Mr Chairman, it is always with mixed emotions that one bids a person farewell. One does not begrudge the one who is retiring an opportunity to pluck the fruits of a long career at his leisure, but the place he formerly occupied also falls vacant.

This morning we bid farewell to Adriaan Johannes de Villiers. He was born in Kuils River on 20 December 1921. Since 1970 he has been married to the well-known Audrey Blignaut. His academic career was characterised by outstanding achievements. He holds the MA Degree with a first class Honours in Afrikaans, the B Ed Degree, the Senior Certificate of Bilingualism—all obtained at the University of Cape Town—and he subsequently obtained the LL B Degree at the University of South Africa. After a short spell in education, he entered the service of Parliament in 1947 as Second Assistant Translator. In 1959 he became Chief Translator, in 1963 Chief Clerk, Public Bills Section, in 1972 Assistant Secretary, in 1974 Under-secretary, in 1984 Deputy Secretary, and then Secretary to Parliament from 1 October 1985 up to his retirement on 1 October 1988.

We bid him farewell as Secretary to the highest legislative authority in the country. It is an office which makes heavy demands on any person who occupies it.

†In an interview when he was appointed he explained that it was essential for a Secretary of Parliament that representatives of all political parties in Parliament be dealt with by the staff on a basis of equality, confidentiality and impartiality. To these goals he has adhered throughout his term of office and we honour him for that.

*In addition to having been a good Secretary he is an artistic person, a man of culture. He took the lead, here in Parliament, with the new Standing Rules and Orders which had to be formulated after the final breakaway from the Westminster system. The new Rules, too, are to a large extent the fruits of his labours, his inputs and his experience—experience which included his being smuggled into the British House of Commons in order to spend a short period of time there acquiring first-hand experience. To this day, no one knows whether the then Speaker of the British Parliament was ever aware of his presence.

Finally, on an occasion such as this, one should also like to take a look at the personal side of such a man, and who could do a better job of telling us about this aspect and of formulating it than his wife, the well-known authoress Audrey Blignaut? I quote from an article which she wrote about her husband, Attie de Villiers:

What a fine testimony by a woman and wife to a person who, through his actions, has also proved his love for this institution, Parliament.

We wish him a long and happy retirement in which he will be able to enjoy the peaceful pursuit of the hobby which is so important to him, namely the acquisition of and broadening of knowledge about and collecting of old silver, and Cape Silver in particular. We also wish him and his wife a long and happy married life together. We honour and thank him for what he has accomplished here. The path he has trodden here is one worthy of emulating, and we shall continue to follow in his footsteps.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly is at an advantage this morning in that he has had a longer association with Mr De Villiers than I have had. I therefore hope hon members do not expect me to be as thorough as he was in expressing appreciation for the services that Mr De Villiers has rendered to Parliament.

However, I certainly want to express on behalf of the House of Representatives our appreciation of a man who has dedicated his life to the service of humanity. It is always relatively easy for us politicians to give expression to our feelings and beliefs, but I have realised since coming to Parliament how much more difficult that is for the ordinary mortal who wants to render the same kind of service, but has to do so as a “backroom boy”.

This Parliament and this country are enriched by people like Mr De Villiers. My four years’ acquaintance with him has shown him to be a man of absolute impartiality. He well realised, when we arrived, that it was a new experience for us. It was certainly a learning experience, but only because there were worthy people who were prepared to share their knowledge and experience with people like us.

I want to thank Mr De Villiers very much for what he was prepared to share with us and for the knowledge he has left with us. It is difficult for us to visualise how Parliament will function without him, but we can rest assured that the man he leaves behind has been well trained. We are grateful for this.

We know that it is going to be just as difficult for Mr De Villiers to be separated from this institution, in particular during this very interesting period. I therefore feel sure that that knowledge which he has built up over the years will always be available to all of us.

Parting is such sweet sorrow, but I am not going to do the kissing. Certainly, from the bottom of my heart—I know that I have the full support of my House in this—I would like to say to Mr De Villiers: Thank you very much, and go well.

Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I in the House of Delegates recall with fondness that it was Mr De Villiers who first called members of the House of Delegates to order in the auditorium of the H F Verwoerd Building on Tuesday 4 September 1984. Today, after very nearly four years during which members of the House of Delegates have had the privilege of being guided along the parliamentary road by ever-willing and knowledgeable officials among whom Mr De Villiers, with his abundant expertise, has stood out like a beacon on a dark and stormy night, we wish to record that Mr De Villiers was always available to guide us and to advise us on parliamentary procedure.

We have come a long way from that day in September 1984. We wish to thank Mr De Villiers for that understanding which he has shown at all times.

We are satisfied in the knowledge that Mr De Villiers has in the period that he has been Secretary to Parliament, guided those who will be following in his footsteps. It will be difficult, it will be a vacuum to fill, but as they say: The show must go on.

The hon the Leader of the House of Assembly has given us a curriculum vitae of the hon gentleman. Obviously, as has been mentioned by the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives, the long association of the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly with the Secretary has given him that edge over us.

Not wanting to repeat ourselves, Sir, I would merely like to state for the record that Mr De Villiers’s association with Parliament commenced on 1 January 1947 when he was appointed Assistant Translator in the House of Assembly. His illustrious climb up the ladder continued until he was appointed Secretary to Parliament on 1 October 1985. The high esteem in which Parliament has held Mr De Villiers is borne out by the fact that Parliament requested him to continue for a further period of two years when he had reached retirement age.

Mr Speaker, the fact that Mr De Villiers is married to a well-known author, Audrey Blignaut, makes me wonder whether in the not too distant future we will see a book on the bookshelves giving us some of the many, many fond memories and anecdotes that I am sure Mr De Villiers has in regard to Parliament, knowing him to be one who has a very, very jovial and, I would say, kindly manner.

In wishing Mr De Villiers a very happy retirement, we from the House of Delegates would like to say to him: Mr De Villiers, we would like to see you again. Please come and visit us; you will be more than welcome because you have been our tutor in respect of all we have learnt in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to associate myself on behalf of the CP with the tribute paid and thanks expressed to Mr Attie de Villiers here this morning. We are impressed with his academic background. To tell the truth, there is more to his academic background than we were aware of all these years.

We are aware of the fact—we pay tribute to him for it—that he has had a long career in the service of this Parliament, a long career which he completed with distinction, achieving the highest appointment in this Parliament.

From a personal point of view, one was stuck by the thorough way in which Mr De Villiers did his work, as well as by his politeness and friendliness at all times.

Often I would quietly watch him while the Speaker’s silent procession was on its way to the House of Assembly, and here too I would observe not only the silent procession, but that one-second pause as the Speaker would bow to the Senior Minister in the House, after which the procession would continue to his chair. There was also the unobtrusive manner in which he would grant some assistance, as it seemed to me, to a presiding officer.

I shall remember him as a person with whom I did not have much personal contact, but who radiated politeness and friendliness and who did his work thoroughly and with dedication. We shall miss him. We wish him a very pleasant retirement and hope that his hobbies will give him much personal joy. We should like associate ourselves with the tributes paid to Mr De Villiers.

Mr Speaker, it also gives me pleasure, on behalf of the UDP, to pay tribute to Mr De Villiers, the Secretary to Parliament, who is retiring.

He will definitely leave a void. When we entered these precincts in 1984, which we had previously viewed as a place where only Whites could meet, we wondered how we would be received. We also wondered how the Secretariat of Parliament would treat us. Perhaps they would not treat us quite as well as they treated the Whites. I must honestly say that this was not the case with Mr De Villiers and his team. We received equal treatment from him. They gave us the best possible advice, and in a very short time we had learnt the procedures, rules and disciplines of Parliament from them.

It is true that Jan F E Celliers was writing about Gen De Wet’s funeral, but when I saw the Order Paper this morning, I nevertheless thought about what Jan F E Celliers wrote about Gen De Wet.

He said:

I can say the same of Mr De Villiers, because this is the kind of man I got to know. He earned my deepest respect for the extent to which he knows the disciplines of the highest authority in our country and for the manner in which he received us in his office whenever we had a problem.

We shall remember him for a long time to come. I should also like to say, as the hon Leader of the House of Delegates said, that we look forward to one day seeing a book written by him in our library, in which we shall be able to read all about the things he experienced here, so that we can discover more about those silences of which we were not always aware. We thank Mr De Villiers and wish him a pleasant rest in future.

Mr Speaker, when an individual combines distinguished academic achievements with humility then one has a personality in one’s midst who can work with people of all persuasions. I think it is a great gift for anybody to have a combination of those qualities, because nothing makes a man greater than humility. With an academic career of that kind, Mr De Villiers was able to give of his best, but in a fashion which would be acceptable and understandable to all.

In the short space of time that we have had the privilege to work with one another, it was his humility that was conspicuous. I think when somebody so distinguished parts company with us it is sad—we shall miss the gentleman—but we are compensated by the fact that the gentleman leaves a message behind. That message is priceless. All I can say is that we are grateful for the presence of Mr De Villiers in this House. We are grateful for the manner in which he conducted himself, and the manner in which he has conducted himself is the legacy that we will appreciate.

May I repeat, somebody comes and after a period of service has to leave us, but I think what we shall always remember is the manner in which this gentleman executed his work. Through that message we should all be enriched.

In his retirement I wish him well. May God give him good health to enjoy his retirement in peace and happiness.

Mr Speaker, it is a very real privilege and a pleasure for me to associate myself and colleagues in the PFP with the comments already made and to express our respect for, our admiration of and thanks to Attie de Villiers who I believe has been a superb if not exemplary servant of this Parliament.

We have got to know him as a man with an incredibly wide and astute knowledge of the Rules of Parliament, a razor-sharp mind with an ability to analyse and resolve procedural problems in a flash and impeccable impartiality and even-handedness in his dealings with members. Whenever we have consulted him, he has been helpful and constructive, whether people have been in Government or in opposition. In this he has set an example to all servants of Parliament and to Parliament, and also in the meticulous and diligent way he has applied himself to his task.

But what has made Mr De Villiers so special as the Secretary to Parliament has been his in-depth feeling for the parliamentary system of government and for Parliament, not just as an institution but as a living organism and part of our society. I know that as a parliamentary traditionalist he must have winced from time to time at what we ordinary mortals must have done both in and to Parliament. Nevertheless he did not hesitate to give of his best to the system that was entrusted to his care.

*Attie, we want to thank you for your friendliness, for your willingness to help, as well as for that gentle smile and that fine sense of humour which you often displayed. We want to thank you for the mammoth task, not only for what you have done for us as individuals, but for what you have done over the years for Parliament as an institution of this country.

We wish you and your wife many years of health, prosperity and happiness, particularly, may I just add, since you are retiring in the loveliest and the best constituency in the whole wide world.

Mr Speaker, Mr Attie de Villiers is retiring at a time of relative uncertainty about the rules and the search for new patterns, which we have to develop. In this sense he has been a rock of steadfastness in the period in which he, as Secretary, has held the highest office in Parliament. There are some rocks which look like towers, and when one looks at them one wonders whether they will always be there. There is also another kind of rock which one sees, but of which one is aware only subconsciously, so that one does not even wonder whether there will ever be a time when that rock is not there.

Mr De Villiers was like this second kind of rock. He was simply always there. His helpfulness, his knowledge, his expertise and his willingness to assist, were a prominent part of his character. We know that in Parliament we differentiate on the one hand between rules which are written but which can always cause difficulties, and conventions on the other, which become the driving force behind the whole system.

In that sense Mr Attie de Villiers has been a convention of Parliament. It is difficult to imagine that he will be any different during his retirement. We wish him joy, and we hope that he and his wife will have a very happy time together. We can see that even in his retirement he will develop and demonstrate a kind of convention for all of us. We wish him everything of the best.

Mr Speaker, since all that needs to be said has been said I thought of engaging the attention of hon members by dealing with certain aspects of Mr De Villiers’ life, but of course one cannot talk about his private life so therefore I must talk about other things.

The Chief Executive of Parliament is obviously the Secretary to Parliament and clearly, while Ministers and members of Parliament may think that they run the show, it is obvious that the Chief Executive and his staff run the show.

In September 1984 there was a considerable change in the system of Parliament and that change must have brought certain trauma to some members of the staff. However, I want to say that when we got here we were treated with unfailing courtesy by every member of the staff who operates under the Secretary to Parliament, and it was obvious that they had been motivated by him. Mr De Villiers himself has always been accessible, one has never had anything but unfailing courtesy from him and of course, his staff have mirrored that courtesy.

The first time that my wife met Mr De Villiers, when he passed by and she had exchanged a few words with him, she said, “What a nice man,” and that is perfectly true—what a nice man who exuded not only erudition but also charm every time one met him.

I would like to say “Hamba kahle, Mnumzaan”—Go well, Sir. “Uyamtwalumi”— Lay down your burden. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the speakers an opportunity. They have very limited time, and this is a very special occasion in this House.

Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege and a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to pay tribute to a very outstanding official of Parliament.

In the relatively short time that I have been associated with Mr De Villiers I think the one thing that has really stood out is the efficient manner in which he has carried out the responsibilities that his position has always demanded. He has not only done this with efficiency, but he has always been courteous and co-operative to the nth degree. Nothing has ever been too much trouble for him, and one realises that the behind the scenes organisation of Parliament is enormous. The smooth functioning which those of us who work within the establishment so often take for granted, rests heavily on the shoulders of the Secretary to Parliament. We respect his efficiency.

Mr De Villiers, on behalf of myself and my predecessors, may I just say that we thank you for what you have done and that we wish you well for a long and happy retirement.

Mr Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to add my greetings to Mr De Villiers to those that have already been expressed with so much warmth by those who have bade him farewell before me, because what a privilege it was, as the first Chief Whip of Parliament, to be able to intimately explore the unknown realm of a new constitutional dispensation together with him as Secretary. The reassuring knowledge of his intimate knowledge of the rules, the traditions and the conventions of Parliament, and the certainty that he would share this knowledge unsparingly with one, meant a great deal. His spontaneous and effervescent sense of humour turned many a day here, which could so easily have been dulled by frustration, into a delightful experience.

I do believe that we also had one or two minor fall-outs, but we never parted in anger. Rather, the converse was true.

We also have something in common. In the language of the Overberg we are married to two “Bedasdorpers”—I for longer than he, and I think the signs are clear enough. [Interjections.] His romance with the renowned Audrey Blignaut, when he was approaching fifty and was already a big boy, was a fairy-tale romance.

What we are concerned with, however, is who really set the ball rolling, because it was a son-inlaw of Audrey’s who told her: “Attie is such a fine fellow. Can’t we arrange for you to meet him?” [Interjections.]

Today we are bidding a fond farewell to that “fine fellow”. It is gratifying that he has passed this way and enriched the parliamentary scene. May he and Audrey experience a great deal of joy, love and good health in their late summer years. We salute Attie de Villiers.

Order! That concludes the discussion. Since the Secretary cannot take part in the proceedings personally, I should like to thank all the hon members who took part in the discussion on his behalf. The Secretary greatly appreciates it, and it is certainly heartwarming for him to have heard such fine words said about him.

†I should like to move that the Houses adopt the following resolution:

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, as far as we are concerned we do not object to the hon the Leader of the House moving this motion without notice. As far as the merit of the motion is concerned we do, however, object in the strongest possible terms.

These past few weeks have probably been the most dismal, sad and fateful period in the history of the new dispensation, of this country, South Africa, and of the NP. [Interjections.] In the long history of the NP from 1914 up to the present I believe that this is the most dismal time we could possibly find ourselves in. [Interjections.]

This session of Parliament was convened in a lawful, proper and regular fashion. The House of Assembly performed its obligations in this regard.

Despite resistance by the opposition!

Mr Chairman, the resistance from the opposition was due to the fact that the hon the Leader of the House bent the Rules, which he himself submitted on his own initiative, with the actual aim of getting his own way. [Interjections.] He came here and strangled the baby that he himself fathered. [Interjections.] The Bills before this House were discussed in depth. Solemn declarations of vote were made. I cannot imagine that senior hon members of the NP, including hon Cabinet Ministers and including the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as well as senior frontbenchers of the NP, were speaking tongue-in-cheek when they said that what we had here was a wonderful move towards reform. I cannot imagine that that could be so particularly in view of the fact that they said that it was cynical and untrue to contend that these things we were doing, this trilogy of Bills, including the Slums Bill and the Unlawful Squatting Amendment Bill, were measures that would be obstacles to reform. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member for Turffontein solemnly said that we in this country had to choose between chaos and order.

Of course! I still say that! [Interjections.]

He says that the NP chooses order.

Of course!

What a ridiculous standpoint to adopt! [Interjections.] This is a chaotic Government which tries to create order. Mr Chairman, can you believe it? I am not at all surprised that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not present here. He cannot look us in the eye today. [Interjections.] He cannot look us in the eye, because he has lost! He has lost! The hon the Leader of the House also …

Here comes the Minister now! [Interjections.]

What do we have here now? [Interjections.]

Just repeat what you said! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am gratified to see that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now present.

You said he lacked the courage to come here! [Interjections.]

I did not say he lacked the courage. I said that he could not look us in the eye. [Interjections.]

And now he is looking you in the eye! [Interjections.]

Very well, Sir. Now I just want to tell that hon Minister that he has lost.

Yes! [Interjections.]

He has lost. The hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal has also lost!

Order! No, hon members of the NP will also participate in the discussion. Hon members will have their opportunity later. They must now please afford the hon member for Brakpan an opportunity to continue.

The hon the Leader of the House has lost.

We lost on Saturday, we lost last Saturday and we lost on the previous Saturday as well. The NP loses week after week, Sir. [Interjections.] The newspapers that support the NP mention that so many members of the NP participated in these debates and stated their case with such conviction …

Hear, hear!

Yes, I wonder if those venal sycophants (kripvreters) are still going to cry “hosanna!”? Are they still going to cry “hosanna!” because we are postponing this to 26 September?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I contend that the hon member is breaking the Rules by calling hon members “kripvreters”.

Order! I agree. Did the hon member refer to hon members in those terms?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the hon members of the NP who are sitting here, and I withdraw it, but they shout “hosanna!” at all the caprices to which the leaders of the NP are being subjected, and they go along with that.

Yes!

They do not adopt their own independent, properly objective standpoint about this farce to which we are now being subjected. [Interjections ] The hon the Leader of the House was so convinced of the Bills that have come before this House over the past two weeks, of their being correct and well-considered and of the need for them to be agreed to, that he said: “We shall not allow ourselves to be thwarted by technical points! We are properly convened here and these Bills must be agreed to. Even if the heavens fall these Bills must be agreed to!” And then the heavens did fall! The Reverend Allan spoke! Boss Allan spoke.

They will go through!

Will they go through as we agreed to them?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As far as I know reference is made to another hon member of this Parliament as an “hon member” and not as “boss Allan”. I should like to have your ruling in this regard.

The hon member boss Allan has spoken. [Interjections.]

Order! No, no. [Interjections ]

Very well, Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

That is the mentality of a sick person.

It is a sickness that the Government suffers from and they are leading the people of South Africa on this downward path. Can they not realise that? [Interjections.] Who is paying? Who is paying for these two weeks? [Interjections.] Who is paying for that subsequent week? Who is paying for these things, Sir? [Interjections.] Who is paying for this waste of money? [Interjections.]

Order! No, there are a few hon members whose names I shall have to begin mentioning now. We cannot conclude in this way. Moreover it would be a great pity to send hon members out of the House on this last day. I appeal for hon members’ co-operation. The hon member for Brakpan is stating his party’s standpoint and he is entitled to do so. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, these Bills were on the way to being placed on the Statute Book in terms of the Constitution. Does this, therefore, now mean that that legislation which was argued with such care and dedication by the NP will now not appear in the Statute Book at all except in an amended or watered-down form, as it will be accepted in the joint committee?

F W has said so!

Was this, then, a lawful session to which we have been subjected or has the Government changed its opinion in this regard? We in the CP want to say that South Africa cannot permit a party that governs the country in such a way to remain in power. We cannot afford that in the times in which we are living. After all, this is the highest assembly in the country. It is not a circus! The hon the Leader of the House and the NP are turning it into a circus. This Parliament is losing its dignity and its credibility, and this country is suffering as a result because the country is increasingly losing its credibility.

You are the chief clown!

However, the most humiliating moment for the Government of this country occurred a few minutes ago in the joint meeting when the hon members of the Labour Party applauded the hon Reverend on the victory he had achieved over those who are supposed to be governing this country.

What is the significance of the events of the past few weeks? They mean that neither the NP nor Parliament govern this country. It is the hon Reverend who is governing this country!

When one enters Pretoria there is a placard that reads: “The truth wins. Think!” Just add to that: “The Rev Allan Hendrickse is governing the country.” That is all that needs to be added. [Interjections.]

Today we met to discuss the Second Reading of the Second Constitution Amendment Bill. It appears on the Order Paper for today. What is to become of that? According to the statement it will not be discussed between 26 and 30 September. We are prepared to proceed with the debate on that Bill. That is what we came for and that is what the taxpayer has paid for.

This morning we heard on the news at 06h30, 06h45 and 08h00 and on the television news that Parliament was going to meet in a joint sitting today to discuss the Second Reading of the Second Constitution Amendment Bill. We are here to discuss it. What is to become of that?

In the circumstances the attitude of the CP is that it takes cognisance with indignation of the fact that the Bills on group areas are to be withdrawn and debated again owing to the caprice of the hon Rev Hendrickse and the weak-kneed attitude of the Government.

This decision makes a farce of the parliamentary system. Over the past session the Government has cast aside the existing rules of procedure in order to allow the debate to take place without the Indians and Coloureds. After an extraparliamentary discussion with the hon Rev Hendrickse the NP has once again yielded to the Coloureds. All the work done by the White House of Assembly in this regard is thereby discarded.

The repeated convening of Parliament—three times already this year—is costing the taxpayer many thousands of rands. At a time when the taxpayer is already struggling owing to poor economic conditions, this action on the part of the Government is unforgiveable.

The CP wants to emphasise very strongly that it is clear that the NP had to make further drastic concessions to the hon Rev Hendrickse at the expense of White interests. This action proves that the NP has lost control and is no longer capable of governing the country. South Africa can no longer afford such a Government. We contest this motion of the hon the Leader of the House and we shall vote against it.

Mr Chairman, in my absence the hon member for Brakpan remarked that I did not have the courage to be here because I was scared to look him in the face. I concede that looking him in the face is not a pleasant experience … [Interjections.] … but when I see him as an hon member, I choose to look at him. Then I choose to look at him.

The hon member says we have lost. What are the facts? The Constitution has won! Nothing which the hon members on the other side can say can detract from the fact … [Interjections.] … that an agreement has been reached in terms of the Constitution among people working according to the Constitution. [Interjections.]

It is very interesting that the Official Opposition’s attack on the governing party here during this past week has actually been based on their allegation that consensus has been breached. As a matter of fact, the hon member for Ermelo argued eloquently along those lines, and this morning’s sitting showed the spuriousness of his argument in that specific respect. [Interjections.] The hysteria of the hon member for Brakpan must be ascribed to the fact that their contributions of the past week have been reduced to something fit for the waste-paper basket. [Interjections.]

The second point I want to make is that with one exception the hon members voted against four of the Bills referred to in the joint meeting. We want it put on record that they voted against the Group Areas Amendment Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill. [Interjections.] They also voted against the Prevention of Illegal Squatting

Amendment Bill. Now there is an hysterical uproar here about the fact that we are going to discuss these pieces of legislation in a joint meetin g. Perhaps this fear—I hope that this is true— testifies to the fact that there is something lying dormant somewhere that makes those hon members ashamed to meet other hon members of Parliament in a joint meeting. [Interjections.]

When we accepted this system, we all knew that we were setting out into uncharted territory. I recall the saying that no-one who walks only where he can see the tracks of others has ever discovered anything new. [Interjections.]

Of course it is true that within this system there are political parties with opposing philosophies in the respective Houses. Of course it is true that in the various Houses there are opposing standpoints on South Africa and its solution. Parliament as it is, however, represents a microcosm of South Africa as a whole. It is my contention that if people are not prepared to work with dedication to maintain this system until it can be replaced with something better, they are making a choice which is not a choice for democracy. [Interjections.] No matter how often I say this, the truth remains true, and I will go on saying it until the hon member understands it too. I make no excuses for taking the time to keep democracy and its systems functioning as long as possible.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Sea Point must not interrupt me, because I am really not in the mood for his superficiality. [Interjections.] I just hope he does not take part in this debate.

Why don’t you walk out?

His absence was his best contribution! [Interjections.]

I want to make just one more remark in this respect, and that is that the amendments which will be proposed to the Bill in question do not represent an agreement between us and any other party; in fact, the proposed amendments have not been discussed yet. The frivolous question “What is the price?” is therefore as inappropriate as the hon member’s arguments. [Interjections.]

They may be inappropriate, but they are true!

Order! I can hear some very well-known voices persistently trying to participate in the discussion by way of interjections. They must desist. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member referred to our declarations of vote. Our declarations of vote relate to what we want to achieve with the legislation, and, as far as this party is concerned, what we want to achieve with the legislation remains unchanged, but hon members will have the opportunity of discussing this in the joint committee. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the hollowness of the argument about who pays for the sittings. The country pays for them, but the country will also pay the price in a different form should we not be able to reach agreement. [Interjections.] That price is greater than this one. [Interjections ]

Moreover, who pays the hon members of the Official Opposition who sit on joint committees and refuse to participate in their proceedings, but complete the claim form for a day’s sitting and allowances? [Interjections.] I challenge the hon member to tell the country how many of his members have sat on how many committees, declared their vote, said they would not participate, and then stayed sitting there for payment and reward. [Interjections.] If one peeks behind doors, one must take care one does not find oneself there.

They draw their pay, but they don’t do the job. [Interjections.]

Listen to what the hon member for Brakpan said, Sir. He said that we had applauded when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives …

That is not what he said!

He said that the members of the Labour Party had applauded.

Was it they who applauded? I did not hear anyone applauding. [Interjections.]

Were you not there?

I must apologise, because I gather now that it happened while I was not there.

So you were also paid not to be there!

No, I was paid to do my job.

Did that not include the Joint Meeting?

It happened before the meeting. [Interjections.]

If it happened before the meeting, is that wrong too?

You were supposed to be there.

Not before the meeting!

It happened while the bells were ringing.

While the bells were ringing? I was meant to be there when the bells stopped ringing, and I was there then. [Interjections.] It is high time the hon member for Brakpan heard a bell ring. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I now challenge the hon members of the Official Opposition to suit their actions to their words. If they are serious about the alleged waste of the country’s money, they must attend the session and the committees and discuss the legislation.

Why should we discuss your legislation? [Interjections.]

That is a very interesting remark. On that basis, the hon member is saying that the Official Opposition does not have to discuss our legislation.

But your standpoint is not our standpoint.

That is a reasonable standpoint, but do hon members know where such a standpoint puts that hon member? It places him among the boycotters. [Interjections.] It also places him outside Parliament. [Interjections.] I can understand even that, because I am in any case not entirely sure that the leader of that party is in this House. [Interjections.] I am not referring to the official leader; I am referring to the real leader. [Interjections.] I do not think he is here. [Interjections.]

Surely, if the hon member’s remark has any meaning, he should not discuss the legislation in this House either. Why does he discuss it here, but not there? [Interjections.] It is because he is able to utter half-truths here under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Like what?

Do hon members know what else he wants to do? He wants to have what he says put on record so that he can issue a pamphlet tomorrow which says that it is in Hansard. [Interjections.] I say that an Official Opposition which can lay claim to Government in the system in which we function, even if such a claim is merely theoretical or fictitious, and which acts in such a fashion, does not deserve even the role of opposition in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think the tirade we have just heard from the hon the Minister was a smokescreen to mask his embarrassment. [Interjections.] I want to say that it is untrue to allege that we boycotted joint committees. [Interjections.]

On more than one occasion the chairman of that study committee stated it as his view that it was not our duty to try to improve legislation with which we did not agree. We were present, but we were not prepared to barter with the interests of our people in that committee. That is the truth of the matter.

The hon the Minister tells us today that as a result of yesterday’s events, the Constitution has won. What does this mean, by implication? He is saying and admitting that the proceedings of the past two weeks have been unconstitutional. [Interjections.]

A little while ago the hon the Minister appeared on television and was asked:

The hon the Minister replied:

[Interjections.]

Can hon members believe that?

And that was a week ago! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May a clown call another member a clown?

Order! Who called whom a clown?

The hon member for Brakpan called me a clown, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I said, with reference to the hon the Minister: “What a clown!”

Order! Of course that is unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, in that case, I ask on a point of order …

Order! No!

I withdraw it, Sir. I will refer rather to participating in a circus. He is a participant in a circus.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir, but then I ask on a point of order whether that hon Minister may ask whether a clown may call another member a clown.

Order! The hon the Minister referred to the hon member for Brakpan as a clown. The hon the Minister must also withdraw that.

Seeing that the hon member says he is not a clown, Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order!

I insist that it be withdrawn unconditionally. That is normally the ruling in such cases.

Order! The hon the Minister said a moment ago that he withdrew it unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, he said that he withdrew it because I said that I was not one. I ask you in all seriousness to request the hon the Minister to withdraw that statement unconditionally, Sir, as would normally be the case. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now informing the hon member very politely that the hon the Minister withdrew it unconditionally a moment ago. The hon member did not hear him, but he did.

No, Sir, he did not say that. I ask you, as is always the case, to make such a ruling.

Order! No, no!

Mr Chairman, are you not prepared to make such a ruling? I would just like it placed on record that you are not prepared to make such a ruling.

Order! Would the hon member please resume his seat? Firstly, I am not prepared to be cross-examined by any hon member. That includes the hon member for Brakpan. As I told the hon member, the hon the Minister indicated that he had said that he withdrew it unconditionally. If the hon member does not want to accept my word, I am very sorry for him. I told him three times. If he expects me to accept his word, he must accept the word of the Chair. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I told the Government two days ago in this House that the reason for their eagerness to make these rules of procedure work and to bend the Constitution in order to succeed in their goal was that they did not want to have to tell the voters on the eve of the election: We have chained ourselves to this Constitution and thrown away the key, but it is not going to work. It is a failure.

The Government is now telling the voters it was a mistake. The Government is no longer in possession of the sovereign power to govern. One would be justified in asking who rules this country today.

Definitely not the CP.

What happened? The hon the Minister is now leaving the Chamber again, because he does not want to listen when I talk to him. [Interjections.] The Government broadened democracy even further and appointed the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has just left, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Representatives, the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Assembly and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to make the final decisions about further procedures.

This ad hoc committee or Government committee has drawn a thick black line through the proceedings of the past two weeks. Who is paying for that? What is it going to cost? I want to tell hon members and the voting public that part of yesterday’s enormous petrol price increase can be accounted for by the reckless manner in which the Government wastes the taxpayer’s money. [Interjections.] I say so here, and I will say so outside this House, because it is the truth. [Interjections.] The front page of the latest edition of Financial Mail is therefore definitely correct, in my opinion. It shows the hon the State President with the symbol of the NP pointing downwards and the words: “A vote for me is a vote for poverty”. That is absolutely true. [Interjections.] What is the legislation now at issue, the Group Areas Act, going to look like when it comes back? Surely the Labour Party would not have concluded an agreement unless it was going to be diluted virtually out of existence. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether they have now reached an agreement in respect of the postponement of the election date, because that is most certainly relevant. It is my contention that they have reached an agreement and that the election will therefore not take place before 1992.

Your party is very happy about that!

You are very happy about that!

The hon member for Parys should be delighted, because he will never be elected in Parys again. [Interjections.]

The amended legislation which is to be resubmitted represents a victory for the Labour Party. Hon members heard them in the joint Chamber. My friend the hon Chief Whip on this side of the House also mentioned it. They applauded. What did those hon members do when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning entered that Chamber as well as this one? Hon members had long faces and did not make a sound. [Interjections.]

The NP have given up. [Interjections.] They have let the South African taxpayer down. We say that they should resign. Last night’s statement was reported in Die Burger as follows:

The problem now is simply that those differing opinions, approaches and perceptions of the Government’s change so quickly, from day to day. On Friday the hon the Minister of Finance was still saying that we, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Blacks here, would never deposit our ballot papers together in the same ballot-box. He said that this could never happen, and that we would not live next to one another. On Wednesday they made a law to subvert that. [Interjections.] I want to submit that the Government has no firm principles. This motion will further undermine and ultimately destroy the self-determination and freedom of the people whom we represent here. That is why we express our opposition to it in the strongest possible terms. We feel contempt and disdain for the manner in which the Government serves the interests of the Afrikaner people …

You don’t count!

… and we will therefore vote against it.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning mentioned in the few words that he spoke that it was his view that the Constitution had won. In this is an acknowledgement and an admission that over the past two weeks the Constitution has in fact been the loser and that the desperate actions of the governing party in the House of Assembly have undermined the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

The manner in which the procedures of this House have been adapted at the whim of the governing party and the legislation has been put through this House is nothing short of a parliamentary disgrace.

What we are witnessing at this moment is in fact what I would call legislative chaos. Neither the Government nor the NP nor even the hon the Leader of the House from one day to another, let alone one week to another, knows what legislative progress is being made in Parliament at any given time. [Interjections.] They are not even aware of what is to be handled in what sequence.

This is not the rotten fruit of the inefficient handling of the mechanisms of Parliament by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. This is not the fault of the mechanics of Parliament or the Whippery. I believe that the expensive and disruptive disorder in the affairs of Parliament as we witness it today has been caused basically by the insistence of the Government upon clinging to the basic tenets of apartheid, tenets and principles which remain embedded in the trilogy of the Group Areas Act legislation which is still before us and which will yet again come before us in another form; which Bills received ignominious and very dubious legal treatment by this House over the past several days; and which three Bills will, inter alia, be the subject matter of the proposed short session to be held later this month.

We are against the adaptation of these laws in a cosmetic manner. We believe that the only solution acceptable to all South Africans is the complete abolition of the Group Areas Act and its satellite enactments. Except to suit the NP convenience and to bolster NP hopes, aspirations and prospects in the October municipal elections, there is no reason whatsoever why these laws cannot be dealt with effectively in the 1989 session of Parliament.

We feel no urge to condone the subversion of normal parliamentary practice pursuant to the unseemly machinations occurring between the NP and the LP. Whether the LP brings the NP to heel or not, or whether the NP cons the LP yet again is of no concern to us. What is of concern to us is that Parliament keep its dignity, that legislation proceed in a proper and normal manner and that procedures not be disrupted by the inability by the NP to come to terms with the real spirit of reform which is washing over our country. [Interjections.]

Accordingly, Sir, I wish to move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, one can see that the hon member for Sandton was not in Parliament or in the House during the past week. [Interjections.] I think he felt very uncomfortable about reacting to this morning’s resolution, because he could not describe or repeat the sequence of events. If I remember correctly, the PFP has not been in this House since last Thursday. In other words they did not participate in the proceedings of Parliament, except that they came in every day and had their presence here noted for about a minute, if it was that long; apparently for one reason only, and then they withdrew from the Chamber again. [Interjections.]

Consequently, their trying to make a contribution now in respect of the continuation of proceedings is just as questionable as their behaviour during the past week. In any case, they have put a good question here today. [Interjections.] However, let us not pursue the matter.

I should like to deal with a few of the remarks made by the hon members for Pietersburg and Brakpan. In my opinion the hon member for Pietersburg made a very disgraceful statement here when he said that the Government was bending the Constitution. After all, the Constitution cannot be bent. If one cannot act within the prescriptions of the Constitution this means that one is unable to continue with the activities of Parliament, as happened during the past week.

What happened? We acted within the framework of the prescriptions of the Constitution and the Rules of this House and of Parliament, and that is why Parliament and this House was able to function during the past week, as in fact happened. Obviously the other Houses also acted within those prescriptions.

The fact of the matter is that the hon member’s statement that the Constitution had been bent was disgraceful and in my opinion it was totally inappropriate for an hon member of this House to make such a statement.

The hon the Minister admitted as much.

The hon the Minister certainly did not make or admit such a statement. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is—this is the important point—that we could act as we did during the past week because provision was made for this within the prescriptions of the Constitution and the Rules of this House and of Parliament. We could therefore act in this way thanks to (danksy) …

Notwithstanding (ondanks)!.

… thanks to the fact that that provision was made in the Constitution. The question therefore is what the result of the circumstances would have been if we had not had such a good Constitution. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to the fact that the agreement which had been reached meant that there was a committee which was prescribing to Parliament, and was in fact ruling the country. This is an equally ridiculous and stupid statement. Those involved are leaders who represent the respective parties that had a difference of opinion with regard to the matters at issue. They met as negotiators on behalf of the respective parties to ascertain how that difference of opinion could best be handled.

What took place—I should like to tell the hon member for Pietersburg and the Official Opposition this—was a discussion on how we could deal with the difference of opinion between the two majority parties in the respective Houses. It was not, first and foremost, a case of how that difference of opinion could be nullified or eliminated.

It is clear—we said this earlier on in the debate on the respective Bills—that there is a difference of opinion in respect of the position which the Labour Party and the Government, respectively, have adopted regarding this legislation. That difference of opinion has not suddenly disappeared. The fact of the matter is that those differences still exist, but an agreement has been reached on a way in which that “dissensus”, if one can call it that, can be handled. This is an important step in the right direction, in the interests of Parliament and its functioning. Consequently a statement could be released because those leaders could meet as a negotiating team, could negotiate and could in that way come to an understanding.

I should like to tell the hon member that everything that was agreed on appeared in that statement. Not a word more or less than was agreed on appeared in that statement. [Interjections.] For that reason nothing needed to be added to what appeared in the statement.

I should like to point out to the hon member—he would seem to have a copy of the statement because he quoted from it—that the following expressly appears on page 2:

That was therefore not the subject of the agreement. The subject of the agreement was to decide how we should proceed with regard to the handling of the legislation before Parliament. This agreement, which was reached in the interests of Parliament, is important. [Interjections.]

I should also like to say something about the process in terms of which the Bills will be handled. It has been agreed that the five Bills, which are obviously the controversial measures, will be debated by way of a joint meeting. All those measures have already been agreed to by the House of Assembly, and the only way in which they can be discussed in a joint meeting, is by withdrawing those measures and submitting new Bills to a joint meeting.

That is the only way. The hon member need only check the rules; then he will find this out for himself. In other words this is the way in which Bills are placed before the joint meeting. Of course this means that there is an opportunity to look at certain amendments, if the Government were to deem this necessary. May I describe this for the hon member’s sake? The hon member for Brakpan must really not become so excited and hysterical about this. On Monday, or early next week in any case, the hon member will know precisely what appears in those Bills and what amendments have been effected, because they will be submitted to Mr Speaker early next week at the latest. From 19 September there will be an opportunity to debate them in the joint committees. There will be every opportunity to do this.

I merely want to say the following at this stage. The five Bills at issue here are familiar to us, and obviously the opportunity will be used to see what possible technical amendments can be effected in respect of those Bills. The hon the Minister has already told the hon member that the points of departure of the Government with regard to all five these Bills remain unchanged. This was not at issue in arguments or in discussions or in negotiations in respect of the announcement of this meeting. Certainly not. Obviously, if the opportunity arises to resubmit the amendments of the joint committee, we shall use this opportunity to do so. The opportunity will be used, and this will be done. The amendments will therefore appear early next week by way of the newly printed Bills which are going to be introduced.

Let us take a practical example. I do not want to anticipate the discussions on this. There is one practical example which the majority party in the House of Representatives indicated as a problem. The hon member for Ermelo knows about this. The hon member served on the joint committee when the subject was at issue. Earlier in the joint committee the majority party in the House of Representatives indicated that they had a problem, for example, with the Free Settlement Areas Bill. The problem is that it is provided in the Bill that a specific obligation vests in the Ministers’ Council of that House in respect of free settlement areas. If that specific Ministers’ Council can be accommodated in some way I am prepared to say that it will be worthwhile seeing whether that matter cannot be handled by way of the new Bill. This is a practical point, and it will therefore be sensible to take this into account. The point is that the hon members will be given every opportunity to look at the Bills and react to them. The important point is that the Government, through the hon the Minister, has already intimated that the basic points of departure in respect of the Bills have remained unchanged and that they will not be affected by the agreement which was reached yesterday, or by the negotiations, because that was not the subject under discussion.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to the matter of the declarations of vote which had been made before. We stand by the declarations of vote which have been made by hon members on this side of the House, including myself, the hon member for Turffontein yesterday and the hon the Minister, with regard to these five Bills. These must not be reconsidered. The declarations of vote with regard to the basic points of departure remain unchanged. I am prepared to repeat precisely what I said earlier in the week in respect of the Government’s view of the necessity for any of the measures before Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

I have explained that to the hon member, but it seems to me it did not register. For that reason I am not going to repeat everything. The fact of the matter is that the only way in which the Bill can come before Parliament is by way of a joint sitting and by withdrawing the Bills and replacing them with new ones, which will appear early next week.

In conclusion I should like to say the following. With reference to what the hon the Minister said and in reply to the disgraceful statements which the hon member for Pietersburg made regarding the agreement which had been reached I want to point out the following. The hon member said that prices were being increased in all manner of ways, for example by way of the increase in the petrol price, to pay for this. That is a disgraceful statement. It is ridiculous. [Interjections.] In future, when the hon member and his party do not participate in the activities of joint committees, we shall take every opportunity to point out how the hon members are contributing to price increases. [Interjections.] If that is the level of argument the hon member prefers, we shall use the same method in respect of the activities and participation of those hon members in the proceedings of Parliament. In conclusion I should like to say that the result we have achieved….

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

No, Sir. In conclusion I should like to say that I think the agreement reached, the statement which has been made and the negotiations which have taken place, not only took place in a good spirit—in a spirit of goodwill between people who were prepared to look in a responsible way at the interests of the country; not only in their own interests, but in the general interests of this Parliament as the highest authority in the country—but I think the result achieved was a victory for negotiation and consensus, and anyone who looks to the future, would be prepared to support this, because this is the basis on which this country will have to be governed in the future in any case. I take pleasure in supporting the resolution of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister reproached my colleague, the hon member for Sandton, for the fact that the PFP had not attended the debates in this House for the past 14 days, and suggested that for this reason, the hon member for Sandton did not know what was going on here.

When we decided to withdraw from participation in the proceedings of this House, I had a few moments of doubt. I personally felt a little unhappy, because I had prepared a very fine speech that I was keen to make in this House. [Interjections.] But, Sir, if I ever had any doubt about the matter, it has been removed by the events of last night, for now everything that was done here in our absence will simply have to be repeated. [Interjections.] If there was any doubt, it has now been removed. We shall have to do it again. This session has been a waste of time. One does not like to see it in that light … [Interjections.] … because a political debate is always of some value, but if ever there was a session of Parliament that was devoid of all value, it is this one. It should never have taken place at all—if the Government had not been so recalcitrant; if they had not tried to steamroller through Parliament those measures on which they could not obtain consensus or support.

Now we are to have a third session. We are going to have a third session of Parliament within one year. I do not know whether there is any precedent for this, but this is the kind of result one has when the Government behaves as it has just done.

In motivating the suspension of certain Rules last week, the hon the Leader of the House said that Parliament could not allow itself to be blackmailed. One should be careful in making that kind of statement, because the implication is that the hon the Leader of the House is powerless to deny today that they have in fact been blackmailed. He used the word himself.

That is a specious argument!

No, it is not a specious argument. The hon the Leader of the House said that. To a certain extent I want to spare him the embarrassment, because that was not really what happened. What happened was that two Houses of Parliament used their constitutional powers and rights to demonstrate their resistance to the totalitarian and dictatorial behaviour of another House of Parliament. They have the right to do so. There was no blackmail, therefore. If it was blackmail, then so were the actions of the hon the Leader of the House.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that the Constitution had won. My hon colleague referred to that. To a certain extent this is true, of course. The Constitution has won against the NP. That is where the Constitution has won. The Constitution has won against the NP by showing that there are in fact limits to what they can get away with. They can do most of the things they want to, but not quite all of them. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, it is very regrettable that this has happened.

The fact is—it has been mentioned that an attempt has been made to violate the Constitution—that the Government tried to circumvent the Constitution by the suspension of Rules, and I want to say now that I really hope the Government will learn from this that rules do mean something. Rules were not created only for parliamentary minorities or the other Houses. Rules are something that the Government itself must also adhere to. One cannot use rules to manipulate one’s opponents, but then suspend those rules when they do not suit one’s own purposes. One simply cannot function in that way. The Government will have to learn that it must try to pay heed to reasonable political arguments, instead of reacting only to the kind of political brutality to which they have been subjected during the last few days and to which they have finally had to yield. When one pays heed to reasonable arguments, one can win respect for oneself. When one has to give in to political brutality, one loses face, and there is nothing one can do to change that. Unfortunately, that is the position in which the Government finds itself today.

What is the effect of the motion moved today by the hon the Leader of the House? It means that the House will meet again in two or three weeks’ time to discuss some of the same Bills again in an amended form. The implication is, therefore, that the Government still wants to submit that kind of legislation to this House. To what extent they intend to change it one does not know, but in any event, they still want to submit this kind of legislation. I am referring in particular to the Group Areas trilogy.

We submit that these measures should be abandoned. Forget about them! We should prefer never to see them again. For this reason, naturally, we do not think that having another session before next year’s session would serve any useful purpose.

The second implication is that we shall have to adjourn earlier today than we usually do. We have the time available, so we may just as well make proper use of the full day’s sitting. The second implication is, therefore, that Parliament may as well adjourn now because the Government has not succeeded in having the Bills discussed that they themselves wish to discuss.

I would suggest that there are a great many other subjects that would merit the attention of this House. We find ourselves in a situation, in a period, in which democracy in this country is breaking down to an extent that is unprecedented in the history of South Africa. Never have democratic standards been held in such contempt, and at such a low level, as they are today.

We all know that at present, Parliament is by no means representative of the full political spectrum in South Africa. Apart from that, however, is one aware of the general breakdown of democracy and of the extent to which the Government is trying to circumvent the democratic process? Is there any awareness of the extent to which extremely important legislative measures are no longer being passed in this Parliament today, but are being promulgated in terms of emergency regulations by the hon the State President, hon Ministers and public servants? Measures are no longer being discussed in Parliament, but are being made by public servants and by Ministers. This is being done without reference to Parliament, without debate in Parliament and, in most cases, without the courtesy of a notice or announcement in this House. That is the position in which democracy finds itself today.

In the very important field of human rights and the essential conflict between the State and its subjects, this Parliamentary system has become virtually irrelevant. It is a tragedy! It is a tragedy in a country that professes at least some adherence to democratic standards.

Enormous numbers of people find themselves in prison in this country at the moment—not by virtue of a court order, but as a result of action taken by the Government, the hon the Minister of Law and Order or his officials, who put people in jail without a trial. Not a word has been said during this session about their position. We cannot afford something like this. It is important to Parliamentary democracy and to democracy in general.

From a Supreme Court case we learn that the hon the Minister of Defence deemed it to be within his power to disregard the authority of the Supreme Court. If this is the case, it has long ceased to be a matter for the Supreme Court to rule on. Under these circumstances, Parliament must intervene!

Once again, we cannot afford to waste a minute of Parliamentary debating time under these circumstances. We must give attention to those important matters. Even if we use this afternoon, it remains important that we be given the opportunity to debate these matters.

I take pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon member for Sandton.

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the implications of the tricameral system have not been fully appreciated by Government. As I have stated previously a constitution is only as good as its participants dictate. It is no secret that the function of Parliament has been deadlocked for the entire two week session. I accept the fact that the situation could not go on like this.

The NP has not fully appreciated the fact that members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives also have constituents to whom they are accountable. Their performance in Parliament is under close scrutiny from the voters they represent. Therefore, their actions must be accorded the same understanding and recognition that applies to the attitude of hon members in this Chamber. It is on this basis that I find myself in the position of having to oppose the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House. I do so in the context that those of us who participated in debates now feel that it was all a waste of time and that, to a great degree, our efforts have been in vain. I refer to those of us who took the trouble to participate in the debates.

The Government should have dealt timeously with the manner in which confrontation politics was creeping into the parliamentary system. I drew attention to this very fact earlier during this session when I spoke in the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote. I wish to remind hon members that when I raised this matter it was treated in a very light-hearted manner.

I want to make it clear, however, that I do not believe that the tricameral system itself should be judged by recent events or by the latest decision of Government. That a crisis situation was allowed to develop is the crucial issue. It is clear that the Government will not emerge with any credit in regard to its handling of the matter. However, I want to say that one is obviously relieved for the sake of the parliamentary system that the impasse has now been resolved. It has been done at a cost, but one can only hope that many lessons have been learnt and that those in power will appreciate the fact that they have to adapt themselves to the circumstances that exist within the system.

It is on that basis that I regret very much being unable to support the motion.

Mr Chairman, initially the hon the Leader of the House told us that this vigorous Government would not allow itself to be obstructed by technicalities. Today we are told that the Constitution has won.

The NP knew in advance that the other two Houses were going to oppose this particular legislation and were going to refuse to approve it. That is why the NP did not convene a joint meeting for the discussion of these pieces of legislation in the first place.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I do have a little common sense. [Interjections.]

That is why the President’s Council has already been notified that they must be ready to carry out the will of the NP. After the other two Houses had said that they refused to discuss these pieces of legislation, we also know that it was the NP’s plan that the hon the State President would direct them to discuss this in terms of the Constitution. If they persisted in refusing to do so it would then be considered that they had rejected these pieces of legislation so that the NP’s appointed legislators in the President’s Council could carry out its wishes.

Now we have to listen to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning piously explaining the Constitution. I wonder who he thinks still believes him. [Interjections.] In the previous debate on the National Council the hon member for Innesdal cried triumphantly: Today we are taking the power out of the White skin. What is happening today demonstrates that that power is now in the Brown skin, because despite its large majority in this House of Assembly the NP is no longer able to govern. I do not know whether it still wants to govern because we no longer have a Government that still has strength. What we have in South Africa today, is a “vlugkommando” which is falling back, trench by trench, along the entire front.

The hon the Leader of the House told the young people in the Transvaal that he was not dispirited (moedeloos).

He is powerless (magteloos).

I was about to say that he is powerless.

I find it very interesting that an hon Minister should tell us this morning that they reached no agreement with the other leaders on any amendments to the legislation already passed by the House of Assembly. Apparently they did not even discuss that.

What, then, are we coming here to do on 26 September? [Interjections.] The House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have told the Government in advance that they demand the total abolition of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Does this now mean that we must come back on 26 September merely to vote again, and that the matter will eventually have to be rectified by the President’s Council once again?

The hon the Minister must not come and tell me that no agreement has been reached with the Brown leaders, except for the fact that we are now going to sit together. After all, we are no longer children in a political kindergarten. [Interjections] An agreement has indeed been reached. If the Government does not intend to amend these Bills that have already been passed, what hope does it have that the other two Houses will pass them? Then we shall simply have a repetition of what has already taken place.

The hon the Minister has told us that what the Government seeks to achieve by way of the legislation remains unchanged. In essence, therefore, if I am to accept his word, no real changes will be effected. Does the hon the Minister wish to tell us that the leaders of the other Houses are going to accept that, or are we coming back here just to waste the taxpayers’ money again?

This has not been the first time that Parliament has convened in the second half of the year for a session which, owing to the chaotic actions of the Government, has lapsed into chaos. The year before last, if I remember correctly, the same situation applied when we convened to discuss the National Council of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. When we arrived here there was nothing on the Table.

This year we convened with a view to 26 October, because the Government wanted to demonstrate to the White voters how vigorously it was going to apply the Group Areas Act. We discussed it here for two weeks and now there is nothing on the Table. [Interjections.] This supposedly vigorous Government has already adopted this, and now that same Government is removing it from the Table. Only yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Leader of the House voted for the legislation, and last night they removed it from the Table! Is that the way to govern a country? If it were not so tragic one could say that this was a soap opera taking place here.

One wants to laugh about it but in fact one has to weep, as far as the continuation of good order in South Africa is concerned. I want to say to the hon the Leader of the House that the NP occasionally laughed nervously today, but this morning the voters—their voters and ours—are laughing at the NP. The voters of South Africa are going to take revenge on the NP on 26 October.

The voters of South Africa now realise—it is being demonstrated to them—that we are faced with a powerless, directionless and dispirited NP.

And an unprincipled NP.

Mr Chairman, the Government’s undertaking to withdraw five of the Bills which have already been debated in this Chamber is a clear indication that protest actions within the rules of this House have an effect. It is a clear indication that the protest actions taken in the other two Chambers and …

Don’t bluff yourself!

… that the protest actions undertaken by opposition parties in this Chamber within the rules, have had an effect.

However, the question, as the hon member for Barberton said, is: What now? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says: “Wat ons in die wetgewing wil bereik, bly staan”. We are coming back in September as far as this motion is concerned to do the same, but this time within the Rules. What we have been doing until now we have been doing outside the Rules, but now we want to do it within the Rules. The ritual must now be repeated within the Rules and the Government has given notice it does not intend to depart from its standpoint.

The agreement therefore between the Government and the LP relates to the procedures only; it does not affect the merits. That is why we are not prepared to play along with a ritual which is not intended to address the merits of these Bills.

Stay at home, man!

If a breathing space is now being created by this adjournment, which we welcome, we ask the Government not to rush these five Bills through over a five-day period in the joint committees because it is clear that there is no intention whatsoever to try to reach consensus on their merits. We ask the Government to make use of this breathing space to once again try to see whether it is possible to reach consensus on the merits of the Bills. The procedures there will be followed.

*One cannot compel consensus. The Government gives the impression that they are going to do so. The newspapers will probably write again about new consensus between the Government and the Labour Party. That is a farce! We request the Government to postpone this and let us reflect upon it again next year. For that reason we support the amendment that was proposed by the hon member for Sandton. We can deal with it next year. There is no urgent necessity that we should push these Bills through this year.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan said this was the sorriest day for this Parliament since 1914. It is a sorry day for the CP because what they wanted to happen did not happen. It is a sorry day for the PFP because they were united with the CP in what they wished would happen.

What utter nonsense!

Do hon members know what they wanted should happen? They wanted the State President to be forced, as a result of the non-participation of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, to instruct those Houses in terms of section 32 to get together to consider the legislation. They wanted those Houses to refuse to carry out this instruction which would lead to a situation in the country which would not only make the continuation of next year’s session of Parliament extremely problematic, but would also make the continuation of an orderly session next year improbable. [Interjections.]

If this agreement had not been reached last night, this country would have been heading for a potential constitutional crisis which would have thrown doubt upon this Parliament’s role in future. These are the harsh facts, and this is what the opposition wanted to happen. [Interjections.] That is why it is a sorry day for them.

It is a crisis of your own making!

They wanted to go to the electorate to say this dispensation had not worked, but their house of cards collapsed today. I am standing here today and, with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I can say the Constitution has won. The Constitution has shown that it was able to deal with all the events of the past week. The spirit and attitude contained in the joint statement, that we had agreed to approach our discussions and our search for solutions from the perspective of our joint responsibility for good government, was the victor, rather than the spirit of protest and boycott which the hon member for Green Point and the hon member for Durban Central tried to condone. I shall come to the speeches made by those hon members. That is why I say it is a sorry day for the opposition, and for us it is a day of rejoicing. All responsible people throughout this country held their breath and are rejoicing today because democracy and an institution in which constitutional co-operation between elected leaders is made possible, has come through this problematic period unharmed.

The hon members of the CP, both the hon members for Brakpan and for Barberton, said I had said last week that we would persist with the legislation and not allow ourselves to be held up by technicalities. The hon members heard that we were going to persist with the legislation. We were not held up by technicalities.

Is it the same legislation?

From our point of view, therefore, we achieved our purpose. There were no winners or losers in this situation. My reply to the hon member for Durban Central is yes, in a certain sense we shall be redebating the same legislation as participants, but this time in interaction with the whole of Parliament. Is that not what hon members want? [Interjections.] Is there an hon member here who says it is not better for legislation to take place in interaction with the whole of Parliament?

The CP does not want that! [Interjections.]

No, they do not have the courage to say so, because they realise that then they will be exposed, and once that fig leaf has vanished, the people will see that they are not really interested in our finding successful solutions …

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Leader of the House prepared to take a question?

No, I am not going to reply to questions. We shall find solutions, based on the spirit and attitude that we accept our joint responsibility for good state government. That is the spirit in which we agreed to and became part of an agreement which will require hon members of this House to debate five of the same pieces of legislation once again, although in amended form.

Surely that is not all that has been achieved. There are five other pieces of legislation that have been accepted by this House. Part of the agreement is that those five other pieces of legislation will be dealt with in the House of Representatives today and will appear on the Statute Book. I have good reason to believe that the same thing is happening in respect of the House of Delegates, although the legislation will not necessarily be concluded today. It has been agreed, therefore, not only to withdraw five pieces of legislation and to submit them with amendments once again; there is also an agreement that the National Roads Amendment Bill, the Constitution Third Amendment Bill, the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill, the Usury Amendment Bill, and the Income Tax Amendment Bill will be dealt with without our having to give any more attention to any of them.

Consequently I can say that a great deal has been achieved with this agreement. In the first place many of our activities are proceeding in the normal way. We are going to deal with the others at a joint meeting and in a spirit of interaction during joint committee sittings.

In addition it is nonsense to say we want to push it through once again, as the hon member for Durban Central said. There will be two weeks for informal discussions before the committees start sitting. I do not know whether or not that hon member is prepared to take part in informal discussions. I am sure, if he is serious in his search for consensus, that he will find that the door of the hon the Deputy Minister, for example, is open to him if he wants to go and chat to him.

During that week those Bills will be discussed by joint committees once again, not for the first time, but for the second time. That is why I say there is no question of any improper haste. There is sufficient time before 26 September to reach consensus to that degree in which it can be reached.

I think one would be living in a dream world if one thought one could reach consensus on everything. We know that deep-rooted differences exist with regard to fundamental matters, and I doubt that complete consensus is attainable. That is why, and I want to repeat this, the joint Press release of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and Minister Hendrickse emphasised clearly that this agreement did not imply that the House of Representatives would necessarily accept any or all of the Bills. In fact, it is possible that they may reject some of the Bills they discuss today.

That is why my answer to the hon member for Barberton is that quite possibly the hon the State President will find himself in a position in which he has to decide whether there is legislation, in respect of which consensus has not been achieved, which he wants to refer to the President’s Council.

They are simply indulging in politics here; they are kicking up a lot of dust. They are absolutely frustrated because they have talked themselves into a corner once again. How did they do this? Their statement is based on an untrue supposition:

And this was signed by the leader of the CP—

[Interjections.] I attended all those discussions. Hon members heard the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning say that the merit, the substance of the amendment, was not part of the negotiations. Sir, you can say you believe me. What I am telling you is the truth. There were enough people present to expose that lie should I have told a lie here. I can state that. That is why I say that what is contained here is an absolute untruth. It is entirely unfounded and as a result, the CP is in trouble.

We shall see!

I do not even know—it is not my line function—precisely which amendments are being considered. The Cabinet has not taken cognisance of which amendments are being considered as yet. Things are still at a stage in which the full responsibility of those amendments resides with that hon Deputy Minister and the relevant hon Minister. That is the truth, and that is why he missed the boat with this whole argument. Something that he could have put to very good use is blowing up in his face.

In a certain sense the hon member for Durban Central correctly summarised what we have in fact achieved. It is contained in the agreement. This agreement also states that Parliament will function in terms of its normal procedure as far as the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives are concerned. Is that not what hon members want? That is what we on this side want, and as I said when I motivated the motion that suspended existing Rules and replaced them by other Rules, the purpose of this was to allow us to do our work, but that we wanted to talk because we wanted to attempt to return to a position in which the normal Rules applied as soon as possible.

That has been achieved and that is why the normal Rules are applicable. I hope that it will never again be necessary to take as drastic a step as we did as a result of a boycott. [Interjections.] Of course it would have been cheaper if we could have disposed of everything finally during these two weeks instead of having a further session lasting a week, but that week is going to cost us much less than a real constitutional crisis in this country would.

A real constitutional crisis would cost this country its future, and the premium of a week’s expense in allowing Parliament to function properly and get legislation debated properly is a very small premium to pay for the security of the future of this country and the security of the victory attained here by democracy.

The position has been restored, and I want to make one thing very clear in order to eliminate a misunderstanding that was created among the public. At no stage was there any question of converting the legislation into own affairs legislation either in my motion or as a result of my motion. It remained general legislation, which regulated general matters, at all times. It is true that this legislation was to transfer powers to own affairs institutions, but this would take place in terms of that general legislation.

The words “own affairs” had relevance only to the own affairs procedure which applies in respect of own affairs legislation. This procedure was changed because one House, the House of Assembly, was doing its work and was in session and because the opposition would be able to frustrate the situation with a single amendment. Then we would not have been able to go back to the joint committee, and we would have had to adjourn as well. [Interjections.] This would have precipitated a constitutional crisis, which they wanted and were planning. At no point, however, did this matter become own affairs as a result of my motion. Nor was this the purpose of the motion at any stage, and I hope that the Press will rectify this once and for all.

The hon members for Green Point and Durban Central tried to argue that boycotting was a constitutional right. That cannot be true in a parliament. If it were, one would not be able to say that there was still democracy and stability in a country.

And the hon member for Caledon!

In the first place, Rule 103 grants powers to the Chief Whip of Parliament and obliges hon members of the House to participate and to dispose of an agenda. Violation of this is tantamount to violation and undermining of the stability of Parliament, and that is why we cannot agree to it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point said protests and boycotting were used to express one’s protest. Surely there is more than sufficient opportunity within these Rules for a party or an individual hon member to express their protest in the way for which Parliament was instituted …

According to what the majority prescribes?

… by talking, by voting and by moving motions or amendments which indicate their protest most clearly. There are varying degrees of expressing one’s protest, and it remains possible for a party to move during a debate that they will vote that that Bill not be read on that specific day.

It was the Government that broke the Rules, no one else!

No, Sir. That is precisely the point. That is the hon member’s sophistry. We also said that we would not lapse into recrimination, but I make the factual statement—I believe it is juridically correct—that the first violation was a violation of what is contained in the Constitution and in Rule 103.

And the second violation?

For that reason it was a corrective action to prevent this House from having to go home without having accomplished anything. [Interjections.]

That is a real fig-leaf argument!

We have already debated this, and I do not want to do so again. For two weeks democracy, as embodied in Parliament, was kept going in a positive and constructive way by only the NP and the NRP. [Interjections.] The CP took part in democracy in the hope that it would be destroyed.

The PFP made themselves irrelevant to the past two weeks … [Interjections] … and in that way they increased their existing irrelevance in a spectacular way. The test before the PFP at the moment is whether they are going to implement protest, if they feel that strongly about it, or whether they are going to take stock of themselves, gain insight and say that they support the objective that “we search for solutions on the basis of our joint responsibility for good government”. I want to invite them to participate once again and I want to warn them never to do what they have done now, because by doing that they will eventually sink into oblivion.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the Financial Mail. This is the first and only opportunity we shall have to say something about that. This was a disgraceful article which attempted to prejudice our leader in an improper way, a way with which I dissociate myself completely. I want to say that the NP supports our leader and rejects the disgraceful article. This is not politics; it is vilification of the worst degree, and we find it repugnant. [Interjections.]

I have replied effectively to what the hon member for Barberton said.

In conclusion, let me say that at the end of these two weeks we shall adjourn for three weeks, three weeks in which constructive work will be done. Then we shall meet again. The NP’s attitude is that we shall meet to place Parliament in a position in which there will be full interaction between the Chambers so that fundamental matters which affect the security of every individual, every people and every population group in this country can be discussed. We shall participate in those fundamental debates in a positive and constructive spirit.

We shall fight the CP if they proceed with the allegation that with regard to the merit of the contents of the Bills, anything other than that which is contained in the Bills has been conceded. We shall also fight the CP if they continue to create the impression that the Bills contain concessions which have led to this agreement, because that is not true. We shall accept responsibility for what the legislation contains, and that is what we shall discuss.

Our purpose with the amendments with regard to the Bills that we have discussed here will be to see whether they can still be improved upon and can be found more acceptable. We shall do this, as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, without frustrating the essential objective of that legislation in any way. It is in that spirit that everyone may know that, insofar as this party’s principles are embodied in those Bills, it adheres to those principles and will continue to do so.

Mr Chairman, the CP is opposed to the motion of the hon Leader of the House that the House of Assembly adjourn until 26 September to rediscuss a certain Bills which have already been dealt with.

It is a money-wasting exercise which has now rendered meaningless the debates which were made in the House during the last two weeks and which has nullified a properly convened session of Parliament. It detracts from the dignity and credibility of the House and also of this country and in fact it makes a farce of the Parliamentary process. It demonstrates a humiliating servility of the Government towards the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives.

The postponement of proceedings to 26 September 1988 in terms of an agreement is going to lead to the further watering-down of the validity of the relevant Bills, measures which are going to bring about far-reaching amendments at the expense of the interests of the Whites. It means that Bills which the NP debated eloquently for two weeks and Bills which they applauded as beacons on the road of reform have been consigned to the wastepaper basket. It indicates double-talk on the part of the Government. At one stage they alleged that they had proceeded with the Bills because the NP was not going to allow chaos to arise as a result of technicalities and that these important Bills had to be placed on the Statute Book. The next moment they abandoned these Bills and capitulated before the demands of the Coloured leader, allegedly in order to avoid a revolution. Both these statements cannot simultaneously be true and it is for these reasons that we are voting against the motion by the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, the NP will vote in favour of this motion because what could become a potential crisis for democracy and for Parliament is being avoided in this way. We shall vote for it because it ensures that Parliament will be fully operative as far as this important legislation is concerned within the usual rules and within the framework and spirit of the Constitution.

We shall vote in favour of it because it will serve the aims of stable government and of the democratic process for which we stand. We shall vote for it because in that session which will take place as a result of this decision, the interests of every population group and all individuals in this country will be effectively catered for in a fair and just manner.

Mr Chairman, the fact that future debates around these five Bills will take place within the Rules of this Parliament is a positive development, but if it is the Government’s serious intent to try to reach consensus or to strive towards that, then the short period provided for this exercise of trying to reach consensus is not sufficient. If there was a real intent to try to find a solution, the Government would not have adjourned Parliament to a date when only two weeks of informal talk is possible and when only five days are being set aside for five separate Bills.

The hon the Minister has again indicated that there is not going to be a departure from the present Bills, and we must warn that if, after the next joint meeting, the Government’s determination to ram through Bills on its own terms is reinforced, this year’s events in this session will be a precursor to many more similar events next year. In other words, unless there is real evidence of a search for consensus on the merits, what we have seen this year will repeat itself in many, many instances in future because the Government’s bona fides are no longer being accepted.

Mr Chairman, once again the PFP confirms that we shall be voting against the motion by the hon Leader of the House. It is clearer than it was before that the hon Leader of the House and his Government apparently do not intend to use the following few weeks in order to gain consensus, but simply to set a marketing exercise in motion in order to once again try to sell their standpoint to other people.

This is not a search for consensus. It is not negotiation in the true sense of the word and it is a pity that it would appear as if the hon Leader of the House has still not learned that lesson. That is why it is clear to the PFP that it is wrong and it is a mistake to reconvene the House in order to consider this kind of legislation. We would prefer never to consider it—in any case not before the following session takes place.

The second aspect on which we are opposing this motion, is that we believe that there should be no adjournment now and this entire day must be used to go through, analyse and debate the important issues which are staring our country in the face.

The House divided:

AYES—111: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—30: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; De Ville, J R; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Mr Chairman, with your permission I move:

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 10h51 and resumed at 11h03.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in supporting the Income Tax Amendment Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance is aware of my attitude in respect of the increase of the investment income in respect of the long-term insurance industry from 40% to 70%. In view of the fact that this measure has already been approved, this particular clause in the Bill merely corrects a date in respect of when this taxation measure will be implemented. I have no objection to these measures and I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, after a silence of two weeks it is really a privilege to take part in a formal debate once again.

Those of us on this side of the House support the Income Tax Amendment Bill without any reservations. The Bill in question rectifies the omission made by the officials of a date which has reference to the implementation of increased tax on long-term insurers.

Just like the hon member for Schauderville, I want to repeat that we on this side of the House do not support the frightful tax increase for insurers, because in our opinion long-term insurers are to a great extent an important source of revenue to the country. Nevertheless we support the clause which specifies the date. I am referring to clause 2 of the Bill, and I quote:

Clause 1 provides for pension contributions by city councillors. As hon members know, a pension fund was established for city councillors and management committee members. Contributions by the members have not been tax deductible so far. The amendment in question makes the contributions tax deductible. For this reason we should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support. The Bill makes a rectification with regard to the technical mistake in respect of a date.

I can assure hon members that the permanent committee on taxation under Dr Stalz is taking an in-depth look at the whole question of the taxation of insurance companies. This is not a problem peculiar to us. Both the United Kingdom and the USA have problems with the taxation of insurance companies.

I thank you for your support with regard to the pensions of city councillors. This is merely a question of an acknowledged principle in that we are permitting them, if they want to make contributions, to deduct these contributions for tax purposes.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, we support the Usury Amendment Bill. As hon members may well be aware, from time to time constituents come to us with problems concerning hire purchase transactions where certain dealers sometimes charge excessive interest rates should a person pay an instalment but one day later than he should have. One finds that dealers are obviously trying to find loopholes in the Usury Act in order to circumvent that particular Act, charging excessive rates and exploiting poor people in the process. I believe that these dealers must be severely dealt with and I support the fact that the penalties for circumventing the disclosure of hire purchase interest rates has been increased substantially. We cannot allow poor and sometimes unaware people, who are not legally trained, to be exploited in this process. Normally the person right at the bottom of the economic ladder is the one who is exploited by these dealers.

Obviously the Usury Act will have to be amended from time to time in order to close these loopholes. Every time one loophole is closed some dealer will find another one in order to exploit the poor people. I believe that we will have to play the role of watchdog in our constituencies and report these matters to the authorities, so that any type of exploitation that takes place in respect of finance charges shall be brought to the attention of the authorities and the necessary legislative action may be taken in order to prevent further instances. We support the measure.

Mr Chairman, we should like to support this measure. The hon member for Schauderville pointed out clearly that the legislation has to provide for a crackdown on unscrupulous credit grantors. We are particularly concerned about the indigent people in this country, and in particular the ignorant indigent people who are exploited. I am in complete agreement with the hon member for Schauderville that the increase in fines as well as prison sentences should be implemented in cases in which credit grantors increase the rates of financing costs arbitrarily, naturally to the detriment of the debtors. The Usury Act has been amended on numerous occasions, but because we want good finance legislation, it will have to be amended continually so that the constant emergence of loopholes can be eliminated. For that reason we should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, once again I want to thank hon members for their support. I agree with them that we always have problems with exploitation. As soon as one gets rid of one loophole, 50 others are discovered. I want to mention that at present this legislation is also before the Law Commission, which is giving in-depth attention to what we might call a new Act. It is so difficult to take many of these matters to court. If, for example, one has to make an in-depth investigation into the books of one financial institution, one may find that there are hundreds of thousands of contraventions, because the computer is adjusted in such a way that the interest rate is higher than that permitted by us. We shall come back to this House next year. There have been appeal problems. Hon members are aware of that. This Bill has already been discussed by this House. There were technical problems, but hon members may rest assured that, as hon members said, by playing the role of watchdogs we shall prevent our people from being exploited. I thank hon members for their support.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I explained the Bill in detail when it was discussed in the House of Assembly, and I am not showing hon members of this House any disrespect, but in order to save time I shall not repeat exactly what was said in the House of Assembly. I shall single out only certain parts of the speech in order to explain this Bill to hon members in more detail.

The National Roads Act was amended as early as 1983 to make a toll on national roads possible. Consequently there is no discussion on that point today. We amended the Act in that regard in 1983. At the time we also wanted to prepare a Bill on toll roads. This was not done, however, because the legislation would have been a repetition of the National Roads Act. Consequently it was decided to amend the National Roads Act in order to make the privatisation of roads possible rather than to pass legislation with regard to toll roads.

I want to emphasise the Government’s commitment to privatisation and deregulation in this respect. The White Paper which expresses the Government’s standpoint on this subject was tabled in Parliament last year. The following advantages with regard to privatisation were mentioned inter alia-. In the first place it reduces the State’s involvement in the net fixed investment in the country. In the second place it permits forces to exercise an influence on the allocation of scarce resources. In addition it stimulates the economy and extends the tax basis. I do not think hon members will disagree with me on these points.

The design, planning and building of roads by the private sector for the public sector, and everything associated with that—including the maintenance—has been the order of the day for some time. There is nothing new in this. In fact the policy followed in the country has led to the establishment of a strongly growing construction industry which is specialising in road building to an increasing extent. The competition between the various construction companies is very keen. What is happening now? The more we privatise, the more we are stimulating that industry in South Africa.

†In short, Mr Chairman, the business of government is to govern and not to do business. This is evident in the road-building industry. The demand for an efficient and extended national road network grows continually and there are large stretches of provincial roads which could and should become national roads. By means of privatisation national roads can be provided or improved at a much earlier stage. It is also in line with the policy to recover the cost of services from those who actually derive the benefit of such services.

I should like to come back to the Bill before us. This is part of the privatisation policy that has been adopted by the Department of Transport and it is in accordance with the recommendations contained in the White Paper. It provides inter alia for the conclusion of an agreement between the National Transport Commission and the concessionaire. In terms of the agreement the concessionaire finances, constructs, maintains and operates a section of a national road. The concessionaire is entitled to levy a toll in respect of that section of a national road. It is the subject of such an agreement, the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and which may inter alia differentiate between different classes of vehicles. The toll collected accrues to the concessionaire.

The agreement is effective for a period not exceeding 25 years from a date specified and contained in this agreement and may be extended for a further period not exceeding 25 years. During this time the concessionaire performs the functions, and has the necessary powers and duties of the commission with regard to the control of the road and is liable in respect of damages caused by usage of the road.

*In the past the National Transport Commission had the power to do this. The Act was amended in 1983. The most significant amendment that has been proposed here, is that the National Transport Commission now grant this concession that a concessionaire may build a road, maintain it and utilise the toll that is collected for his own account.

†In terms of the agreement with the two consortia, Tollway and Tolcon, which will have the first concessions, the State will become a partner in these ventures with a shareholding of up to 25%. The Government will also be represented by three directors on the board of each consortium to protect the public’s interest.

There are various examples overseas—I think this should be an important point to hon members because it shows that it is not unique to South Africa—of such public and private sector partnerships such as the coffee route toll road company in France which has been in operation for many years. Other ways of government involvement in such private ventures overseas include government guarantees on loans taken up by the private companies to finance the projects. In the US federal funds can now also be used by states to assist in the financing of toll roads. In Malaysia the government ceded about 500 km of road to a toll company to incorporate into a toll road network of 1 000 km in order to make the project viable.

Let us look at the tolling of existing roads. The question of tolling of existing roads—I think this is also a matter which is uppermost in the minds of hon members—has resulted in considerable public reaction and I should like to elaborate on this matter. There is, of course, a limit to the level of toll tariffs which the public will accept. If the tariffs are set at this limit and multiplied by the traffic, the result is the gross income. If this is insufficient to meet all the costs, the project is not viable. One way of solving the problem is to add a portion of existing road to the project so that the income from tolling the existing road can supplement the previously calculated income at the level which makes the project viable. This is the reason for including existing sections of the N1 and the N3 in Tolcon’s project and the R77 and the temporary tolling of the M13 in Tollway’s project. If we do not do this the alternative would be for the State to make a substantial financial contribution to the project to make it viable.

*In brief this is the most significant change. I think hon members might also be concerned about the possibility that these people will be able to make excessive profits. We have built certain mechanisms into the agreements, however, in order to ensure an acceptable relationship between risk and remuneration for the consortiums. The first is that maximum toll tariffs have been determined at 75% of the real advantage offered by the toll road in comparison with the alternative route. Secondly standards were prescribed for road construction, maintenance and traffic density, not only to provide the paying road user with an acceptable level of service, but also to effect the required long-term investment by the private sector in road infrastructure which will survive the duration of the concession.

I have said that the State has nominated three directors who make up part of the board of directors of each of the companies in order to take care of the interests of the State and the public. In my opinion the fact that these companies will be listed on the Stock Exchange within 10 years and offer the State’s maximum shareholding of 25% provides sufficient protection. The most important protection for the public, however, is that both companies will be subject to normal market forces and since toll revenue is a function comprising both traffic volume and toll tariffs, it is common knowledge that the optimum revenue for a toll company is achieved at a tariff that is low enough to attract at least 80% of the corridor traffic for which the toll road is a logical route. If the toll tariff is too high, the public will not make use of the road. Consequently the normal market forces will attract the public to using that road.

What is more, the Government will derive benefit from these enterprises by means of the tax which will ultimately be paid by the consortiums. I think we can accept that this Bill opens doors to the private sector in that more work can be created, the private sector can participate in transport matters in South Africa and in that we shall establish a mechanism by means of which the road user will make a fair contribution in respect of the advantages he derives from using the road.

Mr Chairman, despite the fact that we agreed to this Bill in the joint committee, I want to request that the Bill be referred back to the joint committee. My reasons for this are, in the first place, the Ennerdale question which unfortunately was not part of the discussion in the committee. This is a matter of the utmost importance. We cannot have people having to pay more to get where they want to be in the course of their day-to-day lives. If one takes the arrogance of the Johannesburg management committee into account—they are concerned about those things that affect the Whites, but the Ennerdale question is not important to them—I cannot sit here and agree that this Bill be passed. We are all in favour of toll roads in principle, but then the matter must be dealt with in a fair way.

Unfortunately my second reason does not make up part of the joint committee’s terms of reference either. I think clause 9 refers to “available alternative routes”. That is not acceptable to me, because I should like the legislation to state that there must be an existing, available alternative route. These toll companies can now build alternative roads to compel one ultimately to make use of the toll road. I should like the legislation to state that it must not only be an available alternative, but an existing, available alternative.

With regard to the Ennerdale question, I want to say once again that it is totally unacceptable to me. I want to request that hon members in this House co-operate so that we can refer this Bill back to the joint committee. That is my proposal.

Mr Chairman, I should like to remind hon members that toll roads were instituted in South Africa during the previous century and then were stopped until 1984 when the Tsitsikamma toll road was opened. Toll roads were instituted once again in 1984 because the Department of Transport did not have sufficient funds available to build and maintain our country’s national roads.

After an investigation by the parliamentary select committee into the toll financing of roads, it was decided to proceed with toll financing and in this way to strengthen the National Road Fund. Government toll roads are built by making use of loans from the capital market, however, with initial interest payments by the National Road Fund. The whole matter of toll roads concerns funds, therefore, but let us leave it at that for the moment.

We in this House are realistic and can maintain statesmanship, but in the Transvaal in particular there are certain isolated communities that are really experiencing fundamental problems because the hon the Minister and his department did not consult the hon members of this House as well as the House of Delegates and other leading figures in these areas. As you know, Sir, a great deal has been said about this on television and in the Press, and consequently I shall not say much about it.

Although we supported this legislation in the joint committee, I want to request that we place this legislation back on the Order Paper and that it be discussed at committee level once again.

Mr Chairman, I support the chairman of our House Committee and the way in which he discussed the legislation.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say that I certainly support the suggestions made by the two previous speakers. I wish to place on record the dissatisfaction of the hon members of this House with the whole manner in which this thing has been handled, and certainly with the timing of toll gates.

I know and I realise that it is the trend throughout the world that those who use the road must pay for the road. I have no problem with that principle. However, I believe that one must be very careful when dealing with specifics. I certainly believe that a very insensitive approach was used here.

Allow me, however, just to dwell on this point a little. When I say that those who use the road must pay for it, I also wish to include those who are responsible for the use of the road—they too must pay for the usage of that road. Because of the Group Areas Act the poor were moved away from their places of employment, and the rich were allowed to entrench themselves close to the city.

Here I wish to express my sympathy with the hon member who represents an area such as Ennerdale. Those people did not go there of their own free will; they were forcibly moved to Ennerdale. To worsen the situation, after the forced removal we are now penalising those people by making them pay a toll to get to their places of employment. It is on this principle that we are objecting to the insensitivity of using toll roads at this time, particularly as areas such as Ennerdale and others are included in such plans.

Again it is a question of insensitivity. There is a big rumpus in Johannesburg at the moment—it crosses the colour line—where the city council and its management committee have raised certain objections which have caused internal friction within a particular political formation. Suddenly there were talks when Members of Parliament approached the hon the Minister concerned. However, that same insensitivity was directed towards our group, the people we represent, and there has been no communication on that score. I wish to suggest that when we refer these Bills back to the committee a more sensitive approach and certainly the whole process of negotiation be used. The events of the past few days have proven that we can achieve things in this country if we use the forum of negotiation.

Mr Chairman, I am disappointed that the hon members of this House have assumed the attitude that we should refer the Bill back to the joint committee. I have great sympathy with the hon members who are pleading for their specific communities.

I even have sympathy with the hon member who represents the Ennerdale area. In fact, I visited that area with departmental officials and had an opportunity to acquaint myself with the circumstances there. I want to make it clear that no matter where toll plazas are built, we shall never be able to satisfy everyone. Someone somewhere will always be dissatisfied. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon members maintain that only the Ennerdale area will be affected by this. In the case of the M13, however, there are many other people, Whites in the southern part of Johannesburg, for example, who are affected by this road. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon member for Klipspruit West is a member of the joint committee. According to my information the Ennerdale question was discussed in the joint committee, and the matter is not being raised here for the first time today. Nevertheless I want to point out to hon members that provision is being made for an alternative route. I have the map of the area in front of me. The public in that area can use the Golden Highway. They need not use the N1 or the specific toll plaza.

We should like to help the people in those parts of the RSA. Those people need not use only the Golden Highway. We realise that there may be traffic congestion at certain times of the day and that is one of the reasons for our wanting to improve the road. We have already approved an amount of R3 million to upgrade the Golden Highway and make provision for a four-lane standard road. This means that the public has a choice. There is an existing, alternative road which can be upgraded. Hon members must remember, however, that the Hendrik Schoeman highway between Springs and Krugersdorp is intended to benefit all communities. It will facilitate the development of the whole of the Witwatersrand, from the East Rand to the West Rand.

With regard to the M13, only a temporary toll will be levied on this road, until such time as the whole of the R77 and the N4 have been completed. Those roads will be completed within the next six to eight years. The toll plaza will then be on the N4. I want to emphasise that existing roads are used as far as possible. Hon members must remember, however, that in cases in which there are existing and acceptable roads, we are building new roads and upgrading roads in order to give the public an opportunity to use those roads. One cannot upgrade the alternative roads to the same standard as toll roads, since in that case there would be no sense in having toll roads.

The toll roads are built for the purpose of improving the flow of traffic and in order to facilitate the development of the country. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

We have not used an insensitive approach and I think hon members have had an opportunity at the joint committee to discuss this. I do not think one can at this stage refer this Bill back to. the joint committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, upon the request of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I should like to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Since my hon colleague has already discussed this Bill by way of an introductory speech in one of the other Houses, I do not want to repeat what he said. I understand the speech was made available to hon members. This Bill basically concerns the interpretation of section 78(8) of the Constitution in terms of which a President’s Council ruling in respect of a dispute on legislation between different Houses must be tabled in Parliament within 14 days after receipt thereof by the State President. Although there is some doubt about the legal interpretation, it is accepted in this case that if Parliament is not in session, it will have to be convened specially merely to table such a President’s Council ruling. The Bill proposes a more flexible arrangement and makes specific provision so that Parliament need not be convened for the tabling of such a President’s Council ruling.

This is a purely technical question and this amendment does not affect any principle or any of the functions of the President’s Council. It does not affect the authority of Parliament with regard to legislation, nor does it cast doubt on the validity of an Act on which the President’s Council has given a ruling. This Bill does not concern a principle, therefore, but is purely a practical arrangement in order to prevent Parliament from having to be convened specially for the receipt of the tabling of this ruling.

Mr Chairman, the Constitution Third Amendment Bill before us proposes to amend sections 20 and 78 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983.

Mr Chairman, clause 2, which amends section 20, is yet another straightforward demonstration of the kind of power wielded by the State President in the realm of appointments. In this particular case the State President may—and hon members can take it from me that “may” means “shall”— designate a member of the Cabinet to act as chairman in his absence.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I draw your attention to the fact that clause 2, to which the hon member is referring, is not contained in this Bill. It was in the original Bill and it has been withdrawn and removed from the Bill. There is only one clause before the House at present, namely the clause originally numbered 3, which deals with section 78(8) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for that. I was discussing the wrong version. However, this particular clause is the meanest cut of all. Allow me to give hon members a little bit of background, referring to the Constitution itself. Section 78(4)(b) states:

Subsection (5), also under section 78 of the Constitution, says:

1. (a) … that the bill is to be presented to the State President for assent or that it shall not be so presented;
2. (b) … that none of those versions shall be so presented;
3. (c) which one of the different versions of such bill … is to be presented to the State President for assent.

Mr Chairman, if the State President accepts this advice or decisions, as the matter exists today he shall lay it upon the Table of every House within 14 days.

I should like to come back to the proposal, which suggests that the 14 days precondition be scrapped and that the Bill or Bills be laid upon the Table as soon as possible. The controversy arises with the words “as soon as possible”. The Bill does not define this expression. It could be interpreted to mean on the same day, the next day, the next week, the next month or after many months or whatever. This carte blanche type of situation cannot be acceptable.

The other objection to this Bill is the whole concept of the President’s Council’s superiority over the Houses of Parliament. According to subsection (5), the President’s Council can and is able to override anything that the Houses of Parliament may decide. Yet the members of the President’s Council are appointed people, whilst most members of Parliament are, as we all know, elected. Is this not another ploy to kill democracy, Sir? I do not support this Bill because one just cannot put right anything that is totally wrong, even if one decides to use force through the President’s Council, which we expect the NP Government to do in this particular case.

Mr Chairman, you should have let me speak first.

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, not at all, but on the previous speaker, the hon member’s colleague. Mr Chairman, I have had the opportunity of glancing very briefly at the Minister’s introductory speech in one of the other Houses. His entire argument is based on a technical and legal approach. With that I have no problem, Sir.

Technically and legally it is quite correct, but I have a political approach. We are part of a system that is based on consensus. We honestly and sincerely came here to find solutions to this country’s problems. We became part of a system which is supposed to be based on consensus. However, we find that it is provided in the Constitution that if no consensus can be reached, legislation can be referred to the President’s Council and we will not deal with that matter.

However, it is ridiculous to expect our party and this House to support a measure which is aimed at streamlining and facilitating a process which is there to overcome our objection to certain legislation. Consensus can be reached if people are prepared to sit down and consciously listen to each other and try to understand each others’ experiences of apartheid. We have had vastly different experiences of apartheid. Some of us experienced humiliation and degradation. To others apartheid meant power and privilege. If we sit down and discuss matters, we can reach consensus.

The talks that took place this week between the Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader of this House, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Minister of National Education, and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are proof that if both sides are prepared to work at it, consensus can be reached.

I should therefore like to submit that, instead of passing an amendment of this nature in order to facilitate the whole process of referring legislation to the President’s Council, we should have had a Bill before us that was aimed at making the process more difficult and cumbersome as it would provide us with an additional incentive to get to consensus decision-making.

In his absence I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he, as a person who has repeatedly stated his commitment to seek consensus in this House and elsewhere, consider withdrawing this Bill. Should he fail to do so, I will have absolutely no hesitation in recommending, on behalf of the Labour Party component on the joint committee, that this House reject the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I have noted the view expressed by the hon member for Addo that he has no objection in regard to the technical and legal aspects contained in this proposed amendment. I have also noted the objection expressed by the hon member for Durban Suburbs and the hon member for Addo, ie that they basically object to the fact that a procedure is followed that does not, in their view, meet with the basic requirement of consensus with a view to legislation.

I should like to point out that the procedure for solving the question if there is no consensus among the different Houses in the legislative process, was written into the Constitution right from the outset. Members who decided to participate in the system and who became members of Parliament, were aware of this conflict-solving mechanism that has been built into our Constitution. It is therefore not a question of a measure that has been introduced afterwards. It was part of the system right from the outset.

The hon member for Addo objected to the procedure in this Bill and he said that it would facilitate methods of overcoming the objections of this particular House. I should like to point out that a careful study of the sections concerned in the Constitution will leave no doubt that finality is reached the moment the President’s Council has taken its decision. Only then is the matter submitted directly to the hon the State President for his signature in terms of the relevant sections in the Constitution. Mr Chairman, with due respect I should like to submit that the intervening act of tabling the decision of the President’s Council is purely a formality which is of importance because Parliament has to be informed about the President’s Council decision.

The validity of the legislative process is neither affected by the tabling nor by the decision of the President’s Council. It would appear that the interests of good administration are not promoted if Parliament, should it not be in session, should be recalled only and exclusively for the formal tabling of that report, because the tabling of the report and an eventual discussion of that report will have no effect on the validity of the legislative process which has already been terminated in terms of the Constitution.

Therefore, Sir, with due respect to hon members, it is not possible to do anything about their objections.

Mr Chairman, once again I want to deal with this Bill on behalf of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This Bill has also been discussed in one of the other Houses of Parliament, and the relevant Second Reading speech has been distributed among hon members. I merely want to summarise the main principle of this Bill very briefly.

In the first place this Bill accepts the judgement of the Appeal Court in terms of which the incorporation of Moutse into the KwaNdebele area is declared invalid. This amending Bill does not change the fact that Moutse’s incorporation was declared invalid.

In the second place, in introducing this Bill the Government is acknowledging the fact that the State President has appointed a commission of inquiry under former Mr Justice Rumpff to advise the Government on Moutse’s future status and constitutional position.

In the third place this Bill simply concerns the validation of all measures which were taken in good faith in terms of the legislation of KwaNdebele which was accepted at the time to be the legal authority over Moutse. There can be no doubt that everyone accepted in good faith that the government of KwaNdebele had the authority in terms of KwaNdebele’s legislation to take certain steps in respect of Moutse and the residents of the area; in fact, the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court rejected the validity of the incorporation and therefore the possible invalidation of the measures in KwaNdebele’s legislation, and regarded the incorporation as valid. I should like to make it very clear that this legislation contains no provision that a deed or act in conflict with other legal provisions than those that are in question here will be legalised. A criminal act which is in conflict with other legislation can therefore still serve as the basis of legal proceedings in court to restore the rights of someone who has been detrimentally affected by such an act.

In conclusion I want to say that if this legalising of bona fide actions during the period in which the impression existed that Moutse had been incorporated into KwaNdebele were rejected, the KwaNdebele government would not be punished—in fact, the KwaNdebele government would not really be affected—but the residents of Moutse and even innocent people outside Moutse who were affected by such actions would be in a position of total uncertainty, chaos and lawlessness.

The payment of salaries and pensions, the grantin g of licences, the contracting of marriages and so on would be declared invalid and the injured party, if we should not implement this legalising measure, would be the residents of Moutse, not the KwaNdebele government. Consequently I trust that hon members of this House will find it possible to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill before us, the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill, is one of those exercises which can be described as closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Although the hon the State President did negotiate with the KwaNdebele government about the incorporation of Moutse under its jurisdiction, it has been quite evident that the people of Moutse were not overjoyed at the idea—in fact, there is a long story about that and I will not go into it now. The captain of the Bantuana tribe and the chairman of the Bantuana Tribal Authority actually objected to the incorporation in court. On 29 March 1988 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the incorporation of Moutse under KwaNdebele null and void; in other words, the hon the State President’s Proclamation R227 of 31 December 1985 became invalid.

This Bill aims to prevent the existence of a vacuum in the administration in the Moutse district. It is necessary—so the Bill says—to validate certain actions taken in respect of the district during the period between 31 December 1985 and 29 March 1988. Sir, the objective of this Bill is to validate those actions that took place within that time and we all know right now that the government of KwaNdebele itself is null and void at the moment. That is another story which I will not go into.

However, right now I want to say that we in the UDP do not support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must congratulate the previous speaker on getting the Bill right this time. Firstly, on this second day of spring it was good to watch the news on Good Morning South Africa and to sense that peace seems to be threatening to break out in South Africa as well as in other parts of the world. I am pleased with the news statements made in connection with the negotiations which have taken place between our leadership and leaders of the NP in the past few days. I should like to quote one section from the released statements which I liked in particular:

This is good news to me, because it gives some sort of chance for some sort of peace in this country. If we are going to develop an understanding of each other’s perceptions and beliefs it will be easier for us to work together.

I want to refer to the seriousness of what happens in Parliament. At no time must we allow ourselves so much levity here that we fail to bear in mind that every word that is uttered in this House and in the other Houses, in the Chamber of Parliament and in committee rooms and board rooms, affects the lives of people outside Parliament.

Every single word is important. For this reason it is important that we also try to keep our speeches as short as possible so that one may weigh one’s words as carefully as possible, since they affect the lives of people.

If we as leaders and as representatives of people cannot respect one another’s views here in Parliament and cannot deal responsibly with the perceptions of others, and if we do not find a way of understanding one another, we cannot expect the people outside, whom we represent, similarly to learn to live with one another on a basis of understanding and respect. [Interjections.]

It must therefore be expected that we in Parliament will not always agree; much as, even in a strong family, any two members of a family cannot at all times be expected to agree on everything. However, as in a strong family, if differences between members are accommodated, and if an understanding exists of differences between the members of a family, there is a chance for such a family to grow stronger and stronger. Similarly, here in Parliament, if we learn to accept differences and to try to understand others’ perceptions, there is a better chance for differences among us to be accommodated. And it is accommodation we are after; not compliance. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister knows our viewpoints on the development of self-governing territories. During the past four years statements have been made here which make it clear where we stand as far as regional development is concerned. The hon the Minister, as well as the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, knows that our party is opposed to regional development on racial lines. We oppose such regional development totally. He also knows that we do not only oppose this regional development, but that we firmly believe in a different route, in an alternative which has been spelt out clearly. I shall repeat the alternative in brief terms.

We firmly believe in the creation of a non-racial geographic federation. Those three simple words encapsulate and briefly state what we stand for. We believe in the creation of a non-racial geographic federal structure for this country.

The need for us as the leaders of those components of this growing South African family to quarrel over this falls away in the light of the statements which have been released by those who have taken part in the negotiations over the past three days. I wish to congratulate them on a tremendous effort. [Interjections.] We respect them highly for the work they have done; we respect them as highly for the work they have done as we denigrate the people who were responsible for the grenade attack on the house of the leader of the Labour Party this very morning. That kind of person is not required in this country. Of course there will be speculation about who the culprits are. It is important for us to call upon our own people not to retaliate in like manner. The future of South Africa lies here, in negotiation of the kind that has been entered upon during the past three days by our leaders and other leaders. [Interjections.] Non-violence is the future of South Africa and of the growing family of South Africa.

I return to the point that the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid know that we have consistently opposed the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele; in fact, the whole cauldron that is KwaNdebele has been bubbling over the past four years, in this very House. The LP is on record for its efforts to oppose the mischief which is being perpetrated in that region. The hon the Minister should realise that we cannot now make an about-face and support this type of validation of the actions of a legislative assembly which were imposed upon the people of Moutse.

It makes it doubly bad that these actions, as a matter of necessity, require validation in retrospect to 1985.

I want to refer to another important matter concerning our further opposition to this measure. We believe that this country needs further and faster reform. The Government of the day expects people across the border and across racial lines to participate in what was initially intended to be a national council. Participation in such a structure requires the support, not only of people, but also of credible leaders outside Parliament. It therefore stands to reason that emphasis must be placed on participation and that there is no place or time for the kind of legislation we have before us today. In no uncertain terms, but as humbly as possible and in all humility, we on this side of the House reject the passing of the Bill in this House.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I do not think the hon member for Durban Suburbs mentioned any concrete argument dealing with the contents of this Bill which calls for comment or reaction from my side.

However, I must express my appreciation of what I consider a very statesman-like speech made by the hon member for Wentworth. I want to associate myself with the delight the hon member expressed about the successes achieved by leaders from my House, as well as leaders from this House, in bringing about an understanding which enables us to work together in an effective and responsible functioning of the Houses of Parliament and in the legislative process. I also agree with the emphasis the hon member put on the importance of having respect and understanding for each other’s viewpoints in order to be able, on that basis, to reach accommodation and consensus.

If we look back on the history of the three Houses of this Parliament during the past four years, we have made tremendous progress. We have achieved a vast number of jointly legislated successes. We have demonstrated to this country the possibility of successful negotiation, especially in the standing and joint committees. We have showed that the vast and overwhelming majority of measures laid before the different Houses of Parliament could be piloted to a successful and agreed legislative process. The fact that, when the process went through a very stormy period in recent days and weeks, we were able to produce the quality of leadership on all sides to find each other, and to formulate a joint approach, augurs well for the future of this country. I personally have learnt a tremendous amount from listening to the deeply-felt sentiments of hon members in this House regarding matters on which the majority of hon members here differ with my own party. We have learnt a lot in the past four years. We have learnt to understand each other’s problems and especially the emotion behind those problems. We are all human beings. None of us functions only intellectually. All of us also have emotions and feelings. We must understand and respect that. I agree with the hon member for Wentworth in his emphasis on the fact that even a strong family often also suffers strong and even violent differences. We must learn to overcome those differences and work together so that we can continue the process of good government in spite of such differences.

In conclusion I very briefly want to refer to the Bill before us. In spite of the hon member’s objection about the policy of self-governing territories and the alternative policy which the LP upholds, and in spite of the objections of this House to the incorporation of Moutse, the fact is that this Bill does nothing to promote the system of self-governing territories or the interests of the KwaNdebele government. This Bill merely proposes to redress the impossible situation in which innocent individuals landed, without any ill-will or mala fides on their part, as a result of the fact that the Appeal Court decision invalidated not only the incorporation of Moutse, but also the validity of a large series of Acts, actions, measures, decisions, administrative actions and payment of salaries and pensions, in an impossible situation.

Unless we validate those actions, these innocent individuals will be left in a situation of serious suffering. That is why I hoped that this House would find it possible to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, just before I move the adjournment of this House, allow me to associate myself first of all with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the hon member for Wentworth, as far as the cowardly attack on the house of the leader of the LP is concerned, and also all other victims that have suffered recently. I am referring particularly to what has happened at Khotso House. Sir, I believe that we may differ, but I will never condone violence, because I do not believe that we will solve our problems by means of violence.

Mr Chairman, with your kind permission I would also like to express my gratitude to all hon members of this House and also to all other hon members of Parliament for their co-operation during this very short but certainly important and eventful session. There are people outside who still believe that no work is done in Parliament. I want to assure them that it was hard work, although on the surface it might look as though nothing was done. As one of those who was intimately involved in the negotiations, I am pleased to report that I believe that over this period we have achieved much more for South Africa than is really appreciated from outside. The ability to give and take is going to solve the problems of South Africa. Therefore I welcome the spirit that prevailed during the negotiation period. It is really with regret that I have to move my motion. I only hope that the spirit that we take with us from this period onwards will be the one in which we will come back on 26 September to carry on with the functions, the same spirit that was created during this very important period.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, we want to associate ourselves with the condemnation of the attack this morning, as expressed by the hon the Leader of the House. We on this side of the House also abhor violence and it appears as though a climate has been created in this country in which people who disagree with others are resorting to violence in order to give expression to their standpoint. This we cannot agree with and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on representation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, with the leave of the House I withdraw the Draft Resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, namely Order No 2.

Agreed to.

Business suspended at llh55 and resumed at 14h15.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no difficulty with the Bill and we take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House fully support the Income Tax Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, those who read the Margo Commission report will understand that the Margo Commission made some 300 recommendations for some drastic changes in the taxation system. Nevertheless, the Department of Finance did not accept all the recommendations of the Margo Commission and only selected a few. This Bill emanates from those recommendations and I support the Bill.

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

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

(Second Reading debate)

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, all I want to say to the hon the Minister is that he should have a good holiday.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! We have taken exactly two minutes and 20 seconds.

Mr Chairman, hon members have asked me to torpedo this one through in two minutes.

Mr Chairman, although my religious beliefs preclude me from engaging in acts of usury and so on, I am constrained to support the Bill on behalf of my party.

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, of all the Bills that have come before us, this little Bill has far more importance insofar as protecting the public is concerned. The public should be protected from being taken for a ride by financiers as far as hire-purchase and financing are concerned, because the general public is often bled dry as regards interest on loans and finance advances. This is a very important Bill. It is in the interests of the public that they be protected. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members for supporting the Bill. To us this is a very important Bill. In our fight against rapid increases in consumer demand, we announced certain measures during May of this year, especially with regard to rent and hire-purchase.

There was also a court case regarding variable and fixed interest rates. If it had not been possible to pass this Bill today, this would have resulted in many court cases against us. I really appreciate the support of this House. I would like to put it to hon members that the Law Commission is investigating this Act. I hope hon members will not mind this, but we will come back to this Act next year. There are very clever people in this country. The moment one closes certain loopholes, 15 new ones develop within the following week.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I just want to comment that the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance has had two measures passed in five minutes and 23 seconds.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) Second Reading debate—Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 115—88 (GA)]— (Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Second Reading debate—Slums Bill [B 119—88 (GA)]—(Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs).
3. (3) Consideration of Third Report of Joint Committee on Public Accounts (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p W54)—(Minister of Finance).

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I support my hon leader’s motion.

Agreed to.

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

1. (1) whereas the honourable member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, having deliberately and intentionally made the following false statements in the House on 24 February 1988, viz:
   1. (a) “No honourable member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election” (Hansard, col 2102); and
   2. (b) “This Party did not receive any donations—I am placing this on record— from any contractors or any development company” (Hansard, col 2114),
   and further declared on 9 March 1988:
   “… I say in this House under oath that no building contractor has given me any funds, even for the party” (Hansard, col 3437),
   and whereas he has since then not shown any remorse for these actions, the House resolves to suspend Mr A Rajbansi from the service of the House for the remainder of the current Parliament; and
2. (2) in view of the serious charges made against Mr A Rajbansi in his capacity as Minister of Housing in the Report of the House Committee on Maladministration, which was adopted by the House on 1 September 1988, the House calls upon the honourable the State President to remove Mr A Rajbansi from office as Minister of Housing.

As I indicated earlier, our joint caucus has agreed to move an amendment to that motion.

Mr Chairman, pursuant to the comments of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I should like to move the following amendment:

1. “(1) noting that the hon member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, was suspended from the service of the House on 29 June 1988 for having deliberately and intentionally made the following false statements in the House on 24 February 1988, viz:
   1. (a) “No hon member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election” (Hansard, col 2102); and
   2. (b) “This Party did not receive any donations—I am placing this on record—from any contractors or any development company” (Hansard, col 2114),
   and further having declared on 9 March 1988:
   “… I say in this House under oath that no building contractor has given me any funds, even for the party.” (Hansard, col 3437),
   which suspension was rescinded on 30 August 1988, and further noting that he has since then not shown any remorse for these actions, the House, on the grounds of the finding of the House Committee on Maladministration that Mr A Rajbansi on 17 March 1988 deliberately and intentionally furnished a false reply to a question by Mr M Rajab, MP, for written reply, resolves to suspend the honourable member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, from the service of the House until 28 February 1989; and
2. (2) in view of the serious charges established against Mr A Rajbansi in his capacity as Minister of Housing in the Report of the House Committee on Maladministration, which was adopted by the House on 1 September 1988,

Mr Chairman, yesterday I spoke for 105 minutes on the report of the House Committee. I do not want to repeat that because what I stated was reported in Hansard. We have the simultaneous sitting of the James Commission of Inquiry in Durban and the matters that were dealt with by this House Committee and the previous house committee on the question of privilege are also being dealt with by the James Commission of Inquiry.

I want to repeat something that I mentioned yesterday. In all fairness there is an indictment against any hon member of this House in the deliberations of the House Committee if one bears in mind the dictum of audi alteram partem. When any hon member appears—even as a witness—any statements made should be put to that hon member.

When I appeared before the House Committee on the question of privilege nobody—there was only the chairman and one other hon member present—ever mentioned to me that a witness had referred to a firm called Citiplan Contractin g. If anyone in that committee had had the courtesy to mention this to me, I would have asked for an adjournment, gone to Durban and issued a challenge to anyone to find out whether a firm called Citiplan Contracting had ever existed or was in existence then.

I wrote a letter to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, extending an invitation to him that both of us should search the whole of Durban for that building contracting company. We will not find that building contracting company and we will discover that it does not exist. However, the reply I received stated that because the Press had reported that letter, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was offended.

Of course we also have the experience of receiving letters and the newspapers telephoning us 10 minutes before these letters are delivered to me. In any House truth cannot be determined by numbers. I still want to say that I would like to be proved wrong.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned a report yesterday which I treat with the contempt that it deserves. I gave certain facts yesterday concerning certain points mentioned in the report upon which I have not touched. Quite a number of matters were dealt with in the report of this House Committee and they have also been raised in the James Commission of Inquiry and I have yet to give evidence. Hon members are aware of the fact that my party and I have been subjected to a conspiracy and the pattern of this conspiracy is imagined. That is why I pointed out yesterday that I was subject to certain constraints in respect of highlighting some of the points that were mentioned in the report of this House Committee.

Yesterday Mr M Thaver corrected part of the report which had already been published in the Durban newspapers—to the tremendous disadvantage of our administration as well as myself. I do not think those corrections were published. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is interested in this House being misled and that a House Committee is as important as the House, then let us have a draft resolution today to find out whether a former magistrate by the name of Mr Backer or the hon member for Red Hill misled the House Committee. Let us be fair if we are worried about principles. If one’s principles can go overboard depending on whom one is dealing with then this House is dealing with matters with blinkers on.

I want to say that I stand up in this House and make statements. Let us not compare this with the late Dr Connie Mulder because he was dealing with State funds. In that House Committee report on the question of privilege, the Speaker of Parliament gave a ruling that the books of the NPP could not be examined. However, is this House concerned that the House Committee went against Mr Speaker’s ruling? Is this House Committee now concerned about the revelations which I made yesterday and that the sworn statement by a witness who appeared before the House Committee contained a serious indictment against the chairman of that House Committee and the Leader of the Official Opposition; they discussed the interim report on the Odeon Cinema before the report was deliberated on and before it was discussed?

How true is that?

Whether it is true or not, there is a sworn statement.

It has lost its value.

If according to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition it has lost its value then he has lost his values. [Interjections.] No questions!

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has indicated that he is not prepared to take questions and I also want to appeal to hon members not to interject while the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is speaking. Give him an opportunity to put his case. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that the NPP is strong. I stated yesterday that we were not suffering from high blood pressure. We cannot go down, and we will not go down.

But the numbers prove it!

The numbers may prove it, but in this House one has fluctuating circumstances. This side of the House did not start the trouble. This side of the House …

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must proceed uninterrupted.

This side of the House at this time did not attempt to ensure that there were further fluctuating circumstances. However, if we do attempt to do this, possibly in the next 30 or 45 days, there could possibly be fluctuating circumstances. However, I want to say we did not attempt to do this. [Interjections.]

Order! I have appealed to hon members not to interrupt the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. If there are going to be any further interruptions. I shall have to act much more sternly. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We did not attempt to do this and there is no need for me to show any remorse. The onus is on the House Committee which was negligent, which relied on the witness without taking the necessary precautions to inform me that a witness had stated certain things. If a witness lies before a House Committee that witness should be punished, but truth cannot be determined by the number of votes.

I want to say that there are reasons why this side of the House did not make any further attempt to engage in any exercises that would lead to further fluctuating circumstances. I think that the community is satisfied and we are satisfied that no matter what happens in this House the fluctuatin g circumstances will continue. The only solution we can have here is an election. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for North Coast not hear me earlier? I want to appeal to the hon member to stop interjecting.

Yes, Mr Chairman.

I know that the hon members on the other side of the House demanded a commission of inquiry, but when they had the opportunity to vote for a commission of inquiry did they do so? However, when a commission of inquiry is appointed, the hon members on the other side rely on a house committee instead. A commission of inquiry is deliberating in Durban and their absence from active participation in that commission of inquiry is conspicuous. They wanted and demanded a commission, but their bluff was called and one can see what is now happening in Durban. They have always presented the picture that they are not afraid of an election and that they are not afraid now of the people deciding. Despite being branded as negativist the NPP triumphed in the fourth by-election. Let us call their bluff again. If it is true that they are not afraid of an election and that they are not afraid of the people deciding, immediately after the James Commission of Inquiry we should decide that this House should hold an election.

Remember that it was stated, not considered. It was not considered. One official at the James Commission of Inquiry regarded consideration to be an instruction. Therefore let us not bandy the word consideration about. The other side of the House wanted a commission, but they appear to be far removed from it. I am now convinced that this House will not come right through constructive criticism until such times as we go to the polls.

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

We can clean it up in two ways. I agree with the hon member for North Coast that we have an impartial commission of inquiry. It is impartial. We do not want any clowns to go to that commission. It is impartial. We do not want any Backers to go to the commission. The Backers will go there and still say: “I did not speak to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.”

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon member for Red Hill hear me earlier on or not?

[Inaudible.]

Order! I have appealed to hon members to give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity without interjecting.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is running around in circles, hurling accusations and not taking any questions. I think it is proper that …

Order! The hon member must arrange with his Whips for an opportunity to speak. He will then be entitled to put his side of the case. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I suggest that the hon member for Camperdown also makes arrangements with the secretary of the commission. We can extend an invitation to meet him at the commission of inquiry so that his bluff may be called further. We can add to the list of bluffs.

Let the people decide, but if today …

Let Mr Justice James decide.

Order! This is the second time the hon member for Phoenix has interjected. I request him please to refrain from doing so. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

The spirit of the NPP has never been dampened and will never be dampened. Nor will my spirit ever be dampened, because we know our public support is increasing. Let us hear expressions. Let the people decide. The people have decided who is going to represent the constituencies and they have decided who should be the voices of the constituencies in this Parliament. I do not believe anyone should have the right to suppress the right of the people to express their voice by the use of numbers. Possibly today truth will be decided by numbers, but also remember my message to the hon members on the other side of this House—who publicly boast that they are not afraid of an election—that there may be many keys to this game which may possibly open that safe.

Today the other side may have one key. One should also remember my message to them that I hold one of the keys to an election in my hand. [Interjections.] One of the keys to holding an election in terms of the Constitution will be in my hands.

Like hell!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says: “Like hell!” Possibly before 2 February we shall see who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I know that in the four byelections Solidarity went to hell. [Interjections.] We know that, and there the people decided. What I want to say, however, if we are interested in the truth, is that I extended an invitation to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Let us take all the newspapers of Durban; let us find this firm called Citiplan Contracting. If we can find a firm called Citiplan Contracting, we can come back here …

They will build me a house! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members kindly to refrain from interjecting.

You will get your marching orders!

Order! I want to tell the hon member for Umzinto that this is equally applicable to him. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

If we find a firm called Citiplan Contracting, I will come back here and support that draft resolution.

However, in respect of the other part of the amendment to which the hon member for Stanger referred, a Minister is responsible for the answering of questions. I mentioned yesterday that I could not forewarn certain conspirators who are not politicians because this is an important matter that has been brought before the James Commission of Inquiry. I shall have to answer that question pertaining to the tabling of replies at the James Commission of Inquiry, and I shall answer it adequately.

I want the hon member for Springfield to know, however, that immediately after that my administration received a letter. Not long after that I instructed the official in question to provide the hon member for Springfield with the replies, and those replies were published in a newspaper in Durban called The Leader. We have nothing to hide, and we will not hide.

There are many matters I did not deal with yesterday, but there are many other matters which I did deal with. Let us not forget the hon member for Red Hill and Mr Backer. Mr Backer is a former magistrate. If he did not lie to that House Committee, then the hon member for Red Hill lied. Therefore, if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is interested in people lying or misleading …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say that the hon member for Red Hill had lied?

I withdraw that, Sir.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, one of the two misled the House Committee. We must find out whether the former magistrate did so, or whether it was the hon member for Red Hill.

Furthermore, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks about no values being left. If there are no values left, then we must not pick and choose regarding who is misleading this House or who is misleading the committee of this House. I want to say that I stand by my statement as being the truth, and that if it is necessary to correct it, I shall stand up in this House and have the courage to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is quite obvious that when he was young, the parents of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council could not afford to buy him toys with which to play, so today he plays here with words.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council accuses the House Committee of not doing its duty properly. If anybody is to be blamed for all the allegations that are being put to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, it is he himself. He curtailed the time that was allocated to him by the committee. On 12 August the committee was prepared to sit till late to give him every opportunity to answer all the charges against him, but in the morning he reported to the committee that his secretary had made a mistake and booked him on a flight at two o’clock in the afternoon. Therefore he would not be able to come and answer to charges that afternoon. Therefore, if any questions were not put to him, he himself is responsible for it and not the House Committee.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council claims that everything was not put to him. Each and every question put to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was answered with statements like “That is a lie”, “The person is a liar” and “It is a deliberate lie”. The committee could not proceed further than that.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made a fuss about an affidavit by somebody. I have seen this affidavit, which was typed on a typewriter which is quite familiar to me. I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council types on the same typewriter. However, the interesting thing is that while the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his evidence before the committee, slated Mr C B Ramlall as a weathercock and an unreliable person, not fit to be trusted, he also placed great emphasis on Mr Ramlall’s statement. Anybody can go and read the evidence that was given to the committee. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council clearly stated, when asked about Mr C B Ramlall, that he was a weathercock, a person that could not be trusted, and that one could not believe what he said. Today the very same person places very great importance on Mr C B Ramlall’s so-called affidavit, apparently, typed on a typewriter of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Having said that, I would like to talk about the same Mr Ramlall. He gave evidence before the committee. I know why the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is angry with that man. The evidence of that person was this: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council sent him to a hotel in Durban to fetch the chairman of the Liquor Board for a tour of Chatsworth. The witness was instructed to take the chairman of the Liquor Board all over Chatsworth, not by a straight, direct route. The distance between the one point and the other was less than two kilometres, but this person was instructed by none other than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to take the chairman of the Liquor Board on a tour of all of Chatsworth in an effort to influence him. The distance travelled between point A and point B was something like 10 kilometres, whereas in fact they were just one and a half kilometres apart.

The most important point is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is annoyed about this committee. His party members are to blame if any witnesses gave incorrect evidence before the committee. He had three members of his party serving on that committee, two of whom never attended the committee meetings at all. They had every opportunity to cross-examine each and every witness that appeared before that committee. His party members, maybe on his instructions, gave him the opportunity to play with words today. I suspect that it was on his instructions that they stayed away and never questioned the witnesses that appeared before the House Committee.

Mr Chairman, I think my time is running out …

Order! Unfortunately the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I need to contribute to this debate. The report is a sad ode to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in view of the evidence before the House Committee on allegations that were made against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, particularly in his position as Minister of Housing.

It would seem that however unpalatable the report is, it is based on evidence. We have to accept the report as being a truthful recording of the incidents and actions of the hon the Minister of Housing. What I have heard from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this afternoon, was merely skirting around the proper and rightful issue that the report addressed. What we heard was an indirect threat from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he held the key to the elections of this House. Far from it! If he had held the key, we would have had the elections long ago, perhaps last year.

In the discussions with the hon the State President, the hon the State President repeatedly told us that he himself did not have the power to call an election until such times as, in terms of the Constitution, it was expedient for him to call an election at the end of the Parliamentary term. Therefore, for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to repeat his threats to this House, is absolutely impertinent as far as the issue before us is concerned.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council talked about the credibility and truthfulness of the witnesses who appeared before the House Committee. Equally, messages have come to us from authoritative sources that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself has interfered with witnesses who had appeared before the select committee, imploring them to go before the committee and say things that were untruthful. We have irrefutable proof and evidence that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tried to influence a witness who was going to the House Committee to say something which was untruthful. For him to come here and speak in the terms that he did and to say that there were fluctuating circumstances that demanded an election, holds no water whatsoever.

If we worked on the assumption that there was going to be an election in the next week, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and hon members on the other side—they seem to be the only gullible members in this House, because they accept what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said—would suffer a resounding defeat in the elections. I therefore believe very sincerely that our distancing ourselves—that is, the eleven members who formerly belonged to the NPP—from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been justified by the report before us.

I want to say further that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is making much of the fact that the truth cannot be determined by numbers. When it suited him, when he had the numbers and when demands were being made for a commission of inquiry, all he had to say was that if anybody repeated that, he would instruct a damages suit. He did not agree to a commission of inquiry then. He even said in front of the hon the State President that he would agree to a commission of inquiry if a substantiated claim was made.

Why come here, then, and talk about the James Commission? I do not say that the issues are not interrelated. Evidence taken by the James Commission will indeed be relevant to the issues before this House, but let us rather divorce ourselves from the James Commission and look at what the House Committee has presented to us in its report. [Time expired.]

Order! Before calling upon the hon member for Springfield to address the House, I would like to refer to the application of Rule 87, which reads as follows:

I must point out that only the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was requested to withdraw from the Chamber. This request was not applicable to the other hon members who also withdrew.

Mr Chairman, your observation makes it quite clear that the hon members of the NPP who followed their leader out of this Chamber earlier on were not prepared to hear the truth.

I must agree with what was said by the hon the Minister of the Budget a moment ago, when he indicated that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had failed, when he was given the opportunity earlier on in this debate, to answer to the charges levelled against him by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Let us examine those charges. I find myself in some respects in the somewhat strange position of being, in a sense, the accuser in all the charges levelled against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this particular resolution. The first part of this resolution refers to a donation given to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by a building contractor. That charge was itself the subject of a debate in this Chamber, and it is not my intention to go through that entire debate again, as I think all hon members in this Chamber are aware of what I said on that occasion. Suffice it to say that earlier in this debate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said nothing, I believe, to refute any of the charges that I levelled in my previous speech.

More important than the first part of this resolution, however, is the second part. This also refers to the misleading of Parliament. With his usual bluster, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tried to wriggle out of the difficult position in which we had placed him.

The question before the House is simply this: Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mislead this House, or did he not? It is quite clear from the evidence placed before the House Committee that he did. The evidence shows clearly that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his own handwriting, struck out information which was correct in all respects, and which had been set down by the relevant officials, and substituted information which was incorrect and also known to be incorrect at the time.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had the opportunity this afternoon to explain his actions. He had the opportunity to deny that he had done that. He had the opportunity to deny that the handwriting was his, but what did he do? All he said was that he had answered the questions raised by me in a newspaper.

Of course the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not in the House, but I am sure he must be following the debate on his monitor, and there is one simple thing I would like to say to him. I asked that question in Parliament; not in a newspaper. I therefore believe he should have done me the courtesy of replying—which he did—in Parliament. However, he replied falsely. This is the bone of contention, namely that he misled not only me, who asked the question, but all of Parliament as well.

I alluded in a previous debate to how we view people who mislead Parliament. I indicated that we have several precedents in this regard. In that previous debate I spoke about Dr Connie Mulder, when he misled Parliament, and I also referred to Mr John Profumo, the Minister of Defence in Great Britain and what happened when he misled Parliament. On a lighter note, it was said at the time that to lie in the nude is not very rude but that to lie in the House is obscene. It is not only obscene; I think this is far more important than that. I believe that if any hon member of this House lies to Parliament, it is bad and that he should be removed forthwith. If a Minister lies in this House there can be no excuse for it.

However, quite apart from the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had an opportunity to admit that he had misled this House, instead of seizing that opportunity and coming clean with this House he now again, in his usual fashion, obfuscates and shows no remorse for having done so. This is what this resolution is all about.

I take the greatest pleasure in supporting not only the Leader of the Official Opposition in regard to the resolution, but also the amendment that has been moved by the hon member for Stanger.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springfield referred to the squirming and wriggling indulged in by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but of course the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a greased eel. It has been difficult to capture that eel with bare hands throughout these four years. [Interjections.] But that greased eel has turned into a squishy earthworm and of course it has been captured. Having been captured, that squishy earthworm, which was previously a greased eel, failed …

Order! I just wish to remind the hon member that I do not think it is proper to refer to any hon member in this House as a greased eel. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall heed your statement. An eel, of course, is edible; an earthworm is not.

Watching the hon the Minister of Housing this afternoon was pathetic. He presented a pitiable sight, pitiable because having once again been afforded the opportunity to answer the charges against him, he dismally failed to do so. He failed because he was unable to answer those charges. The evidence based on sworn testimony against him was so overwhelming that he did not dare try and compound by further deceit the deceit practised upon this House by him when he gave untruthful replies.

His reference to the late Dr Connie Mulder was, I think, impertinent. Dr Connie Mulder admittedly misled the House, but the subject matter in which he was involved was not designed to benefit himself personally or any of his friends, or even his political party. Right or wrong, Dr Mulder fought—and we must accept this bona fide— to protect the interests of his country.

It was not what he did that landed him in trouble. It was the fact that he denied having done it. This hon Minister not only did this but he brazenly tried to worm his way out of it. He cannot deny that he personally instructed teachers to take time off to go and participate in the Tongaat elections. He talks about the James Commission as if that will be the panacea for all these ills. The James Commission was appointed after this House appointed its House Committee and it deserves the highest respect. The James Commission is an extra-tribunal whereas the House Committee was an intra-tribunal which was appointed by this House. It gathered the evidence and presented the report based on that evidence. Therefore crying “James Commission” and crying wolf would be synonymous at this stage.

The hon the Minister talks of Citiplan Contractin g. He knows full well that Mr D G Pillay gave evidence before this House Committee that he— that is D G Pillay—instructed his bookkeeper to make out a cheque for R10 000 and this cheque was handed to Mr Rajbansi. Mr Rajbansi acknowledged the receipt by an announcement during the Tongaat elections. Let us therefore not have this nonsense about the absence of a firm called Citiplan Contracting. He does not deny—because he cannot deny—that he personally instructed the awarding of 150 erven to Golden City Housing utility company, out of which that company made a profit of R450 000 and thereafter stopped further development. In the case of a company with a similar name, namely Golden City Housing Development (Pty) Ltd—that is borne out fully in the report—the same hon Minister ordered that 180 additional erven be given, this time to the profit-making company. Both companies are controlled by two brothers, Sayed and Hoosen Mia, and they are benefactors of the party of which the Minister himself is the leader.

Before the House Committee, and as it transpires even before the James Commission so far, every other witness is a liar. He is the only person who is the pristine teller of truthful tales. Not so long ago he praised the civil servants in this House but now, because they have given evidence against him under oath which implicates him, they have suddenly been described as anti-Indian. He has the temerity to try to deceive the House Committee with that kind of nonsensical statement, which was disproved.

He did not and cannot deny the evidence of the hon member for Isipingo that he personally promised the late Mr Choonara that if he went back to his party he would be given land. He cannot and did not deny that Gori’s Investment— the Choonara family company—was indeed allocated 30 erven. He cannot and did not deny that Gori’s Investment, just like Reza and Mr Collakoppen’s Jalc—he is also a member of this House who switched sides and left Dr Reddy’s party to go over to Mr Rajbansi’s party and his son was also awarded city erven—all made R90 000 each without investing a single cent. [Interjections.] That is R270 000 of public money and ratepayers’ money that went into private pockets as a consequence of the machinations of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who is also the Minister of Housing.

Who do we blame for this sad and terrible state of affairs? I lay the full responsibility on the State President of this country. He has been warned consistently over the past four years that the man is unreliable and that his activities require a full investigation. However, the hon the State President steadfastly ignored those warnings and he allowed this man to remain in a position of power and authority whereby he could impose his will on the officials in his department.

If my servant does wrong because of my negligence then I am vicariously responsible for the wrongdoing. Every Minister in this country is a Minister appointed by the State President and the State President is vicariously responsible, as the chief executive of the country, for the actions of his Ministers. When his Ministers indulge in wrongdoing he cannot say that the buck does not stop at his desk. As Pres Truman indicated, the buck must stop somewhere. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as far back as 1985 the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council levelled accusations at everybody in a motion of no confidence and he levelled accusations at me personally. At that time I challenged the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to hold an investigation and I said to him that if he proved me guilty, I would resign, but if he could not prove me guilty then he should resign.

That man did not have the courage to take up that challenge because he flings accusations around under the protection of the House as he did yesterday. He levelled accusations against me and then ran away. He would not sit here to listen to a response. He has done the same thing over and over again in this House. If it suits him he will sit and listen otherwise he will conveniently get up and leave the House.

What I want to say is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a past master of deceit. He was found guilty by the Booysens Commission in respect of a matter of public interest and was suspended from public life for some three years. Therefore if this character wants to come here and pretend to be an angel he will not be able to bluff people sitting on this side of the House. This man has a track record of deceit. Under the guise of doing one thing he has motives which are different.

Here he takes the National Liquor Board on a Cook’s tour around Chatsworth, not to show them the boundaries of Chatsworth, but, as the people say, to carry out his work of influencing people regardless of whether he is successful or not. However, as a public figure he has no right to invite a liquor board on a Cook’s tour of Chatsworth to show them where the different liquor premises are located and where other premises are being examined for licences because that is not his job. Yet he levels accusations against other people for talking to officials. He goes beyond that and it is in evidence given here by witnesses who testified before the House Committee.

These are examples of disgraceful conduct because they leave serious doubts in the minds of the public as to whether a liquor licence is granted by the National Liquor Board or by Mr Rajbansi. It is openly said that if one wants a liquor licence in our area the man to contact is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I do not say that that is correct, but when you have a witness who states that he took the National Liquor Board on a Cook’s tour then I have reason to believe that people cannot be blamed if they think that is how one goes about obtaining a liquor licence. This is what has been revealed in the testimony.

It is not for us to go before the James Commission. If the James Commission wants any member of this House to appear before it and lead evidence or answer questions we would be happy to do so. But the fact is that the star performer for the past two months has been Mr A Rajbansi, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and it is very clear who is required to appear before the Commission. The newspapers carry headlines every day about what is going on, but I say that if any one of us is requested to appear before the Commission to answer questions we shall do so willingly. However, two months have passed during which the star actor has been Mr A Rajbansi.

This document, this report, contains very farreaching findings to the effect that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council lied in this House and on that alone he can be sent out of this House. It is a matter on the strength of which anyone but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would have resigned long ago, because public figures holding office in many parts of the world have resigned the moment the slightest doubt existed about the manner in which they had conducted their office and the affairs of state. However, this man can stand up here and look one straight in the eye and behave as if he is an angel and nothing has gone wrong. [Interjections.]

He received donations, which he denied. He replied in the House and he lied. He tampered with State files and if a man is not ashamed of doing all that after being reminded of these things which are so widely reported in the Press, one wonders whether he has any morality. He says he has blood in him. He has a special chemistry which protects him from all submissions made which constitute a direct reflection on his integrity, honesty, character and upbringing—because upbringing plays an important role in later life.

He has none of those qualities. Moreover, he introduces linguistic prejudices into his administration. Testimony proves that he gave an official instruction that too many Tamils were being employed. I hope those members of the Tamil community who are his colleagues on that side of the House will ask him for an explanation as to what he did. We have enough division in the community and a further division should not be brought in by identifying the Tamil community or any other linguistic group and saying that too many of them are being employed by the State. It is not the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s duty to consider any applications for employment on a linguistic basis. That should be based on merit and it does not matter what language or religion is involved. That has nothing to do with it. One should leave it to the people who have that responsibility to carry out that work.

I believe that this committee did a wonderful piece of work and when the James Commission has completed its deliberations the truth of this whole question will be known. However, the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council should not talk about elections. He has built up his support for elections by the favours that he has done—garage sites, booksellers, butchery shops and bottle stores. These are the people who are his runners and who buy votes for him. He knows that on the day the goose that lays the golden eggs dies, so will his party and his supporters. He is fighting for his life to save the situation by resorting to allegations made without any foundation to embarrass people. I think we can take that embarrassment, but when the truth comes out this man will just fade away. He will absolutely fade away and the community at large is presently waiting for the outcome of judgement.

Finally, I want to mention that enough has emerged from this House Committee report to indicate to the hon the State President that this man is not fit to hold office for another minute. He will do immense damage to the image of this House and of the community which he is supposed to be serving. We make a plea to the hon State President, in the light of this overwhelming evidence and especially in regard to one matter alone, namely that he lied to this House, that he is an improper person to hold office. The hon the State President should take immediate steps to have this man removed from office for the good of the community, the country and public office.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.