as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Defence Amendment Bill [B 78—84], as follows:

W J HEFER, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

6 June 1984.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Defence Amendment Bill [B 78—84 (Select Committee)] read a First Time.

Mr Chairman, during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill various speakers on the Government side, notably the hon members for Helderkruin, Turffontein and Vryheid attacked us on these benches and myself in particular because of our attitude towards this measure at Second Reading.

The hon member for Helderkruin suggested that I was at variance with the pledge given by the hon the Leader of the Opposition earlier this session that we on these benches would be constructive in our opposition. He suggested that my contribution to the Second Reading debate had not in any way been constructive. What are the facts of the situation? We are dealing here with a Bill containing 15 clauses. In the first portion of my Second Reading speech I dealt with the clauses of which we approved—in effect 13 of the 15 clauses—and I then indicated that two of the clauses namely clause 1 and clause 12 we found to be obnoxious and cynical. I think those were the terms I used. I said that I believed that the principles contained in these two clauses were sufficient reason for our opposing the Bill at Second Reading, and I therefore moved a reasoned amendment at that stage. If the hon member for Helderkruin is not satisfied with that, I want to tell him and other hon members in this House that they must not construe a pledge in respect of constructive opposition to mean total capitulation to or feeble compliance with anything that the Government does, whether good or bad. I want to make that every clear indeed. It is our function in these benches to provide opposition and, while we are certainly pledged to be as constructive as possible in providing that opposition, when there are matters which we believe to be fundamentally bad, we shall not hesitate to oppose them and to oppose them as vigorously as possible. We believe that these two clauses are bad in principle and also bad in law and we have said that we cannot support them.

The hon member for Vryheid made various attacks on me. They were not new ones, but he attacked me in regard to my association with the kwaZulu government and the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. He made the all too familiar allegation which I have heard year after year, the unfounded allegation, that I claimed to speak on behalf of the government of kwaZulu. That is absolute nonsense. I have never claimed to be a spokesman for kwaZulu or the Zulu people. I do not do so now. However, Sir, I do represent a Natal constituency, and I am intensely concerned that there should be good relationships among all the people of Natal and that the interests of all should receive proper attention.

The hon member for Vryheid went on to allege that I was to a large extent responsible for the lack of communication between the Chief Minister and the hon the Prime Minister. He alleged further that I was trying to create mistrust between the Government of the Republic and the Chief Minister. That is also absolute nonsense. It is true that I have a close and long-standing association with the Chief Minister. However, to suggest that he is influenced by me on major issues is ab solute nonsense and is in fact an insult to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister of kwa-Zulu is an able, intelligent and natural leader of his people, and he is perfectly capable of making his own judgment on issues of importance in South Africa and in regard to kwaZulu itself. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that because one has an association with a person one suddenly has tremendous power to influence such a person in the exercise of his judgment or in expressing the political views which he does. Therefore, I reject that allegation of the hon member for Vryheid with the contempt it deserves.

The hon member for Vryheid then went on in a strange speech to deal with the Ingwavuma situation and the reaction of the Chief Minister to the Ingwavuma issue. In this connection I wish to quote from the hon member’s Hansard where he said:

The hon member went on to say:

It is interesting to note that throughout this session of Parliament, during this debate and during the debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development the Government has used the Ingwavuma issue for a number of reasons. During the debate on the Second Reading of this measure, speakers opposite were at pains to claim credit for the fact that the Government had not resorted to legislation in order to circumvent the Ingwavuma judgment. I should think not, Sir, because I think that would have been a fatal step. They also proudly proclaimed, as did the hon member for Vryheid, that the Government had appointed a commission to resolve the so-called dispute in regard to Ingwavuma and Kangwane. In fact, as I have said, throughout this session, and particularly during the debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, when the Government was taxed with regard to population removals in Natal and questions were asked in regard to land allocations, they said that they could not finalize these matters until the final consolidation plans for Natal had been approved. They then went on to say that they could not finalize the consolidation plans until the Rumpff Commission on Ingwavuma had completed its findings.

I want to raise the question of the Rumpff Commission this afternoon, and I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is here. This Rumpff Commission is becoming more and more mysterious as the days go by. This commission was appointed in some haste towards the end of 1982, and it has had very few meetings since its appointment. Just recently there has been a disclosure emanating from the judge himself that there is some doubt in regard to the future operations of the commission vis-à-vis the plans of the Government. The judge made it known to members of the commission that there would be no further meetings in the near future until such time as there was clarity on the part of the Government as to certain of the issues with which it had been charged to deal. I want to quote in this regard a statement that appeared in The Daily News of last Saturday which reads as follows:

It then goes on to say:

That was comment by the judge himself. In The Cape Times of last Saturday appears extract of a letter released by Mr Justice Rumpff the night before. In part it said:

This is a letter written to members of the commission:

I go on quoting:

I want to know, and I come back to the hon the Deputy Minister again, what is going on in regard to the Rumpff Commission. What is the answer? Why the mystery? Why the mystery in relation to the operation of the commission? Here is a commission which was appointed, as I said, in some haste at the end of 1982. It has held very few meetings. Now we have this situation where the Judge himself indicated last week that he has not had co-operation either from the South African Government or the Swaziland Government and that he is expecting some sort of mysterious statement from the Government before the commission will resume its activities. I believe that the Government must come clean. I believe that it has got to clear the air in a matter that involves extremely sensitive issues, and the operation of this commission is very important indeed. I want to ask: Has there been a separate deal with Swaziland as a result of recent diplomatic initiatives, or what is happening? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we are discussing clause 1 of this amending Bill and it seems to me the hon member is not going to move his amendment to it.

I am going to move it.

Is the hon member going to move it?

Yes.

Very well. In view of that I shall refer to it. It is essential for us to look very briefly at the finding in the Ingwavuma case, namely the case of The Government of the Republic of South Africa versus the Government of kwaZulu, which was concerned with the question of whether there had been essential consultation in terms of two Acts, namely section 25(1) of the 1927 Act and the 1971 Act. What is very important, is the following statement by the hon judge:

The provisions of the two Acts I have referred to:

In other words, the totality of the policy is to make so many Black states independent and to lead them to a status of independence so that consultation in actual fact becomes necessary. This policy aspect is being maintained. Legislation is not being introduced to infringe the independence of states; on the contrary, the judgement is being upheld. In view of this we have to consider whether there is not perhaps uncertainty regarding the validity of the other proclamations in terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act, 1927. In other words there is uncertainty with regard to exactly what consultation involves in terms of the Black Administration Act and in terms of the National States Constitution Act. In the Ingwavuma case judgement was not given on a specific section, but on the effect of the two sections conjointly. Consequently there is no question here of the State conceding that there was no consultation. The State is not conceding that at all. The State is contending that there was adequate consultation. In order to eliminate any uncertainty, clause 1 is being incorporated in the Bill. It is very important for us to consider what the clause provides.

In the first place reference is made in clause 1 to Proclamation 174 of 1976. This is concerned with the control over the residence on and the occupation of privately or tribally-owned land in Black areas. It does not define who an owner is. If one were to accept the amendment of the hon member, what this would amount to is that all convictions since 1976 and all rights established since then in terms of that proclamation, could become suspended after 1976. This would bring about complete uncertainty and it would not be feasible at all.

If we consider the next proclamation the position is even worse. Proclamation 155 of 1977 is concerned with the application of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since 1976 there have been certain convictions, and certain fines have been imposed in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act in certain Black states. If one were now to say that there may be invalidity in this regard, one can imagine all the possible appeals. One can also imagine what uncertainties would result. We can honestly say therefore that it is not worthwhile to take any chances in this connection, and a responsible Government ought to bring certainty in this regard. That is all that is happening here.

Another aspect is concerned with a game reserve in Gazankulu.

†The hon member said that they should like to be a very constructive Opposition. Surely, a constructive Opposition should be positive and not negative or neutral. Certainly, in this amendment there is no indication whatsoever that the official Opposition wants to be positive; it is a neutral stance which is being taken. Certainly, in that sense the official Opposition is not constructive. A constructive Opposition should be realistic with a common will. They should therefore be realistic as regards the effect of certain proclamations. If they want to have uncertainty in regard to proclamations issued in 1976 and subsequently, their actions are certainly not realistic and in the interests of the people and the governments concerned. Therefore, in this sense, too, I want to deny that the PFP is constructive in any sense of the word.

I would suggest that should a constructive Opposition find that certain Black governments object to any of these proclamations, they would come forward and say so, but we have had nothing of that sort at all. What we have had here is a kind of idealistic approach—maybe, or perhaps a situation. I would certainly confirm what the hon member for Vryheid has said in this regard and that is that the official Opposition is not positive at all.

*I want to put it like this: When one considers the practical effect and does not approach the matter theoretically or philosophically, one realizes that these proclamations have a great effect in the interests of the Black states and the people, the law-abiding people in those states. Because this is the case, one realizes that we are also giving the Black people concerned here legal security. This is the whole object of clause 1. I think that if the hon member for Berea reconsiders his amendment in the light of these circumstances, he will realize that it may not be wise to move that amendment.

Order! The hon member for Berea has in no way moved the amendment yet, and therefore the hon member for Pretoria West cannot discuss the amendment now.

No, Sir, I am not discussing it. I am saying he may consider not moving the amendment.

But you have been discussing it for the past ten minutes.

Perhaps the hon member for Bryanston will enter the debate later, but what he does best is to make interjections. That is just about all he can do.

The fact of the matter is that clause 1 is very important. I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, we shall not oppose this clause. Of course this does not mean that we are condoning the circumstances that led up to this clause. The circumstances that led up to the Black Administration Act of 1927 being amended here, resulted from court findings in connection with the Ingwavuma affair. The hon member for Pretoria West referred to practical considerations. I want to tell the hon member that what we have here is a practical and fine mess the Government made of a wonderful opportunity to score a great many points for South Africa with its ethnic policy.

This was an opportunity to unite the Swazi people, a divided people, but through its ineptitude the Government allowed that opportunity to slip through its fingers. It allowed the opportunity to slip through its fingers because it handled another very important matter, a matter of great value to all the peoples of the world, and therefore also to those in Southern Africa, incorrectly.

I am referring here to the land issue. If the Government had acted correctly here, it would have shown that people who belong together can be brought together, and in this way it could have shown the world that South Africa can, in a peaceful way, play an important role in realizing that ideal. But the Government dragged the land issue into this matter. Because land is a sensitive matter, the Government wrecked the most important consideration in this matter. The Government should have dealt with the land issue separately. In a dispute between two non-White peoples the Government approached the dispute by using White land to solve it.

There have been similar disputes before, and all South Africa did then was to act as a mediator in order to solve the dispute between the two parties by means of a redistribution of the land belonging to the Black peoples involved. That is what should have been done in this case as well. Then the matter would not have developed as it did. The Government has now instructed the Rumpff Commission to seek a solution to a matter it has bungled. The hon member pointed out that last Saturday in the Daily Mail, Mr Justice Rumpff wrote that he was not going to give the other members of the commission further notice of meetings. He said he was waiting for an important announcement by the Government.

Sir, this matter has been dragging on for years, and today we should therefore like to know why the Rumpff Commission is no longer continuing with its activities. The Minister must tell us what the Government intends to do in this connection. It is of the utmost importance for this matter to be cleared up, and I therefore want to express the hope that the Government will cease its ineptness in extremely sensitive matters such as this.

Mr Chairman, because the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to ineptitude, I just want to say that the greatest ineptitude occurred while he was still serving on the Cabinet.

The hon member for Berea referred to the necessity for sound relations in South Africa and said that they as a party were pursuing this objective in Natal. But it is after all the express wish of the Government and also of everyone on this side of the House that there should be sound relations between all the peoples, and we have achieved this …

Order! I must point out to the hon member that we are not dealing with the Second Reading debate now. He must therefore confine himself to the contents of clause 1.

Sir, various Acts are affected by the amendments in this clause. As for the amount of land which is to be given to the various provinces, there was a quota for each province from the outset which should have been carried into effect.

Mr Chairman, despite the unkind things which the hon member for Vryheid had to say about me in the Second Reading, I sympathize with him in his problem this afternoon.

Notwithstanding the plea made by the hon member for Pretoria West that I should not move my amendment, I still intend moving it as it appears in my name on the Order Paper. We indicated in the Second Reading why we were opposed to this clause as well as to clause 12, although in a sense this clause is somewhat better than clause 12 because it at least specifies the proclamations with which we are dealing and which we are asked to validate. It is quite clear that clause 1 has been inserted in order to try to validate these particular proclamations. The aim of my amendment is to comply with the spirit of consultation because it is equally clear that there has not been specific consultation with the Governments of the independent states on these proclamations, or certainly for that matter not on the unspecified proclamations referred to in clause 12 of the Bill. What we are trying to do in the spirit of consultation is to give the independent states three months after the passage of this legislation to decide whether they approve of the validation of these proclamations. That is all we are asking with this amendment. It is only a second prize. We have raised our objections during the Second Reading debate and here we are asking that they be given three months at least to pass a resolution asking for the repeal of any proclamation mentioned in this clause, which would mean that such proclamation shall not be deemed to have been validated as provided for in this clause and shall be repealed within one month after the passing of such resolution. The amendment speaks for itself and is moved in the spirit of consultation. At least the Governments of the independent states at this stage shall have an opportunity of deciding whether they want these proclamations validated or not.

I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Order! I regret that 1 am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon member as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, perhaps I owe the hon member for Berea half an apology for what I said to him yesterday, in the sense that I only referred to the standpoint he had adopted with regard to clauses 1 and 12. I neglected to say that I was confining myself to those clauses and that I was not referring to the clauses the official Opposition in fact accepted.

But I adhere to the standpoint I adopted with regard to the attitude of the hon member for Berea in connection with clauses 1 and 12. One should take note of the terms he used to describe it, namely that it was a “cynical provision” and that “in principle it means that Parliament has been asked to legislate for a lie”. With the assistance of the hon member for Berea he also described it as “legalized fraud”. Those are very strong words to use in a case where a problem has clearly arisen which must clearly be resolved in some way or other and where the Government is making a bona fide effort to accommodate the problem with the minimum disruption for the parties concerned. In this regard I feel that the door was wide open for him to make a far more constructive suggestion, and for that reason I still resent the attitude he adopted. I still say that his behaviour was in conflict with that of a constructive Opposition. Sir, you have ruled that the amendment moved by the hon member is out of order, and for that reason I cannot discuss it. If I could have discussed it, I would have liked to have demonstrated that it was another attempt, a fairly cynical attempt, not to help the Government, but in fact to help it out of the frying pan into the fire.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you on your ruling that my amendment is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. In fact, the amendment is merely a proviso to clause 1. Clause 1 simply states that certain proclamations shall be validated with effect from the respective dates on which the proclamations were published in the Gazette. My amendment is merely a proviso to say that instead of them being validated on that date, the national states shall be given a period of three months in which to object, and if they do object, the proclamations shall be repealed within one month of them passing the resolution . 1 do not believe it can be held that this is in conflict with the principle of the clause or of the Bill. It is merely a proviso to the clause which extends the date on which the validation would take place.

I have looked into the matter very carefully and I can assure the hon member that his proposed amendment definitely is in conflict with a principle that has been accepted at Second Reading.

Which principle?

A principle of the Bill as contained in this clause. The hon member will also remember that he moved a similar amendment to the Second Reading “to omit all the words after ‘That’” and to substitute certain other words. That was negatived. If I therefore now accept the hon member’s amendment it will have the same effect as an amendment which has already been negatived at Second Reading. I have looked at the hon member’s amendment and I can assure him that it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we submit, of course, to your ruling in this connection.

Before I discuss this clause further, allow me to make a single remark in connection with what the hon the Deputy Minister said to me yesterday when he referred somewhat disparagingly to the fact that I am here as an indirectly elected member of the House. I want to say at once that in this respect I am in good company.

Order! The hon member will certainly concede that I cannot allow him to set this matter straight in the Committee Stage, when we are discussing the details of a clause. I suggest he does so on another occasion.

Yes, Sir, but on what other occasion? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon the Deputy Minister should keep out of this; he is not in the Chair now.

Order! I can understand that the hon member has a problem at this point, but I feel it would be more appropriate to raise it during the Third Reading.

Very well.

Sir, you have given your ruling with regard to the amendment of the hon member for Berea and although I do not want to question it, I do want to point out that if a legislative assembly does not take such a decision within three months, the clause remains unchanged as it was agreed to at Second Reading. I therefore want to put forward the suggestion that the proviso, if one looks at it from another angle, could possibly be regarded as not in conflict with the principle agreed to at Second Reading. I repeat: If the legislative assembly were to decide not to adopt such a resolution within three months, there would be no problem. Sir. I wish to put this to you for consideration.

Order! Allow me to react immediately to the remark of the hon member. The hon member will concede that if the legislative assemblies were to adopt such a resolution, the clause would no longer be law. The hon member will therefore have to agree with me now that this is indeed in conflict with a principle agreed to at Second Reading.

Then, Mr Chairman, I shall not comment further in this regard. The point of departure of the hon member for Pretoria West and of the hon the Deputy Minister is actually that there are two considerations at issue here, namely, in the first place the certainty in law which is to be achieved in terms of this clause. In the second place, what is really at issue is the point that these proclamations were promulgated in the interests of the people of the respective national states, as is also stated in the proclamations. If I am to submit to your ruling—as I am in fact doing—I must tell the hon member for Pretoria West that we have nothing to lose if we withdraw the clause at this stage in order to implement the principle of consultation on which this must be based if we really want the co-operation of the people in the national states. Section 30(3) of the National States Constitution Act very clearly provides:

As far as that is concerned—and I also mention this in passing yesterday—it is not clear to me that if this legislation is passed, it will in actual fact be valid, in view of the above provision in the National States Constitution Act. Instead of creating certainty in law, I want to tell the hon member for Pretoria West and the hon the Deputy Minister that by doing this we are actually running the risk of creating uncertainty in law because in my honest opinion this clears the way for a national state’s legislative assembly to dispute the validity of this measure. I again, therefore, make an earnest appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Pretoria West, who is a lawyer, to reconsider, under these circumstances, whether we should accept this clause.

Mr Chairman, I want to make it quite clear to the hon member Prof Olivier that there is no doubt in my mind that this amendment is indeed in conflict with the principle of the Bill. Obviously, as the Chairman said, the principle that was accepted was the fact that these proclamations are here being agreed to. The amendment, however, would have the effect that they would be agreed to conditionally, depending on the decision of a body other than this House of Assembly. This therefore amounts to a veto of the House of Assembly’s powers. The hon member will surely agree with me that as a legal principle there is absolutely no foundation for such an amendment. Over and above the fact that the amendment is in conflict with the principle as agreed to at Second Reading, it is clearly very unsatisfactory, in constitutional law, to provide, in a legislative capacity, for anything of that kind. Therefore any person who is found guilty in the next three months in terms of any of the existing proclamations, cannot be found guilty. For three months those proclamations will therefore be in “limbo” and there will be absolutely no control. We cannot allow these important aspects I have referred to, the Criminal Procedure Act and so forth, to be in “limbo” for three months until a national state perhaps reaches a decision. That is why I said that this amendment would not work in practice in any case.

While we are discussing certainty in law, I want to point out to the hon member Prof Olivier that in terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act, a specific proclamation was promulgated seven years ago. That proclamation was put into effect and still applies. Up to now there has not been a request from any national state to withdraw those proclamations. If something has been in force for seven years without anyone asking for it to be withdrawn, surely it is qute clear that there is de facto consent.

The hon member for Berea referred to consultation. Legal experts will tell him that there must be consultation at the outset. One cannot do something and then want to consult people about it afterwards, because in the technically legal sense it will not be a consultation which preceded the coming into effect of a proclamation. The hon member said that there had been no consultation and that we must now pretend that there had been consultation if people agree later. In itself this is a negation of the provisions in the Act and does not comply with the provisions of section 25. With all due respect to the hon member, he is not seeking consultation in terms of the legislation. His entire argument with regard to consultation is incorrect.

What do you do in clause 12?

I am not talking about clause 12 now, but about clause 1. Let me just explain the position to the hon member again. In terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act there has to be consultation, but that consultation should have taken place in 1977 and 1978, and one cannot pretend at this juncture that consultation took place later if one wanted to say there was three months grace. One cannot have consultations now and the hon member for Berea is wrong when he says that consultation can take place later. I want to emphasize very strongly that the Government is not admitting that there was no consultation. There was consultation, but in order to eliminate any uncertainty, we want this provision placed on the Statute Book. To argue that a national state may say that legislation passed by this Parliament is invalid, is unacceptable and the hon member Prof Olivier will admit that readily. If clause 1 is agreed to, the national states cannot maintain that it is invalid. With a view to certainty in law, and as regards the practical side as well, it is essential that this clause be accepted as it stands.

Mr Chairman, because we are discussing certainty in law here, I want to make the point that these proclamations—the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Houghton will know about this—are submitted to the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development every year for approval. These specific proclamations that are now under discussion were, in the year when they were submitted to the Select Committee, also given to the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Houghton, as the representatives of the PFP on the select committee, for inspection by them. During those years they did not raise any objections to be proclamations. They had the right to object to them, but at that stage the select committee agreed to them, after which they were referred to Parliament which also agreed to them. After that, however, a certain measure of uncertainty arose as a result of a court finding on certain other regulations; not these regulations. Because there is uncertainty about the possible validity of these proclamations, it is merely being provided in legislation now that the validity of these proclamations that have already been agreed to by Parliament, cannot be disputed in any way. Because the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Houghton were instrumental in their being agreed to, I want to ask the PFP to accept the method that is being adopted here is the correct one.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to enter the debate on the merits of the Ingwavuma case which the hon member for Berea raised here. I repeat that I do not think this is the right time or the place to discuss this. This reply also applies to the hon member for Lichtenburg. How the Ingwavuma affair was handled, whether it was handled well or badly, can be discussed on another occasion. It certainly does not fall under the clause now being discussed.

[Inaudible.]

When the hon member for Barberton wants to speak to me—he knows I shall reply to him—he must not sit there muttering and mumbling. He must speak up so that I can hear what he is saying; then I shall react to it if I can. He must now give me an opportunity to make my own speech.

We must have a little clarity on the difference between clause 1 and clause 12. The two clauses are now being discussed together here. Clause 1 deals with those regulations promulgated under the 1927 Act. Then there are regulations promulgated under the 1971 Act. This was the provisions requiring that consultation take place. The 1927 Act did not provide that consultation should take place. A deficiency then came to light in the Ingwavuma judgement which pointed out that the 1971 Act took precedence over the 1927 Act. For that reason we cannot promulgate regulations under the 1927 Act and get away with it without there having been consultation.

We have discussed consultation ad nauseum during the Second Reading debate and there is only one aspect I want to reemphasize. The Government does not foresee any difficulty whatsoever with the fact that some of the regulations it promulgated will now be declared invalid because it did not consult people. As I have, however, made clear, there was consultation to a greater or lesser extent in any case. However, we are not in the privileged position to have at our disposal the norms that were laid down by the court in determining whether or not such consultation was effective. We therefore lack the norms laid down by the court. For that reason we cannot test the degree of consultation against the norms laid down by the court to determine whether or not those consultations were effective, efficient and adequate. As I indicated yesterday in my Second Reading speech, we did subsequently obtain legal advice in terms of which we are now holding consultations. That is why we have introduced two clauses in this connection. One clause legalizes certain proclamations that were promulgated, namely those proclamations promulgated in terms of the 1927 Act. What do those regulations entail in the main? They deal with control over or residence on or occupation of privately or tribally-owned land. They deal with the transfer of land. They deal with the application of the Criminal Procedure Act in particular which has also been pointed out repeatedly here. They deal with regulations on game reserves.

On the other hand, as far as clause 12 is concerned—and we shall go into this in more detail when we discuss that clause—other regulations were promulgated in regard to which the consultation was inadequate according to the norms laid down by the court. It is as simple as that. Because the amendment of the hon member for Berea was ruled out of order, you will not allow me to discuss it further. We must just remember, however, that we cannot allow legislation to be passed here that will make this Parliament subservient to the will or the legislation of a national state. This is also applies to the remark of the hon member Prof Olivier, and I want to put one matter straight between him and me right now. I did not refer in a derogatory way to the fact that the hon member Prof Olivier was not an elected member of the House of Assembly.

Order!

Sir, are you not even going to allow me to be polite? [Interjections.]

Is the hon member Prof Olivier prepared to give the hon the Deputy Minister the opportunity to be polite to him?

I ask the hon member to accept my apology and I shall not pursue the matter.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister may as well proceed.

Mr Chairman, I just wanted to say that I stated it as a fact that the hon member Prof Olivier was an academic and that because this was the case—and I did not mean this disparagingly—the hon member was in general not very practically-minded. [Interjections.] If the hon member accepts it in that way I shall not pursue the matter any further.

Mr Chairman, what astounded me in the argument of the hon the Deputy Minister was his statement that we could not, after all, place this Parliament at the mercy of (uitlewer aan) a national state. That is more or less what he said.

Not make it subservient to the legislative assembly of a national state.

Consequently this means that a national state should not actually have a right of veto in respect of the legislation of this Parliament because this affects the legal validity of what is being attempted with this clause. We accepted that principle when we passed the principal Act in 1971 because it is stated very clearly in the legislation that with regard to those matters transferred to the jurisdiction of the legislative assembly of a national state, no Act of this Parliament, with the exception of the few matters specified, would possess any legal validity. That principle is very clearly stated in section 30 of the Act and it was therefore a fundamental premise of the 1971 Act.

Order! I get the impression that the hon member is now discussing the amendment that I ruled out of order and, in addition, that the hon member is now also discussing section 30 of the principal Act. I cannot allow that.

No, Sir. I am sure you will allow me to react to the statement by the hon the Deputy Minister that if we accept clause 1 it is no more than right because we cannot allow this Parliament to be placed, as it were, at the mercy of the national states. In essence that is what the hon the Deputy Minister said. I am now reacting to that and I want to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister in all modesty that he is wrong.

When the legislation was passed in 1971 we stated the principle very clearly that with the exception of a few matters no Act of this Parliament would possess any validity in a national state with regard to those matters transferred to the jurisdiction of the legislative assembly of a national state. This is very clear and I am actually surprised that the hon the Deputy Minister and I are not ad idem on this point in connection with which there need not be any doubt because it was a fundamental point when the legislation was passed.

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 14, to omit “Parliament” and to substitute “House of Assembly”.
2. 2. On page 5, in line 14, after “resolution”, to insert:
   , provided such land adjoins a released or a scheduled area or land which belongs to the South African Development Trust,

The first amendment seeks to substitute the words “House of Assembly” for the word “Parliament”. This terminology is used in a context in which we are dealing with the commodity which is probably the most important of all, because it concerns the right of decision-making with regard to land. The way clause 2 reads in the Bill, it means that in future—the clause simply confirms this— when the new dispensation is a reality, there will no longer be a territory with regard to which the Whites will have the sole power of decision-making. What is being proposed here is that decisions concerning land in this context should be taken not by Parliament, but by the House of Assembly, because the House of Assembly will then be dealing with the own affairs of the Whites, and it will be possible to regard the land of the Whites as an own affair of the Whites.

The way the Bill reads at the moment, the land of the Whites is not an own affair. The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs is not present at the moment, but he made an interjection, during a speech delivered by the hon member for Barberton the other day, to the effect that decisions with regard to their land were taken by the Whites themselves. I think the hon the Deputy Minister now has an opportunity to give effect to what he said, because if he says that the Whites decide about their own land, it means one of two things: Either the hon the Deputy Minister is under the impression that the Whites will decide about their own land in the new dispensation, or the hon the Deputy Minister wishes to Whites to be able to decide about their own land. I does not matter what motivated him to utter this cry of distress; he now has an opportunity to make it a possibility by voting for the amendment which we have moved, ie that “Parliament” be replaced by “House of Assembly”.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, the hon the Deputy Minister indicated yesterday that he did not intend to declare any land to be a town in which Blacks can obtain rights of ownership and all the other rights that are mentioned here, because, he said, it was being done in terms of sections 2 and 49 of the Development Trust and Land Act. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that there can be only three kinds of land in terms of that Act. These are: Released areas, scheduled areas and trust land. Then there is a fourth category, and this is land on which such a town can be established by resolution of Parliament. The way the clause reads at the moment, it means that if Parliament decides that Khayelitsha constitutes such land, then it does. Then all the provisions of this clause have to be made applicable to that piece of land. Hence my amendment No 2. If the amendment is accepted, there cannot be any doubt about the fact that it is meant to be land intended for incorporation into a national state or even an independent state.

I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will accept my amendment No 1 and my amendment No 2. By accepting amendment No 1, he can give effect to the wish, or desire or conviction, of his colleague that land should be an own affair. I pointed out a short while ago that a fine and deserving undertaking, the Ingwavuma case, came to grief over land. We are approaching a stage where the Whites will have no land of their own left, and this is one of the matters that are going to lead to great instability. If we provide in this Bill which is before us that land is going to be an own affair, therefore, and that the Whites are consequently going to have their own territory, we shall be doing much to promote stability, security and reassurance among the Whites in South Africa, namely the security that they will have an area with regard to which they will have the power to take decisions. On the other hand, if we do not accept it, it will mean that the Whites will have no territory over which they will have the sole right of decision-making …

Those are your own inferences. The Whites have their own group areas, just as the other population groups have theirs.

In other words, the hon the Minister agrees with me that the Whites must have an area with regard to which they will be able to take their own decisions.

How can you doubt that? Land is an own affair, after all.

Will the hon the Minister support this amendment of mine, therefore?

Must I support something which is stupid?

The hon the Minister now says that an hon member who asks in this House that the Whites should be given land with regard to which they can take their own decisions is asking for a stupid thing. The hon the Minister is jointly responsible for the fact that the right of the Whites to take decisions with regard to their own territory is being taken away from them. On whose land are Black towns going to be established? Is it going to be on Indian land or on Coloured land? Surely it will be on White land. We are concerned here with White land, therefore, and the making available of that White land will not depend on the Whites alone. They will not have the sole right to decide whether the land should be made available for that purpose. It will depend on the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. This is why I say that the Whites have no fatherland left, Sir. The Whites have no exclusive right of decision-making left with regard to their own fatherland.

Mr Chairman, the non member for Lichtenburg really should not imagine that the Conservative Party alone has any love for the land in South Africa. The National Party has been proving since 1948 that it can be trusted to administer the country’s land, and where it has given some of the land to the Black nations of this country, it has done so with great circumspection and responsibility.

I do not wish to get involved in a quarrel about political matters, but I should like to know from the hon member for Lichtenburg where he is going to get the land from which they want to give to the Coloureds and the Indians. Are they going to create the land? [Interjections.] So it is not only the National Party which is giving land away, as the hon member puts it.

I come now to the allegation made by the hon member for Lichtenburg in respect of my colleague at Internal Affairs. It is always dangerous to draw inferences from what people say. I explained very carefully yesterday what my hon colleague had said. The hon member for Lichtenburg is sitting here laughing now, because he knows that I am telling the truth. He is actually laughing at himself. What I explained to him yesterday was that in the context of the land referred to here, there are two kinds of land. There is land which is occupied by Whites for agricultural purposes. That land is administered by and remains an own affair of the Whites.

Where does it say so in this Bill?

Is the hon member referring to the Constitution?

We are now dealing with this Bill.

Can the hon member show me where it says in this Bill that the Whites will not exercise control over it?

The Bill uses the word “Parliament”.

Very well. I cannot accept the first amendment of the hon member for Lichtenburg. It is unfair to use it as a test of our bona fides, as the hon member did yesterday. He knows very well that exercising control over land destined for national states is a general affair.

Of course; I said so, after all.

Very well, I did not dispute the matter with the hon member. It is a general affair, and the land to which my hon colleague referred was that land which is occupied and cultivated by Whites for agricultural purposes.

That is not what he said.

The hon member can take up the matter with him. That was the way I understood him.

The fact is that the function of exercising control over the land cannot be entrusted to the House of Assembly alone. Parliament will have to exercise control over it. However, the White House of Assembly has a right of veto. If any matter comes before it which it does not like, it can vote against it and the hon member for Lichtenburg conceded this to me yesterday. Then it is referred to the President’s Council.

And then?

And then it is for the State President to decide what is going to become of it. To suggest that this will be a test of our bona fides is absolute rubbish and no longer impresses anyone.

However, the hon member has found out his mistake in the meantime. He stated categorically yesterday that provision was only made for three types of land and that the new category of land which was being created, according to him, had never existed in the past. He admitted this afternoon that there was a fourth category, namely the land which will be approved by the White Parliament.

Sir, you will allow me to discuss this matter in some detail, because I think there is a great deal of obstinacy in this regard. I ask hon members to be patient, therefore, so that I may deal with this matter in full. The allegation is being made that we have suddenly changed our policy in order to establish a lot of towns within the so-called White area and to give ownership to Blacks in White areas, thereby paving the way for the franchise. Let me deal at once with Khayelitsha. We certainly do not need this clause to give Black people the right of ownership in Khayelitsha, if we want to. We can give Black people ownership there without declaring the area to be a Black area. We can do so in terms of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. We do not need this clause in order to do so. I should very much like to know what gives the hon member this idea and why he is trying to create the suspicion that we are specifically inserting a clause into this legislation in order to give the Blacks ownership in Khayelitsha.

I want to make a further point arising from a remark which I made yesterday. In Fingo Village at Grahamstown and at Evaton, there are Blacks who have ownership. The hon member will grant me that.

[Inaudible.]

There you are. Surely we did not do that in terms of this legislation.

[Inaudible.]

It was later declared a Trust area. However, those people have had ownership there since the earliest days. However, the point I want to make does not concern the legislation in terms of which ownership was granted. The point I want to make is that there are in fact Blacks who have ownership.

Let us go a little further. Those Black people have ownership. They are citizens of this country. Do they have the right to vote? No. Since this is so, where does the ridiculous argument come from that we now want to pave the way for giving these people the right to vote because we are giving them the right of ownership? I shall explain presently what we are going to use this clause for, or what it has also been used for in the past. I referred to this yesterday as well. The fact is that the Government has not deviated in any way from its policy with regard to the establishment and development of Black towns. In fact, this particular amendment means that these Black towns, and the national states that have an interest in the matter, may be assured that the process of urbanization of their citizens will take place as rapidly as possible. That is what the hon member for Lichtenburg rightly advocated yesterday. We are just as anxious as he is that this should happen. I think we have proved our bonafides as far as this is concerned. Surely we have always had the power to declare areas to be Black areas. Have we ever abused it? No, we have not. Why then would we want to abuse it in future? The State President has always been able, in terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act of 1927, to make laws by proclamation which would be applicable in Black areas, for example, in one or more of the Black areas which I shall mention presently. Those are the areas to which the hon member referred. They are the scheduled areas, the released areas—those areas that were incorporated into the First Schedule to the Development Trust and Land Act—the Trust lands and, finally, areas which have been declared Black areas for the purposes of the section by resolution of Parliament. I pointed out to the hon member yesterday that the hon member for Kuruman had very recently been a member of a select committee which recommended such Black areas to Parliament, and they were approved by Parliament. Sir, where is the so-called deviation from the policy in respect of the creation of Black towns in so-called White areas, since this has always been the position?

In clause 2, reference is made to sections 2 and 49 of the Development Trust and Land Act—I referred to them yesterday as well—and these deal respectively with released and scheduled areas, Trust land and any area determined by Parliament, as has always been the case. The reason why a new section is being substituted for section 30 of the Black Administration Act is quite different from the one which the CP is now trying to suggest. We have a completely different end in view. There are two sets of regulations with regard to Black towns at the moment, ie Proclamation R 293 of 1962, promulgated in terms of section 25 of the Black Administration Act of 1927, which is applicable in all the towns with the exception of two, namely Clermont and Edendale at Pietermaritzburg. For these two towns, the second proclamation was issued, ie Proclamation R 163 of 1974, which was issued in terms of section 30 of the Black Administration Act of 1927. Clermont and Edendale are areas in which persons other than Blacks also have dominium in respect of land within the area of jurisdiction of those two Black towns. Proclamation R 293 of 1962 covers a very wide spectrum of subjects ranging from matters such as the granting, sale and leasing of premises and buildings, the erection of buildings, the administration of the towns, the establishment and composition of town councils, and the registration of deeds, that is to say, of owners’ units, ie premises which were bought from the South African Development Trust and in respect of which title deeds were issued. The hon member for Lichtenburg issued many title deeds when he was Deputy Minister of Land Affairs, did he not?

Of course!

Yes, of course, and he did so in terms of the measure which he is now opposing. [Interjections.]

Proclamation R 163 of 1974 is much more limited in scope and deals mainly with the management of the towns and the establishment and composition of advisory committees.

During the previous session, a request was tabled in this House to the effect that the Clermont and Edendale areas should be declared Black regions. This request was referred to a select committee. The matter has not yet been finalized, but we hope to have these two towns declared before the end of the session, in the same way as we declared the Makatini Flats and in the same way as the hon member for Kuruman helped to declare Black areas. The same procedure which was followed in the case of the Makatini Flats, the Paulpietersburg area, Reserve No 4, and the Driefontein Block at Ladysmith, will again be followed in order to declare these two towns to be Black areas.

I can foresee that we may also use this legislation for the development of a bigger Inanda, that is to say, the large-scale development which is taking place near Durban, and to declare it to be a Black area, mainly in order to introduce proper control there. In what respect would it be wrong to give those people the right of ownership? It is their area, and most of those areas will eventually be incorporated into the national states, when certain processes have been completed. These are the kind of areas which are referred to in cluase 2. After all, the hon members on that side cannot argue that we are deviating from our policy when we just want to modernize and adapt a provision which has been on the Statute Book for many years, in order to bring it into line with the powers which local authorities have in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act.

For the meaningful implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development, it is necessary that Proclamation R 293 be rewritten to conform to the spirit of the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982. Consultations have been held with the Governments of the national states about the rewriting and adjustment of this proclamation, and a comprehensive set of town regulations have also been drafted which have been cleared with the people involved and with the building societies.

The hon member for Lichtenburg demanded yesterday that we should declare the Black areas on our borders. However, this has frequently been done. Now the position is that there are certain areas which will have to be dealt with in terms of this legislation in future. I want to mention just two possible places, namely Groutville and St Gwendolin ’s near Pietermaritzburg, which are not linked to a national state at the moment, but where development is going to take place. These areas will have to be properly managed and controlled. It has always been the policy of the NP that these areas should be close to national states, and why should we now deviate from this and establish Black towns in the middle of White areas? We are clearing up Black spots, and surely we shall not do such a thing now. As I have alraady said, however, there are areas which do not adjoin national states and which we shall have to develop, and I have just mentioned two of them. From what I have just said, hon members may infer that I cannot accept the hon member’s second amendment either.

Order! Earlier on in the speech of the hon the Deputy Minister, an hon member said, with reference to the hon member for Lichtenburg, that he was stupid. I suspect that it was the hon member for Stilfontein. Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, I said: “That is stupid.” In any event, I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has given us an interesting performance this afternoon. What I find even more interesting is the fact that not one of the members of the present Commission for Co-operation and Development has attempted to enter the debate this afternoon. There may be a good reason for this. The Government has now finally decided that a mixed Government and a mixed Parliament will decide on all land affairs in future, including the land of the Whites. We must expect, therefore, that in the new dispensation, that Commission for Co-operation and Development will no longer …

Order! Which clause is the hon member discussing now?

I am discussing clause 2.

This clause does not concern the composition of the Commission for Co-operation and Development.

Mr Chairman, just allow me to complete my argument, and then you will see that I am indeed dealing with the clause. This clause provides that Parliament will decide with regard to certain areas in future. The body which has up to now made recommendations in this connection to the Government and to Parliament is the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Since we have a White Commission for Cooperation and Development today, surely it is only logical—if I am wrong, I should very much like to be proved wrong—that in the new dispensation, these hon gentlemen who are serving on the commission today may not all keep their jobs, and that the hon member for Vryheid may have to make room for the nomination of Mr Rajbansi. The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said that the question of land was a so-called own affair. However, the hon the Deputy Minister said this afternoon that it was agricultural land.

I told you on Friday that it was agricultural land.

Very well. Does this mean that in terms of clause 2, no agricultural land will be used for this purpose?

No, that is not what I said.

Then let us discuss the matter. The hon the Deputy Minister says that only the Whites will decide about White agricultural land.

That I did not say.

Well, now we have yet another dispute. The hon the Deputy Minister is getting more and more confused. He says that control over agricultural land is an own affair. I have always been under the impression—and so, I think, have the hon gentlemen opposite—that only the White House of Assembly would decide about the own affairs of the Whites. Now it is being said that agricultural land is an own affair, but when it is used for the purposes of this legislation, they say it is no longer an own affair, because then the mixed Parliament is going to decide about it. These gentlemen must decide what the position is, or does the hon the Deputy Minister give us the assurance now that no White agricultural land will be used for the purposes of clause 2 of this Bill in future? I should like to receive a reply to that, because I do not believe that this is the case. The hon the Deputy Minister and his colleagues are trying, however, to evade the fact that the Whites have finally lost control of their own land.

What is even more amazing is the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister tried to get past this by saying that the White House of Assembly would have a right of veto. Now, I remember very well that when we debated these matters and said that the Indian chamber was going to have a right of veto with regard to the decisions taken by the White House of Assembly, this was emphatically denied from the other side. Now that it suites them, however …

Order! I do have a problem with the hon member’s approach. Standing Order No 63 reads as follows:

I have the feeling that in his present discussion of what was said when the Constitution was discussed, the hon member is straying too far from this clause.

Sir, I am trying to explain why our amendment, ie that the House of Assembly should be the decision-making institution in this connection, should be accepted. In order to bring that argument home, I am trying to explain to the hon members of the Government what the difference is between a resolution of the House of Assembly and a resolution of the new mixed Parliament.

I understand what the hon member is trying to do, but he really should co-operate with me now since it is my task to enforce the rules. The hon member may proceed, but he must not stray quite so far from the subject.

Sir, the hon the Deputy Minister also said in his reply this afternoon that if the three chambers were unable to reach consensus about the decision with regard to these lands, the State President would decide.

No.

He said so. He said that the State President would decide. [Interjections.] If it was a slip of the tongue—we can consult his Hansard—and if he meant the President’s Council, I shall accept that and I shall not take the matter any further.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the hon the Minister told us that there had been no change of policy on the part of the Government. In the same speech this afternoon, however, he asked what was wrong with ownership being given to Blacks in Black residential areas, if the possibility existed that they were eventually going to become part of a Black state. Now I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether this has become the policy standpoint of the Government. I should very much like to receive a reply to that.

Order! I am sorry, but this clause does not deal with ownership.

Indeed it does, Sir. I am referring here to subsection (2)(i) in which specific provision is made for the making of regulations for the registration of ownership in the name of Blacks. That is just what this clause provides for.

The hon member has convinced me and he may proceed.

We have already debated the matter. Now we want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether it was a change of policy which he announced on behalf of the National Party this afternoon when he said that the Government saw nothing wrong with ownership being given to Blacks in such areas. We should like to receive an unequivocal reply from the hon the Deputy Minister, therefore.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that it had become my practice to stalk people politically.

Order! Does that appear in the Bill?

No, Sir. I wish to conclude. [Interjections.] I do not think I stalked the hon the Deputy Minister this afternoon. He received our amendment in good time, we argued openly in this House, and we should like to receive an open reply from the hon the Minister. He does not have to stalk the truth; he can tell us what it is quite openly. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must say I am glad the hon member did not deny that he was in the habit of stalking people.

The hon member now wishes to put words into my mouth which I did not use. I expressly stated that when this Parliament refused to approve a matter, that matter would be referred to the President’s Council.

There is no longer a White Parliament.

Oh, I mean the House of Assembly. I am sorry, it was another slip of the tongue.

The hon the Deputy Minister is having too many of them.

It is that hon member’s influence which causes me to use the wrong word every time, because he annoys me. Be that as it may, the hon member knows what I meant. I meant that it could be referred from the House of Assembly to the President’s Council. The hon member for Lichtenburg knows that I said this, because he actually confirmed it. So this is not true.

I want to make it very clear now. I did not say that control over agricultural land was a White affair. I said that the practice of agriculture, aid to White farmers, extension services, drought aid, soil conservation—in other words, matters relating to the practice of agriculture by Whites—were own affairs. Is that clear enough? Is there anything I could add to that to make it still clearer? Do those hon members wish to ask a question about it?

But it does not concern this legislation.

The hon member asked me a question and I am replying to it. Is this clear? It is an own affair. However, when it comes to the making available of agricultural land which belongs to Whites but which has to be transferred to a national state, as in the present case, it is a general affair. Is that clear enough? I have now spelt out the matter categorically and I hope, therefore, that the hon member for Barberton will have no further doubt in his mind.

No, I have no doubt in my mind.

Very well, then he must not try to debate the matter any further.

I am also being accused of having announced a change of policy in respect of the granting of ownership to Blacks in areas which are to be added to national states. The hon member was a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, after all. I do not know what the name was then. I know what they called that hon member, but I am now referring to the name of the commission. [Interjections.] After all, he knows—and what could be wrong with that?—that when an area is to be added to a national state and is declared to be a Trust area, the Government grants ownership to those people. What is wrong with that? What is the change of policy to which the hon member referred? Surely this has been the position all these years, it is still the position and it will be the position in future as well. That is why I said that we were going to deal with areas such as St Gwendolin’s near Pietermaritzburg and Groutville in this way. We are going to declare them to be Trust areas or Black areas, because we intend to establish a regional town in Groutville, for example. I now want to say—and those hon members can suck just as much political venom out of this as they like—that we are going to give those people ownership, because it is a Black area, after all. There is also the possibility that that area may be incorporated into kwaZulu in future, and the same applies to St Gwendolin’s. I should very much like to know, therefore, where the change of policy comes in.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications listened very carefully to what the hon the Deputy Minister of Cooperation has just said, namely that control over White agricultural land is a general affair. The amendment moved by the hon member for Lichtenburg underlines what we would like to see, namely that the old policy of the NP should be adhered to. This is that there should not be ownership for other groups in White areas. According to the hon the Deputy Minister, there are already two areas which do not adjoin Black territories and which cannot be incorporated into a homeland either. So there are already two areas in which they are in fact going to grant ownership. If there are two areas already, other areas will be added in terms of the provisions of this clause, areas which can be dealt with in this way in terms of this clause. The fact of the matter is that it underlines the change of policy which the NP has undergone, firstly with regard to the permanence of Blacks in the White area, which is also confirmed by ownership in terms of subsection (2)(i) …

Order! The policy of a party is not relevant now. The hon member may only discuss the details of the clause and not the principles which gave rise to them. If the hon member could only tell me, as the hon member for Barberton did, that he is talking about subsection (2)(i), then I could not quarrel with him.

Mr Chairman, I am talking about subsection (2)(i). Subsection (2)(i) gives ownership in these areas …

Now the hon member is again talking about a policy which has been changed in order to allow this. I do not think that is contained in this clause.

It has never been the policy that ownership should be granted.

The hon member must talk about the details of the clause.

I am trying to keep to the details

Order! The hon member may proceed just as long as he talks about the clause.

The fact remains that if ownership is going to be granted to Blacks in terms of subsection (2)(i), as in those two areas which the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned by way of example an element of permanence is being created as far as these people are concerned.

Are they not permanent, then?

It has been the policy of the NP all these years that the Blacks of adjoining national states would not obtain permanence in the White areas. But now the policy has changed, or does the hon the Deputy Minister wish to argue the matter with me? Secondly, I never said that they could in fact obtain the right to vote by virtue of their ownership there, but the pressure for this is going to become very strong just because they have ownership there. What is the basic difference between a Coloured person and an Indian? They both have the right to vote and they both have ownership.

Order! Now the hon member has definitely strayed from this clause again.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member answer a question?

Order! I just want to find out first whether the hon member is still dealing with the clause. As far as I can see, the franchise of the Coloureds and the Indians has nothing to do with this clause.

I am just trying to point out that as far as decision-making powers in the new constitutional dispensation are concerned, there is no argument in terms of which these people could eventually …

Order! The hon member will agree with me that that has nothing to do with the clause. Is the hon member prepared to answer a question by the hon the Deputy Minister?

I shall answer a question.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member could have proceeded with his argument, my question would have been relevant, but now the matter has been somewhat complicated …

Order! then the hon the Deputy Minister should rather not ask a question. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

All I want to say in conclusion is that the rejection of the amendment moved by the hon member for Lichtenburg would be very clear proof of the fact that the Government is introducing a radical change of policy with regard to urban Blacks in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I told the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday that we no longer trusted the Government with these matters. We also said that we would be moving an amendment today. This has been done, and the amendment will give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to prove his bona fides. The hon the Deputy Minister indicated that agricultural land was not an own affair. The hon the Deputy Minister is quite right; it is a general affair. In terms of the Constitution no land …

Only the land for the practice of agriculture.

Of course that land is a general affair. The Constitution provides that agricultural extension services are an own affair. I ask which is more important to a farmer: The extension service which is rendered or his land?

Order! Which part of the clause is the hon member discussing now?

Sir, I am discussing clause 2, and specifically the provision in the proposed section 30(1) to the effect that the State President may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, set aside as a town any land which is situated in any area determined by Parliament by resolution.

My question was occasioned by the hon member’s reference to agricultural extension. What does that have to do with this clause?

Sir, I said that we were testing the Government’s bonafides with regard to the fact that the Whites could no longer take their own decisions concerning their own land, and the fact that we are proposing that “Parliament” be replaced by “House of Assembly” means that if our amendment is accepted, we shall again be able to take decisions concerning our own land, as the position is at the moment.

Yes, that the hon member may discuss.

At the moment, we decide about our own land, but after the implementation of the new Constitution, Parliament will decide. If “House of Assembly” is written in here, we shall decide.

I have said that we do not trust the Government, but the hon the Deputy Minister says that no change has taken place. This massive change is taking place in the sense that while we decide about our own land today, we shall no longer have the sole power to do so in the new dispensation. In spite of this, the hon the Deputy Minister says that this does not constitute change. The hon the Deputy Minister also says that if a veto is exercised by the Whites, the matter will be submitted to the President’s Council. But that President’s Council is also a multiracial body and its members, who will decide, are not all White. That body may decide that the House of Assembly is wrong.

Yes.

Of course, and then we shall not have the sole right of decision making with regard to our land, after all. What did the hon the Deputy Minister want to say? What he said was precisely that we no longer had the sole right of decision-making.

As far as my second amendment is concerned, the hon the Minister says that the Government has cleared up Black spots, so why should we not trust him? I want to ask how many Black spots the hon the Deputy Minister has cleared up lately. What is more, the Government may exceed the 1936 quota in terms of another amendment. So the actions of the Government are no longer restricted by the Act; henceforth the Government will be restricted only by itself and by the new Parliament. The hon the Deputy Minister said that Groutville was one such example, but I want to ask him whether Groutville was not one of the places with regard to which there was a proposal that it should be declared White. I cannot quite recollect what happened there, but perhaps some of the officials will be able to help.

I shall help you.

Was Groutville not one of the areas?

Yes, Groutville was to have become a White area.

Now the Government decides that it is no longer going to become a White area; on the contrary, the people are going to get ownership there. This the hon the Deputy Minister has announced, but in spite of that, he maintains that the Government has not changed. What did the hon the Deputy Minister do? First he decided that Groutville would become a White area, and later he decided that it would not. Under such circumstances, how can the hon the Deputy Minister say that he is remaining the same? When he decided that Groutville was no longer destined to become a White area, his decision was supposedly in line with the decision that Groutville would become a White area! How can the hon the Deputy Minister tell me that he has not changed?

I say that there are large areas of land which have already been declared in this way by Parliament, and nothing prevents the Government from declaring more land anywhere. There is nothing to prevent the Government, and we do not trust the Government. We have asked that this amendment be accepted so that we may know that the Government will comply with it and that it will act as it acted in the past, within the Black states, as the first part provides, or in scheduled or released areas or in adjoining areas. If the amendment is accepted, we shall know where the Government wants to do it, and then we shall be satisfied. Now we know, however, on the basis of the hon the Deputy Minister’s own actions, that there is nothing which is going to prevent him from doing it anywhere else. I say today that if the clause is accepted the way it reads at the moment, nothing is going to prevent the hon the Deputy Minister from doing it in Khayelitsha or Soweto and other places of this kind where big cities are now being built. Nothing is going to prevent him from doing this. This is why we do not trust the Government. The hon the Deputy Minister is simply proving once again that we are right to be on our guard and to have misgivings about the things that are being done.

The hon member for Lichtenburg is quite right when he says that the initial idea was that Groutville should become a Black area and should be incorporated into kwaZulu.

It was to have become a White area.

Yes, I apologize; it was to have become a White area. However, the Government subsequently decided that this area should become a Black area. However, there are many other places which were initially scheduled to become Black areas and which were later scheduled to become White. Time does not stand still, and when changes occur because of other circumstances, surely the hon member cannot expect the Government not to adjust to these. Of course we change as reality requires us to do. However, our policy remains the same. Inanda used to be part of the White area, for example. Would the hon member now allege that it should not be used for housing thousands of Black people around Durban? Is it the hon member’s argument that we should not change? Are we to conjure up accommodation for these people out of thin air? Surely the hon member cannot expect that. It is not a logical argument to say that although a different situation has arisen, the status quo should be maintained for all eternity.

I want to give the hon member yet another reason why I cannot accept his amendment. It has nothing to do with our bona fides. In terms of the Constitution, I cannot accept the hon member’s first amendment. Section 97 of the Constitution reads as follows:

Even if I were to accept the hon member’s amendment, therefore, it would be of absolutely no value.

But this Bill was drafted after the Constitution. [Interjections.]

But surely the Constitution will only become operative at a later date. Or what is the hon member talking about now?

Mr Chairman, very roundabout arguments have been advanced here. However, I now come to the amendment of the hon member for Lichtenburg.

The hon member contends that he does not trust the NP and the Government. He gave this as the reason for wanting the words “House of Assembly” substituted for the word “Parliament”. However, it seems to me that he does not even trust the House of Assembly. The hon member’s second amendment reads, inter alia, “provided such land adjoins …”. It seems, therefore, that the hon member and his party are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their own House of Assembly. In fact, it seems to me as if they do not trust anything, not even the House of Assembly. Therefore, the argument concerning the question of confidence in the Government fails miserably because they do not even trust their own House of Assembly. Politically speaking, therefore, the argument of the hon member for Lichtenburg falls as flat as a pancake.

The hon member for Barberton claimed that in future Parliament alone would decide and that the Commission for Co-operation and development would no longer be consulted.

That was not what I said. You were not listening.

Then that hon member did not express himself clearly. The hon member wanted to know whether the commission would continue to exist.

I asked whether it would remain White.

The hon the Deputy Minister spelt it out very clearly but those hon members only talk and do not listen. It would help a little if they would just keep their ears open a little. But now their ears are closed and their mouths open.

Section 25 of the Black Administration Act is very clear. The hon the Deputy Minister has already quoted it to this House but I want to quote from it again:

Reference is made to “both Houses of Parliament". The situation has always been—this is not something new—that Parliament decides on matters of this nature. The hon member for Barberton is welcome to go and have a look at this. It is nothing new. I want to point out to the hon member for Pietersburg that this is not a new departure. It is a confirmation of the position that obtained in the past. Those hon members should just go and read what appears in the proposed section 30(1), as inserted by clause 2(1) of the Bill. It reads:

If “region” were to be substituted for “any area”, the meaning would remain unchanged. What, after all, is the difference between “area” and “region”? Therefore, clause 2 of the Bill is a confirmation of the method of operation of the past. It is nothing new. I want to emphasize this. Since 1927 this has been effected by way of a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Whereas in terms of the 1927 Act it had to be effected by way of a resolution by “both Houses of Parliament” it will now be effected by way of a resolution by “Parliament”. That is all.

We now come to the question of Parliament that is to consist of three Houses. A short while ago the hon member for Barberton made large-scale strategic projections of what the commission would look like. However, the strategists of the CP lost this argument in November last year at the time of the referendum. The NP won by a two-thirds majority. I want to point out to the hon member for Lichtenburg that this is precisely where the change is.

It is where the trouble is.

That party lost because it did not do its homework properly. They must not blame us now for the fact that they lost the referendum. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member but we are not discussing the referendum now.

But, Sir, it is a fact that in certain circumstances “Parliament” will be read as “House of Assembly” in legislation. The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to this. The Parliament referred to in the proposed new section 30(1) as contained in clause 2(1) is going to consist of three Houses. However, that is not something we can debate now. Hon members of the CP lost this debate last year already. That is my argument.

It is quite clear that all the matters referred to in clause 2(1) are being made subject to the resolution by Parliament. Therefore, this is not something that is being done under a blanket of secrecy. It is not a case of a sudden departure from policy. This will be taking place in public. If hon members should feel dissatisfied about something they can debate it at that stage. Now they are simply arguing on a basis of distrust, but the fact is that they do not even trust the House of Assembly. Such people are impossible.

I took the trouble to read section 30 of the old Black Administration Act again, and from that it is clear that the power to make regulations in order to administer and develop towns properly in today’s circumstances, simply does not exist in terms of this section. In terms of the proposed section 30(2) the Minister may make regulations providing for a whole range of matters, something that is in fact long overdue. One of the problems with the development of Black towns is the very fact that the old proclamations are no longer effective. We have trouble attracting people to Black towns, even in the national states. Therefore we have to make the establishment of towns in the national states more attractive. However, in terms of the 1962 regulations we cannot do this. Therefore new township regulations have been drawn up to rectify the whole matter, but it has not yet been possible to promulgate them. We have to pass the proposed new section 30(2) before those regulations can be promulgated. Therefore, in order to develop the national states effectively and also to attract the Black people there it is essential that we accept clause 2. However, what does the CP do? They are against it. Apparently they do not want to give the Black people cities and towns in the national states. [Interjections.]

This legislation is not only in the interests of the whole Republic in general; it is also specifically in the interests of the Black people. If hon members would look at clause 2(2) they would see that it is clearly stated that—it is perhaps not so clear, but if they read it carefully … [Interjections.] Those hon members will not understand it in any case. Therefore I want to explain it to them.

[Inaudible.]

I challenge the hon member for Brakpan to tell us what is stated in that subclause.

It is clear but also not clear.

In view of the fact that proclamation R 293 of 1962 will have to be changed in due course in terms of the amendments being effected now, we are nevertheless, in subsection (2), preserving what is past. Perhaps this is not so clear from the legislation but hon members will probably understand it now.

When one looks at clause 2 it is very clear that the provisions contained in it are nothing new, but merely serve to stabilize existing legislation with a view, inter alia, to establish more attractive cities and towns in the national states. I cannot add anything to what the hon the Deputy Minister said in regard to Inanda because he covered it fully. A second aspect is that it is nothing new and is in everyone’s interest. It is in no way a departure from policy but in the new circumstances and with the new demands we have to face, especially from November 1983, it is merely a continuation of the NP’s policy.

Amendment 1 put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Dr F Hartzenberg, Messrs T Langley, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L M Theunissen, C Uys, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Amendment 1 declared negatived.

Amendment 2 put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Dr F Hartzenberg, Messrs T Langley, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L M Theunissen, C Uys, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Amendment 2 declared negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Dr F Hartzenberg, Messrs T Langley, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L M Theunissen, C Uys, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

Where the promises in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 are about to be fulfilled, we in this party are of the opinion that this clause represents the commencement of a totally new chapter in regard to the acquisition of land for purposes of consolidation and we should like to draw a definite distinction between this legislation and that which is about to be completed in terms of the Act of 1936. The commencement of this new chapter will bring with it the finalization of consolidation in many cases, which will in fact mean the finalization of boundaries or borders between states, a matter about which much has been said in this House before. Another difference is, of course, the fact that, whereas before a specific area was indicated together with the provincial quotas, the whole matter is now to be determined by resolution of Parliament. There is no final area and there is no provincial quota involved. In that respect this represents a very significant change in the acquisition of land for purposes of consolidation.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Deputy Minister responded to questions raised about attempts to have White farmers remain on the land after that land has been acquired for purposes of consolidation. He himself indicated that this attempt failed—in this regard he quoted a figure of less than 1%—and that, despite guarantees, as I think he said, this scheme had not found favour with farmers. I should like to put it to the hon the Deputy Minister that in fact those guarantees were inadequate, that the attempts made in this regard were inadequate and that that type of scheme was not thoroughly investigated and negotiated in order to make it successful. With the final land now to be bought in each case and the final boundaries thus being determined, it is of crucial importance that one should approach the question of the acquisition and holding of land by the Trust, in terms of this clause, with great earnestness with a view to the future relations between states apart from the economic utilization of that land as such.

The hon member for Klip River in his speech during the Second Reading debate yesterday also said that until Blacks in South Africa or the natianal states rid themselves of the communal ownership system in regard to the utilization of land and, flowing from that, the poverty associated with it and the misuse of land, there could be no improvement in this regard. These facts are known to all of us. That is the background to the situation in this country and, with the enactment of this legislation, I feel that we should strive to bring about a far better situation in regard to the final demarcation of borders and the circumstances surrounding the finalization of the consolidation proposals which we can live with and which will definitely bring about the efficient economic utilization of land.

The situation today in regard to the demarcation of borders is such that even our own provincial authorities do not agree with the department and the commission as to what constitutes a good boundary. While the South African Agricultural Union and farmers generally favour the building of roads, the provincial authorities are against the concept. This is the degree of the lack of cooperation and negotiation that exists in regard to the acquisition of land which, as I say, will result in borders being finally demarcated.

In a debate in this House in March 1983 on the Borders of Particular States Extension Bill the Deputy Minister at the time in reply to a similar point that I had raised during that debate had the following to say (Hansard, col 2262):

On other occasions when the question of the utilization of land has been raised—the acquisition of land to finalize consolidation and therefore also borders—various Government speakers including the former Deputy Minister to whom I have just referred, have indicated that there would be negotiations and agreements in regard to the utilization of land acquired more recently. In fact they have said that there would be a change in its utilization. We are extremely concerned that whilst these statements have been made here, there has been no indication whatsoever that the Government has undertaken any form of meaningful negotiation in regard to the utilization of such land or that there has been a new approach in regard to the economic utilization of land.

It is for these reasons that we on these benches believe that this clause will usher in a new chapter in regard to the acquisition of land over and above the land promised in terms of the 1936 Act. We also believe that this proposed proviso will act as a continuous reminder because of the last portion of it which reads:

This will then place the Government in the position in regard to land acquired under this amendment of being able to negotiate with the states concerned and arrange a new deal with respect to the utilization of such land. The developments in the national states are largely of an agricultural nature. Their largest asset is agricultural land. As the hon member for Klip River said yesterday, we are going to have to get away from the old tribal systems and we are also going to have to get away from many of the preconceived notions about how to use land. We in our own country have problems, as has been borne out by the recent drought. We do not have enough agricultural experts, extension officers and economists for our own needs. We certainly do not have enough for the homeland states and yet those are the people to whom we are transferring this absolutely irreplaceable asset. We believe that it is incumbent on the Government to assure this House that they will in fact enter into multilateral negotiations with the states concerned in order to reach agreement on exactly how this land is to be used in the future. It is not impossible. Changed circumstances require changed institutions. I should now like to quote from a document that deals with development in other areas. As I have said, most of the development in these areas has taken place in the agricultural sphere. An interesting quotation I have here reads:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as usual the hon member for King William’s Town has made a very positive contribution. He also elaborated on the importance of the use of the land as a major component of this whole development effort. Unfortunately the amendment is not very clear in this respect. On the one hand I can accept that the amendment refers to the use of land while it is still the property of the Trust. In this regard I must say at once that this is one of the finest and best things arising from this whole effort; not only the efforts made by the Trust to train Black people and teach them how to use and employ the land, but also their planning and preparation of the land until that day when the land is, if not transferred, as we say in ordinary language, then incorporated in the area of jurisdiction of the national states.

On the other hand, this amendment could also refer to the second stage, the stage when the land is incorporated into the area of jurisdiction of the national states and thereafter. With all the preparations, with all the training of Black people, with all the negotiations, with all the efforts that are being made to prepare our Black people in the national states for the day when the land will be incorporated, one can only hope that things will improve all the time. However, when one wants to embody policy in legislation one can very easily make mistakes. It is not possible, in any case, to embody ordinary policy clearly and unequivocally in legislation. I think the hon member should accept that by way of clause 4 the hon the Deputy Minister, the department and the Government propose to put the finishing touches to fatherlands for the Black ethnic peoples. Because this is the real intention and because this involves the consolidation of the fatherlands, it is also the Government’s third and important objective to help and develop our Black people in such a way that they will be able to make the best possible use of the land which will in due course be incorporated into the area of jurisdiction of the national states.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon member for Newton Park but I am afraid that we cannot agree that this is taking place. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trust is in a position to use the ground which it takes over, effectively and economically. It is this priceless asset we seem to consider in a totally different light. It is quite incredible. When we make funds from various sources available to the national states, there are enormous negotiations surrounding the use of that money. There is also monitoring of how it is used. In the formation of the Development Bank for Southern Africa they have gone through an enormous process of working committees to bring about multilateral arrangements because they are dealing with money, actual coinage. There is a terrible fear about how that is used. They want to make sure that people do not spend it badly and they want to know whether the money will be paid back. They want to be absolutely sure that the money will not be wasted. When we come to ground, however, nobody seems to be concerned.

No, now you are over-dramatizing.

One has to otherwise one fails to get the message through. [Interjections.] The situation is that we spend vast sums of money without asking for any guarantees. If we were to lend them the money that we are using to buy land, it would have all sorts of strings and clauses attached to it, but not so with ground. We buy it, we bring it down to a state of unproductiveness, we hand it into a system which we know will not be able to utilize it properly and then we use more money through grants-in-aid via the Department of Foreign Affairs to bring that ground back to where it was. We are using vast sums of money but we are not negotiating by means of the same process which we have used in the development of those states in the financial field in order to rethink and to have another good look at the usage of ground. I should like to see us enter into this new chapter in the acquisition of land with a new approach because that is what it is, a new chapter. The old Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 is about to be fulfilled. We are to continue to buy ground. This may be the process of rounding off, but we do not know that because it is not provided as such in the clause.

It is Parliament that decides.

Nevertheless Parliament as it is constituted today and as it will be under the new dispensation will comprise largely the NP. They can go on buying land in terms of this Bill as long as they are in the majority. We are concerned about the effective and economic utilization of that ground. It is an absolute chalk and cheese situation in that when it comes to money and loans we are prepared to go to the ends of the earth to negotiate multilateral treaties and usage for that money but about the most precious commodity which we have, we do nothing and yet that includes the outlaying of vast sums of money.

I really believe that this type of approach is what the Government should look at. Whether this amendment is accepted or not—it would appear from the speech of the hon member for Newton Park that it would not be accepted—perhaps one will have sown the seed in the department that they really have to get down to gathering all those states around the table so that the same can be done about land and consolidation as has been done in the case of the Development Bank of Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading of this Bill, we approve of this clause. We believe that there should be flexibility in so far as quota land is concerned, and we welcome the fact that the 1936 quota has almost been achieved. We believe there is great merit in the fact that there will be continuing flexibility and no unnecessary restrictions on the acquisition of further quota land. We therefore find favour with the clause.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon member for King William’s Town is concerned, we approve of its spirit. If I understand it correctly, he is concerned that any additional quota land taken over should be effectively used and properly looked after and should also remain economically viable. We have certainly stated before and we state again now that this should be the case.

Having said that, I too wonder just how practical it is—I accept the spirit of what the hon member is trying to achieve—to tie down the parties to an agreement, particularly when it comes to the second part of his amendment where he refers to the final alienation of land to the national states. I would question the practicability of that being achieved. However, as far as the spirit of his amendment is concerned, it certainly finds favour with us.

I want to issue one warning. If this were to be implemented, the Government should not use it in order to create undue delays in handing over land which has been taken over by the Trust to the national states unless there is good reason for the delays. As we indicated in the Second Reading, there is already a great deal of concern about the delay which occurs from the time the Trust takes over the land to the time it is handed over to the national states.

With these few words, we will certainly be supporting this clause and we have sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon member for King William’s Town.

Mr Chairman, we can by no means support this clause.

This clause is one of which the significance will not be realized today. However, it will be realized in the future what is happening here. The clause makes provision for the quota of 1936 to be exceeded and for Parliament to decide about this in the future.

When I came to Parliament 14 years ago the major issue was that stability and certainty should be created about where the borders of the various states would be. A plan was not drawn up concerning where the borders would be, however. It was eventually decided to submit such a plan, and after an investigation by the Commission for Cooperation and Development the 1975 plan was submitted. The then Prime Minister said that the book had been closed and that there was certainty. This whole matter is now being reconsidered, however. Today I maintain that this is one of the matters that will create the greatest uncertainty and instability, in the political field as well.

Firstly, the White Parliament and White representatives will no longer decide alone about their own land which has to be transferred. A mixed Parliament will do so now, and this is the first matter which will create uncertainty.

There is a second matter that will create uncertainty. The investigation called for by the hon the Prime Minister in 1979 demanded greater acceleration and better rounding off of the process. However, that is precisely what is not happening now. There is no better rounding off, and the Government is not coming forward with a better plan. In 1979 the Commission for Co-operation and Development was instructed to carry out a further investigation, and a special consolidation committee was appointed. That was five and a half years ago and a plan still has not been submitted to the country on where the final borders of these states will be and what they will look like. There has been a trend in precisely the opposite direction. I maintain that the investigation the hon the Prime Minister called for in 1979 was a fatal attempt, since it had one result. As a result of that investigation the Black people that had to be removed from poorly situated Black areas and Black spots said that they no longer wanted to move and that they would rather wait and see what the plan that was to be announced looked like, and that it would perhaps not be necessary to move after that. As a result of that, removals and resettlements came to a halt. Yesterday the hon the Minister made a great fuss about the Government’s land purchases. That is precisely what we have been experiencing for quite a while now when we speak to one another. We are telling the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister that the back tyre of their bicycle is flat, whereupon they tell us that there is a great deal of air in the front tyre of their bicycle. [Interjections.]

Which clause is the hon member discussing now?

Sir, I am discussing this clause, clause 4, which deals with land. It has gone flat. We tell the Government, the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister that they are not in the process of consolidating. Just look at what has happened. Large areas that have been cleared and should have been incorporated into Black states—for example, Senthimula, Kutama, Matoks, Ramagoep, Groutville and others of which the hon the Deputy Minister is aware—remain unchanged now. In other words, there is not going to be greater consolidation. There is not going to be better rounding off of borders. In addition, the 1936 quota is being opened without a purposeful plan. Consequently, I say that this is a prime example of the instability the Government is creating.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the quota was not only exceeded in one way. It was exceeded in two ways. The first is the case of compensatory land which was purchased, but where resettlement did not take place. That is not all, however. Other land was also purchased, which has nothing to do with compensatory land or with the quota, but which simply constitutes exceeding.

Tell us about Onverwagt.

That was within the 1936 quota.

That will be the day.

That hon member was not in this Parliament. Onverwagt fell within the 1936 quota of 7,25 million morgen. All that happened was that quota land of Bophuthatswana was transferred from the Cape Province to the Free State. The quota of the Cape Province was reduced, and that of the Free State was increased. It seems to me that the hon member is not even aware of that.

We asked for it to be transferred.

The hon member does not know much about that matter. I personally worked with the case of Onverwagt and I never saw him in the process. He was nowhere to be seen, but now he wants to come and tell us how that took place. The hon member says that the quota was exceeded, but it was not exceeded. There was merely a transfer from one province to another.

The Government is exceeding the quota in two ways in this whole process. One of the ways is the resettlements that have not yet taken place, and the other is by plainly and simply exceeding the 1936 quota by purchasing additional land. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that if the Government does not begin resettling, we will eventually have a situation where quota land as well as compensatory land has been purchased, but that Black people in poorly situated Black areas and Black spots will remain where they are. The Government is going to leave those areas one by one, just as it did in the case of Senthimula and other areas. The Government has already begun giving back land that has been purchased. The Government is then going to leave those areas and exceed the quota, whilst it is purchasing additional land. This whole effort of consolidation is the result of the investigation called for by the hon the Prime Minister in 1979. That is why certain things were written in to prevent that from happening, but that did not help. We have not yet even received a report. There has been no attempt to do so. The Government has lost control over this matter completely, and there is no certainty at all about where the borders are going to be. The Government is creating fundamental uncertainty with regard to relations between peoples by doing this.

Mr Chairman, a fuss was made about the question of Onverwagt. As the hon member for Lichtenburg rightly said, it is a fact that a transfer of the quota of the Cape Province took place. Let us look at what happened. Section 10 of the Development Trust and Land Act, Act No 18 of 1936, provides that the quota “shall not exceed seven and one quarter million morgen”. It is also provided in the Act how many morgen of land the Transvaal and Natal have. [Interjections.] Read section 10. Does the hon member not know what it provides? Provision is also made for how many morgen there are in the Free State. Section 10 was amended with the co-operation of the hon member for Lichtenburg, and I am now trying to indicate that the hon member who now wants to claim that section 10 is supposedly so sacred, assisted in amending that same section.

Without altering the quota.

I am not speaking about the quota; I am speaking about section 10. I shall come to the quota later. That hon member must not tell us, however, that section 10 is a law of the Medes and Persians, since he himself altered the provincial quotas, which are just as important as any quota. Or does the hon member want to claim that the provincial quotas are not so important? Of course they are important, and he must be careful not to say that they are not important. As I was saying, that hon member assisted in amending the provincial quotas, and he must therefore not try to pretend that this section is so sacred.

The hon member for Lichtenburg went on to say that the quota was exceeded.

Of course it was exceeded.

What must we do now? Must we take back all that land from the Whites or from the Blacks? From whom must we take it back in order to rectify the quota again?

Begin resettling …

We must rectify the matter either with the Whites or with the Blacks, and if we are not careful, we shall prejudice everyone. We are not arguing about the question of whether the clause is right or wrong now. That was decided on during the Second Reading, and therefore we cannot argue about that now. However, the fact is that guidelines have been drawn up in respect of consolidation and as far as that is concerned, I now come to the hon member for King William’s Town. Those guidelines were drawn up with the assistance of the hon member for Lichtenburg. Now he says that, in broad times, the guidelines have not been adhered to. However, he did not tell us which guideline had been deviated from. Let the hon member tell us which guideline has been deviated from.

As regards the guidelines that were drawn up, I want to reply to the hon member for King William’s Town immediately. The economic development of the Black states is a very high priority. The hon member put a question in this regard. Consolidation must not only be considered from a geographic point of view, but must also be considered particularly from the point of view of the consolidation of peoples, as well as economic consolidation. The point to which the hon member referred has a bearing on one of these guidelines. Talks and negotiations are being conducted with Black Governments, and this will be done in the future as well. This covers another point the hon member raised. The point the hon member made to the effect that one would like to keep the economy viable, is therefore contained in the guidelines and is part of the Government’s policy. The hon member for Newton Park pointed out that we cannot embody policy in legislation, particularly not in the way in which the hon member for King William’s Town wants to do it. His amendment reads:

How does one define “effective economic utilization”? When is something economic? What must the percentage profit margin be? How and when does one assess this? Does one assess it the day one hands it over, or does one assess it after five years? Must it be economic in perpetuity? If the sugar price drops, is it still economic? Or does it then become uneconomic? I think the hon member for Berea said, with reference to the amendment of the hon member for King William’s Town, that it was neither logical nor practical in practice and consequently not practicable.

In view of the arguments I have raised here, I ask the hon member to consider how one should assess effective economic utilization. I take pleasure in supporting this clause.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pretoria West did not raise a single argument as to why the 1936 quota should be exceeded. He accused the hon member for Lichtenburg of being instrumental in certain transfers taking place between provinces, but this clause is about the 1936 Act. I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern of the hon member for King William’s Town, because large pieces of land have been left unutilized in the past. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister specifically stated that quotas have been exceeded and that this has to be incorporated in legislation now. He said that this state of affairs can be ascribed to the fact that certain poorly situated Black areas are no longer going to be made White due to certain decisions that were taken, whilst compensatory land has already been purchased for those poorly situated areas. If that is the case, I maintain that this is a serious breach of the Government’s word. The hon member for Pretoria West made a great fuss about the fact that the Government will keep its word. The hon the Deputy Minister says that on 31 March 1984 the quota in the Transvaal had already been exceeded by 188 000 ha, by 62 000 ha in Natal, by 9 000 ha in the Free State and by 24 000 ha in the Cape—a total of 283 000 ha. He said that an additional 80 000 ha would be purchased mainly in Natal, which would bring the total quantity exceeded to 363 000 ha. If all these areas that should have been made White, but which are no longer going to be made White, do become White, the 1936 quota would not be exceeded. If one made the Matoks/Ramagoep area, which comprises 30 000 ha; Senthimula/Kutuma, which comprises 20 000 ha; Block 24, which comprises 66 000 ha; Palmietfontein, which comprises 5 000 ha; Sekgops, which comprises 4 000 ha, and all the other smaller areas in the Transvaal, White, as was the plan in 1975, it would not be necessary to exceed the 1936 quota.

Order! The hon member for Pretoria West pointed out a moment ago that the principle in this clause—and I think he is correct—is that the quota could be exceeded. Consequently, the hon member cannot discuss the principle now.

Mr Chairman, this clause has not yet been approved and it deals with the purchasing of land apart from land which is purchased in terms of the 1936 quota.

That is correct, but the hon member cannot discuss the principle now, only the details.

Then I shall speak about the details of exceeding the quota.

I want to mention the Sekgops area as an example. The hon the Minister of Agriculture, who is unfortunately not here at present, will recall very well that in 1980 he was on the verge of removing the people from that area. He told us then that those people would be removed on 1 December. That did not happen, however, since the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development announced that people would no longer be removed against their will. Immediately those people who were willing to move remained where they were and became reluctant to move. Consequently, these poorly situated areas did not become White, nor did the Palmietfontein area. During the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Minister said that he would see to it that area was made White, but that did not happen. We know for a fact that that will not happen. Our standpoint is that these areas should be made White. Surely it is not only the Black people who are being removed against their will. Recently the hon the Minister himself said that approximately 25 000 Whites had to be resettled at their own expense since 1975. The overwhelming majority of them were also resettled against their will. However, these people were willing to do this because they wanted consolidation to succeed.

Order! I do not want to deprive the hon member of the opportunity to put his case, but I just want to point out to him that the removal of people is not at all relevant here. I cannot permit the hon member to continue to discuss that.

I am merely advancing reasons as to why it is not necessary to exceed the quota of 1975.

The hon member may make that point, but he must not make the point and conduct an argument about the fact that people have to be removed in the process, since he is then opening a door which is going to cause the Chair a great many problems.

Very well, Sir, I shall confine myself to the exceeding of the quota. I want to remind the hon members opposite of how we argued in the past in respect of the quota of 1936. They will recall very well that we said that the whole of Southern Africa south of the Zambezi should be seen in its entirety, and that if there were to be a fair division of land between White and Black in Southern Africa, some of the old protectorates and all the Black areas there were at that time should be taken into account; then one arrives at a ratio of more or less 50:50. Hon members will recall that, or have they already forgotten those arguments? The other argument was that the areas in which the Black people traditionally lived are situated in the high rainfall regions and it is fine agricultural land and that some of the so-called large parts occupied by the Whites are situated in the drier and poorer parts of South Africa.

What is your point now?

I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether, for example, Block 24 in the Northern Transvaal is going to be made White, yes or no. I think it is imperative that the farmers of the Northern Transvaal should know for sure after so many years …

What has this got to do with protectorates?

I was pointing to the original argument the National Party advanced so as to arrive at the quota of 1936. I would argue that the acceptance of this clause is going to create a precedent, since the new tricameral Parliament will have to decide how much land will ultimately still be transferred to the Black national states. Now I am asking the hon the Minister once again what the norm is going to be, since the quota of 1936 is now being exceeded.

Mr Chairman, I just want to argue about the point that was raised to the effect that the administration of Black affairs will be controlled by a mixed Parliament in future, and that that is the reason for the CP’s objection. I should like to quote from section 93 of the constitution. I hope that its wording will assure the hon members of the CP that they have no cause for concern. Section 93 reads:

not in the President’s Council—

In terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 the assets with regard to Black affairs are dealt with by the Trust. The Trust’s assets, which are administered to the benefit of the Blacks, fall directly under the control, not of Parliament, but of the State President, who delegates his powers to functionaries. It is correct that laws are made here, but the ultimate control is vested in the State President. The provisions in our present constitution as far as this matter is concerned, remains precisely as it is in the new constitution which comes into effect on 3 September this year. Control of Black affairs and of the relevant land falls under the direct control of the State President.

Is it true that the State President could also be a Coloured or an Indian? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you will have to pardon me for a moment for deviating from the discussion of this clause and replying to this question. The system of the election of the State President in terms of the constitution was determined by the caucus of the NP in 1977. This was reconfirmed in the election of 1977, as well as in the election of 1981. No amendment whatsoever was effected to it.

The hon member is really going too far now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to come to another aspect, viz the aspect raised by the hon member for King William’s Town. He referred to possible objections that could be raised to exceeding the quota in terms of this clause because land is not being utilized as it should be. I admit that there could be objections in broad terms. That is a problem. It is a problem because the utilization of land in the national states takes place on the basis of the traditional system of tribal ownership. I say that this is a problem. However, it must be borne in mind that the land acquired that exceeds the quota is acquired by the Trust, and that the direct instruction to the Trust is not simply to hand over the land to the control of the national states. In terms of the Act the instruction to the Trust is to administer those assets of the Trust to the benefit, and not to the detriment, of the Black people. If transfer in terms of the traditional system of tribal ownership should appear to be to the detriment of the Black people, the Trust need not hand over the land, which has purchased over and above the quota, for settlement and utilization in terms of that system. The right of the Trust to be able to deal with it in this way is not provided for in this legislation, however. Nor does this legislation alter the position in respect of the Trust’s right and power to determine the use and utilization of that land.

I just want to mention that during a conversation I had with the then Minister of Internal Affairs of kwaZulu on occasion, he told me that the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu had already taken a decision in principle that they were in favour of extending private ownership and private utilization of land which falls in kwaZulu. It merely has to be implemented. In this regard there is the problem that the traditions which constitute the foundation and stability of any community should not be altered hastily. The Zulus have a saying “hamba gahle”, go carefully, and one must go about this carefully as regards any change in tradition. However, it is an absolute fact that it is essential to educate people in regard to the efficient utilization of land, particularly in terms of land owned by tribes so that that land can be utilized effectively. I agree with the reservations expressed by the hon member for King William’s Town. We must be careful about what becomes of that land. The Trust, which carries out its duties under the control of the State President, must be careful at all times to utilize the land to the long-term benefit of the Black people.

Mr Chairman, we have had a lengthy discussion on this clause and in the first place I want to express my appreciation to the hon member for Berea for his support of this clause. I have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for King William’s Town and I also have great sympathy with his amendment. I really wish that I could accept the amendment. However, as hon members on this side of the House have pointed out, this amendment is rather vague. It does not define what exactly effective economic utilization is, and in law it is a very vague and difficult amendment to apply. However, we are in full agreement with the sentiments that have been expressed. The SA Development Trust is at all times trying to achieve the object that that hon member wants to achieve my his amendment.

*We in the department are very determined that this land should be kept in a good condition so that it is in a good condition when we hand it over. The hon member will agree with me that at times there are many reasons why we cannot transfer this land immediately. The hon member for Berea has already spoken about that, and I tried to reply to him on that issue in the Second Reading debate yesterday. There are many reasons why the land cannot, at times, be handed over immediately. Sometimes there are political reasons why the land cannot immediately be handed over to the national states. The hon member is not completely correct, however, when he says that the Trust cannot always utilize the land, because the Government decided, from 1 April, to establish a body, the South African Development Trust Corporation, which is specially being created to develop the land still in the possession in the Trust and not yet transferred to the national states and to utilize it more efficiently than is being done at present.

The hon member again wanted to know whether we could not persuade the White farmers to remain on the land. I can assure hon members that the department and the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs are going out of their way to put together package deals for the farmers who are on the land and whose land is being bought up for consolidation purposes. Less than 1% of the people we approached, however, have indicated any interest. In fact, as I pointed out yesterday, in principle the SA Agricultural Unions wants nothing to do with the whole matter. They say it is a matter that rests with the individual and that they, as an organization, would rather have nothing to do with it.

We believe it would be a very good solution if we could keep those farmers there and if they would be prepared to farm under the new Black Government. It would be greatly to the benefit of those national states if that could happen. There is, however, no way of ensuring that this will be the case. I definitely do not want to be party to any steps forcing those people to remain there. It would, of course, be counter-productive and defeat the whole object of the exercise. We are still pursuing this ideal, and I can assure the hon member that if it is at all possible, we shall succeed.

The hon member for Lichtenburg indicated his party’s opposition to this clause. He does, of course, have every right to do so, but I do not think he should make such a sanctimonious fuss about the Government, owing to its own weakness and failure to take action in regard to the Black spots, having allowed the quota to be exceeded, because this morning I again ascertained, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he began to exceed this quota in Natal. During his time as Deputy Minister the quota in Natal was exceeded. I am not blaming him; he was compelled to do so. I merely expect him to adopt a more equitable attitude in regard to this quota being exceeded and to display more understanding than he did today. It does not bother me, because I do not think they will get very far with it, but I do not think he should be unreasonable or unfair by laying all the blame at our door.

Sir, permit me to clarify and finalize this whole question of the quota being exceeded, but before I come round to that, I must first confine myself for a moment to the hon member for Pietersburg. He put quite a few questions to me about areas in his constituency and environs. He is aware of the fact—I mentioned it yesterday too—that the final consolidation of Lebowa is in the process of completion. The plans have been drawn up, but consultations are still being held. The Cabinet must still furnish certain inputs too. We have not, however, been sitting still. Did I not quote a whole list, setting out what we had done over the past year or two as far as consolidation was concerned? The hon member will simply have to be patient in regard to the areas he referred to. In due course finality will be reached, and not in the far distant furture either.

When is it going to happen?

There is an instruction to the effect that consolidation should be finalized by 1987. When the hon member’s turn will come, I cannot say at this stage. Nor can I tell the hon member what the decisions are in regard to Block 24, which the hon member so expressly spoke of. At this stage the decision remains unchanged about people having to be moved. I cannot anticipate what the eventual decision will be. I am not empowered to do so, for the simple reason that I am not a prophet.

The amount by which the quota has been exceeded, to which there have been such vehement objections, is in truth merely a theoretical figure. Hon members will have to bear with me when I repeat all this, because there are hon members who either do not want to or cannot understand what is happening here. At this moment there is approximately 400 000 ha of Trust land which has been designated as compensatory land in terms of the 1973 proposals. If the plans were to be implemented without any amendments, and this figure is seen in the correct perspective, one realizes that the amount by which the quota Has been exceeded is merely an interim figure, since it is not possible, at this stage, even to work out approximately what the figure will be or whether the quota will have been exceeded at all. The purchase of land within the framework of already approved consolidation plans cannot always be co-ordinated with people being moved from poorly situated areas or with the removal of people for reasons of development. It is not possible to sinchronize these matters.

The final balance of the surface area of quota land will only become known when the final consolidation plans are passed by this Parliament. In the light of those circumstances, the Department of Co-operation and Development is acting very meticulously to ensure that the financial expenditure in connection with the purchasing of land is, in the first place, confined to the amount made available to us annually. It is not, after all, our fault that we find ourselves in a period of recession and therefore do not have the finances to purchase the land as we would have wanted to. Nor is it our fault that we cannot carry out the resettlement according to plan. That is what is confusing the issue. The hon member for Lichtenburg pretends that it is something he discovered. We are fully aware of it. These matters do, however, require money and manpower. We do not have it, and the hon member ought to know that full well. Nor have we exceeded this quota in a clandestine fashion. Each year the Auditor-General submitted a report in which it has been indicated by how many hectares the quota has been exceeded. As far as I know, there have never been any enquiries or a debate about that in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We must be realistic about these matters.

The reason why the one million hectares, to which I referred, are still being held in trust by the South African Development Trust is because the consolidation plans in regard to all the independent and national states are in the process of being finalized. They have not yet been finalized, and it is therefore not yet clear which of the Black spots and poorly situated areas, which must be converted into White areas in terms of the 1973 and 1975 consolidation plans, will after reconsideration remain Black areas or otherwise still be converted into White areas. If the 1973 and 1975 proposals were to be implemented without any changes today, however, the present figure of 285 000 ha by which the quota has been exceeded would be wiped out.

That is all I can tell hon members. I have no further information to make available to the House. This matter has been debated since yesterday. We have nothing to hide, and I therefore hope hon members are satisfied with my reply and that they will support the clause.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to what the hon the Deputy Minister said yesterday. Let me quote from his unrevised Hansard:

The hon the Deputy Minister said it again this afternoon. He should not, however, display his ignorance in this way. What really happens? The Auditor-General reports whether any specified limits have been exceeded, and his report is tabled here in Parliament. Parliament then refers it to the select committee. As far as my knowledge goes, the hon the Deputy Minister has never served on the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Fortunately not.

He therefore concedes that he is not conversant with the function of that select committee. If one has no knowledge of the matter, one surely does not know anything about it. [Interjections.] When certain expenditure of money voted by Parliament is exceeded, or it is misspent, the Auditor-General submits a report on it to the select committee and evidence can be gathered about the matter. If the land quota were to be exceeded, however, the select committee would not call witnesses to give evidence about it. If the Cabinet has decided that a certain area should be purchased, the select committee does not go into the matter. So the question of the land quota being exceeded has never been a matter for investigation by the select committee, nor can it ever be one. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member therefore saying that he does not have the right, in the select committee, to inquire into anything appearing in the Auditor-General’s report?

One can, of course, make inquiries. The department will not, however, be called to appear before the select committee to give evidence about why the Cabinet has instructed that the quota be exceeded. That is simply not done.

If money were to be misspent, the select committee would, in fact, investigate it. The Department of Co-operation and Development and several Administration Boards gave evidence before the select committee, over a period of several years, about various aspects of the finances of Administration Boards, for example thefts, underspending and overspending.

The hon the Deputy Minister said earlier that the quota is theoretically being exceeded and that when matters are put right it could eventually become apparent that the amount by which the quota was exceeded was very small or even nothing at all.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. Earlier on I also interrupted the hon member for Pietersburg for having spoken, during the Committee Stage, about quotas being exceeded. In Committee it is customary for the first speaker from any party to place on record, on behalf of his party, their objections in principle to a clause embodying an important principle. That is why I allowed the hon member for Lichtenburg to speak about it, and also allowed the hon the Deputy Minister to react to that. Hon members must understand, however, that I cannot again throw the discussion open and allow the hon member for Sunnyside to speak about the principle.

Sir, I am not speaking about whether the quota may be exceeded. The principle is that the quota may be exceeded by one 1 ha or by 1 000 million ha. My question specifically involves whether it is being exceeded by 1 ha or by 1 000 million ha. That is also what the clause deals with. I therefore think I am entitled to speak about it. Here it is not a question of whether the quota may be exceeded by 1 ha or by 1 000 million ha.

The hon the Deputy Minister said earlier that is was not clear at present to what extent the quota would be exceeded—according to him the figure could be a small one or a large one, or even nothing—but I want him to tell the Committee and South Africa today to what extent the quota is, in fact, going to be exceeded. We do not trust the NP Government. [Interjections.] South Africa does not trust the NP Government. As far as the Government is concerned, we and South Africa as a whole want to know where we stand.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside wants an indication of the extent to which the quota is going to be exceeded. He probably does not understand what it is all about. While the hon member was still on the side of the House, the hon the Prime Minister, in 1979, mentioned the reason for the quota being exceeded and also motivated the extent to which it would be exceeded. In regard to the extent to which it would be exceeded, the hon the Prime Minister said at the time, with the concurrence of those hon members, that although it was not the Government’s policy to have limits unnecessarily exceeded, investigating teams were not being restricted in their recommendations. An urgency has therefore arisen to have this matter finalized; in other words, the time factor has exerted its influence. The hon the Deputy Minister talked about limits being temporarily or permanently exceeded. The CP joined us in accepting the principle of allowing the commission, which was entrusted with the task, to complete its work. It was accepted that the commission had to complete its work so that we could obtain finality on a certain date. We asked for this directive to be implemented by way of legislation, and about that the members of the CP agreed with us. The hon the Deputy Minister also said the fact that the quotas were being exceeded on a temporary basis was in accordance with the implementation of this directive and that a specific date was involved. As far as that was concerned, the hon member for Turffontein pointed out that the hon the leader of the CP agreed to the fact that the quota could not only be exceeded on a temporary basis, but also on a permanent basis.

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot at this point allow the hon member to start discussing the principle that underlies the quotas being exceeded.

Mr Chairman, the principle has already been accepted that quotas can, in fact, be exceeded. That has been approved by legislation. Both the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Sunnyside want to create the impression, however, that the quotas are being exceeded in an uncontrolled fashion and that we are even going to give away the whole of South Africa.

Amendment 1 negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Dr F Hartzenberg, Mr F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L M Theunissen, C Uys, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr Chairman, I am just standing up to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I am very glad this amendment is being introduced. I do not think that the judgment in the Dlikilili case was actually a correct interpretation of the legal position. If one examines the whole history of Santam vs Fondo and other cases dealing with the question of a woman’s right in a customary union to institute proceedings against someone who insured the unlawful death of her spouse, and if we were to have contented ourselves with the Dlikilili judgment, this would have negated all the development we have had. I therefore welcome the amendment contained in this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, unless you have undergone a considerable and dramatic change of heart over the past three and a half hours, I suspect that you will rule the amendment I have on the Order Paper out of order. I am not going to move that amendment, but I do want to say a few words once again about the clause which is one of the main reasons why we opposed the Bill at Second Reading.

As I have indicated in previous speeches, the provision in the clause that one shall deem consultation to have taken place when it has in fact not taken place, is something which we find totally unacceptable. We believe that the clause is couched in the most general of terms. The proclamations are not specified in the clause at all. The proposed new section 37B reads as follows:

It could not be couched in more general terms. It is true that the department has provided us with a list of proclamations about which they are concerned or which they think might be affected by the lack of consultation, but here we are making a law, and we cannot simply go by what the department gives us, with the best will in the world. We are dealing more here with a “deeming” mechanism relating to any proclamation promulgated before 18 June 1982. The whole question of consultation is a very important factor. It was certainly considered important when the 1971 legislation was enacted and we believe it cannot be treated lightly at this stage.

Earlier this afternoon when we were discussing clause 1 of the Bill and the question of validating proclamations, the hon member for Pretoria West looked at the amendment I attempted to move and said he could not accept it in any case because consultation was meant to take place at the beginning and one could not have consultation at the end of a process. He said one could not now talk about consultation as we envisaged it in the proposed amendment. If one accepts that argument, I want to know from that hon member how he can possibly accept the argument that, notwithstanding there having been no consultation preceding a proclamation before 18 June 1982, consultation can now be deemed to have taken place. [Interjections.] Sir, that approach is simply not logical.

During his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon the Deputy Minister indicated that he, too, had great difficulty with what was meant by “consultation”. He said he tried to find a definition of it but had not been able to find one. How then is he going to proceed in the future in terms of the provision which says that there has to be consultation? There must be some sort of norm by which he and his department are going to determine what “consultation” means. I think that this is very important in regard to future proclamations.

I must join issue with the hon the Deputy Minister on another point too. In his reply to the Second Reading debate he accused me of having cast a slur on his department. I quote from his Hansard (11 June 1984):

I then interjected:

The hon the Deputy Minister continued:

If one looks at my Hansard, one sees that I could not have dealt with the department in a more courteous way. I said (7 June 1984):

It is not the issue: The principle is the issue as far as we are concerned. I then went on to say:

That is what I said. That was certainly not casting a slur on the department. I had no intention of casting a slur on the department, because they were good enough to cooperate. When we asked them what they were worried about, they gave us those proclamations. The point I want to make is that we are concerned—hence our opposition—that a clause in the Bill has been based on the principle of deeming consultation to have taken place in respect of unspecified proclamations concerning which consultation has in fact not taken place. With those words we reiterate our opposition to this clause, which we believe is totally bad in principle and in law.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the standpoint adopted by the hon member for Berea, I just want to point out that an essential characteristic of the process of consultation is that it should take place prior to the final decision being taken. If it has not taken place prior to the final decision having been taken, then surely it is not consultation in any sense of the word. It is in that sense that the hon member for Pretoria West indicated that it would be senseless to hold retrospective consultations. The hon member for Pretoria West certainly gave a very good indication of how untenable such a procedure would be.

There is also another point I want to make. In the first instance, if one were to try to make an inventory of all the proclamations affected by this clause—in such a list there would, I think, be something like 83 such proclamations—this would entail a great deal of red tape in the sense that each time a proclamation was at issue one would first have to consult this clause to see whether it was indeed mentioned. That is one of the practical problems.

The other practical problem is that there could possibly be some proclamation that did not appear on that list. The hon member, in fact, acknowledged this. The object of this particular wording is specifically to cover the eventuality of such an unascertained proclamation, if one may call it that, in regard to this one specific defect it may embody, the object being to obtain the complete legal certainty that obtained prior to the specific court judgment. That is the only aim. It is not as if there were some or other sinister aim involved in this. We readily conceed that the kind of procedure adopted is not the kind of procedure one would have chosen to adopt in any legislative process. Since the matter has developed along these lines, however, and it so happens that in the stage prior to that judgment having being given there was a specific concept of consultation that was accepted as being valid, with a different concept of consultation subsequently being introduced, it is necessary to retrospectively legalize that group of proclamations issued during that particular period in respect of that one specific deficiency that could possibly exist.

I again want to say that it is very significant, in proving the bona fides of the department and of the Government in this matter, to point out that this provision is retrospective merely to 18 June 1982. It is not being made retrospective to the date of commencement of the Act or any other date, and the period thus being covered is a period of approximately two years. The proclamations issued since then do, in fact, meet all the requirements relating to consultation. The process of consultation in regard to this kind of proclamation has therefore already been introduced and is being adopted where necessary. The Government has therefore fully proved its bona fides in this matter.

One cannot but lodge a plea with the hon member to accept this as such. There simply is no better way in which to correct this deficiency. There is no doubt about the fact that the deficiency must be corrected, because otherwise it would create tremendous legal uncertainty. There is consequently the existing problem, which no one denies does exist, and this is the best way to correct it. If one were to adopt a proposal made here, ie that of renegotiating each of these proclamations with each of the specific legislative authorities, it would be in the meantime, as the hon member for Pretoria West indicated in regard to clause 1, leave a hiatus of uncertainty about whether the specific proclamation was valid or not. In my view the proposal before us is the best way in which this specific problem can be solved, and for that reason I gladly support this clause.

Mr Chairman, I think it is necessary for me to refer once again to what the the hon member for Berea said. There is quite a difference between the effect of section 25 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 and section 1(2) of the Act of 1971. The difference is very beautifully illustrated if one looks at the 1983 Supreme Court judgment in the case of Government of the Republic of South Africa versus the Government of kwaZulu. I quote from paragraph F—

†That is the point:

The point is therefore very clear. In terms of the 1927 Act, in specific terms, no consultation was required. However, in terms of the judgment in the Ingwavuma case, as it is popularly called, it is clear that the Act of 1971 by implication amended the Act. What I do say is that when we come to the amendment in clause 12 which refers to the Act of 1971, it is important to note that consultation is mentioned by implication or specifically. That is the difference between clause 1 and clause 12.

*It was said that we obtained a list of the proclamations being referred to. Let us, however, look at the list we obtained. Let us look, for example, at the proclamation involving kwaZulu. It was a 1974 proclamation, and the question is: Was there consultation as such? The answer is that in this case there was a motion passed by the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu with a request to the Government, and the Government granted the request. Strictly speaking, in terms of section 1(2) of the 1971 Act, the State President could only grant it after the Minister had personally held consultations with the Cabinet—if I may put it that way—of kwaZulu. What happened here, however, was that a motion was passed by the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu in the form of a request to this Government, and we do not necessarily regard this as consultation in terms of the Act. Hon members can understand that if any request is made by the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu, it should be regarded as a very important request. The request was for certain land to be added to kwaZulu. If hon members can think of anything kwaZulu would more readily agree to than that, I should like to hear of it. There was another request that came from kwaZulu by way of a motion. That motion of the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu requested the Government to: Please change the word “Chairman” to “Speaker”. So one has all these matters about which there is absolute unanimity, and then the question arises: If we do not legalize this, was all the money paid to the Speaker by way of a salary wrongly paid out? Should it have been paid to him in his capacity as Chairman? When one examines all these proclamations, for example, one also finds a similar case in regard to Qwaqwa, which passed a motion to the effect that the Cabinet should be increased. If one were to examine this in its totality, one would realize that there would have been no objection to this clause from any of the national states, because prior to 18 June all were unanimous about this matter.

The hon member for Berea asked whether there was perhaps not some proclamation we did not know of. If we have not, by this time had any objections from the national states to any proclamation being included in clause 12, let me give him the assurance that there will be no problems in this connection. The whole purpose of this is quite simply to perpetuate the authority of the Legislative Assembly, an authority which they already have and which they have many times requested by way of a motion. Nothing underhanded is being done. In any event, if there was anything the national states did not like, we would by now have known about it. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Berea that we can simply agree that this clause is in the interests of the Black people and also in the interests of legal certainty in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in accordance with his right, as first speaker, to do so, the hon member for Berea set out our basic objections. I know that you will not permit me to go into the principles again.

I want to point out to the hon member for Pretoria West that the basic problem we are dealing with here revolves around the proclamations. If he were to look at the list of proclamations, he would see that the proclamations involved here are not only proclamations relating to the 1971 Act. Let me refer the hon member, for example, to page 2 of the list. He will note that the last one there deals with section 25 of Act 38 of 1927. It relates to Qwaqwa. In relation to Kangwane, he will note that the last four proclamations also refer to Act 38 of 1927. The same applies to the two proclamations mentioned in the list before one comes to kwa-Ndebele. Even as far as this list is concerned, we are not merely dealing with proclamations issued in terms of the Act of 1971.

But the list is not in the Bill.

That is specifically our problem. The hon member has now specifically emphasized our problem. The list does not appear in the Bill. One of our objections is specifically that we are being asked to approve matters, the full implications and extent of which are not clear to us, not only because the proclamations are not referred to in the Bill, but also because the provision relates to “enige ander wet” and we do not know what other Acts exist.

It is not “enige ander wet”; read the clause.

The clause very clearly states “en wat volgens die vereiste van die een of ander wet”; reference is not being made merely to the 1971 Act.

I now understand what you mean.

Thank you.

I cannot understand how the hon member for Pretoria West can say we are here seeking to obtain legal certainty, when in fact we are being plunged into a world of legal uncertainty. If the hon member were to look at the judgment of the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, he would note that that judgment extends further than that of the Appeal Court when it comes to the State President’s powers remaining in force in terms of section 25. For the hon member’s sake I want to state very clearly what it is all about. What is involved here is that in regard to matters transferred to its jurisdiction, a legislative assembly has full sovereign legislative authority. No law of Parliament made in connection with those matters are applicable to that national state, except the handful of matters indicated in section 30 of the Act. A legislative assembly can also declare invalid any Act of Parliament—that is what clause 12 is all about—relating to any of the matters transferred to the Legislative Assembly. In section 30 of the Act express provision is made, in terms of section 25, for the proclamation powers of the State President to remain in force in regard to matters not transferred. The implication is that in regard to all the matters that have, in fact, been transferred, the State President is not, in any event, empowered to issue proclamations. That is fundamentally what the judgment of the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, and not that of the Appeal Court, is. That changes the whole situation.

Our contention is that greater legal uncertainty would be created by now having these provisions embodied in legislation. Another procedure ought to have been adopted. The list of proclamations should have been submitted to the legislative assemblies so that they could ratify them in terms of the powers granted to them by the 1971 Act. Then no problems would have arisen.

Under these circumstances hon members can understand that the actual intention—in my humble opinion—will not be realized and that this clause will indeed create greater legal uncertainty. Then hon member for Pretoria West and the hon the Deputy Minister must give this matter serious consideration. In my opinion it would be within the ambit of the powers of any legislative assembly—here it is not a question of the Act of 1971—to make a law that provides that the proclamation powers of the State President in regard to matters transferred to the national legislative assemblies are no longer valid. They can, in other words, repeal the State President’s legislative authority in terms of their powers in regard to those matters transferred to them. I again want to put it to the hon member for Pretoria West that in his support of this clause he is contributing to the creation of legal uncertainty.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry I do not have all the legal knowledge that the hon member Prof Olivier does. It is very clear, however, that this clause deals solely with the 1971 Act. Let me quote clause 12 again, and I want the hon member to take note:

It states specifically “this Act” and not any other Act. I quote further:

It is therefore quite clear that this Act, the Act of 1971, is the Act being referred to.

†The hon member for Berea expressed his opposition to this particular clause. He also did it at Second Reading. I believe there is some misunderstanding here. In the first instance I accept that he did not intentionally cast a slur on the department. That is how it sounded to me, but I accept his word that he had no intention whatsoever of casting a slur on the department. But the hon member is forgetting one thing. In my Second Reading reply I stated that I could not find a general definition—I might not have put it precisely that way—in any dictionary of what is meant in lay terms with “raadpleging” or “consultation”. However, I added that the department had gone to the trouble to obtain a legal opinion on what is actually meant by “consultation” in terms of the finding of the Appellate Division, and the department is now acting in terms of that legal opinion. From the time this was pointed out to us by the Appeal Court, that this was a deficiency in the Act or in the way in which we issued the proclamations, we immediately asked for a legal opinion because we did not have the privilege of knowing what the judge regarded as proper consultation, as I explained at Second Reading. We are now handling this matter on this particular basis.

*Quite a few hon members went into the legal aspects of this. I really do not think it is again necessary for me to go into the whole question of consultation and what consultation is. I think the whole matter has already been thrashed out. I can give hon members the assurance that no single proclamation was issued without prior consultation, although possibly not in accordance with what the judge considered consultation to be. We concede that the consultation was perhaps subject to certain deficiencies. There certainly was consultation, however, in our opinion efficient and sufficient consultation. I want to give the hon member the assurance that all we are doing here is providing that consultation will be deemed to have taken place in each case, but that anyone is free to take legal action against us in connection with any technical errors in the proclamations, if such errors of law do exist. We are not validating the proclamations as such; we proceed from the supposition that they are valid. All we want to put right in this legislation is the fact that consultation did, in fact, take place. We have also taken steps to have this take place in an efficient and systematic fashion in future. More than that I cannot contribute to the debate.

Mr Chairman, I just briefly want to link up with what the hon the Deputy Minister said. The hon member Prof Olivier referred to examples relating to Kangwane. One of the examples refers only to the Act of 1927, without linking it to the 1971 Act. In that case this clause does not in any way cover the situation. It must be a proclamation issued in terms of the 1971 Act. In addition, there must also have been consultation in terms of the requirements of some or other Act. The hon member will understand that in the light of the court judgments this can, by implication, also mean that there was prior consultation. All that is being covered here is the bringing together of two Acts, that of 1927 and that of 1971, or any other Act in conjunction with the 1971 Act. In other words, this clause merely covers matters relating to proclamations issued in terms of the Act of 1971.

Mr Chairman, clause 13 provides that Evaton shall be deemed to have been set apart as a town in terms of section 35 of the Black Communities Development Act, Act No 4 of 1984, and that the local authority which on the enactment of this Bill manages the affairs of Evation shall be deemed to have been instituted as the local authority in respect thereof in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, Act No 102 of 1982. This is a simple clause which we will support. However, we believe there are two matters which have to be raised, and 1 hope the hon the Deputy Minister will give his attention to them.

As we all know, Evaton is a township in the Vereeniging area and has a long history dating back many years. It has a long history because it is one of the last few remaining areas in the Transvaal where Blacks enjoy freehold title. It is a settled community where the Evaton Residents’ Association operates in a most effective manner. I say effective because I am advised that they assisted and operated most efficiently recently when there were attempts to expropriate almost 3 000 plots in Evaton. The confidence of the residents in the Evaton Residents’ Association was justified by their effective and speedy action, but now there is grave concern in the township about their freehold rights. I think it is important that the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister should take this opportunity to set the minds of the residents of Evaton at rest. He should assure them that their freehold rights will not be tampered with in any way. I would appeal to him to do it in the most unequivocal way possible in order that there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever. The question of freehold rights in Evaton was the first matter I wished to raise.

The second matter concerns rumours that residents of Evaton are to be moved to Hartebeesfontein near Brits, and I hope that this rumour which is causing a great deal of uncertainty will be rejected by the hon the Deputy Minister. I ask him to be equally frank and unequivocal in this regard. I am sure that hon members will agree with me that this is hardly the time to announce removal schemes, and that we should encourage the town council of Evaton to continue in the constructive and positive way they have over the past years, continuing to build confidence in the people who live in Evaton. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will give attention to these problems which are causing them concern at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I rise only for clarification of a point which puzzles me. I agree with the hon member for Johannesburg North about freehold title but I have not heard any rumours and I think it is unwise to start these unless one has some evidence. However, this is not the point that puzzles me. What puzzles me is that the House has just been divided on a matter of fundamental principle. We were divided because “consultation” is deemed to be “consultation", and that was described as legislating a lie. This clause provides that Evaton shall be deemed to have been set apart as a town, and that the local authority shall be deemed to have been instituted as a local authority. Evaton was not set apart and there was not a local authority, but it is now being deemed to have been set apart etc. I would have thought that the official Opposition would have opposed this because this is a matter of fundamental principle to them, namely that you cannot legislate a lie. They are now saying that they support the legislation of a lie by saying that Evaton shall be deemed to have been set apart as a town on a certain date when in fact it was not then set apart as a town. I cannot follow this and I will be very happy to have an explanation of the high moral principles on which this logic is based.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Durban Point does not expect an explanation from me as to why the official Opposition is not taking such a strong stand with regard to its moral standpoint in respect of this clause. This he had better settle with them, and I believe that he will do so in due course in his effective way.

†I was really surprised to hear from the hon member for Edenvale that there are rumours …

Johannesburg North.

I am sorry, I meant the hon member for Johannesburg North. I was rather surprised to learn from him that there were rumours circulating in regard to the continued existence of freehold rights in Evaton, because there is no truth whatsoever in any rumour to the effect that we are going to tamper with the freehold rights enjoyed by the people of Evaton. I would be very pleased to know where this rumour originated. As far as the ridiculous rumour of their removal to Brits is concerned, that is beneath contempt, because no such possibility or idea even exists. For what reason would we want to move these people to Brits? I can therefore state unequivocally that these are merely rumours, and malicious rumours at that.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.