Mr Speaker, to begin with I should like to convey the appreciation of the House of Assembly to our colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I think I am speaking on behalf of the entire joint committee when I say that it is his leadership that has made it possible for us to meet here today and discuss a Bill that should send out a strong and positive signal to the outside world. This is indeed a monument to this hon colleague of ours.

One is of course tempted to react to the rhetoric that came from both sides of the political spectrum in this Chamber late yesterday afternoon, rhetoric heavily spiced with valiant efforts to sound radical. However, the greater interests of the matter that has brought us together here, compels one to ascribe this rhetoric, as I say, on both sides of the political spectrum, to youthful impetuosity and infantilism that can and should be converted into positive energy with the necessary parental authority and senior party guidance.

The road is too long and difficult to take notice of the gnat on the horse’s tail, said Aesop, and if he did not say that, he ought to have said it. [Interjections.]

Every political party present here will agree with me, albeit with qualifications, that there are a number of factors that we have in common. The first one is love and respect for our fatherland. Furthermore, all parties believe that a peaceful future should be sought through negotiation, as opposed to violence. Thirdly, all parties are seeking an instrument to create at least a platform from which negotiation may take place, even if it is only to convince Black people of our bona fides.

It is not only the NP or the LP that has contact with and holds discussions with Chief Buthelezi. The CP, too, was there physically, and did not fail to mention the value and meaning of negotiation. In fact, the presentation of a kaross on that occasion sealed the meaning of it all. Even the PFP came down from their throne.

What we also have in common, is that all parties recognize and experience the realities in South Africa. Here we are thinking of realities such as numbers and the economic backlog, but there is also the reality of economic and technological progress and achievements which, in pace and in quality are unmatched in Africa and, in fact, even in the world.

There is the reality of urbanization but on the other hand there is also the reality of the existence of a number of independent and self-governing states that are looking to us for moral and constitutional guidance and initiatives, and whose citizens are bound to us by treaty.

There is the reality of urbanization that has resulted in millions of people, Brown, Black and White, moving away from where they grew up. They find themselves in socio-economic circumstances in which political solutions and political decisions are called for. The question follows whether it is still possible to take unilateral decisions in these circumstances. As much as 20 years ago the NP acknowledged that this was no longer possible.

There is the reality of people from other countries who seek refuge in this country. While this has a positive meaning, as mentioned by FranzJosef Strauss, essentially this also poses a threat to the interests of our Black population as far as jobs and the spreading if diseases are concerned. However, there is a message in this for all of us.

There is the reality of a protective urge among groups and communities in respect of their community life, language, religion and culture. Here and there this protective urge is giving way to nervousness and fear.

There is the reality of foreign powers who covet the RSA’s riches and who do not care a rap about the interests of the Black people or anybody else.

Then there is, of course, the reality of an inherent strength in the Republic, based on its human resources, its economy and its ability to provide security. All these things point to the reality of a guarantee that this State will not give way to concentrated efforts to force it to its knees.

Whatever the realities are, one thing is certain, and that is that every political party present here, as well as the Black people of this country, are aware of these realities, even though they may attach different values, qualities and meanings to them.

Now, the question is, where and how are these realities of the RSA to be dealt with. Where and how are these different views, each of which contains elements of truth, to be weighed up against one another?

Are we going to adopt a stealthy method? The answer is no. Are we going to use violence? The answer is no. Does the answer lie in little extraparliamentary buzz groups such as Idasa or in the creation of a new nation or in secession? No, that will never work. Are the three Houses present here today sufficient? Can they do this on their own? The answer is no. Will this succeed in one House only? The answer is no. Must this take place with assistance and pressure from overseas? The answer is a thousand times no. Homemade bread is still the best.

Hence the creation of a forum that will take these realities into account, where views and plans can be laid on the table and people can be persuaded to adopt a certain point of view. Everybody will be given that opportunity. In fact, the more confident a party is about its point of view and about its case—I want to make this statement— the more enthusiastic and excited it will be about participation in the council’s activities. Does this perhaps explain to us the PFP-CP alliance in their attitude towards this matter?

There is a number of conditions that we have to consider, and in this regard I want to give recognition to Dr Marais of the HSRC. Participation will require openness rather than reticence; a future-oriented rather than a past-oriented attitude. Of course, anybody who takes part in order to settle certain accounts, will be sabotaging the proceedings. Instead of emphasizing our differences, we should emphasize what we have in common and, last but not least, a hidden agenda with foreign loyalties and an umbilical cord and the shouting of revolutionary slogans as a signal to revolutionary powers is just as bad as absolutising selfishness and self-righteousness.

The condition that orderly government should continue, is absolutely clear. The question repeatedly asked was how minority rights would be catered for in this and other situations. Let me briefly say the following in this regard. Juristically and constitutionally one will find that there are various minorities all over the world, whose existence is recognized. International treaties and conventions have shown that the following categories are recognized—cultural, religious, language and political.

It is being recognized all over the world that the object of the protection of minorities is to prevent conflict, terror, revolution and civil war. Against this background, and with the protection afforded by political mechanisms and our courts, it will indeed by possible to ensure such protection. For this reason we must afford this council the opportunity to work out a better and a more securely guaranteed future.

Mr Speaker, this is certainly an historic moment for all of us. Not only is history being made but we are sharing in the making of that history. Various hon members referred to the Convention which led to the formation of the Union and brought Boer and Briton together. Much was said about becoming a Republic and how these two language groups were brought together as a result of this.

With the establishment of the Republic, a new era dawned for the Indian community. The hon the State President as the Deputy Minister of the Interior played an important part when, together with his colleagues at the time, he succeeded in persuading the former Prime Minister, the late Dr Verwoerd, to recognise the Indians in this country as an integral part of South African society. It was none other than the father of our present hon Minister of National Education who made the announcement in Parliament.

I consider it important to sketch this historical background because it relates to the subject which we are discussing today. To give substance to the recognition of our permanence, a nonstatutory National Indian Council consisting of 21 persons was established in 1964. In 1968 a statutory South African Indian Council was established which consisted of only nominated members. In 1974 an Indian Council was established consisting of 30 members, 15 of whom were elected by an electoral college consisting of all members of local authorities and local affairs committees. This Bill presents exactly the same prospect in respect of some of its envisaged members. We did not allow that opportunity to slip through our fingers. We snatched at it and some of our best men in Parliament are living proof of this today.

In 1977 the Government came forward with certain constitutional proposals which were not acceptable to us. The then Indian Council rejected them by 28 votes to 2. The proposals were then referred to a select committee of both Parliament and the Senate. This committee, which later became the Schlebusch Committee, issued its report in 1980 and found inter alia that it was not the body competent to recommend a constitutional proposal and that such a constitution should be proposed by all South Africans.

†In order to give content to that finding, the commission recommended the creation of two bodies, namely the President’s Council and the Council for Black South Africans. The two bodies were preferably to be housed in one building and committees of the two bodies were to liaise with one another with a view to recommending an acceptable dispensation for all South Africans.

*Permit me to mention at this stage that some hon members who now belong to the CP were definitely in agreement with those recommendations at the time.

†What role did the PFP play at the time? It rejected those proposals and called upon the Black people not to participate in those bodies. In fact, the PFP even expelled veteran politician Mr Japie Basson and advocate Dan Neser, both of whom had agreed to participate. That negative role is being played by the PFP again, much to its own peril. History will yet record that the PFP went out of existence because of its thwarted attempts aimed at involving groups in the decision-making processes. The PFP shot down the proposed Council for Black South Africans. [Interjections.] I am not saying that the council was going to be perfect but just as we were prepared to give imperfect bodies a chance to work towards our goals, patriotic South Africans should have given that council a chance to get off the ground. [Interjections.]

The President’s Council got off the ground in January 1981, and today there are many hon members here in this House—including hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—who came here from that body and who today occupy responsible positions in Parliament and who continue to fight for the involvement of all South Africans in the processes of government. That historical President’s Council, under the able leadership of the former Vice-president Mr Alwyn Schlebusch, paved the way for the presence of people like myself in this historical Chamber.

It is a question of lost opportunity. Had the Council for Black South Africans got off the ground in 1981, I believe the Constitution of 1983 could have been much different. Thanks again to the PFP and other “meelopers”, South Africans were robbed of some golden opportunities to resolve our constitutional problems. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Schlebusch and the men who worked with him, particularly the chairmen of those various committees of the President’s Council, including Dr Worrall, have played a role which will be recognised and appreciated more fully after they have gone. I salute those South Africans and those colleagues of mine who worked with them for the roles they have played. My appeal to South Africans of all colours and persuasions is to recognise this as yet another opportunity to get on with the show in spite of the limitations and shortcomings of the body envisaged in this Bill.

Let us not be deterred from making use of this instrument to get where we want to be. The Almighty did not create perfect human beings, so how can we claim that we can create perfect institutions?

If there is the will on the part of South Africans to resolve our problems—and I am optimistic about this after hearing many hon colleagues in this Chamber over the past few days—then we can do it. We do have realistic patriots who want to make a genuine and personal contribution towards resolving our problems.

I find it ironic that over the past ten years the PFP has persistently opposed measures which were designed to bring disenfranchised people closer to the corridors of power. [Interjections.] Their plan to win support within the communities of colour will be another failure and disappointment to them. They have to identify with progress or else their party will perish. [Interjections.]

*In conclusion, I want to tell hon members of the CP that South Africa is too valuable to gamble with its future and we must stop doing so. I accept the assurance of the hon member for Ermelo that he is not a racist, but the hon member for Pietersburg said emphatically in his speech that he had been sent here by the Afrikaner people to look after their interests. I want to ask whether he accepts that the Creator’s mosaic in South Africa consists of people of various colours, languages, religions and cultures and that nobody can change or wish that mosaic away. Although I was elected by Indians, I recognise that mosaic and also wish to contribute to safeguarding the communities which form part of it.

Mr Speaker, I got the impression these past few days that if the NP should consider opening its membership to the other population groups of this country, they would receive a substantial number of applications. [Interjections.] We heard from the hon the Minister of Justice this morning that unilateral decisionmaking in South Africa was a thing of the past. Two years ago …

Order! Which hon member referred to the hon member who is speaking as a malcontent (bitterbek)?

Mr Speaker, I said it was the story of a malcontent (bitterbekstorie).

Order! The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

Two years ago we were called back to the Cape for the legislation of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the proposed National Council. We arrived here, sat around doing nothing, and after two weeks we went home. Two years have passed since then, and now we are expected to agree to the present Bill. The hon the Minister of Justice told us this morning that unilateral decisionmaking in South Africa was a thing of the past. We are now living in a time of so-called consensus.

However, when we look at the legislation before us, my question to the Government is the following: Was consensus reached on the proposed participation of the participants in this National Council? Was consensus reached with KwaZulu? Was consensus reached with KaNgwane? Was consensus reached with the other selfgoverning homelands? I have been waiting since Tuesday to hear from any speaker on any side whether that consensus had been reached.

However, the opposite is true. Our information is that there is no consensus whatsoever on the constitution of this council. Now I am asking this question. The hon members have set the table with this Bill and they are inviting certain guests to come and sit down at this table. If those guests do not accept the invitation, will they proceed with this plan?

We heard from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning earlier this year that he intended to go ahead even if the others did not want to take part. The hon the Minister has, therefore, given prior notice that he would go ahead, whether the Black leaders wanted to take part or not.

Now we hear from the NP—this is how they conveyed it to the White voters—that they will be going to the negotiating table with an open agenda. But what are the facts? Is this in fact an open agenda? When we look at the legislation before us, we see that an agenda is being anticipated here. Clause 3 states that the council’s objectives are—

1. (a) plan and prepare a constitutional dispensation which provides for participation by all South African citizens in the processes of government …

It continues—

1. (b) afford to Black South African citizens on an interim basis a voice in the processes of government …

This is not an open agenda. This is a specific instruction to achieve a specific objective. The hon the Minister of National Education asked us whether we in the CP were going to submit our own plan. In terms of the wording of this Bill the CP’s plan for the future will not be welcome in this council. This council rules out the CP’s alternative beforehand. [Interjections.]

However, there is something we should like to hear from the NP. They say they are going to the council with an open agenda, but what does the hon member for Innesdal tell us? Towards the end of his speech he said:

[Interjections.] That hon member says, “of course”. That means …

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

No, Mr Speaker.

Why does the NP not tell the White voters of South Africa what that structure that they are envisaging looks like? [Interjections.] In the very same week in which we are debating this Bill containing the instruction to work out a future dispensation, this same hon Minister informs us beforehand that he has anticipated the functions of this council that he intends to establish. We received notice of the Constitution Second Amendment Bill, which now provides that Black Cabinet Ministers will be appointed in advance. This has been decided in advance. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member for Innesdal. He said amid loud acclamation:

I take it the hon member was speaking on behalf of his party when he said that.

All of us sitting in this House know that the present dispensation in the form of the tricameral Parliament, through the final right of determination of the President’s Council, is the power—to use the hon member for Innesdal’s language— under the White skin.

That is true. At present, what the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates decides is irrelevant. In the final analysis, through the President’s Council, the will of the White component prevails. I want to ask the hon member for Innesdal something. He says the power will be removed from the White skin, but does the NP now hold the view that that right of determination will also be removed from the President’s Council? [Interjections.] We want an answer. The NP says it will see to it that minority rights are protected. The NP wants to create an odd new society in which the minority shareholders in numbers will retain the right of determination. [Interjections.] The hon member says that is not true.

Let me put another question. In terms of this new model where Blacks will inevitably form the majority, how will the power be handled? The NP is asking the White voters to trust it, because the real power will remain in the hands of the White man. This is what the NP is telling the voters. If the NP submits that this is not true, it must tell the White voters out there that it intends letting the political power in South Africa slip from its hands. The NP must be honest and say this.

The NP is expecting us to give it a blank mandate to gamble with South Africa’s future. However, we do not intend to give anybody a blank mandate. We are only prepared to consider this if the NP spells out loud and clear where it is going.

An hon member of the House of Representatives referred to the PFP with contempt, saying that British liberalism could not flourish in the habitat of Africa. However, we should keep in mind that democracy did not flourish anywhere in Africa. Transkei is a good case in point. The hon the Minister of Justice claims that he can protect minority rights with his little constitutional measures and the protection of the courts, but Africa—we are in Africa—has taught us that constitutions lie scattered all over the continent like confetti. Why would South Africa be the exception to the rule? The Afrikaner is not prepared to gamble with his political future.

We want to tell the NP today that it will not have our co-operation on the road it has chosen to follow; on the contrary, we shall fight them. We also want to say to the NP that they may sit here with a great majority today, but they have lost contact with what is going on in the hearts of their own people. [Interjections.] They may struggle as they wish, but the movement away from the NP is there. It is an irrefutable fact.

We shall go from here and spell out to our people the inevitable, fatal destination of the road that the NP has irrevocably chosen to follow. They cannot go back on the road they have chosen to follow; there is no turning back. They will have to walk this road to its bitter end. [Interjections.] This will inevitably lead to one thing only, and that is Black majority rule in South Africa and everything that that implies.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to say to the hon member for Laudium that he will never know what it meant to me to be addressed by him as an Indian in my mother tongue in this House today.

Hear, hear!

I should also just like to tell the hon member for Barberton that the NP has no intention of turning back. The NP has irrevocably chosen a road of justice for all the people of South Africa, and we intend to walk that road.

The hon member for Pietersburg, who is not present this morning, said that with this Bill we were engaged in something for which we did not have the approval of the voters of South Africa. I do not know where he was last year during the general election for the House of Assembly, because I have here in my hand the National Party Manifesto with which we fought that election. I shall send this to him, and I want to ask him to read item number two in this manifesto.

What is in fact happening today is that the NP is partly giving effect to the mandate given to it by the White voters on 6 May 1987. We requested a mandate to proceed with the process of granting political rights to Black people in South Africa, and the NP returned to the House of Assembly with its largest majority since 1948. The mandate that was given to us by our voters, was that we should find ways and means of granting political rights to Blacks living in South Africa. The second leg of the mandate was that these political rights and the method by which they are granted should be acceptable to the Black people, because if they are not acceptable to the Black people, they will simply not work, in the same way that the 1977 proposals did not work because they were not acceptable to the Coloured people.

What is equally important is the mandate that was given to the NP that these plans concerning the political rights of Black people should be acceptable to the majority of the Blacks. We accept that we cannot satisfy everybody in South Africa. We can only satisfy the majority of the people.

Furthermore we received a mandate that the plans we made should be acceptable to the Whites, because it is obvious that if they are not acceptable to the Whites, they will not work. Of course this is true. That is why the NP has repeatedly given the undertaking that when the plans are on the table and consensus has been reached on them and we are sure that they are acceptable to the Black people, we will go back to the White voters by means of a referendum or otherwise.

I can easily tell hon members today that a one man, one vote system, whether this is within a unitary system or a geographic federation, will not be acceptable to the Whites. I can easily tell hon members today that substituting Black domination for White domination will simply not be acceptable to Whites in South Africa. This is true. The most important question today is not what is unacceptable; the most important question is what is in fact acceptable. This the direction in which we must work.

Another part of the mandate was that we should speak to the Blacks so that the Whites, the Black people and everybody in South Africa could see that we were talking to them, and not only behind closed doors. The people in South Africa want to know what we are talking about. They want to know what our differences are but, more importantly, they want to know on what we agree. They want to know whether, instead of emphasizing our differences, we are able to find a common factor of things we agree on and on which consensus and agreement can be constructed.

We were also given a mandate to talk to people, particularly to Black people who want to seek a peaceful solution and who want to participate. We did not receive a mandate to talk to perpetrators of violence, but we definitely received a mandate to talk to those people who used to advocate violence but have renounced it. We also received a mandate not to go to the conference table with rigid rules and conditions. We received a specific mandate to go to this conference table with an open agenda.

However, the time has now come for us to place these items on that agenda. Everybody who is interested and who will become interested in future will be given the opportunity to place items on that agenda, and this includes the NP. Let it be known that the NP will not hesitate to place items it deems important on that agenda.

Let us see who the people are who are opposed to this legislation. The Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the CP, and its phalanx of extra-parliamentary organizations is against it.

One can only pity the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. It was pathetic to watch these people tell the Coloured people in this House today what sort of justice they would bring about if they were to take over the power in this country, and how they were ridiculed to their faces. One can only feel pity for them. If this is their kind of justice, a justice that cannot be justified to anybody, who will find it acceptable?

One can only pity the CP when their own intellectual leaders such as Prof Carel Boshoff tell them that what they want to bring to South Africa is not peace, security and freedom, but unrest and sanctions. This must be a bitter pill to swallow. It must be a bitter pill to swallow when one’s academic intellectuals who are experts in that field say to one—I have the document here; I can quote from it if hon members want me to—that one will have to be replaced by a new party or organization that will be able to make a new plan, because what one stands for, namely partition, will never work in South Africa; it will only result in unrest and sanctions. I ask hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the CP, to give up the little schemes they are involved with and to help us build a new South Africa in which the Afrikaners can be proud of the kind of justice they stand for, which is not laughed at by other people.

A Party of less consequence that finds this legislation unacceptable is the PFP. In 1983 Dr Van Zyl Slabbert dictated to the Coloureds not to participate. He shot the PFP in the foot. Today, in 1988, the hon member for Sea Point is telling the Blacks that they must not take part in the activities of this National Council. He is simply shooting the PFP in the head, because they are finished.

As far as the NDM is concerned, the hon member for Randburg must please stop allowing himself to be used by the ANC by presenting the stories he has been coming up with.

Speaking of the ANC, it is, of course, true that the ANC and its fellow-travellers do not want a democracy for South Africa either. They cannot afford a democracy because what they stand for simply cannot survive in a free democracy.

This National Council will require statesmanship from its members. This has in fact been said more than once in this House. The question is whether the participants in the tricameral Parliament have the will to make it succeed. If we do not have the will to make this tricameral Parliament succeed, it will collapse. The question is whether these leaders have the courage to take part and are not afraid of being called puppets, or in our community, being branded as quitters and deserters. The question is whether they have the courage to take part despite this and whether the participants are able to exercise the patience that is required in Africa to reach an agreement. The question is whether the participants have the faith to venture into uncharted territory.

I plead with all those people in South Africa who are in favour of a peaceful solution to pray to our Heavenly Father to give His blessing to the work of the National Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, before I begin with my speech I just want to read an extract from a letter which one of my colleagues received after he delivered a speech here.

*In the passage I want to quote the author of the letter says:

†I find it strange that one cannot express one’s own ideas in this Chamber. I want to say that this type of letter only causes problems. I want to state emphatically that no party or persons are going to dictate to hon members of the Labour Party how they must prepare their speeches. I think there is freedom of speech and I think we are capable of saying what we want to say. I want to say that one should view it from various perspectives and where we come from.

The debate on the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill has dominated news headlines for the past three days. This is indeed a historic debate because, for the first time in our South African history, plans are afoot to accommodate Blacks in the highest echelon of government. I have listened intently to what hon members of the House of Assembly have said. I have listened with great interest to what hon members of the NP had to say. The question which arises, is how sincere these hon members are. Are they willing to scrap all discriminatory legislation or are they playing for time?

Discriminatory legislation is an inhibiting factor, and several loyal Black South Africans refuse to serve on any statutory body as long as discriminatory laws exist. The Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are two of the most iniquitous laws, which a beautiful country like South Africa can do without. Discriminatory legislation can be compared to a roadblock without a deviation or detour. Like the hon member for Addo I would like to call on my Black brethren to accept the challenge to plan and prepare a new constitutional dispensation that will provide participation by all South Africans in the process of government.

Our holy war against discrimination must come to an end and, as far as I am concerned, the Bill before the House might just be the first nail in the coffin of apartheid. I want to repeat that when the Labour Party decided to come to Parliament our objective was to work for the demise of all discriminatory laws, and this Bill is just the beginning.

Black South Africans have a proud political history. I call it a proud history because the Black people of South Africa refused to succumb to pressure. Black participation in the democratic franchise in South Africa has been slight and of relatively short duration. The 1853 Constitution which established representative government in the Cape entitled Blacks to register as voters and to stand for election to the Lower House. A Black man could then be elected to Parliament if he had a minimum income of 50 pounds a year or 25 pounds a year and board and lodging or occupation of a house and land with a combined value of 25 pounds.

Typical of Whites, the Cape Parliament took steps to limit the franchise by tightening regulations and adding new requirements. A voter then had to be able to sign his name and write his address and occupation. On these and other conditions it was not surprising that by 1876 the voters’ roll was bare of Blacks. Thereafter, even the right was forgotten.

With the signing of the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging in 1902 the Boers and colonials were left to decide the political future of the Black man. The National Convention decided upon a “Whites only” franchise for the Union in 1908, and they shrank from the thought of providing a political role for the Black majority in their plans for a united, democratic Union of South Africa.

When the first Union Parliament assembled it immediately became obvious that racial questions like the “Swart gevaar” were destined to become the deciding issues in South African politics. In 1926 Gen Hertzog set about the task of enacting laws which would clearly establish the principle that the Government had to be in White hands and had to be guarded strongly against any encroachment or weakening by Blacks. He submitted four Bills to Parliament which were the Representation of Natives Bill, the Native Council Bill, the Native Land Bill and the Coloured Persons Rights Bill. The main purpose of these measures was to abolish the meagre voting rights of Blacks in the Cape and to set up a separate Natives’ Representative Council.

Things worsened after 1948 and it came as no surprise when the Bantu Authorities Bill was introduced in Parliament by Dr Verwoerd during 1951. This was the beginning of so-called selfgovernment for the Black population. This selfgovernment plan is based upon the assumption that Blacks cannot or should not be absorbed into a non-racial democracy but should be steered towards their own form of government. In this manner Blacks were stripped of their meagre political rights and they became voteless in the country of their birth.

I have traced this history to remind my Black brothers of the struggles of our proud leaders in their quest for freedom. I want to reiterate that they should grab the opportunity to change a semi-democratic South Africa into a true democracy with equal rights for all its citizens.

The Government of the day will have to pause and arrange their political priorities in terms of the needs of the majority of South Africans. At this stage we are all aware that we live in a land of skin privilege.

I have taken note of what certain political parties have said during the past few days. We are aware and intelligent enough to know that their policies are unacceptable to the majority of peace-loving South Africans. I want to say to the Government that now is the time to proceed with negotiations so that the dignity of all South Africans can be restored. It is my firm belief that if we remove the two laws which I have mentioned then we will be creating an opportunity to change the attitude as well as the hearts and minds of the majority of South Africans.

What are the benefits to be gained from such a bold step? This, the Government can spell out for itself. While on the subject of attitudes I want to remind the hon the Minister who is piloting this Bill that his constituency bears evidence of this. There is a beautiful non-racial college there where people are taught to accept one another as equals. He must please arrange a visit there for some of the hon members of the House of Assembly.

As far as I am concerned the Nationalists are quite aware and have said that we can work together to find solutions, or else perish as fools. We are talking of equal opportunity and the question is how it is going to be achieved. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I am standing here on behalf of a party, the PFP, which is a party of negotiation. Without meaning to be arrogant, I think this party was the first party in this House that made the idea of a negotiated solution such a cardinal cornerstone of its political standpoint. Not only has a constitutional plan been written into the policy documents of the PFP, but also many clear guidelines for the negotiation process that leads to the creation of a constitution. Over the years we have deliberated on and debated negotiation—its limitations and its possibilities—and we have undoubtedly braved more criticism and opposition over the years as a result of our propagating the idea of negotiation, than most of the parties in this House. Therefore, I am saying that the implication that we are now choosing the path of conflict and violence as a result of our opposition to this Bill, is ridiculous, to say the least.

I also want to refer briefly to what the hon member for Laudium said this morning, something which was mentioned by other members as well—that at one stage or another the PFP specifically told Black people and other people not to participate in structures the Government had created for them. That is simply not true, Sir. The PFP has never adopted that standpoint. We decide for ourselves whether we are going to participate, and others must decide for themselves. That statement is simply not true.

With that I want to say that participation in structures that one does not like is a valid political strategy, but it is a great pity to see individuals, and here and there, even parties, beginning to enjoy it so much and being so taken up by it that they are converted into disciples of apartheid. [Interjections.]

Sir, many things were said in the course of this debate that were indisputable and praiseworthy. I want to quote only two of these statements and then discuss them. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said inter alia that the security of the Whites and the Afrikaners depended on the degree to which they were able to recognise and respect the rights of other groups and of other people.

The Minister of National Education said in turn that there were only two paths that we could take in South Africa—the path of negotiation and co-operation on the one hand, and the path of conflict and violence on the other. No reasonable person can find fault with these two statements.

Furthermore, I think that they represent the feelings of the great majority of South Africans. However, I want to make the accusation against this hon Minister, his hon colleague and the Government that this Bill does not coincide with such a standpoint, and that they are not honouring their undertaking embodied in those two statements. I am saying this because the Bill does not deal with the problem of political conflict and violence. Therefore it has nothing to do with security. There is no attempt—explicit or implicit—in this Bill or in the proposed council to bring the major political antagonists in South African politics together and to reconcile them with one another.

There is no indication that the council that is being envisaged here is supposed to offer a negotiated way out to those organisations that have already committed themselves to violence. There is no indication that organisations that are presently banned or find themselves outside the Government institutions, must be accommodated in this way; on the contrary, it is clear that the council is merely going to be a forum for discussion for those who are already involved along constitutional lines. The council is therefore not an instrument of reconciliation. It merely creates the semblance of a negotiating body and will serve as a contact body between the Government and those with whom the Government considers it expedient and convenient to negotiate.

Furthermore, it is very clear from the Bill that the Government itself does not want to make the choice between negotiation and confrontation— that choice the hon the Minister of National Education presented to us. This proposed council accommodates a limited number of political elements which, according to the Government, are able to recommend constitutional possibilities, as long as they are based on race, while the remaining masses of South Africans who act outside of Parliament, are dealt with by means of violence—whether it be the physical violence of military or security action or the structural violence of oppressive emergency measures.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke about nothing else. It was interesting to listen to such a speech in the middle of a debate of this nature. He left no doubt that the Government did not have or plan to have any reconciliation initiatives with extraparliamentary elements. Therefore, this Bill is one leg of a political strategy of which the other leg is the oppression by means of the emergency measures in particular. Therefore, there is a little bit of negotiation and a large dose of force and conflict! The Government’s message is clear: You participate in structures that we create, within parameters that we stipulate, and you will dish up a Constitution that satisfies us; otherwise we will trample you underfoot politically.

If anyone had still been hoping that the council would have the potential to create an acceptable constitution for South Africa, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has dashed that hope entirely. In his reference to the indaba proposals he made it clear once again that this Government was not prepared for a constitution that was not based on apartheid and on race. We must understand that the obligation that we all accept to accommodate Black people politically at the national level, cannot be satisfied that easily. We cannot simply co-opt and accommodate those with whom it is easy to work, and then talk only about them. It is not that easy.

The unfortunate truth is that the NP leadership is not ready for real power-sharing. They are not prepared to jeopardise the dominant position that they still enjoy in terms of the tricameral constitution. Therefore, the aim of the council with which we are dealing here is to buy time. Unfortunately, therefore, it is essentially of a cosmetic nature.

Unfortunately for themselves, the NP made the concession that Blacks had to have a say at the highest level. Nevertheless they do not have a vision. They do not have an inkling of how it should come about. The result is therefore the creation of yet another statutory structure which can tread water.

However, the tragedy of this is not only what the council that we are going to form is not going to achieve. The tragedy also lies in what this council can in fact achieve. Let us not forget that the implementation of the tricameral constitution in 1983 was the spark that fired three years of escalating political conflict. In the final analysis we must not forget what damage can be done to the idea of negotiation, when this council fails, as it is indeed going to fail.

Mr Speaker, it is with sadness that I address the Chamber this morning. I want to express my sympathy with the Ebrahim family of Eldorado Park, who have tragically lost their twin babies. Those of us who are parents or family people will appreciate how that young couple must be feeling this morning. I want to tell them in their hour of need that I certainly have great sympathy with them and would wish to share this difficult period with them.

To me this event illustrates yet again that violence is not the answer to the problems of South Africa. All that that particular violent act achieved was to distance another group of people from violence.

I am addressing the Chamber this morning in place of my leader, who is unfortunately not able to be here this morning. I am not really big enough to do so, but I will try in my humble way to do credit to his beliefs and the ideals of my party.

A great deal has been said over the past few days, and I want to believe that all those who have taken part in this debate have done so honestly and expressed their beliefs sincerely. Like the fingers of my hand, we are not all the same. Therefore, because of our differences, we do not necessarily express the same opinions. It is one’s right in any democratic society to differ, but I want to say that it is not right to differ simply because one wants to differ. I believe that all of us here have common objectives, and the objective in this instance is too sacred and too great for people to misuse this opportunity.

We are dealing with the destiny of our country. The future of all the children of South Africa is dependent on the hon members in this Chamber. I hold the lives of my grandchildren too dear to act irresponsibly here. While I want to agree that it is the right of hon members to disagree with me, let us never forget that the future of all the children in South Africa is in our hands.

I would like to address the question that has been bandied about here during the past few days, viz the whole question of credibility and credible leaders. Here we have the same arguments that were advanced in the House of Assembly when the tricameral system was debated and my credibility and that of all hon members in this Chamber was discussed. That sacred right of the individual was trampled upon by those who believe that they are the custodians of Black people. Sir, I want to tell hon members that the Black people themselves will determine who their leaders are. They must stop choosing leaders for us. We are quite capable and certainly adult enough to choose our own leaders. [Interjections.]

If the support we have gained from outside since we became part of this system is not enough proof of this, then I am afraid we will never be able to satisfy those who think otherwise. However, I am not here to satisfy hon members; first of all, I am here to satisfy those people who voted for me. Secondly, I am here to satisfy my own conscience. Sir, there is no doubt in my mind—and there should be no doubt in the minds of any hon member present—that Nelson Mandela and other people like him are credible leaders and that they enjoy the respect of the Black communities. Mandela has not confined Black leadership to the island. Let us not confine Black leadership to those who have opted for violence.

There is no doubt in my mind that despite all the weaknesses of the system, we will not only find people who are willing to participate but I am sure we will also find people of credibility and of credence. It is very easy to stand in a position of privilege, referring to me in the townships. It is unfortunate that the privileged ones who live in the Houghtons, Sea Points and other areas should decide for others. Sir, I want to say to you that I am adult enough to make my own decisions. There are others like me who are also adult enough to make their own decisions.

Are we not entitled to have views on human rights any more?

I am surprised that the hon member did not ask for an opportunity to address this meeting. [Interjections.] If that hon member has so many brilliant ideas I would love to share …

How much time will be allocated to me? [Interjections.] Give me some of your time and I will speak.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must come to order.

I was not going to enter into a personal debate with that hon member, but seeing that he has made that remark I shall be quite happy to accommodate him.

Are we not entitled to our views on human rights just as you are?

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must come to order. The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

The allocation of time to speak in this debate is determined by the support one has. Time is allocated in accordance with that support. Therefore, let me tell that hon member by means of a very simple deduction—and I am no mathematician—I conclude that he has no support. [Interjections.]

I think you’ve got a nerve!

I want to tell the hon member that I also have brains! [Interjections.] I also want to tell him that an hon member of his party had the audacity to get onto this rostrum and boast that their party is the alpha and omega of nonracialism in this country. [Interjections.] I want to remind him that they were the first …

That is a lie! [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Bryanston say: “That is a lie”?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Toekomsrus has just said something that is an absolute lie because none of our speakers said that.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it purely and simply because it is unparliamentary.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

What the PFP has just done is to deny what was said by the Black members of their party. They have denied what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said here yesterday. I want to tell the PFP that long before they opened their ranks—and they must not forget that they chased me out of their party … [Interjections.] … and long before the Prohibition of Improper Political Interference Act was scrapped, my party was an open organisation. My party put up, in so-called South African terminology, Indian people to contest the elections in 1984. We were not going to be prescribed to. However, let me not waste my time here this morning with that kind of argument.

We can philosophise about the political future of South Africa, but we have to stop dreaming about the future of South Africa and knuckle down to the work that has to be done. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher, but rather a realist. As a realist I believe that perfection is what all of us are striving for, but unfortunately perfection is what one only achieves at the end. Perfection is not where one starts out from. It would have been an ideal situation if one could start out from a position of perfection, but this is not so easily attained.

There is no place for division on this vital issue of Black participation in the law-making machinery of this country. There is no place for people who want to walk the road alone. There is no place for domination of any kind, whether it be Black or White.

My earnest appeal to all the hon members present here and everybody outside, is to try to make this country of ours a fit place for all its citizens to enjoy. My party, with all its weaknesses, has come forward with constitutional alternatives for South Africa. We believe that the solutions to the problems of South Africa can be accommodated in a non-racial geographical federation but, again, we are not prescriptive.

We believe that all the leaders in South Africa should get together to formulate a model for the future. To expect a model to be perfected without the majority of the people being consulted is an absolute fallacy. I also believe that tomorrow may be too late, therefore there is a great urgency for Black participation.

Are you speaking for the Blacks now?

But I am Black. [Interjections.]

Not according to NP policy—ask Minister Heunis. [Interjections.]

Some of my best friends are Progs, unfortunately. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much—I will remember that. [Interjections.]

Some of us learnt a long time ago to stop speaking for other people. Some of us learnt the lesson a long time ago that one has to speak to people.

*Mr Speaker, I want to conclude.

Carry on, MacDuff!

Order! I think the hon member for Yeoville has made enough speeches now. The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

I want to say that with all our imperfections and even in the light of all the opposition displayed in this debate we are beginning to move in the direction of reform.

Mr Speaker, we have come to the end of a long and historic debate. Fifty three hon members participated in this discussion, which is quite probably a record for any sitting of this nature.

I wonder whether we realise today what has happened to us as a result of this debate. I wonder whether those of us sitting here realise what it means for our country. An abundance of wisdom emerged in this debate. I think we should, after a while, go back and read what hon members said.

One outstanding feature of this debate, with a few exceptions, was the commitment to peace. It was the commitment of we who are sitting here to reconciliation, to negotiated solutions and to the recognition of the human dignity of all people.

Naturally it is not possible to react to individual speakers, nor will hon members expect me to do so. That is why I merely wanted to conclude the debate in general terms.

This morning a scene was enacted here which I found typical of the conduct of specific politicians and of political thought in our country. The hon member for Toekomsrus was speaking, and I think he made a valuable contribution. He laid his finger on a few of the essential factors in a political debate, in the first place the intolerance of a liberal. Nowhere in the world are there more intolerable people than the liberals. The more liberal they are, the more intolerant they are. [Interjections.]

I noticed something else this morning which was very interesting. It was the frustration of people who have no political future.

Who spent 40 years ruining the country?—[Interjections.]

Oh please, Sir, we do not need any windmills; it is raining outside. [Interjections.]

Have hon members noticed the frustration of the PFP?

You are spending a lot of time on us!

One always gives attention to irritating aspects. [Interjections.]

The hon members are not prepared to listen to other people; they expect other people to listen to them. [Interjections.]

The frustration of the PFP lies in the fact that the time when they thought and professed to be speaking on behalf of all other people is past. They are now speaking for themselves. [Interjections.]

Again an untruth!

The second factor emerged when the hon member for Barberton spoke. Listening to him—I have great respect for that hon member, and he knows it—hon members would have heard that his frustration lay in the fact that he was not going to be in a position, if his party came to power, to change the Constitution without the co-operation of the hon members in the other Houses. [Interjections.] He realised that his political party, with the philosophy with which it was misleading White people, had no viability whatsoever in regard to acceptability in Parliament. I concede that it must be frustrating to proclaim such a policy.

The same intolerance of the PFP was reflected in speeches made by the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. They display intolerance towards other communities, intolerance to what is different. It does not take a prophet to say that on that basis there is no peaceful solution to the problems of our country.

Did the 1983 Parliament work? Many people frequently ask that question. Perhaps it is a good thing just to place on record at this sitting that since 1985 until the present time Parliament has disposed of 404 Bills, and that in only six cases was it necessary to refer a Bill to the President’s Council.

This is the practical evidence from people who are dedicating themselves to obtaining unanimity in consensus. The Bill we are now discussing is quite probably one of the best examples of people meeting and finding common ground in such a discussion. If it was possible here, there is hope for the future. If it was possible here, we can go forward with confidence.

I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to all hon members, and also to the hon members who differed with us, for their contribution to this debate. I especially want to say it was a good thing the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly participated in the debate and did not isolate themselves from it.

Many people worked very hard and made great sacrifices to make the debate possible. If history is to be the judge, the name of the hon member for Tygervallei will be writ large in our annals. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament set a wonderful example, and I should like to convey the thanks of this House to him.

†The South African Government is committed to the establishment of a political dispensation that will afford all South Africans and communities an opportunity to participate in that system. We believe that only democratic institutions and systems can meet the demands of fairness and justice. We may differ as to how they should be constituted, what they should be and also what form they should take, but we share a commitment to democracy. We also share a commitment to the values reflected in such a system. It is the conviction of this Government—and I believe all parties share that conviction—that that constitutional dispensation which provides for the aspirations and participation of all South African citizens and communities, and that it should be the result of negotiation with the leaders of these communities. The Bill before us gives practical effect to this conviction. The Government is not prescriptive as to who should represent the Black communities in these negotiations or institutions. The only reservation—I believe hon members share this with me and the Government—is that the people who participate should eschew violence and commit themselves to peaceful solutions.

The hon member for Barberton said the agenda was not open, and I will deal with that in a moment. On behalf of the Government I want to say that these negotiations will be based on the following premises: The principle of an undivided South African citizenship and universal franchise within democratic structures for those communities that do not opt for independence; political participation of all communities at all levels on matters of national concern; co-responsibility and power-sharing between these communities on matters of national concern; the devolution of power to communities and their institutions as far as possible; the protection of minority rights—and we are a nation of minorities—without one group dominating the other; the sovereignty of the law as the basis for the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals and groups; equality before the law; and the protection of the human dignity, life, liberty and property of all, regardless of colour, race or creed.

*It has been a long debate. I listened to the hon member for Claremont, and I want to tell him that this is the first time I have been ashamed of sharing my South African citizenship with anyone in Parliament. I want to tell him that citizenship of a country requires a different type of loyalty to that which he displays; it requires a different type of patriotism to that which he evidences. South Africa would have been better off without him.

Hear, hear!

A year ago the left-wing opposition tried to mobilise themselves into a single group, so much so, in fact, that the hon member for Sea Point’s party took a back seat in elections for the sake of one of their liberal-minded spiritual allies. What came of that? Whereas at that time there was only the PFP and one independent movement, there are now four independent movements. The only creative contribution they made in their opposition, was to split their own ranks, like a unicellular creature which reproduces by a process of mitosis. [Interjections.]

Just look at what happened when the hon member for Reservoir Hills joined the PFP. In 1986 he made a speech in the House of Delegates in support of the National Council Bill. When he joined the PFP, however, he became destructive and negative in his approach, something which is indicative of their political career throughout.

The country does not have time to play such games. The people of the country expect solutions from us, not political theories.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Green Point is the last person to talk. [Interjections.]

I now come to the analysis of the Bill by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. It was an amazing experience to witness the analysis by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said that he had examined the Bill and found it to contain certain strange elements. He said that he found those strange elements in clause 3 of the Bill in which the objects, aim and functions of the proposed council are described. He said that those were not that council’s objects, but the Government’s, because the council did not yet exist. He said that that was a strange way of doing things.

I should like to refer him to Act 101 of 1980, however, in terms of which the Senate was abolished and the President’s Council came into being. The wording in regard to the establishment of the President’s Council and the wording of the Bill which is to establish this council are virtually identical. He voted for that. [Interjections.] Secondly the functions of the President’s Council, set out in that Bill, are contained in full in this Bill too, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now finds it strange for the Bill to state what the object is of the council which is to be established. He said he found it strange. He also said that the legislation would prove disastrous, that it was dangerous. By the very nature of things, those are serious statements that he made.

The hon member said that this Bill provided no guarantees for minority groups. The hon member said that as a result of the composition of the council he did not expect the rights of Whites to be protected. Let us examine that aspect. The Bill is not supposed to do what the hon member said. The Bill proposes the establishment of a council which can carry out investigations and act in an advisory capacity. The final authority for the constitutional dispensation in South Africa is vested in this Parliament. If the hon member is seeking guarantees, he must look to the sovereign authority in the land, the Parliament of South Africa, to provide him with those guarantees.

The hon member’s argument proceeds from completely false premises. I am referring to our ability, in this country, to develop systems having a numerical basis. Let us analyse that aspect. Numerical configurations in this country …

The tricameral Parliament has a numerical basis.

The numerical configurations in this country only have an effect on decisionmaking in regard to the own affairs of specific communities. In regard to general affairs, as stated in the Constitution, communities must find common ground if amendments are to be brought about. That is the answer.

The hon member says that partition, the policy he proclaims, would be in a better position to solve the country’s problems and would be able to bring about greater stability and more peace than a constitutional model in which all the communities participated. It is true, of course, that if there were only one people or community living within the borders of a country, in other words if the country has a homogeneous population, the chances of stability would be greater than if this were not the case. It is true, of course, that the conflict potential in a population such as ours is greater. The composition of our own population, not only in relation to race or ethnicity, but also in relation to levels of development and familiarity with various systems would, of course, create a volatile society. Of course the conflict potential is high.

Surely that is not the question we have to answer. The question we have to answer is whether we are able—and have the will—to develop a constitutional dispensation which can meet the legitimate aspirations of all the communities without one dominating another and without everything going up in flames.

The hon member said that he wanted to negotiate. I want to ask him why we are bluffing all the voters with a constitutional plan involving partition, a plan which has no takers in other communities. Why do we bluff the voters by announcing a plan which our own community has rejected by a majority vote? Why are we bluffing the voters with a constitutional plan which would be the ruination of the country, financially and in terms of its stability?

Let us examine the following aspect. In this country we have Coloured, Asian and Black communities. It is estimated that there are 10 million Black people outside the national states, in so-called “White South Africa”. It is calculated that it would cost R68 000 per family to relocate them. If one takes into consideration that there are 1,5 million families, it would cost R80 000 million. It is not only a question of the relocation of groups of people, however, but the relocation of towns with their infrastructures. What is more, in this country there are 10,5 million economically active people. Seven and a half million of them are people of colour. They have to be relocated. How absurd it is to believe that that can really be done!

From another hon member I would still be able to accept that, but for the hon member for Barberton to make that statement is something I find not only amazing, but also bewildering. He said that it was not an open agenda. He said that in clause 3 of the Bill he read—I also want to quote it:

I want to ask him why that makes his plan irrelevant. [Interjections.] Does the CP then not believe that all South African citizens should participate in the political processes? Does the CP not believe that they should do so in their own “volkstate”? What makes his plan irrelevant, except the fact that it is an impossibility?

He does not believe it himself!

In terms of the legislation there is nothing that prevents the hon member’s party from presenting to the council the inanities which they propagate. Let me tell the hon member for Barberton in all seriousness that it does not befit him …

Rubbish!

… to make such an untrue statement.

Allan, you are not even allowed to swim! [Interjections.]

It does not befit the hon member to make such an untrue statement.

The hon member for Overvaal should go and have a look at what is happening in his constituency!

Order! There are altogether too many interjections, not relevant to the debate, being made across the floor. Hon members must refrain from doing so. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to tell the hon members of the CP that they have exactly the same problem as that of the left-wing opposition. They cannot get away from the political view that numbers are going to be a factor. They cannot get away from the fact that their frame of reference is still the Westminster system with its individual voting and the winner-take-all principle, and that is their frame of reference, in spite of the fact that they themselves voted for a principle in terms of which that was no longer accepted.

Before me I have the interim report of the Schlebush Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution. There are two findings in that report which are relevant to the debate today. I would very much like to quote them. Under point 8 (a) of the report there is the following—

Hon members must now listen carefully—

The PFP and its hon leader, who was a member of the Schlebush Commission, signed that report. What is happening today with this standpoint in regard to the conflict potential and the actual clashes which would have disastrous consequences in a system in which there was numerical domination? Where do they now stand? Words have some significance, and some value must be attached to standpoints.

I quote paragraph 8 (b) of the Schlebusch Commission’s report—

Hon members must note the words—

This was signed by the CP members who were members of that commission. What is the significance of what they signed? They accepted that the development of an acceptable constitutional structure or structures required consultation, deliberation and negotiation with leaders of all the population groups. They signed that, but when we come to a forum which must give substance to something which was also those hon members’ standpoint, they shy away and stand trembling in a corner, in isolation from the rest of South Africa.

We do, of course, have different standpoints, and of course no one has a final answer, but I refuse to believe in a dismal future and in dismal prospects such as those predicted for South Africa by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. Hon members must listen to the following words: “Dit is pik-, git-, stikswart donker.” How can anyone, how can a party, with such a mental attitude make a contribution to solving the problems of the country? [Interjections.]

The country has a fine future. There are unlimited opportunities in this country, and I agree that there is an increasing desire, on the part of all communities in the country, to place South Africa in a position to achieve its destiny. I associate myself with the hon the State President: If hon members do not want to help me, they must not hinder me.

The Government is committed to dismantling discrimination which means the benefiting of certain communities and the prejudicing of other communities. In my opinion there is nothing negative in differentiating between communities; on the contrary, I think that is a positive aspect, because that could do justice to various people’s rights. I refuse to believe, however, that White identity, Afrikaner identity, can only be preserved by laws. When are those hon members going to rid themselves of the syndrome of statutory identity?

When are you going to abolish the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

I am not so riddled with fear about my own identity as to think that contact with other people would destroy that identity. I want to caution against this fear ridden attitude which is propagated by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—this idea that as far as their identity is concerned, Whites can only live if their identity is protected by law.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys made an important statement which I want to repeat. He said that if this Bill were to be passed by Parliament, it would prove to be the answer to violent action and destroy the moral basis of those who advocated violence. I want to tell the hon member that I agree with him. The answer to violence is a social one, ie improving people’s living conditions and increasing those possessions which they would want to protect, and there are programmes in the country at the moment aimed at doing just that. Let me say, in this regard, that there has never before been a state or a government, in conjunction with the private sector, which has made a greater effort to meet these social obligations. We have already made great strides.

Economic development and security measures are also elements of stability, but all these power bases come under the ultimate authority of this Parliament. In human terms hon members in this Parliament are the final arbiters of our destiny in every sphere of life, and I want to ask us to realise that the acceptance of the Bill before us is not the last word, not even on the council itself. It is only after the House has passed the Bill, that the really difficult second phase begins, that phase in which people have to be persuaded to participate, and we can only succeed in that if we are all committed to it.

†Unless we as Parliament and as members of Parliament are prepared to accept the decisions of Parliament and, after that, to make them our own, we will become part of those of us who want to dissuade people from participating rather than to persuade them to do so. The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development referred to the people who went into the townships to tell people of colour not to participate in the constitutional dispensation; not to participate in institutions which Parliament had created, whilst they themselves sat in glory participating in those institutions. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, let me say this today …

If you say we did that, you are lying! [Interjections.]

Order! What is the problem with the hon member for Pinetown?

I have no problem, Mr Speaker.

What did the hon member shout?

I shouted at the hon members way across the floor that if they were suggesting that the PFP did such a thing, then they were lying. That was what I said, Mr Speaker.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I accept the fact that the hon member for Pinetown does not have a problem! He is in fact the problem. [Interjections.] I am so delighted about what the hon member said in reply to your question, Mr Speaker, because from that I must now gather that the hon member and his party are going to assist us all in persuading the leaders of other communities to participate. [Interjections.] Well, words have meaning!

Your problem is that you want to be prescriptive! You should leave people to make up their own minds! [Interjections.]

All I am asking is whether those hon members, in their capacity as members of Parliament, are going to tell those who are not members of this Parliament that Parliament has adopted a resolution, and whether they are going to invite those people to co-operate with us in implementing that resolution. Or are they going to say no, that council is ineffective; it is not representative; only they are effective and only they are representative? [Interjections.] In the meantime their representation in this Parliament increasingly diminishes.

If we pass this legislation, I am asking whether those who oppose the legislation are also going to co-operate with the rest.

Today is an historic day. Elsewhere in Africa there are other South Africans who are also part of an effort aimed at achieving peace. I am referring to the northernmost tip of Africa. There some of our compatriots are engaged in negotiations with a view to achieving peace on the subcontinent of Africa. I pray that there negotiations will be blessed with success. Whilst they are there, we are nevertheless engaged in an effort to achieve peace here, debating a mechanism which could possibly achieve peaceful solutions.

This is indeed a great day.

It is nevertheless also true that the peace effort there will encounter opposition and it is true that the forces of violence will try to frustrate and sabotage those efforts. If we believe in peaceful solutions, if we believe in negotiated solutions, if we believe in the future of this country, I am advocating that we jointly take a stand in opposing violence. Let us all do so with the same resolve. Let us all do so with the same dedication.

I do not think there has been any decade in history in which there has been more talk about international peace and regional peace than specifically during this decade. Nor do I know of any decade in which there has been more conflict and war than specifically this decade, in spite of all the talk about peace. In this decade we have spoken about development, when millions of people in the world are living in wretched circumstances. We pride ourselves on technological and scientific achievements which can be employed to improve people’s lives and peoples’ living conditions, when millions of people are dying of hunger.

We speak about democracy and the extension of democracy when day by day, in this very decade, an increasing number of people are being enslaved by the iniquitous forces of revolution and communism. We here are presented with an opportunity.

†Robert Louis Stevenson wrote the following:

Let us commit ourselves to the success that is derived from labour. We should labour not in our own interests, but for our country and for the people of our country.

*The greatest compliment the hon member for Barberton could have paid the NP Government was contained in his introductory remark, ie that if we opened up our party to all races, the Labour Party could come along and join up. What is he actually saying? He is pinpointing the amazing phenomenon of a party which has been able to co-operate with people from other communities to the benefit of South Africa. The moment he manages to do that, his party would manage to do it, and that would be even better for South Africa, because then more people would want to co-operate for the benefit of their own future.

What about Dr Worrall?

Like that hon member, he is a blusterer.

You beat him by the slim margin of 39 votes. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to permit any further interjections while the hon the Minister is speaking. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I merely want to complete my final sentence by saying that hon members emphasised the third object of the council which focuses on attitudes. I want to link up with that. Reform cannot take place in a country if it has not already taken root in the hearts of people. It is not possible to base a constitution on Christian values if those values are not part and parcel of their daily lives.

It is no use talking to one’s fellow-men about attitudes. In speaking about attitudes, one must first look in the mirror and confront oneself. That is the basis of reform and adjustment. If we do not extend our insight and understanding, we are not going to achieve success. If we do not cultivate our sense of tolerance, we shall not succeed.

I am saying that this debate and this Bill have a message. It has a powerful message for the outside world, indicating to countries abroad that we—and we alone—and our country will solve the problems of this country and that we shall not permit interference from any quarter, wherever it may come from and in whatever form it may manifest itself.

We are telling the world that the reform we seek must serve the interests of South Africa and not those of world opinion. We are saying that the reform we seek must comply with our perception or concept of morality and ethics and our value systems, and not their double standards.

Here is a message emanating from Parliament to those who want to destroy our system by violent means. We are telling them that we will find peaceful solutions, but we shall employ all the means at our country’s disposal to oppose those who commit violence. That is Parliament’s message.

Here there is also a message for our own people. That message is that Parliament is leading the way in the search for solutions. Parliament is leading the way in the process of negotiation. Parliament is leading the way in safeguarding South Africa for them. Join in the spirit prevailing here in Parliament on 24 June 1988.

Langenhoven’s words “Keep your smile for your enemy, your tears for your friend, your judgement for yourself and your conscience for your God” strike a chord in all our hearts. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate on this Bill is hereby concluded, and since there are amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper of the House of Assembly, the Bill is being referred back to the relevant joint committee. I want to focus attention on the fact that the amendments in regard to clause 3 and the long title affect the principle of the Bill and are therefore out of order.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) Constitution Second Amendment Bill [B100—88 (GA)];
2. (2) Constitution Third Amendment Bill [B101—88 (GA)]; and
3. (3) Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 105—88 (GA)].

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this side of the House will support the Finance Bill, but before coming to it I should like at this stage to take the opportunity of expressing our complete dissatisfaction with the way in which this finance legislation is being forced upon us, and with the limited time in which we have to dispose of these things.

We feel, and I think hon members opposite who served with us on that joint committee also feel, that this cannot result in good legislation. It must also be remembered that we still have to fulfil our role as Official Opposition and therefore act as watchdog over the NP Government which might quite happily give away our country and our resources. [Interjections.]

This is an omnibus Bill which deals with many matters. I shall therefore not deal with all the clauses. I shall confine myself to the matters which we feel are important. The first of these is the payment of credit balances in the Black Transport Services Account and the Coloured Transport Account in terms of clause 1. We have studied the documents from the FCI, Assocom and the South African Busworkers Union, and after lengthy consideration, we decided that the major portion of the credit balances does, after all, come out of the taxpayer’s pocket and it is really just a case of a shifting around of furniture in the financial house. We therefore have no objection to it, and we shall support it.

Next there is the appropriation of money for the Special Defence Account for additional matters relating to defence. We have also considered this matter in depth and feel it is in the interests of our country, South Africa, that this should be approved. We shall support it.

I just want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence in his absence that he should not regard this as a gesture of affection on our part, because I can assure him that there is no love lost as far as he is concerned.

Clauses 5 and 6 involve the Land Bank situation, ie Land Bank securities. We appreciate the provisions of these clauses; they are necessary for meaningful control and regulation by the monetary authorities.

We realise that we are dealing here with something other than the farmers’ carry-over debt. In the standing committee we were concerned about the farmers’ carry-over debt, but we realise that is something else and that the legislation to be implemented would not necessarily make the farmers’ carry-over debt more expensive.

It confirms the indicators of the last few years which have shown that the financing component of agriculture has become market-related. It will, however, bring about an increase in financing costs for agriculture. We know, of course, that the sources have shifted in this situation.

That is why we feel at this stage that a request for a phasing-in period is justified. I therefore want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to think about this and not to be in a hurry to force this on the farmers. Allow me to motivate this.

Firstly, the shock of an extraordinary rise in financing costs in the present agricultural climate could then be absorbed over a longer period. Secondly, this would enable the Land Bank to examine the situation and make better preparations to finance agriculture in the most beneficial manner with available financing mechanisms— we are referring here to the securities. All this relates to clauses 5 and 6. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to look into all my requests.

We are also dealing here with the SATS pensions which are now being transferred to the Transport Corporation of South West Africa. We were worried about whether the SATS pension fund would be solvent when those pensions were taken away. The question that arises, of course, is whether it is solvent at this stage, but we do not want to elaborate on that now. What is important is that we should be given the assurance that these people will be looked after.

There is another clause which deals with level crossings. We know how dangerous level crossings are and we welcome the increase in this connection. It is therefore my pleasure, on behalf of this side of the House, to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Delmas objected to getting this legislation so late in the session and at very short notice. He is, of course, aware that in the Standing Committee on Finance a motion on this issue was unanimously adopted which will be published soon. Of course I sympathise with the hon member who does not want to be over-hasty in dealing with matters. He does not want to finalise urgent matters in a short space of time. When one has reached our age there are certain things for which one needs a lot of time, and one of these is the study of financial legislation. One does want to absorb the full implications of the legislation before either accepting it or criticising it.

The hon member discussed the financing of the Land Bank and interest rates. I am certain that what he asked for will come about, namely that the farmers will have a longer period in which to become accustomed to higher interest rates. Usually these loans are negotiated periodically by the Land Bank. It is not something that happens every day and is subject to daily interest rates. It is something which probably happens once a year or once every two or three years, depending on the financial requirements of the Land Bank. I think therefore that farmers will not immediately be subject to the higher interest rates which the Land Bank is going to negotiate for money on the financial markets.

As the hon member quite rightly said, clause 1 was subjected to the most criticism, particularly from the private sector. This related, of course, to the payment of credit balances of the Black Transport Services Account and the Coloured Transport Account as at the date when the RSCs start operating. That will be the date, therefore, on which they will be entitled to impose their own levies.

The private sector, as I have said, expressed serious misgivings about this. They felt that these credit balances should be paid over to the various RSCs so that they in turn could subsidise transport. In the first place when one examines the duties of the RSCs one finds that there is no obligation on them to use such funds, or a portion of such funds, for the subsidisation of transport.

The other side of the coin is that during this financial year the Government appropriated an amount of something like R500 million for assistance to transport services that could not make a go of it. That amount will be used for that purpose. That is why I feel that the RSCs’ argument in this case is not only completely without any foundation but, because the Government and the Treasury are responsible for subsidising transport services, this money should, in my opinion, be paid over to the Treasury and to no other body.

I also want to point out that in this respect the Government does not only make its contribution to subsidies for transport services. When one looks at clause 13 one finds that in cases in which the SATS renders socio-economic services, the Treasury also makes certain concessions to the SATS. This, of course, includes the interest obligation the SATS has to the Treasury. In that clause an amount of R442 million, which is equivalent to the interest obligation of the SATS to the Treasury, is permanently capitalised. This therefore reduces the interest obligation of the SATS in the coming financial year by another R44 million.

I therefore submit that the Treasury is removing an enormous burden from other commuters, and from the RSCs which may have thought that they would be forced in certain instances to subsidise transport services for commuters. I am not saying that they are being relieved completely of this obligation. We shall have to see what happens in future. In regard to the year we are dealing with at present I think we can be grateful to the Treasury for what it has done in this connection.

Seen as a whole, this legislation, as the hon member has said, is omnibus legislation embodying no specific principle. Virtually every clause deals with a different aspect involving the country’s finances. We on this side of the House, too, gladly support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I will come back to the question which the hon member for Kuruman raised a little later.

I would like to start off by saying that the hon members for Delmas and Kuruman are, of course, correct in regard to the time problems which have been encountered by the Joint Committee on Finance. In fact, this piece of legislation is the one in regard to which we had the least time problem. However, I think there are a couple of things that should be said and, in the absence of the chairman of the committee, permit me to say them.

Firstly, there is great appreciation on the part of the members of the committee for the willingness of the officials in the department to work abnormal hours in order to help us overcome these problems. There is much said about the law advisers and how much they are supposed to be behind, but I want to say from my own experience in dealing with amendments in regard to the financial legislation that on this occasion these people have worked way beyond the call of duty, and I think it should be said publicly as the committee felt it should. We want to thank them for what they have done.

Secondly, there have been people in the Department of Finance and the Reserve Bank who have gone out of their way to be helpful, for example, in regard to a number of amendments which I suggested. They worked on them and got them ready. I do not think one should only throw brickbats; one must also occasionally throw bouquets. I think there are many people entitled to bouquets.

Let me also tell hon members—I raised this matter in the committee, and they said it should be said publicly—that a new approach has been adopted in regard to the Joint Committee on Finance, which I think may well be followed by other joint committees where it does not yet take place. I refer to the approach of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. It is largely due to him and his intervention that we have been able to achieve in the joint committee what has been done on this occasion. This morning the committee stated unanimously that it wanted to express its thanks to him publicly, not merely because he is handling the legislation, but because he is there at the committee, because he is available and because he is prepared to make decisions on amendments then and there. I think that is what actually enabled us to do a very difficult job. So all three Houses, all the parties, unanimously consider that this is a job well done, and that it should be recorded in Hansard that it has been a job well done.

The other thing which to my mind should be said is that our committee is a consensus committee. It is remarkable how little conflict there is. It does come out at the end of this committee how we do agree on amendments, how hon members of the CP, the NP, even the Labour Party, the House of Delegates—you name them—manage to come to terms. As an example in regard to consensus, I think this committee can serve as a good example to the rest of the House.

I want to deal with specific matters relating to this Bill. I would like to deal with clauses 12 and 13 which deal with the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund. These are interesting provisions. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister for Transport Affairs would listen, because he is actually involved in this. We have an interesting situation here in that we have two pension funds, one for Whites and one for so-called nonWhites—not my phrase, but the phrase used in the legislation.

What is happening is that the funds which relate to the employees in South West Africa/Namibia are not going into two separate funds there, but into one fund; in other words, that Black money and that White money is all going into one fund. The question which I pose—and I think it arises particularly because of developments which have taken place—is: Am I, as a member of the House of Assembly, entitled to comment on, and have a view in respect of, issues of discrimination insofar as they affect Black people in South Africa? Or I am now, as a result of an approach which was adopted when we had a joint meeting, no longer allowed to have my values?

I have no claim to speak for anyone other than the people who have elected me. That is my only claim to be in this House. However, I have a claim to speak for values, principles and fundamentals. I have a claim, irrespective of anything, to be able to speak for human rights and to find …[Interjections.] … the situation arising in which Houghton, which has been a bastion in the fight for human rights … [Interjections.] … finds itself being attacked, is one of the most remarkable things I have seen in the political history of South Africa.

I want to make it quite clear that irrespective of what my skin colour is or what political party I belong to, I claim, while I am an elected representative of my constituency, the right to continue to plead for human rights and to speak out against discrimination, and to continue to demand a just society for South Africa. [Interjections.] Let us make it clear.

I wonder what other people are saying in regard to the issue of the two separate pension funds and the definitions which are contained in section 1 of Act 43 of 1974, and whether in fact they should be contained therein. As I understand the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—and he can please correct me if I am wrong—everybody who works for his department is a human being and is entitled to be treated equally. If there is no logic in having …

Parity.

Yes, I am with the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] Separate parity?

We have accepted parity.

The hon the Minister has accepted parity, correct. The question I now want an answer to is the following—and I wonder what the debate will be elsewhere on this same measure: If it is in fact proper to do away with this separateness in regard to Black and White money and pension funds in South West Africa/Namibia, why cannot it be done away with in South Africa? That is the real issue which arises from this and somebody needs to answer it.

Take your hiding.

Sir, I have a rather noisy person on my left, who makes inane remarks, but he does not have the courage to get up and speak. If you will give him a speaking turn …

Why do you fight with people behind their backs?

Mr Chairman, I do not mind the noise from this hon member, but I …

Order! I seem to hear the lone voice of the hon member for Turffontein quite often. I might be mistaken, but I would ask him to give the hon member for Yeoville an opportunity to continue his speech without undue interruption.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether an hon member is entitled to attack people who are not present here to defend themselves?

Order! The hon member for Yeoville may continue.

Thank you, Sir. I am attacking nobody who cannot hear me or cannot read what I have to say. I am attacking nobody behind his back.

I am stating what I believe are my principles. The only thing that I have behind my back is something unpleasant in noise and otherwise. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member to refer to another hon member in that way?

Order! I did not hear the hon member referring to anybody at all. The hon member may continue.

Well, I will not refer to it as being pleasant. [Interjections.] May I also raise with the hon the Minister a technical point, other than the principle point, which is of consequence.

Behind every man!

That is the issue—I raise it in relation to the pension funds—as to the condition of the pension fund to which the money is being transferred, and the condition of the pension fund which will be created. The information that is available to us is that these funds have an actuarial deficit and the amount that will be transferred will be the contributions plus an agreed amount of interest to be negotiated. However, it may well be that that results in the new fund in South West Africa/Namibia starting off with an actuarial deficit, which is not a desirable situation. That is the matter that was raised in the committee. There is no complete answer to it at this stage and I think it does require a particular answer.

I want to come back now to the issue raised by both the hon members for Delmas and Kuruman. One of the important things here is that we felt that these amounts should be made available for the purpose for which they had been contributed. However, when the figures became apparent a completely different picture appeared. Firstly, we were told and the evidence given before us was that the amount involved was approximately R10 million. Yet the contribution from levies during the 1987-88 financial year was R28,7 million, whereas the Exchequer’s contribution was R395 million. We received the undertaking, bearing in mind that the Exchequer pays the bulk of this money in any case, that the hon the Minister would get up in this House and would tell us what moneys, even though they were transferred to the Revenue Fund, would be applied to the purpose for which they had been contributed. I understand that that undertaking will, in fact, be placed on record in this debate.

The next thing is the question of the unauthorised expenditure of the provinces. This matter was not, of course, examined by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. A new order will now take place under the new Rules. We hope that from that a more satisfactory situation will develop.

The other question is the question of the Land Bank. I have great sympathy with the argument of the hon member for Delmas concerning the risks in regard to interest rates and how that will affect the fanning community. We spent considerable time on that matter. However, there is another issue which requires a policy statement, because theoretically, from the Government’s point of view, the Land Bank should actually be privatised for the Land Bank is in competition with private enterprise in the provision of funds to a particular section of the community. Is it the intention, at some time, that the Government will privatise the Land Bank? As I see the situation, if that is the intention—it is in accordance with their policy—then I can see very serious difficulties arising for the farming community. In the State there has to be some mechanism which is not subject to the ordinary market situations— if I may use the term—which can assist farmers who have a particular and peculiar position—if I may use the word in its technical sense—in the economy as such.

The other matter, that I wish to discuss, is the question of the coinage in clause 7. There are two things which arise here. The one is the privatisation of the Mint. I think the committee was unanimous here in what has been raised before and that is that the Mint should restrict itself to banknotes, which are part of the Reserve Bank’s function, and coinage and matters which relate to the Government. They should not compete with private enterprise.

The reason why the question of acquiring an interest in an existing company was deleted from this clause was to make sure that there could be no acquisition of businesses from the private sector resulting in competition with regard to matters which were peculiar to the private sector.

The other question which needs to be raised here is the question of the nickel price and coinage. Commodity prices have taken a slight downturn in the past 48 hours but the nickel price is still high. It is well-known that a rand coin is worth more than a rand. That is a unique situation. The purchasing power of the rand decreases by the day but the value of its metal content has increased. We would like confirmation that action will be taken in terms of the Currency Act of 1933 to prevent the melting down of coins in order to make a profit at the expense of the Exchequer. We would like to have that assurance from the hon the Deputy Minister on record in this debate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, hon members who followed the debate elsewhere this morning will naturally understand why the hon member for Yeoville became somewhat excited here this afternoon. I think if the hon member learnt a lesson here today it was that one should be very careful about the interjections one makes.

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me as if each of those interjections were turned back on the hon member with interest. If a younger member could possibly give an older member a little advice it would be that the hon member should rather just ask for a turn to speak in the future to put his case, instead of doing so by means of interjections. [Interjections.]

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

Unfortunately I have too little time.

Have you too little time or too little courage?

This morning I learnt a good lesson from the hon member for Yeoville. I want to return to the financial aspects and I want to associate myself with the hon member. I do not want to quarrel with him, and I do not think that it is necessary that twice on the same day the hon member … [Interjections.]

If the hon member will give me an opportunity, I want to associate myself with the sentiments which he expressed here with regard to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, as well as all the officials who were involved with it. However, on behalf of this side of the House I also want to thank the hon member for Yeoville who was vice-chairman of that committee. It has been said this morning that the award which he received from the hon the State President for the fine and loyal service he has given to South Africa particularly in the financial debate was most certainly well deserved.

As has been pointed out, this Financial Bill consists of numerous clauses, and each clause deals with a different act. In the time available to me I should like to concentrate on one clause only, clause 7, which make the privatisation of the South African Mint possible. Section 6 of the South African Reserve Bank Act, Act 29 of 1944 is to be amended in order to empower the South African Reserve Bank to mint coins or cause coins to be minted. The Reserve Bank can establish companies or obtain interests in existing companies for this purpose. The extension of the of the powers of the Reserve Bank will take place with a view to the envisaged take-over of the South African Reserve Bank as a wholly-owned subsidiary. The Reserve Bank is not owned by the State. Its capital of R200 million is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and is held by more than 700 private shareholders, amongst others companies, institutions, individuals and foreigners.

The proposed amending legislation, by means of which the South African Mint is being privatised, introduces another chapter in the development of money, and particularly in the development of coins, in South Africa. All bank notes in South Africa and South West Africa have been issued by the Reserve Bank since 1921. Although the first notes are dated 1921, they were only brought into circulation in 1922.

The development of coins in South Africa has a long and very interesting history. Time does not allow me to go back into the history of coins to the “reaal van aghten”, also known as the Spanish dollar. These coins were used by Jan van Riebeeck for commercial purposes in 1652 when he started at the refreshment post at the Cape on behalf of the VOC.

A very interesting snippet from the history of coinage in South Africa, however, is the so-called “duifiegeld” of the Griquas, and I want to dwell on that for a while. The settlement of the Griquas or the Basters, as they were known then, attracted the attention of the London Missionary Society at an early stage. When Rev John Campbell of the abovementioned society paid a visit to the Cape in 1812 he visited the Griquas as well. This clergyman was determined to raise the level of civilisation amongst the Griquas, and he immediately drew up a series of regulations or laws to protect them. Amongst other things, he changed the name of their town from Klaarwater to Griquatown, and the name “Baster” to “Griqua”. He also decided to help them introduce their own coinage system.

Campbell’s attempt at civilising the Griquas made an impression on the society in London, and he was allowed to mint silver and copper money for the Griquas on his own. The London Missionary Society immediately began the mintin g process. The value was indicated on the obverse side of these coins, with the words “Griqua” at the bottom and “Town” at the top. On the reverse side there was a dove of peace with an olive branch in its beak—the symbol of the London Missionary Society. In this way the Griquas, virtually uncivilised, became the first people in Southern Africa who had their own coined money.

In 1890 the Government of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek decided to issue its own coins. All the denominations were minted by the Prussian State Mint in Berlin for the Republic in 1892. In the same year the Transvaal Mint began its activities and the first coins were minted in this country. After the Union of South Africa in 1910 came into being the Kruger Coins of the ZuidAfrikaansche Republiek were declared legal tender in all four provinces.

In 1919 the Union Parliament passed the Pretoria Mint Act, which made provision for the founding of the Pretoria Mint at the branch of the Royal Mint of London. The first coins that were minted under this new dispensation bear the date 1923.

Kruger Coins, the coins that were coined by the Pretoria Mint as well as the British coins were regarded as legal tender here in South Africa for a number of years. On 14 January 1933, however, the British coins lost this status.

After negotiations with the British Government control of the Pretoria Mint was transferred to the South African Government on 1 July 1941 and since then it has been known as the South African Mint.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to pay tribute to the South African Mint for the excellent quality of service which they have given up to now, and we want to wish them everything of the best in their new future as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the South African Reserve Bank.

That was excellent (uitmuntend)!.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to respond to what the hon member for Newcastle said about our involvement in the joint meeting that took place this week and the fact that the hon member for Yeoville did not participate. We must make it quite clear that our problem is the amount of time that we are allowed to participate in such a debate. [Interjections.] We were in fact allowed 65 minutes in a three and a half day debate and, therefore, as much as many of us would very sincerely have liked to have participated, we were unable to do so. I therefore do not believe it is fair criticism to ask why it was not raised in the debate when in fact the opportunity did not present itself. [Interjections.]

We just had to listen to the praise-singers!

I would also like to support wholeheartedly what the hon member for Yeoville had to say, firstly, regarding the workings of the Joint Committee on Finance. I am unfortunately no longer a member of that committee but I can certainly endorse everything that he had to say regarding the effective workings of both the committee members themselves and the staff back-up during what was an extremely difficult period. I also wish to associate myself with his comments regarding the participation and involvement of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, which no doubt contributed significantly to the workings of that committee.

The second aspect concerning which I wish to associate myself with what the hon member for Yeoville had to say was in regard to our right, as members of Parliament, to fight for the things that we believe to be right. Let us be quite clear— I would like to repeat what was said earlier—that we make no claim to represent anybody other than the people who actually voted for us as members of this Parliament. (Interjections.) However, what we do lay claim to is the fact that we have certain fundamental beliefs, beliefs in the rule of law, in human rights and in principles that we will fight for and will continue to fight for, not because we are doing it on behalf of someone else, but merely because we fight for what we believe to be a better South Africa than the one we have to live in at present.

For me to hear criticism—veiled as it might have been—of the hon member for Houghton, who for many years has tirelessly fought for the principles that we stand for, was indeed very difficult to take. (Interjections.)

It was disgusting!

I now wish to proceed to certain aspects of the Bill itself. This has already been dealt with in some detail, and I do not wish to repeat the points which have been raised. I merely wish to emphasize one or two of them.

One is that I am pleased to note the agreement regarding clause 1 and the fact that money raised from the public—in this case from employers in particular—for a specific purpose, will in fact be used for that purpose. One understands that in this particular case we are talking about money raised for the purpose of subsidising transport, and that the money—the credit balances—will in fact be deposited into the general fund. Nevertheless, be it a book entry or not, it is important that the principle be maintained that money is used for the purpose for which it was collected. We are pleased to note that this will in fact be done.

I wish to remark briefly on the unauthorised expenditure that is noted in the Bill. Clearly we will not deal with those amounts in detail now— I refer to the amounts for the two provinces, namely unauthorised expenditure of some R7 million in the Cape and R1, 8 million in the Transvaal. We shall not deal with this in detail, as it has, first of all, been the subject of the Auditor-General’s report, and secondly the subject of discussion and full investigation in the joint provincial committee.

Finally, I wish to raise the question of contributions to the Railway Crossings Elimination Fund. As noted in the Bill the contribution will increase from R7 million to R10,5 million. Clearly we all recognise that level crossings are a source of accidents and loss of life and are therefore to be eliminated wherever possible. We would therefore support the fact that we are increasing the amount to be donated to this fund. Obviously it would be desirable to eliminate all level crossings, but obviously too, there is a limit to the amount of funds available. We are pleased to note the increase, as I have mentioned.

With that I wish to say that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want at the outset to agree with hon members in regard to the staff of my department. They worked late yesterday evening; they have worked very hard over the past while. Mention was also made of the fact that documentation and reports in regard to Bills arrived very late. I want to give one reason for this. We are in the process of implementing the recommendations of the Margo report.

As hon members know we shall be discussing the income tax legislation which the committee adopted yesterday or this morning as early as Monday. It was actually not all that simple to dispose of that legislation in such a short while.

I also want to mention the fact that all Bills have to be passed by the law advisers, and I also want to pay tribute to them today. I believe that these people have been completely overloaded with work, and I am informed that their staff is going to be increased in order to assist them. I am very grateful for that decision.

On my part I also want to thank the hon members for Yeoville and Pinelands for their kind words. I must also tell them that I was, after all, a member of the joint committee. Under those circumstances one probably feels almost semi-related to the members. It is always nice to be able to communicate with them and it is really a pleasure for me to sit there. I am only sorry that I do not have more time to confer with them in order to obtain good legislation for South Africa.

I also want to add that it is really a good committee. Recently I have seen them functioning under pressure, and I sympathise with them. They want to give us good legislation, and I sympathise with them when one has to place them under such excessive pressure. I also want to thank the chairman specifically for his good co-operation.

I am not going to reply now to the political portions of the speeches that have been made. I just want to begin with clause 1. I think hon members have already explained that this is simply a question of furniture being moved around. We had problems here with area definition; that is to say, declared areas, geographic areas and a regional services council that has still to take over in many other areas.

As with any other change-over, funds have remained behind, but one has to look at the amount which the State has always spent on commuter services. It is about R10 million, which must be compared with the total of about R400 million— I think that is the figure according to the latest budget—which has always been spent on commuter services.

I also want to say that on the part of the Department of Finance we are, of course, looking forward to the day on which the regional services councils can take over some of these expenses from us, because I think a large amount of this nature can have an important influence as far as we are concerned.

†The hon member for Yeoville mentioned that he had some problems with statistics. In 1987-88 the total expenditure on transport was R419,7 million. The levies came to R24,6 million and there was R395 million from the Treasury. I do not know—there seems to be some problem.

No, there is no problem.

The next matter that must be attended to is the problem of certain incidences of overspending.

†The hon members for Pinelands and Yeoville mentioned this problem in regard to two provinces, the Transvaal and the Cape, and the fact that this overexpenditure was discussed by two different committees. There is now a new committee to co-ordinate the expenditure of the provinces.

I would not quite say that the hon member for Yeoville was upset, but he made a very good point at the meeting of the joint committee, he asked how one could have a Joint Committee on Public Accounts on the one hand and various committees dealing with the same material on the other. He said that in the end the Joint Committee on Finance simply had to accept what happened in the other committees.

I think we have to give the new committee a chance to solve this problem. If the joint committee is not happy next year, maybe we will have to look again at this problem of having too many committees dealing with a particular aspect and nobody really taking the responsibility.

In regard to the Land Bank the hon member for Yeoville mentioned privatisation. To be honest, I think the Land Bank is presently very nearly privatised.

Who owns the shares?

Well, the Government. Maybe we can ask them for dividends on our investment. I know the hon member for Yeoville has sometimes criticized the Land Bank for spending money on flats in the Cape but maybe if it is privatised and they are on their own, they can afford flats in Sea Point and pay better salaries.

You raised the issue of the flat in Sea Point and not me!

The hon member for Delmas mentioned the question of phasing out. We are dealing here with bills of exchange which lapse gradually over a period of six months. Therefore, one has a phasing out of this system over a period of six months. We hope, therefore, that the pressure or the problems are not going to be too great over a period of six months. I do not think that will be the case.

The hon member for Kuruman also referred to the development in this connection. I think this is a sound development. The new possibilities where bills of exchange are restricted to selfliquidating expenditure are being created for expenditure which is not self-liquidating. One cannot achieve the same financing by means of bills of exchange; it is going to result in confusion. The Land Bank is in the process of considering other instruments in order to help finance this portion of farmers’ expenditure as well, expenditure such as processing expenses, loan debts and so on.

Hon members heard a very interesting speech on the Mint. It is always interesting to go back into history to hear where the Mint came from and what the role was that it played in South Africa. The situation is almost the same as that of the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank, which we discussed the other day, when hon members heard who the first depositors were. I think that one can consider the role that the Mint has played in South Africa in the same way and I thank those people for their contributions.

†I want to refer to two aspects the hon member for Yeoville mentioned, namely the melting down of coins and the price of nickel. I agree that we have a problem with the melting down of coins, especially if the price of nickel results in making it a profitable situation. I would like to tell the hon member for Yeoville that this problem is receiving urgent attention.

There is also the problem of pension funds. We have two pension funds in South Africa as opposed to one pension fund in South West Africa. The problem is that we started two funds because of the different premiums paid by Whites and Coloureds. In the beginning it was intended to assist the Coloured workers of the SAR. According to the hon the Minister there is now a movement towards parity, and the moment we attain parity, it may be possible to amalgamate them.

*Finally, I agree with the hon member for Pinelands in regard to the level crossings. For the sake of safety on our roads I think it is of the utmost importance that attention be given to this problem. I am grateful for his contribution in this connection.

I want to conclude by thanking all the speakers for the contributions they have made.

Mr Chairman, this side of the House finds the Accountants and Auditors and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill acceptable. It is a short piece of legislation, defined in a rather long-winded way. It relates to improper conduct on the part of an auditor and we are satisfied that the legislation provides that such a person can be properly dealt with.

There is also provision for recognition of service under articles. We are quite satisfied with that and in our view it is a necessary amendment.

Insofar as the appointment of liquidators is concerned, there is also provision for the inspection of financial institutions. We are also satisfied with that and support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member for Delmas for his party’s support for this Bill. Naturally we on this side of the House support it. We believe that certain shortcomings which existed previously will now be rectified.

It is interesting to note that when the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Bill was introduced in 1951 it was piloted through the House by the then Minister of Mines. He did so on behalf of the then Minister of Finance, Minister Klaas Havenga. He said the following, inter alia, and I quote from Hansard, 9 April 1951, col 4027:

We believe that this amending Bill rectifies certain shortcomings which still existed. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we will also be supporting this Bill. With regard to the publication of the names of people who have been subject to disciplinary procedure, I want to make three points that are relevant. Firstly, the procedure was requested by the board itself and therefore we are complying with their request. Secondly, I believe it is important that justice be seen to be done. In an instance where someone has broken the rules I think it is important that that information be made public. Thirdly, it offers protection to the clients of auditors who may well find themselves in a position where their auditor has been removed, disqualified or suspended. For those three reasons we support that aspect of the Bill.

I come now to the registration of articles for chartered accountants. I think this is a very fair provision. I served articles myself, and having gone through the arduous process of five years of study and of working for a firm, one can well imagine that to find out then that one’s principal had neglected to sign one’s contract or that because of some other technicality one’s time had therefore been wasted, would have been extremely disappointing. I think therefore that this offers a valid protection and is merely a technical adjustment.

Finally, clause 2 of the Bill deals with the question of secrecy. I want to make the general comment that the role of an auditor and the information that he gathers about his clients must obviously be a matter of secrecy under normal circumstances, and certainly insofar as the general public are concerned. In the Bill before us two instances are allowed for where a report may be made available to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board, and I believe they are both valid reasons. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to extend my thanks for the support. The hon member made an interestin g contribution. To work for five years and then eventually discover that one is not registered, must surely be a discouraging moment. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the proposed amendments to the Land Bank Act of 1944 are intended to enable the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa to advance moneys, with the prior approval of the Minister, to financial institutions which will be established and registered in terms of legislation of the TBVC countries or self-governing territories. Further amendments have also been introduced.

We say that it is not a function of the Land Bank to act as money-lender. We shall not support this statutory amendment. In our view the donation or loan of money to foreign powers is the function of the Department of Foreign Affairs. For that reason we say this Bill is in conflict with our policy.

I want to point out to hon members that millions of rands leave our country in this way and are pumped into foreign countries without the South African electorate knowing to what use it will be put.

The measures contained in this amending Bill are also guaranteed by the State. That means that the taxpayer will eventually have to foot the bill.

Having discussed the legislation we dealt with first this afternoon when mention was made of the Land Bank Act and since an extra burden is now being placed on the Land Bank, we do not think we can support this legislation under any circumstances. We shall therefore vote against it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Delmas has really not said anything new here this afternoon. He actually repeated the speech he made on 29 March. I think the arguments he raised at that time have been replied to effectively by the hon the Deputy Minister.

I think the amendments proposed by the joint committee are positive ones and an improvement on the original Bill. I should therefore like to support the second reading.

Mr Chairman, I follow the hon member for Wynberg and I have no quarrel with anything he said.

This particular measure has had a fairly long and chequered history because it has been before this House on a number of occasions. That in fact demonstrates again the workings of the Joint Committee on Finance, because when there are good amendments, amendments of substance, if one has enough tenacity and willingness to apply oneself, one can get one’s amendments accepted. This is a classic example of that. All the amendments which we suggested were accepted. The reasons why we previously opposed this measure have therefore completely fallen away. Therefore we obviously support it.

The hon member for Delmas has actually raised a very important issue. I think that issue needs to be debated and dealt with. The issue really relates to the following: Whatever may be the political subdivisions of Southern Africa, the reality is that Southern Africa is one economic unit.

One cannot, by creating artificial political boundaries, destroy that economic unity. If we accept the reality of that economic unity, then the welfare of any one part of that community affects the welfare of the rest of that community. The welfare of the farming community, the agricultural ability of one section of Southern Africa, has an impact on the rest of Southern Africa. I want to mention a simple, classic example. If a plague of locusts were to descend upon us, one cannot say that that plague is going to confine itself to an independent homeland and is not going to spread over Southern Africa. Similarly, one cannot say that people can be hungry in one area of Southern Africa and that this will not affect the stability of the rest of Southern Africa. The realities of the situation are far more pressing than the political machinations in regard to the drawing of boundaries which can take place. The reality of an economic entity is therefore partly at the root of this issue.

The second matter which also has to be accepted is the fact that this measure deals not only with independent states which were formerly part of South Africa but also with self-governing territories, territories which are actually part of South Africa. The question that has to be asked is whether we should not help parts of our own country merely because they become self-governing. The reality is that if there were, for example, a White self-governing state within the RSA, would we not want to help that state in exactly the same way as we are helping a Black self-governing state? Therefore, the issues that the hon member for Delmas has raised are very important, economic as well as political issues because the two are inextricably intertwined.

The other factor which we also have to bear in mind—this is a historic fact, and I am not using this argument at this moment in time to blame anybody—is that it is a historic reality that there is an inequitable distribution of land in South Africa. We do not have enough Black farmers in South Africa; we do not have enough Black farmers who have the training, the skills and the ability to produce to the extent that they should be producing. Therefore, it seems only logical that if we treat Southern Africa as an economic entity we should be prepared to help those Black farmers in those states of Southern Africa, whether independent or self-governing, that are in need of development. Therefore the logical issue is that there should be this help.

The other factor which has to be borne in mind is that the Land Bank is not a White own affair. The Land Bank is a general affair. The Land Bank is there, in terms of Government policy, for all the people of South Africa, and not only for the Whites in South Africa. It is there to provide money for all. Part of the difficulty is that by reason of the nature of the history of South Africa in regard to Black land ownership, by reason of the creation of the self-governing states and the independent states, this kind of measure becomes necessary. If South Africa had a different form then we would not need it. Then one need not say that one is giving the money to a selfgoverning state of a foreign country. That is the reality of the situation in South Africa at the moment, and so one cannot escape one’s moral economic obligations by saying that there are now these new political entities which we should not be helping.

The basis of this measure is, firstly, to help Black farmers. That is the truth, the reality. That is what it is all about. Secondly, a mechanism is being created in order to help them. Thirdly, there are safeguards to ensure that the assistance goes to the right people. These were the safeguards which were eventually accepted by the standing committee and by the hon the Minister. That is what makes this legislation a practical measure, because it helps overcome what are historical inequalities and historical problems which affect the Black community of South Africa.

I support this measure on equitable grounds, using the same argument that I used before, not because I am a spokesman for Blacks, not because I am a spokesman for self-governing states, not because I am a spokesman for any independent state—I am none of those things—but because I am entitled on principle to support a measure which I think is a more equitable one than has been the situation in the past. For that reason we will support the Government’s proposals.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Yeoville and Wynberg for their contributions and support.

I have a problem with the view of the hon member for Delmas. To me it is almost a fundamental problem. My question is whether one must live in such isolation that one does not care about what goes on around one. Actually I want to ask the hon member if one can live in such isolation? The maize farmers surely need workers on their farms to work for them and harvest the maize. [Interjections.]

Let us take the Lesotho water project as an example. It has been said that this would make the average income of Lesotho inhabitants one of the highest in Africa. Is that not good for us? Do they not buy our products? One endeavours today, no matter what one’s school of thought, to make our economic market as large a market as possible. One surely tries to encourage investment in areas which are to our advantage. One does not just give money away. I really cannot understand the CP’s policy. Say, for instance, the CP took over one day. Would they then …

The first thing we would do would be to fire you!

Koos, you do not understand these things. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Delmas is an agriculturalist. I want to ask him: If they took over would they suspend the joint marketing system between South Africa and our national states? Would we no longer co-operate to market our maize and our wool? I have mentioned this before. When Dr Verwoerd proposed the independence of Transkei, were they not promised that they would not be placed in a weaker position? Dr Verwoerd’s vision was not to reject those people. The vision of Dr Verwoerd, of whom the CP are such devotees, was to uplift those people. I must ask whether it is not cheap politics to tell the people in the rural areas that everything is to be given to the Blacks and the White farmer is to get nothing? Is that not what the hon member for Delmas has at the back of his mind? Is that not what they are thinking?

Mr Chairman, may I reply to the hon the Deputy Minister in full on that point? [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member may not reply now.

Mr Chairman, I know the hon member for Delmas. I know he thinks as I do, and I do not think what he said there was his earnest opinion.

In conclusion I want to tell hon members I am grateful for their support.

Debate concluded.

On Clause 1,

Amendment put, viz—

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

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

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Amendments put, viz—

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

Mr Chairman, this Bill is just a further link in the chain of granting ownership to Blacks outside the national states. The CP’s objection to this in principle has already been recorded over and over again and we shall therefore not support this Bill.

However, we also want to refer specifically to certain practical aspects and implications of the relevant Bill. In the memorandum on the objects it is said that this Bill proposes mechanisms for the free conversion of occupational rights to leasehold rights. We already know that leasehold can be converted into ownership. We also know that in practice, as implemented by the Government, there is very little difference between leasehold and ownership.

According to inquiries we have made it will be possible for at least 271 000 properties to be converted to leasehold properties in terms of this legislation. The important facet we want to emphasise here is that this process will be free of charge. It means, inter alia, that there will be no levies or professional fees, such as attorneys’ or land surveyors’ fees. In addition, the State will also pay the advertising costs. There will be no advertising in terms of this Bill.

Clauses 2(2) and 2(5) require certain notices to be published. In clause 1 “publish” is defined as publication in the Gazette and twice in a newspaper. These, however, are not the only expenses which will be granted free of charge. Clause 2(2) also requires that an aerial photograph or plan of the relevant premises shall be produced. This too will be free of charge.

The leasehold must also be registered. Registration fees for a property valued at less than R2 000 are normally about R60. For 271 000 properties this amounts to a further R16 250 000 which is to be made available free of charge to Blacks.

I should also like to refer to clause 8, and I briefly quote:

in terms of this legislation. We on this side are fully aware that both individuals and the State want indemnity against claims for damages which might be instituted against them when they have acted bona fide. But is it fair to the country’s citizens that individual as the economically weaker party should have to shoulder responsibility for damage incurred? The question which arises here is whether the choice is to protect the State rather than the individual. For these various reasons we shall oppose this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is obvious that hon members of the Official Opposition do not support this measure. In fact they indicated on the joint committee already that they could not support the measure, although they failed to make any contribution there towards rectifying what they may have felt were shortcomings in the Bill. I take it, therefore, that the Opposition’s objection is basically an ideological one.

This measure only has one objective, really, and that is to provide for the conversion of certain occupational rights to leasehold in development areas. The background to this is that at the time when the presence of Black people in urban areas was still regarded as temporary, no provision was made for occupational rights for Black people in urban areas. Gradually it came about that the presence of Black people in those areas had to be legalised in some way or other. A whole series of regulations were then promulgated which regulated their presence there.

Eventually, in terms of the Black Communities Development Act of 1984, provision was made for Black people to own or erect their own business premises and homes on land owned by the various development boards. A situation then developed peculiar to these particular circumstances, a situation which resulted in the Black people becoming owners of the buildings, while at the same time remaining, in some way or the other, “lessees” of the property. However, this arrangement was actually in conflict with the common law rule that what was built on the land became part of the land, ie the old Roman law rule of inaedificatio soli, soli cedit. Nevertheless this unique arrangement remained, despite all its shortcomings and deficiencies. But it did not provide the occupiers of these premises with any security, nor did it enable them to register mortgages against the security of their occupational rights, and this was a major restriction on the Black people’s ability to provide themselves with homes. The situation became untenable, and therefore it became necessary to bring about a more permanent arrangement in respect of these established occupational rights of the Black people.

The Bill provides that these occupational rights will now be converted to leasehold free of charge, while the lease agreements, which some of them have with specific boards, will remain in force.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for what reason everything has to be done free of charge?

The reason is that we are concerned here with rights which had already become established rights in terms of the agreements which the Black people concerned had with the specific development boards. As has been said, in many cases homes or even business premises were erected by the Black people themselves on the land they leased from the development boards. The reason is based on the fact that the amount invested in the dwelling by the Black occupier, plus the rental which he paid over the years, is being capitalised and that the right to leasehold—which is not full ownership— is now being given to him in exchange for this. That was the only practical way of dealing with the situation, which as I have already said, is an arrangement peculiar to this set of circumstances.

I make so bold as to say that as far as the measure itself is concerned, it is a good piece of legislation. From what the hon ember for Losberg had to say, it was clear that the criticism of the Official Opposition was not aimed at the provisions of the measure as such, but at its underlying ideology.

I have no more to say on the Bill itself, but I should like to end on a personal note. This was the last piece of legislation dealt with by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development during the period I had the privilege of being its chairman. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of firstly thanking the hon the Minister most sincerely for the confidence he originally placed in me by asking me to be the chairman of this specific standing committee. I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to the members of the standing committee for the goodwill which they always showed me as chairman, and for the support and co-operation I received from them.

I also direct a special word of thanks and appreciation to the officials who have assisted the committee in recent times and without whose assistance the committee could not have functioned as efficiently as it did. There were also officials from other bodies and others who assisted the committee from time to time in its deliberations and consideration of legislation, and I convey my special thanks and appreciation to them as well.

One of my colleagues on the committee once said that there was a specific culture inherent in this committee—that of a search for consensus—and I should like to support that remark wholeheartedly. Since this committee is probably the most sensitive committee of its sort, one can point with a great deal of gratitude to the measure of consensus that was achieved. For that I should again like to confirm this and convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon members who served on the committee.

Mr Chairman, it is appropriate that the hon member for Mossel Bay should have mentioned that this was the last piece of legislation approved under his chairmanship. That is indeed so. He served as chairman of that committee for a long time and a lot of legislation passed through the joint committee during the course of his stewardship. Of course, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has now been appointed as chairman of the standing committee, and there is the strange situation in that this department now has two joint committees. Most other departments have to share joint committees with other departments, but this department has two joint committees, the one on constitutional affairs and the other on constitutional development. One can almost say that they act like pumps because the legislation is being pumped through those joint committees at a considerable rate.

But nothing comes out!

It is not meant in any derogatory way; that is just the way it happens, particularly in the last few days of each session. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has a penchant for producing legislation in the dying moments of each session and we have the situation where we have to legislate by exhaustion.

I have mentioned that the hon the Deputy Minister has been appointed the chairman of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development and I say it is peculiar that he is the chairman of the one joint committee and the hon the Minister is the chairman of the other joint committee. It may be that this particular hon Minister’s style is such that that is the way that these committees operate. I say that merely because it is interestin g, but that does not mean that I detract from the hon the Deputy Minister’s appointment in any way. It is not meant in a personal way. I congratulate him on his appointment and I hope that the committee works well under his chairmanship.

Sir, under normal circumstances my colleague the hon member Prof Olivier would have handled this legislation.

He knows more about it than you!

There is no doubt about that because he spent a long time working on this Bill. What is appropriate is that he cannot be here today because he is travelling to Natal where he is to receive an honorary doctorate tomorrow from the University of Zululand in recognition of the sterling work he has done over many years with regard to legislation affecting Black people, and I am sure hon members will join me in congratulating the hon member Prof Olivier on receiving that honorary doctorate. Not many hon members in this House have had that honour bestowed upon them. I think it is well-deserved; he has worked many years in this field, and as I have said, this is a richly-deserved honour.

Excellent speech, Peter!

I now turn to the Bill. [Interjections.] We welcome this Bill and we shall support it. We were pleased that representations from the Urban Foundation and from the Small Business Development Corporation were taken into account and were accommodated.

The most important aspect of the Bill is that it provides for leasehold and, indeed, freehold rights for Blacks. This is very important and we welcome this very much indeed. In the past Blacks leased land in townships and built their homes and businesses on those pieces of land. They bought and sold these buildings, continuing to pay rent for the site, and they even improved the structures they had erected on those sites.

An unhealthy situation arose whereby stable, permanent communities were placed in the unacceptable situation that they could have been dispossessed of the properties for which they had paid, even though the memorandum to the Bill states that in practice such persons were treated as being the owners of the buildings while being the lessees of the erven. This was a peculiar arrangement that was in conflict with the principle that buildings on land form part of the land and are therefore the property of the land-owner. This is to be corrected by means of the Bill, as a mechanism is now to be introduced whereby the provincial secretaries will conduct enquiries in respect of affected sites within development areas in the provinces in order to determine who shall be declared to have been granted the right of leasehold with regard to such sites.

Another important aspect of the Bill is that it will repeal the restrictive regulations and set up machinery for the conversion, free of charge—and that is an important aspect—of the occupational rights of the owners to leasehold tenure under the Black Communities Development Act of 1984.

We believe that all in all that is an appropriate aspect of the Bill. We support it, and we believe that it is going to have a positive influence on home-ownership in the Black townships.

Mr Chairman, of course I do not agree with the remarks of the hon member for Johannesburg North concerning the style of the hon the Minister. In my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of hon members in this House, the hon the Minister is one of the most capable Ministers in this House.

Oh, come now!

Mr Chairman, to come back to the Bill under discussion, the preamble to the Constitution states very clearly, inter alia, that its intention is to promote the happiness and the spiritual and material welfare of all people. The preamble goes further, however, and refers, inter alia, to the protection of human dignity, life, liberty and especially the property of people. The question of ownership is therefore also, in a certain sense included in this specific Bill insofar as it gives a more permanent form of ownership granted to Black people in this Bill.

This Bill is therefore the prelude to an ultimate full ownership. There is, in fact, no objection in principle to full ownership. This is simply an interim or bridging measure which is necessitated by practical considerations which I should like to point out briefly.

Before full ownership can be obtained, surveys have to be carried out in terms of the Land Survey Act by a registered land surveyor, and these surveys must be carried out very carefully, involving dating and many hours of field work and office work at the drawing board. Only then is an investigation carried out and approval granted by the Surveyor-General. Then and only then does registration of the property take place. The hon member for Mossel Bay dealt most effectively with the whole question of the common law and the fundamental principle involved here of all things attached to the land and buildings. I shall not enlarge on that. The regulations which are being repealed and the necessity for their repeal were dealt with just as thoroughly by the hon member. I shall not elaborate on that either.

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by addressing a word or two to the hon member for Mossel Bay in regard to his remarks on this Bill, which was the last one he dealt with as chairman of the relevant joint committee. I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the hon member, not only in this House, but also in the committee itself and elsewhere, for the services he rendered as chairman of this joint committee.

I have only been involved with the joint committee for a short while, and I shall come back to the hon member for Johannesburg North on that point in a moment. The fact is that this committee has, on an on-going basis, as the hon member for Mossel Bay correctly pointed out, dealt with very sensitive legislation. This naturally calls for great patience on the part of the one who has to take the lead there, and also a constant manifestation of great wisdom and insight.

But specially patience!

The hon the Minister is so right;, patience is especially important. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member for Mossel Bay was pre-eminently successful. I did not have the privilege of serving under him or with him on that committee, but I have heard only the greatest appreciation from hon members of this House and the other Houses for the way in which he acquitted himself of his task there.

I should therefore like to express the utmost appreciation for his service as chairman of that joint committee, and I wish to say that I personally regret that he cannot continue with that task. We have the utmost appreciation for what he did there. [Interjections.]

Let me come at once to the hon member for Johannesburg North. I am now referring only to his remarks about the joint committee, to the fact that this Ministry has two committees and that in both cases the political leaders are directly involved. I do not want to elaborate on that issue because I do not think it is necessary to make out a case in its defence.

In all seriousness, however, I want to point out to the hon member—he has said these committees on constitutional development “act like pumps”—that this is not a good example of how a pump works, if the joint committee has, for example, taken two years to bring legislation in this stage of development to a joint meeting for debate this morning. This was, after all, not forced upon anyone, but an extremely good example of deliberations with a view to obtaining consensus. That joint committee, therefore, set an excellent example of how consensus should be sought to ultimately bring about the greatest possible measure of agreement.

I agree!

Precisely. That hon member says he agrees. Why, then, did that hon member strike such a false note here, by saying that the committees acted like steamrollers? That is the implication of what he said previously. [Interjections.] I am very sorry that the hon member struck this false note. [Interjections.]

What, really, is the issue? The Joint Committee on Constitutional Development, as well as the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs, under chairmanship of the hon the Minister, has to deal continuously with what must be some of the most sensitive political issues in the country, not only now, but probably over a long period of our history as well. For that reason patience, insight and wisdom are constantly called for to deal with this situation. This applies to every hon member involved in each of these joint committees; not necessarily just the person who, at a certain stage, has to act as chairman. I want to leave the hon member at that, but I think the observations he made in this connection were unnecessary.

In regard to this hon member I want to conclude on a positive note. I am glad he drew the attention of the House to the award to be made tomorrow to Professor Olivier, an award which is most certainly a highly valued one. I should like to associate myself with the congratulations extended to our colleague, the hon member Prof Olivier.

The hon member for Mossel Bay has already dealt most effectively with the remarks of the hon member for Losberg, but I should like to associate myself with what has been said and add a few remarks of my own. What we are dealing with here, of course, is a situation which has legally existed for more than 30 years, not only as an historical fact, but in terms of the rights associated with this particular occupation up to the present day. As far as I know the hon member has never objected to those circumstances which, in certain cases, have obtained since the fifties. He has ratified them, in each case, by implication.

That is not comparable!

The hon member, however, forgets that there was a situation in which we encouraged people to erect such structures and build houses for themselves. In the fifties and sixties schemes of this nature were introduced to enable people to obtain rights for a period of 30 years. In that way their position became, in fact, a vested one.

We are now in the process of making those same rights permanent, in a certain sense. I grant that the hon member does not agree with that. The fact is, permanence is now being given to those rights obtained by the residents concerned. That is why I do not think his argument on the cost aspect is correct.

In any case, the costs involved are minimal. The administration costs involved amount to R6 per unit. I really do not think it is necessary to make such an issue of costs as the hon member has done in his argument. In other words, only minimal costs are involved, and from that point of view I think it can justifiably be said that the people involved have enjoyed those vested rights over a long period of time. They are, in fact, being extended by way of the 99-year leasehold granted to them, and I think this is just and fair. I am arguing, in other words, that the hon member’s remarks about costs are not justified.

In addition, as far as my knowledge goes, the hon member and his party—I am referring specifically to the relevant remarks in the House by the hon member for Overvaal a week or two ago— are not opposed to residential rights for Black people in Black townships or urban areas for example. The hon member for Losberg directly conceded as much a week or so ago in the House during the discussion of the relevant Vote.

What is at issue here, in other words what is also embodied in this legislation, is the provision made for that local authority to exercise certain powers in each case, and not to be bound at all by the regulations to which they are subject at present. The legislation naturally does not only deal with the subject of leasehold, but also with the subject of deregulation.

On the basis of the admission which the hon member for Overvaal made on a previous occasion, my argument is that the hon member and his party should, in fact, welcome the specific provision which is made here for deregulation. I argue, therefore, that the hon member is, in fact, not correct in his opposition or resistance to the legislation before the House. I shall leave it at that, because the hon member for Mossel Bay has already dealt effectively with the hon member’s arguments in any case.

I should like to refer to the remark made by the hon member for Bloemfontein North that we are confronted with a bridging measure to provide for the fact that full ownership will, in fact, eventually be granted to the people involved in Black urban areas, and that this bridging measure is necessary to bring us to that point, specifically because in most cases town registers have not yet been approved or are not ready for approval at this stage. For that reason this bridging measure is necessary, as the hon member has rightly pointed out. I have nothing further to add.

Mr Chairman, we cannot support this amending Bill. However, we do support the Bill’s third object, which I shall come to later.

The amendments contained in clause 1 are designed to bring the definition of “local authority” into line with the new situation. Outdated references are being deleted and reference is now being made to the new institutions. The amendment is intended merely as an improvement on and reinforcement of the principle Act, and as a confirmation of the situation brought about by the principle Act.

For all practical purposes the administration of local government, as far as this legislation is concerned, is a general matter, a fact which stands in contrast to the governing party’s undertaking to treat local government as a so-called own affair. This legislation is simply another example of local government not coming into its own as an own affair. We cannot agree to clause 1 at all.

However, we do support clause 3. This deals with the administrative work of an institution such as the Demarcation Board for Local Authorities. That administrative work is now going to be performed by officials in the Public Service. Whereas the work could previously be done only by officials of the Department of Development Planning, it can now be done by any official in the Public Service. The fact that local officials can now be used cannot but promote savings and increase efficiency, and we have no objection to that.

The purpose of clause 2 is to provide for the nomination by the Regional Services Council Association of two of its members to serve on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. The hon the Minister mentioned two reasons for this in his Second Reading speech. The first was:

In my opinion, this first reason advanced by the hon the Minister simply confirms yet again that White local governments are being squeezed out and the authority and status and of own governments for the various national groups at local level undermined by multiracial mixed regional services councils. It stands to reason that this is not acceptable to us.

The second reason mentioned by the hon the Minister is that regional services councils do not enjoy representation on the Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs, the leading institution for such matters.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill give the regional services councils representation on the coordinating council as well as on the action committee of that council.

Regarding this second reason, I want to argue in the first instance, as we are already saddled with a council of 56 members, that serious thought should certainly have been given to whether it would be practical, efficient or meaningful to enlarge this council. Secondly, I want to dispute the hon the Minister’s contention that regional services councils do not enjoy representation on the council. Regional services councils consist of local government representatives. According to the report of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, this huge, 56-member council already includes the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as chairman and various hon Ministers, administrators, MECs and representatives of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, representatives of the Association of Coloured and Indian Consultative Local Affairs and Management Committees, the Institute of Town Clerks and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the Institute of Municipal Engineers, the Urban Councils Association, the Black councils, Ucasa etc. It therefore offers adequate representation to a wide range of local authorities.

The argument that regional services councils have to be represented by two persons nominated by the Regional Services Council Association is, in my opinion, not convincing.

This is something that we are getting used to, however, because the NP likes building empires. I suppose it is simply a matter of having to build yet another empire. In this council we already have Coloured local government, Indian local government, Black local government and White local government represented. The Government now feels very strongly, however, that it wants mixed local government, in the form of regional services councils, represented on the council as well.

There is something lurking behind this amending Bill, and it is the same thing that lurked behind the principal Act, namely the ruling party’s obsession with mixing what has been structured separately. Multiracialism must be promoted as an interim step—the first indication is there—to nonracialism. That was the road taken by the PFP. They began with multiracialism, and they now have nonracialism. The NP is making good progress on that very road. This is merely another stage in the process of undermining own White local authorities, which included the establishment of RSCs and is continuing with the broadening of the functions, activities and representation of regional services councils. It is yet another stage in the process of increasing the influence of regional services councils and the umbrella and partially substitutionary status and authority over own White local government.

Regional services councils are a very important experiment for this Government. The hon the Minister has already given us to understand that the position regarding regional services councils will be carefully monitored and that this is an experiment for what might have to be implemented later at central government level.

We debated the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill in the Chamber of Parliament this week. Important indications were also given of what we can expect from this Government in future.

I want to refer to an important view expressed by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. If it was relevant to the Bill which was discussed in that Chamber, there is no reason why it should not be a valid argument for this amending Bill. I quote the argument which the hon member employed, as follows (Hansard, 23 June 1988):

Later, in today’s reply by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, we heard confirmation of those views expressed by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys.

Remarks made in Johannesburg approximately two years ago by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had the same import. He said that he understood why the ANC had used violence as a method in the sixties. I would like to look closely at this kind of argument. It is equally relevant to this amending legislation, which reinforces the mixed character of the political order in future by means of specific representation on the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, and also in relation to this Bill.

I want to contend that such argumentation in effect confers legitimacy upon ANC terror as long as the demand for Black representation is not complied with. That, in so many words, was the contention. In fact, it must be accepted that such a line of argument effectively acknowledges the propaganda of organisations such as the ANC and others like them who still advocate violence, and implies that they had a moral basis for that violence before the adoption of the Bill which we discussed in the Chamber of Parliament, and that they will have it as long as the sort of amending legislation which we have before us is not carried out in practice. We reject that argument with the contempt it deserves.

In closing I would like to ask the hon the Minister something. I do not know whether he or the hon the Deputy Minister is going to speak, but if the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning replies to this debate, I want to ask him very cordially to have a little sympathy with us this Friday afternoon. We have had to listen to him for a really long time this week. He spoke three times and had a total of 107 minutes to address the House, while the total time allocated for CP speeches was only 85 minutes. I think it is fair to ask the hon the Minister to have sympathy with us and, when he replies to the debate, to do so in as few words as possible.

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

Order!

No, the hon member may not ask him a question; his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, it is my dubious privilege to speak after that hon member once again. Listening to him speak, one can literally hear the gall dripping from his ears. He is probably the most cynical member in this entire House, and he is the prototype of one of the components of the CP’s support. These components comprise three types of people. There are the resentful, of whom he is the prototype. Then there are the fearful, of whom I will not point out an example at this stage. Then there are also those whose standpoints are based on principle. They are the ones for whom I have respect. [Interjections.] That hon member and those hon members …

Order! The hon member must come back to the amending Bill.

Very well, Mr Chairman.

That hon member was one of those who had a great deal to say about the whole question of regional services councils as referred to in this specific legislation. All he did was reveal yet again his utter inability to grasp what it was really all about. I have here a pamphlet which deals with the municipal elections in relation to the regional services councils, and in which a few untruths and falsehoods or misrepresentations are raised. I would rather leave the matter at that, but I want to say just this about regional services councils.

Regional services councils are actually part of the Government’s reform programme. By the same token this legislation is part of that programme. The purpose of the regional services councils is the maintenance of security, stability and selfdetermination by way of allowing a general say in matters which affect people in general. The aim of the regional services councils is also the coordination of services among the local authorities in order to ensure the optimal utilisation of scarce resources. So the task of these councils is to improve the quality of people’s lives. The envisaged legislation plays a most important role in this whole process. I will not go into detail, as the hon member for Potgietersrus has already done so. It is my pleasure to support this amending Bill because it is really an element of the Government’s reform process.

Mr Chairman, I must say the hon the Deputy Minister is far too serious. I hope he will listen to what I have to say, and I hope he listened to what I said earlier when I made my comments about the joint committees. I said that it was not meant in any derogatory way. Then I went on to congratulate him in a very openhearted and generous way. So I think his reaction was far too serious. It is a fact that these two committees pump out an enormous amount of legislation, and that is not derogatory; it is a fact. Having said that, I want to say that this Bill is mainly of a technical nature. We will support it, but that should not be seen as support for separate, racially divided town councils. We believe that town councils should be integrated and nonracial. Our position on that point is absolutely fundamentally clear.

What does Prof Olivier say about that?

The hon member for Overvaal knows nothing about this Bill. Hon members know the saying that empty vessels make the most noise. I think that is appropriate in this case. I say that we will support this Bill, even though it should be made clear that we do not accept racially divided town councils. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North has put his case clearly, and I am not angry with him. I thank him for his good wishes. I appreciate them and esteem them highly. In any event, he explained the pumping action very clearly. We now know what he meant, namely that he was not referring to a steamroller action. I appreciate that. [Interjections.]

The other observation I want to place on record is that we have just been listening yet again to arguments typical of those we have been hearing over the years. The hon member for Johannesburg North said that he supported the legislation, but not if it amounted to an acceptance of separate local authorities. The hon member for Potgietersrus argued on the other hand that the legislation was specifically tailored to destroy separate local authorities. This simply demonstrates once more the kind of arguments typical of either side. The fact that both sides are attacking us in this way actually reassures me that we are 100% on course.

The hon member for Potgietersrus also put forward arguments relating to clause 1. I just want to place on record that clause 1 deals purely and simply with the deletion of references to outdated provisions or institutions and their replacement with the names of new institutions which have come into existence in the course of time. That is all that clause 1 deals with.

However, something the hon member added befuddled his own argument. He said that clause 1 actually substantiated the point he wanted to contend, namely that the Government was not in actual fact in the process of making local authorities own affairs. However, that is just where the hon member is wrong. If he had simply taken the trouble to read the clause properly, he would have realised that it makes provision for precisely those own affairs laws. Clause 1 (e) refers to an own affairs Act which was adopted by the House of Assembly last year. Clause 1 (a) refers to an Act which was adopted by the House of Representatives in a similar connection. Of course, this means that the hon member has no argument to offer here. [Interjections.] Or he has not read the legislation. In other words, he simply fell in a trap of his own making, and I think it is not necessary to deal with this point in any further detail.

I want to continue by referring to the hon member’s views regarding RSCs and the prospective representation of RSCs on the co-ordinating council. What is under discussion here is provision for the fact that RSCs are local authority bodies. Because the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs deals with the management of local authorities, it would be merely logical for RSCs to be represented on it. That is what clauses 1 and 2 provide for.

I should like to ask the hon member—his argument obliges one to make this inference— whether, in other words, he therefore wants to argue that RSCs—I know he does not agree with the idea—should not serve the local authority level of government. Would he want to see the RSCs representing a new or separate level of government? Is that what the hon member has in mind? This is the only inference one can make from his argument that RSCs should not be represented on the co-ordinating council. This means that he thinks RSCs are not institutions at local authority level and must therefore be a new level of government somewhere in between. Is that what the hon member wants to imply? I would like to argue this point with the hon member, because it is an important point.

If that is not the case, the other deduction which one can make is that we should then assume that RSCs should not exercise the right to serve on the co-ordinating council. This is precisely the argument which the Government sets out here in the explanatory memorandum. Because RSCs serve this level of government, it is also necessary that they should be granted representation on the co-ordinating council. Again, therefore, the hon member gives one the impression that he has not really read what is stated here.

The hon member put forward another political argument. Seeing that he was allowed to present this argument, I also want to refer to it briefly. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys can explain himself on another occasion in respect of the view he took. What I infer from the proposition of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, when he said that this legislation had done away with the moral basis for the armed struggle, was that the ANC now stands before us in its nakedness. If the ANC is not prepared to support this council and makes sure that Black leaders cannot participate in this council, we will see it for what it actually stands for, stripped of pretence.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it does not also mean that before the adoption of this Bill, the ANC had a moral basis for that violence? Surely that is the necessary inference which one can make. [Interjections.]

Absolutely not. That is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that if one compares the situation as it stands with the ANC, it is claimed that the ANC stands for democracy, and we can now expose that claim. With great respect, that is the argument which I tried to set out in the Other Place. As I understand it, that was also the basis of the argument of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. Now we can say that we have here a democratic institution in which everyone can participate. If someone does not want to accept it, it means that he stands for just one thing, and that is an alternative structure. Only one inference is possible, namely that it must then be a communist model.

I would like to ask the hon member another question regarding his argument here. Does he want the armed struggle perpetuated? Does he want it to continue?

Of course not!

Precisely! If he does not want it to be continued, we naturally have to look for a method of preventing it from continuing. [Interjections.]

I have one more point in respect of this hon member. I want to note that he referred here to time and time utilisation, but I made some brief enquiries among the Whips about that. He said the CP had 85 minutes in the other Place. My information from the Whips is that the CP did not even use all of that time. [Interjections.] So what is the hon member complaining about? That time was not even all used.

It was. We thought we had 84 minutes.

You had another three minutes.

You told me so. You cheated me by a minute.

Order! Adding up seems to be the in thing. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to tell me that I cheated him?

But you did!

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I said he cheated me out of one minute.

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. He took me in.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

In closing, I want to thank the hon member for Johannesburg North. It appears that he has already left the Chamber. We have now made our peace, and I would like to thank him for supporting this Bill. I would also very much like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North for his support and the argumentation he employed in expressing that support.

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

1. (1) Constitution Second Amendment Bill [B 100—88 (GA)];
2. (2) Constitution Third Amendment Bill [B 101—88 (GA)]; and
3. (3) Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 105—88 (GA)].

Agreed to.

Order! Before I give the hon the Leader of the House the floor, I should like to tell the hon members of this House that we are proud of their participation in the proceedings of the Joint Meeting. I want to thank them for that.

Mr Chairman, there seems to be some confusion at the moment. While we are quite prepared to deal with the first Order of the Day I want to point out that there is a very important meeting this afternoon. Furthermore, the past few days have been very tiring for hon members. With your permission, Sir, I therefore move:

Agreed to.