Mr Chairman, as I indicated in the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, we do not agree with the transference of the right of appeal from the industrial court to the Minister. Clause 1(b) reads:

As this has direct reference to clause 5 and to the movement away from the industrial court to the Minister I must, in order to be consistent, move as an amendment:

I shall not motivate this amendment further, but rather leave the rest of that argument until clause 5 is considered.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches also intend to move an amendment when clause 5 is dealt with, and because, as the hon member for Pinelands has said, the argument can be more appropriately advanced when clause 5 is being discussed, I am merely rising to say that the CP associates itself with the amendment of the hon member for Pinelands.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition, Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, this clause is the crux of the Bill and we have debated this provision at some length at Second Reading. It is well-known that the Labour Relations Act was amended in 1981 to require unregistered unions to fulfil the obligations required of registered unions. These obligations include provisions for the registering of a constitution, details of office bearers, membership records, audited books and accounts and abstention from political affiliation. I will not refer to the specific provisions in the Act, because I think they are well-known to those of us who take an interest in these matters. The important point I want to make at this stage is that those failing to provide membership records and audited books and accounts are guilty of an offence. Failure to provide a constitution and details of office bearers is not an offence. The Act was not at the same time amended, although it was strongly suggested by this side of the House, to offer any rights to unregistered unions in return for the duties imposed on them by the new provisions. However, a subsequent amendment—and I referred to it yesterday in my speech during the Second Reading debate—has allowed unregistered unions to request the Minister to establish a conciliation board to settle a dispute, which also then opens up the possibility of access by those unregistered unions to the industrial court. These are significant rights for unregistered unions and they encourage settlement of disputes by constitutional means rather than by having resort to strike action and other forms of obstruction. These rights are open to unions who have submitted their constitutions and details of office bearers to the Registrar, that maintain a membership register, details of membership fees and audited books of account, and have their head office in the RSA. This, of course, makes nonsense of the extravagant remarks of the hon the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate when he simplistically suggested that anyone who opposes this Bill is arguing for a permissive approach rather than a disciplined approach.

Sure.

The hon the Minister says “sure”. I want that on record. I want to ask him a question. Does he then by implication suggest that the FCI is propagating a permissive approach to labour relations by virtue of the fact that they opposed this Bill?

I am not saying that.

You did say that.

I am not saying they are doing it. [Interjections.]

What we have is a direct insinuation by the hon the Minister that the FCI and the Transvaal Chamber of Commerce and half the people who have submitted representations to the select committee are advocating a permissive attitude towards labour relations. I think it is a scandalous remark. It is one thing for him to attack me as a political opponent and to try to confuse the issue by drawing a red herring across the path by suggesting that I am being permissive.

You are asking for it again and you are going to get it.

No, the hon the Minister is confused. He looked for it yesterday and is getting it now. We were not able to reply to his insinuations yesterday. The hon the Minister suggests that the NRP and PFP are abandoning a disciplined approach and rather choose the way of permissiveness. That is a smear that is unacceptable to us who sit in these benches and I would ask the hon the Minister to reconsider those words and to argue on the merits we placed before him.

You are ignoring the merits.

No, not at all. What the hon the Minister is doing is that he is ignoring the fact that a great number of people in South Africa and responsible institutions—Assocom and FCI are hardly irresponsible Progs—are actually saying it is unwise to proceed with this legislation. The hon the Minister cannot say they are being permissive, but he can say I am being permissive. It seems silly.

You enjoy being permissive. [Interjections.]

That is right. I think that the hon the Minister probably wants to retract those words. So I shall give him an opportunity a little later on to do so. I appreciate his bigness of spirit in realizing he is wrong and changing his mind. [Interjections.]

The rights I referred to a moment ago, before I was somewhat distracted by the hon the Minister, are open to unions—and that makes my point—who have submitted their constitutions and details of office bearers to the Registrar, who maintain a membership register, details of membership fees and audited books of account and who have their head offices in the RSA. Such a union is hardly an undisciplined union. It is not necessary, however—and that is the point— for the membership records or the audited statements to have been submitted to the Registrar, although in practice the Registrar may require sight of such documents in order to satisfy himself that they are kept. The factual legal position is that an unregistered union can exercise significant legal rights without fulfilling all the requirements of the Act. Whether this is because of inadequate drafting or because of a policy decision is not clear, but that is the fact of the matter.

The threat of penalties appears to be insufficient to induce a few unions to meet the obligations under the Act. Thus far there have been no prosecutions for failure to meet obligations, which suggests that the authorities are reluctant to take the step. The current amendment, the amendment contained in clause 3, appears to be designed to ensure conformity by declaring agreements made by such unions null and void. I suggested yesterday—and I want to enlarge on that suggestion—that this new approach to bringing unregistered unions under the surveillance of the Registrar is undesirable for the following reasons: It strikes at the freedom of contract without achieving any significant social purpose; it does not provide a more powerful carrot—or stick—to ensure the conformity to the law that appears to be one of the purposes and it introduces, certainly, an element of uncertainty and bureaucratic untidiness into certain of the industrial courts; activities, particularly with regard to unfair dismissals or retrenchments. If another intention is to coax certain unions to register, it is unlikely to be successful because of certain fundamental objections to the registration process. I want to repeat that the size of the problem it seems to be addressing does not warrant this loss of freedom of contract and the official intervention in the labour market it represents. One can debate this at great length but I simply set that out in point form.

We will be voting against this clause. We will not be moving any specific amendment to it because we believe that the whole clause is unnecessary, premature and undesirable. There is a last point that I wish to make at this stage. If the intention of this amendment is to coax all unions into registering, then the registration process itself should be scrutinized to see whether it is desirable or necessary. These are the questions which form the subjects of the report of the National Manpower Commission, and this is further evidence in favour of the point which we are making, namely that this clause should wait until such time as the representations have been received. The hon the Minister told us yesterday that he has extended the time for representations. Why has he done that? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the reasoning of the hon member for Pinelands. He knows that there was argument about this specific clause in the select committee.

The hon member saw fit to mention by name certain bodies which objected to the insertion of clause 3. However, I think the hon member should consider all the evidence because there are certainly prominent bodies that advocated that this clause should indeed be embodied in the Bill. For example, there are the comments of the National Manpower Commission; the SA Printing and Allied Industries Federation; the SA Boilermakers’, Iron and Steel Workers’ and Welders’ Association; the SA Confederation of Labour—which is of particular importance—and the Motor Industry Combined Workers’ Union. I do not think that this matter is as drastic as the hon member sought to have us believe.

What is envisaged by way of this clause is that unless parties to an agreement comply with specific requirements, the provisions of such an agreement, express or implied, will not be enforceable in any court, including an industrial court. The whole aim of setting basic statutory requirements is to ensure that labour organizations function on a sound and lawful basis. It may well be asked why this should be done. In the first place, it is done to protect the interests of members and, secondly, so that the other parties in a negotiation relationship have an indication of the bona fides and the standing of the labour organization in question. This is very important when labour is being discussed. By way of the amendment an effort is being made to regulate matters so that the parties to the bargaining process may know that the other party at least complies with the basic given statutory requirements. This will eliminate unnecessary doubt and be conducive to the creation of confidence.

It is clear that it will be in the interests of a labour organization to comply with the basic statutory requirements if it has any wish to perform its functions of collective bargaining and enforce the results by law. This could also perhaps be more broadly stated. The reason for the proposed provision which requires agreements to be submitted is to give the department a better overall picture of the field of collective bargaining as a whole. It will also help to identify labour organizations which it is unaware of. The department has a tremendous problem in that it is sometimes unable to identify certain labour organizations. Often the existence of a labour organization comes to the attention of the department for the first time by way of newspaper reports on disputes that it is involved in. This is a state of affairs that we cannot accept. Moreover, concern has been expressed in various circles that such agreements may incorporate provisions that would have a restrictive effect on the labour market and limit access.

Therefore I cannot agree with the hon member for Pinelands and I take pleasure in supporting this clause.

Mr Chairman, we listened very intently yesterday to what the hon the Minister had to say in his Second Reading regarding clause 3. He revealed himself as a master in the presentation of one side of the story, as an absolute master. He put forward a very strong and powerful case for his particular point of view. Regrettably, however, he did not deal with the merits of this clause. The hon the Minister only addressed himself to one facet of the problem. This clause is the nub of the Bill and certainly the nub of our objection to the Bill. The hon the Minister agrees that we have a problem and we recognize the fact that the hon the Minister and the department have a problem with labour relations. The problem is that there are five or six unregistered unions that are participating—as the hon member for Pinelands indicated— within the framework of the law to a very large extent in the process of collective bargaining. The hon the Minister now wants those people to conform to certain prescriptions, and the sanction if they do not do that, according to this Bill, is that they will not be able to take their agreements to court in the event of a dispute. That is the sanction for non-participation. What the hon the Minister failed to realize yesterday, although I think he does know but only failed to say so, is that there are alternative solutions to the problem. When the hon the Minister accuses the PFP and by implication also the NRP of advocating a laissez-faire approach to trade unionism, I say that is absolute rubbish. I made it very clear that we agree with the National Manpower commission’s recommendation which I read out to the hon the Minister, namely that one alternative to the problem is to have minimum requirements for registration and to enforce them by law. If the hon the Minister therefore says that if we oppose this clause we are in fact advocating a laissez-faire approach to it, it is totally incorrect. In fact, what the hon the Minister said by implication—I agree with the hon member for Pinelands here that the hon the Minister has thrown a very wide net over those who advocate a laissez-faire approach—means that he is going against the majority decision of his own National Manpower Commission. They very strongly recommended—I suggest the hon member for Overvaal should read the National Manpower commission’s report—minimum requirements for registration. They did not support what the hon the Minister has contained in clause 3 as an alternative. There were minority reports as well, and not even they advocated that this should become law.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that the reason why we would prefer to vote against this clause is that by doing that we are maintaining the status quo. The status quo is operating successfully, although I agree with the hon the Minister that it does not operate entirely successfully. If one looks at the number of unregistered unions which have during the past five years moved into the registered situation and if one looks at the relative industrial peace we have today, then the present system is working relatively well.

The hon the Minister and the hon member for Overvaal gave us their motivation for this amending clause, for two reasons. The first reason is to maintain industrial peace and to protect the workers—the members of the trade unions—as the hon member for Overvaal has just reminded us. The second reason, according to the hon the Minister, is to satisfy the grievances of registered trade unions who ask why they should conform to the law while the others are allowed to participate without proper registration. Those are the two aspects one has to argue on merit.

In the first instance, let me say to the hon member for Overvaal that it is definitely not in the interests of members of an unregistered trade union to allow them to negotiate a contract with an employer only to find that in the event of a dispute they cannot enforce it. How does one then protect the interests of members of a trade union if one says to them that they may enter into a contract but that they may not enforce it? That is bluff. In that way one is not looking after the members at all. It is in the interests of the members to know whether their union is a properly registered union or not, and once it is properly registered to know that their contracts have force and viability in the eyes of the law.

Secondly, as far as the motivation of the hon the Minister is concerned, we are aware of the fact that the majority of unions would like to see all unions registered, but what the hon the Minister omits to tell the House is that an unregistered union cannot become a member of an industrial council. The established, registered unions have all the advantages in the world because they are in the driver’s seat. It is extremely difficult and highly unlikely that an unregistered union will find access to and become a member of an industrial council. It is at the industrial council forum that the real powerhouse of agreements is to be found. I am therefore not all that sympathetic to the other unions who complain about the fact there are five or six unregistered unions who are participating in the negotiating process.

Let me make it absolutely clear that our preference too is to see all unions properly registered. We do not believe that unions should be allowed to operate in South Africa without fulfilling the minimum requirements for registration, as the hon member for Pinelands read out to us today. They are not onerous at all nor cumbersome. Only those who have something to hide or those who are acting in male fide have any reason not to want to register in South Africa. We are therefore all for it. However, we do not accept the reasons given by the hon the Minister and the reasons given by the hon member for Overvaal in any way and will therefore vote against the clause.

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon member for Pinelands made several references to the Wiehan report, the legislation that resulted from it and the benefits of that legislation. This legislation, and this specific clause, arises out of that report. It is essential to give that legislation teeth and not make it absolutely ridiculous. What would be the point of having a dispensation whereby certain obligations were imposed on people if they were able to enjoy the benefits of the dispensations without complying with the obligations? If that were to happen, it would be an absolutely ridiculous situation.

In my opinion, the hon member for Pine-lands did not reply on the merit of the argument, because if he had done so he would have had to be consistent and say that there should be no obligations. If there need be no obligations, then there need be no legislation either. If the hon member rejects the latter statement, he must recognize that there must be obligations. Therefore the hon member is not being consistent.

The hon member for Durban North said that he did not advocate laissez-faire because, according to him, there was an alternative solution, viz that there should be minimum requirements for registration. However, he must then say what those requirements are to be. I cannot recall his ever arguing this point in the committee.

I take pleasure in supporting this clause.

Mr Chairman, in support of the standpoint of the hon member for Pinelands, I wish at this juncture to express my disappointment at the hon the Minister’s reaction yesterday, not only with reference to the specific instance which the hon member mentioned, but, in the main, in respect of the hon the Minister’s reaction to this clause. The hon the Minister said that if one had listened superficially to the opposition spokesmen, one might perhaps have been impressed.

Yes, that is quite right.

Yesterday I mentioned the names of a large number of organizations that did, indeed, have reservations about clause 3. Surely the hon the Minister cannot contend that those people are unacquainted with the finer details of the workings of the labour system. Therefore, by making that statement the hon the Minister was in fact accusing all those bodies of a superficial knowledge and insight into the labour legislation. That is the implication of what the hon the Minister said. Many of those bodies have adopted precisely the same standpoint as we have. Therefore I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could reply on this specific point.

It has been contended that this legislation only affects a small group of people. This was put to us in the select committee. This clause concerns the degree of coersion to which unregistered trade unions are subjected, in the sense that if they take part in negotiations or agreements, such agreements will not be enforceable in court. In the latest report of the Manpower Commission, in Schedule 3.1, page 400, there appears a list of unregistered trade unions with members from the Black population groups, and according to that list there are no fewer than 51 unregistered trade unions. The membership of those unregistered trade unions that we know of numbers 91 680. Then, too, there are several mentioned in the Schedule the membership of which is unknown. In the circumstances I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could explain to me, when we speak of unregistered trade unions, how it can in fact be true that only a handful are at issue here. If we look at the other details provided in table 3/4 on page 75 of the report, we see that the total number of Black people involved in registered trade unions is a mere 394 510. Therefore there is a substantial number of Black people involved in unregistered trade unions at the moment, as far as we know. Therefore it is not merely a handful of people involved here. If my interpretation is correct, then the intention of this clause is in fact to subject those people to a degree of indirect coercion.

In the circumstances I also wish to say that the reaction of the hon the Minister disappointed me, as did the attitude he adopted. I gained the impression that he thought that attack was the best means of defence. The hon the Minister is a good party politician and I can understand that as a party politician he believes that in this instance attack is the best weapon. However, the hon the Minister knows far better than I that in the field of labour relations we certainly cannot adopt that kind of attitude. I say that this is my impression because the hon the Minister did not answer the basic points as regards our problems in respect of this clause. He gave us no indication as to why it was essential to proceed with this and why we could not wait until representations had been received and the Government’s White Paper published.

Finally, I wish to put a question to the hon the Minister in connection with subsection (4). This matter was also raised in the select committee. In terms of this subsection, all the existing agreements entered into between the employers and works councils on the shop floors which existed before these amendments and which are indeed also recognized in the whole set-up of the manpower report, will now be called into question. If so, what will the implications be? If notice is not given, then in terms of subsection (4), the date of inception is deemed to be the date of inception of this legislation. What will the implications of that be if employers do not comply with the requirements set in Bill?

The requirement of notice?

Yes, the requirement of notice. The question of enforceability is also at issue here, because those works councils can in fact be told that they are subject to the provisions of the proposed section 31A(1) (b) (iii), viz:

It does seem to me that a works council will fall under that provision. Technically speaking, therefore, those agreements would not be enforceable either, and in such instances an employer could be fined if he did not submit the report as required in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank those hon members who have taken part in the debate so far. I am pleased that I now have the opportunity to reply to a few accusations levelled at me here. In the first place I want to say to the hon member Prof Olivier, who now says that I have apparently decided that attack is the best means of defence in forcing the matter through, that I am not on the defence. I have nothing to defend. I think we have a very good case on the facts before us, and therefore it is unnecessary to attack.

I now turn to the essence of the criticism advanced by the hon member for Pinelands, and also, to an extent, that advanced by the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Durban North. Hon members say that I said that people who were opposed to this measure advocated a permissive system. Is there anyone in this House today who wants us to have a labour system without rules? Is there anyone who says that we should have no control and that there should be no rules?

That is not the point.

I am here taking steps to keep a trade union that does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Act—let alone register—within the rules, within the white lines of the field, and one way of doing so is to minimize, to reduce the privileges they enjoy because they act as a trade union. That is the point at issue. I want to go further by saying that the hon member Prof Olivier argues here as if this measure is aimed at unregistered trade unions. The fact is that there are 59 unregistered trade unions in the country with about 140 000 members, and only six of them do not comply with any statutory requirements. It is these six that this legislation will apply to. The issue here is not per se one of registration. However, the situation could arise in which unregistered trade unions exist which do comply with the minimum requirements of the Act, and on that basis they can make use of the machinery for negotiation. Those that do not comply with the minimum requirements cannot demand a conciliation board; they cannot request stoporder facilities nor, for example, do they have access to a board of review in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Clause 3 merely inserts a further item in the list, viz that they cannot conclude legally enforceable agreements, apart from the other disadvantages. It has always been the intention to extend the benefits of compliance with these minimum requirements, and the crux of the matter is that if a trade union complies with the minimum requirements, it obtains a number of benefits. If it goes further and registers, it obtains still further advantages. In fact this is a “carrot” approach that is being adopted in order to draw people into the system.

We want to follow this method so that it will not be necessary for us to use the Act to take legal action against people. I am of the opinion—and I think the hon member Prof Olivier will agree with me—that the way to draw people into the system is rather to give them more benefits the more they comply with the requirements. We must ensure that it is to the advantage to play the game and to acquire the benefits of the Act on a voluntary basis, instead of summarily prosecuting them. One prosecutes people because they do not comply with certain requirements, but here one is trying to get them to comply with those requirements by giving them the benefit of the machinery for the settlement of disputes in terms of this legislation. We cannot advocate a system in which there are no rules.

We do not do so either.

What is the hon member’s alternative? Does he want me simply to let things continue as they are? [Interjections.] No, the hon member must tell me. He must rise and say: “Man, withdraw clause 3 and prosecute the people in the courts.” The hon member is opposed to what I am doing here, but he neglects to tell me what I should do instead. He argues that it is unnecessary for us to do anything in any event. The hon member on that side adopt the standpoint that this is unnecessary. They want to know why this is necessary, why we want to do these things. It is the hon member’s standpoint that in the first place, it should not be done, and in the second, they see no reason to do it.

The stabilized trade unions in this country all want this legislation. The hon member Prof Olivier has pointed out that the Mine Surface Officials’ Association does not support it. It is there, they do not support it, because they want registration. Therefore they would prefer more stringent measures. They want me to enforce registration.

I cannot be deaf to organized labour in South Africa which, over the course of many years, has pulled us through, and which, over the course of many years, has, in the vast majority of cases, acted with the utmost responsibility. As far as the employers are concerned there is pressure from their side too, for this legislation, because as the hon member Mr Schutte and the hon member for Overvaal argued, an employer wants to know whom he is dealing with, after all. The man who approaches him and says he wants to negotiate—who is he? That is what the employer wants to know. Is it a person who means well with the workers, or is it merely an agitator whose aim is incitement? The employer wants to know whether that man is a person who does at least know something. Is he skilled, or is he merely an agitator? I think the employer is entitled to know whom he is dealing with, because this creates confidence in the system. It must not simply be a Tom, Dick or Harry that walks in there; the man just at least “have his papers”, if I may put it that way. It must be a man who is registered and is therefore complying with the statutory requirements.

The hon member tried to get me over a barrel politically by saying that I had said by implication—I think the hon member Prof Olivier enjoyed this, because they thought they had me in a corner—that Assocom and FCI were all people who preached permissiveness in the labour field because in the comments they submitted to the select committee, they said that they did not support this clause, amongst other things. Therefore they, too, are the champions of a permissive, undisciplined labour system in South Africa.

That is the implication.

Precisely. The hon member said that I was a good politician. I know it, and I thank the hon member for that tribute. I shall use that part of the Hon member’s Hansard in my constituency. I appreciate it. I think that the hon member for Pinelands is a good judge of a good politician. I appreciate his admiration. I really do not object to it.

However, the hon member and the hon member Prof Olivier are themselves shrewd politicians. [Interjections.] No, look, this is not a courtship, because here comes the knock-out blow. [Interjections.] Assocom and FCI objected to the Bill as originally published. At the request of the hon member for Pinelands I had the Bill referred to a Select Committee. What, inter alia, were the objections raised by Assocom and FCI? I do not wish to go into detail, but they were, inter alia, that the legislation would be of retrospective effect. Existing agreements entered into by trade unions which did not comply with the minimum requirements would therefore be invalid, or could be made invalid by the legislation. They argued that I would cause confusion among employers and employees, because agreements that had been negotiated over a long period, and that had resulted in order, would be invalidated by this legislation and that this would give rise to unrest. What was our reaction? We decided not to give it retrospective effect. The select committee recommended that it should not be retrospective and that the agreements already entered into should take their course. I consented to that, and thereby eliminated the serious objection to the new Bill advanced by certain people. I have not yet received any objection to the new Bill.

Another objection advanced by the FCI, Assocom and various other organizations was that it would be expected of people to send the department the finer details of agreements, so that the department could ascertain what percentage was involved, and so on. We then accommodated that objection by saying that the agreements need no longer be sent to the department. That is not what we are interested in; we are interested in what they have done in terms of how the disputes were settled and what they were about, eg wages, the handling of grievances, how many employees were affected and what class of workers was affected. Last night I read to the hon member what we expected of those people. This objection was blown up into a major issue by the newspapers and it was said that the Government wanted to prescribe to trade unions and employers, in that agreements had to be sent to Pretoria and that we would examine them and prescribe what should appear in the agreements. All these agreements now lapse, because all we want to know about is the subject of negotiation. Therefore the major objection has been eliminated by the select committee. If the hon member for Pinelands says that I am implying that the FCI and Assocom are champions of permissiveness, then that is not correct. They were opposed to the legislation as originally published, and, as befits a sensible Government and a sensible Minister, we listened to what they had to say and the Bill was amended by a select committee. I believe that what we have here now is legislation against which substantice arguments really cannot be advanced.

Apparently there is confusion in the ranks of the Opposition because some of them feel that the Bill is aimed at all unregistered trade unions. I want to reiterate that there are 59 unregistered trade unions, but that there are six that do not comply with the minimum requirements. Those 59 are not affected by this legislation. It is only the few that say that they disregard any rules and do just as they like, that will be affected by this. The legislation as such is not aimed at the other 59 trade unions, because they retain the limited rights they possess in terms of the principal Act with regard to the machinery for bargaining and settlement prescribed in that Act.

The hon member for Overvaal stated the valid point relating to the identification of trade unions. Many people telephone us at the department to ask who certain people are and whether some specific trade union does exist. If a trade union has not been registered we cannot assist those people, or sometimes we say that we have only heard of a union by that name. After all, for the sake of good order, one must know who these people are, where they come from and what they are doing.

†The hon member for Durban North said that we have several alternatives for solving this problem. What does the hon member suggest is the best solution? Should we take these people to court? What is the hon member’s suggestion? I could not make it out. I take it the hon member was implying that I must take them to court. As I have said, I do not think it would be wise to do that. I think it would be better to follow the other course and make it attractive for them to comply with the Act. If they comply with the minimum registration standards, they will enjoy additional privileges and rights in terms of the Act.

*The hon member asked how I was protecting the members in this way if I did not see to it that their agreements would have legal validity in a court. He said that that was nonsense. The point is just this: What do we expect of a trade union? Here I have its members in mind. We say that a trade union must keep its books. We say that it must have a constitution and issue an annual report in which it reports what it has done with its members’ money. Surely that is in accordance with the nature of public funds. If unions do not register and do not comply with the minimum requirements of having their accounts audited and their financial statements submitted annually, then that is to the detriment of the members, because then the unions can spend that money just as they like. Therefore we are protecting the members in this regard. I believe that in the end the hon member for Durban North will concede this point. We are disciplining the activities of the union and drawing it into the system in order to have it comply with the minimum statutory requirements. In fact, it is now being made possible for it to bargain, and therefore its members will not support it. If one draws it into the Act, it is subject to discipline and has to have its accounts audited, it has to submit them and and report to its members at an annual meeting. In that way the members are protected in that there is a regular report to the members, auditing takes place and the members of the trade union know what is being done with their money. Indeed, that is the valid and decisive argument: We are protecting the members of the trade union by having the union comply with certain rules.

We must bear in mind—and I should like to ask this House to understand this—that in the field of labour we are experiencing a process of evolution. We have entered a broad new field and in many respects we are breaking new ground. To many of our Black workers who may not be literate to any great extent, the trade unions are an alien world. They believe the trade union representative. After all, he is the man who negotiates on their behalf. I do not think we should allow people who are not subject to discipline, to gain control of those workers who may still be ignorant and inexperienced. If such people obtain control over them, I think that that will be to the detriment of the workers. We must regulate these people. It is in just the same say that one cannot allow just anyone to act as a doctor. I should have no hesitation in approaching the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation for medical treatment, but I should not approach, say, the hon member for Sunnyside for medical treatment, because he does not have his papers, he is not a medical doctor. I say this merely by way of comparison. In the same way, I should let the hon member for Sunnyside to do my bookkeeping, but not the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] I am not talking about Die Patriot now. The point I want to make is that one has to know who one is dealing with. One has to know whether the person in question knows what he is doing.

Up to now you have been very good, but not any more.

I want to say to the hon member for Kuruman that I have not hurt anyone now.

I again want to say to the hon member for Durban North that this clause does not deal with registration per se. It has to do with compliance with the minimum statutory requirements. I just wanted to make that point very clear.

The hon member Mr Schutte rightly said that the hon member for Pinelands had not really given an answer based on the merits of the legislation. The hon member for Pine-lands failed to say whether there should be obligations or not. Surely the crux of the matter is the question whether there are obligations. There cannot only be privileges, with no responsibilities. The issue here is simply one of minimum responsibilities, and the responsibilities we impose on trade unions in that way do not inhibit or limit them, nor do they make them less effective. We build a rugby field, draw the lines and erect the poles, and after that the players themselves must play. We do not interfere in their playing; we merely provide an impartial umpire and we draw the lines within which they have to play, because after all, they must not play in the street. Nor should they kick one another, but only the ball. That is what this whole matter amounts to.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the Black trade union members. The allegation was initially made that the legislation was aimed at Black people, but I wish to place it on record once again that there is no connotation of colour, or discrimination on the basis of colour, in this legislation. If certain population groups, minority or majority groups, happen to fall in certain categories and are affected by this legislation, then that is merely a coincidence. I want to emphasize this. Anyone who contends that this legislation entails discrimination and that it is aimed at a specific population group is not only telling a lie but is also very irresponsible. I am not referring now to any specific member; I just wish to state this point clearly.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that I should not be aggressive and attack them. However, there is a time for everything. If one is too accommodating, then eventually one’s wife will sit on one’s head. Therefore there is a time to be accommodating and there is also a time when one must take disciplinary action. One must always be guided by the norm of reasonableness, and must sometimes fight for reasonableness from the other side.

Therefore the hon member need not be concerned that I shall upset the apple cart as far as labour is concerned, but he must also recognize that I shall not tolerate things being said which really have no substance.

Mr Chairman, it is difficult to know where to begin. The hon the Minister saddles up about 100 donkeys and goes galloping in all directions. However, most of them won’t even run, and I will therefore not follow those. The hon the Minister is the victim of rhetorical fiction. By this I mean that he creates his own world of arguments, and one can never lose a debate if one does that. One simply goes round and round in your own world. The hon the Minister then said that if we thought we had him in the corner, he was going to deliver the knock-out blow. What was this knock-out blow? He says that the FCI, for example, and many other employer organizations and not one union have objected to this.

We on this side of the House have not in one instance in any of our arguments advocated the cause of any particular trade union, registered or unregistered. The bulk of the representation, where there has been substantive argument, have come not from trade unions—certainly not from unregistered trade unions—but from employers who have to deal with the hurly-burly of industrial relations every day of their lives. The hon the Minister says they had objections to the original Bill. So did we. It is for that reason that we asked for the Bill to be referred to a select committee. But since improvements have been effected, he says all arguments have been silenced. What is the truth? The truth is that whilst the select committee was meeting and subsequent to the evidence which had already been sent in, organizations sent telexes, some of which I quoted in the Second Reading. I quote from one:

That was one of our major arguments. The Minister says we do not argue on the merits. He says that we have no alternatives to offer and that we want to have no rules, no regulations and no discipline. The hon the Minister heard what I said yesterday in a most effective speech. Surely he must have heard it. I made the point over and over again that there is a difference in style and substance. The style of this hon Minister is to go in there and get hold of them. [Interjections.] I am suggesting to the hon the Minister—I repeat it for the last time—that apart from the fact that we believe that there are contentious issues in this clause he ought to hold this Bill back. That is also what I was saying when I ended my first participation in this Committee Stage.

The hon the Minister announced yesterday that he has now extended the time period in which people can make representations on the basis of the National Manpower Commission’s report. Why has he done that? He has done it because a number of bodies regard that document as so important, so lengthy and so involved that they need more time in which to prepare their arguments and their cases. There will be many arguments presented because this is a very complicated report. Even the National Manpower Commission itself is divided. There are majority and minority votes. That extension of time only strengthens our argument. The hon member for Durban North is absolutely right that the issue of registration is at stake here. There is one particular point made by the National Manpower Commission, a point which fundamentally relates to clause 3 and which strengthens our argument that this is a premature Bill and that we should wait until we have had all the evidence. The hon the Minister wants to have half a case heard by half a jury and a half-wit of a judge, and then wants to go ahead. What we are saying, is that one should first hear all the comment and evidence and read the Government’s White Paper before we go ahead.

The hon member Mr Schutte asked me earlier whether I wanted there to be no duties and responsibilities. Of course he is being absurd. There are already, written into the legislation, regulations, duties and responsibilities. I have supported this legislation all along the line. The hon member knows that. He must also certainly know, and the hon the Minister should know, that when an employer has to face a trade union he does not do it in an atmosphere such as in this austere Chamber, where everybody is relaxed and can laugh and make interjections. He suddenly finds himself confronted with a group of people who say to him that they are a trade union. The hon the Minister says that trade unions must have papers, etc. Of course, the first thing the employer asks for is the trade union’s constitution. He will find out what the name of the trade union is, how many people in his particular undertaking support it, etc. Those are the very first questions that are asked. They are not irresponsible or permissive employers. That is why the FCI, Assocom, the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, and so many others, are concerned that we should make haste slowly. The hon member Mr Schutte does not seem to understand the background against which we are debating this incredibly important clause. The legislation which we regard as almost old hat now is for many people still very new. Most employers do not even know that this new Bill has been tabled. I want to ask the hon the Minister that if a sub-committee, the Industrial Relations Sub-committee of the National Manpower Commission, still has reservations and feels that this Bill should be deferred because they believe it is premature, are they being permissive? Surely not. I have read these improvements out on the telephone to a number of this sub-committee’s members and they say that they cannot believe that the Government is going ahead with this provision. It is therefore not a question of being permissive or being against regulations or duties; it is a question of doing what is right. That is the point. We have stated that we welcome the improvements and are grateful for them. But they are not enough. The fact that we have a criminal sanction in order to get information seems to us to be quite absurd and seems to be using a very large hammer on a very small problem.

We stand by our criticisms. There are a number of major difficulties that we have with this clause. For instance, we think the timing is quite wrong, and therefore, despite all the many arguments or half-arguments raised by the hon the Minister, we regret we must vote against this clause.

Mr Chairman, after listening to the hon the Minister I am absolutely convinced that he is one man who can put a bad case very well. I listened very carefully to what the hon the Minister said and we certainly cannot fault him on his strategy. But his argument still does not ring true, and I will tell him why. I stated in my Second Reading speech that this Bill is premature for a variety of reasons and that we would prefer to wait until the comments had been received from those people who had been solicited, until the White Paper had been produced and until we had had an opportunity to look at the width and the depth of the problems and the proposed solutions.

This clause is introducing a whole new concept of law in South Africa. Let me immediately dispel the hon the Minister’s suspicion that there is somebody in this House who wants a situation of no rule. We all agree that there should be rules although we do not agree on what the rules should be. The principle of having rules; the principle of having trade unions working within the framework of the structure of law, with that we agree 100%. The argument is about what the rules should be and, even more important in this clause, what the sanctions should be should a trade union not fulfil the requirements. Whether it is a minimum requirement or whether it is a registration requirement is not the argument. The argument under this clause is that unless a trade union subscribes to the relevant regulations or minimum requirements, the sanction is going to be that it cannot exercise its legal prerogative by taking its agreement to court in the event of a dispute. What we are arguing about is what sanction should apply if there is no regard for the law, whatever that law may be. The Manpower Commission stipulated minimum requirements for registration. We agree with the Manpower Commission. However, what the hon the Minister is introducing here is a new concept in law in South Africa, a concept that we are not be found for. It is going to create practical problems and precedents. In the first instance, the precedent that the hon the Minister is creating is similar to a situation where one is saying to the citizens of one’s country: You may drive a motor vehicle without a licence, but if you have an accident we will not hear your side of the case; only the man who is a licenced driver and is involved in an accident, will be able to defend his rights in a court. It is the same principle, Sir. The hon the Minister is going to allow what ostensibly are “illegal” trade unions to operate but when they want to exercise their constitutional or their legal rights, they will not be able to do it. To us that principle does not make sense at all. It just does not make sense to allow them to participate, to allow them to enter into an agreement with an employer and then not to allow them to take that agreement to court. We think it is highly dangerous.

The hon the Minister asked whether the alternative that we are proposing to the sanction is registration and if they do not subscribe to the registration that they be taken to court. The answer to that is yes; that is so. That is the same with every law in this country. If ones does not subscribe to the law, one is punished for it if the onus is one to fulfil that particular agreement. Let me tell the hon the Minister why. Inevitably there are going to be more strikes in the future, as a result of this clause, than we have had up to the present, and the hon the Minister is going to be forced to take action against those people who participate in illegal strikes, simply because of the volume of strikes that will occur. The only recourse that a trade union has which does not conform with the requirements of this clause, is to exercise its strike option, and that will be illegal. Here I want to say specifically to the hon member for Overvaal and the hon member Mr Schutte that ultimately one will have to take somebody to court. In terms of our prescription and minimum requirements for registration one takes the secretary and the office-bearers of the trade union to court if they do not comply with the law. However, the hon the Minister is going to find himself in the position that within a year or two he is not only going to have to take the trade unionists to court for illegal striking but the employees as well for participating in the illegal strike. That is certainly not looking after the interests of the members of a trade union. Therefore, my argument with the hon the Minister is not that there should not be rules. We agree on that. We do differ in regard to what the rules should be but then we also differ very severely in regard to what the sanctions should be in the event of the parties concerned not abiding by those rules.

I want to urge the hon the Minister not to proceed with this clause. I know that we accepted it at Second Reading and that the hon the Minister has a problem in this regard. However, maybe we can be innovative enough to find some way of doing it. The inevitability is going to be that we are going to have a worse position than we have at the moment because the hon the Minister is going to have to take these people to court, and the adverse publicity overseas in that regard is going to be ten times worse than would have been the case if one prosecuted the trade union secretary for not complying with the minimum requirements.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to point out to the hon the Minister that he has not yet answered my question. I asked him whether the agreements entered into with the former liaison committees, etc, in terms of the Labour Relations Act are involved in this clause. I want to point out to the hon member that in the debate in August 1981 his predecessor said that no fewer than 2 750 liaison committees existed at that stage. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he and the department have any idea how many of these bodies still exist and function. Can he tell me how many agreements that were negotiated at shop floor level are affected by these provisions in the Bill?

The hon the Minister quite rightly referred to the mine surface officials. They advocated stronger measures. However, they are among the few who objected on the basis that this did not go far enough. All the others I mentioned were basically objecting to the whole institution of these enforceable provisions embodied in the clause. I await the hon the Minister’s reply to my question.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply at once to the hon member Prof Olivier. After this legislation has come into effect, only new agreements will not be enforceable. All existing agreements, including those with works councils, will continue to be enforceable. Unfortunately I cannot tell the hon member how many works council agreements exist and how many works councils are functioning at present. However, I should like to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that the National Manpower Commission is at present investigating the statutory bargaining powers of works councils. If there are any agreements on the factory floor at present, they are not invalidated by this legislation. They continue to exist. It is also interesting to note that works councils are not at present juristic persons in terms of the Labour Relations Act. On acceptance of this legislation, the employer will in any event provide statistical information relating to all existing agreements, and then we shall be able to use those data to obtain the information requested by the hon member Prof Olivier.

I listened carefully to the hon member for Pinelands and the hon member for Durban North. The hon member for Durban North stated very clearly that he felt that I should not proceed with this legislation. I must prosecute the secretaries of those trade unions that refuse to comply with the minimum requirements. That was the alternative put to me by the hon member for Durban North.

However, the hon member for Pinelands said to me: “No, man, wait. Do nothing.” Therefore I have to wait until all the comments have been received, and until they have been processed by the National Manpower Commission and even until the department has issued a White Paper. Am I correct in my interpretation of what the hon member said?

Yes.

In other words, the hon member wants me to wait. And that hon member, the hon member for Durban North, says: Take them to court. Those, in fact, are the two alternatives I now have before me.

I turn first to the hon member for Pine-lands. This hon member must tell me why we should wait. The National Manpower Commission came up with the following recommendation after 30 months—two and a half years—of consultation, investigations, etc;

He says that that is not enough and we are hereby making it enough. Surely we are now making it better.

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

Let me just finish my argument first. What we envisage by way of this Bill is precisely in the spirit of what the National Manpower Commission recommended. I concede the point to the hon member for Pinelands and other hon members that if one considers the whole report on collective bargaining, etc, there are several unrelated points that one would like to have comment on. However, this specific point is such a basic point of departure that I am stating here bluntly that I am not prepared to allow myself to be budged from this basic point of departure by anyone, viz that there must be discipline in the system. I think that it is the starting point, the ABC, that there must be discipline, in that everyone must comply with the minimum requirements of the Act. I am not deviating from that. I think it would be irresponsible, and this is the unanimous standpoint of this side of the House. Therefore we need not wait for the National Manpower Commission and various other bodies to tell us that there must be discipline in the system. That goes without saying. The Wiehahn Commission recommended this in their first report. It recommended worse things, eg compulsory registration. In the subsequent report they stated that they had to comply with minimum requirements. In other words, I am not anticipating anything about which another standpoint may be raised. This is a fundamental point of departure from which I am not prepared to deviate.

I want to say once again that we who are concerned with the world of labour from day to day know that the people who do not comply with any of the requirements of the Act are not only a burden on employers but are a burden on the employees as well. They confuse people; they cause problems and they must now be disciplined. Therefore I regret that I must stand by this clause. I am not prepared to accept any amendments, nor am I prepared to withdraw the clause.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon the Minister is adopting this unyielding attitude, but it seems to me that he is not at all open to conviction by reasonable argument.

I now want to come back to my other question concerning the matter of the liaison committees and the works councils. The hon the Minister conceded here that they did not know how many of these liaison committees and works councils existed, how many agreements were in existence or how many Black workers were involved. This is in terms of the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act. I want to say, in all humility, that the hon the Minister’s interpretation of the Bill may have been wrong when he said that this Bill would only apply to new agreements. That is not correct. If the hon the Minister would look at clause 3 of the Bill he would see that subsection (4) reads as follows:

Therefore, all that that subsection provides, as I interpret it, is that they have 90 days from the date of inception of the legislation to provide those details. However, as far as I am concerned the validity of the agreement negotiated creates a problem. If that liaison committee or those works councils are bodies falling within the ambit of the subsection I have just quoted, in the sense that they constitute one or more bodies pursuing a purpose, whether by itself or with other purposes, similar to that of trade unions, then that means that if the Bill is passed we shall have the situation that all those employers who may be involved in agreements that still exist—these are agreements entered into between such liaison committees and works councils—will have to report within 90 days from the date of inception of the legislation on the details or whatever of those agreements.

What is more, if they do not so report, all those agreements are not enforceable in court. Therefore this means that a useless agreement has been entered into between those employers and the employees. If it is true that these bodies do indeed comply with those requirements and therefore are in fact trade unions, this discussion will affect not merely a handful of trade unions, but a vast number of people and bodies. This then changes the whole crux of the hon the Minister’s reply to our objections to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier quoted the provisions correctly, and in my haste this may have passed me by. I refer the hon member to clause 3(4). The point at issue here is this: Let us assume that a works council entered into an agreement. That agreement remains valid after the date of incept of the Bill. Therefore the date of inception of the Bill does not entail that the agreement becomes invalid. That is the first point.

Correct.

The second point is that the employer has a responsibility to notify the department within 90 days that such an agreement exists. If he does not do so, the enforceability or the legal validity of that agreement does not lapse, but the employer may be prosecuted. He may be prosecuted for not providing the department with those details. However, the legal validity of that agreement is in no way affected. That is the point.

Mr Chairman, I sent a draft amendment to the hon the Minister and to the hon Whips of the other political parties in this House and I now move it, as follows:

The motivation for this amendment has been given on several occasions, for example in the debate in February and again yesterday. I just want to refer to a few aspects again. In terms of section 51(8) the Minister is empowered to withdraw an exemption. By inserting this clause, it is being provided that an appeal may be lodged with the Minister against the decision of the Minister. Now, the hon member for Benoni argued yesterday that this was in order because the Minister was acquainted with all the circumstances surrounding the matter and it was therefore desirable for the appeal to be made to the Minister. This is not a good or valid argument. There should not be an appeal to the Minister on a decision of the Minister. It does not make sense and it is not good law either.

The second point I want to make in this connection is that it is desirable for an appeal of this kind to be handled by the industrial court, firstly to enhance the status of the industrial court and secondly because the industrial court is an impartial and independent body. The Minister is involved in the matter, he has party-political considerations and there are other considerations which result in his not being the desirable person to hear the appeal. In addition the amendment allowing the appeal to be made to the industrial court was only introduced last year and it was a good amendment. It has only existed for a year and now this power is being given to the Minister again. The arguments that applied in 1983 as to why the appeal should be made to the industrial court were good arguments and it was a good amendment. Now, a year later, this power is being conferred on the Minister again.

I think it was also argued that to appeal to the industrial court resulted in unnecessary costs for a party and that it was cheaper and more informal to appeal to the Minister. That argument does not hold water either, because it was in fact impressed on us that the industrial court was going to become more accessible to ordinary people and that the procedure was going to be simplified. For that reason this argument is not logical to us either.

The fact that that industrial court is overloaded, is a matter which was debated during the discussion of the Minister’s Vote. We feel that an industrial court should have different divisions. If the salaries advertised for members of the industrial court are inadequate, attention should be given to increasing those salaries, because the industrial court does very important work and its work is going to become even more important in future. For that reason I do not think it is a good decision to amend this legislation, which was adopted only a year ago, in this way.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan opposed this clause and alleged that a right of appeal was being given here to the Minister against a decision taken by the Minister himself. This is obviously not the case. The Minister’s extension merely provides who decides. The Minister himself does not make the decision. He may only decide who decides and that is what he is being given a right of appeal against. As far as the merits are concerned, it is not the Minister who initially gives the decision. He merely decides who may make a decision, and then there is a right of appeal to him.

Practice has shown that litigation in the industrial court can be a protracted and expensive process, particularly when small businesses have to litigate against very strong industrial councils. Because it is such an expensive and protracted process it actually means that these small businesses are being deprived of their right of appeal.

Does that not also apply to other courts?

To a certain extent, yes. In other courts there have been considerable improvements and legal aid is also available to people.

In another respect this is also a matter which is very closely linked to the social welfare of workers. This is not a matter that can easily be decided by a court of law. In many respects the Minister must also bear the consequences, and here he has an opportunity to rectify matters.

Finally I want to suggest that his measure will also compel industrial councils to reasonable action. Recently there have often been very strong suspicions that the actions and decisions of industrial councils in this connection were no longer concerned with the interests of the workers, but were merely aimed at strengthening and stabilizing the position of the industrial councils, in certain respects even at the expense of the workers. Here we will now have a cheap, direct and quick appeal procedure and it should compel industrial councils to take realistic decisions in the interests of the workers.

Mr Chairman, I want to pledge the support of this side of the House for the amendments moved by the hon member for Brakpan. He really provided a sound motivation for not accepting this clause as it stands.

The hon member Mr Schutte referred to three matters. In the first place, there is the social welfare of people; in the second place, it is more difficult for smaller businesses to incur legal costs to appeal to the industrial court, and in the third place, this may compel industrial councils to adopt a more lenient attitude. The hon member did not explain what the social factors were to which he referred. This can, however, cut both ways. As was rightly pointed out, the purpose is to make the industrial councils more accessible. As far as his third argument is concerned, what assurance can he give us that owing to the far stronger position they will have, industrial councils will not in fact be able to exert more pressure on the Minister than the smaller employers?

As I know politics, if it is true that the Minister must actually bear the responsibility, I am inclined to say that there is a greater possibility that the Minister will listen to those people who really have power and who are in a really strong position. In other words, there is no guarantee here that the smaller employers and companies …

It was in fact the small man who asked for this amendment.

I am replying to the argument the hon member raised here. Actually it was a political argument, and for that reason I do not think it is valid here.

I want to refer to another matter as well. As the hon member for Brakpan indicated, the existing arrangement was only a year old. In fact, the industrial court is only now beginning to function properly. In view of all the circumstances, it seems unnecessary to us to take steps now to do away with the jurisdiction of the industrial court in this sphere.

I want to advance another argument. I should like to quote from paragraph 5.2.1 on page 391 of the report of the National Manpower Commission, as follows:

If the National Manpower Commission says that that fundamental problem, which actually forms the basis of the amendments being made here, should first be researched properly—there are, therefore doubts as to whether the Minister should retain that capacity—it seems to me as if we are putting the cart before the horse by actually giving the Minister more powers than he has in terms of the existing legislation. Consequently there is no logical reason why the amendment in terms of which the Minister takes over the power of the industrial court should be inserted here.

Mr Chairman, as we have indicated to the hon the Minister in the Second Reading we feel very strongly about the ministerial power which is granted by this clause. That is not acceptable to us. Let me say immediately that we recognize the problem the hon the Minister has, namely that for the small businessman and the small institution it is difficult, expensive and time consuming to go to the industrial court. We recognize that is a problem. We also recognize the problem that the procedures of industrial courts take time, by the very nature of the fact that they are courts. The solution which the hon the Minister is proposing here is incorrect. As the hon member for Brakpan says, it is unacceptable in law that a man against whom in many instances there is going to be an appeal, should be the man who then decides on the issue himself.

We propose two solutions to this problem, not by way of amendment because we cannot do it here. We will, however, vote against the clause. The immediate solution is to look at the conditions in the industrial court to see whether one cannot streamline and improve its administration from a personnel and infrastructural point of view so that it works to greatest efficiency.

Secondly, we would propose to the hon the Minister as an alternative the possibility that an applicant could go to the president of the industrial court and apply for an interdict until such time as it is possible for his case to be heard. The complaint definitely is—there is also full justification for it—that to apply to the industrial court for a ruling takes an awfully long time. We appreciate that, but the answer to that is not to change the principle of the law by reverting to giving the Minister the power, but the answer lies in improving the system. For that reason we will be voting against this clause.

Mr Chairman, I do not know why there is so much opposition to the fact that in terms of this clause there shall be an appeal to the Minister. The constituency I represent consists almost exclusively of trade union members, and their major problem with the industrial court is, in fact, the delays that occur. They say that in the past it worked very well. If one takes into consideration that from 1959 until last year the Minister was responsible for certain decisions that had to be taken and that the system worked well, I cannot see why there is now so much opposition to this provision. [Interjections.]

Another problem is the costs involved in industrial court procedures. Even relatively strong trade unions have sometimes had to abandon a case because they could not afford the proceedings. They maintain that if the decision had still rested with the Minister, they could have approached him. This would not have cost nearly as much money. For that reason I feel strongly that this clause should be accepted in its present form.

Mr Chairman, not much has been said so far about subparagraph (3), which of course gives very wide powers to the Minister. But before I come to that, I want to say that it is our view that most of the amendments incorporated in this clause reverse what was, we believe, a very positive and desirable trend ever since 1979, a trend whereby ministerial discretion was systematically removed and replaced by the industrial court. I want to place on record again, Mr Chairman, that ministerial discretion is undesirable in this system.

It purports to support self-government by industry and the parties involved is therefore open to charges of political bias. It may well be that in certain circumstances it would be socially or politically desirable to give exemptions to some parties from the consequence of free collective bargaining by others. However, if one is going to do that, it can surely be done by stating in the law the circumstances when exemptions may be necessary or by asking an impartial court to decide the circumstances within certain known policy guidelines.

If hon members will look at subparagraph (e) on page 9 they will find that it contains a blanket discretion. It reads:

The Minister can then make it clear by a notice in the Gazette that it is not applicable in those particular areas. What are we saying here? We say it is the Minister’s discretion; if he thinks it is in the interests of persons, employers or employees or in the public or national interest. There may be very, very different viewpoints as to what is in the public or national interest. Here, not only are we taking away an appeal which only a year ago was given to the industrial court, we are actually extending, drastically and widely, the powers of the Minister. It may well be that there are hon members on the other side who feel that we should give the Minister all the powers that he wants. However, it is our view as an Opposition that it is a dangerous tendency to grant Ministers discretion, particularly if the discretion is as wide as it is in subparagraph (e). It is for this reason, as well as for the other reasons, that we cannot support these amendments.

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon member for Pinelands because the way I interpret this is that what we are doing here is by no means a drastic extension of the discretion of the powers of the Minister.

Just read the words.

No, Sir. I cannot agree with what the hon member for Brakpan said either. The way I see it we are not in any way demolishing or impairing the status of the industrial court here. We are not jeopardizing the industrial court in any way, nor are we giving the Minister wider powers. [Interjections.] All we need do is consider how this matter works in practice.

In the past appeals from decisions of industrial courts in connection with applications for exemption from certain or all provisions of their agreements rested with the Minister of Manpower, and the arrangement worked very well. We are now trying to bring back that arrangement.

How does it work in practice? The Minister, at the request of the council in question, extends an agreement to non-parties and makes it binding on them. The hon member for Pinelands referred to this. Owing to the nature of the appeals by non-parties, the need for such matters to be decided as quickly as possible—the hon member for Carletonville referred to this point—the fact that the costs in connection with the administrative handling of such appeals are low and that it is apparent that this function is not strictly speaking the responsibility of the court, the need arose for the power to be vested in the Minister again. In decisions of this nature policy considerations in the socio-economic sphere—the hon member Mr Schutte referred to this point—frequently play a decisive role, and the industrial court which by its nature applies a judicial criterion in arriving at such a decision can hardly be expected to allow such considerations to preponderate.

To substantiate this matter further I want to say that the Government commits itself— in the White Paper on the promotion of industrial development as an element of a cohesive regional development strategy, and in the White Paper on the strategy for the creation of employment opportunities—to the policy actions announced in those documents. If it is accepted that a large percentage of the applications for exemption emanates from the developing areas, and that these are pre-eminently concerned with prescribed minimum wages and conditions of employment, it is clear that if the power to decide appeals rests with the Minister, this will make matters easier for appellants and will be conducive to the implementation of the objectives as spelt out.

I cannot agree with the Opposition’s standpoint, and I should therefore like to support this clause.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to say that unfortunately the amendment in this connection is not acceptable to me.

First let us consider the existing section which is to be amended. Subsection (12) of section 51 reads inter alia as follows:

exempt persons or an area or clases of work from the provisions of that agreement. Consequently ministerial discretion, ministerial power, already exists in the present subsection (12) of section 51 of the Labour Relations Act. What are we doing now? Whereas the Act now reads—

We are now adding—

Consequently we are merely extending the reasons which the Minister may advance as to why he is granting an exemption, while the principle which already exists empowers the Minister to take a decision, in his discretion, quite simply to exempt any area or any group of persons. I think the new definition is a clearer definition of the facts and factors which the Minister must take into account when he grants an exemption. The principle, however, is one which the Minister already has in terms of subsection (12) of section 51 of the Act.

I think we should consider the whole matter a little more fundamentally. The hon member for Brakpan put it very calmly, but I think the hon member for Pinelands and the hon member Prof Olivier expressed rather strong opposition to ministerial power and discretion. I think the whole argument centred around the fact that whereas it used to be in the discretion of the Minister, this was changed more than a year ago in that the discretion was transferred to the industrial court. Now they want to know why we now want to place it in the hands of the Minister again.

Let us first consider for a moment what is happening here. Let us consider a practical example. Let us consider an industrial council. Who has representation on an industrial council? It is a council on which employers and employees are represented. They arrive at an agreement there. I have had cases before me in which as little as 12% of the employers had representation on that council. Sometimes it is 30%, but in most cases less than half of the employers in a certain area have representation on an industrial council, and they arrive at an agreement with, for example, 60% of the employees. Sometimes it is only with 40% of the employees in an area. They arrive at an agreement, and what do they do then? They come to the Minister and say: “Look, this agreement we have arrived at with one another, you must make applicable to all employers and all employees operating in this area.” When hon members speak about ministerial discretion as being a bad thing, then I want to say that this is a power which really gives me grey hairs. It is a serious matter for a Minister. Let us consider an agreement arrived at between two interest groups, with the exclusion of quite a number of other people who for various reasons do not form part of that industrial council, which is then, by publication in the Gazette, enforced upon the other employers and employees as well. The Minister has to use his discretion and say whether they should all fall under this agreement. There could perhaps be a group of employers, let us assume they are small businessmen, who say that if the provisions of the agreement were applicable to them, it would mean a one-way ticket to bankruptcy for them. There could be various reasons for this. Now that a power which the Minister has exercised is going to make them bankrupt, they cannot go to the Minister and complain. They must go to the industrial court. I am not very keen to have this discretion because I think it is going to entail a great deal of work and many problems. Nevertheless it is in fact the Minister who makes this agreement applicable to a person, and now that person cannot complain to the Minister who made that agreement applicable to him. He must go to the industrial court.

But he is independent.

The hon member says he is independent, but it is the Minister who made the decision that the agreement should be made applicable to people who were not parties to the industrial council. Should the court now do this, or is the hon member satisfied that the Minister has that power?

We agree with subparagraph (e). We have no problem with that. Our problem is paragraph (a).

The hon member therefore agrees that the Minister should have the power …

To exempt, yes; we agree with that.

The hon member therefore agrees with the exemption. I thank him for that.

The hon member for Pinelands and the hon member Prof Olivier raised this point: If the Minister has the power to make the agreement applicable to the small industrialist or the small businessman, why should he them go to the court and not come to the Minister first? The other procedure is expensive and laborious for him. What is more it is time-consuming. I want to put it like this: We receive a tremendous number of representations from the Small Business Development Corporation, Nafcoc and numerous small businessmen and small industrialists, because the moment those industrial council agreements are made applicable to them and things are made difficult for them, they run to the Minister because they read in the Gazette that it was the Minister who made the provisions applicable to them. I now have to tell them that I made the agreement applicable to them, but I cannot help them; they must simply go to the industrial court. That was why we received all the representations for it to be placed in the hands of the Minister again so that a quick and easy decision could be reached.

This measure has been in operation for just over a year now, but practical experience has now demonstrated that when this measure is applied, it is a lengthy and laborious process and does not give satisfaction. Because there have been so many complaints about this, we decided to place the jurisdiction or discretion in the hands of the Minister again. If this does not work either, we can subsequently devise some other method. The point is that the existing measure has proved itself to be unsatisfactory in practice. That is why we are now suggesting this change.

There is a further point. The industrial court is actually a body which is equipped to reflect on juridical problems, but the considerations which apply here contain a very strong socio-economic element; the considerations which apply when one wants to grant people exemptions. I do not think the court is the institution which is best equipped to reflect on a socio-economic problem; it is equipped to reflect on a juridical problem. That is why I say that I do not think that court is equipped to reflect meaningfully on these matters.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that if the discretion were transferred to the Minister, he would, as a result of political factors, be more susceptible to pressure from an industrial council.

I said he could.

Yes, the hon member is quite right that the Minister could be placed under such pressure. It is in fact the individual, the small man, who is complaining in this regard. If hon members are afraid that the Minister would be susceptible to political pressure, I must point out to them that he does not have unrestricted discretion, as one of the hon members here intimated. What does the Bill say? The Bill says that he may “in his discretion, at any time, after consultation with the industrial council or conciliation board concerned, or if the conciliation board has been discharged, with the parties who were represented on the conciliation board, or if there is or was no such industrial council or conciliation board, with the parties to the arbitration proceedings which gave rise to the award, or with the group or association of employers which submitted proposals for the making of an order, and with the employees who are affected by such order, by the said notice exclude that area or part of that area”. In other words, when the Minister has to take a decision, he is obliged to consult with bodies such as the industrial council, or whichever body it may be in that particular case. The Minister may also ask the Wage Board to advise him. When the Minister changes such a determination, he cannot do so haphazardly, but will have to give thorough consideration to all the facts, circumstances and factors. According to the Bill he must consult with the parties involved. Consequently the fears the hon member Prof Olivier has in this connection are unfounded.

Nafcoc and various other organizations requested that this power should be exercised by the Minister again. One is constantly hearing from the Small Business Development Corporation and small firms that the procedure is too protracted.

I should like to thank the hon member for Carletonville for his contribution. He referred quite rightly to the question of the costs involved when one goes to the industrial court. He also referred to the delays which are frequently experienced. That is true, because the volume of work which the industrial court has to get through has increased dramatically owing to the fact that parties are increasingly making use of the dispute settling machinery and the court. Naturally this must give rise to delays, since the capacity of the court is not unlimited.

The hon member for Pinelands spoke about the wide powers of the Minister has, but I have already pointed out that the Minister has to consult with the parties involved. The discretion which the Minister has to make an industrial council agreement applicable to bodies that were not parties to such an industrial council is a drastic power which the Minister has. If one wishes to object to the powers of the Minister, that is the power to which one ought to object first.

The hon member for Overvaal said that the fact that the discretion is being removed from the industrial court and given to the Minister again should not be interpreted as an attempt to impair the status of the industrial court. He was quite right when he said that, and it should not be seen in that light. The issue here is one of practical considerations, of representations that were received and, as I have already said, the capacity of the court, the cost factor and the time factor.

I have tried to reply to the questions of all the hon members. I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment and I shall let what I have already said suffice.

Mr Chairman, it would seem to me that the hon the Minister is suggesting that we are moving an amendment in regard to section 51(12) of the Act. But that is not the point at issue. There is no right of appeal from the decision of the Minister in terms of section 51(12). The appeal relates to section 51(3) and section 51(8); it relates to when an exemption is granted or when it is withdrawn. One can imagine that when the Minister grants or repeals an exemption, he hears what all the parties have to say. He is not, as the hon the Minister said, going to take a haphazard decision in any of these cases. He is going to take a well-considered decision. If he withdraws an exemption, the party or person who feels aggrieved by the withdrawal of that exemption cannot, after all, appeal to the very person who withdrew that exemption. Surely that does not make sense. He must appeal to another body. That is the point. It makes no difference whether it is a judicial decision or a factual or administrative decision which the court has to take in this connection. An appeal has to be made to another body. That is the issue here. It is that body that has to adopt an open-minded, unbiased and unprejudiced standpoint on this matter and not the Minister who is already involved in the decision. Surely it goes without saying that it should be another body that hears the case.

If this entails costs and is time-consuming, then the indictment in this connection is against the administration and not against the law. The law should always triumph. Even though the process will then be a little slower, it is always better that another body should take the decision. If there are costs involved and the process is slower, there is sufficient machinery to reduce those costs and to speed up the process. It is not an argument to say that it is more expensive and that it takes longer. The argument that another body should take a decision and not the Minister who took a decision in the first place, weighs more heavily.

Who granted the exemption?

He has now withdrawn the exemption. He did so after having taken everything into consideration. What new facts can he now take into consideration if the appeal comes to him? That is why we are moving our amendment.

Mr Chairman, let me clarify the matter. The hon member is arguing about the case in which there was an industrial council agreement, and there was a request for exemption that was granted by the Minister, not so? Then the Minister granted the request, and decided at some stage or another to withdraw it again. Now the hon member is asking for an appeal to the industrial court in respect of the withdrawal. We understand one another, do we not? Surely those are the facts the hon member was arguing about.

I think we should take the fundamental matter into consideration. I am coming back to the beginning of the argument again. There is an industrial council agreement that was entered into by a certain group of people but which was made applicable by the Minister, with the power he has, to all the people in the area concerned. It is therefore the Minister who decided: “It is applicable to all of you; you were not part of the negotiations, but I am now telling you that I am publishing it in the Gazette and it is applicable to you as well”. That is the argument. Does the hon member agree with me that a person to whom it is applicable may address a request to the Minister for exemption? Or does he want it to rest with the court?

No, it is the Minister who grants it.

The Minister must therefore have the discretion to exempt the person or body concerned from the provisions of the industrial council agreement, for example from those provisions relating to wages. The point is that when the Minister grants that exemption, he must of course consult the parties involved. I think that is the first important point. We cannot merely act in a haphazard way. In such a case he probably receives advice from the Wage Board, but definitely, too, from his department that institutes an inquiry. When he has to decide to grant exemption, he is going to ask what the purpose of the exemption is. He will want to know whether its purpose is to give the person concerned time to get on his feet until he is able to complete on an equal footing with other employers, or whether that person experiences permanent disadvantages which are inherent in the region or area in which he has established himself and whether the exemption should therefore be granted for a long period. The fact of the matter is that when the Minister decides to withdraw the exemption, regardless of whether he does so on the grounds of representations or on the grounds of his previous decisions, he is again exercising that discretion which he exercised previously. In other words, it would not be consistent if we were to give the Minister the discretion to apply and to grant exemption, but did not grant him the discretion to withdraw it. There cannot be degrees of discretion. Since discretion is being granted in regard to the two fundamental aspects of application and exemption, the discretion to withdraw that exemption should be vested in the same person who has exercised the discretion all along. I hope the hon member and I understand one another on this point now.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has argued his point very well, but I would like to point out that what this problem really centres on is lines 16 to 21 of clause 5 which reads:

1. (6) (a) Any person who feels aggrieved by any decision of a council—
   1. (i) under subsection (3) on an application for exemption; or
   2. (ii) under subsection (8) to withdraw any exemption; or

It is, in other words, the individual who disagrees with the Minister’s decision to extend, exempt or withdraw an extension and the party who feels aggrieved under the amending legislation who will have to appeal to the Minister against a decision which the Minister may well have taken. That is our objection and that is why we prefer that it should remain the industrial court to whom an individual who feels aggrieved by the Minister’s action, must have recourse. The hon member for Brakpan is absolutely correct when he asks what new approach the Minister will take in the case of an individual who appeals against the decision which the Minister has made.

According to clause 5(l)(e) the hon the Minister is taking back the discretion to grant exemptions. Our preference is that the exemption should be done by an industrial court. In this case the hon the Minister will consult with the parties concerned and then grant an exemption or an extension. The gravamen of our objection to this is the fact that the person or persons who feel aggrieved have to appeal against a decision to the very party which has made that decision. To us that does not ring true at all and we would therefore prefer an outside body, such as the industrial court, to be the court of arbitration in a dispute between a party who is affected and the decision of the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the hon member and I must not misunderstand each other now. The hon member is arguing in terms of clause 5 of the Bill or section 31 of the principal Act.

This is in fact a council decision and the Minister, by publishing it in the Government Gazette, extends it to all persons living in that area.

*It is therefore fundamental that a Minister may give permission for a discretion to be extended because the council has recommended this to him. At first glance this appears to be in order to the Minister because people have addressed representations about it. It is however fundamentally the decision of the industrial council. The council makes use of the powers of the Minister to extend it. However, at that stage the Minister cannot be aware of who will be affected as well as of every small undertaking on whom it could have an effect. If that small undertaking was not a member of the industrial council representations may be made to the council. It cannot, however, be expected of the Minister when he extends the decision of the industrial council, already to have taken a decision that it will affect all small business undertakings in that area. It is therefore an action of the Minister. People then see that it applies to them, but then someone comes along with special circumstances of which the council was not aware when the agreement was entered into. He then wants to bring these circumstances to the attention of the council. If the council refuses to help him he approaches the Minister.

And the Minister can grant him that exemption.

Yes. Then he takes all the facts into consideration first and sees whether the council’s arrangements were fair to the person concerned. It is therefore initially the council’s decision. If the Minister then feels that the demands being made on the person are unfair he may exempt him. So what is the hon member’s problem?

Mr Chairman, we agree with the hon the Minister that the instrument of the industrial council agreement is the responsibility of the industrial council. The Minister merely exercises a prerogative either at the request of the industrial council or at his own instance. There are two parties who can initiate an extension of an industrial council agreement. It could be done through the initiative of the industrial council itself, or those parties who are represented on it, or the Minister can exercise his prerogative and extend the particular industrial agreement. Then, as the hon the Minister quite correctly pointed out, an individual who discovers that he is affected by the extension may come back to the Minister and say that he does not agree with the extension, that the Minister has used an umbrella approach and that he is going to be adversely affected. The Minister can grant him exemption. This deals with the person who is aggrieved by either an extension, where he disagrees with the Minister or the industrial council, or with an exemption, where he disagrees with the Minister or the industrial council. That is the case which we are looking at here, and not the fact that the Minister does not have the prerogative to extend or to exempt. It is where there is a dispute between the Minister acting as the agent for the extension or exemption and the aggrieved party. He then should have the facility to go to the industrial court.

Mr Chairman, the Minister has never made industrial council agreements applicable to an area on his own initiative.

He may do so.

Yes, in theory he has the power to do so. However, I think it would be extremely unwise of the Minister to take such an initiative. Nor has it ever happened, in any case not since I took over this portfolio. It continues to remain the recommendation of the industrial council to the Minister.

Let us be frank. If there are persons who feel aggrieved and approach the Minister via the industrial council and he considers all the facts, our system provides in all reasonableness that one takes people with specific circumstances into consideration. The Minister is also bound to consult all the parties affected by it. If there are people who object to the exemption the Minister will also hear and consult them. Hon members must bear in mind that he always has the Wage Board and his department to advise him in this regard. I believe we can incorporate the entire idea of discretion into the existing system.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. If the Minister and the industrial council agree to either withdraw or extend an agreement but the party in the area affected disagrees with the Minister and the industrial council, who does he appeal to then? This is the case where a third party has a disagreement with the Minister and the industrial council.

Then they take the Minister to the Supreme Court.

Why not to the industrial court?

He will undoubtedly take the Minister to the Supreme Court. Is the hon member not aware of that? I can state this as a fact. He can take the Minister to the Supreme Court on the ground of his decision. We have already been taken to the Supreme Court twice, although not in this connection. The decision of the Minister can, however, be taken on review to the Supreme Court. He cannot therefore act as he wishes in this case.

Mr Chairman, if a Minister acts mala fide or in such an unreasonable manner that no reasonable person would arrive at the same conclusion, he may be taken on review to the Supreme Court. That is the only time a Minister may be taken on review. There is no ordinary appeal or access to a review by the Supreme Court on the facts, and that is why we are arguing with the hon the Minister about this matter. He said a moment ago that there was no appeal against the discretion of the Minister to extend the agreement to persons or areas not covered by the agreement. If this is worrying him, however, we shall vote for an amendment to give the industrial court a right of appeal in this case too. The principle of appealing to a Minister against a decision of a Minister does not make sense, however, and that is why we moved the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I have already dealt with those arguments by saying why the Minister initially has the discretion to extend an agreement. If there is a request for exemption, or if there is an objection to an exemption, the Minister is being given a discretion which in my opinion cannot be arranged according to priorities, but which in that connection gives the Minister full authority. He must hold consultations, and if he acts in an entirely unreasonable way, he can be taken on review. After all, this does happen in practice. Sir, that is all I have to say.

Mr Chairman, I think part of the problem in this debate is that there does seem to be some confusion between clause 5(1) and clause 5(l)(e). In regard to clause 5(l)(e), the hon the Minister in his reply to my objection said that he has to consult with all the various parties concerned before he excludes a particular area or part of an area from the whole of or part of that agreement or notice. Let us, however, bear in mind the wide terms, namely “the interests of employers or employees, or in the public or national interest”. We must remember that the Minister is using his own discretion and is not responding to someone—although he may be responding to someone—because the subparagraph states:

In other words, it is the Minister’s initiative. If he takes that initiative and excludes a part of an area, after consultation, there appears to be no possibility of appeal whatsoever. There is no opportunity for anyone to come back and say to the Minister: “I do not like that or I disagree with that for the following reasons …” The Minister can simply say: “Look, I have made my decision;” or: “Yes, we have looked at that problem but notwithstanding that we are going to exclude that particular area, or part of that area from that agreement.” I do not think that is good law, Mr Chairman, to give a Minister very wide powers on which there is no appeal whatsoever, and I would therefore ask the hon the Minister to reconsider this. Surely, there must be an appeal, not merely back to the Minister but to the industrial court preferably. I should like to hear the hon the Minister on that, Sir.

Order! I want to recommend that the parties take this matter to arbitration. They can come back again at 14h15.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, I just want to remind the hon the Minister that just before lunch I had made a few comments in regard to clause 5(l)(e). I conceded the fact that the hon the Minister had to consult before he granted exemption from agreements or orders or parts thereof. However, I also made the point that there is no appeal once the Minister has made his decision. This assumes very serious overtones when we bear in mind the fact that the phrase “or in the public or national interest” is being inserted.

I am well aware that the hon the Minister will argue that there are certain socio-economic considerations which he as the Minister has to take into account. I agree with that although it is certainly not written into the law. However, there may well be other considerations that are taken into account by a Minister of a particular government. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would like me, for example, to have the sort of power that he now wants to give to the Minister now. I can imagine how upset he would be if the PFP was in power, as it ought to be, and I was Minister of Manpower. Would he like me to have that sort of power? [Interjections.] I simply want to underline the fact that it seems to me to be necessary to have an appeal against the Minister’s decision bearing in mind that it is done in his discretion and at his initiative and that there is no comeback.

There are all sorts of factors that are involved and I should like to give the hon the Minister just one example. If the Minister decides that he is going to exclude a certain area—and he may have quite a good reason for doing so—there may be an employer operating just outside of that area who is paying a certain wage and producing a certain article. He may now be unable to compete because the people who have now been excluded are able to undercut him. Of course, this would not happen in a free market system because they would compete on even terms. However, once the Minister has made his decision, even after consultation, there is no appeal against that decision. I think that the weaknesses of this clause is that there is no appeal of that nature and I believe that it should be inserted.

Mr Chairman, reference has already been made to this but I want to emphasize that this measure is essential owing to the great progress made in decentralization and the establishment of small industries. These business undertakings arose in areas to which industrial agreements had been extended to which they had not been parties. Possibly these agreements were extended before those business undertakings were established. They are now applying to the industrial councils and are being refused. Now those small business undertakings are expected to appeal to the industrial court. This is simply not realistic, even if it were to cost very little. A small businessman who has just begun to manufacture or construct furniture in his backyard simply does not have R200 or R300 available. Over and above that he cannot afford the uncertainty, even if it were to cost very little, to appeal to the industrial court. That man would prefer to close down his business, and this has also been the experience of the department. There are scores of these people who have written to the department and said that if this is the procedure then they cannot continue with their business undertakings. Hon members opposite must reply to this because thus far they have not done so. We simply do not want this.

The hon member for Brakpan has said that if it is a matter of time and the costs involved in appealing to the industrial court then this is the problem which must be solved. However, the hon member did not even give us examples or make suggestions on how it should be solved. He ought to know from experience that such reforms do not take place overnight. It takes years. We cannot therefore wait two or three years for such reforms and in the interim sit back and watch all these business undertakings going under.

I also want to say that it is absolutely logical for the man with the discretion to extend the agreements, as the hon Minister has in this connection—and there is no objection to his having that discretion to apply the agreement to other people in that area—also to have the right to grant exemptions. Whether this is on appeal or whether it is by virtue of the proposed subsection (12), as is the case at present, makes no difference. It is, however, logical that that man should again have the discretion to grant exemptions, particularly when he has the authority to extend the agreements to areas, because after he has done so, small business undertakings may be established there of which he is unaware, and it is only fair that those people should be able to appeal to him and that he should have a final discretion in the matter.

The suggestion that were made that this discretion was totally unrestricted were not correct either. This discretion has to exercised by law, according to the guidelines laid down in the legislation, and if he does not do this, his decision can be taken on review to the Supreme Court, viz if he does not give proper attention to the matter or if no reasonable court would have come to that conclusion. I therefore want to suggest that this is not an extension of the discretion of the Minister, but a consequence of the discretion he has.

Mr Chairman, in association with what the hon member Mr Schutte said, I want to repeat that as far as the proposed subsection (12) of section 51 of the Act, viz clause 5(e) of the amendment Bill to which the hon member referred is concerned, it is an existing law. The present section does not make provision for an appeal. All that is being added here; as the hon member Mr Schutte rightly argued, are the factors the Minister shall or may take into account when he grants such an exemption. It is very simple. In addition to its being in the interests of a person, it must be in the interests of employers or employees, or in the public or national interest. He may also take these factors into account now. The discretion already exists however. The extension is therefore from the interests of persons to the national interest; in other words, he may take more things into account. There is no appeal against the existing provision. All that is now being extended are the reasons the Minister may take into consideration when he grants an exemption. What is so strange about that? Actually, the hon member should have objected to the existing section as it now reads.

No.

Yes, because it also gives the Minister a discretion, and if the substance of the hon member’s argument is against the fact that the Minister has a discretion, the hon member is not being consistent in his reasoning if he does not object to the matter of discretion with regard to persons, but he objects to the matter of discretion if the Minister must take other considerations into concern over and above those of the person. As the hon member Mr Schutte also rightly pointed out, the Minister may be taken on review with regard to these decisions.

I want to mention another reason why it is so extremely important there should not be an appeal here. Let us assume the Minister withdraws or gives an exemption from an industrial council agreement. In the first place, he cannot give it ad infinitum. He gives it for the remaining period of that agreement. That is already a restriction. It is not ad infinitum. What is also important is that the Minister may make that exemption or withdraw the agreement subject to conditions, for example he may say that for the first year—let us assume wages are at issue here—he will grant an exemption from the determining of the wages in the agreement to the extent that one need pay only 60% of the proposed minimum wage. In the second year this will be 80%, and in the third year 90%. In spite of those exemptions, the Minister may therefore make them subject to certain restrictions. A small businessman or a small industrialist asks, for example, for an exemption and it is granted to him by the Minister. He then has certainty, but later there is an appeal. One of the principles in our entire labour system is that there must be the minimum of uncertainty. One must have certainty on a certain matter for a certain period, let us assume that appeal succeeds after seven, eight or nine months. All the wages he should have paid during the past seven, eight or nine months, must now be paid to the employees, and that could ruin him completely. The exemption the Minister gives him, therefore, does not mean much to him because it does not create certainty for him. It creates uncertainty for him and it also creates uncertainty for his employees. I repeat: One of the principles is that there must be certainty on wages and conditions of employment over a certain period. This is one of the principles that apply in the sphere of manpower, and we must not overlook this.

I think we have now argued about more or less everything one could argue about in this clause. I think many of the points were argued repeatedly, and I do not think any questions have remained unanswered. I should therefore like to let this suffice.

Mr Chairman, when we were discussing clause 3 in the Committee Stage and also during the course of the Second Reading debate I mentioned that the penalty has been reduced and I am on record as saying that I approve of that and appreciate that that has taken place. However, we are opposed to the concept that employers who do not send in particulars of an agreement within 90 days and fail to comply with these provisions, should be guilty of an offence. Therefore, in order to be consistent, we must obviously vote against clause 7, notwithstanding the fact that the penalty has been reduced. I accordingly state that we shall not be supporting clause 7.

Mr Chairman, in order to implement this legislation and to obtain the information with regard to agreements entered into, it is essential that there should be a penal provision. Of course, as the hon member for Pinelands correctly remarked, this is a far lighter penalty than the R2 000 for which provision is made in section 82. There must nevertheless be a way of encouraging people, to put it that way, to furnish the department with the relevant information.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Speaker, in his very short speech yesterday the hon member for Pretoria West said, among other things, that this legislation was an example of the Government’s policy of benevolent nationalism. He also said that it was an example of the way in which the Government kept its word. In the course of my speech, I shall refer in particular to the second remark of the hon member for Pretoria West, namely that the Government keeps its promises. I think the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is the only one who would believe such a statement.

When one reads this amending Bill, one notices a close connection between the Black Communities Development Bill, which was debated in this House earlier this year, and this amending Bill. This amending Bill illustrates once again the change that has come about in the Government’s policy with regard to Blacks in White areas; instead of placing all the emphasis on development within the national states, as it has been the policy of the NP to do all these years, with a view to eventually settling the maximum number of members of each population group in its own fatherland, they now seem to have abandoned this policy, because in this amending Bill, the establishment of additional Black towns in the White area is being authorized.

Die Vaderland of 8 March was quite correct in saying, and I quote:

The reference here is to the policy of so-called linkage with the national states. I am saying this because these concepts are reflected in the ideas expressed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the debate on his Vote, when he said, and I quote from Die Burger of 26 May, dealing with the urban Blacks:

How can this be done other than in one constitutional dispensation?

I am very glad to see that the hon member for Potgietersrus is back in this House after searching for Nationalists among the bushes at Potgietersrus. It is ironic that the hon member should have said the following in his letter to voters:

Can one believe this? Are a mixed Cabinet and a mixed President’s Council separate institutions of a people?

In clause 2 of the Bill, a new section is being substituted for section 30 of the Black Administration Act, 1927, the proposed subsection (1) of which authorizes the State President to set apart a town in every area determined by Parliament by resolution. In his speech, the hon the Deputy Minister only referred to Trust land or adjoining land. In the proposed new section 30(1), as inserted by clause 2, mention is also made of land “which is situated in any area determined by Parliament by resolution”. Subsection (2) reads as follows:

These are the areas we are talking about here—

This is followed by various items and regulations, and paragraph (i) reads:

So ownership and the establishment of towns are being authorized in White areas as well. Provision is being made for the establishment of a local government body for the control and management of that town. The most important factor, however, is that over and above leasehold, full ownership is being given to Blacks in White areas. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to say that this is not so, for as far as I am concerned, it is provided for in black and white in clause 2 of the Bill.

I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is still NP policy that the further political rights of these people, in other words, those rights above local government level, should be linked to their respective national states. The hon the Deputy Minister owes us a very clear answer. Or is the development going to take place in the way described by Rapport on 27 May in an article on Blacks outside the national states, with specific reference to the Vote of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? I quote from the report:

In the present terminology of the NP, after all, joint responsibility is exactly the same as joint decision-making. This description, namely self-determination with regard to own affairs, and joint responsibility with regard to general affairs, is exactly the same, after all, as the description of the new constitutional dispensation involving Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

It is power-sharing with Blacks.

That is exactly what I want to suggest. Furthermore, it is only logical, after all, that when one obtains ownership in a country and pays property rates to an authority, and when one is also a citizen of that country, one must obtain the basic right, up to the highest level, which directly affects one’s welfare and circumstances on one’s own land. Surely it is the basic right of a citizen who has ownership in a country to obtain political rights as well.

Since the President’s Council is going to be the highest decision-making body in the event of conflict between the three Chambers, in what way are the interests of the Blacks going to be dealt with on that body in respect of the Group Areas Act, for example, or in respect of any legislation dealing with local government matters which affect everyone, including the Blacks? How are decisions going to be taken then? Surely it can only be done in a single State institution. There can be no question, therefore, of a purely White Republic or White Government.

I want to come back now to the letter of the hon member for Potgietersrus. He writes to the voters of Potgietersrus:

[Interjections.]

But did you not know that? Read the rest of my letter.

This is what it says in the hon member’s letter. Where is the White accepted the policy of a White nation state for the purposes of the by-election in Potgietersrus? So it would appear to me. They accuse us of wanting a White Republic, but for the purposes of the by-election in Potgietersrus, the hon member for Potgietersrus talks about a White Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should also like to inquire of the hon the Deputy Minister whether the amendments in clause 2 are also going to be applicable to a town such as Khayelitsha and other Black townships on the Cape Flats, where 300 000 Black people are already permanently present in terms of the Government’s new policy. These amendments are radically opposed to the CP’s policy of positive and active development of areas within the self-governing territories or independent national states. Our policy is aimed at, among other things, more effective decentralization of industries, the creation of job opportunities which create further job opportunities in their turn, the creation of the necessary infrastructure, and so on. After all, this policy was succeeding. If only we consider that in 1951, only a third of the Black population were settled in their own areas, and in 1980, approximately half the population, about 10 million people, were settled in the Black national states, the question arises why the implementation of this policy is not continuing and why it is now being discontinued.

After all, it is the inevitable consequence of the Bill which is before us that the settling of the Black people in their own national states will come to an end, or can the hon the Deputy Minister tell me, perhaps, whether it is still the Government’s policy to lead the remaining self-governing territories to independence? Mr Speaker, I do not think this is the case, because everything points to the contrary, including this legislation, and especially clause 2 of the Bill.

In terms of clause 4, the quota land as laid down in the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 is effectively being abolished. By doing this, the Government is setting a dangerous precedent. I want to ask the hon member for Pretoria West what norm the Government is now going to apply in order to determine the extent to which the quota laid down in 1936 will eventually be exceeded. Is it going to be population numbers, perhaps? Is it going to be an equitable division of mineral wealth? [Interjections.] Is it going to be a just and equitable division of all the other assets of the country, or is it going to be a just and equitable division of the agricultural value of that land, or is the Government going to leave it to posterity to determine this quota land from time to time, which can only result in a never-ending process of giving away our fatherland to strangers, for where is one going to stop?

It is our standpoint that this is a senseless policy which is going to leave the voters of this country, namely the Whites of this country, little or no living space which they will be able to pass on to posterity. And then the hon member for Potgietersrus talks about a White Republic! It is laughable, and I believe that the voters of Potgietersrus will indeed laugh at it. The NP will have to accept responsibility for having been the architect of the policy of separate development as well as its destroyer.

It is the standpoint of this side of the House that there are only three ways of dealing with land: In the first place, land can be exchanged; in the second place, land can be sold with the consent of both parties; and, in the third place, land issues can be resolved through a conflict situation. Nowhere in the world is land dealt with in any other way.

Clauses 6 to 11 deal with the transfer of loan capital and assets of the Economic Development Corporation to the Development Bank for Southern Africa, and all the statutory provisions connected with this. It is also provided that in the case of any corporation which is to be established, the existing corporation must be consulted.

This means that certain functions, including agriculture, which are going to be carried out on the Trust farms, will now be undertaken by the SA Development Corporation, as the hon the Deputy Minister said. I now wish to inquire of the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is his department’s policy that where such land exists and is available for leasing, this SA Development Corporation will enjoy priority over bona fide farmers when it comes to leasing such land. I think it is very important, especially to the farmers in the Northern Transvaal, that they should know exactly where they stand with the hon the Deputy Minister and his department in this connection.

When one considers the whole spirit of the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act, 1968, which is being fairly extensively amended, the hon the Deputy Minister will agree with me that many of the matters which I raised in the Budget debate, and in connection with which I asked questions about the activities of one such development corporation, revealed that those activities had very little to do with the real development of a national state as defined in the sections of that Act. Since the hon the Minister has now instructed the Commission for Co-operation and Development to undertake the necessary investigation and table a report, I want to ask whether this will be done during this session or whether the report will only be submitted to a tricameral Parliament, which would mean that it would have to be tabled in all three Chambers of that Parliament. I should like to have this matter clarified.

In the final clause, provision is being made for officials of White authorities or development boards to be transferred to Black local government bodies. In his introductory speech, the hon the Deputy Minister referred only to Black people. This matter is not clearly spelt out in the legislation. The legislation provides for consultation between the Government and the White local authority or development board. I want to know whether those employees will be Blacks only, or whether they will also include Whites. I also want to know whether such an official will be consulted when he is transferred to another body.

Mr Speaker, owing in particular to these three important amendments that are being proposed with regard to matters of principle, namely the establishment of Black towns in White areas, the ownership of land which Black people will acquire in White areas, and the approval given to the principle of exceeding the 1936 quota land—matters which are completely contrary to the policy of the CP—we shall vote against this legislation at Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietersburg really surprised me. His argument about the proposed amendments boiled down to the contention, in the first place, that ownership qualifies a man to vote. Surely the hon member knows that over the years, there were various Black people who obtained ownership of land during the Republican period. Did they have the right to vote? No, they did not. The hon member also knows that there are thousands of Europeans living in South Africa …

Did they have representation in Parliament? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member knows, after all, that there are many thousands of Europeans who own houses and farms and so on in South Africa. Do they have the right to vote? No, they do not.

Are they citizens?

If they obtain citizenship, they can also obtain the right to vote.

Very well. If the hon member went to England or to Germany or anywhere else and bought a house or a farm there, would he get the right to vote there?

If you become a citizen.

Yes, if you become a citizen. That is a different matter. However, the hon member for Pietersburg and his party proceed from the standpoint that ownership per se gives a man the right to vote.

That is not what he said.

What I find most surprising of all is that the hon member said that there were only three legal ways in which land could be acquired, namely through exchange, sale or in a conflict situation. If a party knows what happened in South Africa in the past and if it knows what we are engaged in, if it listened to the guidelines for consolidation, does a party then have the right to survive if it states that this is the alternative to the transfer of land to Black territories? Surely it cannot be true that there are still people sitting in this House who insist on their party’s right to exist while this is their attitude.

I take pleasure in supporting the proposed amendment contained in clause 4, because these proposals testify, not only to the serious light in which the Government views the commendable objectives of the 1936 Act, but also to our serious desire to carry out and to complete consolidation in terms of the guidelines laid down by the hon the Prime Minister. What is more, and this is important: this clause testifies to the determination of this Government to give nations their freedom, and not only to give them their freedom, but also, as the late Dr Malan said two months before he became Prime Minister, to give them fatherlands and we want to consolidate these fatherlands in terms of this provision.

When one examines the proposals, one sees that a minor amendment is being proposed to the old historic section 10 in the old historic Act of 1936. It is a minor amendment, but the matter with which one is immediately faced, and to which the hon member for Pietersburg referred, is the land quota of 7,25 million morgen. Now the question arises, and I think it is a reasonable question: What is the background to this land quota? Where does it come from? Having asked this question, I want to say at once that we all recognize the fact that land is actually the foundation of the existence of all people. For this reason, land has had an immense significance in the lives of nations through the centuries and still has it today.

It is also true that through the years up to 1910, we actually had three types of land occupation by Blacks. This is general knowledge. These were tribal land, privately owned land and land which they used to call native locations, but which actually amounted to Black residential areas. Only in 1913 did we have the consolidation of these three types of land occupied by Blacks and did we have land legally set aside for Blacks.

From the nature of the case, this was not the final solution to the land issue at the time, and the Beaumont Commission was appointed at the same time. The Beaumont Commission published a report in which it recommended that 8,4 million morgen of additional land be set aside. This report was not accepted in its entirety, and this resulted in the appointment of five regional committees, which recommended that 7,5 million morgen be set aside.

There the matter rested for 12 years, and eventually the great milestone was reached in 1936, when the historic Act, Act No 18 of 1936, with its land quota of 7,25 million morgen, was passed. I do not wish to be unkind, because I have already said that a milestone was reached in terms of the 1936 Act. However, I want to suggest, in the light of the information available to us today, that this 7,25 million morgen was an arbitrary determination.

I shall tell hon members what my reasons are for saying this. What were the objectives of the 1936 Act? The objectives of the 1936 Act were threefold: Firstly, it was to make it possible for Black people to develop their own institutions in scheduled areas. Secondly, it was to create a reasonable opportunity for them to make a living. Thirdly, and this was actually one of the most important objectives, it provided for the relations between the Black and White population groups and the way these should be regulated.

When one comes back now to this land quota of 7,25 million morgen, what does one find? One finds, in the first place, that this calculation was based on the findings of the Beaumont Commission. What does the Beaumont Commission say? I do not wish to belittle the remarks of the commission, because it was an immense task that was performed. The commission said:

This is the Act to which I have already referred—

Nevertheless, the commission produced a report, and in 1936, this commission’s report— please note that the Beaumont Commission actually recommended 8,4 million morgen— was used as a basis.

When one examines the matter further, what does one find? When this Act was debated in the House of Assembly at the time, there was a great deal of opposition to the Act, none other than from the NP of that time. What did they say? Not long after the debate began, National Party MPs proposed that the 1936 Bill be referred back to the Government. Why? So that the Government could investigate the matter again and could obtain evidence with regard to a schedule concerning the proposed released land.

When one examines the statements made by individual MPs, one finds that a Mr Van den Berg said, for example, that he was glad that this matter had been kept out of the political arena, but he also said that the 7,25 million morgen of land which was to be made available to the Blacks was not enough, in his opinion. He inferred that it was not the intention of the Government to make Black areas attractive. He went on to say that segregation could not be brought about step by step; it should be a final step.

A year later, one finds a remark made by Advocate Strydom, when he said, in the course of the debate on another piece of legislation in connection with Black affairs, that there was no doubt about the fact that we dealt superficially with this problem in the past; that we had not always attempted to go to the root of the problem and to deal with it in its entirety. He said that we had been guilty of patchwork in the past.

Now that hon member alleges that we are violating the principles of the NP when we say that this quota can be exceeded. It is also interesting to see how this quota and the legislation in terms of the old Act have developed. I want to say at once that not much happened during the period between 1936 and 1948. The Second World War broke out and Gen Hertzog retired, and he had actually been the force behind the 1936 Act. General Smuts was engaged in other matters, and the governing party was burdened by deep divisions.

I come now to a further period of 30 years, the period between 1948 and 1978. This period began with a statement made by Dr Malan on 29 March 1948. What did he say? He said:

When Dr Verwoerd set the Tomlinson Commission to work and when the Tomlinson report was received, what did we find almost 20 years after the passing of the 1936 Act? We find that the following was said:

This is what has become of this historic Act of 1936 almost 20 years after it was passed. Naturally, we could not let the matter rest there, because—and I want to say this simply by way of summarizing the situation— when this Act was passed, the great ideals of this side of the House, namely that nations should be given their freedom, that nations should be ethnically consolidated and that the areas which they inhabit should be consolidated, had not gained general acceptance among the population. In other words, when this quota land of 7,25 million morgen was determined, these concepts had not gained general acceptance. Now surely it is only logical and reasonable to all who are able to read and write that in the 1980s in which we are now living, and with the guidelines on the basis of which we are consolidating, not only land, but nations as well, we should review the 1936 Act and the quota of 7,25 million morgen.

Another milestone was reached on 7 February 1979 when the Prime Minister announced the guidelines in terms of which future consolidation would take place. The guidelines were very clearly set out and I do not wish to repeat them here. I just wish to quote the sixth guideline, as follows:

As a further guideline he also said that we should consolidate nations and territories.

It was obvious that we could not go on in this way. The Prime Minister gave us the guidelines. The great ideal of ethnically consolidating nations was spelt out, and so was the great ideal of consolidating territories. One of the speakers said the following on that same occasion:

He went on to say, with reference to the PFP:

Had it not been for the great literary merit of this part of the speech, I would not have quoted this speech by the hon member for Lichtenburg. Reading this, one is almost tempted to say, in the words of the well-known poem: “Show me the place where once we stood, Ferdie, when you were one of us.”

That was before you strayed onto the road of integration.

Now the hon member who has made that stupid remark says that we have strayed far from the policy of the NP as far as this proposed amendment is concerned. I want to allege that it is obvious and only reasonable that we should recommend and propose in this House of Assembly today that we should not only reconsider the 7,25 million morgen of quota land, but that we should in fact introduce the statutory measures required to effect the necessary changes. What does clause 4 provide? It is a very small and minor amendment. I want to say at once that this clause should be read in context. Then we see that we can now exceed the quota, but that it is still subject to the provisions of subsection (2)(c) and (d). Then comes the important provision which that hon member does not seem to have noticed, namely that no land may be purchased unless such a land is acquired in areas determined for this purpose by resolution of Parliament.

Which Parliament?

The big Parliament. The hon member does not seem to be aware of the fact that subsections (1) to (4) of section 9bis are not being amended by these proposals. What do those subsections of section 9bis provide? They simply provide that the Trust is required to submit its books and accounts to the Auditor-General. Then this Act requires the Auditor-General to submit his report to the Minister of Finance, who in turn has to table his report here within a fairly limited period.

Where are we exceeding the powers of Parliament? I believe that the process that has to be followed with regard to the acquisition of land is not very clear to many people. Let us examine it for a moment. I do not see the hon member for Berea here, but he had a great deal to say only yesterday about trust land which still cannot be utilized for a period. After all, the acquisition of land in terms of this system and the inclusion of land in the area of jurisdiction of another sovereign state do not constitute an ordinary juridical act of the kind which is performed by the hon member while he is at home during the recess, when he simply instructs his attorney to buy a farm or a house. After all, land purchases such as those which we are dealing with here include purchases, exchange, resettlement, negotiation and related matters.

The hon member is very worried about the fact that we have not yet included certain land that has been purchased in the area of jurisdiction of kwaZulu. Surely he will admit, though, that purchases include all the concepts to which I have just referred. Has he or his party ever done anything to remove the unpleasant connotation which the real enemies of South Africa give to resettlement? Like the enemies of South Africa, they raise a hue and cry and they refer to this resettlement as forced removals. Have they ever done anything positive about the enormous task we have of negotiating with the Black communities and of telling them: “There you will have better opportunities in life; go and settle there; there is water and there are the necessary facilities”? However, they join the enemies of South Africa in raising a hue and cry when we say that an ethnic group or a community should be properly resettled. Have they ever inspected the conditions at Madadeni, where people have been resettled? Have they ever inspected the farms at Elliot in Transkei, where people have been resettled? Have they ever visited the Steelpoort area, the Deelpan Farms and the Vlakfontein area? No, they will not visit those places, because they testify to positive results which the hon the Minister and his department have achieved through hard work. However, this forms a part of the great process of resettlement.

Finally, I want to draw the attention of hon members to what really happens when land has to be acquired or when consideration has to be given to the acquisition of land for incorporation into a national state. I want to refer to this briefly, for the sake of interest.

The following procedure takes place: In the first place, the department, with the aid of its brilliant officials, collects all the maps and information required for such an area. These are then referred to the Commission for Co-operation and Development for investigation. This means many days of hard work for the commission, and the commission then produces a report which is submitted to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet approves it in principle, a public announcement is made. In the announcement, all those who are affected, all interested parties, political parties and the national state or states are invited to give evidence at a meeting and to make inputs. Such a meeting may take days, and then the commission draws up a report which is more once again submitted to the Cabinet.

And then nothing happens.

Fortunately, the hon member only served on the commission for a short while. He would only have ruined it. [Interjections.]

Give me permission to publish some of your reports.

Oh, for goodness sake! What on earth could the hon member publish to which he was a party and which was positive?

If the matter is approved by the Cabinet, it is referred to a select committee of Parliament, which includes members of all the parties represented in the House of Assembly. In the report produced by them, the area is defined. The report is then submitted to Parliament and approved. Then the State President may declare some of those areas to be released areas.

Only then do the real negotiations for purchases and offers begin, and then the responsible Minister and Cabinet of the national state can negotiate further, and eventually the State President can issue a proclamation in terms of which the area concerned is incorporated into the area of jurisdiction of the state concerned.

Unfortunately, my time has almost expired. I want to congratulate the department and its law advisers on this amendment of old and historic legislation. It has been done in a well-considered way and Parliament is not losing any of its power because of this. It is a brilliant piece of work, and I believe that in the years to come, this legislation will help to set nations free and that we shall be able to round off the consolidation of their fatherlands.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Newton Park was quite right when he referred to certain aspects of the Bill as far as the past is concerned, and in particular the enactment of the 1936 Development Trust and Land Act.

I personally feel that this is very important legislation. It deals with almost every facet of Black life except political life. In this regard it even touches on some local authority aspects.

The point made by the hon member for Pietersburg regarding section 30 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 is very valid and this is where I want to start. This new clause is to us an indication of the acceptance of the permanence of Blacks in the Republic. It is a vastly improved clause. The old one was something of a nightmare, and the tone and spirit of the new one is certainly a great improvement.

I think it is true to say that the Bill deals with two aspects of the future which are very important to the country, and with two aspects of the past. The aspects of the past are largely a little bit of cleaning out of cupboards that the Government has had to do in respect of certain proclamations. I will deal with those last. I believe the future is far more important. As far as that is concerned I should like to carry on from where the hon member for Newton Park left off in respect of the purchase of additional land. It is some time ago since the hon the Prime Minister indicated that the 1936 Land Act was not a holy cow and that if it was necessary to bring about meaningful consolidation 7,25 million morgen would be exceeded. Only today are we putting into legal terms that statement of the hon the Prime Minister.

What is important is the size of the possible excess that we are looking at. During the discussion of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s Vote he told the Committee that some 80 000 ha of land still had to be consolidated to be able to complete the quota in terms of the 1936 Land Act, most of which was in Natal, and that a small number of farms had also to be purchased in Kangwane. He indicated that that would cost the State some R70 million. The additional area already identified, which the hon the Minister mentioned, came to some 475 000 ha. He also indicated where those areas would go to. If I have them correctly, kwaNdebele was to get another 164 000 ha, Gazankulu, 13 000 ha, Kangwane, 25 000 ha, Lebowa, 8 000 ha, Venda, 4 000 ha, Qwaqwa, 96 000 ha, Transkei, 41 000 ha, Bophuthatswana, 46 000 ha and Ciskei 78 000 ha. The areas in Natal, those to be consolidated into kwaZulu, are not included as a result of the Rumpff Commission’s report on consolidation which still has to be finalized. One would certainly be looking at something in excess of 500 000 ha additional to the area set aside in the 1936 Land Act. If one bears in mind that the entire 1936 quota for Natal, for instance, was just slightly more than 526 000 ha and one considers the cost mentioned for the additional 80 000 ha to complete the quota in terms of the 1936 proposals—it was R70 million—then one is looking at a possible further amount of some R700 to R800 million. Although it is only a small area in comparison with the original 7,25 million ha, the cost of this additional land is going to be as great as the amount we have already spent in acquiring the land up to now. It is for that reason that I raise this point. We are talking about the future. We in these benches feel that this is a situation which requires very serious attention. Interestingly enough yesterday the hon member Mr Van Staden cited the question of the Small Business Development Corporation and the development flowing from that where hundreds of small businessmen were being put on their feet. He mentioned that during the debate on the population density legislation. Everybody indicated that the money that was to be spent on the Western and North Western Transvaal borders was vital. However, it appears to me that we have a dichotomy on our hands here—on the one hand we are expending money to establish people and on the other we are in fact going to spend almost the same amount all over again; indeed, we are going to spend millions to render productive units unproductive. I say that, Mr Speaker, because the record of the purchase of land for consolidation to date has been an unhappy one where units do in fact become totally unproductive. As has often been said in this House, these units enter a system where they change, by virtue of the communal ownership nature of their future, from being a viable asset on which money can be raised from a commercial bank for development, for extension and production, to a valueless unit on which not a cent can be raised. This situation arises because the unit is not in private ownership but is in fact owned by the state concerned and in other cases by a tribe.

Looking into the future in terms of this additional land, I would suggest that it requires a very serious rethink regarding the manner in which this land is treated. I do not believe that we can reverse the situation because, in fact, most of these farms are already identified; they fall under the 1981 proposals. The farmers concerned are already under pressure because in many cases their neighbours know that they are due to get those farms but, because of the financial implications, those farmers are sitting there waiting to be bought out. I do not think that one can reverse the process but what one can do is to make certain that one negotiates a far better way of handling this land.

I should like to say something about the next five clauses in this Bill. First of all, the Economic Development Corporation has now given way to the Development Bank for Southern Africa. After negotiating something as complicated as that which, according to information I have, took approximately four years, it matured finally into a situation where the parties concerned decided as follows:

It took some four years to draw up articles of agreement, some of which indicate the very essence of the fears that investors in the national states or in the independent states have. I would like to suggest today, Sir, that those same fears are the reason for our inability to persuade White farmers to remain on the farms in those states, as has been attempted by the Government. I am afraid that in most cases those attempts have failed. There are one or two farmers who have remained and we are aware of them, but these attempts have failed on a large scale because of the lack of security, inter alia, security in regard to the rule of law, law and order, nationalization and different taxation rates; in other words, the whole spectrum of security.

However, the articles that have been negotiated for the Development Bank cover all those things, and I should like to mention a few: Article 35—legal proceedings; article 36—immunity of assets and immunities and privileges of bank personnel. In fact, the investor in industry has achieved a situation where the fear component is removed entirely from all development activity within that area. I want to say that it is possible to negotiate on the same basis a new approach to the use of that land and, wherever possible, to persuade the White farming entrepreneur to remain on his farm with his stock so that vast capital sums will not be required to be spent in purchasing the land. Once it has been purchased, it goes downhill for a number of years. It is plundered, all its sheds are torn to pieces, its fences are pulled down and it reaches a stage of virtually complete worthlessness. At that stage one has to pump more money into it once again to restore it to the state it was in before while still not having a person with the necessary knowledge and expertise to run it.

I really feel that if we have been able to negotiate multilateral co-operation in Southern Africa, as this booklet on the Development Bank is called, if we have been able to negotiate articles and agreements for industry and commerce as well as the Development Bank has done—and I must say that I believe that the Development Bank has a great role to play in the development of infrastructure in these areas which, of course, is its main task—we would have done agriculture a very great service indeed. However, I believe that this can still be done so as to avoid this vast wastage of money, the deterioration of these properties and the lack of production.

Of what real good is land to these states other than for production or tax generation purposes or giving them a larger national asset? If that land is required simply in order to settle people on a scattered and subsistence basis then it is a total waste. However, in many cases I know that this is not so. People are being grouped in village areas which we are particularly concerned about because we believe that it is only be doing something of this nature that those people can be given a better lifestyle by providing power and water and better living conditions. By doing this one also creates the situation where small industries can be established thus attracting the people from the land and rather using that land for economic purposes.

In this booklet that I have on the Development Bank, this multilateral co-operation in Southern Africa is described very well. It also includes joint decision making, much, I am sure, to the horror of hon members to my right. [Interjections.] What is interesting, is that it sounds so completely like a confederal concept. It even goes to the trouble of dealing with “popular misconceptions about the DBSA” as follows:

I hope it is; I think it is because it looks very much like it. However, the answer is:

It goes on at some length in this regard. I would like to say that these booklets and leaflets I have make very worthwhile reading. The intricacies of the working groups and all the negotiating that had to be done to achieve this indicate a tremendous intent and desire to do things on a proper economic basis using scarce resources. Yet we do not have that approach with regard to land. The hon member for Newton Park mentioned this terribly precious commodity, the estate of the nation, and it is an ever-shrinking quantity because of the increase in population. Yet we approach this matter in an almost largesse sort of manner as if there was lots to come—that we know that it is not used very well and that it is not a wonderful arrangement but that it is the best that one can do. I should therefore like to suggest that the same degree of planning and research that has gone into the DBSA be put into the proper use of agricultural land in the future, including the possibility of articles of confederation, or whatever one likes to call them, to make it possible for experienced landowners to remain on their farms and to continue to farm if they get the umbrella security included in those articles of confederation which would make it possible for them to do so.

My time is running out, but in the last few moments that I have may I just ask the hon the Deputy Minister if he will be so good as in his reply to clear up a point in our minds with regard to clause 12. Clause 12 is the clause about which the hon member for Berea had so many misgivings. I understand that the proclamations referred to, the cut-off date being 18 June 1982, do not include the proclamations concerning Kangwane and Ingwavuma. They are excluded. I understand that all the other proclamations contained in this list kindly supplied by the department, deal with ordinary administrative matters which are valid as of now but, in order to confirm their validity require retrospectively that consultation be deemed to have taken place because, according to the letter of the law flowing from the judgment in the Ingwavuma/Kangwane affair, it would appear that there is a difference in the meaning of consultation; and that while, negotiation and discussion did take place in each of these cases it did not take place within the full meaning of consultation.

I shall deal with that whole question.

I hope too that the hon the Deputy Minister will be able to tell the House that there are no other proclamations or skeletons floating around in odd cupboards that will be conveniently included. The wording of this clause indicates to us that “notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law, any proclamation promulgated or purporting to have been promulgated under this Act before 18 June 1982,” and unless we can be given the assurance that this is limited to administrative matters and that there is nothing sinister about it, we will find ourselves in a bit of difficulty as far as this matter is concerned. I would ever go so far as to say that it could have been a lot more tidily worded. It might then not have given one the impression that it has. However, on the basis of the hon the Deputy Minister’s reassurance with regard to clause 12 we shall decide upon our support or otherwise for this Bill. Clause 12 would appear to be bad in law. We are not so concerned about clause 1, but it is an unfortunate way of doing things. We understand the Government’s point of view in that they cannot just stand and wait for problems to arise out of a series of proclamations that could be declared invalid. They have to take some form of action and I think it depends entirely on the hon the Deputy Minister’s reassurances as to whether it is acceptable to this party or not.

Mr Speaker, we are very grateful for the support the hon member for King William’s Town will be giving this important legislation we are discussing here today. The hon member came forward with positive suggestions with regard to improvement and solving these problems. Perhaps the hon member will be able to assist us in solving the various problems as regards consolidation and development, or make suggestions in that regard.

We must look at this matter in the light of the fact that a start was made on this 48 years ago. At that time Parliament made a decision to which we are bound and which we must carry into effect. Let us tell one another today that it is not to our credit that a period of 48 years has passed without completing this. The fact that we have taken so long to carry the decision embodied in the Act of 1936 into effect, has caused us many problems—I agree with the hon member on this point. For example, the price of land has increased, and there are factors as well.

I have read what the then Prime Minister—Gen Hertzog—said in those days. The hon member for Newton Park also referred to this. Gen Hertzog said that it was being claimed that too much land was being made available for the Black people in South Africa. He said this in view of the quota of 7,25 million morgen. It was estimated that it would have cost £10 million to purchase these 7,25 million morgen. The development of the land would have cost a further £5 million. The Prime Minister said at that time that he was in earnest about implementing the decision of Parliament as soon as possible.

What was the time-limit he set when he said that it must take place soon? He said that “as soon as possible” meant within the ensuing five years. He also said that the 7,25 million morgen of land should be regarded as a provisional quantity of land for the Black people. When one looks at the problems surrounding this situation today, one must bear in mind that the Prime Minister did not regard the 7,25 million morgen of land as sufficient before the ethnic policy came to the fore. He said that it was a provisional quantity which would have to be found soon, within five years. When someone asked him about it, he said that 10 years was too long. It should have been settled by 1946, since 10 years was too long. We should not hurl accusations at one another today, but the fact remains that this decision was not carried into effect. Gen Hertzog said he wanted to have justice done to the people in South Africa, to the Black people as well.

It is 48 years later now, and the matter still has not been disposed of and we still have not finished purchasing the land. There are certain factors that make it very difficult for us to complete the work entrusted to us. I am speaking about the Commission for Co-operation and Development, the chairman of which is in this House at the present.

If we should mention one person in South Africa who is in earnest about carrying into effect the undertaking given in 1936, it is the present hon Prime Minister who, as my hon colleague said, took the bull by the horns in 1979 and said: I am telling you, we are going to look at that now. He also said that the quota should not be exceeded unnecessarily, but that we should go ahead even if it was exceeded. However, certain problems are being placed in our way which are preventing us from completing the work.

You should …

I think the hon member for Barberton should rather go and look at Prof Boshoffs plan, that great plan the CP had. That is the plan that hon member must carry into effect, we shall see to this one. [Interjections.]

We as a commission are in earnest about this task, and we are working hard to bring it to fruition. The hon the Prime Minister said that this should be settled as soon as possible. In addition, he said that he was instructing us to dispose of this matter within the next four years. More than four years have passed in the meanwhile. The instruction of the hon the Prime Minister means that the task should be completed in 1987. Unfortunately, we are working under difficult circumstances. There are economic recessionary conditions in which the implementation of this has to take place. As my hon colleague pointed out, our terms of reference, as given to us by the hon the Prime Minister, are that there should be widespread consultation with everyone involved in this matter. This is what he said: You must consult Black people, you must consult Whites and you must consult everyone concerned, since it is not an easy task that has to be carried into effect. The Government is in earnest about the fact that it is going to be done. The hon member for King William’s Town referred to certain problems. He referred to White farmers and the proper utilization of land. We agree with all these things. There are problems with borders and with viable land that has to be obtained for these people. It is also desirable that some of the White farmers should be persuaded to teach the Black farmers. Black people will also have to learn that they cannot all be farmers. The Whites sorted themselves out over the centuries so that there is only a small percentage of them who provide food for everyone. The Black people will also have to learn that 90% of them cannot be farmers and that only a small percentage of them will have to produce food. This is a process that will have to take place over a long period.

I now want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Berea. He spoke about transferring Trust land, the leasing of land and about consolidation in Natal, but he spoke about the transfer of the land in particular. After we have acquired land, usually under difficult circumstances, we try to transfer it as a block. Until the land is ready for transfer we lease it to White farmers. In practice, the commission finds that the Black people with whom it negotiates on a daily basis have difficulty in understanding this situation. To them it is an emotional subject and they want the land to be transferred to them as soon as possible. There are also problems with regard to Natal or kwaZulu. Last year all the members of Parliament from Natal were invited to a meeting by the kwaZulu Development Corporation. The chairman of the kwaZulu Development Corporation told me then that we should try to transfer certain land sooner. I then offered that the chairman of the commission and I would go and listen to their problems. However, I then received a message that the kwaZulu Development Corporation did not want to speak to us because we were carrying out the Government’s policy. The talks we have had with other peoples in South Africa thus far on a practically daily basis have been very cordial. We have found one another and have already progressed considerably with the consolidation of land with regard to practically all the different peoples in South Africa. KwaZulu is the final area that is still creating tremendous problems for the commission. I want to make it clear now that we were instructed to proceed with the consolidation of kwaZulu and that we are in fact doing so. However, we would appreciate it if the chief minister and his cabinet would give us their co-operation in this regard. They should not adopt the attitude that they do not want to speak to us. If we speak to one another, we can assist them, since we have been instructed to transfer a certain quantity of land to them. If they do not speak to us, we cannot take their opinion concerning land matters into account. The hon member for Berea has now appointed himself the mouthpiece of the Zulus in this House. He is not the mouthpiece of the Zulus. The commission is prepared to go to Ulundi or to any other place to speak to the people of kwaZulu. We will speak to the kwaZulu cabinet or to any other person involved concerning the implementation of the consolidation proposals. To the Zulus land is an emotional subject. Ingwavuma proved this. They are not prepared to part with any land, but we do not want to take land away from them. We want to give them additional land. We want to give them what they should be given.

Let us look at the attitude being adopted by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. I would say that his attitude towards the NP and the Prime Minister is, to a large extent, being encouraged by the hon member for Berea, who is trying to create mistrust between the kwaZulu Government and ourselves. The chief leader says that we should not, or do not want to speak to one another. The image of the chief leader of kwaZulu was harmed a great deal during the referendum campaign—and I regret that—as a result of the fact that the hon members of the PFP did not have sufficient confidence in themselves or in their own leader and asked the Chief Minister of kwaZulu to assist them. [Interjections.]

I know the Chief Minister of kwaZulu personally, and I would say that his attitude towards us is not what members of the PFP make it out to be in this House. They want to instil in him a feeling of ill-will towards us. The Mercury of 22 May reported what he had to say as follows:

This was in view of the visit of the Prime Minister of Swaziland to Cape Town. The Chief Minister’s inference was that we were deciding together about Ingwavuma. The report on this emotional matter goes on to say:

Now he wants to make war with us about a matter we have accepted and dealt with in a proper manner after the verdict of the court went against us. We did not introduce legislation to cancel it. We appointed a commission. We said that we would appoint a commission in respect of the dispute between them and the Swazis to see whether we could not find a solution to this problem. It is further reported in the article:

He tells us that we should not become friendly with that small people nearby, but that we should rather look at the powerful Zulu people and decide for ourselves whether we are afraid of the small people or the large one. We are not afraid of either. We do not want to make war. We want to make peace. We want to talk. We want to speak to the Zulus, just as we spoke to the Swazis.

Today I maintain that there are people in this House—I am referring specifically to the members of the PFP—who want to prevent, upset and impede the implementation of the proposals of 1936 with the purpose of impeding the implementation of our ethnic policy in South Africa as well, and who want to establish a unitary State here by opposing this. They are abusing Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi for this purpose. I want to address a friendly request to the Chief Minister today. If we have to live together in peace in South Africa, we must speak to one another. The report to which I have already referred goes on to say:

He now wants to lay a charge against us abroad concerning the land he claims we want to take away from him. This matter is pending, but anyone who wishes to look up the history of this land would find that the Mkuze River formed the northern border of the kwaZulu area and that Zulus never lived north of that river. At a later stage Zulus fleeing from King Shaka landed up there in the previous century. That is the factual situation, and that is what we must look at.

In order to solve the matter and to implement consolidation, I want to ask the Chief Minister of kwaZulu—I hold him in esteem—to negotiate with the commission so that they can obtain the land which belongs to them in terms of the 1936 Act. No further progress can be made if the provisions of the 1936 Act are not disposed of first. He must not allow himself to be led by hon members of the PFP. He must not use the boycott policy they used during the referendum in respect of the 1936 legislation. Once they have received the land that belongs to them, all the parties involved must negotiate so that the consolidation of Natal can be finalized within the proposed period laid down by the hon the Prime Minister. This is taking place under difficult circumstances, since there are financial problems at present. We hope that ways and means will be found in terms of which it will be possible to carry this legislation into effect.

One of my hon colleagues has already referred to clause 4 and its purpose. So as not to impede our activities, we must not come up against the question of the quantity of land that has to be obtained in order to implement the legislation. Progress has been such that until 31 December 1978 only 5,5 million ha of the necessary land had been obtained. The hon member for King William’s Town rightly pointed out that the outstanding pieces of land would possibly cost more than the portion that had been obtained up to that date.

Reference was also made to removals. Hon members of the PFP have discovered another way of trying to put an end to the NP’s ethnic policy, and that is to encourage the Black people not to move at all. Today I ask with tears in my eyes how we can carry the 1936 legislation into effect if people are not removed. Whites and Black people must move. We have no difficulty with removals when we have the co-operation of the Chief Minister, or the Cabinet of the Black state concerned and when they tell the people, or when an agreement is reached with them to move. Thousands of people were removed in kwaNdebele without anything about it appearing in the newspapers. This took place voluntarily and in consultation with one another. I now want to make a plea that in regard to other removals that have to take place in order to implement this legislation, all Black people, including those in kwaZulu, as well as Whites give their co-operation.

I thought that there would be no more removals.

Of course removals will take place. Whites and Blacks will have to move in order to carry this legislation into effect. The matter is really very simple. As a result of the colonial policy Natal was divided up into more than 200 pieces. An effort must be made to turn this “leopard skin” into a unit, and if not, to come as close as possible to a unit or large blocks. This is not easy, however. How can a unit or larger blocks be achieved if there are no removals? To achieve this and give them the land certain removals will have to take place. Boycotting us or claiming that we will not achieve this will not stop us from consolidating kwaZulu. We shall do so, even to their detriment, if they do not want to assist us. In 1979 the hon the Prime Minister said—he had the peaceful co-existence of Whites and Blacks in mind—that the consolidation process should be hastened. He pointed out that we did not have another 48 years at our disposal, as we did since 1936. He said that we would have to review old concepts. That is where the CP gets stuck. He also pointed out that economic development had to take place in these states. What is the reason for people in Africa having serious problems today? It is because they cannot make ends meet economically. That is why the Whites will have to assist them. Let me make an admission today: It was to the detriment of the Black states that Whites were withdrawn from them. The Whites will still have to render economic assistance in the development of these areas for a long time. There will have to be political stability in South Africa. This is what we want. We want peace. That is why we will have to look at all these problems. We will not only have to consolidate geographically. That is not possible. The only person who could do that is Prof Boshoff, the leader of the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] There will have to be an exchange of land between peoples, between White and Black, as is taking place now at their request. If the Zulus do not wish to speak to us, we cannot assist them in this regard. [Interjections.]

The hon the Prime Minister said that we would not exceed the quota in terms of the 1936 Act unnecessarily, but if this has to happen, it will. It has in fact happened now. However, the commission has been instructed to motivate the matter well. The hon the Prime Minister also asked that extensive talks should be held. This is what is so time-consuming. Talks are being conducted repeatedly in respect of each area that is consolidated. Each time one of those involved reports us to our hon Minister, we are in trouble with regard to non-consultation.

Let us look at what is causing the clash in South Africa concerning this emotional question of land. Of course, it is an emotional subject for Black people. When Mr Vorster spoke to the various leaders of the national states at that time, and the present hon Prime Minister did so again now, the first topic they raised—and they still do— was the question of land. They claim a certain quantity of land of their own. However, history has caused certain divisions to take place in this country. However, we shall have to ensure that viable circumstances are created for peoples by the way in which land is divided.

We must appreciate the resolution of the hon the Prime Minister. He is the one who said that he was going to settle the matter within a fixed period of time and not wait any longer. I am appealing to hon members in this House to stand together and assist him so that we can finalize this matter, which has dragged on for too long—it does not matter whose fault it is. We shall have to try to clear up squatter areas so as to improve the living conditions of these people. We shall have to allow urbanization to take place in the national and independent states, since not everyone can farm and not everyone can live in the rural areas. They will also have to urbanize in their own areas.

The CP disputes the permanence of Black people in South Africa. We must admit to one another that Black people are in South Africa permanently, of course. The CP are living in a dream when they speak of a state in which only Whites are going to live. I do not know where that is going to be. They cannot even put only Whites in Acacia Park. Sir, you should come and look at the number of servants that they bring along. [Interjections.] I am not a member of the CP, but I told my wife that she should do her own work because we are not so dependent on people of colour that we cannot do it ourselves. I also wash the dishes sometimes. [Interjections.] Recently I could see through the back door of the hon member for Kuruman, my neighbour, that he also washes dishes. We should do the work ourselves. [Interjections.]

The Black peoples will play an important role in South Africa in the future, and they are envied by the other peoples in Africa. We practice the Western system of free enterprise, and this is to the benefit of the Black peoples. As a result of this method, the Black peoples in the rest of Africa will not choose communism, but the free enterprise system, and we must consequently do everything in our power to promote it. We must perfect the key point for participation by all peoples, and that is why we are sitting here today.

We are not so stupid as to say that the step that has been taken in respect of participation by the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians in decision-making processes is the end product. The hon the Prime Minister has said that attention will have to be given to the urban Black people so that they, too, can decide about their own affairs, and that is why he appointed the Cabinet Committee.

We must put an end to the mistrust and fear among the various population groups, and I appeal to hon members not to fan this mistrust and fear. I can speak the Zulu language fluently, in fact, probably just as well as the Zulus themselves, and I know that there is no hatred in them. There is mistrust, but this exists because we cannot find one another, nor do we speak to one another often enough. We must therefore do everything in our power to eliminate this fear and mistrust in the interests of the whole of South Africa.

We must accept that reform must and will take place, and that we shall, and want to live in peace with one another. We must not disregard the role of the hon the Prime Minister in establishing peaceful co-existence in Southern and South Africa. We as members of Parliament must assist him and not make his task more difficult. If Southern Africa should lapse into retrogression like the rest of Africa, the Whites will also go under, since we are linked to Africa and to South Africa. Our economy is linked to Africa, and if they go under, we will go under with them.

I wish to conclude by presenting the objectives laid down by the hon the Prime Minister in 1979 to hon members. He said that the maintenance and development of orderly government was important. In addition, he said that the improvement of relations and self-determination were important, and thirdly, he said that friendly relations with the neighbouring states were important. The hon the Prime Minister is in the process of extending these objectives. Economic development and the maintenance of law and order are important, and consequently, I am extremely grateful that I am able to support this legislation. It will enable all the peoples in South Africa to live together in a state of peace, and not in a state of war, and I therefore request the support of all the parties for the initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Vryheid has made an emotional speech this afternoon, full of wild allegations directed towards this side of the House, and I feel I must respond to some of the things that he has said. He has accused the hon member for Berea for having been responsible for the bad relations which exist between kwaZulu and the Republic of South Africa. I should, however, like to ask the hon member who was it who was responsible for having tried to give away a large portion of kwaZulu to Swaziland. Was it the hon member for Berea or was it the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development? I should further like to ask the hon member for Vryheid how he actually sees the future of relationships between South Africa and kwaZulu given that the kwaZulu people do not want to accept independence and given that they do not wish to lose South African citizenship. What is his answer to that problem? Is his Government going to force independence on kwaZulu? The hon member also referred to our attitude towards removals and our opposition to them. He claimed that there were certain removals that still had to take place. I understood the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development to say that removals were over. I would therefore be interested to learn to which removals the hon member was referring.

Furthermore, in regard to our attitude in respect of removals, I should like to react here to criticism that was expressed by the hon member for Newton Park as well. Yes, Sir, we are opposed to removals, and for very good reasons. In the first instance, it has been alleged that Whites have also had to be removed and that they have also had to suffer, so why should we only be concerned about Black removals? There are certain very important differences as far as certain removal procedures are concerned. If I as a White man forced to move, if my farm is to be taken over for consolidation purposes, I am free to go and live wherever I please. If I am sick and tired of farming and I decide that I do not want to continue farming, I can go to town. I can go to any place in the Republic of South Africa that I wish to choose and settle there. However, a Black person cannot do that. If a Black person does not have section 10(1) rights, he cannot go to town. He is obliged to go wherever the Government sends him. Then again, as a White, if my farm is bought by the Government, I can acquire more land. I can buy a farm in whatever part of the country I choose and re-establish myself there. However, a Black farmer who has freehold title to his land and is bought out may not acquire more freehold land. He loses that freehold title. He is sent into a homeland area where he cannot acquire freehold title either. [Interjections.] No, I am not wrong. Can the hon member perhaps tell me where Blacks can acquire freehold title in South Africa? [Interjections.] No, I am talking about a Black man who wants to continue farming. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, the hon member for King William’s Town must get his facts straight.

The third important difference is that Whites can remain in South Africa as South African citizens while Black people are forced to go and live in an independent country which is not South Africa. Let me give an example in this regard. The Fingo people were removed from Humansdorp and some of those Black people were not even Xhosa-speaking. They had been living in Humansdorp so long that they were Afrikaans-speaking. However, because they were Black and had Xhosa names they were sent to Ciskei. They lost their South African citizenship when they were forcibly removed to a foreign country.

These are just some of the reasons why we are opposed to these removals. I have not even mentioned some of the more important ones such as what these removals are doing to our image in the eyes of the world. No, Sir, the hon members for Vryheid and Newton Park must consider the facts very carefully before they attack us on these matters.

I want to support the hon member for King William’s Town in his plea in regard to the holding on to of farms and the destruction of the facilities on those farms. Interestingly enough, I have a report here that appeared in the Daily Dispatch of 30 May of this year in which the Ciskeian Government complains about this very thing. It is not just we of the official Opposition who complain about these matters; it is the Ciskeian people themselves who complain. In this regard I should like to quote what was said by the Minister of Agriculture of the Ciskei:

He goes on to refer to farms in the Berlin and Braunsweig areas. He says:

The hon member for King William’s Town has a case and I agree with him there.

What I would like to speak about this afternoon involves the matter of the transfer of land from the SADT to the homeland states, as referred to in clause 3 of the Bill. I want to refer specifically to certain allegations that have been made concerning problems experienced in this regard. That there are delays there is no doubt. Again I should like to refer to this report from the Daily Dispatch. It is headed “Handing over of land taking too long, says Mapane.” He goes on in this report to complain that Ciskei had not been given farms it had been promised long ago. I quote again:

I have heard persistent allegations concerning this matter which are of such a serious nature that I believe they should be drawn to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister so that he can either confirm or deny them. The allegation is that an agreement exists between the South African Government and certain homeland states, and here I refer specifically to Ciskei, the terms of which are that certain land will not be handed over to the homeland Government until that Government has accepted or perhaps “taken delivery”, which might be a better phrase, of people due to be removed from certain black spots. Again I refer specifically to the black spots in the border corridor. If this is true, then it would explain why, for example, President Sebe appears so keen to involve himself in the removal of these people. It would explain why his security police entered Mgwali illegally in order to harass and arrest those people who were opposed to removal. This aspect of President Sebe’s action has always puzzled me. When one considers that he ostensibly has nothing to gain from encouraging even more people to settle in his already grossly overcrowded country, when one considers that he already has enormous problems regarding poverty and unemployment and a lack of housing, schools, hospitals etc, and when one considers that the situation is so bad that one of his national goals is to provide all his people with at least just one meal per day, then it just does not make sense for him to be eager to encourage thousands of additional destitute people to come and settle in his country. These people will only aggravate an already explosive situation. It does not make sense unless he has something to gain from accepting them. If what he has to gain is the White farmland that has been withheld from him by the Trust, then his attitude does begin to make some sense. A motive for an otherwise apparently irrational attitude is provided. If the hon the Deputy Minister denies these allegations, then the President’s attitude remains a mystery.

The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development has in the past suggested that the land constituting a Black spot does form part of an agreement between him and President Sebe. What I want to ask specifically is the following: Did the people who live in those Black spots also form part of that deal? Were they regarded as part and parcel of the deal? These people have been told that they are to be resettled in Ciskei, at places like Frankfort, for example. They are not being given the option of remaining in the Republic of South Africa. It should be remembered that these people were deemed to be Ciskeians only by virtue of their ethnicity. They have always lived in South Africa and they regard themselves as South Africans. They have never lived in Ciskei which is now an independent country. If they are part and parcel of the land swop deal, then it will mean in so far as these people are concerned that the deal involved not only the loss of their ancestral land, but also the forced translocation from one independent country to another. They will in fact have become pawns in a ruthless political game. We in these benches are not prepared to accept this treatment of people without the strongest protest if it is true. That is why I am calling upon the hon the Minister to set the record straight.

We would also be glad if the hon the Minister, while he is dealing with this matter, could tell us if Trust land is being hired out, as further alleged, to White farmers for reviewable periods of time and, if this is so, why this land is not handed over to Ciskei. What are the reasons for this delay?

One final question which I would appreciate the hon the Deputy Minister answering is this: Are the final boundaries of Ciskei now drawn? Will there now be an end to consolidation in that territory? We would appreciate answers by the hon the Deputy Minister to these questions.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon the hon member for Albany, together with his colleague the hon member for Berea, tried to extract a little venom from the Ingwavuma affair. What we must say to one another in this House is that the Ingwavuma court finding has created certain possible consequences for us which must be dealt with in the most practical way possible. I shall deal with that in the course of my speech.

The hon member for Albany also climbed on the old bandwagon of “forced removals”. We just want to react by saying to the hon member that the NP deals with all removals with the greatest possible degree of circumspection and the greatest possible degree of sympathy, but in order to implement our policy in South Africa in practice, removals not only of Black people, but also of White farmers are essential. It is very easy for the PFP to speak about removals, because their policy of awarding political rights on a colour-blind basis and their policy of awarding political rights in a geographical federation, and to whomever may live in those specific areas, does not make it essential for them to have removals, because ultimately— the hon member Prof Olivier says that this is correct—this culminates in what they have in mind for South Africa, viz a unitary state.

Oh no, man!

It is a geographic federation, but constitutes one state in which all will have to obtain political rights.

The hon member put other administrative and specific questions to the hon the Deputy Minister and accordingly I shall not react further to his speech.

The hon member for Berea gave notice that they would vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. He added that they would vote against specific clauses in the Committee Stage. They will also vote against the Bill at Third Reading, due to the result of the Ingwavuma case, viz clauses 1 and 12. The hon member then expresses himself in very strong language when he says: “We are going to vote against this, not because it opposes the court case, but because it is the result of the Ingwavuma débâcle.” I just want to say to him that Ingwavuma as such is not at issue. If Ingwavuma creates certain problems for us in terms of the court finding it is the duty and responsibility of the Government at the helm of affairs in South Africa not to allow disorder to occur in the future. After all, we have to learn from experience, and if anything has gone wrong, we must deal with that situation.

The hon member for Berea then said: “The Government suffered a humiliating defeat and did damage to relations and now, to protect itself, it confirms certain proclamations.” He then describes this as “vague and cynical”. Surely the hon member obtained a list of the proclamations made before that court finding. However, his amendment does not take into account the reality of that situation. The point of departure with regard to clauses 1 and 12 is, in the first place, that the Government recognizes and respects the Ingwavuma court finding. This was in the case of Government of South Africa and another vs Government of kwaZulu. The Government abides by that court finding. However, we must be realistic. Orderly and responsible government with the least possible degree of friction is still a prerequisite in South Africa. Therefore, without introducing legislation to nullify or tamper with the finding of the court, the hon the Deputy Minister is merely attempting, by way of clauses 1 and 12, to establish security of justice with regard to all proclamations made before the court case. What is important is that at the moment there is no outstanding court case in progress with regard to any of those proclamations. Moreover, no rights of anyone affected by the proclamations are being encroached upon. Therefore this is merely a confirmation of actions that have already been successfully finalized. On the basis of the court finding, all future proclamations will in practice have to be made subject to the court findings. This measure provides for proclamations made before the court finding, with a view to security of justice. Uncertainty about the possibility that the more or less 80 proclamations made before the court finding could give rise to court cases, makes this measure imperative. One need only imagine the possible consequences if such proclamations were declared null and void. They affect the livelihoods of thousands of people and the control and occupation of private and tribal property within Black areas, the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 in self-governing areas, regulations relating to the administration of Qwaqwa, Lebowa and Gazankulu, the imposition of special taxation and the consolidation proposals already approved by Parliament. Therefore we cannot allow court cases to occur afresh with respect to every second proclamation over such a broad front. For the sake of orderly and stable government this measure is imperative, and we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting it.

I should prefer not to come back to what the hon member for Pietersburg had to say. He saw fit to say that this measure represented a departure from the standpoint of the NP over the years. He then dragged the Potgietersrus by-election into the discussion of this Bill. Personally I do not think that the hon member’s remarks had any relevance to the debate, but he did quote a paragraph in the letter about separate development which was supposedly being jeopardized by this measure. With all respect to my hon colleague for Potgietersrus I do think that we should just quote this letter in perspective, so that the House will know what is at issue here. This letter by the hon member for Potgietersrus in fact concerns three matters, and the one follows the other. He writes the following:

And this the hon member for Pietersburg leaves out:

Surely that is a fact. The NP devoted its energies to achieving that. The hon member will not argue with me on that score.

But no longer.

Let us just quote another extract from the letter. There is therefore no difficulty as regards that first aspect. Why, then did the hon member include these short paragraphs? Then follows the only part of the letter which in fact had anything to do with this Bill:

Surely that, too, is correct. All the hon member for Potgietersrus did then, and this the hon member for Pietersburg now wants to hawk around Potgietersrus, was to add a third paragraph which reads as follows:

Note the question mark. He then goes on to write:

Then he goes on to talk about own government institutions etc. The hon member for Pietersburg really should not make unfair use of a few cheap political arguments.

I just have one remark to make about consolidation. I think we should state very clearly that consolidation of our Black national states is still a priority for this Government. Clause 4 will very clearly accommodate certain problems. What, basically, do the two problems amount to? In the first place, it is a fact that the provincial quotas are being exceeded. They are being exceeded—the hon the Deputy Minister spelt this out clearly— because due to decisions taken, certain poorly situated Black areas are no longer to be declared White, in cases where land to compensate for those poorly situated areas has already been purchased. That is the first reason. Secondly, there is enough land outstanding in terms of the 1975 and 1979 proposals of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, and that land has to be purchased in accordance with promises to the national states. When these 1975 and 1979 proposals were made, the hon members of the CP were all on this side of the House. The fact is—let us say this to one another— that the limits are going to be exceeded. That is why this measure is necessary. Now the hon member for Pietersburg states— again this is an instance of cheap politics that he wants to go and hawk around Potgietersrus—that the quota of 1936 has now effectively been abolished. Those were his words. He then asks: What, then, is the norm? He then suggested a number of things, the kind of thing that sounds so good on public platforms. He asked whether in future, population figures, mineral assets or the agricultural value of land would be the criterion, and whether posterity had to determine this. No, Sir, the norms that apply are the norms announced in this Parliament by the Prime Minister in 1979 and which those hon members also had a share in. Precisely the same norms would apply. I just wish to quote two paragraphs from what the hon the Prime Minister said here on 7 February 1979—the hon member for Newton Park has already quoted from it. In col 242 of Hansard the hon the Prime Minister said inter alia the following:

That is the one important point. Do the hon members still stand by that? The hon members had better tell us. The second guideline given by the hon the Prime Minister—and this is the one that my colleague quoted here—reads:

That conditions still stands today:

Those norms were stated by the hon the Prime Minister in 1979, and the hon member for Pietersburg might as well put that in his pipe and smoke it, and repeat it when he discusses this aspect in Potgietersrus. When the hon the Prime Minister made this statement which in fact accepted in principle that the 1936 proposals would be exceeded, did the hon members accept that or did they not accept it? The hon member must tell us. After all, they stand so firmly on principles. As I have already said, this legislation merely confirms those principles.

After all, the hon members of the CP have undergone a change. Surely the policy of Adv Moolman Mentz is now the policy of the CP. He is the man who stood up at a CP congress and began to talk about a White homeland. The hon member for Brakpan said that he agreed wholeheartedly with Adv Moolman Mentz. The policy of Prof Carel Boshoff, namely a White homeland, is the policy which prevails in the CP at present.

The hon members can criticize this legislation as much as they like. However, I contend that their policy of a White homeland will mean that it will be a smaller geographic area than what is now known as the Republic of South Africa. They advocate a policy of partition and have rejected the policy of separate development. The hon member for Brakpan confirmed this at that congress. They no longer advocate separate development, but partition and a White homeland. The CP’s policy of partition will require a great deal more land than the policy of consolidation advocated by the Government. Special note must be taken of the statement by the hon the Prime Minister to which I have already referred.

A short time ago the hon member for Rosettenville was sitting reading a booklet which I happened to page through. The title of this booklet is Witman, Waar is jou Tuisland? The book was written by persons who are now all members of the CP, inter alia Prof W E G Lubbe, who is the final editor of this booklet. Adv Moolman Mentz, the man who proposed the CP’s new policy, also contributed to the booklet. I just wish to quote one paragraph which will indicate how ridiculous hon members of the CP are when they criticize us for possibly exceeding the 1936 quota. The following appears under the heading “’n Wit tuisland en die res van Suid-Afrika”, and I quote:

[Interjections.] Therefore the White homeland must for the most part be occupied by Whites and it will be smaller than the present Republic of South Africa. I quote further:

I want hon members to read this booklet. Another heading is “Afsonderlike ontwikkeling omgedraai” and under that heading they make various interesting statements. Therefore the point I want to make is that in terms of the CP policy of partition and a White homeland a smaller, separate and distinct White territory in South Africa will have to be established, and this will require far more land than we now require for consolidation. [Interjections.]

I do not wish to confine myself solely to that book that was written for us by strangers. In Leadership South Africa an interview was conducted with Dr Treurnicht, and it appears under the heading “Interview Andries Treurnicht”. The date of this publication is “First quarter 1984”—only the other day—“Vol 3, No 1”. Hon members must listen very carefully now. I quote:

This is what Dr Treurnicht says:

In reply to that the questioner, Mr Murray, says:

Dr Treurnicht replies:

The interview then goes on as follows:

That is the policy of the CP. [Interjections.]

I wish to conclude. Consolidation is still a priority with this side of the House. The guidelines for consolidation are embodied in the 1979 guidelines as spelt out by the hon the Prime Minister. In those guidelines the principle has been accepted that the limits may be exceeded, but on certain definite conditions as I quoted here. We have an ethnic policy to solve in South Africa and if the 1936 quota were to be exceeded, it would only take place after due investigation. We are seeking peaceful co-existence and a fair dispensation in this country so that all of us in South Africa can co-exist with one another in peace and prosperity. Therefore we on this side of the House have no hesitation in supporting the hon the Deputy Minister as far as this measure is concerned.

Mr Speaker, I briefly want to come back to the speech of the hon member for Turffontein. He refered to the pamphlet the hon member for Potgietersrus distributed there with a view to the coming by-election. The hon member writes to the conservative voters of Potgietersrus:

Please note, the Whites:

And then the most important:

He speaks of an own Republic for the Whites. In a certain sense he is correct. When we fought the referendum in 1960 in order to obtain our own Republic we made two promises to the voters of South Africa, ie that the Republic would be democratic, but also that it would be White. Why does the hon member for Potgietersrus not also write to the voters of that constituency telling them that in terms of NP policy there will no longer be any such thing as a White Republic? Why does he not also write to the voters of Potgietersrus telling them that? If we speak of a White nation or a White country in this House, we are jeered at from the benches opposite. [Interjections.] Now that they not only have their backs to the wall, however, but are also on the run in Potgietersrus, the hon member comes forward as the great champion of a White Republic. [Interjections.] Let me now ask that hon member: What else, if not a mixed government, is envisaged in the new Constitution? It is therefore a complete deception to still pretend to the voters of Potgietersrus that today the NP still stands for a White Republic. It is not true; it is a deception. [Interjections.]

Three and a half speakers on the NP side have already taken part in this debate—perhaps three and a quarter—and very little has as yet been said by any of those speakers about one of the most important clauses in this Bill, and that is clause 2. The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the implications of what is contained in this clause, but not one of the speakers on the NP side even made any affort to reply to his criticism.

In Potgietersrus the hon member for Potgietersrus is now the great advocate of a White Republic. [Interjections.]

But that is not true. [Interjections.]

I accept the hon member for Turffontein’s assurance, and I hope the hon member for Potgietersrus endorses the fact that he is no longer proponent of a White Republic. [Interjections.] We shall take great pleasure in conveying that to the people of Potgietersrus.

What does clause 2 of this Bill embody? For our part we have no objection to the Minister being empowered to establish Black towns within Black designated areas which are Black areas. What, however, is being added here? The Minister is now also going to be empowered, in future, to establish Black towns with their own Black authorities in any areas determined by Parliament by resolution. This can mean only one thing, Mr Speaker, and that is that apart from the consolidation about which hon members opposite have done the most talking, increasingly more White land will be relinquished for the urban settlement of Black people in White South Africa. Here I am not even mentioning the 1936 quota. The hon member for Pietersburg also referred to this, and we have obtained no reply to this from the NP; they did not have anything whatsoever to say about this. I have always understood that it was NP policy that no freehold rights would be given to Black people in White South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not know whether it is still their policy.

You were still a member of the NP when we granted leasehold rights.

This is a question of freehold rights and not of leasehold rights. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I now want to quote to the hon member for Innesdal what is contained in this legislation. The proposed new section 30(2) reads as follows:

1. (i) the registration in a deeds office or other registration office of the ownership of any land or premises in that town, the granting of leasehold …

The hon the Deputy Minister must now tell us, because his adjutants apparently do not have the courage to say what the NP’s policy is, whether it is NP policy that Black people will be given freehold rights in White areas too. [Interjections.]

Are leasehold rights a form of freehold rights?

No, they are not. [Interjections.] I wish the hon member for Innesdal would tell me. Is it now NP policy that freehold rights are to be granted to Black people in White areas? Apparently not one of them wants to answer. I shall tell you, Sir, why not one of them wants to answer. I shall tell you, Sir, why not one of the hon NP members is prepared to answer that question. In the NP it is extremely dangerous to adopt a standpoint, because one does not know what tomorrow’s policy will be. [Interjections.] One may perhaps have adopted the wrong standpoint. That is the NP’s problem.

What are we dealing with here? I want to reply, and I hope I shall be getting one from the hon the Deputy Minister.

The hon member will definitely be getting it.

If it is not the NP’s standpoint that freehold rights are to be granted to Black people in White areas, then let me ask why provision is being made for it in this legislation.

The hon member will also be getting a reply to that.

What is more, this possibility being created for increasingly more Black towns and cities in the White area of South Africa cannot be seen as distinct from the provisions of clause 4, and I find the provisions of that clause to be strange. In that clause it is stated “notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1)”. That is the provision that described the total surface area earmarked for the Blacks. It is provided that notwithstanding those provisions, one could now exceed the limits of that surface area. Why did the hon the Deputy Minister not simply repeal the provision? This way of drawing up legislation is something I find strange, because here one is actually saying that although this provision is on the Statute Book it is, in actual fact, no longer worth anything. So why was that section not simply repealed?

Certain hon members here went into raptures about the hon the Prime Minister’s announcement in regard to consolidation about five years ago. I readily concede that when the hon the Prime Minister announced at the time that he had instructed the commission to finalize plans for consolidation I was also in raptures. I was in raptures because it felt as it finality was now going to be reached, because here a strong Prime Minister was instructing competent people to submit the final plans indicating what the eventual boundaries of South Africa would look like. Five years have passed—not four, but five— and what do we have today? There is no announcement about the final boundaries; on the contrary, we merely have an authorization that in future any possible surface area could also be given to the Blacks. That is said without laying down any norm—the hon member for Pietersburg also referred to this—applicable to any further additions to those Black states.

I say unequivocally that if the Government had come forward today with final consolidation plans, we would have taken a serious look at them. I should like to tell the hon members of the Commission who made an effort to take part in this debate that as far as I know those final recommendations were to have been finalized in June of the year before last. That, at least, was one of the terms of reference whilst I was a member of that commission. What became of that?

Do you want to have an area for each people? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member will not mislead me. That hon member knows that the question he has just asked is a senseless one. It is not, after all, possible to give an individual area to each Black people in South Africa.

I want to know how far the Commission for Co-operation and Development has progressed—surely it has a job to do—in carrying out those terms of reference the hon the Prime Minister entrusted it with. Unfortunately there is at present an Act on the Statute Book in terms of which all the proceedings of that commission are now secret, because this all falls under the Officials Secrets Act. What the reason for that is, I do not know. We would just like to obtain some indication from them about how far they have now progressed with their recommendations for the final consolidation of the Black states.

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

No.

You are scared.

Oh really! That hon Boer-hater from Caledon says I am scared. He would do well to keep quiet.

We shall not be getting any answer, because I have learnt that those recommendations have been finalized. And why then do we not get a decision from the Cabinet? Why do they not come along with proposals for the final consolidation? The hon member for Vryheid has come along with the excuse that we are now living in a period of recession and of great problems. We are not denying that there are financial problems in this country. It is now the work of another debate to find the reasons for that. At the very time of this recession and the financial problems we are experiencing, our leaders are asking for money overseas for, as the newspapers have it, “our new-found ally, Mozambique”. That is now our new ally. We can go overseas to ask for money for Mozambique, but here the excuse is advanced that there is a recession and that that is why no faster progress can be made with the consolidation of our own national states. I should now like to know from the Government what its priorities are. Is the proper consolidation of the national states still the Government’s priority? I am afraid it no longer is. This Bill is specific proof of this. Although it has been NP policy through all the years, this afternoon they have made an attempt at ridiculing those people who cherish the ideal of majority White occupation of White South Africa. Let hon members ridicule that if they want to.

Who is ridiculing it?

The hon member ridiculed it.

There was a time when that ideal was also the ideal of the greatest leader the NP has ever had, Dr Hendrik Verwoerd. At the time that selfsame hon member also ridiculed it. He has not changed. He has merely found a new abode where he feels at home. [Interjections.] I referred to the majority occupation of White South Africa by Whites as an ideal, and that is what the hon member ridiculed.

I now briefly want to refer to the Ingwavuma story to which reference has also previously been made here. I am now not specifically going to devote myself to the relevant clauses passed as a result of that debacle. If there has ever been a tragic case, it is that of the inept—I do not know how better to express it—handling of the attempted consolidation of the Swazi people in Southern Africa …

Where is the Acting Prime Minister?

… that wonderful ideal we all strove to achieve, myself included, and I am not boasting about that. I, too, directed my efforts towards that end.

Hon members may be surprised, but there was a time when the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development did not direct his efforts towards that end. Hon members can clear this up with the hon the Minister himself if they want to.

Is that now the Acting Prime Minister?

Yes, there was a stage when this was not the endeavour of the Acting Prime Minister, but it was our endeavour. By a completely inept effort a mess was made of a praiseworthy ideal of consolidating the Swazi people in one geographic area, and for that I blame the present hon Minister responsible for this.

Clever Cas!

Thank you very much for the compliment. Unfortunately it comes from a very stupid man. [Interjections.]

As far as we are concerned, I want to state unequivocally: We shall not criticize the Government if it takes steps for the proper and accelerated development of the Black homelands. Hon members opposite need not blame us for this, nor need they be afraid that we shall criticize them if the Government does everything, within South Africa’s financial capabilities, to have those Black homelands properly consolidated and developed so that the optimum number of Black people can be settled in their own father-lands. That was always our ideal when we were still members of the NP; it is still our ideal, but it was not the hon member for Turffontein’s ideal when I was a member of the NP. At that time he opposed it as a member of the United Party, and that was just the other day.

But now you are lying.

If the hon member says I am lying, I take it from whence it comes.

Order! Did the hon member for Turffontein use the word “lying”?

Mr Speaker, I did, and I withdraw it.

Cas, he has always been verkramp.

Man, tell us about Wes-bank.

The hon member for Yeoville says the hon member for Turffontein has always been verkramp …

I paid my debts.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Yeoville is insinuating that I did not pay my debts. Is that permissible?

Sir, I merely said that I had paid my debts. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Yeoville said that he had paid his debts, in what context was he saying it?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein referred to a certain banking institution. He had certain motives in doing so, but when I said that I had paid my debts, he wanted to twist that around into a story of another kind. If he wants to, he may do so, but he is the one who started it. Sir, you can ask him what he meant by his reference to a certain banking insitution.

Did the hon member for Turffontein refer to Wesbank?

Yes, Sir.

And to that the hon member for Yeoville replied that he had paid his debts, not so?

That is so, Sir.

I do not regard that as an insinuation aimed at the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

Since the hon member for Potgietersrus is now reminding the Potgietersrus electorate that it was the NP that was responsible for a White Republic, I would appreciate it if the hon member would go back to Potgietersrus and tell the voters that in terms of this legislation all future additions to the Black national states will no longer be decided by the Whites, but will be taken by a motley Parliament and a mixed Cabinet. I would appreciate it if he would go and tell that the the voters of Potgietersrus, because the majority of the land that will possibly be added to the national states, if any has to be added, will be White land and not Coloured or Indian land. From the NP we have heard today how serious a matter the question of land is, but in terms of this measure, from 3 September the decision about the allocation of further land to Black states will no longer rest with the Whites or the elected representatives of the Whites, but with a new motley Parliament.

It will also rest with the Whites.

The hon member is right in saying that Whites will no longer have the exclusive right to decide about White land. The representatives of 800 000 Indians have exactly the same power as the representatives of million Whites to make a decision about what is to happen to the Whites’ land in South Africa. That is the factual situation we are faced with.

That is untrue.

The hon member says it is untrue, and I take it he also tells the voters of Potgietersrus that is untrue. I take it he tells the voters there that the Coloureds and the Indians will have nothing to say. [Interjections.] Then the hon member must decide what is true and what is untrue. When I said-that the Whites would no longer have the exclusive right to decide for themselves on the future of White land, he said that was untrue. What are the facts? There will be a process of joint decision-making in which the Coloureds and the Indians will also be included.

The Whites decide for themselves about their land.

What an astounding display of ignorance by a Deputy Minister! The consolidation of Black states and their possible independence is surely not going to be an own affair exclusive to the Whites.

May I put a question?

Just give me a chance first. It will, after all, be a general affair. In fact, the Department of Co-operation and Development, if it is still going to exist, is surely going to be a general affairs’ department in the new dispensation.

One’s agricultural land is an own affair.

I thought the hon the Deputy Minister was more intelligent than that. How can he allege that the possible addition of land to Black states is something the Whites alone will decide about? I do want to suggest that he take a lesson or two from the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning so that he knows what we are talking about.

Just stick to the truth.

Of course I am sticking to the truth. I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister, who does not have any special legal background, would go and find out, from the people on his side of the House who do know something about the law, what the constitutional position would be.

Would the hon member for Barberton concede that there is a basic difference between rights in civil law in regard to property and constitutional rights? In speaking about White land the hon member is confusing the two types of rights.

I think the hon member must seek the confusion in himself. I am in no way confusing the concept of constitutional law relating to land with the private law concept of individual land rights of the citizens of a state.

But you spoke of White land.

Of course. With the exclusion of the land of the Black national states and the independent states, the Indian group areas and the Coloured group areas, all land in South Africa is White state land. It either belongs to individual Whites or to the state. In future a mixed Cabinet will take decisions about this White State land, a mixed Parliament and a mixed Government. That is what the National Party expressed itself as being in favour of this afternoon, and they cannot deny that, no matter what they do. What is more, it will not be the Black people or the White people who are going to decide not only about the further allocation of land, but also about the possible further political development of the Black national states, for it will be the Indians, the Coloureds and the Whites who will jointly have to decide about that. So if they cannot obtain this much-vaunted consensus, a mixed President’s Council will decide the issue.

The hon member for Innesdal wanted to put a question to me.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton must just help me, because I am just a little confused. In his speech he repeatedly said that the CP stood for the better consolidation of the Black states. Does he now mean by “better consolidation of the Black states” that in terms of CP policy more land than has been granted at present should be added to the existing states and that the loose-lying pieces of existing independent states like Bophuthatswana should be joined together?

Let me give a practical example.

Answer the question now.

I shall answer the question as I choose to. The hon member must just give me a chance. Last year the erstwhile Deputy Minister of Land Affairs, Mr Hennie van der Walt, came to this Parliament with legislation to declare two areas White, ie that between Vivo and Louis Trichardt and that between Senthimula and Kutamo, about which this Parliament had previously come to a decision. The compensatory land for that purpose had already been purchased. In terms of the act I am not permitted to say what the unanimous recommendations of the Bantu Affairs Commission were.

The Commission for Co-operation and Development.

Yes, the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Thank you very much. I am prepared to learn something from anyone. Then we asked the hon the Deputy Minister to give us one single reason why the proper consolidation of Venda could, in this case, no longer take place. What was the reply we obtained? It was: “The Cabinet has decided.” Then we asked the hon the Deputy Minister, who was chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development: “But what is your opinion? Is what is happening now a good thing? What is your standpoint? What was the reply? It was: “The Cabinet has decided.”

If there has ever been an instance of violence being done to the proper consolidation of a Black state, that was it. Our standpoint is—and I cannot circumscribe it any more closely—that as far as the proper, meaningful consolidation of Black states is concerned, each individual case will have to be looked into.

With more land?

Or by way of an exchange of land.

Or by way of exchange?

Of course.

Will more land have to be added?

No, we are not going to exceed the 1936 quota. That is our standpoint. The hon members opposite are free to accuse this party of whatever they want to, but we stand implacably for our fatherland becoming increasingly more White, something the National Party has waved farewell to. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton really treated the facts in a most regrettable way this afternoon. After the outrageous statements he made this afternoon, I do not know how one should begin to deal with him. Perhaps I should begin by saying in respect of consolidation that if he thinks that it is practically attainable to consolidate homelands meaningfully without exceeding the 1936 quota, it once again proves that the hon members of that party are living in a complete dream world.

In the past we have disagreed with them mainly in respect of our and their approach with regard to the Coloureds, but now we are beginning to realize that they display the same lack of realism in respect of that problem as they do in respect of the other problem. Moreover: The hon member really acted most regrettable. On the one hand he said that everything should be done for the sake of the development of the Black areas so that they can accommodate more and more people. By the way, that is not what his voters in Potgietersrus say, who claim that the Government gives everything to the Black people, but I shall leave that point at that. In the same breath as he says that development in the homelands should be stimulated and that money should be spent to dispose of consolidation finally, he refers to the hon the Prime Minister who is asking for funds in Europe so that Mozambique can be developed. The insinuation is that instead of finding money to finalize consolidation, the Government is now trying to find money to give to our communist neighbours. That is the insinuation he is making. It is an extremely unjustified insinuation. I do not know whether the hon member does not have the insight to see this, since the only other inference I can make is that it is a deliberate representation which does not accord with the truth. Does the hon member think for one moment that those funds that will possibly be obtained for development in Mozambique would ever be available to us to spend on the consolidation of our Black homelands? Surely it is absurd to think that that money would also be accessible for that purpose. The hon member ought to know this, since he is not so uninformed. It is that kind of insinuation which really amounts to the misrepresentation which the CP comes forward with in the by-election in Potgietersrus, and elsewhere.

I want to point to a similar statement relating to a clause in the Bill, viz clause 2(1). That clause relates to section 30 of the Black Administration Act of 1927. Earlier this afternoon the hon member for Pietersburg referred to the proposed section 30(2)(i) which makes provision for the registration of property. He inferred from that that the National Party’s policy in respect of the property of Black people in White areas in south Africa has changed dramatically. This is a completely unjustified inference which once again arises either out of ignorance, or out of wilful reasoning, since the National Party’s policy in respect of property rights has not changed in any respect at this stage. As the clause appears in the Bill, it is completely in accordance with the policy and practice of the past. It is therefore once again a question of misrepresentation.

I want to refer to the more basic problem we have to deal with today. Inter alia, I also want to refer to the way in which the hon member for Berea dealt with this subject. This is also something I find quite regrettable. To deal with this properly, one must look briefly at what the problem is we are trying to deal with here. As a result of the court verdict on Proclamation 121 of 1982, doubt arose concerning the legal validity of quite a number of proclamations. Doubt arose about the legal validity on two grounds. On the one hand, there was doubt as to whether proclamations which are issued in terms of section 25 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act would not possibly be ultra vires in view of the restriction Parliament imposed on itself by implication when it passed the Act of 1971. These are not implications that were clear before. These are implications which became clear as a result of court verdicts on the Ingwavuma proclamation.

Doubt has arisen with retrospective effect, as it were, about the legal validity of particular proclamations. The same kind of thing happened with a large group of other proclamations in which there was a condition that consultation has to take place. In 1982 the court gave a particular interpretation of what is meant by consultation, or what the results are if such consultation has not taken place. As a result of the particular way in which consultation took place in the past, doubt arose as to whether each of the cases where consultation did in fact take place would comply with these particular requirements. That is more or less the problem, in other words, that doubt also arose concerning the legal validity of a large number of proclamations on those grounds.

As the hon member for Turffontein rightly pointed out, the various proclamations affect the administration of Black affairs very considerably. Particular institutions were established as a result of those proclamations. If those proclamations were not legally valid, it would mean that the institutions concerned are not legally valid and that all the actions they have undertaken since then would not be legally valid. It would create absolute juridical chaos if this were to go through as it is. The hon member for Turffontein also rightly pointed out that not one of those proclamations is in contention at this stage. There is therefore no court case pending in respect of any of those proclamations.

As a result of those proclamations particular legal consequences occurred, which have been accepted as legally valid by everyone thus far. If the position should be reversed now, chaos would ensue. It is therefore imperative that something be done about this for the sake of the security of justice. Because we are dealing with two problems, the one with regard to section 25 of the Act of 1927, and the other in respect of those matters in respect of which consultation has to take place, one must deal with the two problems in two different ways. As far as the first problem is concerned, it is relatively easy because it is possible to determine precisely which proclamations were issued between 1971 and 1982 in terms of section 25 of the Act of 1927. Only a few proclamations are involved, and they are therefore mentioned by name in clause 1 of the Bill.

As regards proclamations in respect of which consultation should have taken place, it is a more complicated problem because they could have been issued in respect of a number of provisions in the Act. It is not so easy to determine precisely which proclamations are being affected by that specific omission. However, in the meanwhile the department has drawn up a list of approximately 80 proclamations which could possibly be affected, just to serve as an example. The remedy in this case is different, viz to deem the possible omission which could come to light, retrospectively, not to exist. This is the aspect about which the hon member for Berea really became very derogatory.