Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

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

You are being boycotted by the Coloureds again! [Interjections.]

Order!

You are allowing the Coloureds to boycott you again! [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon member for Losberg please to contain himself so that we can have the opportunity to continue with proceedings. It would be appreciated.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This is necessary owing to technical problems in connection with section 17 of the principal Act, which we are still investigating. However, I should like to make it clear that the remainder of the relevant Bill remains unchanged.

Agreed to.

Business interrupted.

Mr Chairman, the CP would like to take this initial opportunity of expressing our heart-felt sympathies to the next of kin of the 12 South African soldiers who died in the operational area. We join the whole of South Africa in mourning their loss and we shall always honour their illustrious deeds. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House will support the Bill. It is a very substantial Bill, and we can only deal with some of the matters.

We think it is important for this amending Bill to provide for the inspection of the affairs of a person, partnership, company, etc not registered as a banking institution or building society; ie some person or institution suspected of illegally carrying on the business of a banking institution or building society. In our view this is a very good improvement.

Provision is also made for restrictions on shareholdings and control of institutions. No person may, as a collaborating group, have control of a bank, and for the purposes of control it is forbidden to register shares in the name of a nominee, except in specific exceptional cases.

Order! The hon member is having quite a struggle to make himself heard because hon members are talking too loudly. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you for your protection, Sir. I take it that everybody is pleased to be able to go home and is probably doing this so that I will hurry up. [Interjections.] Nobody is boycotting us on this side of the House, and I shall therefore take my time. [Interjections.]

Originally we were not satisfied that the definition of “associate”, which is referred to in the two Acts, covered all cases of shareholders being in a position to bring pressure to bear on certain other shareholders. The Bill, however, rectifies this matter. In the same way the definition of “control” in the Building Societies Act is being brought into line with the definition in the Banks Act.

In regard to the acquisition of a registered banking institution, no person shall be allowed to establish an institution because the Registrar must be satisfied, at the time of the establishment and registration of such banking institution—this is important—about the integrity and fitness of those who will control it.

I feel very strongly about the distribution of shares so that public disappointment can be avoided. In this Bill the smaller banks are also being protected. We accept that smaller banks should be protected.

Certain clauses provide that there should be a more realistic and on-going compliance with regard to reserve balances and liquid assets, and therefore the definitions of “liquid assets” as far as building societies and banking institutions are concerned, are being co-ordinated. This applies to the balances as well as the cash on hand.

In the case of the issue of debentures to supplement capital and reserves, provision is being made for the better protection of depositors because a limitation of up to one-fifth of the required minimum is being imposed and because unimpaired reserves will have to be maintained.

The Bill also embodies amendments which permit the building societies and mutual building societies, over and above the maximum prescribed percentage of the value of the hypothecated property, to advance the transfer costs of the property. We welcome this.

With the creation of a secondary market for mortgages, ie with other institutions becoming involved in home financing, provision is now being made for this, and we support it. This competition is welcome because it counteracts the uneven flow of savings.

Probably one of the most important amendments in this Bill is that of a mutual building society also being in a position to transfer its assets and liabilities to a building society or bank and of a building society being able to transfer its assets and liabilities to a bank. This implies that the mutual transactions are for purposes of rationalisation.

I have previously warned that we must not end up with only one bank, because we already have a concentration of economic power. I think we all share that view.

The Building Societies Act of 1986 applies to a bank if the bank does not allocate more than half of the funds it obtains from the public, in the course of its normal business, to housing and business advances. It is very important, however, that action can now be taken against excessive deposit-taking and even that its repayment is being legalised.

The building societies made strong representations for this amending Bill because the question of personal saving versus co-operative saving would be addressed, and because the maximum amount which mutual building societies could accept quarterly by way of fixed deposits for periods of less than 12 months could be prescribed by regulation, relief is now being granted in regard to the capacity for comprehensive services by building societies, which was limited.

The banks are satisfied because equal opportunities for both sectors have increasingly become the practice over the past three years, and this state of affairs has now been legalised. Last year the Reserve Bank began supervising this and can now examine all the relevant documents as a whole.

The definition of Land Bank bills of exchange, which qualify as liquid assets, has brought about a change in Land Bank financing, and this accords with what I have said here previously—that the hon the Minister will have to examine its introduction.

Gold coins are no longer regarded as cash reserves, but still qualify as a liquid asset. This arrangement is probably very welcome as far as the Reserve Bank is concerned, but it is for the commercial banks to decide whether they find it acceptable.

We on this side of the House support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to follow on the hon member for Delmas, and I thank him and the Official Opposition for their support for this Bill.

†I would like also to take this opportunity to associate myself with the hon member’s words of condolence to the families of those 12 young South Africans who lost their lives in the service of our great country.

The amendments specifically mentioned as being of great assistance to the public at large, such as the inclusion of transfer costs in building society mortgage bonds, are most welcome to us as well.

I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Department of Finance and all the officials concerned must be commended on performing the mammoth task of framing the provisions of the Bill before us in what I believe was a very short space of time. However, in the short time at its disposal, the Joint Committee on Finance was given a most difficult task in attempting to deal adequately with the intricacies and difficulties of certain provisions.

Special thanks are also due to the banking and building society associations for giving evidence to the joint committee through their representatives, and for their general although not totally unqualified support for the Bill.

Some interesting observations were made by those giving evidence as to the changing nature of the financial market place. One was that there had been a marked movement from personal to corporate investment, and that institutions were becoming far more sophisticated in managing the interest market to the benefit of both financial institutions and the investor.

The most significant observation was that it had become fashionable in South Africa to support the move to obtain all or most financial needs from one institution. Of course, this gives rise to keener competition and perhaps a better deal for the public, but regrettably, I feel also to certain highpowered and at times misleading media campaigns. We must guard against that.

While it was stated that the Bill did not cover all factors, in principle keen support was given by the representatives of these institutions on the basis that the provisions are sound and logical developments in deregulation and in placing the various financial institutions on a fair and equitable footing.

Statistics show that in spite of the recent rise in funding costs in the first quarter of 1988, banks were still taking big chunks of building society business. In spite of a surge in the property market growth recently, mortgages granted by building societies for the year ended March 1988 were down on the figures for the previous year. A growth increase of 16,9% was reflected against a growth of 18,9% in 1986-87, compared to a 64,1% increase in home loans granted by the five major banks in the same period. Admittedly the latter figures were calculated on a much lower base. That the banks have had a great advantage in terms of regulations, is a matter of speculation, but it does make one wonder.

The objectives of the amendments before us are in the main to provide for certain inspections, particularly in regard to the affairs of persons, partnerships and companies which are not registered as banking institutions or building societies and which are suspected of carrying on such activities illegally.

Another objective is to further regulate matters such as the shareholding control of institutions so as to protect their role as independent financial intermediaries. The joint committee had certain problems in accepting narrowness of definition in influence as embodied in the original Bill, and several amendments have been introduced although some, such as those in clause 2, are perhaps open to a wider interpretation. Nevertheless, I think the amendments ease the restriction.

The other major principle addressed is to bring to conformity as far as is practical the provisions and requirements for banks, mutual building societies and building societies. As stated, these amendments are welcomed by the respective institutions.

The new clause 30 is worthy of mention as it serves to protect the public and other interested persons against irregular use of inside information on the sale of property owned or mortgaged to a building society.

A matter which has not been addressed and perhaps deserves attention is that our banking system may be overconcentrated and entry is still relatively restricted. New licences are not easily obtained and I think foreign banks are restricted to a minority holding—perhaps to the detriment of the inflow of foreign funds. This may act as a self-imposed financial sanction.

There are many other features dealt with by the amending Bill and these have been more than adequately dealt with in the memorandum to the Bill. I think this memorandum sets out the amendments very well indeed. It is concise and most explanatory. These and various amendments could be dealt with at length, but as there is an air of expectancy in the House with members wanting to be wending their ways to other parts, I leave matters at that.

With these words I have pleasure in supporting the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the outset also to express the sympathy of my party and myself with the families of those who have been killed in the recent action in the North, and also to pray for the speedy recovery of the injured.

This is not an occasion to have a debate on the issues which gave rise to this—no doubt one would not be permitted to do so. May I merely say in one sentence, however, that I believe that even our most hostile and harsh critic would not regard an endeavour to seek to maintain a water supply for a large section of the Black population of Owambo as an aggressive act. One must ask whether it is not a callous act to bomb installations so as to cut off the water supply to people who need it desperately in what appears to be a game of international politics where the lives and needs of the people are not regarded as important by those who dropped the bombs. [Interjections.] I think that needs to be said.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South dealt with a number of aspects of the legislation before us. I have no difference of opinion with him at all. The Bill is one which the building societies in particular were desirous of having. Before dealing with the legislation itself I wish to point out that this is really the first occasion upon which the Reserve Bank has been responsible for banks and building societies in legislation before us. It had our blessing that they should become responsible, and I should like to extend my congratulations to the new incumbent of the office of Registrar and to his deputy, and also to say that our first experience with them in discussion, in taking evidence and in negotiation and their willingness to listen was an extremely pleasant one, and I think augurs well for a spirit of co-operation which I am sure will exist in the future in regard to legislation of this nature.

It is their willingness to co-operate and to listen to arguments which has actually resulted in a piece of legislation which, while not acceptable to everyone, is going to be accepted unanimously. I think that is the way in which we like to work in the Joint Committee on Finance. We therefore welcome this new element in our work and we thank those from the Reserve Bank who have co-operated in bringing this about.

Also, the private sector was prepared to give evidence before us at very short notice, and it is very important that this type of legislation should be the result of the co-operative action of all and that the private sector should be fully involved.

There are a number of aspects—I do not intend to deal with the details of the Bill—which need to be dealt with on a broad basis, but despite the shortness of time in which the committee had to deal with it, the fact that there are some 18 amendments shows that we do our job. There would have been more amendments if we had had more time. That would have resulted in better legislation, but it shows that even under stress we manage to do our work.

One of the most important aspects which arise is that if the same bodies are competing for the same funds they must be able to do so on the same terms. This legislation endeavours to achieve that and to bring that about.

The second matter which is also addressed in this legislation …

Order! For the second time I should like to appeal to hon members kindly to lower their voices.

It is not the first time that we are dealing with the question of the control of institutions by groups, and this time we are dealing with what I think is known overseas as the “concert party” where a group of people get together in order to endeavour to exercise control. That is being dealt with here. I want, however, to issue a word of caution once again. I think in these times it is desirable for financial institutions, particularly the smaller ones, to have big brothers. If one has a big brother he will come to one’s rescue when one is in difficulty. If one has no big brother, one may find oneself in difficulties and one will not know where to turn for help except to the Reserve Bank.

The Reserve Bank is assuming a far greater responsibility in regard to banks and building societies in South Africa than ever before, because not only is the Reserve Bank the lender of last resort, but it now also has the control over and the mechanism to inspect this. In fact, the Reserve Bank is now fully responsible for this.

The issue that arises is an extremely important one to which we have not adequately addressed ourselves, and that is that we are embarking upon a process of deregulation which may well result in competitive situations of such a nature that they can threaten the financial viability of institutions. This means that one has to be even more careful in regard to one’s watchdog activities and one also needs to be more careful to ensure that the ordinary saver is protected.

The processes of deregulation in the United States, and the process of deregulation in the UK in more recent times, have shown that such processes very frequently are accompanied by financial instability. As far as the situation in the United States is concerned, not a single week goes by without a bank going into receivership, and if it is not a bank, it is a savings and loans association. This is a serious problem. We cannot go back to the sixties when we had this threat to financial institutions. I am concerned—and I want to place my concern on record—that in the circumstances which are developing the Reserve Bank must supervise and exercise control to a far greater extent than ever; and that, secondly, the Reserve Bank’s responsibility as a lender of last resort is becoming even greater.

There is one issue which can, to some extent, alleviate this. I have raised this before, and I will raise it again, for it is becoming more pertinent now, and that is that I believe that in respect of certain deposits there should be deposit insurance in South Africa. We should safeguard the deposits of the small saver in South Africa by an insurance scheme similar to the schemes which exist in the United States, but without their difficulties, and profiting from their experience. If we do not introduce a deposit insurance scheme in South Africa, there is only one clear responsibility, namely that the public must then look to the Reserve Bank to make sure that their savings are, in fact, secure. I ask that this be dealt with and that it be investigated again, because there is no doubt that this is a real threat to us.

There is one other aspect which is of some concern to me, and that is the whole issue of the Krugerrand. Hon members will see from this legislation that the Krugerrand is no longer to be regarded as part of the reserve balance that is kept with the Reserve Bank. It can still be regarded as a liquid asset. However, the information given to us in the committee is that the banks and building societies hold between them over a billion rands worth of Krugerrands. If there is to be any kind of major disinvestment by banks in regard to Krugerrand that could have very serious implications.

The price of the Krugerrand is dictated by three factors, namely the gold price, the rand-dollar exchange rate and the premium on the Krugerrand. This premium can vary very substantially; in fact, in recent times the premium has fluctuated very substantially, which has caused quite big changes in the price of the Krugerrand. If substantial quantities of Krugerrands are going to be placed on the market, that would very substantially affect the premium. I think the Reserve Bank has a responsibility in this regard. To my mind the Krugerrand is a sound investment; in the long term the Krugerrand is going to be a good investment for South Africans, and there is no reason why South Africans should not be allowed to hold Krugerrands.

I have indicated in the past that some of the abuses that have taken place here could be overcome if we had gold certificates which South African residents could hold and which would not result in the exporting of the actual gold. All of these things in regard to the Krugerrand to my mind need urgent attention.

The last thing that I want to mention, is that I understand a letter has been written to the banks in terms of which the question of the Krugerrand being legal tender is indicated as being really only—I paraphrase—a marketing device. To do away with the Krugerrand being legal tender would, to my mind, be a fatal error. It must be maintained as legal tender.

The Krugerrand certainly has an intrinsic value over and above its nominal value, but to do away with it as legal tender would be a gross error. I hope this idea which has been mooted will certainly be abandoned.

There are many other parts of this legislation which one can deal with. However, I would just like to touch on a minor part which again affects the ordinary little saver. There is a provision here, which we have not changed, that one can only borrow on one’s fixed deposits with building societies at a rate of 1% over and above the rate that one is being paid. If we really are a deregulated society and a competitive society, is there any reason why it should be pegged at 1%? It could certainly be half a percent. Those are competitive situations. I have very great difficulty in understanding why we should peg it at 1%.

The other matter which arises from this whole question of deposits is the way in which the so-called fixed deposit for over 65s has been dealt with. I have great difficulty in understanding why in the whole of the marketing operation for the past two months we have heard nothing and seen nothing in respect of marketing, with limited exceptions, except in respect of this type of investment. This is an investment which is costing the Government money. Every time somebody invests in this, it costs money. Surely the marketin g of investments by these institutions should be on a broad basis. We should not only, or virtually only, have an investment marketed which is a subsidised investment. We certainly want the elderly people to have the benefit of this, but there seems to be an abnormal concentration on marketing an investment which is a subsidised investment by institutions which claim to be completely market-oriented. This is something which I think we should also discuss with the societies and work out whether the marketing should not be on a different basis.

I do not propose to deal with any other details of the Bill. We support the measure. I have tried to use the opportunity to raise some problems which concern us. There are many others that we could talk about, for instance, the question of the secondary mortgage market. However, there is unfortunately not adequate time for a full debate on the desirability of a secondary mortgage market and whether it should be limited to particular institutions. I am concerned about the secondary mortgage market from the point of view of manipulation and abuse. We shall again have transfers of mortgages which eventually get ceded and then come back again. There are all sorts of opportunities which land themselves to this if people are going to allow this situation to get out of hand.

We support this measure and I will leave some of the other matters to be dealt with when we no doubt have another Bill of this kind to debate in the next session.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of all hon members in this House I should also like to express my sympathy to the next of kin of our young boys who have died during the past day or two. I myself have two young sons, one of whom is in the Defence Force. It is with sorrow that one receives this news. I believe that all of us will feel for those parents in the days that lie ahead. I do not think anything can compensate for the loss when a young son is lost to the family.

The Bill before us is actually very interesting. I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that it is a pity that we did not have more time available to us. I should like to thank the hon members of the joint committee today. During the past few days we have dealt with seven Bills, and there was great pressure on members as well as officials. Nevertheless, as the hon member for Yeoville has said, many amendments were proposed, and we are very grateful for that.

The Bill before us is part of an on-going process in which we are moving away from separation on the basis of firms and moving towards looking at functions performed. In asking myself what the reason for this is, I wonder whether it is not the computer that makes all these new developments possible, because today everything can be done by means of a computer. We are in the process of deregulating which, of course, goes hand in hand with the swift importing and exporting of information. We have to ask ourselves whether we are giving the consumer better service. I think that is the fundamental point we have to consider.

Another aspect that goes hand in hand with that, and to which the hon members for Yeoville and Delmas—I almost said Dallas—also referred, is the question of whether the consumer can be sure that the deposits he makes are protected. We find that in the process of deregulation building societies move closer to banks. It is proposed in this Bill that short-term deposits of less than 12 months at building societies can now also be disqualified because the building societies complain that the banks, which are again moving into their territory, make use of short-term deposits and of the funds they have in order to grant building mortgages.

Building societies handle various types of business such as home loans and advances, for example business advances and general advances. By means of a provision in this Bill we must give our building societies the opportunity to move into the sphere of business and general advances. This Bill must make it possible for our building societies to move away from purely urban immovable property to rural immovable property and industrial property. This Bill is effecting important changes to make more possibilities available to our building societies. Therefore, we are making it possible for them to attract more short-term funds and are also creating additional investment fields for them.

The hon member for Yeoville and I have come a long way together. He says that we will get together one day and adopt one law for deposittaking institutions, and I agree with him. We are in the process of putting more things together. I always say that since Jan Marais entered the banking field things have never been the same. Now that we have the computer, building societies and banks are in any case no longer the same and everyone is moving in the direction of onestop business.

The hon member for Delmas dealt very competently with the question as to whether we are still going to protect the smaller entrepreneur. The point he made was a very good one, and the protection of the smaller undertaking is something about which we are also concerned. We cannot have only one building society and one bank in the long run because, after all, we have to ensure that there is competition. By means of clauses 10 and 12 of this Bill we are trying to protect the smaller undertaking and to prevent the larger undertakings controlling smaller organisations by means of shareholding and the question of nominees and associates. I am grateful to the hon member for having raised that point.

†When it comes to the hon member for Yeoville’s point of view on the question of deposit insurance, I know that during all the years I have been in Parliament he has been promoting this concept of deposit insurance. There is a very interesting principle involved in deposit insurance. The one school says the more one insures deposits, the more one gives leeway to the management of the banks to play around with risky investments because they know that they are protected against the evil day of depositors taking them to court. It is a question of principle we have before us because the fewer regulations one has, the fewer laws one makes and the more one allows banks to operate under careful, free-market rules, the more they know they must sell their businesses, concerns and activities to the depositor. When a depositor thinks that there is uncertainty and risks attached to investing in a certain bank he will take his money somewhere else.

To the big banks?

That is a good question but sometimes the smaller banks provide more security against risky investments.

He does not know about that.

I know the hon member is fighting for it but we must be careful because this is actually part of new regulations and new protection and who is going to pay for it eventually?

Overregulation!

I think that is a good point. The small depositor is going to pay for that special insurance. I can, however, understand the point of view of the hon member for Yeoville that somewhere we must be careful not to allow the small depositor to invest his money in firms and enterprises where he is going to lose it. I think the hon member was also referring to the fact—and maybe we are thinking along similar lines—that at this moment in our Black towns in this country we have more and more informal financial institutions coming into being …

Where people are going to lose money!

…and we must be aware of this informal banking that is going on.

The hon member for Yeoville also mentioned the problem of the Krugerrand. Until now the Krugerrand has ranked as legal tender. Now, in this Bill before us, we have changed it to be a liquid asset only. Why? The reason is that gold coins are not operating cash. One still has to go to the Reserve Bank and change them into operatin g cash.

There is also another problem. With gold coins as legal tender, we must accept the fact that the value of the coins fluctuates as the price of gold fluctuates. It is therefore not really a stable investment.

Your paper money is fluctuating as it is.

No, it is guaranteed by the Reserve Bank.

And so is its purchasing power.

Yes, but that is international while the gold price also has an effect domestically.

Sir, we also have the problem, and the hon member knows it, that some of our banks and building societies borrow gold coins before the end of the month on a kind of repayment system so that at the end of the month they satisfy all the Reserve Bank’s requirements.

Five days later they repay them and they are back below the required level.

That is an undesirable practice, and for the banks’ sake it should be stopped!

It is indeed an undesirable practice!

The final point mentioned by the hon member was that of the figure of more than R1 billion. That is not correct. The correct figure is R664 million.

When one excludes the building societies your figure is right!

No, my figure includes banks and building societies. However, Sir, what important difference is there between R1 billion and R664 million? [Interjections.]

Give me the difference and I will show you what it is! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South. He provided us with a good review and raised interesting points. I also want to endorse what he said by referring to something which may perhaps not have featured so prominently in the news but which nevertheless, to my mind, is important. I am referring to the fact that here building societies are already being permitted to grant loans in Black townships in which the plots have not even been demarcated. I believe that this is an important point.

The second important point in this Bill, as far as I am concerned, is that building societies may now also contribute towards the registration and other supplementary expenses of people in the low income groups. I believe that the relevant message that this Bill conveys to us is also an important one.

I want to conclude by raising the following point. We must ask ourselves what our intention is as far as our financial institutions are concerned. We have experienced major problems and endured a great deal of criticism recently in pursuance of what is on the go among the insurance companies, the building societies and the banks. The banks tell us that the tax benefits enjoyed by the building societies are unfair. The building societies tell us that they are restricted because of general advances and deposits for less than 12 months. The two together tell us that insurance companies receive deposits for a term of less than five years, which actually boils down to direct competition with the banks and building societies.

The argument is now that activities of this nature hold certain tax advantages for insurance companies which banks and building societies do not enjoy. The Government and the Department of Finance have to try to remain neutral. We cannot have certain financial institutions enjoying benefits which others do not enjoy. For that reason I agree with the hon member for Yeoville. We shall have to give further attention to this matter. There is an old Afrikaans idiom which states “haastige hond verbrand sy mond”, and we shall therefore have to be careful how we handle these matters because they have to do with existing institutions.

The hon member for Yeoville will, of course, also agree with me when I say that we have to act carefully in this regard because building societies have played a very important role in assisting recently married young couples—people in the lower income groups—to obtain homes. The needs of our Whites are becoming ever fewer. Our shortages are no longer so acute. I hope that function will be carried through further now so that for the sake of all the population groups in our country building societies will not change to such an extent that they, like the banks, are no longer able to fulfil that function of also being in a position to assist those able to own property at this stage of their lives.

Mr Chairman, we support this legislation. Firstly we support it because its main purpose is specifically to implement the judgment of the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. We can therefore support it unreservedly.

In the second place, we have been informed that the judgment of the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court is being taken on appeal. If the Appeal Court were to uphold the judgment of the Provincial Division, it would mean, in effect, that KwaNdebele would be without a government unless this legislation were passed beforehand. This is a very strong consideration because we can all appreciate the chaotic situation which would prevail if this were not done.

Having said that, I must add that this case should specifically be a pointer to us in this House in general, and to the NP in particular, because we know that the Coloureds are also boycotting this legislation. If this case does not serve as a specific illustration of how dangerous the Government’s power-sharing experiment is, what a powerful weapon it gives those parties, nothing will, because if the President’s Council does not pass this legislation before the Appeal Court’s decision on the application, KwaNdebele will be without a government. We say, therefore, that we hope the NP will learn a lesson from this and take it to heart.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting that the hon member for Ermelo now wants to give this side of the House a directive on powersharing and its consequences. What is even more interesting is that the hon member only focuses on the minor problem which arose with regard to this Bill, namely consensus between different Houses of Parliament.

Oh, now it is just a minor problem?

The hon member does not counter it with a more workable alternative. The hon member fails to do this, in the same way that his party continually fails when it comes to political structures.

I am sorry that the hon member raised this so-called “boycott” by the House of Representatives. I nonetheless want to thank him for his party’s support of this measure.

The point is that this is a practical measure because, as the hon member said, if this Bill were not passed by this House or by the President’s Council, it would in effect mean that all actions of the Government of KwaNdebele would have no legal force or effect. This means that every oldage pension paid out to an old-age pensioner, every commercial licence and every vehicle licence issued would consequently have no legal validity.

There was a fear that passing this legislation could, by implication, also mean that invalid or illegal steps taken by the government of KwaNdebele could be legalised ex post facto. I think it is very clear that this legislation cannot legalise ultra vires steps taken by the government of KwaNdebele. It would mean that action taken ultra vires would not be approved by this measure.

This is a practical measure we simply cannot do without and that is why it is a pleasure to support it.

Mr Chairman, every year a flurry of Bills turns up in the name of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. At the moment there are eight Bills before either joint committees or the various Houses, of which five were published and available to MPs only last Friday and then referred to the joint committee.

Last Friday morning the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill was discussed at a joint meeting of the Houses. The joint committee met again that afternoon to discuss amendments. On the following Monday afternoon the two committees met simultaneously on further Bills. On Tuesday a joint meeting was scheduled for 14h15 and a meeting of the joint committee at 14h30.

One has therefore experienced yet again a plethora of Bills from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, and we want to say quite frankly that we do not believe that Parliament can do justice to this constitutional legislation which is being rushed through towards the end of this part of the session.

If any of these Bills justified this kind of timing to some degree, it was this one, but it too should be seen against the background of the whole package. It is for this is that in another House the LP is going to vote against it. This is going to happen because one cannot simply divorce this Bill from all the Bills which this hon Minister has thrown at Parliament towards the end of this part of the session.

We want to register our protest once again at the management of the Ministry of Constitutional Development and Planning in regard to legislation before this House. [Interjections.] It has happened time and time again. It is impossible for us to do justice to the legislation or for the opposition to play a constructive role. This House is being turned into a legislative sausage machine.

The Government will come along with legalistic arguments. If one were to base one’s view solely on legalistic argument, one could say that there was a case, but I would not argue that the Bill as it stands is the appropriate way of dealing with the matter. One cannot divorce this legislation from the history of KwaNdebele over the past four years. It was in fact the introduction of a constitution, not coming from the people of KwaNdebele but imposed upon it by the hon the State President’s Proclamation R114, that started the rumpus there.

Anybody who knows the history of that national state over the past few years will know that it has been marked by crises, disputes, turmoil, states of emergency and the strange saga of whether or not independence should be taken. In fact, it has been a shambles ever since the hon the State President issued Proclamation R114 setting up the new constitution.

What the Government is asking the opposition to do is to be co-responsible, by endorsing everything that has happened over the past four years in terms of legislation from KwaNdebele, the proclamation itself and the regulations, for what the KwaNdebele government and this Government have done in terms of the original proclamation. There is no way in which this opposition party can do so.

I wonder whether the hon member for Caledon has read the proclamations issued in KwaNdebele or looked at the legislation. He is quite happy to say, however, whatever the proclamations were and whatever the legislation may have been, that because the Government botched it in the first instance, Parliament should legalise it now.

We are not prepared to accept responsibility for the maladministration of KwaNdebele or for the failure of the Government to get its proclamation correct in the first instance.

Some of us have done some work on this, but I wonder how many hon members have gone back to Proclamation R114 and read what it is all about. I wonder how many realise that one has to go from Proclamation R114 to Government Notice No 1038, then refer to the National States Constitution Act, No 21 of 1971 and then go back to Government Notice No 38 of 1986. When one does so, one realises that it is a maze of proclamations and notices for which I do not believe this House, or this opposition at any rate, can accept responsibility.

One of the issues is that they want to be able to dissolve the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly in order to have an election, but we understand that as a result of the court action it is unnecessary to dissolve it.

When one reads Government Gazette No 229, Proclamation R114 of 1984, one sees that:

If, in fact, the KwaNdebele Government wants to have an election, the remedy is contained herein. It says here that “… the State President may at any time, at the request of the Cabinet, dissolve a Legislative Assembly by proclamation in the Gazette.” No Bill has to be passed.

What about the actions of that government before then?

That is another matter. There are two aspects. One is the validation and the other one is giving the hon the State President the power to call an early election. All that we say, is that in respect of an election there is this provision. If it is so essential to have that election to create a new situation, which is going to be valid in due course when they put the court order into effect, the remedy lies with KwaNdebele.

That is one thing, but …

Yes, that is one thing, but why is that one thing not addressed? Why is it not addressed? The other issue is the question of the 16 members. There are a whole plethora of members appointed by chiefs and coming from tribal authorities, while something like one third of the members, the 16 sixteen under discussion, were to be popularly elected. Those 16 members were going to be elected by males only.

Now the Government is going to double the size of the electorate. Why is consideration not given to doubling the number of seats?

When considering other legislation we have before us in this House, we argue that the size of Parliament has to be increased due to an increasing population. Yet, here in KwaNdebele there are 16 members elected by males only, and there are still going to be 16 seats when there is a male and female electorate.

[Inaudible.]

That is in fact incorporated. We will be endorsing that situation. When the chaos, confusion and tensions in KwaNdebele, and the pressures on KwaNdebele to be independent or not, are taken into account, we cannot endorse the constitution that was imposed on them in 1984 in any way. We therefore also cannot endorse every regulation or every law which has followed as a result.

The Government has created the problem through its mismanagement of the situation and, instead of coming along with a sophisticated Bill which will sort this out, it is asking for blanket validation of everything that has been done. [Interjection.] An election for the 16 seats only is going to be held. We believe there should have been a much more sophisticated way to determine what should be validated and what not.

To ask the opposition to endorse every law and every regulation which has been passed by KwaNdebele over the past five years, is something which certainly we in these benches cannot contemplate and we will therefore certainly not support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the standpoint adopted by the hon member for Sea Point surprises me. The hon members for Sea Point and Reservoir Hills represented the PFP on the joint committee. When the principle of this Bill was voted on, the hon member for Reservoir Hills voted in favour of it. He voted in favour of the principle of this Bill. I must add that the hon member for Sea Point said that he had not yet had time to examine this and has not had the opportunity to think about it. He also said that he wanted to abstain from voting in order to consider the situation.

The other hon member of his party did not do that. The other hon member said that he was a lawyer; he immediately grasps what is going on; he understands it and he immediately votes on it. [Interjections.] The situation that has arisen is therefore that the hon the Leader of the PFP cannot make a decision, but another hon member of the PFP says that he has the intellectual capacity to understand the Bill immediately, and he also immediately votes in favour of it. The implication, of course, is that the hon member who understands the Bill is perhaps just being arrogant because he is a lawyer. He actually said that his hon leader could not grasp the matter quickly enough and that he was incapable of quick thinking. He could not yet fathom the legislation and could not yet take a decision, and therefore could not yet vote. This is a reflection on the party leadership on that side. [Interjections.]

The argument of the hon member for Sea Point simply does not hold water because there is legislation which has been passed in this Parliament, and there are also regulations that were accepted in good faith in KwaNdebele. Contracts resulted from that and payments were made, pensions were paid and an entire state was managed for a period of four years. Would the hon member want this legislation not to go through, giving rise to total disorder and chaos, to the detriment of everyone in KwaNdebele? Surely this is a nonsensical proposal.

I cannot understand either how the PFP can reject the principle of the legislation here, but accept it elsewhere. I want to tell the hon member that there is one problem in his party, and that is that there is a total lack of discipline. [Interjections.] We would make more progress in the joint committees and deal with our legislation more expeditiously if there were better discipline. It is for that reason that before the defection of other hon members there was a call for “Gastrow for leader”. This quite suited me, as an hon member from Natal, because I would like to see hon members from Natal prospering. Now there is another candidate …

Order! The hon member really should not digress too far from the Bill in his argument.

Mr Chairman, I just want to state that there is disunity amongst the hon members of the PFP with regard to this legislation and that different standpoints are being adopted. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying that I agree with the last idea that was expressed here, and that is “Koos van der Merwe for leader”. [Interjections.] He said yesterday that when he and his party and the PFP formed a coalition, they would pass the legislation more quickly.

What did you drink?

Order! What insinuation has the hon member for Overvaal just made?

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon member what he has been drinking, because it seems to me …

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I conclude by just quoting to the hon member what he said. He said:

He now means they get it through the committee stage:

Perhaps that is what we need for better legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if that speech by the hon member from Klip River is as result of the R30 000 per year that he collects from his constituents to maintain his office for research purposes I must say that the money of the citizens of Ladismith is being squandered on an absolute waste of time. [Interjections.] His performance here today was absolutely pathetic, and I do not know why he took the trouble to get involved in this debate. [Interjections.] I must add that I much preferred that hon member when he was sitting in the officials’ bay. At least he kept quiet then instead of making a constant stream of inane and stupid interjections. [Interjections.]

This Bill deals with the problem in KwaNdebele. On a number of occasions during this session I have put a number of questions to the various hon Ministers involved in the KwaNdebele issue, including the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his Deputy Minister. All of them have declined or refused to answer my questions. Now this Government wishes to validate the actions of the KwaNdebele Government. This will include all the repressive acts undertaken by the Government in what I have described previously as the reign of terror against the inhabitants of that area. It is in this regard that the hon member for Caledon is quite incorrect. He does not understand what is going on. Of course one does not condone actions that are taken ultra vires. However, the point is that the KwaNdebele Government has been acting in terms of the emergency regulations.

Of all the disgraceful and cynical acts towards the people of colour by this Government, the most disgraceful, surely, is the establishment of the homeland of KwaNdebele. It is nothing more than a clutch of farms in the Eastern Transvaal which they have tried to make out to be a homeland for indigenous people.

During the debate on the Budget Vote of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in this House some weeks ago I outlined my attitude towards that self-governing territory, as I have done on a number of occasions. I put a number of questions to the hon the Minister. There was no response from him or his deputy, other than to deny that people had been removed to Ekangala against their will. This is incorrect. If the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister had listened to me on that occasion, he would have heard that I outlined and explained in great detail that housing in townships on the East Rand and in Pretoria had been halted for many years. Therefore people from those areas had had no option but to move to Ekangala if they were to survive. The hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister can argue as much as he likes, but the fact is that people had to reestablish themselves against their free will miles and miles from their normal place of domicile, away from their families, away from their friends and, more important, away from their jobs.

Those people have become what Joe Lelyveld described in his book as the “bus people”— people whom I saw with my own eyes last year when I visited the territory. They have to travel in the dark of night and the dark of early morning for hours and hours in those buses to get to and from their places of work both in Pretoria and on the East Rand. That is when the rot set in, when these people were removed, because everything then went wrong. The NP ignored its own rules of ethnicity; there is no ethnic base for the people in that area and it was on the basis of that argument that the people of Moutse won their court case.

The elections have been declared invalid, and therefore it is necessary for the Government to introduce legislation of this nature. However, it is a pity that the legislation combines clause 1, which provides for the validation of Proclamation R114, and clause 4, which provides for new elections. In passing, I must ask why the elections are being restricted to citizens over the age of 21. The restriction regarding females has been removed from the schedule, but it is still restricted to citizens over the age of 21. Why is the age limit not 18, as is the normal case in South Africa?

My hon leader dealt very clearly with the position of females, and why the number of MPs is not being increased to take into account the bigger electorate which will now be eligible to vote. I think I know the reason. It is because the overwhelming majority of the members of that legislative assembly are chiefs or nominated members, and therefore they do not want the balance to be disturbed.

Bless my soul!

Yes, bless your soul. I wish that hon member well, because he must listen to what is going on. He is a Transvaal MP, and he should understand what is happening there. [Interjections.]

A new election is necessary, but to condone all the actions of the Government since 6 July 1984 is unacceptable. I put a number of questions to the hon the Minister during the debate on his Budget Vote on 3 June, and he declined to answer them. I asked him who was responsible for what is going on in KwaNdebele. He declined to answer.

If this Government is not responsible for what has happened there, why is this Bill before this Parliament? Why do we have to validate the actions of the KwaNdebele government? Who is responsible for the actions of the Mbogoto, the secret army in that territory? [Interjections.]

A few days ago we all received copies through the post of an address delivered at a conference held by the Lawyers for Human Rights in Pretoria on 16 May. It described a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs. Who is responsible for what is happening in that connection? Who is responsible for the detention of Prince James and Prince Cornelius Mahlangu and for the ridiculous order restricting them from speaking against independence for that territory? I want to know whether any Afrikaner worth his salt would have accepted a similar restriction placed on him by Lord Milner in the opening years of this century.

The answer is no!

Why then expect the people of KwaNdebele and the leaders of those people to accept similar restrictions?

They are Black, that is why!

Who is responsible for the police in KwaNdebele? The hon the Minister of Law and Order tells me that it is the KwaNdebele government, but now we have to validate the actions of that government. If that is the situation, why is the South African Government conducting an investigation into the actions of the individual who was the Commissioner of Police in KwaNdebele? If it is the responsibility of the KwaNdebele government, why is this Government conducting an investigation into his activities? Who will stop the harassment and the arrest of journalists in KwaNdebele? Who is responsible for that? Those are the actions that they have been taking and we now have to validate their actions. The hon the Minister of Law and Order says it is not his responsibility. Whose responsibility is it if it is not this Government’s?

We cannot support this measure to validate the actions of that government and we will therefore oppose it.

Mr Chairman, we shall also oppose this legislation. [Interjections.]

The problem at the moment is that the decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court has been taken on appeal. The status quo remains in force until such time as the Appeal Court has refused to grant the appellant’s application. So as things stand there is really no direct problem. At this stage all that is required is the holding of elections should the Government consider that the previous proclamation was wrong and that women should, in fact, have been able to vote. That seems to be the Government’s view, because the Bill also provides for this. It is a positive development and we should like to support it.

Elections being the priority, there should have been an election in the first place. The question is why it is necessary, in the first place, to force the KwaNdebele Government to hold an election. They are empowered to call for an election, but they are not going to do this unless we use our legislation to force them to do so.

The second question is when it will in fact be done, because the Bill states it must be as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed. I also know that the Government is not bound to hold the election before a certain date. There are circumstances one should perhaps examine in regard to why and in what circumstances an election should be held.

The hon member for Johannesburg North referred to the fact that the Mbogoto actually conducted a terror campaign to take over power. At one stage, when orders were issued against them and their activities were declared invalid and were banned, they underwent training and were taken up in the territory’s security forces. They then actually took over the security structure of the police. This all happened against a background of discord and conflict with the present government, whose actions are declared valid by this Bill, because they must be declared to have been validly elected. The conflict is also valid in the sense that certain members of the royal house could not participate in elections and lost their seats. Action was taken against the Speaker after his discharge. There are people in detention and there are also people in prisons in terms of agreements with the KwaNdebele Government which is under South African control.

The point I really want to make is that when elections are held, they should be held on the basis that people can compete democratically with one another in an election. The election must not be held in the same circumstances as in the previous case, when people were not allowed to participate in an election and were disqualified because of certain decisions taken by the Government itself.

I shall not take up any more of the House’s time. Before I resume my seat, however, I should like to associate myself with other hon members in regard to the events of the past two days. I want to express our sympathy to the next of kin of those killed in the skirmishes in Southern Angola. We trust that the wounded will make a speedy and complete recovery. We also trust that what has happened will not interfere with efforts to achieve peace through discussion and negotiation.

Mr Chairman, in the first instance, I should like to thank the hon member for Ermelo for his support of the Bill before the House. I want to emphasise the fact that I agree with him that this Bill is the result of a court judgement, and is in line with that court judgment. Parliament is required to give attention to a situation which could otherwise lead to a great deal of legal uncertainty. Therefore, I agree with the standpoint of the hon member and I appreciate his support.

However, the hon member added a rider when he referred to the standpoint of another House of Parliament. I am not going to discuss that here. In that House the hon the Minister is at this moment dealing with the arguments that are being advanced there in regard to this matter. I am not going to dwell on that aspect any further except to say that I think that the provision that is at present before this House in respect of the creation of legal certainty is the correct one. I think that is why it is important to proceed with this legislation.

I want to thank the hon member for Caledon for his support and emphasise what the hon member referred to here in regard to any ultra vires actions of the past. I also want to emphasise the fact that the aim of this Bill is not to legalise any ultra vires or unlawful actions in any way at all. Its aim is purely to create certainty in respect of lawful actions that have taken place in KwaNdebele from 1984 up to the present, and for that reason it is important for this Bill to be passed.

The hon member for Sea Point referred to the so-called flurry of Bills here towards the end of the session. He could perhaps have made that point at another time and in another place, but it was a very poor choice on his part to raise this matter in respect of the Bill which is now before this House. The fact is that the Supreme Court handed down the judgement on 20 May, which was only one month ago. Therefore, the earliest opportunity Parliament has had to consider the matter is now.

What about the next short session?

Does the hon member want this uncertainty to continue for a further two months until Parliament sits again? It is, after all, very clear that we had to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the hon the Minister and the Government intend to make this Bill applicable and to go through with it before the Appellate Division has given a judgment?

I do not think that is the aim but the point is that we do not know when the Appellate Division will give the judgment as far as that is concerned. It could be given before 22 August.

What if they wait till the turn of the century?

There is no reason why it could not come before that date and the fact is that neither the hon member for Sea Point nor the Government knows at this stage when the Appellate Division will pass judgment. If that judgement upholds the original decision by the Supreme Court of the Transvaal there will certainly be a problem. For that reason we had to expedite this process to make sure that we had this provision before the end of the current session.

*I do not wish to react to the other remarks of the hon member in regard to the other legislation. I do not think it would be fitting to reply now in that regard. However, every piece of legislation which was dealt with by the joint committee on the last day or so was a measure that had been prepared over the past few weeks in pursuance of specific decisions and advice forthcoming, inter alia, from the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, the various provincial authorities and so forth, which led to the fact that it was important to have this matter disposed of at this stage.

I do, however, want to point just one thing out to the hon member. He raised the point—I think the hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to it—that the number of members of the legislative assembly of KwaNdebele has also now had to be increased in order to make provision for the additional number of votes in that the franchise is now also being given to women. I do not think that this is a matter on which one can summarily decide.

But that is how it is sometimes provided for in the Act!

But, Sir, I have just advanced an argument, which I am sure the hon member understood, to indicate why it is important for us to adopt this legislation now, namely, so as to have certainty. In other words, I am telling the hon member that there was no time to deal in detail with the question of the delimitation of seats or to reply to the question in regard to more seats. However, the hon member must tell me—perhaps he can remember—whether the granting of the franchise to women in the then Union of South Africa in 1931 suddenly led to a doubling of the number of seats in South Africa. I am not so sure about that. I do not think that was so.

[Inaudible.]

We can go into those facts, Sir, but the fact of the matter under discussion now is that we have to create certainty, and that question in regard to the increase in the number of seats can, from the nature of the case, be considered further in due course.

I also want to thank the hon member for Klip River for his support of this Bill and also for his arguments in this regard.

In lighter vein, perhaps one should give the hon member for Johannesburg North another title. Perhaps he should become the hon member for KwaNdebele because that is his favourite subject. It really is. [Interjections.]

I used to speak on Mamelodi; I am now on KwaNdebele!

Well, it seems to me as though he is being given promotion, Sir. I do not wish to take the hon member to task as far as his concern for and sympathy with the people of KwaNdebele are concerned. We all share in that, but my impression is that the hon member really has an obsession about this matter. I do not want to dwell upon it, because this is not the right time to do so, but in the debate on our Vote we replied to all his statements, for example, in regard to the establishment of Ekangala and the fact that Ekangala lay on both sides of the border and that it was eventually decided to make it one town. I am referring now to what was decided in 1985. We told the hon member that according to certain facts that we had at our disposal, there were no people who had been moved there against their will. However, we can argue about that with the hon member on another occasion; that is not the subject which is now under discussion in terms of this Bill, and for that reason I leave the matter at that.

†I do, however, want seriously to reprimand the hon member concerning his contention that the object of this Bill is to validate all actions of the KwaNdebele Government. That is not the purpose of this Bill. Its purpose is only to validate all legal actions of the KwaNdebele Government.

“This Government is not in any way prepared to condone unlawful actions on the part of the government of KwaNdebele or of any other government for that matter, and I want to make that point very clear to the hon member.

Roelf, sit down now; we want to go home!

For that reason it is important, Sir, for us to put this matter into perspective, because we cannot allow the hon member with his statements …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Overvaal to address the hon the Deputy Minister by name across the floor of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! I think we can leave that be for this afternoon. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I shall come back to Koos just now! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister should proceed in a reasonably official way. [Interjections.]

Just call him the hon Koos! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I just want to ask the hon member something. I am sure he is not going to differ with me. This Bill has two aims. One is to create a position of general certainty and the second to give women the vote. Does the hon member wish to prevent this? I am sure that is something he does not want to do. [Interjections.] For that reason I accept the fact that the hon member agrees with the aim that women in KwaNdebele should be given the franchise. I also accept the fact that he would like this to take place as soon as possible with a view to an election. The hon member for Randburg is indicating something to the hon member for Houghton. It would appear to me that he is under pressure to agree to this argument of mine. [Interjections.]

In order to give the women of KwaNdebele the vote, this election has to take place as soon as possible. There is no other way in which this can be done. That is why it is important for us to approve of this particular Bill so that that election can take place as soon as possible on the strength of this arrangement that has been made.

Furthermore, the hon member wanted to know why there had to be an age limit of 21 years. If I remember correctly, the hon member put this question to me. Apparently he would have liked a different age provision to be incorporated in the legislation.

Eighteen years!

Eighteen years, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that at this stage it has been fixed at 21 years. Once again I believe that this is a question which warrants further investigation if one really wants to bring about a change in regard to the age provision. I do not think it would be right for us to decide quite arbitrarily now that it should be reduced to 18 years, simply because it is the view of this House or of certain sections of the community that it ought to be 18 years. We cannot simply make a decision in that way. I believe that the important thing is that a proper investigation will have to be made. With a view to the time factor, which is important here, it is of course impossible to have that investigation made immediately hereafter.

The hon member—as did the hon member for Sea Point—made much of the fact that there were only a limited number of members to be elected and that the largest number of members of the legislative assembly of KwaNdebele were tribal chiefs appointed in the traditional way, and so forth. However, there is nothing strange about this. There is nothing strange about it at all. As far as I know, the hon member did not have any great problem in regard to the composition of the legislative assembly of KaNgwane.

The hon member probably also knows that not one single member of the legislative assembly of KaNgwane is at this stage an elected member. I have never heard him make any negative remarks about this. [Interjections.] That is a fact. The hon member can check this himself. Provision is indeed made for the holding of elections. Nevertheless, these have never taken place. Not one single member of the legislative assembly of KaNgwane has ever been elected.

However, let us leave KaNgwane at that. I want to make the point that this system is not completely foreign to the self-governing territories. I think the hon member should just do his homework. He will find confirmation of that fact.

As far as the arguments of the hon member are concerned, I also want to emphasise the fact that from the nature of the case this measure is aimed at creating certainty. At the same time the aim is that as soon as an election has been disposed of, powers in regard to the future arranging of affairs will revert to the elected authority and the constituted legislative authority of that area.

The hon member for Randburg said that we must ensure that these elections take place freely. I believe we share that desire with him. Therefore, I want to join him in expressing the hope that this is, in fact, what will happen. I want to express the hope that if, in fact, illegalities did take place in that self-governing area in the past they will be investigated very thoroughly. The guilty must be exposed and the necessary action must follow in order to rectify matters. As far as this argument of his is concerned, I want to agree with the hon member, because we also wish to ensure that irregularities of the past are eliminated and that similar irregularities are not repeated in the future either.

The fact is—and the hon member must remember this—that as far as my knowledge goes the present government of KwaNdebele would prefer it if an election were held at this stage. They would prefer it if effect were not given to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding this fact, in order to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment and to create certainty, the Government is providing for an election to take place as soon as possible. I think it does, in fact, comply to a very large extent with the argument of the hon member for Randburg when I say that we are making certain that progress can be made, notwithstanding the objections of the government of KwaNdebele at this stage.

Mr Speaker, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether the intention is to proceed with the election even if the Appeal Court overturns the decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. Secondly, the hon the Deputy Minister spoke about irregularities or illegal action, but the question actually revolves around the detention of people in terms of powers, the legality or illegality of which cannot be assessed. It is only the formal action that can be assessed. I should like him to react to that political point that is at issue.

The hon member’s first question is what would happen if the Appeal Court overturned the decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. I do not think it is fitting to discuss that consideration at this stage. I think one will have to consider this matter when one reaches that stage. As far as I am concerned, provision is being made here for the creation of certainty and, in order to enable us to have that authority when and if it is required, the relevant provision is being made. As far as this is concerned, I do not wish to bind myself to a final decision.

As far as the second aspect is concerned, we know the hon member’s and his group’s attitude in regard to detention. This holds good in respect of his objection generally and in principle in regard to this matter. I do not wish to enter into a long debate with him on this particular matter. All I want to say is that I think the important point is that we must ensure that unlawful actions with which we in this House do not agree, are not resorted to in the self-governing territory of KwaNdebele. I think it is important to ensure that we can proceed in that regard.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister replied to the debate, and I agree with him on the question of elections. We are all in favour of elections to give effect to “die uitspraak van die hof”. However, the point that he made about White women coming to this Parliament in the 1930s is not relevant. This House had 150 members then and the overwhelming majority of members of this House were not nominated but elected members. That is therefore a completely different argument. On the question of elections we are therefore in agreement.

The second aspect—this is our problem—is the validation of the actions of the Government. Of course we accept that it is not the intention of the Government to validate the illegal actions of the KwaNdebele government, but the fact is …

Order! The hon member is not allowed to make a second speech on the subject matter, but he must declare his reasons for voting for or against the Bill.

Yes, Sir, and my real reason for wanting to vote against this Bill is that the second aspect is the validation of the acts of the KwaNdebele government. It is because that government has been acting in terms of the state of emergency, and also because the hon the Deputy Minister did not answer the questions that I posed during the course of the debate, that we believe that we should vote against this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we shall vote against the Bill on the grounds that there is no priority while the appeal is pending. In the second place, if I understand the hon the Minister correctly, elections will not necessarily proceed if the ruling is overturned by the Appeal Court.

Mr Chairman, I should like to confirm that we on this side would like to have this legislation passed by Parliament to make provision for legal certainty. It is a matter of urgency because should there be an Appeal Court decision before Parliament reconvenes on 22 August, the lack of certainty might result in the creation of an impossible situation.

At the same time we should like to have clarity about women’s franchise. I am quite sure that hon members of this House will not want to be known as opponents of women’s franchise in KwaNdebele.

For those reasons I call on all hon members to support this Bill.

The House divided:

AYES—124: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Jager, C D; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Ville, J R; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotze, G J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Uys, C; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk, W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—16: Barnard, M S; Cronje, P C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Olivier, N J J; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eck, J; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Soal, P G.

Order! I am informed that this completes the Order Paper for the day. Before concluding the business of the House, I should like to wish all hon members a pleasant rest, and I trust we shall see everyone back again at the end of August in good health. This also includes the hon member for Berea.

Mr Chairman, I move:

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

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Finance, who cannot be present here because he is busy in another House, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the object of this Bill is to enable those local government voters who are unable for some reason or other to record their votes on election day, to record their votes prior to the election by means of a prior vote.

Our parliamentary electoral laws make provision for a different kind of vote on election day to a vote at the polls. They acknowledge the fact that there are voters who, due to old age, illness, pregnancy, or the fact that the person cannot be in his constituency on election day, are unable to record their votes at the polls.

Local government is the purest form of democracy, but to this day local government voters are precluded from voting if they cannot be present in their constituencies on election day. To some communities in our country local government is still the only level of government at which they are able to take part on the basis of election. Whilst we are working towards extending this to other levels as well, we should enable these communities to participate fully at this level. Many people work in places far away from their local authority areas and the present system precludes them from casting their votes on election day.

We therefore wish to make it possible for every person who is entitled to vote, to cast his vote. That is the reason for the special vote.

People often argue that poll percentages determine the credibility of those who are elected as well as that of the elected body. To some extent this is true, of course, but it is not the whole truth. By using special votes we make it possible for more people to take part in elections. Therefore, the object of this Bill is to enhance the involvement of communities in the management of their town or city. After all, the devolution of decisionmaking authority can only become real once communities take part in the decision-making processes that affect their interests, also at local level. This issue was considered by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on 25 March 1988 and it was unanimously decided to recommend to the Government that voters should be able to record prior votes during the 1988 elections. The four provincial governments, the own affairs administrations, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, the Association of Local Authorities of South Africa and the ad hoc committee for management committees inter alia are represented on this council. The Electoral Act, Act No 45 of 1979, and the regulations issued in terms of this Act stipulate that during a parliamentary election, voters who for some or other reason or due to circumstances are unable to record their votes on election day, may cast their votes prior to election day by means of a special or postal vote.

Fairness demands that voters in municipal elections should also be able to vote by means of special votes. The recording of prior votes in municipal elections is a simplified process and for this reason the recording of postal votes, which requires a great deal of work and lots of staff, was not considered.

Obviously the casting of prior votes in municipal elections is an entirely new concept in local government. Consequently a countrywide information campaign was launched to inform voters and to promote community involvement. This campaign is being undertaken by the Bureau for Information in co-operation with the provincial government, local authorities and other bodies involved in the municipal elections. In order to bring about meaningful reform in local government, as many voters as possible should be motivated to become involved in local government. The simplified special vote system in municipal elections can definitely contribute to this involvement.

Let me refer very briefly to these provisions. In terms of clause 2(1) of the Bill any person whose name appears as a voter on the voters’ list of a local government body is entitled to vote by means of a prior vote if, for some reason or other, he is unable to vote on election day. Clause 3(2) provides for the establishment of one or more polling stations by a returning officer within the area of a local government. A returning officer may also, after consultation with the candidates or their special agents, establish a polling station in the area of an adjoining local authority. This authorisation is given in order to facilitate matters for large numbers of voters outside the boundaries of local authorities who need to cast special or prior votes.

Clause 3(3) authorises the Administrator to instruct a returning officer to establish a polling station inside or outside the area of a local authority if he is of the opinion that such a need exists. Provision is made in clause 3(6) for prior votes to be recorded for the period from 10 October to 22 October on Mondays to Fridays between 08h00 and 21h00, and on Saturdays from 08h00 to 17h00. This arrangement does not obtain on Sundays and religious holidays. A simple process has therefore been established to enable a voter to record a prior vote. A person whose name appears on a local authority’s voters’ list may apply to the electoral officer in his local authority area for a prior vote. After he has identified himself and the returning officer has confirmed that his name does in fact appear on the voters’ list, his name is crossed out, and he is given a ballot paper. Thereafter the voter may cast his vote in secret and the ballot paper is placed in a sealed ballot box under the supervision of the returning officer.

Clause 5(4) provides that if a voter cannot read or write, or is unable, due to blindness or some other physical disability, to record a prior vote in the prescribed manner, he or she may be assisted in casting a prior vote by the returning officer, a candidate, a special agent, another voter or a family member or a friend over 18 years of age, whose name appears on the voters’ list of the local authority.

The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may make regulations concerning any matter that may or must be prescribed in terms of this legislation, or the regulation of which is deemed necessary or desirable in order to realise the objectives of this legislation.

Furthermore, the Minister has the authority to make regulations aimed at eliminating inconsistencies and administrative problems, but only with the concurrence of the Minister appointed to administer local government matters in respect of the Black communities and the Ministers appointed by the Ministers’ Councils of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates to administer local government matters, according to the population group involved. This provision in the Bill will ensure that all interested parties will be consulted. Such regulations shall be tabled in Parliament by the Minister for approval within 14 days of being issued.

Mr Chairman, after the hon the Minister’s speech there is really nothing left to say. However, I am speaking in support of this Bill and I have a few observations to make.

There was a request that legislation with reference to special votes be introduced. The committee was of the opinion that the term “special vote” should be changed to “prior vote”.

Sir, allow me briefly to sketch the origin of this Bill. This proves to us once again that our coming to this Parliament and our decision to take part in the system was the correct thing to do. In this case, too, we were able to make inputs. By means of negotiation we were able to reach consensus, which resulted in this Bill being tabled here today.

As far as the origin of this Bill is concerned, I want to point out that the elections were to take place on several days, in order to afford people from our community the opportunity to cast their votes on election day. The intention was to make it possible for those people who do not work in their home towns to vote over the weekend. However, after this proposal had been tabled at Assomac’s annual congress last year, we were asked to set a single election date. Subsequently, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture suggested to the coordinating council that if there was to be only one election day, we would have to arrange for special votes for those people who would not be in their home towns on election day.

This suggestion that was made to the co-ordinatin g council came from us, therefore, and I want to thank the hon the Minister for the way in which he dealt with this matter, making it possible for us to reach consensus. [Interjections.] We want to express our appreciation to the hon the Minister, who is the chairman of the co-ordinating council, for the way in which he has dealt with this matter. We therefore reached consensus about the fact that legislation in respect of special votes should be introduced. That is why this Bill was tabled here today. It is our pleasure to support it.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Bill. The hon member Mr O’Reilly briefly sketched the origins of this Bill in order to point out why it is necessary.

It is important, at this stage of constitutional change in South Africa, that we create a democratic climate in which people can participate in elections. One can see that the tendency is to use the special vote. All political parties, especially in our community, make use of this right to vote. This is an important principle.

Democracy is a very tender flower and it can only survive when people participate and are given the opportunity to participate in this process. Therefore, all of us who are involved in this process will have to learn to play the game according to the rules. Local government is everybody’s business because this is the government nearest to the life of the people. The councillor or representative of any system will have to prove his worth by going to the voter. Election results, as far as the LP is concerned, are proof of this. We win elections time after time because the people come to vote. There is no truer test than an election because the rules are the same for all parties. One has a voters’ roll; one has to go out to find the voter and one has to canvass in order for voters to come to vote for one. The person who gets the most votes wins the election. Therefore, it is important that we bring the vote as close as possible to the voter concerned.

My portfolio includes rural areas. Let us take a rural area like Pella near Pofadder. Most of the inhabitants work in Aggeneys which is 150 km away from their homes. They do not live in Pella during the week. Therefore, they will not be able to vote on voting day. Some hon members will remember that I was one of those who fought at conferences for voting day to be held on a Saturday—this was opposed—in order to enable the person on the platteland to exercise his democratic right to vote because of the distance between his place of work and his home.

One can take the constituency of the hon the Minister of the Budget, the rural area Mier.

*A councillor has to travel 50 kilometres to attend a council meeting—such is the size of Mier. When will those people be able to cast their votes? At one polling booth in such a vast area? I spoke to one worker of this Parliament who lives in Mitchell’s Plain. She has to get up at 4h00 in the morning to catch a train an hour later in order to be here in time for work. When will she have the opportunity to vote if she wants to vote? What time does she get home at night? We talk a great deal about a person’s rights, but does that person have the opportunity and the right to cast his vote when he wants to? That is what we are talking about in our support of this legislation. The ordinary person who prefers to cast his vote on election day must have the right to do so.

†Now one can see who works in his constituency throughout the year and not just when elections take place. Some candidates are only seen at election time and when the election is over they disappear. They wait until the next vacancy occurs and then one sees them again. [Interjections.] Of course it is democracy, but I am glad that now that we have the special vote the people have become wiser about these fly-by-night candidates, these Jimmy-come-latelies who suddenly appear when it is election time. [Interjections.] One can call then Jimmy or Johnny—the name is immaterial.

We know that we have not reached the stage in local government which we want in this country. We all know this. We know that we do not have the democratic systems to which we aspire in the form of local government. Those systems have not arrived in South Africa. One has to work towards that ideal, however. What has happened because of our participation? This is why we want to enable the voter to vote, even if he has to bring out a special vote. We brought Blacks into the highest positions in local government. We were instrumental in those constitutional changes. We brought Blacks into the regional services councils.

Today, at a function at Stellenbosch, we celebrated the first birthday of the Western Cape Regional Services Council. There were Blacks. Who brought them in? We brought them in. [Interjections.] Of course we brought them in because of our participation. We brought them into the local government system and into the management committee system. We formed our associations and then moved on to liaison committees on a national basis. Now all races serve on the co-ordinating council and the next step is the national council. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, each South African has to go through a phase. This phase is of course not our ideal and it is not the end result that we are talking about. We want our people to participate in every aspect of government. We want them to have the right to vote before the time if they wish to do so. We want each person to accept his responsibility. However, we also want a candidate to accept his responsibility towards the voters. [Interjections.]

*That is correct. Now the candidate has to walk from one house to another. He has to go canvassing. He has to go and fetch the voter to take him to the polling booth.

†We have seen it in the last election. The hon member who took the place of Mr Maurice Lewis will not take offence if I compare how wellknown Mr Morris Fynn was in Natal compared to Mr Whyte. Therefore one should have expected Mr Morris Fynn to win the election. However, he did not race because the voter knew who to vote for.

We in the LP have decided that government is our business. The people’s problems are our business, from the national level right down to the minutest detail in planning the suburbs where they are going to live. We are going to bring them into democracy in South Africa. We are going to create the foundations of the new society that South Africa will find one day. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning understands this principle as well as we do. The legal system in South Africa is that one makes the laws in Parliament.

*It is the only body in the country which can make laws. Therefore, to change a law one has to be here. One has to sit in Parliament. It does not matter whether the Constitution favours one or not; we have learnt to use structures to fulfil our ideals.

†Sir, in listening to people debating these issues, I find it very amusing … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I find it strange that people object to our presence in Parliament. They have been using the system to get into the White Parliament. Not one single White political party has boycotted Parliament since 1910. Even the liberal parties stood for election. [Interjections.] Communists represented the Communist Party in this Parliament.

*However, Sir, Ham may only get in on a Ham ticket. [Interjections.] If Coloureds are represented by Coloureds, however, there is trouble. It is the beginning of the puppet … [Interjections.] Then the principle becomes all-important. Different principles apply to different people, however. White people may stand for a White political party. Zulus may stand for a Zulu government. Hottie, however, may not stand, for he is a real principle … [Interjections.]

Of course I have Hottentot blood in my veins. Moreover, it is good blood. The Lord made Hottentots. Khoi-khoi Kwêna is the new name.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to talk about a “Hottie”?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

We have been called so many names and the new name I believe is Kwêna.

Khoi-khoi.

No, the name is Kwêna.

Order! The hon the Minister must not talk foreign languages, please. The hon the Minister must speak either Afrikaans or English. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, the words “kama” and “tsitsikama” are South African words and come from an old Black language. “Tsitsikama” means holy water in the old Kwêna language of South Africa. I am talking about my ancestors now.

I want to come back to the subject under discussion. It is time that we involved our people in parliamentary election systems. We must teach the people at large what democracy really is.

†Democracy means that one can vote and that a person has the right to choose his own representative on local government level. [Interjections.] However, a person must first prove his own worth so that people can vote for him at the polling station. To do that, one has to walk the streets of the townships and canvass people to vote for one.

[Inaudible.]

I did exactly that, and that is why I was elected unopposed. Nobody took any chances, because they knew what my customers would have done.

Criticism is the basis of democracy. We in the LP will talk, discuss and criticise what we do not accept. People, however, must not misunderstand our participation as support of any legislation.

*I find it strange that when we support a Bill proposed by the NP, we are branded as labourers of the hon the State President. However, the moment we oppose a Bill there is trouble, but that is how parliamentary and political democracy works. One must have the right to make a political choice.

†I want to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that this Bill was brought to this House, because the election results of October 26 will prove that we have acted correctly.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise here this afternoon. I have been in this Chamber for approximately 15 months and after observing and weighing certain pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that all my reports to my constituency have resulted in my departure from the opposition and joining the LP of South Africa. My constituents and I have pledged our allegiance and loyalty to the LP and its Leader. I have applied for membership of the LP and this application will in due course be considered by the national executive of that party. I hope my application is successful.

Mr Speaker, I should like to welcome the hon member for Bosmont on behalf of the LP. [Interjections.] I hope his application is successful.

Order! Will the hon the Minister please repeat what he has just said?

Sir, it is not my custom to welcome an hon member twice on the same day, but to help you, I will repeat that I welcomed the hon member for Bosmont to the ranks of the LP. †This is part of democracy. I wonder whether hon members in fact understand what has happened.

*I am not asking them to tell me their secrets; I merely want to comment on what is clearly taking place here. [Interjections.] I should like to make a more light-hearted remark. When the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture mentioned “Jimmy come lately” just now, another hon member said it was really “Johnny come lately”.

†I should like to suggest that it is not the Christian name which is important, but the surname which is important.

*One should never be late. [Interjections.]

I thank hon members sincerely for their support of this Bill. In pledging his support to the Bill, the hon member for North-Eastern Cape said a true thing. Hon members who are or were members of the Co-ordinating Council will remember how long it took to reach consensus in that council on the question of this special or prior vote. The fact that the people in that council were able to negotiate and finally reach an agreement that was acceptable to the majority, is an example to the country and its people of what may be achieved through negotiation. Is is easy to shout ANC slogans and make a noise, but I am not aware of a single solution that has been reached in that manner. However, I am aware of many decisions that have benefited all the communities in South Africa, that were taken by people who, despite being called derogatory names, said that the interests of South Africans in their communities were what was most important to them. That is the crux of the matter, and that is the message that went out from Parliament last week. Nobody who supported that Bill last week need be ashamed. Nobody need try to justify that to anybody else either. As far as I am concerned, and I have been in public life for years, it was a great occasion. It was wonderful to see how people were able to see eye to eye, despite differences of colour, race and politics, in the interests of our country and its people. Nobody need justify the stand he took last week.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister why, in terms of the definition of “local government body” in clause 1 (iii) the definition of a local council established under section 2 of the Local Councils Act (House of Assembly), Act 94 of 1987 was not included and also why a local areas committee established under section 21 of the Peri-urban Areas Ordinance, Ordinance No 20 of 1943, was not included in the definition set out in paragraph 1 (iii)?

Sir, the point raised by the hon member was adequately dealt with by the committee. This particular definition of local authorities relates to elected local bodies.

There is a misconception that I should like to eliminate and that is that this legislation is being introduced merely to protect communities, and particularly the Black community, against intimidation. I want to deny that that is the only reason for this legislation. Of course it is true that local government is the primary target of those people who preach violence. Of course it is true that people must be prevented from making civil institutions work and thereby providing an alternative to violence. That is not the only reason for this legislation, however. The principle of the possibility of casting a vote for local authorities on a day other than election day has been receiving the attention of people involved in local government for years.

This should also be linked to another important premise or principle, viz that a person should not only be entitled to vote, but that the State should do everything in its power to make it possible for people to cast that vote. It is no use having the person’s name on the voters’ roll if he is not able to come to the ballot box to record his vote.

A third remark I should like to make, is that we must understand that the new voting system will place a very heavy burden on town clerks and local government officials. I should like to thank in anticipation those people who are prepared to render that service to the country. This legislation was to a large extent drawn up with the technical and practical knowledge of the Institute of Town Clerks. Three town clerks in particular made valuable contributions in formulating this legislation. They are Dr Evans, the Town Clerk of Cape Town and the president of the Institute of Town Clerks, Mr Hannes Redelinghuys, the Town Clerk of Pretoria, and Mr Heineke, the Town Secretary of Germiston.

I want to conclude by expressing the hope that the voters will avail themselves of this opportunity that Parliament has given them to exercise their right by making it possible for more voters to cast their votes.

Mr Speaker, …

Order! Will the hon member for Wentworth please resume his seat for a moment? I have requested the hon the Chairman of Committees to take the Chair again. I wish all hon members a very pleasant recess period. May we all return in very good health in August. Thank you very much.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I should like to reciprocate by wishing Mr Speaker everything he wishes himself for the recess. May he return for the next session of Parliament refreshed. Indeed, we all need to return here refreshed.

Mr Chairman, it is the stated aim of the LP to effect equality for all citizens of South Africa— and by “all” I mean exactly that, each and every citizen of South Africa. Various speakers from this party have stated time and time again that what we wish for every South African is nothing more nor anything less than we wish for his fellow South African. When we talk about equality, Mr Chairman, we talk about equality as it applies to opportunities. We also talk about equality as it applies to duties.

So, for example, we talk about equality when it comes to elections and election provisions. We would like to see—and we are striving for this; it is one of our ideals—one set of laws governing all citizens of this country on an equitable basis. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. [Interjections.]

However, one should not develop such a fixation on equality in the de jure situation that one totally ignores the de facto situation outside. The situation outside is one where people have been labelled in different groupings according to race. There has been a compartmentalisation as far as every aspect of their lives is concerned. That is the de facto situation.

Various leaders in this country—members of the Cabinet—have repeatedly stated that they are taking this country on the path of reform. Although at times this reform becomes hazy to us, we prefer to believe that reform is taking place. We believe that the intent with this reform is to bring us to the ideal situation. However, as I have said before, in the interim, while we are working towards that ideal, we have to take cognisance of the de facto situation—the situation outside, in which a compartmentalisation of every aspect of a person’s life has taken root.

Therefore, if we have to consider the de facto situation, the real situation outside, then certain differential steps have to be taken, on an interim basis, when it comes to legislation. This Bill serves as an example of such an adjustment.

I should like to give an example. Ownership of fixed property makes sense, when it comes to elections, as far as Indian, White and Coloured people are concerned. However, do we know what effects influx control has had on Black people in this country? Do we know exactly what we are talking about when we talk about the ownership of fixed property when it comes to Black people in this country?

Anyone in this Chamber will realise immediately, when considering the existing imbalance and the differential treatment which has been meted out to Black people for as long as we can remember, that one cannot apply one yardstick across the board on an interim basis. There is a great need for upliftment, and many adjustments will have to be made in the process of working towards the ideal. That is why I say that this legislation serves as an example of how the real, practical situation outside has to be considered as far as the path towards the ideal is concerned.

However, Sir, the role of the LP on the standing committees is to see that this rationale is not taken to extremes. I want, for example, to refer to a clause about which we were not happy at all. This clause, which I should like to read to hon members, would have applied to Black people only. It simply states that—

After a lot of negotiation an amendment was proposed, to the effect that the Administrator would write to the person involved and call upon him to take his office. Should he fail to do that, the Administrator has the right to declare his ward vacant. An election can then be called again. As far as Black people are concerned, we find this provision far too peculiar. We would not like to see this kind of action being taken against an isolated community. If this kind of provision is made for one community, it must necessarily be made for all communities. We feel very strongly that the provisions which have been made for other communities must apply to Black communities in this case as well. For this reason that particular clause was removed from the proposed Bill, with the result that we could come to an agreement on the matter.

The LP has always felt very strongly about having leaders democratically elected. We do not believe in self-appointed leaders. We do not believe that a man is a leader unless he is prepared to have his constituency measured in public. For this reason the party welcomes the extensive arrangements which are being made for Black people to participate in open elections where all people who dare to call themselves leaders have the opportunity to have their constituencies measured. We welcome that.

We also accept that government at first, second and third tier must continue without interruption, because people out there have urgent needs which must be fulfilled immediately. A man with a housing problem or any local problem does not want to hear that he has to wait for an election which is due to take place in six months’ time before his problem can be solved. The point I want to emphasise is that government must continue unabated.

However, it is also true that there are times when elections cannot possibly be held for practical reasons. So, this Bill makes provision, firstly, for the possible postponement of elections in cases where elections cannot be held. We have no problem with that. Secondly, where vacancies arise and elections cannot be held the Administrator—by that we mean the Administratorin-Council—is permitted to appoint people. A special arrangement is made—this concerns Black people in particular, because they will enter elections for the first time on 26 October this year—in cases where it may be impossible in a particular local authority area for an election to be held. So, provision must be made for people to be appointed ahead of an election in the event of an election which cannot be held. However, I must emphasise that the whole train of argument here is towards having people elected democratically. We border on illegitimacy if we take the matter of appointments too far. I do not think anyone in Government has any problem with that.

There are many consequential amendments to clauses in this Bill which I do not think I need to deal with. Hon members are welcome to have a look at the rest of the provisions. One particular aspect which I must refer to is the fact that the role of the Administrator-in-Council becomes more highly emphasised here. Where the Minister’s sanction used to be required, by means of this Bill devolution of authority is taken a step further by allowing for elections and more local government issues to be controlled by the Administrator-in-Council.

But—the hon the Minister knows we always have a “but” …

Why?

Possibly because of the nature of the legislation always put before us and also perhaps because of the timing of the constitutional legislation which never arrives between January and April, but always in the last two weeks of the session. I think we have often made the point that we do not believe in legislation by exhaustion.

Mr Chairman, the clause I wish to refer to is clause 15 by means of which section 29 is amended. I want to read section 29(1)(a):

This needs to be emphasised—

I do not need to elaborate on the actions that can be taken. They are somewhat nasty, however. The fact is—here I have to refer again to the real situation—that there is a problem with rental corrections and arrear rentals. It is also true that housing is provided mainly out of State funds. It is a fact that a local authority might inherit arrear rentals in its area of jurisdiction. Whether one believes in local authorities such as those that are being created at present or not, the fact remains that some of them are going to be Black local authorities. Such Black local authorities will inherit a financial commitment that they cannot offset. For this reason we cannot see ourselves being party to that clause in the Bill. My party took a stand and our argument was met by the removal of clause 15 of this Bill. After this was done, we had no reason not to give our full support to the remainder of this Bill.

For this reason I wish to conclude by simply stating that we worked hard on this particular Bill in the committee, but it was most enjoyable and very good negotiation took place.

Mr Chairman, let me react to the hon member for Wentworth at once by saying that I am not to blame for the fact that this legislation was introduced at such a late stage; the fact is that it took the committee such a long time to reach consensus.

That is putting it mildly.

No, I am serious. I shall give an example. Notice of the legislation we dealt with last week was given in May 1986. [Interjections.] I want to make an important point. There is nothing wrong with taking one’s time to improve legislation. There is nothing wrong with taking one’s time to reach greater consensus on legislation either. After all, the acceptability and effectiveness of legislation is determined by the degree of support it receives from more than one community. The hon member for Wentworth made a considerable contribution to the proceedings in the joint committees and I thank him for that. At the same time I want to thank other hon members for the inputs they made in the standing committees. The fact remains that Parliament’s record in respect of reaching consensus on legislation shows a higher success rate percentagewise than any hon member or I could ever have achieved in an examination. Hon members may verify this for themselves.

Of the more than 400 pieces of legislation dealt with by Parliament, six were referred to the President’s Council. Three of these pieces of legislation did not even involve a principle. Therefore we do not have a bad record at all. If one were to compare this to a school record, one would realise that this is the highest achievement that can ever be reached. I am using the example of a school, because I detect a holiday spirit in this House today. I get the impression that hon members are not keen to carry on working, so I do not intend to spend too much time on this legislation about which agreement has already been reached.

I thank the hon member sincerely for his support. The hon member said two things that I agree with, and I should like to refer to them, namely that a government must continue, even if the people do not agree with the system of government. We should use our participation in the system to change the system if possible. In all fairness I must draw hon members’ attention to the progress that has already been made. We agreed to create a body. What must this body do? It must investigate, plan and give advice on a changed system. Is this not an important achievement for this Parliament to have reached within the short period of four years?

†Therefore we may impede and we may obstruct by boycotts, but we attain and achieve nothing thereby. The only thing that we can achieve by boycotts is stagnation and retrogression. I do not believe that is what we want for our country and I also do not believe this country deserves that from us. I want to thank the hon member for supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to explain the Bill before this House to those hon members who did not have the privilege of serving in the Joint Committee on the Constitution.

Before dealing with the Bill in detail, I want to make a relevant remark to prevent a misconception from arising. This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the independence or non-independence of KwaNdebele. I want to emphasize that if it should be decided to grant KwaNdebele independence, this would only be possible by means of legislation introduced in Parliament for that purpose. Therefore, any discussion on the possibility of independence for KwaNdebele is totally irrelevant in the discussion of this legislation.

I should also like to make a second remark. Hon members should keep in mind that any state or government, quite apart from all its other responsibilities to its citizens, has a responsibility to its citizens to maintain legal certainty with regard to the rights of those citizens. This ensures stability in respect of the rights they have obtained and which may at some later stage be affected by a court decision. This Bill therefore concerns the fundamental responsibility of a state and a government to stabilize those rights and to bring about legal certainty. For this reason I want to ask hon members not to assume a preconceived standpoint on this legislation. By the same token it is possible for bona fide court actions and rulings to be declared null and void by Parliament and the executive authority established by Parliament in terms of the interpretation of laws. In such a case this House and Parliament, in taking bona fide action in terms of a particular interpretation of the legal situation, have a responsibility to confirm those acquired rights in terms of that ruling and those actions.

You cannot overrule the Supreme Court.

I do not want to argue with the hon member, since we are not overruling the Supreme Court.

This legislation in fact confirms the finding of the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court. This legislation is, therefore, also intended to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling in respect of the interpretation of the relevant proclamation that was issued in terms of the law. That is what is taking place here. I therefore want hon members to consider their reaction had this legislation related to our own executive and legislature in respect of the communities for which we are responsible. In order to enable hon members to understand this, it is necessary for me to sketch briefly the background to the legislation. Let me say at once that I do not wish to score political points against any person or any party. I do want to try, however—and I ask hon members to help me with this—to stabilize the political rights of the Black people who live there.

Are they entitled to vote for Parliament?

Secondly, I want to emphasize that we are not dealing with a unique development in KwaNdebele, but with a broad constitutional development affecting the legislative assemblies of all the self-governing territories, viz KwaZulu, Qwaqwa, Gazankulu, Lebowa, KaNgwane and KwaNdebele. Consequently I do not want to begin with the National States Constitution Act, No 21 of 1971, but have to go back to the Black Authorities Act, No 68 of 1951. Provision was made for the recognition of tribal authorities and the establishment of community authorities by the Black Authorities Act 37 years ago. The territories of two or more such authorities formed a regional authority, and the territories of two or more regional authorities formed a territorial authority. Those hon members who read the judgment will remember the references made to these laws. In terms of this process representatives in the territorial authorities were chiefs and nominated or designated members who, traditionally, were all men. The system of directly elected members was hardly ever used. Section 1(1) of the National States Constitution Act did not really create any new bodies. It merely converted the territorial authorities to legislative assemblies and enhanced their status by granting them some degree of autonomy.

The next phase in self-management is self-governing status. All six self-governing territories enjoy self-governing status. The legislature and the executive operate within the cadre that I have just explained. Subsequently, in terms of these laws, a territorial authority was established on 7 October 1927 for what is now KwaNdebele. On 1 October 1979 a legislature consisting of 46 members, comprising chiefs and members nominated by the chiefs and the tribal authorities, was established for KwaNdebele.

That is not democratic.

I concede that. That is why we want to develop this further.

On 1 April 1981 KwaNdebele was declared a self-governing territory and the composition of the legislature was retained.

I want to use KaNgwane as an example. KwaNdebele is not unique as far as the sitting of traditional and nominated members on its legislature is concerned. I should like to use KaNgwane as a comparative example. In 1977 the KaNgwane legislative assembly consisted of 36 members. They were chiefs and members nominated by the chiefs and the regional authorities.

In 1980 the KaNgwane Legislative Assembly was increased to 45 members, comprising 21 chiefs and six nominated members from each regional authority. In 1986 this Legislative Assembly was increased by nine members who were nominated by the town councils. Legislation to make an election possible has already been passed, but to date an election has not been held. The present position, therefore, is that the KaNgwane Legislative Assembly has no directly elected members as yet. It will be able to have directly elected members if that government, in terms of the authority vested in it, makes provision also for elected members during its next election.

Let me come back to the position in KwaNdebele. In 1984 the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly took the next logical and natural step in its own constitutional development by enlarging the legislative assembly by making provision for elected members for the first time.

Since the authority to change the composition of the Legislative Assembly was vested in the State President at the time, a motion was agreed to in 1984 in terms of which the State President was requested to amend the constitution proclamation in order to make provision—the hon member Mr Douw should listen very carefully—for a proclamation to be issued in terms of which members could be elected. They would not form a majority, but they would be elected. In this way provision was made for the election of 16 members.

As is the case at present?

Yes, as is the case at present. That was the development process I was referring to.

The first election, in which only men were able to take part as voters or candidates, was held in November 1984. On 20 May 1988 the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court ruled that the then State President was not entitled to issue a proclamation discriminating between men and women in an election.

Consequently the election of the 16 members that was held in November 1984 was declared null and void. That led to the legal question—and that is what this is all about—as to the validity of the composition of the legislative assembly and the executive.

No responsible government can allow such uncertainty to exist to the detriment of its citizens. That is why it is necessary for the Government to step in to prevent any administrative and legal chaos that may arise. The only way in which this can be done, is by declaring Proclamation No 114 of 1984—hon members must please take note of this—valid until an election takes place to establish a legally constituted legislative assembly.

Sir, at present the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly is authorized by law—hon members must please take note of this as well—to change the composition of its Legislative Assembly. It is now repealing this as well.

The Legislative Assembly could ostensibly scrap this provision that makes an election possible. In this way KwaNdebele would again be placed in the position prevailing in KaNgwane at present, viz that there are no elected members. As far as the development of KwaNdebele is concerned, that would, in my opinion, have been a retrogressive step.

In order to ensure that no administrative or legal problems arise—hon members must listen to this very carefully—as well as to arrange for elections to be held as soon as possible and to prevent discrimination between men and women with regard to elected members, these steps have now become necessary. I request hon members’ cooperation in this regard.

Proclamation No 114 of 6 July 1984, which was issued by the hon the State President in terms of section 2(3) of the National States Constitution Act, is being validated with effect from 6 July 1984. This is necessary in order to validate all legal—I want hon members to note the term I am using, viz “legal”—legislative, executive and administrative actions taken by the legislative assembly since November 1984. If this does not happen, an impossible situation will arise. Appropriation acts will be invalid, for example. Licences issued by the government will have no legality, and pension payments will be unauthorized expenditure. This applies to staff salaries as well. With all due respect, nobody can accept such a situation.

I want to emphasise that only the proclamation, and therefore the constitution of the Legislative Assembly and the Executive Authority, is being legalised in clause 1. This Bill does not legalise any laws or executive decisions passed by the legally constituted Legislative Assembly which it was not authorized to pass.

The authority in respect of the constitution of the legislative assemblies and the holding of elections by self-governing territories, as defined in item 17(c) of Schedule 1 to Act No 21 of 1971, was granted to the legislative assemblies of all six self-governing territories by Government Notice No 1038 of 1986.

Parliament cannot make laws on any issues in respect of which the authority was transferred to a self-governing territory. That authority has to be withdrawn before Parliament’s legislative authority in respect of a specific issue may be restored. Consequently, the authority in respect of amendments to the Constitution Proclamation relating to KwaNdebele is being suspended in order to enable this Parliament to promulgate legislation in this regard.

The KwaNdebele Constitution Proclamation stipulates that the Legislative Assembly may be dissolved by the State President by proclamation at the end of its term, or at the request of the Cabinet. The Legislative Assembly’s term of office would have expired in November 1989. Clause 3 stipulates that the State President, with a view to a general election in KwaNdebele in which all the women who are entitled to vote will take part, shall dissolve the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after the enactment of this Bill.

Sir, I negotiated personally with that government. That government holds the view that there are certain traditions that must be observed. My standpoint is that I am not prepared to promulgate legislation in terms of which women are excluded from voting and from being elected.

That is why this legislation confirms the court’s interpretation of the right of the women of KwaNdebele to vote. An election in KwaNdebele will take place sooner rather than later.

Clause 5 provides for the authority in respect of the holding of elections in KwaNdebele and the composition of a legislative assembly to be restored to KwaNdebele after the election.

Clause 6 makes provision for amendments to Schedules 2 and 3 of the KwaNdebele Constitution Proclamation, which regulates elections, to be made as set out in the schedule to this Bill. This is being done despite the fact that the State President has the authority in terms of section 2 of the National States Constitution Act, 1971, to effect such amendments by proclamation. This will eliminate delays and ensure that women over the age of 21 obtain the right to vote and to take part in the elections as candidates.

The KwaNdebele Constitution Proclamation, 1979, No R205 of 14 September of that year, as amended, contains certain outdated terms such as “commissioner” and “pass book”, and confusion arises when a magistrate is referred to in the Afrikaans as “magistraat” inside KwaNdebele and as “landdros” outside KwaNdebele. These inconsistencies are rectified in the schedule. The definition of “voter” and the qualifications for election candidates are being amended by the deletion of the word “male”, so that women may receive equal treatment and the court judgment be respected.

Provision also has to be made for a new voter registration system. Previously this was done by means of a stamp in a pass book, but pass books have been done away with. The new procedure involves a voters’ registration card.

In some respects this is a historic Bill, since the vote is being given to the women of KwaNdebele for the first time. The holding of a general election in KwaNdebele is also being advanced by about a year. I hope that it will not be recorded in the annals of Parliament that we did not agree to give the vote to the women of KwaNdebele.

No, that will never work!

Mr Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the UDP to wish you, hon members of this House, the visiting hon the Minister over there, the secretariat, the staff of Hansard, members of the Press and our messengers a well-deserved and enjoyable rest during the short recess. Let us hope that all of us will return in August, adequately refreshed.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the LP, but specifically to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House for the manner adopted in dealing with this particular Bill in the joint committee. When the question was put in the joint committee the entire component of this House abstained from voting. Under the prevailing circumstances we felt that this was the correct thing to do. That was a remarkable, but most welcome coincidence if consideration is given to the fact that we in the UDP and the LP had not previously caucused together on this issue. [Interjections.]

Now, Sir, I make bold to say that we shall not support this Bill. The story given us in the memorandum on the object of this Bill—it is a story, because as yet we have not had an input from the other side—is that one Paulina Machika and four others had taken the State President and the 16 elected contingent of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly to court, claiming basically that the election held in November 1984 was invalid.

On 20 May 1988 the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court gave the lady the decision, and consequently plunged the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly into an outrageous situation of illegitimacy. The NP Government finds itself in a pickle because of this episode. What do the Nats want us to do now?

Firstly they want us to pass this Bill at breakneck speed without giving us a chance to hear the other side of the story. When this Bill is passed, it is intended to do—to my mind—a cover-up job in order to legitimise something that has been declared illegal by a court of law. The Bill intends to validate Proclamation R114 of 1984 in terms of which elections were held, and thereby retrospectively give recognition to the KwaNdebele government, and then force that government— the memorandum uses the word “compel”—to hold its own elections as quickly as possible so that matters can be put right in accordance with the wishes of the NP’s grand plan of ruling South Africa by fragmentation—or should I say partition. What I would like to know is what else this illegitimate government is guilty of that took place between November 1984 and June 1988.

I would like to know from the hon the Minister the number of cases—both criminal and civil— that have been and are being instituted against this legislative assembly to date. I believe such actions would surely be thrown out of court by the passing of this Bill. What decisions had already been given to the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly on the pretext of their legitimacy?

Hon members serving on the committee had not been given any information relating to these questions. And yet, Sir, there are problems— grave ones—and we are expected to approve of this Bill. [Interjections.] I should like the hon the Minister to bear with me. I am the first one to acknowledge what the hon the Minister said earlier, viz that this Bill has nothing to do with the independence of KwaNdebele. I wish the hon the Minister would extend an opportunity to yours truly as I should like to quote incidents that took place during that period of misunderstanding and conflict so that I can set the correct climate in this debate. Therefore I ask the hon the Minister to be somewhat patient with me.

I should like to point out to this House the conflict that existed amongst the citizens of the area during that time. The story of independence was buried in August 1986. I want all hon members to understand this so that nobody can misconstrue what I am saying.

I want to quote from the article “The Struggle against Independence” in order to show hon members how the people of KwaNdebele really feel. I quote:

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

Sir, I do not have enough time to answer questions.

I want to continue with the quote:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Rules of Parliament very clearly state that when a Bill is debated it has to take place within the framework of the subject matter of the Bill. The hon member for Durban Suburbs is wasting the time of the House with irrelevancies which have no bearing whatsoever on the Bill before us. The hon member must come back to the subject of the Bill and refer to the relevant clauses of the Bill in order to ensure that his address remains within the framework of the Bill.

Order! The hon member must please come back to the issue under discussion. The hon member may continue.

Sir, at the outset I asked for your indulgence because I wanted to sketch the background to this debate. I want to impress upon hon members the feeling of the people of KwaNdebele against the existing legislative assembly. I will not continue with the quotation. However, I want to refer to an extract from the Sunday Times of 19 July 1987 which specifically refers to the animosity amongst these people, and I quote:

Sir, is this the ruling regime we are asked to reinstate today? There is lots of information which we were not given prior to the discussion in the committee and that is why I insist that I did put the question. Because of the lack of information, I for one will certainly vote against this Bill.

Secondly, all we are told is that women shall be given the right to vote and that Item 17(c) of Schedule 1 to the National States Constitution Act of 1971 had been transferred on the 23 May 1986 to KwaNdebele, giving them competence in respect of their own election which must now— according to this Bill—be suspended and that KwaNdebele shall again, after the election, be given back this power. All this sounds like expedient political manipulation.

The NP is doing a political jig routine on a hot tin roof and wants this House to join them. The UDP was never party to the concept and/or formation of the national self-governing states. We are totally opposed to the entire exercise of partitioning South Africa in accordance with the racial philosophy of the Nationalist Government. If the NP has become unstuck in the dilemmas of its creation, then we say to them that they must swim alone against the tide and not call on us for help now, because they did not do so before.

Mr Chairman, sometimes it is difficult to follow a speaker like the hon member for Durban Suburbs. For the last three or four weeks I have had the privilege to be a member of our Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs and I have had occasion to watch the hon member in action. He is in a state of perpetual confusion which is reflected in his contribution this afternoon. [Interjections.]

It should be obvious by now why the LP is opposing the Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill. At the very outset we want to say to the hon the Minister that the LP is a disciplined party. It exercises a discipline which it has learnt from the NP itself. [Interjections.] Any attempt to cause division within the party will not be effective. The LP caucus has taken a firm decision regarding this Bill from which we will not digress.

The whole issue surrounding KwaNdebele, including its proposed independence—despite what the hon the Minister had to say earlier—has already been debated in this House. This debate took place on Friday, 19 June 1987, when a private members’ motion was introduced by the hon member for Wentworth at the end of which a unanimous decision of this House was recorded whereby the opinion was expressed that independence should not be granted simply in response to the request for independence made by the Legislative Assembly of KwaNdebele.

It has always been and still is NP policy to create ethnic homelands for Black South Africans in which they can conduct their affairs. This is in effect an extension of the own affairs concept. We in the LP reject that policy.

Therefore, our refusal to approve of this Bill serves to reiterate and confirm our opposition to the creation of homelands based on ethnicity and/or tribalism. What we are saying in effect is that this situation is one of the NP’s own making and, therefore, one from which they, the NP, must extricate themselves. Were we to approve of this legislation we would in effect be condoning, for example, the detention of the speaker of that legislative assembly, Mr Solly Mhlangu. I believe that we would also be pre-empting the rights of the seven people who have made claims from both the South African Government and the KwaNdebele Government following alleged assaults, unlawful arrests and detentions by the police of both states. To back this up I quote from an article which appeared on page 5 of The Natal Witness of Friday, 24 June 1988, which says:

Mr Chairman, the question also arises whether, should we approve this Bill, we would not be pre-empting the work and findings of the proposed commission of enquiry into the Moutse affair which was confirmed by the hon the Minister in a reply to the hon member for Houghton yesterday when she asked a question in that regard.

We also cannot divorce the Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill from the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill. It is obvious to all and sundry that Moutse is being offered to KwaNdebele as a reward for the acceptance of independence. In the light of this we are concerned about the seeming intransigence of the NP in this regard.

That brings me to another important point. Earlier in my speech I spoke of the previous debate on this particular issue. What happened after that debate clearly demonstrated one of the anomalies of this tricameral system. It also clearly showed one of the failings of the NP. Time and again we have debated important issues in this House and time and again unanimous resolutions on these issues have been taken, but on so many occasions that was as far as it went.

I believe that the process of negotiation demands that when a deadlock or stalemate situation is reached, and that same stalemate cannot be resolved by the governing party’s policy, there are grounds for negotiation between the leaders of the respective parties. That process of negotiation must take place. This has not happened, however. On several occasions we took resolutions in this House. Those were resolutions that were listened to by hon Ministers, but we were often left asking ourselves: Does it go as far as the hon the State President at all?

In closing, Mr Chairman, I want to make what I believe is a firm proposal aimed at resolving this particular issue. Incidentally, Sir, let me state again that we will not be supporting this Bill. I should like to call upon the hon the Minister to initiate or help initiate an indaba for the KwaNdebele-Moutse-Lebowa region. It should be an indaba comprising all interested groups, organisations, political leaders and academics. I believe that doing this rather than following the speech of the hon member for Durban Suburbs will be setting a proper climate for a peaceful solution.

Mr Chairman, I should like to mention that some of us in the LP have visited KwaNdebele on several occasions during the past three years I think most of us have been there about three or four times. For the information of the hon member for Durban Suburbs, I am now referring to the KwaNdebele which is located somewhere in the Transvaal and not the one in the Cape Province, which is possibly the KwaNdebele he visited. [Interjections.] It is not often, Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know what the hon member is inferring by that remark.

That is not a point of order! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall continue as if nothing has happened.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development referred to the debate which was held on 19 June 1987 on a motion which I had moved in this House. One stands here with a sense of frustration, having had the opportunity again to read the speeches which were made at the time by hon members of this House. I am not referring to LP members only; I am thinking, for example, also of the hon member for Border. He said, for example, that democracy was not something that one could dish out like a deck of cards. One develops a sense of frustration when one notices that the wonderful speeches which were made, and the information which was passed on to this House by several hon members, appear simply to have been ignored.

The moment one talks about KwaNdebele, all sorts of images necessarily come up. We remember the unrest in that region. We remember the type of election that was held in 1984. If I am not mistaken, if was the hon member Mr Douw who raised the point that those 16 members who stood for election could not raise more than 600 votes in all at the time.

Sir, in order not to confuse things I shall move away from the election and stick to the issue at hand, which is the Bill. What is being asked of the LP here? We are being asked to validate—we must understand what we mean by “validate”— the actions which were taken by a legislative assembly which was not a democratically elected one. I can almost say that it was illegal. It should not have been created in the first place. We are also being asked to approve of all legislation … in fact, we are being asked to give a blank cheque, which will have a retrospective effect to 1984, with regard to everything that has been done by that legislative assembly.

Sir, as a party that wishes to survive all the onslaughts which will still arise in the future, we wish to keep our record clean. We will not taint the image of the party. We will not soil our hands by having any association with any of the legislation which was passed or with any of the steps which were taken by this legislative assembly of KwaNdebele over the past four years. I am referring, for example, to things like the gaoling of the speaker, Solly Mhlangu. I remember Charles Mhlangu and James Mhlangu. I think of various other names. We remember Brig Hertzog Lerm, who, I think, now finds himself in Johannesburg. We remember all the characters who performed on the stage. I think of Piet Mthuli. We also remember the circumstances around what happened in KwaNdebele over the past four years. We are aware of the racial issue there. We have consistently opposed the—I would almost say “forced”—formation of another self-governing territory. We remember that at the time when this area was made a self-governing territory, or “homeland”, like we used to call it, the whole matter of independence was automatically linked to that step.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether he wants bloodshed to take place again, because that will be inevitable. Blood will be spilt again in this territory if we again raise the issue of the creation of a legislative assembly and if the whole matter of independence again raises its head.

The hon the Deputy Minister for Population Development made a suggestion. I honestly would like the hon the Minister to take that seriously. What is wrong with consulting people? I am referring to real consultation.

What is wrong with an indaba for this area? We can give it a different name if they like. Have we not moved into the time of the implementation of things like regional services councils? Are we not looking at new systems and negotiation structures? What structure did we create last week? I think it is called a national council or some other name. Are we not in that phase of the development of South Africa?

If the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly did not act correctly by disenfranchising women, is this not an opportune moment for us to totally dissolve that legislative assembly and call it quits with at least one of those self-governing territories which in any case cost the taxpayer of South Africa so much money? Two weeks ago I asked a question in this House in regard to the amount of money being spent on office accommodation for administration as well as on legislative assemblies in the self-governing territories. The staggering figure of R141 million was quoted here by the hon the Minister and that was only with regard to four of the self-governing territories. We know that building construction is taking place on the Mhlango Palace. Money is going to be wasted again on a monstrosity which should not be created at all. Office accommodation will be established in the KwaNdebele region. Why must this be so?

The proposal made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development must be taken seriously. An indaba should be held there. Certainly this legislative assembly can be dissolved. If some sort of election is held in the area, validation can be given by the people who represent the people democratically. I do not believe that we as a Parliament should really be competent to validate legislation which was made in that region by a government which should not have been created in the first place.

For these reasons we cannot see our way clear to supporting this Bill, although it is not often that legislation gets the thumbs down in this House. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to take that into consideration as well. Very few Bills are actually turned down in this House, because this party deals with Bills at joint committee level. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me on that point. I am not very happy about having to give the thumbs down to a Bill here, but it is inevitable. We cannot help it. We cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, while listening to hon members I was reminded of the days when I was still in legal practice. I often had to argue bad cases, and when one argues a bad case one is not normally at one’s best.

Are you arguing a bad case today?

I have seen hon members on this side of the House perform much better when they had a good case.

The second observation I would like to make is that it must be very difficult for hon members on this side to be in the company of the hon member for Durban Suburbs. It must surely be most embarrassing. [Interjections.] I am coming to the hon member and I did not interrupt him.

I have often tried very hard to make the hon member understand and I must confess I have not succeeded. He must not take this personally. It is not his fault. However, I can only try to explain to people; I cannot give them the brains to understand. The hon member uses words very loosely and this is a responsible institution in which we function. He uses a word which has become synonymous with the former Department of Information. I understand he says it is history. However, I can well understand why the word “cover-up” clings to the hon member. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I am serious. I believe one must be careful when accusing people of covering up crimes. As I recall, it was my own party that tried to unravel that situation. [Interjections.]

But they were the cause.

No, Sir. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says we were the cause. I do not wish to argue with him on that point.

The hon the Minister cannot give an answer. [Interjections.]

No, I can do so very easily. It is only human that, just as funds in the Administration: House of Representatives may be used for other purposes than that for which they were rightfully intended, that could have happened here.

And Barend does not want to give us the money. [Interjections.]

I am talking to the hon member for Durban Suburbs now. I say his allegation that somebody is trying to cover up something is malicious and untrue. To stand up in this House and say that illegal acts are condoned by this legislation is untrue. I shall say outside Parliament that any person who says that is a liar. [Interjections.] I repeat: I shall say outside that anyone who says that is a liar.

Hon members must not, when we debate in opposition to one another, make certain statements which are not worthy of Parliament. The hon member knows that an hon member of the House of Delegates said in the joint committee, when we were talking about the principle of the Bill, that as a lawyer he had voted for the principle of this Bill.

†However, when it came to the Bill, he voted against it as a politician. I pose the question: What kind of morality is it that allows people to act in such a manner?

I should like to make a third observation. We are not dealing with a political issue in this Bill, but with a legal issue. If hon members want to abuse this debate for political purposes, they can do so. However, it does not detract from the fact that we are dealing with legal issues that should be dealt with on a legal basis. [Interjections.]

These are also political issues, but we have to understand the law and act according to the law even if we do not like it.

That is a bad principle.

It is amazing, Sir. I should not be tempted, however. The very point that the hon member for Wentworth argued in a debate on a previous Bill, is that government must continue. He made that point, and it is the very basis of my argument.

The hon member went further. What absurdities he uttered! The other word I am thinking of is not parliamentary. [Interjections.] It might be more truthful, however. [Interjections.] The hon member wants to know what illegal acts this Bill will condone. I challenge him—and any other hon member—to indicate where illegal acts are validated or condoned in this Bill. [Interjections.]

*The hon member must not make gestures now. Gestures are not recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that court cases which have been thrown out by the court will be legalised by the Bill. That is nothing but unqualified, undefined nonsense.

†The hon member went on to say that those people are dissatisfied with the election, but what this Bill in fact does, is to dissolve that parliament and to give those people the right and opportunity to show their dissatisfaction and to elect other members.

*Is it at all possible for someone to argue like that?

†The hon member for Durban Suburbs, as well as the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, referred to civil actions. How can someone who is aggrieved lodge a civil claim against a government if that government does not even exist? What stupidity are we in fact arguing about? If one assumes that that government had in fact acted illegally, there is only one way that there could be redress by a person aggrieved by those illegal acts and that is for a government to be constituted so that it can be cited in a court of law. Those are the hard legal facts I have applied in what I am trying to do.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but do not support him then. I understand what the hon member for Retreat is trying to say, and my heart bleeds for him.

I now want to refer to the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development. In replying to him, I am fulfilling my duty. The fact is, firstly, that to assist people in their claims—if they have claims—this Bill must be passed by Parliament so as to create an institution that can legally be cited.

We are talking about ethnic governments and I do not want to enter into a debate, for the simple reason that whether we agree or not, regional governments have given people participation in government, executive and otherwise. [Interjections.] Hon members must please allow me to finish. I did not interrupt them. No government was created without the request of those leaders.

By request?

By request, yes. No independence has been given to or will be forced upon people. The fourth observation I want to make is that to propose an indaba on Moutse is a matter completely unrelated to this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

I want to take it further. If the hon member is sincere—and I trust he is—the Rumpff Commission will hear all the evidence on Moutse.

To draw a red herring across the track by discussing the independence issue does not help us to meet the demands of the Bill.

Talking about ethnicity, let us look at the population of KwaNdebele. What do we see? The population is not ethnically homogeneous. As a matter of fact, there are Xhosas, Zulus, Swazis, South Ndebeles, North Ndebeles, North Sothos, South Sothos, Tswanas, Shangaans, Tsongas, Vendas and others.

Where are the Coloureds?

Well, the hon member can settle there.

What about the Government?

The Government is made up of all or most of them. [Interjections.]

*That, however, is not the point.

Rather leave it at that.

No, why should I? [Interjections.]

Order!

The traditional chiefs represent the different tribes, and there are two main tribes. They are the Ndosa and the Manalas.

This House will have the right to discuss the independence of KwaNdebele if legislation to this effect is submitted. KwaNdebele cannot become independent without the agreement of Parliament.

Or the Presidents’ Council.

The hon member for Addo must not interrupt me with that kind of interjection, because that is not relevant. I need only refer to the hon member’s standpoint about his motion at the time. I had the debate on that motion fetched. The motion read:

I accepted the motion. There was a request from the legislative assembly for independence, however. They had meetings with the State President in that connection. He said that before he would consider independence, three conditions had to be met. How then can the hon member contend that the motion was totally ignored here? On what basis does he say that? It is not true. The argument of the hon member for Wentworth was basically the same.

This House has the power to throw out the legislation. I wonder whether hon members realise how much power this House has. The majority in this House has more power than the minority in the House in which I serve.

Poor comparison.

But that is the truth. It is not a poor argument. The Constitution of this country cannot be amended with regard to the entrenched provisions without the agreement of the majority in this House.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Toekomsrus should rather look ahead than back. [Interjections.] That would be much better for him, and I know the hon member is intelligent enough to do that.

The rights of 1,7 million people who live in that region come into question if that legislation is not passed. I want to repeat that the rights of the 1,7 million people who live in that region—and quite probably the rights of people outside the region as well—could come into question if we do not pass this legislation. With those words I have concluded my reply, Sir.

We have had a long session. We have had a difficult session, but also a fruitful session. When one day I look back on my public life, this session will stand out, not as a result of the contribution of my own people and not as a result of the contribution of one party or one House of Parliament, but because of Parliament and all its members.

Until time itself changes, we have a responsibility in respect of the rights of people who are not here. When one is in a position of trust in taking decisions about the rights of others, one is expected to display greater care in terms of the law and in terms of morality than otherwise.

Nothing that we have done during this session of Parliament can assure us of a peaceful solution to our country’s problems. What we did last week, however, could increase the possibilities of doing so if that first step is taken. It can increase people’s expectations of life. That is why I say this Parliament was magnificent and had its moments.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my party and this House, where we are taking leave of one another, I should like to thank you, the officials and everybody who was present at our sittings, for their faithfulness and their willingness to work so hard.

I should also like to thank each and every hon member and express the hope that we will all return in good health to carry out our responsibilities.

God bless and keep you all.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Finance I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

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

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I object to this and I would like to motivate my objection. As I understand it, this draft resolution appearing under the name of Mr M Rajab on page 346 of the Order Paper concerns the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. For the benefit of the hon members who are not aware of it, I want to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is on his way to Durban to attend a State function.

His duty is here.

We have a precedent in this House where there was an attempt to raise a matter concerning the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Because of his absence at the time we deferred the matter to another day when he could be present in this House. On the same grounds I wish to ask that this matter be deferred until the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is present here to defend himself.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the resolution that appears in my name on the Order Paper of 20 June 1988:

1. (a) “No hon member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election” (Hansard, col 2102); and
2. (b) “This Party did not receive any donations—I am placing this on record—from any contractors or any development company” (Hansard, col 2114),

Sir, I moved this motion some 10 days ago, but regrettably we were unable to debate the motion before today. I therefore thank the majority party on this side of the House for giving precedence to this motion this afternoon. I have heard what the hon member for Moorcross said. He said the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was not here to defend himself, and therefore we ought not to have given precedence to this matter.

I would respectfully submit to the hon member for Moorcross that my motion does not call for any defence on the part of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is in a sense axiomatic. Nevertheless, we trust that the hon member Mr Nowbath, who is an attorney, will adequately defend his leader.

Since giving notice of this motion, I am aware of the fact that the hon the State President has, in fact, relieved the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of his position in the Cabinet, pending the findings of the James Commission of Inquiry. It has also been reported that this was done at the request of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. If this is so, it is a great pity that he did not request that he be suspended from his position in the House of Delegates as well. After all, it was his position in this House that gave rise to allegations of irregularities and maladministration.

However, I would like to point out that my motion calls for permanent release from both his position in the Cabinet, as well as his position as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Furthermore, it has been reported that this action was taken by the hon the State President because he did not wish to compromise the credibility of the Government regarding clean administration. I want to submit in this regard that this action is contradictory, because it relieves in the first instance the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from his position in the Cabinet where he has been a Minister without portfolio and where therefore he administers absolutely nothing, apart from doing the hon the State President’s bidding, whilst at the same time it has left him in his position as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from which position he administers own affairs. This has given rise to all the allegations of maladministration on his part.

It is also incongruous that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been relieved of a post in the Cabinet, when his role in the Cabinet was never at issue. Yet, he remains in charge of a portfolio regarding which specific charges have been made. Therefore I want to submit that this is an application of double standards on the part of the hon the State President: One for general affairs and one for own affairs. What the hon the State President in effect is saying is that he is only interested in not compromising the credibility of general affairs clean administration. What he is saying is that this House can do as it wishes regarding own affairs. This, I believe, is to be regretted.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to place on record that the hon the State President must take responsibility for the state of affairs in this House, which has compromised its credibility regarding clean administration. All hon members of this House will recall that I specifically asked the hon the State President to intervene in the affairs of this House by appointing such a commission of enquiry on 20 August 1987, when I said, and this has been reported in Hansard, col 2352:

Had the hon the State President acceded to our request timeously, I believe some credibility regarding clean administration, as expressed by the hon the State President, may have been restored to this House. We may have been spared the pain of the trauma that this House has undergone. Finally, I want to make the point that this House is but one part of the whole of Parliament and therefore I believe that the hon the State President cannot distance himself from this House as long as he has a Cabinet colleague, albeit a suspended one, and a political ally in control of the affairs of this House.

I now wish to address directly my motion before this House. As I indicated to the hon member for Moorcross just now, in a sense it is axiomatic and speaks for itself.

It is a matter of courtesy as well.

Do you know what axiomatic means?

The hon emasculated Mr Nowbath has himself admitted …

Order! The hon member should know better than that. He cannot refer to another hon member in those terms.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw those words.

I certainly withdraw them, Mr Speaker. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cannot deny the statements attributed to him and recorded in Hansard on 24 February 1988. These statements are reinforced by what he said in this House on 9 March 1988, namely that he was not given any funds, even for his party. Yet, under oath, in a standing committee of this House, he contradicted himself and argued that the party received a cheque, a donation from a firm.

I am aware that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has tried to split hairs and has played semantics about this particular matter in the Press. I am aware that he has argued that a realtor gave this money to his party and that a realtor is not a developer. However, he must not forget that he also told this House that he did not receive money from anyone else, even a realtor.

Who can deny that Procor Realtor or Procor Architects or Clarion Homes or Citiplan are all interconnected and that their affairs are interwoven by way of common partners and/or shareholders and directors? Can anyone in this House deny the role of Mr D G Pillay in these companies? Can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself deny that, when Mr Deena Pillay himself admitted as much when he gave evidence before the House Committee appointed by this House?

According to an undated letter, addressed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by Citiplan, it is indicated that Citiplan Realtors must not be confused with another company styled as Citiplan Group—consulting architects and property procurers. This letter goes further and says that Citiplan is a trading name of both Citiplan Realtors and Citiplan Planning. It is interesting that this undated letter was never presented to the House Committee. Both the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as well as Mr Deena Pillay had ample opportunity to submit such a letter to the House Committee. In my view it was obviously written after the report of the House Committee appeared in public.

In the words of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, this document “is suspect”. I believe it has been planted to cover up a story given to the Press by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I say this because an independent inquiry with the Registrar of Companies, who obviously should know the facts, reports that (a) Clarion Homes is registered as a section 21 non-profit company with Mr D G Pillay as a director—Mr D G Pillay resigned on 7 December 1987, after the cheques were given—and (b) Citiplan Group, Procor, Procor Homes, Procor Trade Sales and Procor Management Company are not registered as companies or as separate legal personae. In other words, these are just names used by individuals under which style they are trading.

Therefore this undated letter which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has brandished to the Press is worth absolutely nothing. This letter is written to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and is not even given under the weight of a commissioner of oaths’ authentication. Furthermore it is interesting that it was never presented, as I said, to the House Committee when it should have been, and has obviously been manufactured to protect the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Neither this House nor the community can be fooled by this stratagem.

I am also aware that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has told the Press that the money he received was not for the Tongaat by-election but for a party congress. Well, he can tell that to the birds. Who gives R15 000 for one single party congress? If he does so—why? [Interjections.] What does he hope to get? Let us not forget that it was Mr Deena Pillay himself who admitted to the House Committee that he gave the money in order to facilitate the granting to him and his associates of tenders or land allocation by this administration. The records indicate that this, in fact, happened in respect of land in Pietermaritzburg. [Interjections.] Now, it may be argued that only one such tender out of some 20-odd was successful, and that one therefore cannot say that it was an inducement. However, let us not forget first of all the evidence of Mr Pillay, the man who is responsible for giving that cheque. Let us also not forget that it is not without significance that Mr D G Pillay was successful after giving the donation. Furthermore, it has been admitted by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it was given during the by-election in Tongaat.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council appeared before the House Committee. He knew what its terms of reference were and he knew that the item in contention was a cheque or cheques from a firm connected with and involved in housing. He knew that it turned on whether it was given for the Tongaat by-election or for some other purpose, yet he did not in his evidence in chief acknowledge that the said cheque or cheques from Citiplan were for his congress. Surely he would have known that fact before he appeared before that committee. It is interesting that the explanation should have been given after the report was tabled.

Therefore, if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council were to come now, after the report has been tabled and discussed, and tell us that that money was for a congress, would it not be reasonable to say that such a statement would be a convenient fabrication to suit the evidence? Let it not be forgotten that in his evidence in chief before the House Committee, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did remember the Natal Provincial Congress of his party. In that evidence he did acknowledge that if a donation was received from Citiplan, then, to use his own words, they would have told him so and he would have known. Yet he did not say in his evidence that the money was for his congress. He did not do that, Sir. The same goes for Mr Deena Pillay.

Whilst I am on the matter of the evidence before the House Committee, may I just make the point that anyone who reads this evidence will come to the conclusion that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s evidence before the select committee is contradictory, heady and full of flaws. Anyone who goes through the evidence that was given by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can see that. I would say that were any honest and reasonable person to evaluate this evidence, he would come to the conclusion that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a bad and a shifty witness whose testimony was as confused and as contradictory as his actions in this House.

I now wish to turn to another matter concerning this motion. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been quoted in the Sunday Tribune Herald as saying that if this motion before the House is passed, the hon the State President will have to dissolve the House or reconstitute the Ministers’ Council because the motion is a vote of no-confidence in him and in the Ministers’ Council. Mr Speaker, I wish to submit that this is not only incorrect but it is also a threat to hon members and it must be rejected with the contempt it deserves. I believe it is reprehensible that even at this stage the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should have indulged in that kind of action. It stems from the same misinterpretation of the Constitution that the hon the State President followed and therefore I wish to re-examine this point as well this afternoon.

In my view, a vote of no-confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Minister of Housing of this House is not tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in the whole Ministers’ Council because I believe section 21 of the Constitution clearly lays down that once a Minister has been appointed by the State President in terms of section 24 of the Constitution as a member of the Ministers’ Council to administer any department of State, the State President shall designate any Minister who in his opinion has the support of the majority of the House as the Chairman of such council. Therefore, in terms of the Constitution, I believe that the hon the State President appoints without the recommendation of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I repeat that he appoints Ministers without the recommendation of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Therefore to say that because the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has lost the confidence of the House it follows that the entire Ministers’ Council has lost the confidence of the House, is a non sequitur.

More particularly, however, the motion before this House calls for the axing of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council because he is not a fit and proper person to occupy any position, let alone membership of this House, because he misled this House on important facts. There is a maxim attributed to Sir Thomas More which I believe is appropriate to the subject matter before the House this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is the contention of the hon member for Springfield that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council misled the House. Is it not unparliamentary for him to make such a statement?

Order! What exactly did the hon member say? I missed those few words.

I shall repeat them for you, Sir. I said that this motion before the House calls for the axing of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council because he is not a fit and proper person to occupy any position, let alone membership of this House, because he misled this House on important facts. Now, I am not sure what the hon member for Moorcross can find in that to object to.

Order! Those words are part and parcel of the motion before the House. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just making the point that there is a maxim attributed to Sir Thomas More which is appropriate to the subject matter of the debate before this House. It goes as follows—and I trust, Mr Speaker, that you too are familiar with this particular maxim: “The world must construe according to its wits.” This House must construe according to the law.

Hansard, as I have indicated, has very clearly recorded that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has misled this House. He cannot deny that, try as he might. I want to remind hon members that this is not the first time that Parliament has been misled. Hon members, and you, Mr Speaker, will recall that it was the late Dr Mulder who misled Parliament when he denied the funding of his department for what was described as the Information Scandal. We are all aware that he had to pay the supreme price in spite of the fact that that hon gentleman did not derive any personal benefits. Is it not ironic that had the late Dr Mulder not misled Parliament the chances are that the hon the State President Mr P W Botha may not have been the present incumbent in the seat of the State President? He as State President is called upon to relieve his Cabinet colleague and political ally from his position because that colleague has misled Parliament.

What about John Profumo, the British War Minister who was forced to resign because of an indiscretion? His fall, according to the British, was not that he shared the favours of a prostitute with a Russian naval attache, but that he lied about it to Parliament. Therefore one sees that the British are not that prudish. They say one may share a prostitute with a Russian naval attache, but you cannot lie to Parliament! [Interjections.] Hon members will agree that the British are strong on tradition and on constitutional matters and we know what these traditions and values are. We also know that these traditions and values have been followed in Westminster which is the Mother of Parliament.

Hon members are also aware that before the 1983 Constitution, we in this country followed the traditions laid down by Westminster and the present Constitution in terms of section 88 specifically provides that all the conventions of Parliament in fact apply to the tricameral Parliament. That being so, should not the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who obviously has lost the support of the majority in this House, resign as is required in the honourable tradition of Westminster, and of our Parliament too? Furthermore, should he not follow in the best traditions of these Parliaments and himself resign because of the odour of the allegations that have been made against him, does he not, by remaining, tarnish the image of this House and that of the hon the State President’s Administration as well?

I should now like to turn to the advertisements that appeared in the weekend newspapers of last week and the week before. I should like to commend them to your attention, Sir, since I believe that that constituted an abuse of the privilege of Parliament and was in contempt of Parliament. Nevertheless I ask myself, as all honourable people do: What was the need for those advertisements? What was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council trying to prove? What was he afraid of? Why did he have to go to such tremendous expense merely to bolster his image in the Press?

In addition—I believe it was in the Natal Mercury—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council threatened the Press for having reported on the issues that were debated in this House. He is reported to have told the Press—as was published in the Natal Mercury—that he felt that whatever was published in the Press was in fact defamatory. He went even further than that. He said that the recent award given in the Supreme Court, in the Reeva Forman case, would pale into insignificance were he to institute a claim for damages in our courts. I should like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—I am sorry he is not present so that he could answer me directly, but I am sure he will answer me—why he has not taken the trouble to, in fact, institute those actions for defamation? I believe that any hon gentleman who believes that his honour has been defamed and his image tarnished must seek redress in law. He should seek redress in law not for the amount of damages that he would be awarded—although of course that would be a very nice thing to get—but in order to project his correct image and protect his name. I believe that in fact it behoves the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to institute such action for defamation if he does believe that he has been defamed. However, I know that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will not do so, and I know why. It is because if he were to do that he would have to go into the witness box and give evidence, and when he does that he will not have the protection that this Parliament gives him.

Before I resume my seat, I repeat that I am sorry that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not here to defend himself, but as I have indicated, my charges are axiomatic, and I would merely like it to be recorded that I was only given an indication some 15 to 20 minutes before the House sat this afternoon that …

Why is your speech typewritten?

The hon member Mr Nowbath asks me why I had my speech typewritten. I shall answer him. If he recalls, I gave notice of my motion several days ago—in fact some 10 to 14 days ago—and unlike that hon gentleman I am not as lazy as he. When I give a Notice of Motion I prepare for it! [Interjections.] Unlike him I mean what I say in my Notice of Motion. This is why I have prepared for it, and I believe it was as well that I did so.

Mr Speaker, we all listened with attention to what the hon member for Springfield stated here. We cannot but agree with the events of the past two or three weeks after the release in this House of the report of the House Committee. I believe, however, that we ought to take a decision in this House which should be far more positive and satisfactory than the other processes that have been initiated and which have thus far led to no realistic answer to the future of Mr A Rajbansi, MP for Arena Park.

I therefore wish to move the following amendment:

1. (a) “No hon member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election” (Hansard, col 2102); and
2. (b) “This Party did not receive any donations—I am placing this on record—from any contractors or any development company” (Hansard, col 2114),

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to engage in any kind of semantic acrobatics with any of the hon members who have spoken, except to say at this stage that the report to which reference has been made by the hon member for Springfield is not worth the paper on which it is written.

When this report was debated the hon the Chairman of this Ministers’ Council asked the House to refer the report to a judge of the Supreme Court so that he could determine whether or not the findings of the report were supported by the evidence. However, the House rejected that. It refused to have its report scrutinised by a judge of a court. That was the request by the person who was accused in the report.

We have here an amendment that this House resolves—I did not catch the word properly but I take it that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition used the word “resolves”—that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council be suspended. If that is so, I am afraid it is a draft resolution without any meaning because who is going to suspend the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? Is this House going to do it? After all, this House did not appoint the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and therefore it cannot suspend him.

I do not want to go into any further details about that. The hon member for Springfield made out a long case. I am quite satisfied that it does not have any substantial object but is merely another political gimmick. That is all, and nothing more. It is the last resort of a group of people who are fading out of public life.

All the moves in this House over the past 12 months have been directed at the removal of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council from his position. There has been a great deal of barking on this subject but the caravan of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council continues to move on, despite all this barking.

I therefore move as an amendment to the motion:

I would like to say straight away that I am not interested in being nominated.

Order! I apologise for interrupting the hon member, but can he please repeat the amendment?

Mr Speaker, it reads as follows:

I take it that I will get the full support of every hon member in this House. I know that this side of the House will support the amendment. I take it that hon members who are sitting in the opposition benches, will also support this fully, including all the hon Ministers who are sitting on that side. Let us once and for all lay this ghost to rest.

Mr Speaker, I have listened to the amendment moved by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition!

Sir, forgive me for that Freudian slip! [Interjections.] Having heard the amendment moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and having examined it, I believe it covers very much the same terrain as my motion. I have regard for the fact that he is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I therefore wish to bring to the notice of the House— and I want this to be recorded—that I defer to his amendment and that I accept it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Springfield withdrawing his own motion?

No.

Order! The hon member for Springfield, if I heard him correctly, accepts the amendment as proposed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order and clarity: When you referred to the governing party, may I have clarity?

Order! I think I must owe the hon member an answer.

Amendment moved by Mr R S Nowbath negatived (Majority Party and Progressive Independent Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition agreed to (Majority Party and Progressive Independent Party dissenting).

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: “That whereas the hon member for Arena Park, Mr A Rajbansi, made the following statements in the House on 24 February 1988, viz:

1. (a) “No hon member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election” (Hansard, col 2102); and
2. (b) “This Party did not receive any donations— I am placing this on record—from any contractors or any development company” (Hansard, col 2114),

and further declared on 9 March 1988:

and whereas the said statements have since, according to Mr A Rajbansi’s own testimony, been established to have been untrue at the time they were made, the House is of the opinion that Mr A Rajbansi deliberately and intentionally misled the House because he knew the statements to be untrue or, alternatively, made these statements with a wanton and reckless disregard for the truth, and therefore resolves to suspend Mr A Rajbansi from the House until the commencement of Parliamentary business in 1989.”

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The four cases in question have been examined in depth by the committee and thorough consideration has been given to the likely effects of the recommendations. The management of State forest land and nature reserves is a matter taken very seriously by my department. As hon members will be aware, such land may not be burdened with permanent rights or be disposed of without consent of Parliament. The fact that members of the joint committee, representing all parties of the three Houses of Parliament, were unanimous in their decision to support the proposals of the department is to me indicative of the fact that this report merits the support of this House. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending that the report of the committee be approved by the House.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support the report.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce this legislation, the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society Amendment Bill, 1988, which can be described as a private member’s Bill.

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon member, but I now have to take leave of this House and I wish all hon members a very pleasant break until we meet again late in August. That also includes the hon member for Reservoir Hills. [Interjections ]

Order! The hon member for Laudium may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am introducing this Bill in our House as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance. I will be very brief, as the objects are set out in the memorandum to the Bill and I presume every hon member has had a chance to read this. As I said, I will be very brief.

The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society was originally incorporated in 1831 under Ordinance No 86. It was the first commercial bank to be registered in the Cape of Good Hope in 1831. It is presently governed by the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society Act of 1968.

The society operating as a bank thus has no shareholders and therefore no share capital. The funds at its disposal have consisted mainly of deposits made by the customers of the Bank and the reserves accumulated by it from earnings, recoveries or profits resulting from the realisation of capital assets and similar internal sources.

The Board of Directors of the Society has come to an agreement with Finansbank, dated 27 February 1986 and confirmed by the Society at a general meeting on 10 April 1986. All the Society’s assets and liabilities were transferred to the Cape of Good Hope Bank Limited in exchange for shares in that company. This Society thus ceased to be a bank on 1 April 1986 after serving the community of Cape Town and its environment in that capacity for 155 years. It has become, instead, a shareholder in a new banking institution which is intended and well-equipped to extend and develop the business.

However, this particular Society wants to keep its traditions and uphold its name. By virtue of that all three Houses decided at a joint committee meeting that we would support this particular private legislation. It has a very good history and the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank, the oldest general bank in South Africa and older by far than any commercial bank, was established in Cape Town in 1831. It goes back a long way in history. I shall not elaborate any further except to say that everything is set down in the memorandum to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Laudium who has introduced this Bill like a new Minister. I must compliment him on that.

This is one of those savings banks which is actually a society that was registered in terms of an ordinance. In those days ordinances controlled certain provinces. This particular Society therefore was registered in terms of an ordinance. As the hon member for Laudium pointed out it had no shareholders and relied solely on the savings of the deposits as far as its income was concerned.

More recently it entered into an agreement by which it transferred all its assets to another banking institution registered in terms of the Banking Act and the Companies Act. Therefore, all its assets have been transferred and this particular Society has now become a shareholder in that new bank that has been registered. However, that new bank has the same name, namely the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society, although the other one is a banking institution which is a full-fledged bank in terms of the Banking Act and the Companies Act.

The old bank will not close down but will now become a sort of benevolent society. As a bene volent society it will utilise all the profits it has earned from the shares in the new bank for the upliftment of the communities within the Cape of Good Hope. Therefore this institution will be converted from a banking institution into a charitable institution.

We on this side of the House give this new banking institution our blessing. We also give our blessing to the old banking institution which has now converted itself into a charitable institution. We take pleasure in lending our approval to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the previous debate in this House we referred to the traditions, norms and values that have been followed by Westminster and that have been followed in this country since 1910. I notice, however, that the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society, which is the subject matter of the Bill before us, has been in operation since even before that time. It is interesting that this institution, which has served the people of the Cape of Good Hope for more than 155 years, has carried on that tradition with honour. All this Bill really facilitates is the regularising of an arrangement that has been made with another institution in such a fashion that the remaining shareholders of this institution can continue with the good work that has been started.

It is interesting to note that membership of the Society is also regarded as an honour and is obtained by election at an annual general meetin g after nomination by existing members. This is, to my mind, a very interesting Society that has been carrying out a noble piece of work over a long period of time and quite obviously we on this side of the House have no objection to the good work that is now being done or that it is envisaged will be done by this society.

It is also interesting to note that hitherto this Society gave something like 10% of its profits to charitable and other benevolent causes but that this figure will now be increased to a minimum of 75% of the profits. This is most laudable and we commend the members of the Society and its Board of Directors. We wish it every success and we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, when an old, established institution has to adapt in order to survive, the one encouraging feature is the fact that the name will remain and that it will operate as a bank. I think we all understand the fact that the demands that are made upon financial institutions with regard to capital, etc, have to be met if an organisation is to survive and be profitable and acceptable. Therefore, the adjustments that are being made will ensure that the bank goes on and at the same time the present Bill will ensure that the charitable or benevolent welfare work that has been done in the past will also be carried on.

As the hon member for Springfield mentioned, this will be done with greater attention to this source of revenue for people, which is required all the more in these days where so many persons have to be assisted by organisations which have as their purpose the welfare of people and the community. For this reason we welcome the passage of this legislation. What is heartening, is the fact that the old name registered for the first time in 1831 will not be erased from the register.

Mr Chairman, the Accountants’ and Auditors’ and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill was discussed in the joint committee and the aim of the broad outline set down in the memorandum is more or less to authorise the Board to publish in a journal or other publication relating to accounting or auditing or in the public Press, the name of an accountant or auditor in respect of whom the Board has imposed any punishment or who has been found guilty of any misconduct or has been suspended from practice. This legislation was dealt with by the committee in a few minutes and we on this side of the House fully support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we also support the measures contained in this Bill. We are aware that provision is also made for articled clerks so that they, too, will not suffer inconvenience and problems with regard to completing their articles of clerkship. For this reason we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we also support the amendment. This Bill merely updates the old Act as all the missing parts have now been put in. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board is one which imposes discipline on and regulates the affairs of accountants and auditors in this country. It is interesting that this Board has in fact recommended that the Bill before us should amend the principal Act. It therefore comes with the full recommendation of that Board. I believe this is being done merely for the protection of society. There is no doubt about it that we on this side of the House accept it, more particularly because it comes from the Board itself, and we have no objection to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Accountants’ and Auditors’ and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill is the simplest Bill I have come across in the Standing Committee on Finance, because I agree with all the principles enunciated in the Bill.

It is common knowledge that we have the Law Society and the Medical and Dental Council, and when members of those professions are guilty of misdemeanours they are punished. Those punishments are publicised for the benefit and protection of the general public.

Until now the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board did not enjoy that privilege. They do penalise auditors who are guilty of misdemeanours, but those auditors quietly go and get employment again. The primary function of this Bill is to enable the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board to publicise those members who have been penalised so that the general public will be aware of their activities.

The other amendments are merely incidental— they transpose “and’s” for “but’s” and “but’s” for “if’s”, and therefore it was a simple matter to agree to this Bill in the Standing Committee. I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon members who supported this Bill. If one studies the Bill one finds it consists of only two pages, but it is just as important as the Usury Bill. The Usury Bill is there to protect the consumer, while the Accountants’ and Auditors’ and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill is there to protect the investor.

There is a very important principle involved here, namely to make public information regarding accountants that trespass or break the rules. Our accountants in South Africa are responsible people, and I have high respect for our Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board—but we have a responsibility to the investor in this country. They have a very good history. They must continue. To some extent, this Bill was submitted by the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board for the protection of the investor.

There are an increasing number of court cases in the USA against accountants. I hope we are not going to see the day in South Africa when we have court cases from morning till night against accountants who have given the wrong information or signed the wrong documents.

Mr Chairman, this Bill has already come before this House and was referred back to the joint committee for further amendment. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for acceding to many of the requests that were made at the meeting of the joint committee, more particularly by the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. We are pleased that we can now support the joint committee amendments to the Bill as well as the Land Bank Amendment Bill itself.

Mr Chairman, my colleague the hon member for Yeoville was, I understand, largely instrumental in the production of the report that we are discussing at the present time and the amendment to the Bill itself. Quite obviously we have no objections to the Bill, and we support it.

Mr Chairman, we support the amendments because they meet the requirements of the opposition, who had raised certain reservations, as already mentioned by the previous speakers. We have no objection to supportin g the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this very small Bill took a very big knock in the Joint Committee on Finance. It first came up in Pretoria in December last year and I was the principal objector to it. When the Bill first came out its function was simply as is described in the Bill itself, and I quote:

The way that we read the Bill was that the Land Bank would lend money to any financial institution in the TBVC areas and the other selfgoverning states. However, I saw a danger in taking our hard-earned money and giving it to our neighbouring states without having any control over it. That was my principal objection.

Other members on the committee brought up matters such as that there was not enough for Indian farmers and Black farmers but that is no concern of mine. I am au fait with the functioning of Land Bank activities and I am aware that a large number of applications from farmers who are not White were approved. That was not my complaint. My complaint was that, having advanced money to financial institutions, we will get fly-by-night institutions, eg something similar to the kubus culture activities in this country.

As I have said, this little Bill has taken a big knock. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for being very attentive and open to suggestions. He accepted all the suggestions and amendments that were made in the Joint Committee on Finance. The Bill as it stands today is exactly what we desired and I therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no problem in supporting the Bill after the necessary amendments have been incorporated.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members for their contributions. When I came to Parliament in 1981 as a backbencher there was little possibility of really making a contribution but with the system that we have today it is possible to end up with better legislation. This Bill is an example of the success of the system. I would like to thank hon members for their excellent contributions.

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,

Amendments agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the Second Reading of the South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill deals with a very comprehensive Bill which rationalises many clauses in the existing legislation on banking institutions and building societies.

I want to take the opportunity of thanking the members of the SA Reserve Bank, and more specifically the Director of Financial Institutions, for their co-operation. I also want to emphasise for the benefit of the hon the Deputy Minister that this legislation was brought before us at a late hour. The joint committee could actually not hear enough evidence from interested parties. We had to work overtime to get this Bill to the stage where it is today. I want to mention that the Institute of Building and Mutual Societies, as well as the Institute of Banks gave evidence before the joint committee. They were very happy about these particular amendments to the Bill.

Recently there has been renewed interest in banking regulations—including international banking legislation—because of the importance of banking in the financial and economic systems of countries and also because of the rapid changes in the banking and financial environment. In South Africa the need for a financially sound banking system is fully recognised with a view to safeguarding deposits with banks, preserving confidence in banks and protecting the country’s payment system. The same arguments apply to building societies.

As we are all aware, banks, building societies and mutual funds fall directly under the SA Reserve Bank and not under the Ministry of Finance, as was the case in the past. In order to maintain financially sound banking and building society systems in South Africa, banking and building society legislation and supervision are regarded as necessary to ensure that banking and building society business is conducted in a sound way, and that banks and building societies provide prudently against contingencies that may adversely affect their businesses.

Financial requirements for banks and building societies, such as capital, cash reserves and liquid asset requirements therefore need to be met by these institutions. In line with this thinking, the amending Bill provides an opportunity to building societies to issue long-term debentures as a means of strengthening their capital and reserve positions. Banks already have the authority to raise secondary capital in this way.

The financial scene in South African has recently been characterised by active competition amongst financial institutions. This has been evident also in the bank and building society industries, as well as in the intensified competition among banks and building societies. Building societies are anxious to offer an extended range of banking services to their clients, while banks have entered the home loan market.

Competition is to be welcomed, but the legislative authorities have a responsibility to provide a level playing field as far as competition is concerned. I am not going to go into detail as far as this piece of legislation is concerned, because it was welcomed by banks and building societies. It should be welcomed, because in this way building society loans will be extended and broadened by means of this amending Bill.

In order to promote home ownership, building societies will be allowed to include transfer costs in a mortgage loan registered on the property concerned. This is essential. This was not previously allowed. The banks could do it, but the building societies were not allowed to do it. Building societies will also be permitted to extend housing loans to Blacks in development areas which have not been finally surveyed by surveyors, and to extend mortgage loans on industrial properties.

As far as banking and building society legislation is concerned, the legislator is faced with rapid financial developments which necessitate continu ous amendments and adjustments to legislation in order to accommodate the latest changes. Amendments have to be considered almost on an annual basis. We had a similar piece of legislation last year. This process is complicated by the existence of the Banks Act and two building society Acts. These could be facilitated by further convergence of legal requirements for banks and building societies. I trust that we shall see some development along these lines in the near future. I fully support this amendment.

Mr Chairman, the South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill is a comprehensive Bill. It deals with various aspects of banking and building society matters.

In the recent past the development in the financial market has caused some disruptions regarding the competition between banks and building societies. Although they compete in the same market for funds they were not on a par in so far as their operation was concerned. This Bill will bring about parity in this regard. The Bill emanated from last year’s amendment where a new dimension was created for the Building Societies Act. This necessitated the bringing about of this comprehensive Bill.

It is good that when banks are intruding into the building societies’ terrain, building societies should also be allowed to intrude into the banks’ territory. There may come a day when they will all definitely compete on a par. We on this side of the House have no problem in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have to address this House. I want avail myself of this opportunity to record, on behalf of hon members of this House, our very deep sorrow at the sad events in Angola, where 12 members of the SADF lost their lives as a result of killings. We want to extend, as has been done by the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the grieved families our deepest sorrow. We pray for them in these hours of grief.

In support of the South African Reserve Bank, Banking Institutions, Mutual Building Societies and Building Societies Amendment Bill, I want to say that this Bill looks at the present situation regarding financial institutions in South Africa and the projection of the activities of financial institutions in the future. I am aware that the financial and the banking world will in future be one of a highly competitive nature. I believe the provisions of this Bill meet the situation and encourage proper banking facilities and proper structures for financial institutions. Therefore, we on this side of the House, in particular the PPSA, support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thought it was proper that the hon the Minister of Budget should make passing reference to the unfortunate developments on the Angola-South West Africa border. All we South Africans were looking forward with great interest to the developments following upon the meeting in Cairo and we envisaged that a peaceful resolution of the Southern African conflict was at hand. It is the sincere hope and prayer, I believe, of all peace-loving South Africans that despite this unfortunate happening, good sense will prevail on all sides, that the talks will not be endangered and that fruitful negotiations will be carried out with a view to resolving all outstanding issues peacefully.

Referring to the Bill under discussion, a while ago momentous legislation was passed in this House whereby the responsibilities for the supervision of banks and building societies—both equity-based and mutual—were transferred to the Reserve Bank. Following upon that, there has been very strong competition between banks and building societies in the market place for a whole variety of business, much of it new to the consumer.

In this process it has been established that the building societies and financial institutions were operating under different requirements—more specifically in regard to liquid assets. I am pleased to note that the Bill remedies the situation and that henceforth, to the greatest extent possible, all these institutions will have to comply with the requirements of the Reserve Bank which are in fact on a par. I believe that this is a welcome and necessary development and obviously much of this could not have been envisaged in the initial stages. However, with experience one has to respond to changes and I think that the Reserve Bank is responding positively and as early as possible.

Going through the Bill again, reference is being made to the fact that banks have already entered the loan market for Blacks in regard to areas where there is no proper registration of titles. Building society legislation obviously precluded these people from participating in that area which demands support. Hopefully the provisions of this Bill will make this possible not only for banks, but also for building societies. For that reason it is also welcomed. One must again record here the fact that in regard to housing in South Africa all stops are being removed with a view to giving this development momentum. Again this demonstrates, even in regard to the building society movement, a desire to be there where people can be counted in making a positive contribution towards the realisation of more housing for the Black people.

We are also all aware that a decade ago all kinds of institutions were accepting deposits from the public and that there was a property boom. Competitive interest rates which were often higher than those available from banks and building societies were being offered by certain institutions. A considerable amount of public funds, including moneys at the disposal of pensioners, was invested with these companies. Then there was a bang and a collapse in the property market when many of these companies went under. There was just no protection for the ordinary man who got carried away by advertisements and by marketing agents because of the inducements offered. They deposited money which they did not recover. In respect of many people these were total losses.

I believe that it is the intention of the Reserve Bank to watch developments and to investigate any company, individual or operation which may be out in the marketplace soliciting funds and, in fact, competing with the banks and the building societies, but which is not called upon to act in a manner as prescribed by law so that the ordinary investor can be protected. I believe they should be under very strict surveillance so that we do not have a repetition every decade or so of the public’s money being lost in large amounts when these institutions go bankrupt. For that reason and for those I advanced earlier on behalf of the Official Opposition, we support the measure before this House.

Mr Chairman, I want to support what has been said by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House. The unsuspecting public needs to be protected adequately in times when there is a rampant demand for investments in smaller institutions—if I may put it like that. We are very much aware of what can happen. Not so long ago we witnessed the unhappy Sidarel saga and I believe that the investin g public ought to be protected adequately.

I am reminded that the report by the hon Mr Justice D A Melamet in regard to the insurance industry has just been tabled. It is sad that we have had a commission of inquiry report on the insurance industry after the event. Perhaps we can learn from that example. Perhaps we can look at ways and means of addressing the problems articulated by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

However, I rise to support the Bill before the House and I must agree with the hon member for Laudium, who is not present at the moment, that this is a massive and a comprehensive Bill. It is what one may call an omnibus Bill as it consists of something like 52 clauses covering a variety of subjects. I must say, it says something about the ingenuity of the law advisers and of the department and the hon the Minister that they have been able to table all of this together in one Bill.

This Bill has been described as the first step towards eliminating the differences between banks and building societies, which paves the way for building societies to conduct more banking business and which provides uniform requirements for liquid assets and reserve holdings. In this regard I should also just like to indicate that as I understand it, in terms of this Bill, Kruger Rands, which for some strange reason bank managers have been advising members of the public to buy, can no longer be used as deposits with the Reserve Bank by the commercial banks. I am told that something of the order of R1 billion worth of such Kruger Rands are being held by these banking institutions at the present time. Hon members will agree that this is a massive amount of Kruger Rands that are being held by the banks. I believe that this could well lead to a fall in the price of Kruger Rands now that the banks cannot use them as legitimate holdings.

Furthermore, as I understand this Bill it also prevents what is commonly known as insider trading. It makes mergers easier but we all know that in terms of the previous legislation the number of shares that could be held by institutions in other institutions was limited to 30%. One might think that that is a contradiction, but basically I think that what is envisaged in this Bill is for mergers to take place far more easily.

What interests me about this whole Bill, and what should interest hon members of this House, is that it has the full approval of the industry for which it caters. It has the full support of not only the banking institutions but also the building society movement in general in this country. I believe it has been described by the President of that association as a move towards the levelling of the playing field, which means that banking institutions and building society institutions are now placed on a par. Therefore, if the industry for which this Bill caters is in full agreement with the Bill, quite obviously we must also support this Bill and as I have indicated, we naturally do so.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister of the Budget by saying that we all share his feelings today about what has happened. We are all grieving today because, as I said in the House of Assembly, many of us have sons, and when one has lost a member of one’s family nothing can make up for that loss. Therefore, today we are all thinking of those families who have lost sons.

†I also wish to thank hon members of the House. I think this is my seventh Bill in a matter of four or five days. Were it not for the co-operation of the hon members of the different Houses I do not think it would have been possible for all the Bills to have been passed. It was not just a question of having them passed, but also a matter of the contributions made by the hon members of the different Houses. I know I have said before that we submitted these Bills at a very late stage and I know it was quite a job to study them and to prepare and come up with changes and recommendations.

I listened very carefully to the different hon members. The hon member for Laudium analysed the Bill and made very interesting comments and I also appreciate his contribution to the discussions today.

With regard to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I want to say that a few years ago many of us worked together on the Bill we have before us at present—the one we amended here today—and I see all their faces here today. I remember the “pain and suffering” in the process of going through all the clauses and commas and dots. We all remember the difficult days, but now we have amended it. This is life and we all live in a dynamic world.

The Leader of the Official Opposition made a very interesting remark, but we must be careful not to lose or destroy the institutions that assist the low income groups to buy their own homes. I believe this is the crux of democracy and the crux of capitalism. If we can make it possible for all our people to own their own little plots and houses we will have a future in this country.

Mention was also made of the Kruger Rand. Up to now the Kruger Rand has been legal tender and I think the hon member for Springfield mentioned this. The problem with regard to the Kruger Rand as legal tender is that it is actually not operating cash. One has to go to the Reserve Bank and exchange it for operating cash. It is also very important that with the Kruger Rand we have a fluctuating price and when one exchanges it for operating cash there is a fluctuation in the price and we have to ask the question whether it is really legal tender. We all know about the repurchase agreements that banks and insurance companies have. Just before the end of the month the repurchase agreement they have with other organisations comes into effect and they then satisfy all the requirements of the Reserve Bank. Five days later it is back in the possession of the original owner. It is not that we do not see gold as an important factor in our monetary system because we still recognise it as a liquid asset.

Legal tender.

But it is not legal tender. It may be a good way of investing if one believes in the gold price, but is it really part of the monetary system?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also mentioned something very interesting. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put his finger on a very important aspect as far as the informal sector is concerned, and that is the matter of the control of banking activities in the formal sector.

This Bill makes it possible for inspections to take place where there is deposit-taking. I remember as a young boy—I shall not mention the names of the institutions—how many people in my little home town of Tulbagh invested in banks and so on. I wonder whether there are any hon members of my age present who remember the Spaarbond? Widows and widowers lost their money on this kind of deposit-taking institution. According to my information—perhaps all the hon members know this—all these small banks developing in Soweto and Mamelodi are deposit-taking institutions. It is not that we are actually against this, but we cannot allow our people to lose money—we cannot allow savings to be destroyed. I think this is a very important point that was mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

We shall return next year—we are living in a very dynamic world; we have discussed the Building Society Bill and we shed many tears in that regard—and we are moving nearer and nearer to having one law for all deposit-taking institutions. However, we cannot do this in one day. It is a process. This is so because our main responsibility is to see to it that our deposit-taking institutions are run according to rules that will ensure solvency, and that we protect the small man investing his money and making deposits in these institutions. It is our responsibility; we, together with the Reserve Bank, are the watchdog. Therefore we must carefully analyse all the Bills and amendments coming through us.

I wish to thank hon members in this regard. I think this Bill before us is a step in this process of developing a healthy financial system in this country. It is interesting that we had before us today the Accountants’ and Auditors’ and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill as well as the Land Bank Amendment Bill since they are in some respects the same. A professor in business will always say that one has to look for liquidity, saleability and rentability, and to some extent that is what we are doing today.

Mr Chairman, those hon members who have followed the recent events in KwaNdebele will recall the decision made by the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court in the Transvaal, which declared the elections there null and void because the women were denied the right to vote. The object of this Bill is to correct the situation. There is, of course, the de iure situation in terms of policy and fragmentation of this country on which I hold my own views, but there is now also the question of a de facto situation, linked with the de iure situation. What happens to the actions of the Government from the time it was instituted to the time when it was declared null and void, as it were? The object of this Bill is simply to correct that situation and to give a de facto situation legal validity.

However, in referring to that I should like to draw attention to the fact that once again in the history of this country its judiciary have been shown to act independently of executive authority. It has interpreted a constitutional fault correctly, as a result of which a matter has come before Parliament. This compares very well with a recent publication in The Times of London. The media as well as opinion-makers and South African critics overseas refer daily to what they call the curbs on the media and the censorship of the media, strangulation of public opinions and views in the RSA.

The Times of London saw fit not so long ago to publish a damning indictment, as it was called, of the South African judicial system. Of course this was related to what is now known in South Africa and world history as the Sharpville Six. The South African Bar Council sought to correct misconceptions and incorrect statements of fact in that particular journal, but the editor of The Times of London said that he had no space to publish what was a correction. I am now relating this to the independence of the judiciary in this country. We have had the South African court overturning a decision by the Government, but The Times of London claims that it is the real voice of democracy in the world and the mother of the free Press in the world, at the same time exercising its own particular brand of censorship and curbing of the media. It is a de facto problem and with that I say we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to speak about constitutional development which, in turn, entails the constitutional development and planning of any House of Parliament. This House does not in any way go against the dignity of Parliament when, as a supreme and sovereign House, it must at times do what is necessary in the interests of hon members of this House. Therefore, yesterday was an occasion on which we did what we had to do.

I would like to make the point that we in this House have been very accommodating when general affairs Ministers have been unable to come to this House timeously to address it on a particular Bill. I therefore believe, as I am sure hon members in this House do, that we are not using Parliamentary processes just for the sake of fancy tricks. We have a problem and we ourselves are the ones who have the best knowledge of that problem and who know how best to deal with it. I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to recognise this fact and to acknowledge the situation of this House.

Moreover, I want to say that we have been very accommodating. We have not been unmindful. We have cut down on the number of speakers and on speakers’ times just to accommodate the hon the Deputy Minister and I therefore want to appeal that we must be accepted in the true sense of the word as being here to do our best in the interests of the progress and activities of Parliament. [Interjections.] With those words I want to say that I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, I also want to say in support of my hon colleague here that we in this House adopt responsible attitudes and we do not adopt stances which are destructive in any way. What we are asking for is an understanding of the problems that are peculiar to this House. [Interjections.] All of us know that this House is going through a period of adjustment, and during this period of adjustment we ask of our hon colleagues who come here to serve a common purpose, namely to promote the interests of the people of South Africa, that they should see the problem that we have and accommodate us in this period of adjustment.

KwaNdebele has been one of our country’s trouble spots in recent times. This part of South Africa has aroused the emotions of people, which has resulted in the unfortunate loss of life and property. The fact that KwaNdebele has a very small population of some 176 000 and a minute territory of 103 000 ha may be one of the reasons why this whole policy of self-governing states is looked upon as non-viable and unnecessary in some quarters. Unfortunately there have also been rumours of disrespect for human rights in this area. This is what makes one wary of entrenching and validating an administration which does not command the respect that is so necessary in regard to all administrations, regardless of where they are.

However one views the Government’s homelands policy, we are faced with a problem which is being addressed in this Bill. The Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court pronounced that the election of the 16-member elected component of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly was invalid. This created a problem regarding the legitimacy of the KwaNdbele Legislative Assembly as a whole and during the meeting of the standing committee my colleague, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, quite adequately described this problem as a legal vacuum that exists in KwaNdbele. He quite rightly said that the law cannot operate in a vacuum. When there is no law there is lawlessness and when there is no order there is disorder.

However much one might be opposed to what is happening in KwaNdebele, as legislators it is necessary that we face up squarely to the responsibility which this Bill imposes upon us. The responsibility here is to decide whether to allow the present uncertainty to continue and to allow a vacuum to prevail in all the legal requirements of the area. This Bill will validate all the decisions and proclamations made by the Legislative Assembly since July 1984.

Clause 3 of the Bill allows for the dissolving of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly on a date to be fixed by the hon the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette. Although we were advised in the standing committee that it was not possible to set a definite election date for the reason that arrangements leading up to an election are complex and time consuming, I would have preferred a definite date for the holding of elections to be laid down in the Bill. In this regard I wish to appeal to my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that the elections are in fact held as stated in the Bill, ie as soon as possible after the commencement of the Act.

The problem in KwaNdebele stems from the fact that the franchise was limited to male citizens of KwaNdebele who were 21 years of age or older. The then Chief Minister, Chief Skosana, is on record as having said that women first had to be taught by their husbands how to vote before they could vote. This Bill will have the effect of addressing that problem in that it includes all women over the age of 21 years. In other words, this Bill will enfranchise the disenfranchised women of KwaNdebele.

However, I should like to know why in neighbouring Lebowa both men and women over the age of 18 years enjoy the franchise in respect of electing members to the Legislative Assembly and yet in KwaNdebele the age limit is 21 years. I just cannot understand why there is this difference in the age limit with regard to those who are entitled to vote in these territories.

I should like my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister also to address the problem of imbalance that exists in that there is a preponderance of 49 designated members in KwaNdebele as opposed to only 16 elected members in the Legislative Assembly of KwaNdebele. Yet, when one looks across at the Lebowa Legislative Assembly one sees that 40 of the 100 members are elected. Therefore if one works out percentages here, there is a definite preponderance of designated members in KwaNdebele as against Lebowa. I should just like some explanation as to why this is so. I also feel that there should then be a readjustment of the elected members in KwaNdebele and if this can be done prior to the elections that are going to take place, I believe that we would be doing the people of KwaNdebele a service.

In the circumstances in which we find ourselves in this Parliament where personal feelings and matters cannot be allowed to intrude on the responsibilities one has to assume, I want to say I support this Bill, but I should like to have it noted that it is not entirely without reservations.

Mr Chairman, being the Acting Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, I should like to place on record in no uncertain terms that we did not want to upset the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to place on record that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament was well-informed yesterday of the precedence that was to be given to two motions, even before the joint sitting that took place yesterday.

I saw that the hon the Deputy Minister was quite upset when he came into the House yesterday, but it was no fault of ours. We had two important issues that we wanted to put before this House and knowing very well that we had come to the tail-end of the session, it was imperative that these two important issues had to be raised in this House. It was in view of that that we gave these two matters precedence over the other Orders of the Day. This has never happened in the past and I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to bear with us. For that matter, we did our very best yesterday to reduce the time of our speakers and also to reduce the number of speakers just to allow the hon the Deputy Minister to go back to the other Chambers at the time he expected to be there.

I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister not to be upset. He was also upset this afternoon. It was in view of the fact that we had a time constraint, and this important motion had to go through this House today. We therefore had to give precedence to that.

Mr Chairman, in the standing committee, when this matter was being discussed, it was made absolutely clear that despite the implications of the judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, nobody was absolved, whatever capacity that person might have acted in, if any fraudulent actions were committed during this period. That assurance has been given.

What this Bill does is to validate the proclamation in terms of which the election which has been found to be invalid, was held so that all actions carried out by the KwaNdebele Government would be legal. In addition, it also makes provision for enabling women, who thus far have been excluded, to participate in the next elections. For these reasons we welcome and support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the hon the Deputy Minister was incommoded yesterday and earlier this afternoon. The fault does not lie with hon members on this side of the House; it lies with the rather stupid system that we still have of obliging Ministers and Deputy Ministers to go to three separate Houses separately, even in matters of general affairs, notwithstanding the fact that we have a large Chamber where joint debate is possible, which would certainly save the time and the energy of the Ministers concerned. I say this not without some concern. Some of our Ministers are not as young as the hon the Deputy Minister, and I do not think it is fair to a man in his fifties to expect him to rush from one House to another. Their adrenalin starts pumping and it is not good for their health when their adrenalin is not completely used up!

What must also be considered is that those two motions that were debated yesterday were not put up by anyone on this side of the House; they were put up by allies of the hon the Deputy Minister. They were put up by members of the National Party’s People—sorry, Sir, the National Peoples Party—which is the ally of the NP. Therefore he must really blame his own allies and the system for the problem. However, from our side—and speaking also from a personal point of view—I served with the hon the Deputy Minister on a standing committee and we established a good personal relationship. I also found that on that Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning his ideas were quite welcome. I therefore want him to understand that he does have goodwill from this House.

The problem with KwaNdebele is a very difficult one, but hon members will understand better if they also understand that the Ndebele people are a very conservative people, as are the Zulus of Natal. After all, the Ndebele are an offshoot of the Zulus. Hon members will recall that when Shaka was chasing Mzilikazi, on his northward march into Rhodesia, where he established Matabeleland, Mzilikazi laid waste a great part of the Transvaal and the Northern Cape. He devastated large areas of the Tswana and Northern Sotho tribes. That tribal memory lingers on, which is why the Moutse people are so reluctant to be taken over by the Ndebeles. These historical facts play a part and have also played a part in the unrest situation that occurred within KwaNdebele. After all “Kwa” means “the place of’—this is the place of Ndebele.

As the hon member for Natal Midlands pointed out, I have great sympathy for clause 1 of the Bill. It seeks to remove the legal uncertainty which obtains in KwaNdebele at the present time, due to a fault in the proclamation previously made by the hon the State President. There is of course a lesson to be learnt from this. There should be legislation rather than proclamations so that the hon the State President, when he signs a Bill, has had the advantage of the input of other hon members of Parliament. A mistake was made in that proclamation which resulted in it being set aside by the Supreme Court, and quite correctly so. It resulted in the unfortunate difficulty in which the people of KwaNdebele and we in Parliament find ourselves at the present time.

We welcome the fact that the sexual apartheid which was imposed on the people of KwaNdebele in regard to voting rights is being removed. We deplore, however, the fact that the age limit is 21 and not 18 as applicable to everyone else. How on earth can I justify to a young man of 19 or 20 in KwaNdebele the fact that my voters in Reservoir Hills have the right to vote when they reach the age of 18 and then deny the same right to a young man or woman from KwaNdebele who is under the age of 21. That is a serious difficulty.

The other serious difficulty is that originally provision was made for the election of 16 members of the KwaNdebele Legislative Assembly. Now, with women being granted the franchise, the number of voters is bound to double. We have the sociological situation that populations are usually in parity with regard to male and female. We therefore feel that the number of elected members should certainly be more than 16—possibly 32.

As I explained to the hon the Deputy Minister, we of the PFP cannot give our support to the Bill simply because we cannot pick and choose clauses. We have to take the Bill as a whole. Because of the two principal defects of the Bill, we are not in a position to try to assist in the rectification of the other factors. Of course, I will not hold it against the hon members of the Official Opposition who intend to vote in favour of the Bill, as they have already indicated, because there is no great matter of principle involved here, except in regard to the age qualification for voting. May I therefore ask that the dissent of the PFP be recorded.

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that hon members are now cutting it short. [Interjections.] I wish to thank hon members for accommodating all of us. I believe they also have the desire to go home. I must tell them that I am not going home. I have some other business to attend to and it is for that reason that I would like to have this finalised as soon as possible.

I would like to reply to the remarks made in regard to the precedence given to orders of the day yesterday. I have the greatest respect for the business of this House and the way in which this House conducts its business—I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for hon members of this House and their wishes. It is my duty but also my free will to support and respect hon members in their conducting of their business.

However, my problem yesterday and today was that I was not given notice beforehand that there might be a change in the programme. I get my instructions as far as the business of legislation is concerned from the Chief Whip of Parliament. He instructed me to come here yesterday. From here I had to go to the House of Assembly. The same thing happened again this afternoon. I ran into problems yesterday, although hon members tried to help. I had problems on the other side because I was not there on time. The House of Assembly then had to wait for me.

Unfortunately this creates unhappy situations for oneself and for the business of a particular House. I want to ask hon members that if something of this nature should happen again in future, they should just let everybody know what the business at a particular moment is going to be, otherwise nobody will know what is going on. At least let the Chief Whip of Parliament know of any changes in advance so that he can rearrange the programme, if necessary.

Yesterday morning the Chief Whip of Parliament told me that he was approached in connection with the rearrangement of the schedule for yesterday, but he said it was not possible. In view of that he asked me to come here to attend to the business that was on the Order Paper before him. Although he was approached, he did not give his consent to any request. He did not give his consent to a rearrangement of the Order Paper. I want to emphasise again that it is not my duty to take care of the arrangements in terms of the Order Paper of this House or any other House. That is the business of the Chief Whip of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Havenside pointed out that he informed me during the day that precedence would be given to a certain motion. Will the hon the Deputy Minister agree that this was untrue? I was never informed by him officially.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to place on record that notice was given to the Chief Whip of the ruling party one hour before 12 o’clock yesterday. I gave notice that we would be calling for precedence at the Whips’ meeting on Monday.

Mr Chairman, I do not think it is necessary that we debate this any further. All I would like to emphasise is the fact that hon members must accommodate the Chief Whip of Parliament whenever it is necessary. He is the person who is responsible for the business of all three Houses. Hon members should enable him to inform the responsible Ministers of legislation that they have to take care of. It so happens that today and yesterday we had the same legislation on the Order Papers of all three Houses more or less at the same time. That is why we had a very tight schedule.

In this context the hon member for Reservoir Hill remarked that this was due to the stupid system. However, the hon member knows full well that the business that is now before the House, came up long before the joint meetings. The Rules changed very recently. Some of the business that is before the House at the moment, and the other Houses as well, is part of the phasing out of the procedures that existed at that time when the Rules were changed. If the hon member has any particular desire in this respect, he must address the Chief Whip of Parliament, because he is the person that arranges the business of Parliament. If he has any submission to make, I suggest he take up the matter with the Chief Whip of Parliament. I am only fulfilling my instructions in terms of the legislation that we have to take care of.

I now come to the Bill. The hon member Mr Nowbath supported the Bill and explained himself in that regard. I want to thank him for his support. The hon the Minister of the Budget referred mainly to the question of the proceedings, and I think I have already dealt with that.

My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, referred to the Bill and made certain points to which I would like to react. Firstly, I would like to confirm what he said, namely that the purpose of this Bill is not to validate any illegal actions of the government of KwaNdebele over the period since 1984. Nobody in the Government, and I believe nobody in this House, would like to see any illegitimate actions of that government condoned in any way through this Bill. That is not the aim of this Bill and I would just like to confirm that.

Regarding the date of the elections, I believe the hon member will know that it was discussed in a joint standing committee. The point is that it is difficult to fix a date now, although it is specified that it should take place as soon as possible. Of course, the purpose of this Bill is to create legal certainty. That is why it is very necessary that it should be done as soon as possible, otherwise we will have to perpetuate a situation which clearly now exists in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. To rectify that the elections need to take place as soon as possible.

I would like to point out that the elections will take place in terms of this Bill because the Government wants to rectify the situation and not because anybody else, not even the government of KwaNdebele, requires it to take place. In other words, the purpose of this Bill has been instigated by Parliament.

In connection with the number of members to be elected, the hon the Deputy Minister said that 16 were not enough and that the number should be increased. At least more people will now be entitled to vote in view of the fact that women there are now also getting the vote. It is true, but the point is that it will take some time to allocate more seats there. An investigation will have to be undertaken in order to ascertain how many more seats are necessary, whatever the case may be. We will have to make provision for that. For that reason, again because of the time factor, it was decided to keep to the existing 16. At a later stage an extension of the numbers could, of course, be considered.

The hon member also referred to the fact that provision was only made for the election of 16 members and the vast majority of the members of the legislative assembly would still be appointed, or traditionally and indirectly elected, whatever the case may be. The hon member knows that this is very much the traditional way and it also exists in the case of other self-governing territories, for instance KaNgwane, where none of the members of the Legislative Assembly are presently directly elected. Although provision is made for that, there has not been an election in KaNgwane, for instance. The point is therefore that we have a traditional development in the case of the selfgoverning territories. We will have to take cognizance of the fact that a process is also developing in the case of KaNgwane.

I think I have dealt with the points raised by my hon colleague. I have referred to the remarks of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He indicated that he opposed the Bill, although it seemed to me, if I heard him correctly, that he was not altogether against the principle here …

You heard me correctly.

… in the sense that he argued that it should be necessary to validate the actions of the last four years. However, for reasons he explained he cannot support this Bill, although he can see the necessity for the principle which underlies this Bill.

I would then argue that if he supports the principle, he may just as well vote for the Bill, although we take note of the fact that he does not support every single bit of the contents of the Bill. However, the Bill is necessary in view of the fact that we have to validate the actions that took place over the last four years since 1984 in that selfgoverning territory of KwaNdebele. At the same time this Bill also—and time is very important— provides for the legal vote of women in that territory. I would like to argue that I do not believe any member of this House would refrain from letting women have the vote in KwaNdebele. For that reason I would like to urge hon members to support the Bill.

Order! Before the House is adjourned I want to place on record the personal thanks and gratitude of the presiding officers to each and every hon member who has made our sitting in the Chair and our presiding over the House over the last few months and weeks very memorable. For example, we had the introduction of the new Rules and I must pay tribute to each and every hon member, as well as the Secretariat, for contributing towards making the application of the new Rules as smooth as possible.

For the information of hon members I must say that we dealt with 96 Bills in this House. Today alone we dealt with six within a very short space of time. This is a tribute to the hon members of this House. May I, on behalf of the presiding officers, wish hon members a very pleasant six or seven weeks. Today we have concluded the first leg of this session and I wish hon members Godspeed and a safe return to their homes and dear ones. May we meet back here in good spirits on 22 August. May you enjoy your holiday.

Mr Chairman, before the House is adjourned, would you allow me a few words of appreciation to yourself on behalf of this side of the House?

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we would also like to record our appreciation to yourself for the able manner in which you have conducted the affairs of this House during this session. Our thanks and appreciation also go to the officials who have been so willing and helpful at all times.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to thank all the presiding officers, and you in particular, not only for the amiability that has been shown to us from the Chair, but the complete impartiality that the Chair has exhibited towards all members on both sides of this House. This we appreciate very much. Through you, Mr Chairman, may we also record our appreciation to the Secretariat, who have always been willing to explain and elucidate various matters regarding interpretation of the Rules and parliamentary traditions and conventions to all hon members of this House. Thank you also for bearing with our jokes. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the kind remarks that you made and I hope that all hon members will make good use of their time in this short recess. We wish them well and at the same time we too, from both sides of the House, wish to express our very deep appreciation to you and to the Secretariat. I think that this House has gone through quite a challenging period during the last few months. However, your presiding over this House has enabled us to conduct the business of this House as successfully as we have done. For this we are very grateful to you and may we, too, wish you and your family well over the recess.

Own Affairs:

1. 1.
   1. (a) Development and Housing Amendment Bill (House of Assembly) [B 108—88 (HA)]—(House Committee on Environment Affairs (House of Assembly)).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.
2. 2.
   1. (a) Technical Colleges Amendment Bill (House of Assembly) [B 109—88 (HA)]— (House Committee on Education (House of Assembly)).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.