am dealing with the clause relating to the municipal election at the end of the year; the entire Bill deals with this.

Which clause is it?

Sir, the entire Bill deals with the municipal election.

Order! Does the hon member wish to continue his speech?

Yes, Sir.

Then he must proceed to discuss this Bill. He is entitled to do so; if not, he must resume his seat.

Sir, I shall deal with the Bill.

Is the hon member proceeding?

Yes, I shall proceed.

Mr Chairman, we had a very good sitting of the committee. I must say that it is one of the most fruitful sittings that I have attended here because there was really excellent co-operation. Proposals came from all sides and, when there was a good one, it was accepted and ultimately a reasonable product emerged. I want to refer to a few examples of this. In the first place, these votes were first called special votes. The hon member for Sasolburg then proposed that we call them prior votes (yoorafstemme) and this was a great improvement …

Were they not surreptitious votes (agterafstemme)?

No, they were not surreptitious votes; they were prior votes. This was a great improvement because we can now distinguish them from special votes as we know them in general elections.

There was another good amendment and it dealt with time. Instead of our being able to vote only from 8 am to 8 pm, we can now vote until 9 pm and until 5 pm on Saturdays instead of only until 1 pm.

A point of great interest is the reason why a person will be able to vote. The reason is given on page 5 of the Bill and I am now referring specifically to a clause, Sir, as it is clause 2 (1). It reads that any person shall be entitled to record a prior vote if for some reason or other he will be unable to record the latter vote on polling day—in other words, any reason. That is why I said that polling day had now been extended.

Now you need not cheat anyone; you can give any reason!

That is quite right and I bow to your superior knowledge on cheatin g—you who taught me to cheat!

We also had an improvement as regards regulations.

Order! I accept that the statement which the hon member made was in an absolutely humorous vein. I am mentioning this merely for purposes of the record. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.] We also had quite a tussle in the committee about regulations. The Bill contained a provision that regulations would have greater legal force than laws. What pleased me was that we built up a very strong argument against this. Ultimately the following happened. The CP, together with the PFP and the House of Delegates, had their way and we actually saved the prestige of Parliament by ensuring that regulations would remain subordinate to laws. [Interjections.] The significance of this is the following: When the CP, the PFP and the Indians begin to stand together, we also have legislation passed. This heralds the use of a new instrument of which this hon Minister could well take note. [Interjections.] In future even stranger coalitions may emerge. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude.

No, go on! [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying that the municipal elections of 26 October will be a black day for the NP. [Interjections.] They will suffer a defeat as far as the Black election is concerned. They will suffer a crushing defeat by the CP. The end of the party will be hastened as from 26 October. As soon as we hold a general election after that, hon members of the NP will have to take their seats on this side whereas the CP will sit over there and govern the country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal became altogether excited about 26 October. I want to react quickly to the points which he raised.

He started by saying that the object of the Bill under discussion was to ensure that Black people voted. A little later he said that the object of this legislation was to wreck the NP’s foundering recipe for consensus.

Foundering ship of consensus.

Just after that he said that they had co-operated with the Indians and the Progs on the joint committee and reached consensus. [Interjections.] Now I must say, after these few contradictory arguments of the hon member for Overvaal, that I am not altogether sure what he actually wanted to say. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I have the feeling that he wished to create the impression that the CP would fare very well on 26 October. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon member for Overvaal briefly that they should not in the long run—whether it is a municipal election or any other kind—underestimate the good judgment of the voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House are not worried about this at all. I shall react to that point of the hon member’s by telling him that he and his party will find that South African voters appreciate the sense of this Black council which he raised in this debate but which is totally irrelevant now.

We certainly raised many important matters in the joint committee, one of which was the question of prior votes. Arising from our discussion of the Electoral Act as such, I think this concept of prior voting will become a point of debate in the committee again. The hon member for Overvaal’s statement is true that reasons do not actually have to be presented as to why a specific voter requires a prior vote. In this way we are actually holding an election a number of days before the election. Literally anyone can put forward an excuse as to why he has to vote in advance. For example he can say that he thinks he is going to fall ill. In any case, he does not even have to put forward reasons; he may simply vote in advance.

Hon members of the joint committee instituted an in-depth investigation into reasons why we incorporated this provision in the legislation on municipal elections. It is because at election time—we see it increasingly in our own elections—a type of physical intimidation takes place at polling booths on polling day which makes it necessary for people to be able to vote in advance by means of a special vote if they feel like it.

Last year I had the interesting privilege of accompanying Government officers to take a look at how elections were conducted in various countries of the world. In West Germany, for example, political parties may not operate at polling booths at all. The reason for this is that they do not want intimidation of voters on polling day. There is strong action and strong tendencies among people in the USA and in England on polling day to prevent the individual voter who wants to cast his vote from being intimidated by political parties, their agents and frequently by the very bombastic agents of some groupings.

Among our White voters too—this is a matter which we shall discuss in the joint committee, however, when we examine the Electoral Act— there is very strong repugnance, resistance and aversion at the moment because there are people who literally grab voters by the arm and bundle them right into the polling booth, this way and that way, accompanied by all kinds of remarks. [Interjections.] May I say that this usually goes hand in hand with such racist comments that one can hardly believe it. [Interjections.] We regard this as a very important point.

We come now to Black elections and in that regard this measure deals with people’s right to be able to vote in advance after having given their reasons. That is true. I sat where the hon member for Overvaal is sitting now when the electoral college for the election of the State President was designated. An hon member of one of the other Houses sat beside me and told me that, in the constituency where the member stood, there would have been a percentage poll of 70% to 75% two days before the election. The evening before the election, however, people of a specific organisation ran right through the residential area and literally said to people: “If you vote tomorrow, we shall burn down your house.” It is a voter’s democratic right nowadays and in these times of intimidation in which we live to be able to vote in advance.

There was another aspect which also came to the fore, namely lists of prior votes, which in terms of this measure are not made available to just anyone. It used to be the practice that any person could walk in, make a photocopy of the list of names and addresses and then hand it to people outside. In considering this legislation, we specifically examined this. Candidates and their agents will now be able to scrutinise them—they are available to them for examination—but they will not be available to be hawked about outside.

I do not want to discuss the other aspects which the hon member raised in case I am tempted to pass remarks which are not fitting here. I simply want to tell all members of the joint committee that it was very pleasant to have their co-operation and we look forward to being able to apply the many interesting lessons which we could learn in discussing this measure when the Joint Committee on the Electoral Act deals with the Electoral Act itself later.

We also thank the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, his department and all the officials who assisted in making the speedy passage of this Bill through the joint committee possible.

In these few words we take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, we also support this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us perhaps illustrates to a very great extent the Government’s dilemma as regards the coming municipal elections. By means of this Bill it has to make special arrangements for prior votes but I think today’s leading article in The Argus is a good illustration of what I want to bring home, namely how the Government is jumping about like a cat on a hot tin roof not only concerning these prior votes but also the entire scheme of the municipal elections:

[Interjections.] The editor of The Argus continues:

Then he says regarding the CP:

This is the situation which is developing in regard to the election. [Interjections.]

To illustrate on the basis of this measure why I say that the Government has adopted various standpoints and taken various decisions on the election, I want to refresh hon members’ memories and take them back to 1985 when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at a regional congress in the Northern Transvaal:

Now F W is taking them out!

I am coming to that.

We have had various conferences in preparation, we have received an information sheet and there is the phenomenon that the MEC responsible for this election made a certain announcement on the radio program Monitor this morning on the closing of voters’ lists. Today hon members heard a reply in this House from the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry and this information differs from that of the MEC.

There is confusion reminiscent of the Tower of Babel on what is permissible and what not and what the rules are. The hon the Deputy Minister who is dealing with the matter must spell out clearly to us this afternoon the situation as regards the closing of voters’ lists and also as regards these 16 days which are mentioned here. If one counts from the 16th day before the election, one is counting from 10 October, which is a holiday, but 10 October is not specifically mentioned as a day on which prior voting will not take place. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether 10 October will also be a day on which prior voting may take place.

I want to provide further illustration of the various standpoints adopted by the Government. I want to do this in the light of various standpoints which the Government has adopted just in the course of this year for instance. In the Cape Times of 22 February the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was reported in this way:

The municipal elections will undoubtedly be political elections, therefore. Even the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following two months later in April at Gordons Bay according to Die Burger.

A month later in May another report appeared in Business Day, however, concerning the hon the Minister of National Education, the leader of the “platteland NP”, as he is called in The Argus. Hon members know there is apparently a leader of the Johannesburg NP and a leader of the “platteland NP” and that is what The Argus calls that hon Minister. I shall quote from Business Day of 26 May:

The report then continues:

Order! I think the hon member can start dealing more specifically with the Bill now.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to illustrate that the NP has come to different decisions at different times on whether its members should participate. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether they have decided at this point to take part and what percentage of the supposed 800 candidates the Transvaal leader talks about will fight the election under the NP banner.

Order! The hon member has put that question now and must deal more specifically with the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I merely wanted to make the point that we feel the Government is running around in circles and that we are unsure about dates and that it is not telling the electorate honestly that it intends fighting this election as a party—as the CP is prepared to do.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start with the remarks of the hon member for Overvaal. In regard to the aim of this Bill the hon member made the statement that it was an attempt on the part of the NP to save the Black local authority elections. That was his argument. In arguing further he asked what was going to happen if the percentage poll in Black municipal elections on 26 October was low. I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal if he wants the percentage poll on 26 October in the case of the Black municipal elections to be low. Does he want them to be low?

No!

Well, what is he arguing about then?

Because they reject the NP’s policy on an indaba!

If the hon member does not want them to be low then that must surely mean that we must make arrangements in order to ensure that all the people who may possibly wish to vote on that day will be able to do so. Or does the hon member wish to play into the hands of the radicals and revolutionaries who do not want these elections to be successful? [Interjections.] Does the hon member wish to play along with the ANC?

Your question is an insult!

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon member for Boksburg say that the hon member was already playing along with the ANC?

Mr Chairman, I did say that.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

He should rather go and do his national service!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must restrain himself! The Chair itself will maintain order in the House!

I want now to argue very politely with the hon member for Overvaal because we must understand one an other very well as far as this point is concerned. Do we want to the Black municipal elections on 26 October to be a success, yes or no?

Not successful according to your recipe!

But they want the people to go and vote. Does the hon member want the people to go and vote on 26 October, yes or no?

Yes!

Order! I am not going to allow a dialogue across the floor of the House.

The hon member made statements here which boiled down to his expressing the hope that Black people would not participate in the election at local authority level.

You misunderstood me!

Then the hon member must not make such statements; he must tell us what he means. If he makes statements implying that arrangements to enable people to vote on 26 October should be discouraged he is playing into the hands of the ANC. That is the point that I want to make to him. [Interjections.] No, the important thing is then that the hon member should choose his words carefully. He must not demonstrate his political narrow-mindedness here and in the long run play into the hands of the ANC, who would like these elections to be disrupted. [Interjections.] That is the point I wish to argue with the hon member. He must choose his words correctly in order to ensure that he does not play into the hands of the enemies of this country.

I do not think he is on the side of the enemy; I did not say that. However, he must choose his words carefully in order to ensure that he does not go along with them; otherwise the deduction will be true that people on the right who are radically opposed to the NP do in the long run use the same means to achieve the same goal as the people who are radically opposed to the NP on the left. That is the unfortunate consequence of what the hon member is doing here if he argues as he has in fact argued.

The hon member said a further interesting thing. He said that a new alliance between the CP and the PFP was imminent. [Interjections.] He said that a coalition was imminent. [Interjections.] The hon member told us something very interesting in this connection. I believe it is important for us to take note of it. This means that a new alliance is being formed here. Perhaps the hon member for Sea Point does not yet know about it. [Interjections.] However, the fact of the matter is that the hon member for Overvaal … [Interjections.]

Against fellow Afrikaners?

Order! I am not prepared to proceed in this way. This is not a free-for-all. There is only one hon member speaking and that is the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Deputy Minister is entitled to be heard in silence. An interjection here and there is not unacceptable but I am not going to allow a general free-for-all. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point should take note of what I am saying because it is now a matter of record. The hon member for Overvaal said that this alliance had already been successful in one respect.

Oh please, talk sense!

That was what the hon member said! [Interjections.] He said that this alliance had already been successful and he said that further alliances were imminent.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it not time that the hon the Deputy Minister came back to the Bill?

Order! I was under the impression that the hon the Deputy Minister was replying to speeches that had already been made. [Interjections.] Order! I cannot deny the hon the Deputy Minister the opportunity to reply to speeches that have already been made.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it then permissible for the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to something I did not say?

Order! The hon member for Overvaal has already stated repeatedly by way of interjection that he did not say that, and I think that has now been well and truly recorded in Hansard. I do not think it is necessary for him to continue saying it.

Apparently the hon the Deputy Minister is deaf!

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

We can look at Hansard to see what the hon member for Overvaal said. He made very clear statements here and said that further alliances were imminent. [Interjections.] An alliance already existed, and he even issued a challenge to the hon the Minister and said that the hon the Minister should be careful because a new style of utilising alliances within the parliamentary system was imminent. All that I am saying is that we must take note of that because it is very interesting. In other words, the hon member is making a plea that the capabilities of the tricameral parliamentary system should be used to benefit that party. [Interjections.] There is therefore a number of possibilities when he says that further alliances are imminent. We take note of that. It would appear to me that the hon member has now realised what the various possibilities are that can be used within the system.

I should like to thank the hon member for Innesdal in his capacity as chairman of the joint committee, as well as the members of his committee, for the way in which they dealt with this Bill and which, because of the time factor, had to be done under pressure in order to have it ready in time. I want to thank him for the personal lead that he took and I also want to thank the committee for the work that was done to have the Bill ready in time. I also thank them for the thorough way in which this was done.

The hon member gave the House the reasons for the drawing up of a prior voting procedure for local authority elections. In contrast to the argument of the hon member for Overvaal I think it is important for us to emphasise the fact that the primary aim of this voting procedure is not to address intimidation in respect of the elections for local authorities for certain communities and certain population groups. As the hon member for Innesdal indicated, however, it has been introduced for a variety of reasons. I want to supplement this remark by pointing out that the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, for example, has for some time now been making representations for the introduction of voting possibilities for people living outside local authority areas but owning property within them. Pleas of this nature have been made for some time now in order to enable these people to vote.

Furthermore, this matter was carefully considered by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on 25 March of this year. This body adopted a unanimous resolution in support of the introduction of a procedure making provision for prior voting. All the bodies participating in this co-ordinating council are known to this House. I do not need to repeat them. They include all the local government bodies of the various communities in South Africa.

I want to argue further in regard to the necessity for the introduction of a procedure such as this. Particularly from the point of view of the Black communities we had to look for a method which would make it possible for Black people to get to the polls or to cast their vote.

We have the situation where the normal voting hours are, for example, between 07h00 and 21h00 on that particular polling day. We have only one polling day. When we consider the fact that as a result of the distance from their work, transportation and other problems, Black people are limited to those hours in which to cast their votes, it means that we will in advance be excluding participation on the part of a large group of Black people because of the restrictions that exist in regard to hours, transport and everything connected with it.

In any case, the need existed for provision to be made so that particularly the people in the Black communities should be given more opportunity to cast their votes. From the nature of the case there were alternatives that could be considered such as additional days, for example. In the long run this decision was the most practical indication of how a solution could be arrived at in order to offer an alternative which, in any case, was in line with the special voting procedure applicable at parliamentary election level for example.

This then is therefore a very normal extension of the opportunity to vote and of ensuring that everyone will in fact be able to participate in the municipal elections on 26 October. For that reason I think it was high time a measure of this nature was introduced, one which would not only be aimed at the intimidation factor or whatever it may be but in fact and in any case would be aimed at enabling people to get to the polls, even under abnormal circumstances.

Mr Chairman, arising from this particular legislation with regard to municipal elections, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister what the position will be of a person who owns property within and outside of the municipal area, but whose property within the municipal area is registered in the names of himself and his wife? Is he eligible to vote or not? Can the hon the Deputy Minister give us an indication?

Obviously the hon member does not know what is on the Order Paper that is now before this House.

It arises from that.

The hon member need only look at the Bill which is now before the House. That question has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill which is now before the House. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, it boils down briefly to the fact that every province has its own voting regulations as far as that is concerned, and there are various regulations for the respective population groups in this regard. The hon member must go and see where that property is situated and what it is that applies in respect of the regulations in that specific province as far as those particular voters are concerned.

I also want to say immediately to the hon member for Pietersburg—he asked what the situation was and when the voters’ rolls would actually close— that the answer—the hon member knows this just as well as I do—is that every province has its own regulations in this regard.

Then tell us what they are in respect of the Transvaal.

There is also a variety of regulations in respect of the various communities which are going to cast their votes on 26 October. In other words, there is not just one single closing date as far as these voters’ lists are concerned. I would make this information available to the hon member with the greatest of pleasure but once again this is not a subject that is before this House. I shall make it available to the hon member separately if he is really interested. However, I should like to point out to him that what applies in the Transvaal does not necessarily apply in the other provinces, hence the obvious difference in a reply to which he referred.

Tell us what the regulations are for the Transvaal.

The hon member knows that the date is 30 June with an extension to 31 July in regard to White participants. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg also asked about 10 October. If he reads the Bill before the House he will see very clearly that it makes provision for the passage of time. The prior voting will start on 10 October and run through to 22 October. This is very clear if the necessary calculations are made. The only exclusions are Sundays and religious holidays; in other words, a normal holiday is not included in the exclusions.

I think that answers the specific questions put by the hon member. I should also like to express my gratitude for the support of the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Chairman, there are many provisions in this Bill that we should like to support and to which we do not in fact have any objection. I am referring in particular to the provisions whereby an attempt is made to bring about uniformity between Black local authorities and other local authorities. We are, for example, in favour of the authorities being brought into line in that arrear service fees will impose a limitation on participation, and in that provision is being made for special circumstances which could arise owing to intimidation and so on.

However, particularly in view of the provisions relating to the extension of the franchise to persons who would obtain the right to vote on the basis of ownership of immovable property, we are unable to support the Bill. We are opposed in principle to any granting of freehold rights to Black people in the Republic, and on that basis we are not in favour of this Bill and will therefore vote against it.

Mr Chairman, it was in fact to be expected that the CP would not support this Bill, specifically because the aspect of the principle of ownership in the Black areas creates a problem for them. However, it is important specifically that the people who have those freehold rights, should have an interest in the election of Black city councils so that they can protect their interests and also have a say in the decisionmaking processes there.

Before I proceed, I think it would be appropriate at this stage to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his nomination as chairman of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development. I also congratulate him on having achieved consensus on the joint committee and on having successfully piloted this Bill through that committee.

At the same time I also wish to convey my special thanks to the hon member for Mossel Bay for the work he did in that capacity, before the post was taken over by the hon the Deputy Minister.

As a result of the amendments passed by Parliament, a Black person can now inter alia be placed on the voters’ list if he is the owner of immovable property. The Bill now provides for the clearer definition of this specific concept, and there are basically three categories, namely full-fledged ownership, leasehold—which we already know about—and in addition, another very important component, namely the persons occupying property in terms of a premises permit or a relevant certificate issued for this purpose.

This approach, of course, broadens the whole basis of participation in the coming elections for councils for local authorities, and the importance of maximum participation in the coming elections, against the background of the passing this afternoon of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill, cannot be sufficiently emphasised. It is the elected council members who will become the voters for the members of the council to be established in terms of the Bill that was passed. The scope of this should not be underestimated, since there are 259 Black local authorities with a total of 1 810 council members.

Another important amendment contained in the Bill is the amendment of section 6 as set out in clause 4. This concerns those cases where the Administrator would be able to nominate members when there is an inadequate number of elected members to fill the vacancies, or else no members at all have been elected in an election, and it also makes provision for the extension of the power of appointment or nomination in those cases in which no previous election has been held in the region.

However, as far as this specific matter is concerned, the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development imposed a restriction on this power by recommending that a nominated member may not serve on the council for longer than 12 months. This was accepted as such and now appears in the amended Bill before the House.

The original Clause 15 dealt with the failure by a local authority to perform its functions, but the request of the joint committee that this aspect be held in abeyance for subsequent consideration when the occasion presented itself, and also to ensure that this Bill was not unnecessarily delayed, was accepted.

At the same time the envisaged section 7(3)(a), as proposed in the original clause 5, is also being left in abeyance. This clause does not directly concern the coming elections, and accordingly it was unnecessary to devote special attention to it now; thus, if this Bill is passed, it will now be possible to proceed with the preparation for the coming municipal elections on 26 October.

On behalf of this side of the House I take pleasure in supporting this Bill, and it is my wish that the relevant communities utilise this opportunity that is being offered them to the full.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North made a fair analysis of the Bill. I will not comment directly on what he has had to say because I think he analysed it in some detail. I have a few remarks to make about the Bill as well and will no doubt touch on what he had to say.

Sir, it is worthwhile noting that the original Bill which was passed in 1982 had a fairly long history in that it spent some time before the select committee. We took the introduction of the original Bill seriously because we consider local government to be one of the key elements in the structure of government in South Africa. We do not simply regard it as the third tier, but as a place where intimate government takes place. That is the place where people can wield real political power.

Another reason is that outside the self-governing states Blacks have no other way of exercising political rights. It is the only avenue available to Blacks outside those self-governing states where they can express any political point of view. At the same time it fits in, unfortunately, with what has been called the Verwoerdian approach to Black political development; that is, that all races must express their political aspirations separately, and we certainly have an objection to that. It is not only we in the PFP who object to that concept, but a large number of other people as well, including hundreds of thousands of Black people who have voted with their feet at the various elections which have been held in terms of this legislation.

The passing of the original Act, however, was an acknowledgement of the permanence of urban Blacks. This was subsequently acknowledged by the repeal of many Acts of Parliament and in the publication by the Government of the White Paper on Urbanisation when steps were outlined to deal specifically with Black urbanisation.

I have said that we are opposed to racially divided town councils. This is a well-known standpoint of the PFP but it is not only this party that is opposed to separate, racially divided town councils; it is also all the members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The policy of separate town councils is therefore the policy of the NP only. I want to say that if they want the system to succeed they must ensure that there is clarity and understanding about the system, and in that respect I would hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will have a word with the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry concerning the advertising campaign that is currently being undertaken by the Bureau for Information because some of the information given in the advertisements last week was incorrect. If they want clarity and understanding they must ensure that all the information that is imparted to the voters who are going to take part in the election on 26 October is correct. It has been established that the dates that were given for Whites, Coloureds and Indians were incorrect, and I just hope that there has not been incorrect information for Blacks as well.

In that respect I wish to express my regret that this Bill does not conform fully with the regulations pertaining to White local elections. They address certain differences which obtain in Black areas, and I understand the reason for that. I simply say I express my regret that the regulations for Black and for White local authorities are not identical. That is the norm to which one should aspire. I appreciate the trouble taken by the hon the Deputy Minister as chairman of the joint committee to accommodate the reservations certain members had in this respect. I believe he went a long way in accommodating their reservations.

This is appreciated, especially as we have the ridiculous situation to deal with in which we will vote on 26 October not only for racially segregated municipal councils, but for various levels of municipal government, as there are city councils and management committees to be elected on the same day.

In the end we are all going to have to accept that there are going to be integrated non-racial local authorities. I hope efforts will be made to bring the regulations pertaining to Black local authorities into line with those for other local authorities as soon as possible.

The Bill deals with arrangements in connection with the establishment of city and town councils, town committees and local authority committees. It also provides that an Administrator may in certain circumstances appoint members of a local authority. It also contains new regulations for the election of local authorities. The Bill also gives attention to the problem surrounding an individual who owes certain moneys to a local authority. It provides that an Administrator may in certain circumstances appoint a member to fill a vacancy in a local authority.

In this respect I am pleased that clause 4 has been amended to provide that an appointee may not act for more than 12 months. The Bill then deals with a number of regulations, and I am pleased that clause 5 amends section 7(3)(b) of the principal Act. That is the clause that provides that any person who is duly elected and fails to enter upon his office as a member of the local authority in question may be removed. There was a problem with that clause in the joint committee, and I am pleased therefore that that stipulation has been removed from the Bill without hindering the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

I must also say I am pleased that clause 15, which made provision for the line of action to be taken in the event of the failure by local authorities to perform their functions, was also removed from the Bill. The fact that clause 15 was deleted is to be welcomed. I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister was wise enough to allow those two stipulations to be withdrawn from the original Bill.

I made it clear that we were against separate local authorities, but even though we are against them we accept the reality of their existence, and therefore we accept that there is a need for adequate and proper regulations. We will therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North and the hon member for Port Elizabeth North for their support of this Bill.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth North referred to the importance of the municipal elections on 26 October. He also pointed out that we need this legislation to effect certain adjustments to the principal Act to ensure that, particularly as far as the Black communities are concerned, this can be successfully implemented. This has been repeatedly emphasised over the past few weeks, and I think it is appropriate to do so again on this occasion. I am referring to the importance of these provisions. I am therefore gratified that the hon member for Port Elizabeth North did so once again.

Apart from the amendments contained in this measure with a view to the municipal elections, there is another important amendment in terms of clause 4, which relates to section 6(3) of the principal Act in so far as it provides that the administrator also acquires the power to establish a local authority when an election, in the initial stages of township establishment, has not yet taken place. This is important so that there can at least be an institution which can be responsible for administration until such time as elections can take place. This was also the appropriate moment to make provision for that. Indeed, practical problems in this regard have often cropped up recently owing to the establishment of Black towns and the inability, in the nature of the matter, to hold local elections there in the short term.

Therefore this was a most essential amendment, and I should like to thank the joint committee for the cooperation shown and the way in which this measure could be dealt with relatively promptly.

The hon member for Johannesburg North raised an interesting point. He said that the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates were also opposed to separate municipal authorities. However, it is interesting that those hon members are also prepared to see to it that local governments, those for Black people for example, since they form the subject of this Bill, do function, and see to it that in that way there is an extension of the ability of Black people to participate in local government, and therefore also in the political process and democracy. I accept that the hon member is not entirely opposed to that, but I should like to point out to him that the hon members of those Houses are therefore inclined to make sure that we achieve this progress and increase in the ability of Black people to participate in the political process in this way.

The hon member for Ermelo placed his standpoint on record, and we took cognisance of it in the joint committee as well. I do not think I need argue with him any further, since I am sure I shall not convince him. He placed his position on record and we take cognisance of it.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided:

AYES—85: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C

G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Lemmer, J J; Louw, M H; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Schwarz, H H; Smit, F P; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—20: Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

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

Mr Chairman, I am speaking in support of the Finance Bill, Bill No 90 of 1988, and I should like to confine myself to clause 3 which deals with the defraying of unauthorised expenditure from the State Revenue Account for the 1984-85 financial year.

The State Revenue Account was charged with the amount of R1 779 868,55 to defray certain expenditure over and above the amounts appropriated for the requirements of the province of Transvaal for the financial year which ended on 31 March 1985. The excess of R1,8 million has never been authorised. The Administrator approved this amount in the 1984-85 financial year.

Although there were sufficient funds as a result of other savings in the province’s budget, the Provincial Council did not sit again after this to authorise the amount, and the Administrator could not make adjustments from one Vote to another.

Consequently there was no over-expenditure on the total budget, but only on one specific Vote, viz hospital services. By means of the following example, I should like to show hon members how easily overexpenditure can take place.

The Transvaal hospital services take care of an average of 15 800 patients daily. Approximately 6,56 million inpatients as well as outpatients are treated in hospitals annually. Numerous patients who have been involved in accidents are unconscious when admitted to hospital. In such cases one is not always sure of their addresses, but these injured people still have to receive medical treatment. Last year the Transvaal hospital services sent out accounts to the value of more than R116 million, of which only R6,2 million was recovered. Because these hospital fees are irrecoverable, it is easy for overexpenditure to take place.

The over-expenditure of R1,8 million which has not yet been authorised can be attributed mainly to the diversified and decentralised systems at hospitals with very large budgets which are operated by means of a manual system.

In addition over-expenditure is caused by price increases and sharp changes in the exchange rate with regard to the very expensive medical equipment which has to be imported from abroad. Initially provision was not made for certain amounts to be claimed within a specific time as a result of changes in the exchange rate. Consequently, in certain cases suppliers could still claim money in respect of changes in the exchange rate even six months after the product had been sold. In order to exercise better control over their budgets, the provincial councils have changed things in such a way that a supplier may now claim his money within 90 days.

The amount of R1,8 million has not yet been authorised, because in the meantime the provincial councils were dissolved and therefore could not deal with the matter. The Finance Bill under discussion now authorises this overexpenditure. In brief I can put it as follows. The Bill under discussion now authorises the approval of money that was overspent, or appropriated for special accounts, or the transfer of funds from one Vote to another, or to the State Revenue Account, or the amendment of amounts for certain projects.

In this connection I want to draw the attention of hon members to clause 8 where section 2 of the Level Crossings Act is amended as follows, and I quote:

The amendment of R7 million to R10 million was made because statistics showed that accidents at level crossings claim numerous lives every year. Consequently it is in the national interest that as many level crossings as possible be eliminated in order to combat these enormous losses.

The increase in traffic leads to an increasing number of level crossings becoming dangerous. This results in increasing public insistence that level crossings be eliminated or that improved protection devices be provided. As a result of the sharp increase in building costs, however, there has been a drastic reduction in the number of crossings which can be eliminated annually with the available funds. Consequently it has become necessary to make more funds available immediately for the elimination of level crossings. The amendment of section 2 of the Level Crossings Act, Act 41 of 1960, now provides for an increase in the contributions to the fund that is utilised specifically for this purpose.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Bill.

This Bill makes provision for payment into the State Revenue Fund of certain amounts of money which represent credit balances in the following accounts: The Black Transport Services Account, the Coloured Transport Account and the Indian Transport Account. The funds for these accounts are collected from the employers of the groups concerned so that the transport costs may be subsidised.

With the establishment of the regional services councils the work of the National Transport Commission is being phased in through these councils. For that reason their credit balances are being transferred to the State Revenue Fund; and when the need arises for funds it can be funded from the revenue account.

The Bill will allow the appropriation of an amount of money for the Defence Special Accounts and the defraying of unauthorised expenditure. This expenditure will be debited against the State Revenue Fund.

Another important aspect is the level crossings. These level crossings have caused many accidents over the years and statistics will prove that many schoolchildren and adults have lost their lives in these accidents. It is high time that precautionary and protective measures were taken to avoid such accidents.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before the House is one of those omnibus Bills which is generally submitted at the end of session in order to deal with outstanding financial obligations.

As the hon member for Gelvandale said, clause 1 provides that the credit balance in the Black Transport Services Account and the Coloured Transport Account be paid into the State Revenue Fund. The Black Transport Services Act and the Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indians Act respectively provide for an account for Black transport services and an account for Coloured transport services. These accounts are funded by levies paid by employers and are supplemented by transport subsidies provided by the State. This legislation provides that transport levies paid by employers may be utilised only in those areas where they have been levied. These so-called “declared areas” include various places. In the case of the Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indians Act, they include the magistrate’s districts of the Cape, Bellville, Simonstown, Wynberg, Stellenbosch, Kuils River and Goodwood as well as the municipal areas of Port Elizabeth, Despatch and Uitenhage and the municipal area of Johannesburg. With regard to the Black Transport Services Act, the following areas are included: Alberton, Benoni, Bethlehem, Bloemfontein, Boksburg, Brakpan, Brits, Carletonville, Delareyville, Edenvale, Springs, Kempton Park, Empangeni, Richards Bay, Evander, Kinross, Trichardt, Secunda, Germiston, Graskop, Hammarsdale, Harrismith, Hartswater, Jan Kempdorp, Howick, Kimberley, King William’s Town, Komatipoort, Krugersdorp, Kuruman, Ladismith, Lichtenburg, Louis Trichardt, Middelburg (Transvaal), Nelspruit, Newcastle, Nigel, East London, Phalaborwa, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, Pietersburg, Port Natal, Port Shepstone, Potgietersrus, Pretoria, Verwoerdburg, Randfontein, Westonaria, Rustenburg, the whole of the Peninsula, Tzaneen, the Vaal Triangle area, Vryburg, Vryheid, the West Rand area, the Western Transvaal, Witbank, White River and Zeerust.

The function of the provision of commuter services was transferred to regional services councils by the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985, however, with the result that the two Acts are no longer enforced.

I was pleasantly surprised when I read in The Citizen of 22 June 1988, that the Jomet metropolitan area would be supplied with the necessary transport service by the regional services council of the central Witwatersrand in future. They say here:

Sir, according to my information the credit balance in the Black Transport services account amounts to almost R10 million and that in the Coloured Transport account to R800 000. Clause 1 therefore proposes that these amounts be paid into the State Revenue Fund in future.

This led to an uproar in the business world, since businessmen insist that levies be utilised only in the “declared areas”. Representations in this connection were addressed inter alia by the South African Federated Chamber of Industries. We also received representations from the Transport Consultative Committee which includes the Chamber of Mines of South Africa, the Motor Industries Federation, the Building Industries Federation, the South African Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the South African Federated Chamber of Industries and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut—an extremely long list which I do not have time to quote fully.

Personally I do not support these representations, because I know that the balance that will be paid into the State Revenue Fund will be utilised for the transport of Coloured and Black passengers in the so-called declared areas. The levies for the employers’ contributions are only a drop in the ocean, since the major part of the subsidy on commuter services derives from the State Revenue Fund.

In explanation I may mention that the total subsidy on commuter services in the 1985-86 financial year amounted to R274,6 million, of which only R64,6 million was collected by means of levies. The other R210 million came from the Treasury.

In the 1986-87 financial year the total subsidy was R358,9 million, of which the levy contributed only R50,1 million, whereas the Treasury contributed R308.8 million.

During the 1987-88 financial year, the total subsidy was R423,7 million of which levies contributed R28,7 million and the Treasury contributed R395 million.

Clause 2 provides for the additional allocation of R150 million by the Defence Force in terms of the Special Defence Account Act. With the approval of the budget two different amounts are being allocated to the Defence Force by Parliament. In the first place there is the amount that the Defence Force is authorised to compel and which is the actual budget, viz the so-called obligatory authorisation. Secondly there is a smaller cash amount which is the cash amount needed to cover the expected cash flow arising from the authorised obligatory authorisation.

Cash shortages, arising from the implementation of the technique, are supplemented by the Finance Bill in question at the end of the year, in terms of section 1(a) of the Defence Special Account Act, 1984. During the 1987-88 financial year, Parliament appropriated R220 million less in cash than the authorised amount. The cash flow was such, however, that R150 million of this now has to be made good by means of this Finance Bill.

The hon member for Riversdal spoke about clauses 3 and 4 which deal with the unauthorised expenditure incurred by the Transvaal and the Cape Province. The committees that deal with the provincial affairs of the Transvaal and the Cape Province considered the report of the Auditor-General on provincial accounts with reference to unauthorised expenditure in the 1984-85 and 1985-86 financial years, and recommended that certain amounts be appropriated by Parliament. This amounts to R1 779 886,55 and R7 103 978,66 for the Transvaal and the Cape Province respectively.

Although I support the appropriation of these funds, I am concerned about the fact that there are separate committees of Parliament that reflect on provincial accounts on the one hand and the State Revenue Account on the other. This system lends itself to the application of different norms, standards and interpretations when the Auditor-General’s reports are considered and evidence is heard. From the point of view of the State’s financial control, therefore, this system will have to be watched carefully.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the new credit instruments as proposed by the Land Bank.

The Bill before the House also provides for the South African Mint with all its functions to be taken over by the Reserve Bank. As a result the Reserve Bank will now deal with the minting of coins as well as medals. I have no problem with the takeover in principle—especially not with the minting of coins which are legal currency. At least one organisation will now be responsible for both notes and coins.

It is beyond my comprehension, however, why the Government has not considered handing over the minting of medals to companies in the private sector, especially in view of its announced policy of privatisation. The private sector could have taken over the responsibility of coining medals in cases in which private institutions wish to make awards for long service, for example.

In clauses 11 and 12 authorisation is requested to transfer the pension benefits of the SATS’ staff who are working in South West Africa to the pension fund of the new corporation without their having to resign or lose their benefits. This is praiseworthy, and I want to pay tribute to the SATS for this attempt. What I regard as even more praiseworthy, however, is the fact that the new pension fund will not be based on race as is the case in South Africa. In this respect South West Africa is definitely setting South Africa a good example.

It is the same—the South African Transport Services.

No, Sir. It is definitely not the same service.

A new pension fund of this kind must be started on a sound financial basis, however.

With regard to rumours that are doing the rounds that the SATS’ pension fund may show actuarial shortages, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether there will be an actuarial investigation of the envisaged transfer of funds or not. If this is the case, will they ensure that money that is paid over to the SWA Transport Corporation will not show an actuarial shortage?

Clause 13 is very interesting and it provides that an amount of R442 million of the total amount of loans lent to the SATS by the Treasury up to 31 March 1988 be converted into permanent capital with effect from 1 April, which will reduce the SATS’ interest obligation to the Treasury by R44 million. In this way the Government is compensating the SATS for the socio-economic railway passenger services that are rendered. The annual total loss on railway passenger services amounts to R1 200 million annually. The estimated losses for the 1988-89 financial year amount to R1 260 million, of which R780 million can be ascribed to losses on commuter services and the extra R480 million to losses on mainline services.

As a result of high capital costs and large-scale investment it is impossible to operate a rail service on a profitable basis. In this connection one involuntarily thinks of the four dual lines from Johannesburg to Soweto and to the West Rand and the East Rand. Millions of rands are pumped into this, although the trains travel for a maximum of six hours per day during peak hours. During the rest of the day the majority of the trains are completely stationary.

Two years ago, upon the invitation of the hon the Deputy Minister, I visited Germany. There I travelled in the Germans’ excellent trains. These trains are unparallelled in South Africa. I could telephone my mother in Klerksdorp from the moving train. As a result of the unparallelled facilities and services on these German trains, they are used on a large scale by the Germans and especially by tourists. Despite this, even this railway service is not operated at a profit. No, Sir, in an investigation the Germans established that their railway service would be profitable only if a train were to operate between two cities approximately 200 km from one another, each with approximately 10 million residents. This can only be a dream, however, and therefore I do not believe any railway service in the world can ever be operated at a profit.

It is a pleasure to support the Finance Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their contributions and I should like to begin by referring to the hon member for Riversdal. He gave a very good explanation of the problems that are experienced in controlling expenditure in the various provinces. He mentioned interesting facts and referred to people who end up in hospital having to get emergency treatment, who never pay their accounts. That is a real problem. [Interjections.]

I also want to agree with the hon member Mr Douw. Unfortunately it is true that we had four committees that had to investigate this unauthorised expenditure. The joint committee that is now going to investigate the unauthorised provincial expenditure will be asked to co-ordinate things to a greater extent. I think this will help considerably, and we must give this committee a year to see how successful they are going to be. I realise that one has to be careful not to apply different norms in different committees.

The hon member for Riversdal and the hon member for Gelvandale referred to the question of level crossings. This is a problem in our rural areas in particular, and it is very difficult to build bridges at crossings in the rural areas. One has to accept that as funds become available, the crossings will have to be supplemented gradually.

†The hon member for Gelvandale referred to the question of inflation. We have limited funds available and it is not always easy to satisfy all the needs at once. As more funds become available, we will try to solve this particular problem, although I do not foresee that we will ever be able to solve it completely as new developments are always taking place.

*The hon member Mr Douw gave a very comprehensive explanation of the Bill under discussion. I want to thank him for his support with regard to the requests of various institutions in respect of funds which have remained in accounts. The hon member is quite correct. Ultimately that money is used to subsidise commuter services. The hon member also gave a comprehensive explanation of the amount of money that is being spent on subsidising commuter services at present. This already amounts to almost R500 million in the latest budget. We should like regional services councils to cover that part of the expenditure in due course, so that not all the funds need come from the central Treasury. This makes our task extremely difficult.

I also want to refer to the question of the Mint. The hon member Mr Douw asked whether medals could not also be privatised. Approximately 3% of the Mint’s activities involve the coining of medals. In this connection I can merely point out to hon members that the manufacture of medals is handed out to private companies in any case and that only a small percentage of the work is done by the Mint itself, and therefore by the Government. I think we should wait a while before considering further privatisation in this connection.

The hon member mentioned another interesting point, viz the question of pension funds in South West which are now to be transferred to the National Transport Corporation of SWA. I can assure the hon member that we are involved in an actuarial investigation at the moment. We cannot speculate on the financial implications before we have analysed the results of this investigation, however. We shall only be able to determine how sound the system is once we have received a comprehensive report about the investigation.

The hon member also referred to the fact that a distinction is still drawn in South Africa between the Railways and Harbour Pension Fund for Whites and the one for non-Whites. This distinction was originally drawn because non-Whites were subsidised so that their contributions could be smaller. With regard to the SATS, we are gradually moving towards parity. The relevant hon Minister assured me that once we reached parity in contributions, there was no reason why the two accounts could not be combined. The hon member singled out numerous other aspects, and I want to thank him sincerely for his support.

Mr Chairman, I am rising to support the Bill. I particularly want to talk about clause 3, the object of which is to amend section 5 of the principal Act. In the past our people have had a lot of trouble with income tax. This is especially true of the semi-literate man, the man who does not have much education and who has had to struggle at times to pay his tax and, contrariwise, to collect what is his.

When I think back to the time when the income tax year used to run from 1 July to 30 June—that was before we introduced the PAYE system—I recall that plethora of forms we had to fill in. In those days the poor taxpayer still found himself paying off tax by the time his bonus was paid out in December. That reduced his shopping capacity for himself and his family and led to a lot of hardship.

With the introduction of the PAYE system the story changed altogether. The tax was deducted from the worker’s earnings. Of course, he had to fill in his income tax form as usual, submitting his IRP5 form and all other relevant documents. He was then taxed accordingly. A few years ago, however, when some other changes were made to the law, people found themselves in a dilemma. In cases where they thought they had overpaid, they had to fill in the form IT11 in order to reclaim what they thought they had overpaid. In such cases it was explained by means of a document that was sent with the form that if the taxpayer sought to reclaim money and it was found that he had in fact paid less tax than he should have paid he would have to pay in. As a result of that, people have been sitting with stacks of these IRP5 forms—some of the forms date back to 1977—because they have not attempted to reclaim money for fear that they might have to pay in.

Another thing one found when going to the Revenue Office was that there were seemingly endless queues of people waiting to collect these IT11 forms. They would run home and fill in these forms and then bring them back. There was also a bit of teething trouble at the Bellville office, but this was sorted out because the officials there were very co-operative. I want to place on record here today my thanks to the officials at the Bellville office—I hope the officials present here will relay this to them—for the way in which they have helped especially my people from the Matroosfontein area and the Elsies River area. They have been very helpful in assisting these people to fill in the forms. That is why I want my thanks to be conveyed to the officials at the Bellville office in particular.

With the introduction of the new SITE tax— “SITE” stands for “Standard Income Tax of Employees”—we have a different story once again. Under this system the employer, when he makes up his accounts at the end of the tax year, will calculate how much the employee should have paid and what the employee had actually paid. If the difference is a credit to the employee—which we hope will be the case—the employer will pay the money to the employee straight away and then he will reclaim whatever he has paid to the employee by some other means, which I do not want to go into now. I feel this will be very beneficial to our people. All this red tape will be cut out. The elimination of all these forms will save quite a bit of labour. Some factories or companies may have to employ an extra wage clerk or time clerk or whatever to do these calculations, but I would consider that a spin-off in that a few more jobs will have been created for our people. For that reason I have pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, it is gratifying that the Income Tax Bill of 1988 is to a great extent implementing recommendations made by the Margo Commission which were agreed to by the Government. One of the proposals was that there be a transfer of the tax burden from the individual to the business sector, and I see that this objective has received attention. This is being done, for example, by levying a minimum tax on companies and by reducing the initial allowance. With regard to the individual, the work force in particular is going to benefit considerably. Single people without children will now be able to earn R446 per month without having to relinquish a single cent to income tax.

A further welcome concession is that any unmarried or divorced person who is entitled to a child rebate will be regarded as a married person in future, and in my opinion this is only fair.

The Bill also deals with the establishment of a standard income tax on employees and more than 83% of working couples will benefit from this, because the tax which is subtracted from the wife’s income will be regarded as final if her income does not exceed R20 000 per annum. I understand that this system will also apply to pensions. Female pensioners will therefore benefit as well. In addition a pensioner who goes back to work after retiring will no longer have to pay in a considerable amount on condition that his income from his pension and earnings separately does not exceed R12 000 and he does not receive more than R1 000 per annum from investments. The tax deducted from his pension and salary separately will therefore be regarded as final.

I am also pleased to see that a further recommendation of the Margo Commission has been implemented. I am referring to the new dispensation in respect of medical expenses in terms of which all medical expenses exceeding 5% of taxable income are permitted without any restriction. Under the old dispensation, a person under the age of 60 who had had a cardiac bypass operation, for example, which can cost up to R25 000, could claim a deduction of R1 500 at most. If his income amounts to say R3 000, he will now be entitled to a deduction of R23 500 which in my opinion is much more fair. Consequently I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, before I participate in the debate, allow me to address a special word of thanks to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and his officials. They assisted us with advice. This is one group of people that I can really speak highly of. They are always prepared to help.

I also want to react briefly to an accusation made by the hon member for Yeoville in the House of Assembly yesterday. He said that ostensibly some of our members had not attended one of the informal discussions. I can assure the Commissioner for Inland Revenue that our component did not stay away on purpose, but that this was definitely the result of circumstance. We had a by-election on Wednesday, and most of us were not in Cape Town and could not return in time. Nevertheless there were other discussions later at which the Commissioner and his officials were prepared to assist us with advice. My colleagues and I thank them for that.

As can be expected, the emphasis in the Income Tax Bill is on the implementation of certain proposals contained in the Margo Commission Report. That report was published last year and gave rise to a lot of commentary and criticism.

In addition there were protracted consultations between the public and the private sectors, largely under the leadership of the DirectorGeneral: Finance. The result of these consultations was that on 5 February this year the hon the State President announced that the present system of general sales tax would be replaced by a system of value added tax, VAT.

It is obvious that not all the proposals made by the commission could simply be accepted and that some of them, especially those in respect of the proposed comprehensive business tax, had to be adapted. It is comforting, however, that the hon the Minister of Finance kept his promise and immediately began implementing some of the commission’s recommendations.

One of the Margo proposals that fell by the wayside was that for the purposes of income tax, husband and wife should be regarded as individuals. One can understand why this happened. A concession of this kind would have meant a considerable loss in tax. Instead of levying separate taxation, this Bill provides for the so-called SITE system, or Standard Income Tax on Employees. This step is welcomed by all of us. In fact, the SITE system will in many cases have the same effect as separate taxation. This also means that to a great extent there will be an end to the compulsory payment of large amounts which couples have to pay in after a tax assessment.

Sir, estate duty has never been a serious problem among the ranks of the people we represent here. The reduction in the rate of this tax, as well as the increase in the deductions which are permitted in determining the taxable value of an estate, are therefore largely of academic interest.

The proposed amendments to the provisions in respect of the tax on donations in the Income Tax Act can make matters easier, however, and are welcomed by us. In future donations tax will not involve any problems in respect of most of the citizens represented in this House.

The Bill also provides for amendments which will bring relief to companies which build and operate toll roads. In this respect one thinks involuntarily of the toll road on the Hendrik Schoeman Highway between Springs and Krugersdorp, the toll road on the N1 between Kroonstad and Johannesburg, which is being worked on, and the toll road on the national route between Pietermaritzburg and Alberton. I think it is fair to say that the proposed concessions are in conflict with the general recommendations of the Margo Commission. The commission pointed out that the tax system should not be used to encourage some or other specific activity. Here I am thinking in particular of toll roads. Incidentally, Sir, I am fortunate that the hon member for Klipspruit West is not in the House at present; otherwise he would definitely have opposed me. In the circumstances one can merely hope that the planned concessions will not be implemented on a large scale, especially as far as toll roads are concerned.

The Government’s decision to institute minimum taxation on companies elicited a lot of criticism. The Joint Committee on Finance dealt with numerous associations. They were all critical with regard to the proposed minimum taxation on companies. Although one can accept that certain companies will be relatively hard hit, it is a fact that the contribution made to the Treasury by the individual over the past few years has increased more quickly than that of the companies’ sector. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to expect this sector to make a further contribution—especially since the tax is not a final levy, but an advance payment of normal or provisional tax. We therefore support the proposed minimum taxation on companies.

I come back to the question of taxation on individuals. We welcome the Government’s decision to effect a general reduction in the tariffs. The effective reduction in the tax burden of individuals will be small in certain cases, but nevertheless it is a movement in the right direction and we are grateful for that.

Another interesting amendment in the sphere of income tax on individuals is the new definition of “married person”. This brings the definition in line with the way in which it is implemented in practice, and will facilitate the task of the Receiver of Revenue in that a number of embarrassing inquiries will be eliminated.

No tax Bill would have been perfect without a reference to tax avoidance, and this Bill is no exception to the rule. Large-scale tax avoidance has become an evil in our country, and it must be curbed as far as possible. We think it is unfair that wealthy people can arrange their matters in such a way that their tax burden is reduced considerably—or even eliminated—by taking part in artificial and unnatural schemes. In the circumstances we on this side of the House welcome the further provision in this Bill which is aimed at countering tax evasion. With these words we on this side of the House pledge our unconditional support to the Income Tax Bill of 1988.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their support.

I would like to refer to the minimum company tax. The hon member Mr Douw is supporting this measure and he amply motivated his answer. We received a lot of criticism, but when we analysed the criticism we saw that the companies that are very unhappy in regard to the minimum company tax are those companies that have been utilising all these tax exemptions for the past decade.

I should also like to refer to the hon member for Matroosfontein. He is unhappy about the present PAYE system under which one has to pay additional tax upon receiving a bonus and when one’s wife’s salary is added to one’s own income. We know that this system has caused a lot of unhappiness. However, with the introduction of the SITE system that frustration is being removed.

I mentioned yesterday that South Africa was one of the first countries in the Western World that is simplifying a whole tax system. In the end it is going to be much easier for the man in the street as this is going to be a painless exercise, because one will not even realise that one is paying tax. I think that is very good for one’s morale.

I should also like to support the hon member in his expression of good wishes and gratitude to the Receiver of Revenue in Bellville. I should like to add something, however. I should like to suggest to the hon member that if he has the time at his disposal, he should visit that office again and look at the quality of the building. I really feel that it is necessary to upgrade that building. The people are working under difficult circumstances. I visited that office a few weeks ago and I am very honest in submitting that I feel very unhappy about the facilities that are provided in that building.

*The hon member for Northern Cape referred to interesting aspects. He mentioned inter alia the position of an unmarried mother who does not receive any benefits. With the introduction of the new SITE system the position of these people will improve.

The hon member also spoke about medical expenditure exceeding 5%. In other words, if one has had a cardiac bypass operation which involved great expense, one is able to deduct that expenditure, whereas formerly one was limited to a certain amount.

It is interesting to note that some of the worst abuse today takes place in respect of medical costs. People buy medicine too readily—I am not saying they go to the doctor readily—and sometimes one gains the impression that people have an insatiable need for medicine nowadays. Medical expenditure in the Western world is certainly getting out of hand. In the USA the figure is no longer 5 %, but 10%. That means that one cannot deduct anything under 10%. The State constantly has to increase its contributions towards subsidies and sometimes that medical expenditure seems to be quite unnecessary. That does not mean that we want to prevent people from consulting a doctor when it is really necessary.

The hon member Mr Douw also referred to the question of minimum taxation and in my opinion he was quite correct. Of course, this is not really taxation in the true sense of the word, but rather the holding back of taxation. That person has to pay tax at some or other time, and, therefore, this is not new taxation as such. Credit is being created and a person can begin deducting that credit against his provisional tax as early as October. If he has not made use of that benefit after three years, it is repaid. People who have problems in this regard may lodge an appeal. In my opinion, however, we have too many tax concessions in our system. This has caused our tax structure to disintegrate, resulting in fewer and fewer people having to pay more and more tax. Quite often the State is severely criticised for its tax structures and it is constantly pointed out to us that we made the concessions, but that people are penalised if they make use of those concessions. I could mention numerous practical examples to hon members, for example marketin g cost allowances that are paid to exporters. Look at what has happened in the film industry. People approached us and asked us to take action because they were losing millions of rand as a result of new techniques which had been devised by experts for people to evade tax. Admittedly, this is not dishonest because the prevailing conditions were created for that purpose. Another good example is race horses. Hon members will be amazed at the figures which come to our attention. In some instances a person contributes only R25 million, whereas in fact the cost of the film amounts to R68 million. The rest has to be paid by the State which in turn recovers that money from the man in the street.

I now want to turn to toll roads. One can understand that the hon member Mr Douw has a problem in this regard. The ideal with a fiscal policy is to have a clean, simple, neutral and just system. However, the Department of Finance does not function in isolation. The department has to ensure inter alia that the needs of the country are met. For that reason the Government decided that road users should also make a contribution to the cost of maintaining roads, and decided on privatisation and toll roads. To do this people had to be involved in building roads and assisting in their management. The decision to privatise roads was preceded by lengthy negotiations, because the private sector will certainly not take over any activity if it is not convinced that it can make a profit. Why should it? For that reason the Government has to create conditions in respect of the privatisation of roads in which a profit can be made. That is why the system of toll roads and the writing off in connection with this, was introduced. However, I agree with the hon member Mr Douw that we should not allow tax concessions to be abused completely once again.

I thank hon members for their contributions.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of this Bill. We must hail the decision to make it clear that all common law leasing contracts are to be determined by law. It will also soften the hardship to the many poor people who are so eager to obtain a motor car or furniture. I want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister always to be aware of the needs of the poor people in this regard.

Clause 6 of the Bill deals with penalties and should be carried out to the letter against any transgressors.

I am pleased to see that the Minister will have the power to exempt certain leasing transactions from the provisions of the Act.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Gelvandale said, the Bill before the House has our unconditional support, since it is an attempt to protect the poor man.

To begin with I want to quote from Finansies & Tegniek of 24 June. The heading reads: “Minister Barend wil Woekerwet-probleem oplos”. I quote:

I accept that the Bill before the House is the second option.

We want the public, and in particular the poor people, to be protected. If this is not done, one cannot protect the poor people and the public against their own foolishness. I know that once this Bill has been passed, there will still be people who will allow others to take them in. Everyone strives for certain necessities of life, and that is why people are prepared to make sacrifices by paying today for tomorrow’s comfort in order to be able to enjoy it today. That is why so many people live in debt. They are constantly in debt. People are prepared to incur additional financing costs for this purpose, however.

This Bill is an attempt to protect people by ensuring as far as possible that the costs they will have to pay will not be increased arbitrarily. The question of profiteering has been addressed in this House on numerous occasions. The proposals contained in the Bill amount to the following. In the first place an attempt is being made to “remove possible doubt as to the meaning of ‘credit transaction’ and ‘leasing transaction’”. A second objective of the Bill is to “limit the finance charges where a specific finance charge rate is agreed upon at conclusion of contract”. Thirdly the Bill provides “for the recovery of certain moneys not permitted by section 5 of the Act”.

In addition the Bill grants the Minister the power “to exempt certain leasing transactions from the application of the Act”. Further objectives are to “increase certain penalties” and “to provide for the imposition by the Registrar of penalties”.

I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the Bill uses the concept “finance charges” which is a more comprehensive description of the word “interest”. Our people are inclined to say that they are paying interest on something. Apart from interest, finance charges also include any money collected by a moneylender or credit grantor when he grants a loan or credit.

Clause 1 amends the definition of the concepts “leasing transaction” and “credit transaction” in order to eliminate confusion or manifold interpretations of the concept “leasing transaction”, as it appears in the principal Act at present. This is also a direct consequence of the renowned Lendalease case.

As the hon member for Gelvandale has said, clause 2 provides for the determination of a specific finance charge rate at the conclusion of the contract. The present Act provides for credit transactions concluded by individuals in order to obtain movable goods utilised mainly for personal family, household and farming purposes.

In terms of clause 3(a) a credit grantor, lessor or moneylender will in future be entitled to obtain judgment for or recover the following amounts, namely—

Now I want hon members to listen well:

1. (i) the installation of sewerage on the property or the property to which the right is attached;
2. (ii) the provision of electricity or water on the property or the property to which the right is attached;
3. (iii) the cost incurred in converting such property from leasehold to freehold;
4. (iv) the cost of the division of the property in accordance with a sectional plan in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1986 (Act No 95 of 1986); and
5. (v) rates, taxes and licence fees in respect of the property or right.

In conclusion I want to mention that if a need should arise in practice, certain leasing transactions are exempt from the application of the Usury Act. It is proposed in clause 5 that the Minister be given the power to grant such exemption. Just like the hon member for Gelvandale, Sir, I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I first want to deal with what the hon member for Gelvandale said with regard to leasing. In the past we have had leasing agreements such as those which people like Avis offer. We called that industrial leasing. We must be careful not to apply the Usury Act with regard to their activities. Therefore, according to section 5 the Minister will now have the right to grant exemption to these firms or organizations.

*The hon member Mr Douw dealt with this as well. We found that there had been a movement away from hire purchase in the direction of leasing agreements. This happened because as far as leasing agreements were concerned, the term and amount could not always be determined. The lessor could therefore dodge the provisions of the Usury Act. This was not the only thing that happened, however. That is why we made provision a few weeks ago, in the package which deals with the excessive granting of credit, for leasing to be dealt with in the same way as hire purchase in future. Consequently a deposit now has to be paid.

That is why clause 4 is important. This Bill is therefore not aimed only at including these leasing transactions under the Usury Act. Provision is also being made for those companies which rent on an industrial basis to be exempted. At the same time the question of the excessive granting of credit, which had developed because of this system, had to be confronted. It was no longer necessary for people to pay a deposit, with the result that more cars were leased. This caused an extraordinary increase in motorcar sales.

I should like to mention that we are once again considering the Usury Act as a whole. It is interesting that we are now permitting the Registrar of Financial Institutions to take action and impose penalties in cases of abuse. One will find that many of our financial institutions—I am not going to mention names—are actually constantly contravening the Usury Act. I agree with hon members that it is extremely important to protect our lower income groups against exploitation.

I now come to the decision of the court. One gets two kinds of contracts with financial institutions. In the first place there is the system of fixed interest rates. When interest rates increase, therefore, the institution does not increase its interest rate, and when they drop, it does not lower its interest rate either. In terms of the other system, the interest rate applicable to the lease contract varies in accordance with the market interest rate. Every financial institution which provides finance on this credit basis likes to have a package of each kind. This is the case because certain people prefer a fixed interest rate, especially when they think that the interest rate may rise. Other people prefer to pay a varying interest rate, because they expect the interest rate to drop.

With regard to the American credit system—they generally make use of the fixed interest rate—it is interesting to note that immense financial problems are being experienced at present. It has even been said that many financial institutions will go bankrupt if the circumstances deteriorate a little more.

We want to permit both systems in terms of this clause. As I said, one cannot make a decision of the court, which requires that a downward adjustment be made to the interest rate, applicable to a person whose contract works on the basis of a fixed interest rate. One must then ask whether it should not also be adjusted upwardly. We must also remember that during the past year we have had rising interest rates, not decreasing interest rates. What one must ask, therefore, is what the right of the financial institution is. Can it say it has signed that the interest rate will be a fixed one, but that with reference to the decision of the court, it can cancel this and provide for increased interest rates?

I thank hon members for their contributions. We have made an attempt to improve the existing Usury Act. We are involved in further investigations and perhaps we shall come back to the various Houses with this measure in the near future.

Mr Chairman, we welcome and support this Bill as protection will now be afforded to businessmen and other people against accountants and auditors who can be brought to book for negligence and misconduct. Their names may now be made public and they may be punished.

The inspection of financial institutions and the reports to be submitted to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board is long overdue.

For these reasons I endorse the support given to this Bill by the joint committee.

Mr Chairman, this is a very straightforward Bill.

Its main object is to make it possible for the behaviour of certain people to be investigated. These people would be people who are qualified in these professions—or who are supposed to be—and who are practising.

I do not want to go into detail in regard to the accounting and the auditing functions. However, there are differences and sometimes these functions can overlap. This Bill provides in effect for the scrapping of the name of a person who commits misdemeanours and I welcome it. I also welcome the provision that the name of a person who is punished for misconduct can be published in a journal. In this way, whenever the business community needs the services of such persons, they can first check if their names are not on the list. Under such circumstances a suitable person can be hired to do the job.

The misbehaviour of such persons may not only be inimical to the interests of the State coffers, but also to the interests of the business community in general. That is why we welcome this step. We also welcome a further step whereby an offender can be suspended from practice for such period as may be determined by the Board. That would be a real corrective action and a person who is practising any of these professions will know that he should regard his practice in a serious light.

This is a very important profession; it is important for the entire country. These people should realise that the income aspect of their trade should be a secondary consideration.

For these reasons I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before the House contains amendments to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act of 1951, as well as the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act of 1984. Both these Acts have been amended repeatedly in this House. The most recent amendments to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act were made last year. This simply shows that no matter how good legislation may be, amendments are often required in practice. Because South Africa has a growing economy and business, amendments will constantly have to be made.

Clause 1 addresses the question of improper conduct by an auditor and the making known of this. In terms of this clause the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board is authorised to make known in a magazine or in the public Press the name of an accountant and auditor whose service has been suspended as a result of improper conduct by the removal of his name from the register, disqualification for registration, or suspension from practice.

This amendment serves as a deterrent, but also in particular as a reminder to members of a professional association such as that of accountants and auditors that they are professional people and that they have to act in a professional way at all times.

The second amendment contained in clause 2 authorises the board to make the registration of a clerk retroactive in the case of omission or negligence to register a clerk. With the shortage of chartered accountants in South Africa, it is of the utmost importance that young people receive recognition for their service.

The amendment to section 8 of the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act authorises the Registrar of Financial Institutions to submit a report to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board and to demand that action be taken against the improper conduct of an accountant or auditor. This usually happens when the registrar has reason to believe that the provisions of section 26(3) of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act have not been complied with. We should like to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to all hon members who took part in the debate.

It is of the utmost importance that the public also be protected. We have already dealt with the Usury Act, which protects the public against exploitation. The Bill before us is just as important, however, because it also protects the public. The improper conduct of an auditor ultimately affects the taxpayer and the businessman. The Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board agrees that the names of accountants or auditors who behave improperly should be made known. This is an important step in the right direction. We cannot afford to have accountants …

Taking money.

… taking our money; the hon member for Border is quite correct.

Mr Chairman, the Bill under discussion was drawn up in order to implement certain recommendations made by the Margo Commission which were agreed to by the Government. The Margo Commission Report contains more than 300 recommendations for the improvement and reform of our tax system. Some of the recommendations have already been implemented, whereas others will be implemented only during the next tax year.

The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill lays down certain general guidelines and indicates the course which the process of tax reform should take. During his Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance mentioned that drawing up a Bill about capital transfer tax was a demanding and specialised task which would take a number of months.

In order to grant interim relief, amendments were made in the case of estate duty. The amendments are applicable to the estate of someone who has died or dies after 16 March 1988. Section 1 is amended by clause 7, because the opinion was held that there was a difference in meaning between the two official languages with reference to the words “boerdery” and “farming operation” which were used in the text of the definition of “billike markwaarde” and “fair market value”. By replacing the words which precede paragraph (a) in subsection 1 by “billike markwaarde” with reference to immovable goods upon which a bona fide farming enterprise is operated, the two official texts are being brought in line and it is made clear that the provisions with reference to the valuation of farming property will be applicable only if a farming enterprise is operated on such property.

Does that include goats as well? [Interjections.]

Order! Leave the goats out of it! [Interjections.]

Clause 9 amends section 3 of the Estate Duty Act of 1955 in such a way that donations made by the deceased during his lifetime are excluded from the property of his estate. Section 4A is amended by clause 11 in that the dutiable amount of an estate is determined. The dutiable amount of an estate is determined by deducting an amount of R1 million from the net value of the estate.

There are other amendments in the Bill, in respect of stamp duty with reference to penalties, for example, which amounts to as much as R10 000. The other amendments to taxation laws in the Bill are more textual and also include the repeal of amendments in respect of sales tax. Perhaps the hon the Minister can give us more details about this in his reply.

We support the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, after the publication of the Margo Report, tax reform in South Africa became a reality. In the ensuing White Paper it is stated clearly that the tax basis should be extended so that the rate of taxation can be reduced. It is very clear that there is more emphasis on indirect taxation and less emphasis on direct taxation. What I regard as very important is that the proposals contained in the Bill before the House create a sound basis for a higher growth rate in the South African economy.

The Bill amends six Acts, viz the Marketable Securities Tax Act, the Transfer Duty Act, the Trust Property Control Act, the Estate Duty Act, the Stamp Duties Act and the Sales Tax Act of 1978.

Clauses 1 to 6 amend the Marketable Securities Tax Act and the Transfer Duty Act. In the White Paper which was tabled in March, the Government accepted the recommendation that a capital transfer tax be instituted to replace the existing donations tax and estate duty. This Bill provides for an exemption in respect of donations to the value of R20 000 per annum and in respect of an estate of R1 million.

This measure will grant considerable relief to estates and taxpayers will be able to make donations of R20 000 annually without paying any capital transfer tax on that amount.

In addition clause 16 provides for a single rate of 15% in respect of capital transfer tax which will be payable. These amendments will apply to the estate of any person who died on 16 March 1988 or subsequently, as well as to donations made on that day or subsequently.

A number of amendments to the Stamp Duties Act are also proposed. The Margo Commission found that the penalties in the Act were insufficient and consequently numerous penalties which have not kept up with inflation are being adjusted. In addition this legislation attempts to eliminate loopholes in the evasion of stamp duties. Strict penalties will be the fate of evaders in future. Clause 32 extends the stamp duty to debit entries in a transmission account at a bank or building society or a telebank account at the Post Office. In his Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance indicated that building societies and the Post Office had promised their support in this connection.

The hon the Minister of Finance also mentioned in his Budget Speech that provision would be made in the Act in question for a moratorium on the payment of stamp duty and estate duty in terms of rationalisation schemes approved by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. I want to quote directly from the hon the Minister’s address:

[Interjections.] I repeat, Sir, …

Order! Hon members must give the hon member who is speaking a fair chance. The hon member Mr Douw may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate your ruling. If only hon members would realise how complicated this legislation is and how we struggle to prepare our speeches, they would show some respect for the work we are trying to do here.

Sir, I want to repeat what I regard as the most important part of this sentence:

What follows is the part I regard as so important—

I should like to quote what the hon the Deputy Minister said about the Bill under discussion in his First Reading speech. He said the following inter alia about the moratorium:

This is the one that I have just read—

Clause 48 of this Bill contradicts the two mentioned standpoints, however. This clause provides only for companies in cases in which a group controls more than 75% of the voting rights in a specific company. I therefore want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me why the intention mentioned in the Budget Speech, to which he referred in his First Reading speech, has not been carried out to the letter in the legislation under discussion. Will the hon the Minister explain to the House the meaningfulness of the 75% shareholding? We want certainty that proposals that were made in the Budget Speech will be implemented, and that adjustments will not be made in accordance with people’s whims.

Sir, despite that we should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin with the last point mentioned by the hon member Mr Douw, viz the question of the 75%. What we have here is a case of rationalisation within a group, in contrast with takeovers between companies. Hon members must remember that we are losing money. We are instituting this moratorium for a year. One must have a 75% share in the company one is going to rationalise. The office informed me that this actually covers the largest percentage of cases in which rationalisation can take place.

In one of the other debates I was asked whether we could not make the arrangement permanent, because this would be an ideal situation in which there would be good rationalisation. I want to request, however, that we give it a chance for a year. I do not think our Ministry is stupid. If we feel this rationalisation is successful, we can consider whether or not it should become a permanent change. I also do not believe that the 75% is a magic figure which we have to stick to permanently. I can assure the hon member of that.

I think this is the first time we have moved in this direction, but one must always remember that the more loopholes one leaves, the more people make use of them. Sometimes this is justified; at other times it is not. I hope that we shall be able to establish during the course of the year how effectively this is going to work.

I made it clear yesterday that we shall not implement the minimum company tax again, especially during this period. If we advocate rationalisation, it will mean nothing if people are burdened by additional taxation. Another important aspect which was also broached by the hon member for Riversdal was the amendment to estate duty. Naturally donations fall under the Income Tax Act. The Estate Duty Act has given us numerous nightmares. It is often said that the purpose of estate duty is to effect greater equality. Perhaps one could argue in that way. What is achieved, however, if an estate is broken up as a result of estate duty, and instead of continuing to farm, the property has to be sold so that estate duty can be paid, or one of the heirs who continues to farm has to pay out his brothers and sisters for their share? In this case I am referring to agriculture.

Is taxation the only way of obtaining greater equality in revenue? We must be extremely careful not to prejudice investments or savings, especially since we have experienced so many problems with estate duty. We have made an enormous concession here. We older people, with our children in mind, can be grateful for what is being done here. Naturally this also simplifies our system.

There is a further aspect that is not often mentioned, however. Provision is made in the Bill for donations made to old age homes or retirement villages which are operated on a non-profitable basis. These donations can also be deducted from tax. That is very important. Retirement villages are struggling. This concession is being made in order to motivate people to make larger donations to such villages.

I want to mention another important aspect. This Bill also provides for value added tax. This is a new measure, and everyone now has to register. One cannot commence with a new system of taxation if one does not know who is going to be affected and who has to pay. In terms of this measure everyone who is involved in any selling activity has to register.

Mr Chairman, the Labour Party of South Africa believes in effective participation and that all population groups should benefit from such participation. We shall not permit ourselves to be abused or misled. We are thoroughly aware that we have a responsibility to our fellow South Africans, and against this background we support the Bill.

The RSA can be regarded as a mother country and guardian of the TBVC countries, and has to act as such and fulfil all its obligations to these national states in all respects. We have a significant obligation to the TBVC countries and are responsible for the prosperity and progress of the states.

[Inaudible.]

It is a pity that the hon member for Border is getting birth pangs. If the hon member has something to say, he must request a turn to speak.

The Bill under discussion provides that assistance may be granted to people who want to farm in the TBVC countries and self-governing states. We must assist those who really need help, but we must not forget our own farmers. I want to emphasise my confidence in the Land Bank once again, because it would be a sad day if this bank proved our confidence to be misplaced.

In addition I should like to know from the hon the Minister what his attitude will be if we request that the Coloured farmers’ Assistance Board be transferred to the Land Bank and that a joint committee be made up of members from all three Houses. We should like to support the Land Bank Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Land Bank Amendment Bill will enable the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa to advance money—with the approval of the hon the Minister—for the financing of institutions established, or registered, in terms of the law of the TBVC countries or other self-governing states. The conditions are that guarantees must be lodged with the bank for the repayment of these advances. All the shares and all other beneficial interests therein, if any, are vested in the government of such a self-governing territory or state for the purpose of enabling any such financial institution to advance money for farming or agricultural purposes to any natural person who is a citizen, or permanent resident of the Republic, or of a state of which the territory previously formed part of the Republic, or to any corporate body, of which all the shareholders and all other persons who have any beneficial interests in that corporate body, must be citizens or permanent residents of that state or self-governing territory.

Persons from other countries settling in these states or self-governing territories will also benefit. Here I appeal to the hon the Minister first to consider our own people or citizens and to encourage such persons.

Mr Chairman, the intention of the Land Bank Amendment Bill is to enable the Land Bank, with the prior approval of the Minister of Finance, to advance money to a financing institution which does business in the TBVC states as well as the self-governing states. The purpose of this is to support the financing of the farming industry in the respective states.

This in itself is praiseworthy, but our House Committee has many problems with it since so-called Coloured farmers are excluded to a large extent from financial assistance by the Land Bank. [Interjections.] I therefore do not blame my hon colleagues if they feel that I should be led by my conscience in respect of this legislation. We have no objection to the granting of financial assistance to agriculturists in the TBVC states and self-governing states. I said in the House yesterday that I should like these states to be included in a non-racial geographic federation, but then they must be economically viable. [Interjections.] We have no objection to that.

We do have problems, however, with the morality of granting such assistance, since the community we represent in Parliament will not derive any benefit from the amending legislation. It is a fact that the Government grants hardly any financial assistance to either Coloured commercial farmers or Coloured subsistence farmers. In reply to a question put to the hon the Minister of Agriculture by the hon member for Wentworth about Government aid during the past financial year to White, Coloured, Indian and Black agriculturists respectively, the following information was given: The assistance received from the Government by Whites amounted to R296,1 million, that to Coloureds amounted to R49 000, that to Indians to R0 and to Blacks to R0. It is clear, therefore, that the agriculturists in South Africa who are not White find it very difficult to keep their heads above water. At this stage the subsistence farmers cannot make a living at all.

I should like to mention to hon members that at present there are 23 so-called Coloured rural areas which accommodate a total of 1 228 farmers. Amounts appropriated in terms of the Coloured Farmers Assistance Act are shocking, however. During the 1984-85 financial year, R415 900 was appropriated, in 1985-86 the amount was R650 900, during the 1986-87 financial year it was R650 900 and in the 1987-88 financial year it was R1 million. During 1985 only 28 farmers could receive financial assistance from these meagre amounts; during 1985-86 only 52; during 1986-87 only 112, and during 1987-88 only 99 Coloured farmers. An ungodly Act, viz the Group Areas Act, and in particular sections 13, 20 and 21, prevents my people from obtaining farms freely. I mention this because the Land Bank normally requires land as a guarantee. The 1 228 farmers whom I referred to earlier make a living from commonage and consequently they are excluded from any financial assistance by the Land Bank. I have pointed out that Government assistance is minimal and is really not to the benefit of Coloured agriculturists.

It is with appreciation that cognisance is taken of the fact that favourable consideration was given to applications from Coloured farmers by the Land Bank Board during the period between 1982 and 1987. I want to give hon members full details about these 57 loans made to Coloured farmers by the Land Bank.

The branch office at Pietermaritzburg approved two applications from the Port Shepstone district, two from the Harding district and one from the Stanger district. The branch office at Beaufort West approved three applications from George and one from Swellendam. In Cape Town two applications from Bredasdorp were approved. The branch office at Upington approved as many as 46 applications from the Gordonia district. This makes up a total of 57 applications.

During the same six-year period, however, 31526 applications from Whites were approved— whereas only 57 applications from Coloured farmers were approved!

Disgraceful!

These are indeed shocking figures, Sir. We did not go and sit in sackcloth and ashes, however. We are irrevocably committed to ensuring that the Coloured farmers in South Africa receive their rightful share of Government assistance and obtain greater accessibility to agricultural land in South Africa so that they can compete with other agriculturists on an equal basis. In the meantime we have got to work in order to assist Coloured farmers, especially subsistence farmers. I had the privilege inter alia of meeting Dr Simon Brand of the Development Bank with the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Dr Brand was extremely sympathetic, and I am convinced that Coloured subsistence farmers will reap the benefits of these talks soon.

The Bill before the House assumed its present form, as it were, during a meeting held on 4 November 1987 which was attended by Dr C S Blignaut of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Dr A M Pretorius of the Department of Finance, Messrs J van Wyk and J F van Staden of the Land Bank, Mr J S Jack of the Ciskei’s Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Mr G F Godden, a liaison officer in the Ciskeian government, Mr C W Dickason of the Agricultural Bank in the Ciskei, Dr C J van Rooyen and Dr N Vink of the Development Bank of South Africa, and Messrs J van Wyk and W N Botes of SECOSAF.

The Joint Committee on Finance met numerous times during the past year and it was extremely difficult to obtain consensus. We in the House Committee could not even reach consensus among ourselves, but the principle was accepted that we should leave no stone unturned in assistin g Black agriculturists in the TBVC countries and the self-governing states. After all, they are our fellow fighters in a struggle for liberation.

So far the financing of farming in the TBVC countries and self-governing territories has taken place by means of funds which were made available by the South African Development Bank to a financing institution in each of the relevant countries and self-governing territories. These financing institutions in turn advanced loans to individual farmers in the relevant areas.

As development took place in the respective farming industries, a clear distinction emerged between the commercial farmers on the one hand and the subsistence farmers on the other.

The financial needs of the commercial farmers in the relevant countries and territories increased to such an extent that it became essential for them to obtain access to the same financing sources as are available to other commercial farmers in South Africa. The standing committee introduced a further amendment, however, to provide that only bona fide and permanent citizens of a state may come into consideration for financial assistance. [Interjections.]

Initially the Land Bank Board declared itself prepared to make short-term financing available to co-operatives in the Republic of South Africa so that the co-operatives in turn could make financing available in those countries and areas. The general feeling, however, was that this financing, because of its nature, would comprise only production credit, and would also provide only for funds for the purchase of instrumental goods. Consequently it was felt that the method of financing was not comprehensive enough and that the financing of commercial farmers by the Land Bank should be extended within the territory of the relevant countries and areas so as to provide for mediumand long-term financing of commercial farmers in those areas.

As I have said, investigations and discussions which took place strongly highlighted the need for financing among commercial farmers in the TBVC states and the self-governing territories. After careful consideration it was clear that the Land Bank was the appropriate source of finance to undertake such financing.

With regard to the TBVC states, it was found, however, that no direct financing by the Land Bank of commercial farmers in those countries could take place, since the bank is restricted by legislation at present to financing the farming industry within the boundaries of South Africa. That bank has the additional problem that it may not exercise its statutory power of summary execution across the boundaries of the country. Consequently the Land Bank Board decided to request that financing for agricultural purposes be permitted in the TBVC states and self-governing territories by means of loans by the Land Bank to a financing institution in each of the relevant areas. The specific financing institution can then in turn, with funds it has obtained in this way, undertake direct financing of commercial farmers in the relevant area.

According to information, each of these states already has a financing institution which has taken care of the financing of farming so far with the assistance of funds received from the South Africa Development Bank. Among them are Tracor in the Transkei, the Agribank in Bophuthatswana, Agriven in Venda and, of course, the Ciskeian Agricultural Bank in the Ciskei.

A question arose, however, as to what guarantees the Land Bank has that it will get its money back. The Coloured farmers in South Africa do not qualify for this financing, because they farm on commonage. With regard to the envisaged financing in the TBVC states, this will amount to financing in a foreign country, where the Land Bank will not be able to enforce its power of summary execution. Consequently, for the sake of security, the Land Bank Board will have no choice but to demand by means of loan conditions that the government of the TBVC country in question must guarantee the loan and that the South African Government must provide the Land Bank with arrear security. This really worries me. Foreign Affairs informed the Standing Committee on Finance that the Government had already granted guarantees to the value of millions and millions to these countries.

Hon members will note, therefore, that in these circumstances, the Land Bank has no choice but to demand a guarantee from the South African Government in order to ensure that the Bank will have enforceable security at its disposal at all times.

In contrast with the TBVC states, the position in the self-governing territories is that individual farmers do have access to normal Land Bank financing. The problem, however, is that the majority of commercial farmers in these areas cannot comply with the Land Bank’s legal requirements at present, and the majority of such farmers in those areas therefore cannot obtain direct Land Bank financing in the normal course of events. Consequently it is the objective of the Bill that funds be made available to the selfgoverning territories by the Land Bank on the same basis as will be the case with the TBVC states.

In the case of self-governing territories, the Land Bank Board will also require, by means of loan conditions, that the Government of the selfgoverning territory guarantee the advance and that the RSA supply arrear security for the advance.

Hon members will notice from the Bill that the funds obtained from the Land Bank may be utilised by the financing institution in the relevant country or area only for farming purposes. In order to bring the financing in line with the financing of commercial farmers in the RSA, a further requirement of the Land Bank Board will be that funds which may be obtained from the Land Bank in terms of the envisaged scheme can be advanced only to commercial farmers by means of such a financial institution. The envisaged financing will, of course, take place at market-related interest rates. The Land Bank will not state any conditions in connection with negotiation or conditions upon which funds obtained from the Land Bank may be advanced to individual farmers and farming bodies by a farming institution, however.

Since the advances by the Land Bank will be made available to a financing institution only for farming purposes, the Land Bank will state only the requirement that advances from funds obtained from the Land Bank may be granted only to commercial farmers, and the bank will not lay down any further requirements in connection with the category of farmer who may be financed from such funds.

Despite all our problems with this legislation, we believe that subsistence farmers in the relevant countries and territories will now be financed, as in the past, from funds made available by the South African Development Bank to the relevant financing institutions for that purpose. With these words we should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their participation in this debate. The Bill before us has a very long history which verged on tears at times. I know, however, that the joint committee gave this Bill a great deal of attention. It was debated thoroughly, and the problems experienced by Coloured farmers in particular were discussed in detail.

It may be interesting to the hon member Mr Douw to hear that ten applications were received from Coloured farmers during the first five months of this year, and all ten were approved. The total amount involved was R155 000. I have also heard that a certain agricultural co-operative which was established by Coloured farmers, and already has a membership of 216, approached the Land Bank. Coincidentally another financial institution was involved in this as well. The Land Bank sent officials to investigate this co-operative’s problems.

The crux of the Bill before us was spelt out very clearly by the hon member Mr Douw. I should like to mention, as a point of principle, that after a thorough investigation by the Development Bank and the Department of Finance, it was decided that the financing of commercial farmers should not be provided by the Development Bank, but by the speciality institution, the Land Bank. What this Bill is proposing, therefore, is that the Land Bank should be the institution to assist commercial farmers in the national states by means of financial institutions in these countries.

Furthermore I want to express my thanks to the joint committee for the thoroughness with which they dealt with the Bill, as well as the proposals they made with regard to the question of the control of funds in the relevant states. I want to repeat that the Land Bank gave me the express assurance that Coloured farmers will always receive their full attention. The hon member Mr Douw referred to Agricultural Credit Board figures. According to figures which I have for the 1987-88 financial year, the amount is already more than R2 million. The Bill was discussed thoroughly and the standing committee held consultations about the matter for almost a whole year.

On Clause 1,

Amendment put, viz—

1. On page 2, in line 11, after “Republic” to insert:

, and in respect of which financing institution all the shares and all other beneficial interest therein, if any, are vested in the government of such self-governing territory or state

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Amendments put, viz—

1. 1. On page 2, in line 17, after “determine” to insert:
   and subject to the self-governing territory or state concerned guaranteeing the repayment of the money advanced
2. 2. On page 2, in line 22, after “Republic,” to insert:
   and in respect of which financing institution all the shares and all other beneficial interest therein, if any, are vested in the government of such self-governing territory or state,
3. 3. On page 2, in line 24, to omit “persons” and to substitute:
   any natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident of the Republic or of a state of which the territory previously formed part of the Republic, or to any corporate body of which all the shareholders and all other persons having any beneficial interest in such corporate body, if any, are such citizens or permanent residents,

Mr Chairman, although the report is printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon Minister of Finance, he asked me to introduce it on his behalf because it deals mainly with a matter which falls under the Department of Education and Training for which I am responsible.

The essential part of the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts is contained in paragraph (c) of the report. The recommendation of the joint committee is that the whole matter be referred back to Parliament on an urgent basis for further investigation. The issue in question is the purchase by the Department of Education and Training of a so-called Ivis interactive video system of computer-assisted education. This system is intended to effect a drastic improvement in the tuition of mathematics on the levels of standard 8, 9 and 10 in Black schools. The system was specially designed for South African circumstances and syllabuses and in order to deal with the particular problems of Black pupils. The purchase of the system in question took place without tenders having been called for, however, but after special approval was obtained from the Tender Board to purchase the system directly. After allegations about irregular aspects with reference to the purchase of the computer system, I asked the Advocate-General in March last year to investigate the allegations and report on them. This report was published in March this year and contains serious findings about the action of the former Director-General. The report also questions certain assurances given by the Deputy Director-General of the department during the course of the purchasing process. The reasons for my agreement with the request of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts to Parliament for further investigation of the matter, over and above the investigation of the Advocate-General, which appeared in his report, are as follows.

In the first place the Advocate-General himself says in paragraph 6 of his report that he is restricted by the provisions of section 4 of the Advocate-General Act by the statutory definition of his functions in respect of what he may investigate.

He is restricted to action in connection with alleged dishonesty in the handling of public money and allegations that someone has been improperly or illegally enriched at the expense of the Government. Certain aspects which had to be investigated in connection with the purchase of this computer-assisted education system fell outside the statutorily defined instruction of the Advocate-General, so that he could not investigate them. Secondly the Advocate-General himself mentioned at the end of his report that a large number of documents and a great deal of evidence had not been included in the report, because strictly speaking they had nothing to do with his statutory function. Thirdly, some of the allegations originally made in the public Press, which were referred for investigation, were not dealt with in the report of the Advocate-General, also because they did not fall within the ambit of his statutory functions. In the fourth place I had an opportunity, with the approval of the Advocate-General, to make a study of the evidence and cross-examination that took place before him. This study of that evidence convinced me that a further investigation was necessary. This evidence sheds important light on the seriousness of the Advocate-General’s findings, and that is why I agree with the joint committee that a further investigation is essential.

It is essential that such an investigation be thorough and take place urgently. It must take place urgently and be dealt with expeditiously so that the necessary steps can be taken to restore the necessary stability in this important Department of Education and Training once the investigation has been concluded. In the meantime other allegations about other irregularities in other spheres have been made. These have also been referred for investigation. The necessity of a thorough investigation therefore cannot be doubted by anyone. What I do doubt, however, is the desirability raised in other Houses that this further investigation be made by a special parliamentary joint committee. Such a special investigation by a select committee would take months and they would probably be able to report to Parliament only at the beginning of next year. This would entail too long a delay in the investigation. Consequently it has been decided, as expressed in the motion, that the investigation be entrusted to a judicial commission of enquiry appointed and authorized by the State President. Such an investigation by the judicial commission will not only cover the purchase of the relevant computerassisted education systems …

Order! Hon members must please pay attention while the hon the Minister is making his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The committee will also pay attention to other allegations of irregularities that have been made. This commission of enquiry consists of three prominent people, viz Justice Leo van der Heever of the Cape Supreme Court; Mr van Wyk, the president of the Natal Regional Court, and Mr Gerald Barry, a former Auditor-General.

The committee’s initial approach was to refer the investigation to the Commission for Administration, which is the statutory watchdog over the effectiveness of the Public Service. After debate, however, this instruction proved to be undesirable because of objections as a result of the fact that certain officials in the Office of the Commission for Administration were involved in the computer purchase which had to be investigated. Consequently the Commission for Administration took the initiative itself and requested that it be allowed to withdraw from this investigation. The hon the State President then decided that the investigation could best be entrusted to a commission of enquiry appointed and authorized by him.

I should like to emphasize that the Government and I are determined that all true offences and irregularities concerning these alleged matters will be exposed and that appropriate action will be taken against those who are guilty. There will be no covering up of any kind. The investigation and its results must comply with the hon the State President’s high standard of clean government in South Africa, something he has always emphasized.

I am sure that apart from pointing out irregularities, the investigation will also point out inefficient administration or financial control systems and procedures so that the management and control in the department can be tightened up and improved in order to avoid a future repetition of possible irregularities.

In dealing with this matter, I regard it as essential to emphasize that we must carry on despite this investigation and despite the allegations. The good work and the educational development and progress which have characterised the Department of Education and Training in recent years must carry on. This is good work and progress which has evoked a great deal of appreciation and has received a lot of encouragement, particularly in this House.

This House has repeatedly emphasized in its debates that the Department of Education and Training plays a key part in the process of reform and in stabilising Black communities in the promotion of education for Black communities.

Consequently I want to appeal to everyone who can exercise a positive influence on the further course of education in Black communities to continue to do so. There is a large variety of projects—important projects, innovative projects and imaginative projects—which are received enthusiastically by the community and by educational experts, and they must be carried out with continued enthusiasm and expertise. At this time of investigation and possible disciplinary steps, and the tension this entails, we dare not permit the progress of education for Black communities to sustain any damage. When, therefore, I move that this report be agreed to, I should also like to make an appeal to everyone who has anything to do with Black education. I repeat, Sir, that I should like to move that the report be adopted and that the House take cognisance of the fact that the subject of the report has been referred to a commission of enquiry nominated by the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, a great deal has been said, and the hon the Minister has just associated himself with what has been said, about the purchase of the Ivis interactive video systems by the Department of Education and Training. Permit me, however, Sir, to quote from the First Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. I am referring to paragraph (c) which reads as follows:

The reference here is of course to the purchase of these video systems which the hon the Minister spoke about.

Sir, just like other hon members of the joint committee, I believe that in order to prove the complete innocence of the Director-General, a parliamentary committee should have investigated the matter and reported on it. I am pleased that the Commission for Administration decided in its wisdom not to undertake the investigation. The announcement that the investigation will now be made by a judicial commission has our approval, however, and we should like to express the hope that their report will be tabled some time this year.

Sir, there is no doubt that a terrible mistake has been made, and the Director-General has expressed his regret about this. I am the first person to admit that the necessary procedure was not followed, but I agree wholeheartedly with the hon the Minister that this was done in good faith. I should like to quote from a Press statement issued by the hon the Minister on 29 March. It reads as follows—

That is the purchase of the systems—

I should like to address that aspect in my short argument. I challenge any hon member in this House to dispute that statement made by the hon the Minister with me. The Department of Education and Training is undoubtedly one of those education departments which has shown great progress in South Africa during the past five years.

No one in this or any other House of Parliament can ever underestimate or reason away the selfless part played by the Director-General and his officials. The former Director-General—I am sorry to say this—was sent packing after having spent almost a quarter of a century of his life in that department.

What we have seen in this department during the past five years, is a concerted effort to move away from the Verwoerdian system of education which was aimed at keeping Black education inferior. Despite enormous backlogs, the Department of Education and Training tried to make it possible for the Black student to take his rightful place in the education system. As a result of Third World circumstances, however, Black students’ present performance is unacceptably low. The Department of Education and Training has an urgent need to improve circumstances and that is why these enormous attempts are being made to accelerate the retraining of teachers—if one trains a good teacher, at least one knows one’s children are being taught correctly.

The Ivis interactive video systems were purchased for the purpose of assisting in retraining teachers, because pupils who are taught by a well-trained teacher are usually taught well. The Department of Education and Training deserves our praise, and definitely no criticism, for the fact that it has made attempts to improve the results in certain problem subjects. The Director-General revealed shocking facts in evidence before the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. It was said that only approximately 50% of the matriculants passed their final examination. This can be attributed mainly to the fact that only approximately 15% pass a subject such as mathematics, whereas 16% to 24% pass physical science. In addition 17% to 20% pass history; 21% to 30% pass biology and 26% to 30% pass geography. This, of course, is before adjustments. In Afrikaans the pass rate before adjustments varies between 25% and 35% and in English between 19% and 37%. Even in the Black languages the pass rate varies between only 45% and 50%.

Education is terribly expensive, and in the present economic climate in particular it is extremely difficult to keep failures at school for longer periods. The Department of Education and Training controls a school population of 1,8 million pupils. This is almost as many pupils as there are Coloureds in South Africa, and almost twice as many pupils as there are Indians in South Africa. The average per capita expenditure on this is R460 per year. I want to play with figures now, and say that if only 5% of the 1,8 million pupils should fail, there would be 90 000 failures who would then need 2 571 extra teachers for retraining—if we apply the ratio of 1:35. What takes the cake, however, is the fact that the financial implications of the failure rate cost the Government R41,4 million. Yet we complain because R4 million was spent on Ivis interactive video systems which were purchased for the training of teachers. A failure rate of 10% would cost the Government twice as much.

I want to concentrate on secondary schools where the failure rate is high. The present figure for secondary schools is 381 537 pupils at an average per capita expenditure of R1 014 per pupil per year. If only 5% of those pupils fail, retraining will cost the Government R19,3 million. I shall make a very conservative estimate of 15%. A failure rate of 15% costs the Government R58 million per year. That is why I say the department definitely deserves our praise and not criticism for the attempts they have made to lower the failure rate at our schools.

These figures are extremely alarming. This is why the Department of Education and Training realises the necessity of remedial steps. Two important points of departure were identified, viz the improvement of the functionalism of the school and the improvement of teachers’ qualifications. The improvement in the administration of schools and the subject skills of teachers in particular has begun to receive the highest priority over the past few years.

The Ivis interactive video system was used as an aid in retraining Black teachers. This honourable effort to assist a wronged community left victims behind, however. Sir, I can assure you that I was shocked when I was sitting in the House of Assembly and the hon the Minister announced the early retirement of Dr Fourie. I do not begrudge Dr Fourie a well-earned rest, but I know that the Black educational community, which he served for almost 25 years, is considerably poorer because of his retirement. This was only two months before Dr Fourie was to have retired honourably, but he was asked to go on leave. I am very unhappy about this. I believe that justice must and will triumph and that an injustice will have to be rectified somewhere.

I should like to propose that the report be adopted.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member sincerely for his thoroughly prepared and knowledgeable speech and for the necessary and appreciated words of encouragement he addressed to the Department of Education and Training with a view to the difficult task that they have to proceed with under tense and difficult circumstances.

I merely want to react to the hon member’s remark that the former Director-General was ostensibly “sent packing”. The former DirectorGeneral approached me requesting permission in terms of section 15 of the Public Service Act to go on early retirement. This was to take place approximately two months before his actual retirement. I received the approval of the Public Service Commission and his request was granted. It is completely incorrect, therefore, to say that the former Director-General was sent packing. Furthermore, I do not think this is the occasion on which to discuss his merits, since his conduct in this important matter which is dealt with in the Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts is the subject of further investigation.

I want to thank the hon member sincerely for his support.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the divisional council of Kaffraria, who maintain an existing road over the Fort Pato Nature reserve, has applied for a permanent right for the reconstruction and maintenance of this road. This road is also part of the MR 11 between East London and King William’s Town. In terms of section 15(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1984, a permanent right over a nature reserve on State forest land may only be granted with the approval by resolution of Parliament. The proposed reconstruction deviates very little from the existing road and will not result in any environmental damage, as the area consists mainly of open grassland with single Akasia Karoo trees. No endangered or rare plant species are involved. Members of the public also very seldom visit this part of the nature reserve. Approval has been obtained from the Administrator of the Cape, under whose management this nature reserve resides, and the committee has been given the assurance by all parties concerned that sections of the old road not used, will be ploughed over and vegetation planted. We recommend that the report be accepted.

In terms of section 11(1) of the Forest Act, 1984, a servitude over State forest land can only be granted with the approval by resolution of Parliament. In 1982 temporary rights were granted to Mr G S Ferreira and other landowners to use an existing water-furrow on the Formosa State forest to withdraw water from the Kromme River, and to convey it to their respective properties. The persons concerned have now applied for a servitude to erect a weir and dividing box, as well as the laying of a pipeline and also to use a section of the existing pipeline to convey water to two adjacent farms. These farms are totally dependent on this water. In terms of sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Water Act, 1956, the Department of Water Affairs, when granting temporary rights in 1982, was satisfied that owners could draw their rightful share of water from the Kromme River. The Administrator of the Cape, under whose management State forest land resides, has no objections. These families have drawn water from the river for over 100 years. What they intend doing is also an upgrading process. Sections of the old furrows are overgrown with weeds and many of the old pipes are silted up. The whole arrangement, when complete, will allow for a more orderly distribution of water. Besides, it has been ascertained that if we try to stop them, they could successfully get relief from the courts. The committee therefore recommends that the report be accepted.

In 1923 the farm Annex Vlugt 257 was declared demarcated State forest land. It forms part of the Langkloof State forest. The farm has no agricultural potential, no particular conservation status and it is not required by the Department of Environment Affairs. Economically it is not worth being retained. It has no water rights, the area is not a good one for conservation and to maintain the fencing and cutting of fire breaks costs the State unnecessary money. The Department of Environment Affairs now wishes to hand this land back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal. In terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, State forest land may only be withdrawn from demarcation with the approval by resolution of Parliament and we recommend that this report be accepted.

In terms of previous forest legislation, the Helpmekaar and Patatabos Nature Reserves were set aside as nature reserves in 1939. The Forest Acts of 1913 and 1941 made no provision for the publication of the setting aside of nature reserves on State forest land by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. Large areas of the De Hoek and Woodbush State forest are intended to be set aside as a nature reserve, which will then also include the greater portion of the Patatabos Nature Reserve, but not the Helpmekaar Nature Reserve as it is totally infested with self-sown gumtrees. Before the setting aside can take place, the Helpmekaar and Patatabos Nature Reserves first have to be withdrawn from setting aside.

In terms of section 15(1) of the Forest Act, Act 122 of 1984, powers are vested in the Minister of Environment Affairs to set aside any State forest land as nature reserves. The hon the Minister has now recommended the withdrawal from setting aside the nature reserves of Helpmekaar and Patatabos as nature reserves and this can only be done on approval by resolution of Parliament in terms of section 15(2) of the said Act.

My committee approves this report.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for the clear way in which he expounded this report. I have very little to add. I also want to thank the joint committee for the thorough work that they have done. It is true that when we first laid this report before the joint committee it was referred back to the department. The second attempt gave them more detailed information and it was then unanimously adopted by the joint committee.

I thank the hon member for his contribution.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be in this House again this afternoon. As hon members know, the Pension Laws Amendment Bill is a series of technical amendments to the legislation that we have to effect annually as rectifications. Another reason for my great pleasure this afternoon is that the joint committee is chaired by the hon member for Britstown. The hon member for Britstown and the joint committee considered these amendments very thoroughly and, in fact, also moved an amendment which I agreed to. This is now being included in the amending Bill. I know that the hon member for Britstown will speak very knowledgeably about this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Pension Laws Amendment Bill is a financial measure which is submitted at the end of session every year to regulate pension matters and to bring the pension laws up to date. As usual this Bill is highly technical, as the hon the Minister said. Here and there it is difficult to understand, therefore. Hon members will not understand it unless they make a thorough study of this legislation. That is what our committee did, and I want to thank our component for their valuable inputs.

We must not allow difficult legislation to get the better of us, however, because in the end it is all a matter of people. These are laws that affect our people, and many of them are our voters. We have a duty to them to try to understand even the difficult formulas we find in clause 16 on page 10 of the Bill, for example. I do not want to bore hon members with an explanation of the formulas, but I do want to say something about the human side of things. After all, the human side is all that matters.

Someone who resigns or who cannot be a member of a State pension fund any more for some or other reason, usually has a choice. He can choose to receive his pension money and go and buy himself a car with it or spend that money in some other way, or he can elect to become a dormant member of a pension fund. If someone is a dormant member, it means that his pension money is preserved until such time as he reaches retirement age. While his pension money is being preserved, it increases by an amount calculated in terms of the formula contained in clause 16 of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Perhaps it would be better to explain this by giving hon members an example. Should a 53year old person’s gratuity of R50 000 and annual pension of R13 500 be preserved until this person reaches the age of 65, this formula makes it possible for the benefits to increase by more than three times over a period of 12 years, so that the gratuity will amount to approximately R175 000 and the pension to R42 400. Hon members can see, therefore, how that annual amount of R13 500 increases to an annual amount of R42 400.

We are pleased that the hon the Minister is making dormant membership more attractive. This will encourage members of a pension fund not to take their pension money at an earlier age and to waste it, but rather to preserve it for their old age.

Another provision in this Bill which deserves special attention is the amendment to the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, by clauses 7 to 12. Hon members who do business in this connection will know that this Act deals with diseases which can be contracted by workers in controlled mines and industries. People in my constituency and in surrounding constituencies contract a disease which is caused by asbestos mines. [Interjections.] That disease is known to all of us.

Order! Hon members must please show respect for the Chair and also for the hon member who is speaking. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act is amended every year, and actually all we are doing is patchwork. I think it is necessary that the whole Act be revised.

We are aware that the hon the Minister has given instructions that the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act be rewritten. We are also aware that the draft Bill drawn up by the department is in the hands of the legislature at the moment and that it is being considered by the trade unions for comment. We accept that the amendments that are being made today are a precursor to the imminent new dispensation.

So far the pensions of Blacks have been dealt with differently from those of other workers. There used to be a fund for Blacks from which their pensions were paid out. This separate fund for Blacks is now being abolished. All the money in this fund is being transferred to the Compensation Fund.

An amendment to clause 4 of the Bill was agreed to during a meeting of the joint committee. It deals with a matter which hon members of this House have worked towards, viz the equal treatment of people. The amendment we proposed reads as follows:

We have therefore removed discrimination from this legislation. [Interjections.] As the Bill read initially, the Minister responsible for educational matters in the House of Assembly could approve the retirement on pension of a White teacher at the age of 55. Teachers of other race groups could only retire on pension at the age of 60, however. Sir, we have rectified this.

Hear, hear!

I do not want to advocate that teachers retire at such an early age, since we are too much in need of their services. It is comforting to know, however, that our hon Minister of Education and Culture, as well as other hon Ministers who are involved in educational matters, can now also approve a teacher’s retirement on pension at the age of 55.

In conclusion I want to say something about the pension of the former Vice State President, which is dealt with in clause 20 of this Bill. The Constitution provides what the pension of the Vice State President will be. When the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme was established in 1984, it was not foreseen that the Vice State President would again become a member of Parliament. Consequently he was not entitled to a parliamentary pension. The Act does not say anything about the position of the Vice State President.

Our former Vice State President, Mr Alwyn Schlebusch, is well-known to all hon members.

This therefore means that Mr Schlebusch was entitled to his salary as a Minister as well as to his pension as Vice State President. After his retirement as Minister, he would therefore have been entitled to two pensions. That is a lot of money, but in our investigation I learnt that Mr Schlebusch had declined his pension as Vice State President. He therefore received only a Minister’s salary and today he receives only a parliamentary pension. The purpose of the Bill is merely to give effect to this arrangement.

I must add that Mr Schlebusch’s conduct in this case was praiseworthy. He acted commendably in the interest of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Britstown spoke about these pension laws with great knowledge and insight, as is fitting for the chairman of a joint committee.

In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I merely want to say that the Bill concerns teachers who are dismissed at a certain age. Consequently they can all be dismissed at the age of 55 in certain circumstances, and can then receive a pension. The circumstances are regulated by the respective laws that deal with this. I thank the hon member for his comments with regard to my former colleague, Mr Schlebusch, and especially for his very knowledgeable explanation of the respective aspects that are of importance.

I do not think it is at all necessary for me to give any further elucidation on these laws.

Mr Chairman, the Bill contains amendments to the South African Reserve Bank Act, 1944, the Banks Act, 1965, the Mutual Building Societies Act, 1965, and the Building Societies Act, 1986.

In effecting the amendments, the following institutions were consulted for their comments and recommendations: The Clearing Bankers Association of South Africa, the Association of Building Societies in South Africa, the Association of General Banks, the Merchant Bankers Association and the Association of Discount Houses. The amendments include inter alia the inspection of affairs of persons, partnerships and companies which are not registered as banking institutions or building societies; restrictions on shareholding and control of institutions; acquisition of registered banking institutions; the maintenance of reserve balance and liquid assets; the issue of debentures to supplement capital and reserves and the transfer of assets and liabilities of mutual building societies and building societies.

With reference to the last-mentioned amendment I want to point out that the Mutual Building Societies Act, 1965, provides that a mutual building society may, with the approval of the registrar, transfer its assets and liabilities or part thereof to another mutual building society. In terms of the Building Societies Act, 1986, a building society can also transfer its assets and liabilities or part thereof to another building society. Clause 28 now provides that a mutual building society may also transfer assets and liabilities to a building society or bank and that a building society may transfer its assets and liabilities to a bank.

The amalgamation and transfer of assets and liabilities are subject to certain provisions. It can take place only with the approval in writing of the registrar, for example. The proposed terms and conditions of amalgamation or transfer shall be submitted in advance to the registrar who will approve the proposal in question as drafted or with such modification as he may deem necessary. No transaction involving the amalgamation of societies or the transfer of assets and liabilities from one society to another society, whether a building society or a bank, shall be of force or effect unless the registrar is satisfied that such transaction will not be detrimental to the public interest or cause undue hardship to the members of any of the societies concerned or to any of the involved parties, as the case may be. The agreement specifically provides that there shall be no division of the profits or of any of the reserves of the societies among their members and that the provisions of the agreement be confirmed by special resolution by each of the societies concerned. A further provision is that notice of the passing of a special resolution concerning such amalgamation or transfer, together with a copy of such resolution and the full terms and conditions of the proposed amalgamation or transfer duly certified by two directors and the secretary of each of the parties concerned, shall be sent by each of the parties affected to the registrar. Such notice shall then be registered by the registrar.

Upon registration by the registrar of such amalgamation or transfer of assets and liabilities, the individual societies which were parties to the transaction shall be deemed to be dissolved and the registrar shall cancel the registration and at the same time and in their stead register the new society. Upon this registration all the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated societies become assets and liabilities of the society registered in their stead. The amendments also provide for any mortgage bond or any fixed property and remuneration to members. Quite possibly the hon the Minister can elaborate on this.

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we are coming to the end of a long day. I am going to have a good celebration tonight. It is a pity the hon member for Rawsonville is leaving, because I want to enjoy myself at his home tonight where his daughter will be celebrating her engagement. [Interjections.] I should like to congratulate him on this momentous step in his daughter’s life.

It is important to any country that its banking system should be financially sound. This ensures that there will be confidence in its banks, that investors’ money in banks is safe and that the country’s system of payments is not disrupted. I read an interesting article in Friday’s edition of The Star under the heading “Banks, societies welcome new legislation”. I quote from it:

What I found important in this article was the commentary of two eminent figures in the business world, including Bob Tucker of the Perm, who is the president of the Association of Building Societies. He said:

The Standard Bank’s chief accountant, Henry Shaw, said the following:

This is the main objective of this legislation before the House.

In order to maintain a financially sound banking system in South Africa, it is essential to have banking legislation which has the objective of ensuring that banking business is operated in a sound way and that banks take the necessary precautions to prevent events that may be to the detriment of their business. These arguments also apply to building societies. Consequently it is important that banks and building societies should have sufficient capital, cash reserves and liquid assets and that they should comply with the financial requirements in the legislation with regard to building societies and banks. As a result, a welcome provision in the amending Bill is that building societies will now have the opportunity to strengthen their capital and reserves, just like banks, by issuing long-term debentures. These provisions will help the mutual building societies in particular, which do not have share capital, to strengthen their reserve position.

A development which is receiving a great deal of attention at the moment is the stronger competition between banks and building societies. Both institutions are competing very strongly in the better marketing of their existing services and in making new services available to clients. Naturally competition is desirable, but on condition that sound banking practices and banking principles are not thrown overboard. This strengthens the argument that banking and building society business should take place within a proper legal framework and subject to Reserve Bank control. At the same time the legislature has a responsibility to ensure that equal competition between these institutions is not hampered by legislation. There are numerous provisions in the Bill which are aimed at bringing legal requirements for banks and building societies in line with one another. An example is the definition of liquid assets … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I request your protection.

Order! I address a last request to hon members to pay more attention to the debate. The hon member may proceed.

There are provisions in the Bill which are aimed at bringing legal requirements for banks and building societies in line with one another. Examples are the definition of liquid assets, the method of calculating the required cash reserves and liquid assets, the provision for the issue of long-term debentures by building societies and a greater degree of flexibility in the way in which building societies can collect funds from the public and use those funds for housing and other loans.

Another matter which was addressed forcefully by the hon member for Riversdal is the question of rationalisation. The opportunity created by the amending Bill for rationalisation in the banking and building society industry is welcomed by us. In terms of this, provision is made for the amalgamation of institutions’ assets and liabilities. The operation of banking and building society business has become very expensive, not only in terms of skilled personnel, but also in terms of computer and other equipment which is necessary in order to offer present-day banking and other services. Consequently it is essential that institutions function as effectively as possible and that duplication be eliminated as far as possible.

We also welcome the extension of the loans that may be granted by building societies. In order to promote home ownership, building societies will now be permitted to include the cost of the registration of property in a mortgage loan which is registered on that property. It will also be possible now for building societies to grant housing loans in Black development areas where plots have not yet been finally surveyed by a surveyor, and to grant mortgage loans on industrial property.

In conclusion I want to mention that from the point of view of drawing up and adjusting legislation such as this legislation, it is a pity that in the case of banks and building societies one works with three Acts. One can only hope that the separate Acts will be combined in the near future so as to simplify matters. We should like to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member Mr Douw. We have had a long afternoon, and I want to thank hon members. As the hon member Mr Douw said, this is complex legislation. I know that he, the hon member for Riversdal and the hon member for Gelvandale spent many hours in preparation in order to discuss everything on one day. That is what always happens towards the end of session.

As I said, Sir, I want to thank hon members sincerely. We came forward with this Bill late in the day, and it is a complex one. As hon members said, however, the banks and the building societies support this Bill. Hardly anyone is illdisposed to us because of this Bill, and the Bill will be passed during this session.

The hon member Mr Douw and the hon member for Riversdal addressed the question of rationalisation. We live in a very interesting world. I do not know whether computers are the cause of this, but the days of walls between building societies and banks and even insurance companies are disappearing, and we have to adjust our legislation to an increasing extent to the function performed by a specific organisation. We find, for example, that building societies are tending toward banking business, whereas the banks are moving into the building societies’ sphere of activity. I do not think that this is a trend that can be stopped by anyone, and our Government must ensure that the man in the street, the depositor, does not suffer in the end as a result of the rationalisation that is taking place.

I want to tell hon members—both speakers mentioned this—that we are in the process of change, and chances are very good that we shall come forward with more changes in the near future. After all, we are dealing with deposit-receiving enterprises, and there are still differences between the two groups of organisations. We are bringing them closer together. [Interjections.]

I am also pleased that the point was made that we must try to prevent ourselves from ending up with one bank or one building society that controls everything.

A very important aspect of this legislation is that we are trying to ensure that competition between financial organisations continues to exist.

Another important aspect is that building societies are being permitted to move in the direction of granting general advances, and that with reference to changes by means of regulation, they can also take funds over less than a year. After all, why must we promulgate new legislation every time? The Reserve Bank, the Treasury and the Department of Finance can look after this. Dynamic aspects of this kind can therefore now be dealt with by means of regulations.

A further important aspect to which the hon member Mr Douw referred is that we are now permitting the building societies to grant assis tance in areas where properties for Blacks are still in the process of being surveyed. Over and above the maximum amount that can be granted for a building loan, the building societies can now also assist with the registration costs.

If hon members ask me about the future, I shall say that we must not lose sight of the function fulfilled by our building societies for many years. We are grateful for that. Naturally this also applies in respect of the banks. The building societies were the poor man’s bank. I began with a building society book, for example, and saved in that way, because I could not afford to go to a bank. Young people used to go to building societies for their first loan when they wanted to have a house built. Although amalgamation is now going to take place, our building societies have an important function to fulfil—they may not forget this—and that is to help our people to own their own homes. I believe that that is extremely important to this country. I am grateful that our building societies are moving across the dividing lines of colour, and are helping anyone who can afford to do so to own his own home.

Sir, I support the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to announce what is common knowledge, namely that I am now a member of the Independent Party of South Africa. In so doing I should like to give my reasons for becoming a member of this party.

I believe that this beautiful land and all its people have a tremendous future, but to realise that future the dignity and worth of every individual and community must be respected and nurtured. This belief guided my involvement in the Sugar Workers’ Trade Union movement at the young age of 21 years in the 1940s. I also took this belief into the Communist Party of South Africa, less because I subscribed to its programme than because it was the only party which accepted South Africans of all races. I also carried this belief into the Liberal Party of the late Alan Paton until it was disbanded in 1968.

Mr Chairman, I respectfully ask whether it is the intention of the hon member to expound on the policies of his new party or merely to make a statement.

Give him a chance!

Order! The Chair has permitted the hon member for Camperdown to make a statement and the hon member may proceed.

In 1983 I joined the Solidarity Party and won the Camperdown constituency in the House of Delegates election in 1984. However, in 1987, with three other colleagues, I was expelled from Solidarity for opposing the coalition of Solidarity with the NPP, and I then joined the PRP. Since the PRP disbanded I have not been a member of any party. I therefore welcomed the creation of the Independent Party under the leadership of Dr Denis Worrall, with its commitment to a nonracial, democratic and free-market South Africa. This is a programme and message which is completely in tune with my fundamental political beliefs. Not only does the Independent Party provide a sense of direction, but it has a very practical approach to the social, economic and political problems which our society faces. Following discussions which I had with Dr Worrall and other leaders of the Independent Party, I accordingly elected to join them. I thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I have no objection, but I wish to place on record my dissension at the manner in which this is being done.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I wish to point out that the sequence of Orders of the Day was agreed upon among the Whips at a Whips’ meeting yesterday at which the hon Whip of the party to which that hon Minister belongs, was present.

Order! I want to make it very clear that there was a proposal before the House, moved by the hon the Minister of the Budget. There were no objections to it and I believe that any other arrangements which many have been made are not binding on this House. This House has decided that precedence be given to this particular item, and we shall proceed.

On a further point of order, Sir: I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to move for precedence after we have completed the first two Orders, as this hon Deputy Minister has to go to another House; failing which, this programme will drag on until late Friday.

Order! I am bound by the decision of the House. The House has decided that precedence be given to this item. There were no objections, and we shall now proceed.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the draft resolution that appears in my name on page 352 of the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) He has made very serious allegations in the House on numerous occasions;
2. (2) in view of (1) above his impartiality is questionable; and
3. (3) the House cannot accept that a person can play the role of accuser and juror simultaneously.

Mr Chairman, this whole motion as set down on the Order Paper gives the whole history of the matter. I feel that the hon member for Reservoir Hills, not on one but on numerous occasions, has not only made allegations, but has accused the House of Delegates on many matters of maladministration. I therefore feel that it would not be fair for him to serve on a committee, since he has accused certain hon members of maladministration at various times and has also asked questions relating to wrongful allocations of business sites as well as service sites.

[Inaudible.]

Therefore he cannot play the role of a juror as well as a member of the committee. I feel that his impartiality in this whole matter is questionable. That is why I move for the adoption of this motion.

Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to this House not to be blind to the honour of hon members of this House. We must not attack the integrity of the hon members of this House.

Hear, hear!

When an hon member is appointed to serve on a select committee he divorces himself from what has transpired or has been said in this House, because the hon member’s greatest responsibility is to serve on that committee with honour and dignity. Therefore I believe that this draft resolution was uncalled for. It does not only reflect on the hon member for Reservoir Hills but it could very well reflect on all hon members of this House. I therefore propose that this motion be removed from the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, I believe that this draft resolution does the hon member for Laudium no credit at all. Not only does it not do him any credit as an hon member of this House but I believe it also does not do him credit as a member of the community to which he belongs.

Why not?

I will explain. [Interjections.] It is very much the same for that hon member to admit to me that his speeches in this House are written by my colleague the hon member for Yeoville, and then for that hon member to go into the other Chamber and to denounce the party to which the hon member for Yeoville belongs. That is why I say it does that hon member no credit, and he cannot deny it.

More fundamental than that is the whole issue of the function of this committee and the integrity of the hon members who have been appointed by this House. Having been a member of many commissions, I believe that it is the evidence heard in those commissions that speaks and members of such a committee merely solicit the truth when asking for evidence. Therefore I believe that only those persons who have something to fear and only those persons who have something to hide will be afraid of the composition of such a commission of inquiry.

Let me say something else. We all know that sitting almost parallel to this House Committee is a commission of inquiry which was appointed by the hon the State President. I believe that commission will be looking at similar evidence. The point is therefore simply this: The evidence will in any case speak for itself both in the James Commission as well as in the House Committee that has been appointed by this House. I say that unless one has something to hide, one has nothing to fear. Unless the hon member for Laudium has something to hide—I am not saying that he does—he has nothing to fear about the composition of the House Committee. If I recall correctly, the hon member himself refused to serve on that House Committee. Why did he refuse to serve on the House Committee?

I never refused to serve on the committee.

The hon member tells me that he did not refuse.

He is serving on it.

Well, then I am pleased that he is serving on it. [Interjections.] Then he must stop casting aspersions on his hon colleagues on the House Committee. If he serves on that committee where he can observe the hon member for Reservoir Hills perform his functions as a member of that committee, can he honestly tell this House that the hon member for Reservoir Hills is not a fit and proper person to serve on that committee? He does not answer, and that speaks for itself.

Silence is consent.

The hon member for Moorcross is quite right in saying that silence is consent. I want to say to him that it is about time that he too should look honestly at himself in the mirror. I believe that he too should look at the party to which he belongs and I think he should do something about it. [Interjections.] He can start by speaking to his hon colleagues and discharging the draft resolution before the House. I thank you.

Mr Chairman, we have a very competent person in this House who has made very valuable contributions in the past. He is a very learned man and a legal person by profession. I see no reason for the hon member to be discharged from the House Committee. He has sworn an oath and, as such, I cannot imagine that a worthy person such as the hon member for Reservoir Hills will do anything adverse in deciding on any issue. I therefore move as an amendment:

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Baig, M Y; Collakoppen, S; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Nadasen, P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Pillay, C; Rampersadh, H) appeared on one side,

Question negatived and words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr M Bandulalla agreed to (National Peoples Party dissenting).

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: “That Mr P T Poovalingam, MP, be retained on the House Committee that is investigating allegations of maladministration.”

Order! May I make an appeal to hon members that we proceed with Order No 1.

Mr Chairman, the order for which I am seeking precedence is a very simple one and should not take very long.

Order! I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that we finish Orders Nos 1 and 2. The hon the Deputy Minister is here and he has another committee meeting.

Mr Chairman, the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill is a very important one as far as the reform initiatives of the hon the State President and the Government is concerned. It deals largely with the issue of the municipal elections which are to take place in October for all communities and it sets the pace regarding various matters relating to the election.

Firstly there are certain consequential amendments to the Act itself. Wherever the word “Minister” appeared before, it has been replaced with “Administrator”. Likewise the title of the Director-General has been replaced with that of the Provincial Secretary. The point is that as far as the machinery for elections is concerned, the provinces will take care of these elections and therefore it will be of importance for the Administrator, the Provincial Secretary and the provincial department to run and supervise the elections.

The Bill came before the joint committee where it was very carefully considered. For the major part this specific investigation by the committee was chaired by Dr Van Rensburg, who has now retired from the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record our thanks and appreciation to Dr Van Rensburg for the work that he has done, not only on this Bill but also on various others. He has now retired and subsequently the chairmanship of the committee rests with our hon Deputy Minister. This hon Deputy Minister has also proved to be a very able person and as chairman of the committee he has dealt with this Bill in a competent manner.

As far as we are concerned the Bill has received the attention of the committee and a lot of amendments were considered. All of the amendments relating to this particular Bill were of a reasonable nature and I am satisfied that the Bill received the adequate attention of the committee. I also want to place on record our thanks to the law advisers and officials—in particular to the law adviser who has been dealing with this Bill, Mr Len Dekker. He is now gaining the stature of one of the great law advisers insofar as Bills on constitutional development are concerned. I believe we do appreciate his services for clearing up any issue that members of the committee do not have clarity on. From this side of the House the Peoples Party of South Africa really appreciates this measure and in principle we agree to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member Mr Thaver that this is an important Bill, particularly in this period of reform. I also wish to add my compliments to the department for the introduction of these interestin g and very important Bills.

This Bill will serve to help in the preparation for the general municipal elections to be held on 26 October 1988, when some 1 810 councillors will be elected for about 259 Black local authorities. Certain inadequacies in the principal Act, which are now being corrected, have been identified. Inter alia the right to vote is extended to include not only full ownership but also a right of leasehold and a site permit. This will ensure that more people are likely to go to the polls and it will create a larger interest amongst every community concerned to participate in all municipal elections.

An important aspect is that these Bills are intended towards a more democratic society. Section 7(3)(b) is inserted to cope with the situation where an elected councillor fails to accept his office or refuses to fulfil his duties of office. The Administrator now has the right to remove such a member from his office and to declare that a vacancy exists.

The other aspect is that in the present circumstances, while the Government of the day is taking these initiatives, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance which does not allow a free election on a particular day, there is a safety measure built in. Circumstances may dictate that an election for one or more councils be postponed. The insertion of section 7 provides the right to postpone such an election. With this, I also want to compliment my colleague and his Ministry for this excellent Bill. Accordingly I support it.

Mr Chairman, whilst we on this side of the House support the measure that has come before us in order to have the October 1988 elections take place in a manner which allows the Black community sufficient voting rights, it is important for me to say that we would like to see the day in South Africa—and the hon the Minister was reminded of this in the standing committee—when we have one electoral Bill which will encompass all the rules and regulations throughout the country and which will include all the communities.

It is sad that the Bill which we intended to have brought before this House last year has not even been forthcoming this year for some reason, a Bill which would have ensured that one electoral Act would have been applicable to the whole community. I should like the hon the Minister of Local Government in this House to take note of the fact that we were told in the Committee that this Bill was now being held by the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in order for them to consider some of the objections they have. I think the sooner that Bill comes before this House, the sooner we will have one set of laws for all sections of the community. As we have made clear, we would like the Black community to have the same rights and what this Bill does, is amend the existing law to include them so that they may qualify to vote in October 1988.

There were only one or two aspects that we were unhappy about and I am very happy that the hon the Deputy Minister, who is now the chairman of that committee, and the officials and the law adviser were able to accept our objections. Our objections related to the need to ensure that the Black community was given a fair say in this Bill, and we were glad that they were able to accept that. I also understand that one or two clauses have been held back, and the hon the Minister was very accommodating so that this matter could be addressed once again when the new electoral Act comes about.

I would like to make a further point. A very important aspect was accommodated, and this related to the fact that if anyone owed any money, he could possibly be disqualified from voting. We were happy that an amendment was made to the Bill in that the type of money one owed was specified. It has now been made clear that the money concerned will be in terms of rent that one owes as well as interest and other matters. Consequently a local authority will not be able to summarily disqualify one from voting on account of any particular amount that is owing.

One other aspect relates to ownership. In fact, we have what is called a leasehold right and it has been spelt out how a person will qualify. Finally, there are some consequential amendments whereby the Administrator now takes over from the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and the role of the Administrator in each province is spelt out.

We support this Bill in the hope that next year we shall see one Bill for all the people in South Africa from the local government point of view. We hope that it will be a Bill which will give the same privileges to the Black community and allow them to enjoy the same rights because they may now own property and I do not see any reason for withholding a Bill of that nature. However, because of the urgency of this matter, we support this Bill with the amendments.

Mr Chairman, we find it interesting that the two political parties which constantly say that they are opposed to racially organised local authorities should simply support the Bill without any reservation. The hon member for Red Hill belongs to a party which says that it does not believe in having apartheid at the local authority level and the hon member for Stanger, who is the chief spokesman for Solidarity, constantly reiterates that point of view. Yet the hon member for Red Hill simply went along tamely without pointing out the defects.

As to the PPSA, of course, one cannot really say much about them in this respect because they are relatively new. I have not seen their programme of principles or policy so one cannot really criticize them until such time as they formulate their policies and principles.

However, the behaviour of the Official Opposition is somewhat surprising. We of the PFP do not support this Bill and I want to make that clear. We do not support it because support for this Bill inevitably means that one accepts the concept of Black local authorities. We do not accept the concept of Black, Indian, Coloured or European local authorities. We believe that local authorities must be entirely on a non-racial basis and indeed that that will come about. The only question is when and how. How it will come about is important.

However, this Bill does make certain marginal advances over the status quo and whilst we cannot support it, we will not obstruct it either.

Stand up and be a man.

We all stood up a long time ago.

The hon member Mr R S Nowbath says: “Stand up and be a man.” Unlike the hon member Mr R S Nowbath I have never referred to him in the terms which he used to describe himself which seemed to indicate that he was something less than what he asked me to be. I never said that I was emasculated, but he said that he was.

You are a damned liar if you say that.

Order! Did the hon Mr R S Nowbath say that the hon member for Reservoir Hills was a damned liar?

If he says what he is saying then he is a damned liar.

Order! Did the hon member say that the hon member was a damned liar?

Yes, Mr Chairman, conditionally.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, with great respect to you, is it not the ruling that the hon member should withdraw and apologise?

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon member Mr R S Nowbath loses himself even to the extent of using a swearword. There will come a time soon …

[Inaudible.]

I ignore him with the contempt he deserves. When something is smelly and contemptible one prefers to look the other way and not smell the bad smell.

There will come a time soon, if we are to believe what Government spokesmen have stated, that there will be mixed residential areas. When there are mixed residential areas obviously one cannot have uniracial local authorities. I am not unmindful of the difficulties facing the hon the Deputy Minister and his department in endeavouring to bring about some system of rational development. We are not unmindful of that; we appreciate their difficulties. We also appreciate that if they go as fast as we want them to go then they will be in trouble, and if they are in trouble then it will not be helpful to the country at large. We appreciate that. However, we want to reach a stage in South Africa where a person will be respected as a person regardless of his race, colour or creed.

We believe that we must take this country of ours into a stage where, along with the Dutch Reformed Church, everyone will say that apartheid is a heresy, unchristian and uncivilised. Earlier this afternoon we saw how apartheid is carried to its ultimate absurdity when seating arrangements have to conform to apartheid in the principal legislative assembly in South Africa. It shows that apartheid is wrong; it is evil. It results in such stupidity which again proves that apartheid must be got rid of.

This Bill unfortunately does not move in the direction that we would like to see the country move. Nevertheless it contains some marginal advances, and to the extent that advances are made we welcome those advances. Regrettably, however, we cannot give our support to the Bill as it is framed, because it concerns Black local authorities.

Before I resume my seat I want to remind hon members of this House that a person who is very strong in his condemnation of racially separate local authorities is the hon member for Natal Midlands. It is unfortunate that he is not in this House today; had he been, I am pretty sure that he would repudiate his ally, the hon member for Red Hill, on this particular issue.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Thaver and my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, for their support of this Bill. I should like to add to what the hon member Mr Thaver has said in connection with Dr Van Rensburg, the previous chairman of this committee, who dealt with matters related to this Bill, and others on the standing committee. I should like to add my personal thanks to the hon member Dr Van Rensburg for what he has done in that regard.

As far as the remarks of the hon member for Red Hill are concerned, it is true that the standing committee has advised that we should aim for one electoral Bill for all local authorities in South Africa. That is in fact the intention. The hon member will know that the department has been working along these lines for some years already, but apparently there are various practical problems in reaching that goal. We are currently engaged in looking into that again and it is to be hoped that at some time in the future we shall be able to have one Bill for all local authorities in South Africa as far as elections are concerned. Unfortunately it has not been possible to have this ready before the coming general elections scheduled to take place on 26 October, and for that reason we had to affect certain amendments to the present Act, as the hon member has correctly indicated.

Unfortunately it was necessary for us to consider this Bill on a very urgent basis in the standing committee, and I should like to thank hon members for their co-operation in that regard in making it possible for us to finalise this Bill in the standing committee and bring it before Parliament in the course of this week, in view of the fact that we need certain amendments for the coming general elections which are to take place on 26 October.

The hon member for Red Hill also referred to the fact that we held back certain clauses for later consideration, also in view of the time factor. I believe that those clauses will still have to be considered in due course, but since we need to pass certain other clauses now before the end of this session of Parliament, we had to proceed in this way and again I should like to thank hon members for their co-operation in regard to withholding certain clauses in order to make it possible to proceed with this Bill.

As far as the hon member for Reservoir Hills is concerned, I am not going to take any further the debate that took place earlier this afternoon— namely his debate with Mr Speaker. I shall not refer to that any further. However, what is interesting is that the hon member said that he and his party were opposing this Bill. The question then is naturally whether they oppose these amendments or not.

We do not oppose it: neither can we support it altogether.

Oh well, it is somewhere in between then. What is important is whether that party wants the general municipal elections for Black municipalities to take place on 26 October. That is what is important. If the hon member and his party want these elections to take place on 26 October we need the amendments before the House to be accepted. I would therefore like to ask the hon member to give his attention to this matter and to consider whether he should not support this Bill altogether. The greater part of the Bill before this House deals with the amendments relating to the coming elections. For that reason I would like to ask the hon member to reconsider his position and to support the Bill rather than to oppose it, unless of course, he is against the municipal elections.

Mr Chairman, on a point of explanation: I made it clear that we are not going to oppose the Bill.

Perhaps I misunderstood him then and I thank the hon member for the clarification. I would like to stress the point again that these amendments before us are urgently needed in view of the coming municipal elections. I think we can support it without any further discussion.

Mr Chairman, the change in the short title from the original “special votes” to “prior votes” in the title Prior Votes for Election of Members of Local Government Bodies Bill, is very apt and conveys the real significance of this Bill.

This legislation is intended to facilitate voting over a period of time prior to the polling date. In this case the period is from 16 days prior to the polling date but not later than four days prior to the polling date. For the benefit of hon members who have not acquainted themselves with the Bill the times are: Mondays to Fridays, as from 08h00 to 21h00; and Saturdays and public holidays, as from 08h00 to 17h00, obviously excluding Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day and the Day of the Vow.

With the system of prior votes it is not necessary for those intending to vote to give reasons other than to say that they will be unable to vote on polling day. That is the only explanation that is necessary to cast a prior vote. This, as we all know, will obviate a lot of unpleasantness.

Another very important aspect of the Bill is clause 5. It deals with the identification of voters in the absence of any identity documents. This is a point that we have tendered for quite some time in this House. My only regret is that a voter may still be identified by means of an affidavit given by another voter. What I would have liked to see—this point was canvassed in the joint committee—is that a photograph be attached to the affidavit to identify the voter. Unfortunately— we had to concede this fact—it will be well-nigh impossible to get a photographer to the Black communities in the rural areas who are also going to vote. It will therefore be impossible to obtain photographs to append to the affidavits.

Another aspect deals with the question of secrecy. The list of voters applying for prior votes will not be made available to the general public. Only agents and the candidates will be in a position to obtain these lists for scrutiny. We know of the abuse and misuse during the byelections. In that case special voters were listed. At this stage I want to enlighten the House that clause 10 refers to this particular aspect, and I quote:

The penalties for contravening the Act are stipulated in clause 11, and I quote:

Obviously this will eliminate the intimidation that was rife. It will also allow people to exercise their democratic right to vote and to cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice.

The obvious aim of this Bill is to encourage voters to cast their ballots. This expectation may, with the prior vote system, be realised when it comes to getting registered voters to the polling booths.

The question now arises: Who are these voters? Are they representative of the total population? I say no. We have to ascertain the percentage of the population that is registered as voters for these local government elections.

I do not know if the hon the Minister is aware of the percentage of voters that are registered in the Indian community. I shall not talk about the other communities, but my information is that the voter registration in all Indian areas is negligible compared to the total population. The question arises: Why is this so? I believe that disappointment at the ineffectiveness of local affairs and management committees in representing the community on an equal basis is one of the reasons. The other is the inability of these committees and their representatives to solve one of their most important day-to-day problems, namely housing. It is this area of housing that is going to have a profound effect on the percentage poll in these elections.

Another question that arises is: What happens to the residents of Hillbrow and Mayfair? They are without representation. This may be the ideal opportunity to create history. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is credited in many circles as being the architect of a new and pragmatic approach to our problems. I believe this could be manna from heaven. These areas could have direct representation on the city councils, because the creation of separate management committees in Hillbrow, Mayfair and Central Johannesburg would be futile. The Lenasia Management Committee, which to a certain extent is the caretaker of the affairs of residents of Central Johannesburg, is not a worthwhile exercise, either.

The areas of Mayfair, Hillbrow and even central Johannesburg are cosmopolitan, not only in character, but in that the thinking of the majority of their inhabitants is progressive and definitely not in keeping with the outmoded concepts of apartheid. When this happens and we have a stable situation, the hon the Deputy Minister himself will no longer fear walking the streets of Mayfair, because he will be more than welcome there.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is reported in the Press as having said in Cairo, and I quote: “I did not realise how close we were”, when referring to his first meeting with the Egyptians. It is a pun, and that it may be, but I would nevertheless like to say to fellow-South Africans of all persuasions: Let us find each other and acknowledge one another’s existence and democratic right to a peaceful existence. We are close to each other in more ways than one.

I appeal to the extraparliamentary forces that while we respect their right not to register as voters and not to participate in the coming elections, they should allow those who wish to vote and to exercise their democratic right, to vote without intimidation. To respect that right is to gain respect for themselves. Notwithstanding expectations for the future and the prevailing shortcomings in the existing format of local government elections. We would rather have a common voters’ roll, or at least, to commence with, direct representation on local authorities, city councils, etc.

We of the Peoples Party of South Africa support this Bill, which we consider to be a necessary measure to ensure an intimidation-free election and also a forerunner to a unified system of elections leading to a common voters’ roll in a free and fair election for all citizens of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, following the hon member Mr Seedat, I would like to say that we understand that we are in a period of transition, and as such—as we have continuously mentioned with regard to Government structures—the most important government structure is the local government structure. In that regard, to bring about a total awareness within the community of those who will participate in the local government structures cannot be overemphasised.

The hon member Mr Seedat mentioned intimidation. We are aware of the forces in this country which are at work when it comes to exercises of this nature. That is why we must be able to be brave enough and timeously give respect where it is due. In that regard I again want to compliment my colleague, together with the respective departments, for introducing this vital and important measure in this Bill. Whereas we have previously regarded these as special votes, the term is now merely being changed. This is intended to effect a free, democratic election in local government.

Not all the communities in our areas are aware of participation. We understand that local affairs and management committees in many instances do not have sufficient rights, but at the same time we must be able to negotiate whatever rights these local authorities require to be able to be effective. In doing so, this exercise of special votes is something which we must encourage. I also want to state that in accordance with the importance attached to the forthcoming municipal elections of 26 October 1988, and as a result of long-standing experiences in this field, I feel that this measure will be extremely beneficial to the whole population.

I would also like perhaps to make an appeal to my colleague that we should even look at the possibility of a mobile polling booth to help voters in different areas. We should ease their difficulties rather than having them leave their areas as a result of intimidation. With this I want to give my full support to this measure and compliment the department for this excellent introduction, which will fall in line with Parliamentary elections.

Mr Chairman, this Bill has undergone a metamorphosis before becoming known as the Prior Votes for Election of Members of Local Government Bodies Bill. At first it was introduced as the Special Votes for Election of Members of Local Government Bodies Bill.

We are all aware of the problems of those who were elected to local affairs committees, management committees and the tricameral Parliament. During the time of their election a lot of intimidation took place and many obstacles were placed in the way of those who were honouring their objectives in the way of elections. In order to effect a free and democratic election in local government, as many voters as possible of all population groups must be enabled to record their votes impartially and without fear. This was envisaged particularly in view of a decision taken by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on 31 March 1988. It was then unanimously decided that there should be a prior voting system. I think somewhere in America there is voting that continues for a full week or at least some days before a final count of votes is taken. By the looks of things we are moving very close to America in this respect. However, taking into account that the co-ordinating council is made up of people of all race groups—Whites, Coloured, Indians and Blacks—I feel that this is something we should support. It is the wish of the members of the council who represent various communities and they desire this extended voting period.

This Bill determines, inter alia, the requirements which a voter has to comply with to be able to record a prior vote. The manner in which the prior vote will be recorded, the place and the time of polling and all the election documents shall be dealt with. Many sentiments were expressed, particularly about the manner of polling. Amongst others it is stated that if a voter is unable to vote, and I quote from clause 5:

This engaged the members of the joint committee considerably, for this has led to many abuses in our previous elections—particularly the by-elections of the tricameral Parliament. Many of the hon members in this very House have expressed disgust in the manner in which this was abused. However, the committee, after much discussion, found that this is in the principal Act, the Electoral Act, and therefore we cannot amend it here. This is only enabling legislation for prior voting.

Until such times as the Electoral Act is amended and adequate provision is made to obviate this particular clause whereby many abusers were encountered in the previous by-election, I cannot see my way clear to acknowledging that this electoral Bill puts across a proper perspective of what we desire of an election. Therefore, whilst I have no problem in supporting this Bill, I would ask the hon the Minister concerned to ensure that this section in the Electoral Act is adequately amended so that we do not have this sort of abuse.

At the same time, some protection is afforded by clause 11 in respect of the abuse under clause 5. It reads as follows:

Whilst I appreciate this deterrent clause in regard to the abuse, I am hopeful that the Electoral Act will be adequately amended. There should be some sort of identification in the way of a photograph of a person who is not in possession of an identity document. We on this side of the House have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, taking up the theme which the hon member for Bayview quite correctly made much of, I want to say something about the abuses in the by-elections, particularly the one I know something about, namely the Tongaat by-election of 26 November of last year. The abuses in that by-election were quite astonishing.

I have made reference in this House to the lady living in Norway, who never left Norway, but who apparently came to Tongaat on 24 November and cast a special vote, having been identified by someone else as being a registered voter. It was a miracle. She came all the way from Norway, without leaving Norway! She actually came into the Verulam Magistrate’s Court and cast a special vote.

Then there was the case of the gentleman who works for the Simba Chips factory in Port Elizabeth and who was in Port Elizabeth—he never left Port Elizabeth—on the date on which his vote was cast for him by identification by someone else. The evidence has been made available to the Police. As a matter of fact, it was made available to them as early as 23 January 1988 and I happen to know that the Police are still investigating it. Further investigations will uncover even more interesting situations.

The further investigations will uncover the case of the gentleman who lives in Tongaat and works in Tongaat but who, about 10 days prior to the election, stated that he would not be in Tongaat on the date of the election and cast a special vote, but who indeed, on the date of the election, was in Tongaat throughout the 24-hour period.

It is possible. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Moorcross says it is possible. I bow to his superior knowledge, Sir.

He is a fundi! [Interjections.]

He is a fundi in these matters. [Interjections.] In the Tongaat by-election much was made of the 33% poll, of which I understand 30% consisted of special votes, or something of that order.

The intimidation situation and boycott syndrome has provided an excellent cover—a beautiful camouflage—for those who cheat, lie and commit fraud and forgery in these by-elections. That is a caveat that has to be sounded all the time.

The strange thing is that the crimes were committed in Tongaat in the month of November 1987 and it is taking the Police such a long time to bring the criminals to trial. They say they are still investigating. However, all Mrs Tutu did was to fail to pay some petty parking fine, or something like that, and unfortunately she did not appear in court. What happened to her? She was treated like a common criminal. The fact that she is Mrs Tutu is neither here nor there.

I cannot quite accept what the hon member for Bayview said when he said that there was separate voting, or voting over a number of days, in America. If he meant separate countries in South America I would agree with that, but certainly not in the USA. In the USA they have the fantastic phenomenon of electronic voting, but in South America, for example in Brazil, I understand that they have voting spread over several days. We see no objection in principle to voting being spread over several days because this is precisely what this Bill is about. The prior vote, with respect, is not to be confused with special votes as provided for in the existing Electoral Act. The special votes can be exercised only in certain particular circumstances. Prior votes may be exercised at the will of the voter. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, following others I want to say that this Bill before us is one which will enable people to cast their votes before election day. I fully appreciate the difficulties the authorities are placed in and this is one way of getting a democratic election going.

What bothers me is clause 5 of this Bill. I should like to elaborate on the abuse of the identification of voters by affidavit. We have experienced several by-elections in this House—in fact we have held four by-elections—where special votes were abused to a very great extent. That leads me to ask a question: What is the primary function of Parliament? It is plainly to obviate, to impede and to suspend corrupt action, not to encourage it. This Bill actually encourages it. No member of any Government, Ministry or department can tell me that they are unaware of the corruption that takes place with regard to special votes. This being the case, I cannot understand or accept the explanation given by the hon member for Bayview that this provision exists in the principal Act for other population groups in South Africa.

Therefore this Bill cannot carry that restriction in terms of which it will forbid identification by affidavit. However, the authorities—the Minister and his department—saw fit to spend months on this; I was on the first standing committee on this Bill, where special votes were mentioned, and those hon members who are sitting there with grins on their faces all objected to the term. I was a prime objector to the term “special votes” since I call it an advance voting system. However, I suppose they do not like suggestions coming from the House of Delegates, so they called it “prior votes”. There is no difference between “prior” and “advance”, though the word “advance” would have been more appropriate.

However, my main concern is that clause 5 of this Bill encourages corruption, and the Government is aiding and abetting this. That is indisputable and no one can defend it—neither the Minister nor anyone else can dispute that argument of mine, because if this Bill was drafted and introduced in Parliament it would be a simple matter to amend that particular provision in the original Act itself. I am sure they would have encountered no objections to amending that particular provision in the Electoral Act which provides for the identical means of identification by affidavit.

What happens in this regard? If we consider the Tongaat by-election or the Eastern Transvaal by-election, and particularly the Brickfield election in Durban, there are people who are determined not to vote; they tell canvassers: “Get out of my sight. I am not interested in the tricameral system.” These canvassers note that voter’s number and address and instead of Mr Naidoo they take Mr Moodley and Mr Pillay. They then declare: “Yes, this is Mr Moodley living at 148 Brickfield Road.” That is the way votes are cast. That is why there has been an increased percentage poll in the House of Delegates by-elections. This is not a fair reflection of the increase in votes cast. The increase in votes reflects corruption and efforts to obtain an artificial, inflated support so that it can be said that the people are now considering accepting the tricameral system.

That is going down in Hansard.

That is recorded, and if anyone wants to challenge me, let them submit it to a committee of enquiry or the criminal courts, because I know of a certain person who never went to the polling booths and never cast a special vote, but his name appears as having cast a special vote. What machinery is employed by unscrupulous candidates and unscrupulous agents in that regard? It is the provisions of clause 5 of this Bill.

One good thing about this Bill is the following: Every Bill that has come from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning has given the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning unlimited powers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank those hon members who supported this Bill, namely the hon member Mr Seedat and the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, as well as the hon member for Bayview.

I should like to emphasise that this Bill was the result of a unanimous decision of the Co-ordinatin g Council on 25 March of this year. Serving on this Co-ordinating Council are bodies such as the provincial governments, the own affairs administrations, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, the Association of Urban Councils of South Africa and the ad hoc committee for management committees. I mention this because I think it is important that this Bill in fact came into being on account of that decision by the Co-ordinating Council on 25 March. The intention was to serve all communities through this Bill to make it possible for communities to utilise this Bill to help people cast a free vote in the municipal elections on 26 October.

That is the aim of this Bill. It was emphasised this afternoon and also in other debates outside that this Bill aimed at putting those persons who wanted to intimidate people in the municipal elections in a difficult position. It is true that this Bill will certainly play a role as far as that is concerned. I would like to make the point that the aim of the Bill is in the first instance to make it possible for every individual who has the right to cast a vote in the municipal elections to do so. There may be many reasons that prevent persons from casting their vote on that particular day—it is only one day. We must accept the fact that many persons, especially in the Black communities, have problems because of their working hours, transport etc. to come to the polling stations between the hours of 7 am and 9 pm. To accommodate those persons it was thought necessary by the Co-ordinating Council to make the necessary provisions and they recommended that we should consider such a Bill. Other alternatives were also considered at that stage but a Bill of this nature which makes provision for a prior vote was considered by the Co-ordinating Council to be the best alternative as a countermeasure for all the possible problems.

I want to emphasise the fact that this Bill is not only aimed at the people in the Black communities—it is there for everybody to use. I think it is only right that we should have such a measure in order to ensure that it is possible for everybody to cast a vote in that election.

The hon member for Camperdown, the hon member for Reservoir Hills and also to a certain extent the hon member for Bayview referred to the fact that this measure could lead to abuses. The hon member for Camperdown argued strongly that this would actually encourage corruption. I am sorry, but a Bill like this will not encourage corruption. If people want to take part in corruption, they will do so in any case, with or without these measures. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that. This Bill will not encourage corruption—it will rather prevent corruption to a certain extent. The electoral officers who take care of the elections will have to be satisfied with the identification of the voter.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the Deputy Minister if the electoral officers will be in a position to identify and to know each and every voter in the constituency?

If the hon member will look at clause 1 he will see the definition of an “identity document”. This gives the electoral officer the opportunity to satisfy himself with regard to the identity of the voter who wants a prior vote. [Interjections.] It is of course the obligation of the electoral officer to satisfy himself of the voter’s identity.

I want to add that if there are any contraventions of any of the measures contained in this Bill certain penalties can be applied. Hon members must just look at clause 11. I think the amount specified for fines and the term of imprisonment will certainly scare people off and ensure that there is no corruption with regard to the prior vote, as suggested by the hon member for Camperdown and other hon members.

I would like to argue that sufficient proof has been provided to ensure that neither corruption nor any other abuse will be applied in this case. However, I again wish to emphasise that this Bill is not going to prevent corruption. Nothing can prevent corruption if people have that kind of intention.

I would also like to point out to hon members that this Bill only provides for a prior vote in the area of the local authority concerned or an adjacent local authority. In other words, this Bill does not deal with special votes which may apply in the case of a Parliamentary general election. There one can actually cast a special vote anywhere in the country. The reason is obvious. One will not have an editorial list for particular local authorities all over the country. For that reason this cannot be applied to the whole country.

In this regard I would like to argue that that places a further limitation on the question of abuse, corruption or whatever the case may be. We are looking at a general election for local authorities on 26 October for all communities. That would include some 1 106 local authorities nationwide. Some 7 569 candidates will participate in these elections. I think for this reason we had to think about the possibility of creating a voting system like the one that is provided for in the Bill.

In conclusion I would like to emphasise that any voter who would like to participate, wherever he may be, is entitled to vote for a local authority. I hope this answers the hon member Mr Seedat’s question. In order to be able to vote, a person has to be listed as a voter. I would like to use this opportunity to encourage people to register for that purpose. They must ensure that they are on the voters’ roll of the various local authorities, wherever they may be registered. They should do this timeously, otherwise they will not be included on the voters’ roll and this would mean that they would be unable to vote. Time is fast running out and it is therefore very important that we encourage people to register, as long as they still have time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper:

I wish to place on record that the impartiality of this hon gentleman is questionable. As we all know, the hon member Mr Thaver was a member of the NPP. He has now changed parties and is a member of the Peoples Party of South Africa.

He has made open allegations that as a member of the House Committee he would see to it that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was found responsible for maladministration. He also said that he would see to it that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council lost his position in the Ministers’ Council. This in fact is a verdict in itself and I therefore feel that he is not a person of unbiased views and cannot serve on this committee. A chairman of a committee of this House should be objective and uphold the tenets of natural justice. The hon member Mr Thaver has failed in this respect.

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker is a new member of Parliament, who has just come to this House. I think this is the second time that he is making a contribution.

This is not his second speech.

Perhaps it is his third speech, but what he said today is nothing but nonsensical. When the NPP selected the hon member Mr Thaver to serve on the House Committee, they did so because they felt that he was a worthy and competent person and he had the ability to do it.

I cannot imagine on which side of the House an hon member should be seated in order to give a fair judgement. Can hon members see the wisdom in the statement that an hon member on this side could be coerced to do something and to give a wrong judgement? Is this House to understand that the finding of the House Committee in the recent investigation into the payment of a cheque to the NPP during the Tongaat election was not a fair judgement? I would like to know if the judgement was in favour of the other side, whether they would then have been satisfied with the hon member Mr Thaver as chairman of this House Committee.

Yes. [Interjections.]

I think we have to speak in this House as representatives of the people. We are all under oath to do justice. There should be no corruption and nobody should be coerced to find someone else in a position to give a wrong decision or judgement. We have the greatest confidence in the hon member Mr Thaver.

He was appointed by the NPP too.

He was appointed by the NPP and we had no objection because we, too, were able to judge his capabilities and therefore we gave him our full support. We have no doubt that he has the ability and it is not for us now to question his integrity. He has done a fantastic job regarding the recent report which was submitted. I think he handled it very well and we have no doubt that he will play the same important role which he played in the last House Committee.

For that reason I would like to move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, I must confess this takes me by surprise. [Interjections.] I merely want to say that the hon member Mr Thaver was appointed to that select committee and as chairman of that committee by the unanimous decision of this House and not by the NPP, as the hon member for Havenside unfortunately and mistakenly suggested. It was done unanimously by this House. The hon member for Eastern Transvaal who, like the hon member for Moorcross, obviously is an authority on special votes … [Interjections.]

I am flattered.

He did not give a tittle of evidence in support of his motion. All he said was that the hon member Mr Thaver used to be a member of the NPP and that he has now left that party. I think the world of course congratulates the hon member Mr Thaver on his wisdom in leaving that party. He was a member of that party right from its inception.

He was nominated.

He was hand-picked by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

He knew enough of what was going on to be persuaded to leave the NPP together with 10 of his colleagues. When people discover things and act according to their conscience, they have to be congratulated.

However, this Committee was instructed to inquire into the acquisition of the Odeon Cinema and all allegations of corruption and maladministration, etc. As the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has, in this particular respect, correctly pointed out, this inquiry is not directed at any one person or at any particular member of any particular political party. It is directed towards finding out what the truth is. I do not think that anyone who has no fear of the truth should object to the truth being uncovered.

Unfortunately an hon member of this House, to wit the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has made statements to the Press which have been published by them. It would seem to me that those statements go beyond—not just close to, but beyond—what certainly constitutes serious and grave contempt of Parliament. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council claimed that the report of a previous select committee was suspect. He claimed that it had not been approved by the hon member for Lenasia Central. That claim is false, because that hon member certainly approved of the whole of that report except for one small portion. Other claims of a very grave nature were also made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I trust that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is listening, because it certainly behoves him to collect all published reports relating to this matter and to submit these to Mr Speaker for such action as he may deem necessary to be taken in terms of Mr Speaker’s repeated statement that the dignity of Parliament must be upheld. To submit such reports is certainly a function of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

We must bear in mind that that report was adopted by this House. Therefore, it was not merely a report of a committee; it was a report of the whole House and that attack upon it is a very serious misdemeanour, if I may use that expression. Unfortunately, the hon member for Eastern Transvaal, instead of addressing himself to that kind of thing … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, part of this Bill deals with the pension rights of the former Vice State President. The former Vice State President’s re-entry was not foreseen and hence no provision was made for this. This Bill now regularises the situation by resolving that his pension be not more than the highest salary he received as a Minister. The Bill also amends the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act of 1963, which provides for the Minister of National Education, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to make necessary regulations.

The Bill amends some further definitions. The benefits under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act of 1973 have now been extended to all races. The Black Compensation Fund has been abolished and the Fund’s rights and liabilities transferred to the Mines and Works Compensation Fund.

The most contentious clause in this Bill was clause 4, and I want to read from the original clause 4:

I see this clause as an insidious trick whereby the retirement age of 55 years only applies to the House of Assembly.

The House of Delegates’ component of the joint committee—and I must add here that some PFP members also gave us support—vociferously opposed this clause. We argued that the same should apply to all races. It was only earlier this year that I pointed out that a motion was approved by the House of Delegates that Indians should be given the option to retire at the age of 55 years. Furthermore, I pointed out that the House of Delegates had a surplus of teachers, many of whom were still unemployed, and retirement at 55 years could result in those qualified teachers being afforded employment. Some of them are walking the streets.

The House of Assembly requested that we draw up an own affairs Bill. We rejected that suggestion. We informed the joint committee that that would be an exercise in futility as we anticipated the Treasury’s answer that there would be no funds. I pointed out that if the other two Houses and the Blacks were not accommodated then the Whites had to make the sacrifice too.

We adjourned twice on that day and eventually the experts agreed that an amendment be passed. The relevant amendment is:

Order! Is the hon member moving an amendment, or is he speaking on the Bill?

Mr Chairman, I am not moving an amendment, I am reading the amendment as adopted.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The Indian Education Act, No 61 of 1965, prescribes that teachers who have joined the profession before June 1956 may retire at the age of 60 years and that those who joined after that date retire at the age of 65 years. I therefore humbly request the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates to amend that Act so as to allow teachers the option of retiring at the age of 55 years. As I said, it should be optional. With the amendment as read out I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, apart from a few tangible amendments in this Bill, its aim is to adjust certain definitions; to regulate the pension rights of persons in the education service of the departments responsible for education; and to substitute certain obsolete expressions and definitions.

An important feature of this Bill, as enunciated by the hon member for Allandale, is clause 4, in which a section (9A) is substituted to allow the teachers in the employ of the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates and House of Representatives to attain a similar retirement age to that of the House of Assembly. We see this as an important feature because it took some time before this joint committee could influence or persuade the members of the committee, particularly the legal component of the committee, to incorporate this amendment. Many difficulties were put forward by the legal team in the Joint Committee on Pensions, but eventually it was unanimously decided that this amendment be incorporated in the Bill. As such, we have this amendment as it has been included in this Bill:

We now appear to have some parity as far as the retirement age is concerned. In this respect I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates to endeavour to introduce an amendment in respect of this condition of service in the Department of Education in the House of Delegates, since in section 6 of Act No 57 of 1973, in which is elucidated what retirement ages should be, the following is stated:

I shall leave out everything up to paragraph (d)—

I am particularly concerned about the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Delegates, and I ask the hon the Minister accordingly to introduce an amendment in regard to the “conditions of service” in the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Delegates so that we shall have parity as far as the retirement age of all the Houses of Parliament are concerned. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Education and Training is also included in this Bill. With these words we take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am in agreement with the main intentions outlined in the Bill, and I also agree with the various hon members who have already spoken this afternoon. The provision as outlined in the Bill is made absolutely clear in the amendment, and it also makes provision for a channel of communication and consultation for the hon the Minister of National Education.

Overall, the intention of the Bill is a good one, and I have listened very carefully to what both hon members had to say. I am also very happy that the hon member for Allandale had brought to my notice the serious anomaly that existed in clause 4. When we discussed it we found that there was something radically wrong with that clause. With advice, this has been amended, and I am happier for it.

However, one must sound a word of warning that the educators must not get the wrong or erroneous impression that they can now all retire at the age of 55 years, until such time as we have the finance to provide for this kind of retirement and until such time as the House of Delegates also amends its regulations. Therefore, lest it be misconstrued outside this Chamber, I should like it to be understood that the provisions made here are for people under certain circumstances who may be retired with the consent of the hon the Minister or other officials with delegated powers in the department of the hon the Minister.

Is the hon the Minister saying that although the Assembly is prepared to give the funds, his department is going to procrastinate and …

I am not saying that by any means. Here again I want to sound a warning that must not be misconstrued either. I am not saying that the House of Assembly can make the provisions and retire their teachers from today while we must hold back our teachers until finances are available. The finances must be available for all teachers at the same time. Whatever dispensation is given to one group of teachers, must be the same for all teachers. I think we made it sufficiently clear in clause 4. I am also aware of the fact that we made it clear at a meeting of the Ministers of Education where this matter was dealt with in detail. While the idea was entertained fully, the want of finances at the present time caused it to be shelved until such time as it would be convenient to look at it again. It has been left at that stage.

I am aware of the fact that teachers have made applications from time to time with regard to the burnt-out clause. They felt that they were useless in the classroom situation and that they were unable to give their very best. Under such circumstances they had to be retired to make way for people who are virile and full of life, and who would be able to do justice to the task of education in the classroom situation. However, until it is possible for us to change the regulations because of the availability of finance, the retirement age of 60 and 65 years will be retained. This is unfortunate, but we hope that the day will dawn when we will be able to retire our teachers at the age of 55 years, because of the honourable and responsible type of work that teachers have to shoulder in the classroom situation. We support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have always told the hon member for Allandale that I appreciate the manner in which he makes his presentations to this House. I enjoy the language he uses and his diction, but it is very rare for me to enjoy the contents of his speeches. Today, however, I would like to congratulate the hon member for the delivery, the diction and the content of his speech. It was an excellent speech. [Interjections.]

I also feel that the hon member and his colleagues on the standing committee did a very good job in getting rid of the back-handed colour bar which was introduced into the Bill. It was apparently designed to get rid of racial discrimination. This is like the person who is told to feed a hungry beggar but the person who is dishing up, as we say in South Africa, or serving the food, is very reluctant to serve generous helpings. That is how the Bill was drafted but thankfully that nonsense was got rid of. We are in a position to say that the Bill itself is an improvement and certainly seems to give credence to a promise made by the hon the State President—I think it was at the beginning of last year—that all legislation would be looked at and where there was evidence of racial discrimination, it would be got rid of. I think he used the term “hurtful” discrimination. We hope of course that the subcommittee of the Cabinet which is looking at the legislation will also look at the Constitution as such in which there is still a great deal of “hurtful” discrimination.

With regard to the Bill, I want to say that previously pension benefits were only available to members of the White group and members of the half-White group. The others were specifically excluded. It just shows what kind of country we had. However, this Bill gives us some hope for the future. It seems to give us an indication of the kind of country that we shall be going into.

Having said that, I want to take up a refrain which really is the “property” of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has on several occasions in this House and in speeches outside this House, put forward a plea for a compulsory national pension scheme. We have compulsory unemployment insurance. We have compulsory workmen’s compensation. There is no reason why there should not be a compulsory national pension scheme, so that every person is obliged to make a contribution and would qualify for a pension on reaching pensionable age.

I realise that as a result of disinformation spread by the ANC and Cosatu, there was some objection on the part of certain Black trade unions to a proposal made a little while ago for a pension scheme which would assist Blacks generally. However, in the interests of the common people of South Africa, the hon the Minister should please look at that again. Certainly, if the hon the Minister can come forward with a Bill that would provide for such a scheme which would be to the benefit of all the people in the country, every hon member in this House would give it his support. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am fully cognisant of the fact that the hon the Minister is in a hurry. I will therefore reduce the five minutes that were allocated to me to three and a half minutes! I want to thank hon members who served on the committee for having made the necessary efforts to improve the Bill before us. I would also like to give recognition to the hon the Minister and his administrative department in being so accommodating with regard to the many amendments that were advanced. I welcome the Bill.

I would like to make reference to the muchneeded provision in the Bill with regard to the retirement age. According to clause 4 of this Bill, it would now be possible for a person holding a permanent post with the department, to exercise the option of retirement on reaching the age of 55 years. For a long time, teachers—particularly in the House of Delegates—have been requesting the reduction of the retirement age, and I can understand their aspirations. Many of them have worked under desperate and trying conditions. Some of them have earned poor salaries while striving hard to improve their qualifications. At present, many of these older teachers are in the twilight of their careers.

This amendment ushers a sigh of relief, despite the fact that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture indicated that it would not be feasible to implement this immediately. I agree with him, but we need not be despondent. I think the House of Delegates must strive hard to find money. It is, however, pleasing that the provision has been made. Teachers who reach the age of 55 years, will be able to exercise the option to retire once this Act is implemented.

I know that if there is no money, one cannot employ teachers. That is the position in which we find ourselves at the moment. I want to go so far as to say that there are thousands of teachers in the White sector who have been in the service of the provincial administration. Some of them have been taken on by the various own affairs departments, and they enjoy the privilege of an early retirement. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that our teachers enjoy these facilities not a day later than their White counterparts. With these words, I welcome the Bill.

Order! I want to inform the Whips that due to some confusion the list has been altered and as a result the hon member for Cavendish was afforded a speaking opportunity. I wish to apologise to the Whips. This will not happen again.

Mr Chairman, to start with, I would like to refer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The way he uses the English language is something of which to take cognizance. He coined a new phrase when he said we were busy with a “back-handed colour bar” issue. We are removing that. I can assure him that we will try our utmost. We are committed in this Parliament to removing all “back-handed colour bar” legislation.

I think the issue of the national pension scheme is a subject for a later debate. I wish to thank hon members for their support for this measure. It took quite some time to get this amended legislation through the Joint Committees on Health and Welfare. Eventually there were differences of opinion between legal advisers from different departments. However, the point I would like to make is that where there is a will, there is a way. We must just carry on and eventually we will find our way, even through the difficult problems we are facing in this country.

The amendments proposed by the joint committee have been accepted and therefore we have the support of the entire House in this regard. I do not want to go into more detail on this legislation before the House, apart from just making a few general remarks.

In amending legislation, the legislator must pose a number of questions. The first question any legislator should pose is whether it is necessary to change a Bill. Is it necessary to make amendments? In this specific case I think it was indeed necessary, because there was uncertainty amongst pensioners in the ranks of members of the education service. That uncertainty is now ruled out.

Secondly, we may ask the question as to whether we are acting in the interests of the people we are actually representing. I think we are indeed doing that, because by amending this Bill here today, we are instrumental in bringing about parity regarding the issues as they appear in this Bill.

Thirdly, I would like to ask whether we are succeeding in rationalising legislation. I also think we have done that, by scrapping the Black Compensation Fund in the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. We envisaged that at the time when this was to be administered by the Department of National Health and Population Development there would be no need for two bodies. Therefore, by amending this Bill, we are actually rationalising in the true sense of the word.

In conclusion I would like to make a special remark about what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture said about teachers. I think we must never underestimate the role of the teacher as a co-builder of the future of any country.