as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I referred to a possible conflict which could arise here because of the powers being granted to the State President to do the same work as a Minister and I asked whether this was not in conflict with clause 19 of the Bill. I would be glad if the hon the Minister would give us an explanation in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I have had an opportunity of studying the hon member’s question in this specific regard and of discussing it with the legal draftsmen. The information I have is that there is no conflict. For purposes of the record I should like to explain the matter to the hon member.

This actually arises from clauses 3 and 4. The hon member’s question implies that he is under the impression that when the State President takes charge of a portfolio in terms of section 24 of the Constitution, which is being amended here, and has to do so in the same way a Minister does in terms of the amended section 26, it has to be done in consultation with the Cabinet. This is in fact the basic point. This is what is provided in section 19(l)(b). I also want to point out that sections 24 and 26 are singled out in section 19(2) as cases in which the State President does not act in consultation with the Cabinet.

The hon member also asked me whether the taking charge of a portfolio by the State President was not in conflict with the exemption in section 19(2). At present the appointment of Ministers is done by the State President on the recommendation—and these are the important words—of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not consult his cabinet on this matter, at least not statutorily. Whether he consults certain of his colleagues is another matter. After the amalgamation of the two offices the new State President should, like the present Prime Minister, still have a personal discretion, even when he decides to take charge of a specific portfolio or department himself.

In the second place, when a law confers powers on specific Ministers, it is firstly the practice and convention that he does not carry out all the details and actions in consultation with the Cabinet but secondly because the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility applies, he usually takes the most important matter, usually the fundamental matter, to the Cabinet in order to establish this collective responsibility formally, otherwise he cannot have it confirmed. In order to achieve exactly the same situation with the State President when he takes charge of a portfolio, the provision is now being inserted in section 26, by means of clause 4, that he should take charge of a portfolio in the same way as a Minister. If it were to be required that the State President, when he takes charge of a portfolio, shall always act in consultation with his Cabinet, he would find himself in a weaker position than the Minister he had himself appointed. That is why section 26 is being excluded in section 19(2), but it is being expressly stated that he shall do so in the same way as a Minister, viz with full co-responsibility as a member of the Cabinet. In my opinion this is the answer to the question the hon member put to me.

Mr Chairman, in consequence of the legal advice which the hon the Minister obtained on this matter I accept his explanation although I still have doubts as to whether, in terms of section 19(2), the constitutional question could not arise that when the State President acts as a Minister he in fact need not, as a result of the exclusion of section 26 by section 19(2), act in accordance with the prescriptions of section 19(1).

Mr Chairman, I just want to give the hon member the assurance that in terms of the legislation as it stands, it is not essentially conflict-causing. I am therefore satisfied that the problem the hon member has identified need not be one in practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr Chairman, I move:

I am asking that clause 6 stand over until after the other clauses have been dealt with because I am considering an amendment for which I do not have the exact wording yet.

Agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 8 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 9 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr Chairman, the implications of clause 10 read in conjunction with clause 8 have already been debated in the Second Reading. I think there is no getting away from the fact that this amendment is being specifically effected to make provision for joint sittings of the three Houses in the new Parliament. A joint sitting may be called for specific purposes by Mr Speaker. No one can argue that this specific provision is being made for joint sittings for ceremonial purposes only. This can only mean that in future under the new dispensation Bills on general affairs will be dealt with in joint sittings of all three Houses. Here we have the first case where the Government is moving away from the undertakings and promises it made to the electorate of South Africa during the referendum. If we are wrong in our summing up of what the purpose of this amendment is, we should like to be persuaded of this. I cannot imagine that Mr Speaker will call a joint sitting of the three Houses without their having work to deal with jointly. I can imagine how ridiculous the situation would be if Second Readings of Bills were dealt with in a joint sitting and the Houses then had to vote separately, for the time being anyway, on whether or not the Second Reading should be passed.

The CP objects strenuously to the amendments that are being effected here because these are the first signs that we are moving in a direction which must eventually lead to a unicameral system for all three population groups.

Mr Chairman, time and again the hon members of the CP have seized on this clause to blazon a scaremongering story abroad. In this clause it is merely being provided that Mr Speaker will also have the authority to convene joint sittings of the three Houses. That is all that is being stated here.

For what purpose?

I am coming to that. Nothing more is stated in this clause. There is nothing in this clause which could not also have happened without it, as regards the purpose for which joint sittings are called. In other words, even without this clause the State President could still have convened joint sittings for all the purposes for which, according to hon members of the CP, this clause is now being introduced. All that clause 10 therefore entails is that Mr Speaker is also being given the power now to convene joint sittings.

As far as the purpose for which clause 10 is being introduced, I agree with the hon member for Barberton that there will be more occasions than was initially envisaged on which joint sittings will take place. It would surely be ridiculous to have three Budget speeches by the Minister of Finance, for example, one in each of the separate Houses. It could easily happen that only one Budget speech was delivered, for which purpose there would then be a joint sitting of the three Houses.

But to allege that this must of necessity lead to joint discussions is a total non sequitur, and the hon member for Barberton, more than anyone else, knows what I am talking about. Of course the hon member for Langlaagte will not know what I am talking about, but the hon member for Barberton will.

I do not fall for nonsense.

I say it is a scaremongering story to speculate now on what will of necessity result from this. There will be many occasions on which there will be joint sittings, but to deduce from this that this must of necessity lead to joint discussions and eventually to a joint vote, is completely unjustified.

There is nothing sinister in this clause. All that it entails is that now the Speaker will also be able to exercise the power that the State President will be able to exercise in any event. If hon members allege that this will lead to joint discussions or voting, I maintain that this could also happen without clause 10. It will merely take place through the State President and not through Mr Speaker. That is the only difference. This is a fallacious argument of hon members of the CP. There is no reason why suspicion should be cast on this clause merely as a result of speculation on hypothetical possibilities which could arise if the clause were to be accepted.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay said that the CP was putting forward arguments which he described as scaremongering stories. When we told people during the referendum that these ceremonial joint sittings would be extended, those hon members also said—I am not referring specifically to the hon member for Mossel Bay now, because I did not attend his meetings—that the allegations of the CP in this connection were scaremongering stories, and now the hon member for Mossel Bay is saying the same thing.

The hon member said that in terms of the existing Constitution Act the State President had the power in any event to call joint sittings as well as allow joint debating. The hon member said that that power of the State President was being extended to Mr Speaker so that he could also convene such joint sittings.

I can really appreciate why the Government party has introduced these amendments, for if we are dealing with a Bill on general affairs in the new dispensation, the Minister has to introduce that Bill in three Houses if we do not make provision for joint sittings. He will have to make the same Second Reading speech in each of the three Houses. He will have to be present at each of the Second Reading debates, and if there are Committee Stages, the Minister will have to be present during those stages as well. The same applies to a Third Reading debate.

As a Whip of the CP I know—and the hon member for Mossel Bay will agree with me—what problems we sometimes have in ensuring that Ministers are present here, although we only have one House, when their legislation is being discussed, because Ministers also have duties outside Parliament.

They also shoot kudu.

That is true. We have great understanding for the fact that Ministers cannot always be available to attend debates in all three the Houses. For that reason, from an organizational point of view, in order to save time and to ensure that the new Parliament will work, joint sittings on Second Readings will not be the exception. If the new Parliament is to work, they will have to be the rule.

Are you advocating this?

No, I am not advocating this. The hon member knows that we reject the new Constitution. That hon member is also a Whip and will therefore understand when I say that to get the new Parliament to work there will have to be joint sittings for all Second Readings of Bills on general affairs. I am not being a prophet when I say that it is going to be decided to hold the debates in a joint sitting instead of the Minister having to attend the debates in each of the three Houses. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley South says I am being silly.

Absolutely.

From a practical point of view the new Parliament will not be able to work in any other way unless we sit until December of every year. As I have said, what will happen is that the debate will also have to take place jointly and that the three Houses will only vote separately, as the Constitution Act provides. That is all the Constitution Act provides.

I therefore maintain that here we have the beginning of a process in which not only Second Reading speeches will be held jointly, but also the debates, the Committee Stages and the Third Readings. I therefore predict that as far as general affairs are concerned, we are going to have a multiracial unicameral Parliament that is going to decide on all facets of general concern. This Bill is merely opening the door wide for integration, racial integration, for the National Party. One could support this clause merely from a practical point of view, but in spite of this we reject it because it opens the door to a multiracial unicameral Parliament when it comes to general affairs.

Mr Chairman, in the referendum held in November 1983 the CP and the PFP both voted “no”. The hon member for Kuruman has now given a wonderful demonstration of why they did so. I have never heard a PFP member stating PFP policy as well as the hon member for Kuruman has just done. The argument of the hon member was typical of the arguments of the PFP: if you say A you also have to say B, and that is how you have to carry on until you reach the absolute extreme.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member give us the assurance that Second Reading debates on general Bills will not take place in a joint sitting?

Mr Chairman, the hon member is donning the cloak of a visionary. He has repeatedly made predictions. I do not intend to don the cloak of a visionary. There used to be a Siener van Rensburg, but I have no intention whatsoever of following in his footsteps. I am not making predictions now, but I am dealing with the realities of the Bill now under discussion and with a clause that provides that, in the same way as the State President will be able to do, the Speaker of Parliament will also be able to call joint sittings of the three Houses in future.

The hon member for Barberton asked why it was also necessary to give Mr Speaker this power. The hon member said it was because there were going to be more joint sittings than was initially envisaged. In this regard I agree with the hon member, because it seems to me to be realistic to accept that there will be more joint sittings, for example a joint sitting when the Minister of Finance delivers his Budget Speech. One could also envisage other similar situations. However, I repeat that if one accepts this there is nothing to suggest that one must of necessity go further and must have joint debating and joint decision-making, as the hon member for Kuruman alleged. This is only being alleged for political purposes in order to suggest to the general public that this is the path the Government now wants to follow.

In reply to the question of the hon member for Kuruman I want to tell him, without playing the visionary, that as far as I know at this stage, this is not the intention. But the hon member, who has been in this House longer than I have, should know that there is one thing one should never do, and that is use the word “never”, except when one says one should never say “never”.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Mossel Bay should reread the clause. The original provision read as follows:

The entire country voted for this and it is in regard to this that the Government has a mandate. In the Constitution Act it is therefore provided that ceremonial meetings will take place jointly. The moment Mr Speaker becomes the convener, however, this becomes part of the Parliamentary process. What hon members are now trying to tell me is that the NP’s idea of joint decision-making means nothing. The NP wants to sit together, swim together, but not talk together.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Wait a minute now. This is the conclusion one arrives at. You can swim together, you can go to bioscope together and you can sit together, but you cannot hold a joint discussion on matters that affect everyone. Everyone can serve jointly on a body outside Parliament, but not in parliament. How illogical can one be! Joint discussions are taking place on the advisory councils appointed by Parliament, on the hospital boards and on all other bodies, but here it is being provided that people can only sit together but not talk together. The hon members must be logical. They told the people, the Whites of South Africa, that they wanted to assemble a mixed government, but at the same time they were not honest enough to tell them how they were going to implement this with the stages of mixed government. They are making a mockery of what the hon member for Mossel Bay said in this House today. They will sit together, swim together and do everything together but they will not hold a joint discussion on the lives of the people represented in Parliament. They will never be able to talk about their voters together. The people must go back to their separate Chambers where they can let off steam. There are joint committees and there everyone may speak. The hon the Minister does not deserve this kind of interpretation being given to this legislation by many of those hon members. It is inappropriate. [Interjections.] It is enjoyable to laugh. For years now we have had a Minister, Minister Schoeman, who only tells jokes. The Government has become a laughing party.

Order! What clause is the hon member discussing now?

I have just reached the corner, Sir. I am dealing with clause 10.

The hon member for Mossel Bay appeared on the same platform with his friend Julies. Or did he not go? The point is that they do not mind holding discussions with the people in question on such platforms. But Mr Speaker may only summon a Parliamentary meeting. Other ceremonial matters are the responsibility of the State President. Now it is being said that the intention is simply for people to be able to come here and listen to the Minister’s speech. No Sir, that hon learned friend of mine, the hon member for Mossel Bay, must learn one thing: He cannot simply spin everyone a yarn. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Government has decided that the tricameral system cannot work if a Minister has to go to each Chamber. It cannot work in practice. For that reason there have to be joint sittings in this House. He must nevertheless deal with the relevant legislation in each of the Chambers. So the problems are not diminishing. Or are the members of the other Chambers going to be treated with contempt in that the Second Reading will only be held here? [Interjections.] The fact remains that mixed sittings will have to take place in this House. If the Minister does not tell us that he will see to it that there will never be joint discussions at these joint sittings, we simply have to assume that this is the beginning of a mixed unicameral Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Mossel Bay have managed to confuse most people about the intention of this clause. Let me just define our attitude to it. This particular clause, as it has been put forward by the hon the Minister, remedies one of the defects of the 1983 Bill, which we argued in the select committee should have been remedied at the time. It should have been remedied before the Bill was put to the voters by way of the referendum. It does not enlarge the scope of the subject matter that can be debated at a joint sitting, but it does alter the procedure by which a joint sitting can be called. We pointed out that as the Act stands at the moment, the’ only way a joint sitting can be called is by the President on his own volition or by the President upon a resolution by each of the three Houses. The only way in which Parliament could have had a joint sitting before this, was by way of a debate in each of the three Houses separately as to whether there should be a joint sitting, and thereafter it could be held. There is no simple procedure for having a joint sitting. We pointed out that it would be quite impossible to introduce a budget by having a Minister on roller skates between the three Houses. We pointed out that it was nonsense to have the Transport Services Budget, the Post and Telecommunications Budget and other important budgets at joint sittings only after there was a debate in each House as to whether it should be done at a joint sitting. To the extent that the hon the Minister has conceded that we were correct last year and he was wrong, we will be supporting this measure.

May I also point out to hon members in the CP that this does not change the substance of what can take place in a joint sitting. This will be debated when we discuss the Standing Rules and Orders on joint sittings. There we will not only press for joint sittings on Budgets, but for a general debate to take place. We will move, whenever we can, that section 67(l)(v) be amended so that we can even take votes there. We pointed out last year, before the Act was put to the public, that this arrangement would not work. To the extent that the hon the Minister is now making it easier to call joint sittings by introducing the Speaker as the instrument for calling joint sittings, we support this.

The real debate on what will take place at those joint sittings, will take place when the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders reports to the House.

Mr Chairman, I find this debate really interesting and amusing. Before I motivate this statement, however, you must allow me to be out of order for a moment while I tell the hon member for Brakpan that Saturday’s match only justified the payment of half of the bet.

I listened attentively to the hon member for Barberton. The hon member knows that I have great appreciation for his intellectual and other abilities, but even he was unable to argue correctly about this measure. Firstly the hon member alleged that this clause made provision for joint sittings. I want to suggest, with all due respect, that that is not correct. The principle of joint sittings is contained in the Constitution Act. I can understand the hon member for Langlaagte not spotting it, but I cannot understand why the hon member for Barberton did not spot it.

You are quite afraid of the man from Langlaagte, are you not?

I am still going to deal with him. After all, we come from the same part of the world.

The hon member for Barberton alleged that we were making provision for joint sittings here. The existing section in the principal Act, however, already makes provision for that. The hon member did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I am not going to refer to the discussions of that committee; you will not allow me to do so, but the discussions there led to the amendments in clause 8 of this measure. Whether he agrees with this or not, the hon member for Kuruman will admit that I am right. Consequently it is wrong to argue that provision is now being made for joint sittings.

Furthermore, hon members argued as though they were opposed to the principle of joint sittings. Even if we had accepted the 1977 proposals, the proposals which hon members proclaimed with great enthusiasm or perhaps with a lack of enthusiasm …

They were elected on that basis.

Yes, the hon members were elected on that basis. If those proposals had been accepted, precisely the same procedural problems would have arisen. Many of those hon members argued in favour of a tricameral parliamentary system, because I appeared with them on the same platforms on many occasions.

The main point is not whether the people sit jointly. Surely that is not the problem. The real problem is the way in which the people take decisions. Surely that is the principle issue. Whether or not we differ with one another in this regard, the point is that the standpoint as contained in the 1977 proposals, and also in this legislation, is that people will have to adopt resolutions on joint matters, whether this takes place in one House of the same Parliament or in three Parliaments, within their own institutions. Surely that is the principle in regard to which we agreed with one another. Sir, I am not going to discuss the principles and the merits of the matter now, because you will not allow me to do so in any case, but I want to say that under the circumstances the arguments of the hon members, in all fairness, are really not appropriate.

How does section 67, which we want to amend here, read? I should like to refer hon members to that section. We are amending only subsection (1), and the remainder of the section therefore remains unchanged. Section 67(1) reads as follows:

That is the law of this country. It may be that we do not like it, but hon members opposite—specifically the CP—said that they were going to live with and work within the new system. That is not going to detract from their right to amend the Constitution Act if they can. Consequently we cannot argue now about the principle of joint sittings. With all due respect, that principle has already been accepted.

Secondly any argument in that regard is futile at the moment because there is no amendment before the Committee that seeks to amend the principle of joint sittings. Furthermore it is surely quite useless to want to argue about joint discussions in joint sittings because the question of joint discussions is not addressed in the Act. Can the hon member for Barberton, with his professional background, tell me where in the Act it is provided that discussions will or will not take place in joint sittings? Surely that matter is not addressed in the Constitution Act or in the amending Bill at present before the Committee. It will be addressed in the discussion of the Joint Standing Rules and Orders.

Sir, let me tell the hon member for Kuruman at once that I respect the ruling you gave previously that we should not conduct a debate on what happened on the Select Committee, but the proposed rules have already been tabled. Consequently I can refer to them. I want to put it to the hon member for Barberton that it is quite correct that the proposed rules address this specific point. Therefore it will be relevant, when we discuss the rules, that we should discuss the question of joint sittings. With all due respect, I do not think now is the time or the place to do so.

I want to go further. The fact that those hon members are going to co-operate in the new dispensation, as they say they will, inevitably implies that they will serve on joint committees and standing joint committees. The hon member for Kuruman is nodding in the affirmative. Can the hon member tell me what fundamental difference there is in any case between the committee as an extension of Parliament…

You must ask the hon member for Mossel Bay that question.

Give me a chance now.

You must be careful now.

Why? The hon member can look up my record. Nothing I am saying today has not already been said before. However, if I were to look up his record, I will undoubtedly find a difference between what he is saying today and what he said previously. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the proposed rules provide that no joint discussions will take place. These proposed rules deal with the business of the Houses of Parliament, and on that point the hon member can argue as long as he wishes to carry on debating.

The hon member for Kuruman will concede that I am correct when I say that when he rose to speak this morning he knew what the proposals concerning joint sittings were. If the hon member knew that, a privilege which other hon members did not have, why did he interpret this to mean that joint sittings also implied discussions? After all, it is not fair that we should argue with one another in this way here. I would have been able to understand it if other hon members, who did not have the privilege which the hon member for Kuruman had, had argued in this way.

What are the facts, however? The joint rules that were tabled and that are still to be considered, provide clearly in Rule 25 that:

The hon member for Kuruman knew this. Furthermore I want to refer to Rule 6. It deals with the proceedings in joint sittings and reads:

The hon member for Kuruman knew this too. According to his arguments this morning he ought really to have moved an amendment to the proposed rules to the effect that there should not only be joint sittings for the business of Parliament in future, but joint debating as well. [Interjections.] That is what he actually proposed. He did say that he was no prophet, but that he could at least see certain things, and since he and the hon member for Langlaagte have spotted certain things, I am waiting to hear what amendments they wish to move to the proposed rules in this connection. [Interjections.]

Furthermore the hon member for Langlaagte said that it was laid down in the Constitution Act prior to the referendum that joint sittings would be of a ceremonial nature only. This is an important statement. It was laid down in the Constitution Act that joint sittings would only be of a ceremonial nature, he said. The hon member was not saying that this was flow it was told to the public; he said that that was how it was laid down in the Constitution Act. [Interjections.] It seems to me the hon member for Barberton is exerting a bad influence on the hon member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] Let us see what the Constitution Act says. It merely provides that a joint sitting shall be called by way of a message from the State President. Now I want to ask the hon member, with all due respect: How does he come by his information that such sittings will held for ceremonial purposes only?

You just want another discussion.

I am replying to a statement which the hon member made here this morning. [Interjections.] The hon member for Langlaagte made a categorical and unqualified statement—and he adheres to it—that the Constitution Act provides that joint sessions will be for ceremonial purposes only. I repeat that that is not true. If the hon member had argued about what certain people at certain places had supposedly said, it would have been a different matter. In his argument, however, the hon member had recourse to the amendment and not to statements other people had made. He had recourse to the Constitution Act. I want to tell the hon member at once that it is a good thing that he had recourse to the Constitution Act because at least that cannot be distorted. I am telling the hon member again that it is not true that the Constitution Act limits joint sittings to ceremonial matters. In fact, there is nothing in this Bill which determines the quantum of joint sittings, because with the present provision precisely the same number of joint sittings may be determined as may be determined with the amended provision. The only thing is that the procedure in this specific connection is different.

We have debated this matter across the floor of the House, and the hon member did not tell us that one could not deliver the Budget Speech in a joint sitting. Did we not debate the matter across the floor of this House and say that it was an example of what could happen in a joint sitting? I therefore want to ask the hon member for Langlaagte whether the Budget Speech is supposed to be ceremonial matter.

No, definitely not.

Of course not. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that in terms of this clause we were going to swim together and do everything together. I do not see in this legislation any definition in any clause of what he said everything was. I do not know what it is, but it seems to me it must be something worse than swimming. [Interjections.] It cannot be nothing, because as far as degrees of comparison are concerned, it is approaching the superlative degree.

Finally I just want to say that there is nothing about swimming in this legislation. What it does contain is everything in connection with the functioning of Parliament, and for that reason I suggest that we dispose of this matter now.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister referred to the fact that the CP accepted certain proposals in 1977. I wish to read a quotation and ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with it. It reads as follows:

That appears in the NP’s information document in respect of the constitutional proposals of 1977. The hon the Minister has just referred to the hon member for Barberton who said certain things in the past and who is now rejecting them. In this regard I just want to quote this sentence to the hon the Minister:

The hon the Minister said that we reject the 1977 proposals and I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Coloureds are a people. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to afford the hon member the opportunity to reply to the statements of the hon the Minister. However, if the hon member wants us to conduct a discussion on what a people is or what it is not, he is no longer discussing the details of the clause. The hon member must therefore assist me now.

I am going to assist you, Sir. The hon the Minister said that in 1977 we accepted certain proposals which we are rejecting now. I say that that hon Minister rejects what I have just read. The hon the Minister himself is rejecting those things he agreed with in 1977. If he points one finger at the hon member for Barberton, he is pointing five fingers at himself. [Interjections.] I find it very odd that the hon members want to die laughing about something like that. The hon the Chief Whip on the opposite side does not know what it says in the Constitution. I know that he does not know what it says in this Bill. Clause 11 also refers to joint rules and orders which, as the hon the Minister said, will still be discussed in this House. The hon the Minister pointed out that the principle has already been accepted in respect of joint and standing committees that select committees …

That has already been finalized.

Just give me a chance. The select committees of the three Houses come together in the same chamber and there they consult on and debate a Bill. The hon the Minister said that the principle of joint sittings and consultation and debating has already been accepted in the system of joint committees and the system of standing committees. Now I want to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay and the hon member for Kimberley South, who is having such a good laugh, that these rules we drew up and to which the hon the Minister referred are only valid for two years. They could be altered subsequently. Now I say that just as the hon the Minister told us earlier this morning that since we accepted three peoples’ parliaments in 1977, and it is now one joint Parliament with three Houses, the hon the Minister will tell hon members that they have now accepted the principle of joint consultation and standing committees …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member is in fact discussing the principle of joint sittings and meetings again. The hon member cannot continue in this vein. The hon member must speak only about the details, and not about the principle.

Mr Chairman, may I just point out that the proposed subsection (1) of clause 10 provides:

I maintain that the Speaker is not just going to call the Houses together for the fun of it. Surely a debate will have to be conducted on that occasion. I can well understand that the new Parliament is not going to work as envisaged. That is why a joint sitting will be held only for the Second Reading speech at first, but eventually debates on it will also take place jointly. Consequently, the CP cannot support this further extension of it.

Mr Chairman, all I am trying to say is that the hon member should conduct this debate on a suitable occasion, and a suitable occasion would be when we consider the joint rules. The fact is that in terms of this particular clause the joint rules lay down the procedure which Parliament will have to follow. There will therefore be an opportunity for the hon member to discuss that, even speculatively, when those rules come up for discussion. The subject the hon member is discussing is not addressed in the amendment.

The final remark I want to make is that I gain the impression that as a democrat and on the basis of the fact that he has to participate in the system, surely the hon member for Kuruman wants to see the system succeed to the greatest possible extent. In fact, as a Whip with a great deal of experience, he says that the successful functioning of the future Parliament requires joint sittings. If his argument is genuine—I do not wish to argue with him about that—I do not understand why he is opposing this clause.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mossel Bay made the statement that, for example, we could not have the insane situation that three speeches have to be made by the Minister of Finance when he introduces his Budget.

I did not speak about insanity; I said that it could just as well be done in a joint sitting.

He says it can be done that way, and the hon the Minister very clearly intimated that a joint sitting could be called so that the Minister of Finance would make only one speech. That also applies to the other two Budgets, that of the Post Office and that of the SA Transport Services. The hon the Minister wanted to know what difference it would make if there were joint sittings and joint discussions in the standing committees, if this could also take place in the Houses as such. I agree that it would make no difference. When we discussed the Constitution last year, it was steamrolled through Parliament and we were not able to discuss the provisions. We were only permitted to vote. During the referendum campaign the NP went from platform to platform and from house to house saying that joint sittings would only take place on ceremonial occasions.

Order! The hon member is speaking about the principle of joint sittings now, and I cannot permit the hon member to do so. I want to point out to the hon member that the only extension taking place now is in respect of an existing principle, that the Speaker can also call a joint sitting. That is the only thing the hon member is permitted to speak about.

I am, in fact, coming to that point. Apart from the fact that the State President can call a joint sitting, the Speaker can do so, too. Just as the example of the three Budgets was given, I could list all 20 departments and not one of them is an exception. If the joint sitting can be called to discuss the Bill the Minister of Finance wants to introduce, why would the Speaker not call a joint sitting every day? It could become normal procedure for him to call a joint sitting for every Bill on the Order Paper. What difference will there be? It is not provided in the legislation that joint discussions cannot take place on the occasion of such joint sittings. I say that it is very clear that this matter is being proceeded with step by step, and in due course the Speaker will call the three Houses together every day, and we object to that. Once joint sittings are called, we will have joint discussions in due course, too. I do not know whether the Coloureds have got the hon the Minister to bend the knee in order to make this concession, but we object to these joint sittings.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say a word or two to the hon member for Mossel Bay. As regards the argument of the hon member of the NP with the hon members of the CP, they must be careful that they do not make steps for further changes impossible, particularly when they say that certain things are not final and that certain things will never happen.

This clause is only concerned with the procedure to make joint sittings possible, but in his argument the hon member for Mossel Bay referred to the possible ensuing steps as bogymen that will scare babies.

All I want to say is that conceptually, the next step will be joint decision-making. If the hon member for Mossel Bay regards that as a bogyman to scare baby, he is the one who is supplying the CP with ammunition, since what he is saying is that he is afraid of majority decision-making …

Order! I cannot permit the hon member to speak about decision-making now.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Mr L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, 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 11 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, I argued during the Second Reading debate that this clause should cover the case where a member of the South African Indian Council or of the President’s Council stands as a candidate for one of the Houses. Section 54, which deals with the President’s Council, provides, among other things, that a member shall vacate his office the moment he is nominated. Clause 12 refers only to election, and in the last line of the clause, it is also said that he need not vacate his office when he has been so elected. The matter has been cleared with the hon the Minister and I therefore move the following amendments:

1. 1. On page 11, in line 37, after “being” to insert “nominated or”.
2. 2. On page 11, in line 42, after “so” to insert “nominated or”.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to debate the matter. It is technically correct for us to amend the clause in this way, and I therefore accept the amendment.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 13:

Mr Chairman, on Friday, when we debated this particular clause, we put our point of view, and following on that I now move the following two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 3. On page 11, in line 47, to omit all the words after “payment” up to and including “question” in line 49 and to substitute:
   • for a period of 90 days
2. 4. On page 11, from line 50, to omit “and allowances or remuneration and allowances” and to substitute “or remuneration”.

The hon the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate, made much of the fact that section 102 of the Constitution Act, Act No 32 of 1961, makes provision in subsection (2) that:

The hon the Minister suggested to the House that as a result of that particular subsection, this House had agreed that members of the President’s Council would hold office for five years. He went on to say that of the party’s represented in this House only one party could possibly have an objection to it, namely the official Opposition, because after all they have had nothing to do with the President’s Council and have dissociated themselves from it and have never had members serving on it. While I appreciate that and while I appreciate that a representative of our party who sat in the select committee did concede to that point, I would also show that the representative of this party also associated this party, himself and the entire House with section 105 of the Constitution Act of 1961. Subsection (1) of this section reads as follows:

That is clear. By no stretch of the imagination can it prove to me that the gentlemen who were appointed as President’s Councillors were not as equally aware of that subsection as they were aware of the provision that their period of office would be five years. In fact, in section 47 of the same Act, Act No 32 of 1961, it is provided that “every House of Assembly shall continue for five years …”It uses those words. I grant that it goes on to say “… but may at any time be dissolved by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette", but section 102 coupled with section 105 does exactly the same thing in respect of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] We in this party associated ourselves with both those sections. Inasmuch as we associated ourselves with section 102 which states that the President’s Council “shall be appointed for five years”, equally we associated ourselves with the section that states that the State President may dissolve the President’s Council within a period of 90 days after a general election of the members of the House of Assembly.

What are we now faced with? Early in September—I think it is either 3 September or 4 September—we are faced with a situation where to all intents and purposes one can consider that a “general election” will have taken place for this House, because every single one of us is going to have to take the oath afresh and every single one of us is going to become part of a new Parliament, which is going to include a number of additional members as representatives in two other chambers in this Parliament. The new constitution is then going to come into effect. As I said on Friday, the President’s Council has known of the advent of this new constitution. For the last two months we have known the timetable within which it is going to take effect during the month of September. Therefore the gentlemen concerned have had plenty of warning.

I have moved the first amendment printed in my name because I am trying to do the right thing. I want to say to the hon the Minister that we are not arguing about the principle of the golden handshake, but what we are arguing about is the difference between a golden handshake and what I have described as a diamond-encrusted platinum and golden handshake. My first amendment merely serves to provide that payment shall continue for a period of 90 days after the coming into being of the new constitution. That would bring the matter into line, I submit, with section 105 of Act 32 of 1961, the Constitution Act presently governing this country. I think that that would be fair to everybody.

However, let us give the hon the Minister an option. Perhaps the hon the Minister does not like that. Perhaps he wants to go the whole hog. For that reason I have moved my second amendment. The first suggests payment for a period of 90 days, and I hope that the hon the Minister will accept that amendment, because I think it would be in the best interests of the country were he to do so. I think that the taxpayer would accept that, but I submit that the taxpayer is not going to accept too kindly the over-generous handshake for which provision is being made. However, if the hon the Minister does not want to accept that, then I submit in my second amendment that these gentlemen should for the unexpired period, which will be a period, I believe, of 14 or 15 months, receive no more than their salary or remuneration and certainly should not receive tax-free allowances. I see absolutely no justification for paying tax-free allowances whatsoever. We know that it is the tax-free allowance—and we can discuss this ad nauseam— which assists either the Member of Parliament or the member of the President’s Council in respect of accommodation he has to find for himself, transportation he has to furnish himself with and all the things he has to provide for here at the seat of either the Government or the President’s Council, as the case may be. That is where the tax-free allowance comes into play, if one may call it that. These gentlemen, who will not return to the President’s Council and who will be turned out to grass, will find that they will not need to travel to Cape Town and will not need to incur any extraneous expenditure. Why, if the hon the Minister insists that they should be paid this salary and allowances for a period of 15 months, should they be paid both? Why not just the salary?

I submit that there might be two options. The first is that this can be paid for a period of 90 days. I believe that in terms of section 105 of the Constitution Act this is fair and just. Alternatively, should the hon the Minister accept this amendment, I will not press my second amendment because I think, in all fairness, that for 90 days salaries and/or allowances can be paid to these gentlemen. However, if the hon the Minister does not accept my first amendment, we will vote for my second amendment. If the hon the Minister insists on going ahead with the payment of these ridiculously high amounts for 16 months, he is being grossly unfair to the South African taxpayer by expecting them to foot the bill for tax-free allowances which are in no way utilized or required by these gentlemen.

Mr Chairman, in order to have a meaningful debate on this clause, I also wish to move my amendments to this clause at this stage. Then hon members can debate them if they wish. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 11, in line 60, to omit all words after “an” up to and including “Republic” in line 61 and to substitute:
   • appointment in the service of the Republic in respect of which he receives remuneration (excluding reimbursement of travelling expenses and of subsistence expenses incurred in the course of such service) out of public funds;
2. 2. On page 11, in line 63, after “question” to insert:
   • ;or
   • (c) within 30 days after the commencement contemplated in subsection (1) notifies the State President in writing that he desires that the provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to him.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point has already stated our strong opposition to clause 13, to the provision made in this clause for the payment of salaries and other allowances to the present members of the President’s Council.

I wish to identify myself with the general approach of the hon member for Umhlanga. He made it very clear that while the hon the Minister had referred to clause 102, provision was made in clause 105 of the Constitution for the President’s Council to be dissolved by the State President by proclamation 90 days after a general election. In terms of section 105(2), the membership of all the members of the council shall terminate on the dissolution of the council. As has rightly been indicated, the principle has been accepted in the present legislation that the President’s Council can be dissolved and that all rights and privileges of membership can disappear upon the dissolution of the council, unless they are appointed as members of the new council.

As the hon member for Umhlanga indicated, it is provided in section 47 of the old Constitution that members of the House of Assembly are elected for five years, but that the State President may call an election at any time, in which case the House of Assembly is dissolved. So there is a risk attached to this as well. If a member is not reelected, his term, rights and privileges for salary and pension purposes will lapse. The same principle is contained in section 39 of the present Constitution.

Are you referring to the Constitution of 1961 or 1983?

I am referring to section 39 of the 1983 Constitution, which provides that the term of the House of Assembly shall be five years, but that the State President may dissolve Parliament at any time by proclamation. This can also be done under different circumstances, for example, when a motion of no confidence succeeds. So in this case, too, no provision has been made for members of Parliament to benefit in any way when Parliament is dissolved. From this it is obvious that the President’s Council cannot have been placed in a more favourable position than the present House of Assembly, or than Parliament under the new dispensation.

Let us see, too, what the position was in respect of a similar body which existed in the past, ie the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Section 1A of the Coloured Persons Representative Council reads as follows:

The duration of every Council of the old Coloured Persons Representative Council was therefore limited by law to five years, with the proviso, once again, that the State President could dissolve the council at any time.

When this House passed the South African Coloured Persons Council Act in 1980, it was made very clear that the Coloured Persons Representative Council was being abolished, and no provision was made for members of the CRC to retain any privileges. So we summarily passed an Act in 1980 which abolished the old CRC. Nor was there any reason for us to provide for members of the old CRC to retain any privileges. In the light of all these examples, it does appear illogical that special provision should be made for members of the President’s Council.

I may also refer to the membership of the President’s Council. Naturally, one does not want to discuss the position of individual members, but according to a rough estimate, 23 White members of the President’s Council are former politicians. I have not had an opportunity to investigate the position of each one individually, but most of them had a long provincial or Parliamentary career behind them, and consequently they were in any event entitled to the privileges they received as members of the council. I honestly cannot see why provision has to be made in this case, therefore.

The same applies to some members of the President’s Council who are former academics. At least four of them are former academics who retired on pension from the universities at which they had taught. So they enjoy all the privileges of pensioners of the universities concerned.

In addition, quite a number of the members are former public servants, who have also retired on pension and who also enjoy all those rights and privileges, therefore. Then, of course, there are a number of businessmen. To what extent they really made use of the benefits of membership of the President’s Council I do not know. The name of one member in particular has been mentioned here before. I do not want to mention any names here now, but many of these businessmen do not need these privileges.

I shall leave out of account for the moment the non-White members of the President’s Council who used to be politicians. I think that because they were involved in politics, they simply accepted there were risks involved.

An interesting legal question arises in this connection, which cannot be decided now, and that is whether the 1981 proclamation in terms of which those people were given the benefit, after 2½years’ service, of a 7i year term for pension purposes, while the Act provides that their membership shall be only five years in duration, was not in fact ultra vires.

Order! Is that matter relevant under this clause?

It is not directly relevant, except that certain privileges are being reserved here for members of the President’s Council. Precisely because of the generous provision which has been made for members of the President’s Council, there is no reason why we on this side of the House should be content to allow the privileges to continue under these circumstances.

Mr Chairman, we discussed this principle in detail and at great length during the Second Reading. However, let me now react to the hon member for Umhlanga. He quoted section 105 and his logic led him to introduce an amendment which, he suggested, would meet the undertakings given to members of the President’s Council as enumerated in section 105 read with section 102, if I understood him correctly.

Not the undertaking— the moral of the case.

With due respect, there is also a legal obligation in terms of the Constitution Act. That is the law of the country. It has not yet been promulgated but it is going to be promulgated. I am talking about Act No 110 of 1983.

If the hon member argues that in terms of section 105 the President’s Council could have been dissolved, he then must also argue under what circumstances and what the implications would be of such a solution. If we want to be logical we must be prepared to accept the full consequences. Section 105 provides:

Is the hon member prepared to move an amendment corresponding to this undertaking, because on the assumption that the House of Assembly will not be dissolved before the end of the five year tenure of office … [Interjections.] The hon member has used the argument and therefore must not laugh now.

That is tortuous logic.

No, Sir! In all fairness, the hon member, in reply to an argument that I had used, said that in terms of section 102 they are at risk, like anybody else. The hon member then quoted section 105 to substantiate his argument, which I believe is completely fallacious. He must then introduce, not an amendment stating “90 days from the dissolution of the President’s Council” but “90 days after a possible future election for the House of Assembly”. Only then would the hon member in all fairness be entitled to argue the provisions of section 105.

I have covered that point.

No, the hon member did not cover that point. He cannot have it both ways. The fact is that we have the provisions of section 102, which explicitly provides for a term of office of five years. We have the provisions of section 105 qualifying section 102 but only to the extent that the President’s Council may be dissolved 90 days after a general election for members of the House of Assembly.

May I please ask a question? Is not the effect of a general election the dissolution of Parliament? Therefore, in the same sense, is the dissolution of Parliament not equivalent to a general election?

With respect, Sir, Parliament has not been dissolved.

Then why are we all being sworn in again?

It has not been dissolved because in terms of the transitional clause the House of Assembly becomes the House for this group. There is no equivalent there. In fact, it is even worse.

But it starts a new Parliament.

But it does not start a new House of Assembly. The House of Assembly is a component of the new Parliament without having a general election. However, I say it could even be worse. If we want to take this argument to absurd lengths, it can even be worse.

You are fast getting there.

No, Sir. Let us please not become ridiculous and personal.

I intended nothing personal.

The point is simply that in terms of the Constitution the lifetime of this House can be extended. I am not propagating one or the other; all I am trying to explain are the implications of the argument of the hon member for Umhlanga.

*I should prefer not to discuss the matter any further, because it is very difficult, where we have to debate our own remuneration from time to time, to conduct such a debate on the remuneration of others.

†I want to come now to the question of the non-taxable allowances. It is true that the rationale for non-taxable allowances is to be found in the fact that we incur expenditure in our capacities as members of Parliament. However, that rationale also applies to all of us in this House because all of us do not have the same commitment or the same experience in this regard. I do not want to take it further than that.

In the second instance, the fact remains that for certain purposes the non-taxable allowance is taken as income, because the pension and gratuity of the hon member for Umhlanga are also based on that. [Interjections.] This applies to all of us. Therefore, if we want to argue about this matter then we must be prepared to argue it through to its logical conclusion, and I do not think that there is much logic in that. [Interjections.] Sir, in all fairness, if we want to treat every member the same, we must give them all the same salary and pay their expenses. That would mean then that the member with a large area constituency should be paid more than a member with a smaller constituency. However, we do not argue that way because there is no logical and final answer in this particular regard.

*The fact remains that not one former Minister who became a chairman on the President’s Council took a salary and pension. I also want to say today that this is to their credit. In the second place, it is not a valid argument to say that this will result in a certain amount of additional expenditure. That is not correct either. When hon members argue that everyone receives a pension anyway when he retires, then this must be deducted from our total expenditure.

With great respect, it is very easy for us to score political points off one another, and we can have a lot of information recorded in Hansard which we can use as ammunition against one another. I want to ask this question: Should we in this House, knowing how difficult it is to discuss our own salaries, conduct such a debate on the remuneration of other people?

Yes.

The hon member says “yes”. He has every right to say that. As far as I am concerned, I say quite frankly that if those hon members of the President’s Council who had been members of this House had remained in this House and had then retired as members of Parliament, the cost to the State would have been much higher than it will be in terms of my proposal. I want to give an example. Whereas a member of the President’s Council receives R32 000 today and his pension comes into operation in January 1986—that is when Parliament would normally come to the end of its term—he will qualify for a pension of R47 000 and a gratuity of R141 000. Now we can work out what this would have cost the State in the long term. We can make calculations if we like, but then I ask in all fairness that we should make sure that those calculations are correct. That is the least we owe one another.

The hon member Prof Olivier spoke about the 23 members of the President’s Council who were pensionable. That is true. He also spoke about academics and public servants. Surely that goes for some of us as well. But I do not want to discuss that now. The hon member Prof Olivier said, with reference to businessmen, that he did not know whether or not they had taken their salaries, but that they did not need them anyway.

I did not make a general statement.

Yes, the hon member spoke about the businessmen. The hon member said that many of them did not need it. I want to ask the hon member to look around him and to see whether there are not perhaps some of his members who do not need it either. Quite honestly, I ask hon members for their co-operation in this connection. Let us agree to differ. I do not think there is anything we can add to what has already been said here.

There is a final aspect which I should like to emphasize. It is impossible to compensate members of the President’s Council for what they have done for this country. Whether or not their proposals were accepted by this House and whether or not their advice was followed—and this applies to representatives of every party which is represented in this House, because we are not talking about people who belong to one party only; it applies to them all—I repeat today that there are few of us who thought, when that council was instituted, that it would be successful, except those who believed in the inherent goodness of human nature. I say this in all seriousness: If it had not been for their work, we would not have had a new Constitution, not because it was written by them and not because all their recommendations in respect of a constitutional dispensation were accepted, but because they taught South Africa something which it had not known before.

There is a plea I should like to make. Let us vote on the clause and let us state our standpoints by casting our votes. Then we can do as we like. I ask in all seriousness that we should discontinue this discussion at this point.

Mr Chairman, I want the hon the Minister to know that I have a deep appreciation for his debating skill. I have a deep appreciation for his ability to create an emotional moment. I have a tremendous appreciation for the fact that he can get the House absolutely quiet while he plays on the emotions of people. Here we are actually playing more with the pockets of our taxpapers, and the hon the Minister must not say in this House that we do not have the right to debate or that we ought not to debate what he wants so badly to avoid debating here this morning. We have every right to talk about what he intends doing in respect of the gentlemen who serve in the President’s Council.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has calculated the difference between what he proposes and what I propose in terms of taxpapers’ money?

The difference is 90 days as against 15 months of salary. The clever debating point that it is not a new parliament because we have not had a general election and about all the other points, does not hold any water.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he has calculated the pensions which the members will receive immediately so that he can arrive at an aggregate amount as to how much more it will cost the taxpapers?

Sir, there is no need to calculate it because it does not apply. He cannot automatically assume that those members are members of this House; they are not members of this House and therefore he should not ask a hypothetical question by saying that if they were members of this House, this was what would happen. They are not members of this House; they are members of the President’s Council. If they go on pension, they certainly do a lot better than we ever have in the sense that after service of two and a half years they have managed to get themselves in a situation where they will receive a minimum pension calculated at pensionable service over a period of seven and a half years. There is not a single member in this House who can do that.

I want to say this in all sincerity to the hon the Minister because we have sparred with each other for a long, long time. I think today we have watched him treading on eggs, and I think the hon the Minister finds himself in a situation where he has made certain commitments and now we are all going to carry the can for it. Quite honestly we in this party are not going to carry the can for this one for the simple reason that it is grossly unfair to expect the South African taxpaper to foot this bill.

I want to tell him that in these benches there is high regard for the work that has been done by the President’s Council and by individual members of that council, but if the hon the Minister feels so very, very concerned about the loss of the services of those people, he should surely be working within his Cabinet to ensure that every one of them is returned to the President’s Council. If these people are of such tremendous value, then we must do everything to see that we retain their services, and who is in the position to do that? The gentleman sitting over there and his colleagues. They are in a position to do that, not us. We can put one man in that President’s Council, the CP two and the PFP, who ostensibly have never had anybody in it, will be able to elect three people to it. I believe they have a long queue of people wanting to serve in the president’s Council, but I want to submit that the NP’s queue is longer. That is its problem. The NP realizes that it will have to put a few people out to grass. In order to keep them happy and quiet and in order that they do not make too much fuss and cause it political embarrassment, the NP is prepared to keep them quiet this way.

No, Sir, let us have the embarrassment now. Let us have all the political embarrassment right now and let us expose this for what it is. I say this more in sorrow than in anger. We are handing out this largess here like a drunken sailor might. It is quite ridiculous the way we are going to hand out 15 months full salary and allowance. With all respect, we have had the problem since 1910 of members of this House who lived in the Cape Peninsula as opposed to other members who lived further away and had to use ox-carts and trains to get here. We have always had that difference between members. However, what we have now is that these gentlemen are not going to be expected to attend a meeting anywhere, for example, not in Cape Town, Pofadder, Bloemfontein, Pretoria or even in Durban. They are going to be able to sit wherever they live and not move one single inch. They do not even to pick up a telephone to phone a constituent, because they do not have a constituent. They do not have to do a thing or to lift one finger, for which this State is going to pay them for 15 months a full salary and tax-free allowances, which are meant to assist them in the carrying out of their obligations.

We do not like to use the word “morality”, but there is a moral somewhere in this story. I do not think that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has really presented an argument here today. I want to say to him in all sincerity that I have never heard him speak from such a weak platform as I have heard him speak this morning. I also sincerely believe that there are many gentlemen sitting in the benches behind him who are not very happy about this situation. We have said that there can be a golden handshake, but that we should work within the bounds of moderation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say to the hon member that I have not made any commitment to anybody and that his accusation in this direction is completely unjustified. The hon member’s argument is that I am introducing this provision because I want to cover a commitment I had made. This is not true and the hon member has no right or justification to base his argument on those grounds.

I said it looks suspicious.

The hon member should accept my word. The hon member pleaded so vehemently for the taxpayer, but he has not yet sat down to work out the implications of the amendments moved by him and my own amendment. He should therefore accept it when I say that his sincerity in this regard is, as far as I am concerned, in grave doubt. In all fairness, let us look at the hon member’s arguments. I do not want a row and will try to avoid one, but if we have to argue, let us do it. I have never refused to enter into one.

The hon member said they will not have constituents, but they also do not have constituents now.

Have they got duties?

That is not the point. The hon member said that they have no constituents that they have to phone, and all I want to say is that they do not have constituents at the moment.

I merely compared the position of a member of Parliament to that of a member of the President’s Council.

Well, let us take it further. Do all members of Parliament have constituents? They do not. If the hon member wants to argue the point, at least he must stick to the facts.

What are, basically, the facts of the matter? There is a section 102 and also a section 105 in the Act. If the hon member wants the benefit of the argument about section 105, he must be prepared to take the consequences. Then I would not doubt his sincerity. He must then be prepared to take the consequences of the arguments he uses. He is, however, obviously running away from them. What is more, I have also quoted to the hon member not an undertaking I have given but an undertaking that was given in this House—and I share the responsibility to implement that undertaking—namely that, should the President’s Council be dissolved before the end of the term of five years, no one will suffer. The hon member may laugh at this, he may think that undertakings given to people …

I am not laughing; I am crying.

He may argue that undertakings given to people need not be implemented. If that is his perception of a moral obligation, he must in the final analysis be the man to decide about his own morals, because I do not want to do it. I want to say, however, that I have introduced my amendment strictly within the terms of the undertaking that is in the law and strictly within the terms of the undertaking given in this House, and I am not apologizing to anybody for that.

Mr Chairman, I think that we should simply try to stay calm, the way the debate on this clause began. We stated our standpoints on this matter on Friday. Let us now strip the argument of any side issues which are not relevant as far as I am concerned. What are we concerned with? We are concerned with a simple question. We find that we have members of the President’s Council whose term of office will come to an end at the end of August.

Who are among the ones who gave the undertaking?

The hon member should just listen for a moment. The hon the Minister argued here on Friday that an undertaking had been given to the members of the President’s Council that if their term of office was terminated prematurely, before the expiry of the 5-year period, they would not be any worse off financially than they would be if the President’s Council served its full term. Let us now examine that argument. Then I want to come back briefly to what we have already said and to what the hon member for Umhlanga said. As far as that is concerned, I have not heard any argument from the hon the Minister or anyone else to explain why the members of the President’s Council should be paid a tax-free allowance. As we all know, a man in public service is paid a tax-free allowance in order to cover normal expenses which he would not otherwise have incurred, or to remunerate him for such expenses. The term of office of these people will be terminated at the end of August. Thereafter, any further obligations they may have will lapse, and I am still waiting to hear why that allowance should be paid to them after that. I want to know from the hon the Minister why he is not prepared at least to accept the second amendment of the hon member for Umhlanga. With reference to the tax-free allowances received by MPs, it is being argued here that we do not all incur the same expenses in the course of our work as MPs, because circumstances differ from one constituency to another. I would personally be very grateful if the hon the Minister would introduce a change in this connection, because there is quite a difference between the expenses of the hon member for Barberton and those of the hon member for Green Point in this regard. However, I believe that this is not a valid argument. The hon the Minister may argue that not all MPs incur the same expenses in the performance of their duties, but the fact remains that everyone incurs some expenses in this connection. It is a matter of principle, therefore. The gentlemen who served on the President’s Council will incur no expenses from the beginning of September, none at all. The hon the Minister made a touching plea this morning, saying that hon members should realize what valuable work these gentlemen have done for South Africa on the President’s Council. However, this is not the issue. It may be possible to debate the question of what constitutes valuable work. Some of us may be prepared to disagree with the hon the Minister and may hold the view that it would have been better if they had never served on that council. But that is a question for another debate.

I believe that this matter has been fully debated. We know the hon the Minister as an ingenious debater. However, I want to submit with all due respect that the hon the Minister’s argument with regard to the standpoint of the hon member for Umhlanga on section 105 does not hold water, and the reason why it does not hold water is that it is an ingenious argument. For all practical purposes …

Of course it holds water. Have you read it?

Of course I have read it. For all practical purposes, the term of the White House of Assembly ends when the new Constitution comes into operation, when a new Parliament will emerge and the term of the new House of Assembly will begin, although its members will be the same ones that are sitting here today.

I want to suggest in all fairness that it is not pleasant to conduct a public debate about the financial benefits of people who have rendered public service.

Is that not a good reason why it should be stopped?

No, that is no reason to stop it. I said that it was not pleasant to debate it in public. However, I have not heard any argument from any hon member of the National Party or from the hon the Minister as to why this exception should be made.

Mr Chairman, I think that this matter should be debated in a calm atmosphere, and it is in this spirit that we approach the matter.

I agree that the hon the Minister’s reaction to the arguments advanced by the hon members for Umhlanga and Barberton was not a satisfactory response, from a logical point of view, to the problem which we outlined.

If the undertaking was given to members of the President’s Council that those people would retain their rights in spite of the dissolution of the President’s Council, surely this should have been written into the Constitution. If the argument is that the hon the Minister gave the undertaking that in spite of the dissolution of the President’s Council, the members of the Council would retain their rights and privileges for the unexpired period of their service, this should have been written into the Constitution, but it was not done, so I do not think it is reasonable of the hon the Minister to argue that because certain undertakings were given to these members, we are bound by them.

I cannot recall the members being told, when the President’s Council was instituted, that they would retain their rights and privileges in spite of the dissolution of the Council.

Order! I cannot allow the hon member to argue again about the principle that salaries and allowances should be paid to these people. The principle in that regard has already been accepted. The hon member for Umhlanga proposed that it should be less, that it should only be remuneration and not allowances. However, the hon member is again discussing the principle of the Bill.

Very well, Sir. The hon the Minister tempts me, of course, because he uses arguments which one would like to reply to.

But I was replying to yours.

This House is the watchdog with regard to our finances, and for that reason, it is only fair that we should deliberate and discuss matters to see whether the things which we do here are right. I honestly think that what we are doing here is not right. If the hon the Minister were prepared to move an amendment similar to that of the hon member for Umhlanga in respect of the present President’s Council, that might be acceptable. After all, the hon the Minister knows that the new President’s Council will be quite differently constituted. In the case of the old President’s Council, members were appointed by the State President by way of nomination. The new President’s Council will be constituted in a completely different way, with the result that it is not conceivable that if this Parliament were to be dissolved, it could be said that the President’s Council could continue.

Of course not. You should tell that to the hon member for Umhlanga.

I have already replied to his argument. [Interjections.] It is regrettable that arguments have been used here and points have been made which are actually not relevant. I cannot understand the hon the Minister’s sensitivity. All we are concerned with here is the principle that when a person receives remuneration from a body, he should fulfil the obligations arising from membership of that body. One has the situation here that remuneration is being paid to people in respect of membership of a body which no longer exists, and in respect of which they no longer perform any functions.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member: Is it not also a fact that when one gives a person credit for additional service, one is also remunerating him for service which he has not rendered? I am referring to the principle of the matter.

That is a general question which the hon the Minister has now posed, and it is an extremely difficult one to answer. It could happen under certain circumstances. Of course, it depends on how one defines those functions and obligations.

Order! The hon member must not stray too far from the point in his argument. Eventually that will bring us back to the principle.

In conclusion, I want to say that in my opinion, we are making a big mistake. I say this in all honesty and humility. We on this side of the House have no alternative but to oppose the clause.

Arising from the hon the Minister’s amendment and the question he put—with some justification; we understand his sensitivity—to the hon member for Umhlanga, namely whether it is possible to make calculations, the hon the Minister will readily concede to me that because of the uncertainty which results from the second part of his amendment—the question of “within 30 days”—no one can know how many of those people may say that they do not wish to share in the benefits. Consequently one cannot make any calculation on the basis of the hon the Minister’s argument.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with the specific issue raised as to whether in fact the term of office of the existing President’s Council will come to an end with the start of the new Parliament. Section 105(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1961 reads as follows:

Section 102(4) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1983—the new Constitution—reads as follows:

This is where the hon the Minister stopped, but the sentence continues:

In all fairness, I did not quote section 102.

The hon the Minister says that it was a continuation of the Assembly. The section says:

In other words, when this Assembly becomes part of the new Parliament, every member of this House shall be deemed to have been elected or nominated. In terms of section 105, when members are elected in a general election, then the State President is entitled to dissolve the council. I simply want to make that point clear. I do not want to argue about the people. Nobody has greater respect for what the President’s Council has done than I have. I am dealing now with the principle of what happens when the new constitution is implemented.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely in order to react to the hon member for Barberton. I want to tell him at once that he has obviously not read section 102(4), because in terms of that section, we are not being dissolved and we are deemed to constitute a new House. This deprives the hon member’s argument of all substance, of course. However, there is just one thing I want to say to the hon member. I may argue ingeniously, as he says, but I do not think it would be true to say that ingenious arguments are necessarily wrong, and I suppose he will grant me that point. In fact, I want to recommend it to him, for then he might improve his own argument with regard to this clause. I want to say something else to the hon member, although I really hoped that it would not be necessary for me. We could argue with one another ad nauseam about the non-taxable allowance. I am not aware of any system anywhere in terms of which, when one stops rendering a service, one’s non-taxable allowance forms the basis for the payment of one’s gratuity and one’s pension, because normally it is not included in the term “remuneration”. If we have to argue as logically as the hon member for Barberton wants us to, then the says that as far as we are concerned, it should also be discontinued and should not be converted into a gratuity or pension. However, we all know what the risks are in public life, and I do not wish to take the matter any further.

If the hon member for Durban Point would look at section 105 of the 1961 Constitution, he will find that this section is set aside by section 102(11) of the new Constitution. The Presdient’s Council will be dissolved at the commencement of the new Constitution. This is the reply to the hon member’s argument.

The hon member Prof Olivier asked why we had not written it into the new constitution, Act No 110 of 1983. However, the hon member will recall that we made the implementation of the new Constitution conditional upon a referendum. We did not write it into the Act as such, but we announced that we were going to hold a referendum on the new Constitution. The hon member is also aware of the fact that when we passed the Act, we did not lay down a date of commencement.

I am referring to the 1981 Act.

Yes, I am talking about 1983. The hon member asked why we had not done it in 1983.

No, in 1981.

In 1981, we covered the situation to which the hon member is now referring. In terms of the 1981 Act, the term is five years. In section 105 we said what would happen to the President’s Council if the House of Assembly were dissolved. What would happen to the President’s Council if the House of Assembly were dissolved? That is the question we dealt with in section 105. In section 105 we provided that if the House of Assembly were dissolved—the dissolution of the House of Assembly is the substantive part of that particular section in the Constitution—the President’s Council could also be dissolved upon 90 days’ notice.

That is not quite the point. In terms of section 105, it can be dissolved, but that is entirely at the discretion of the State President. He does not have to dissolve it, and in that sense, I believe, it differs fundamentally from the present situation.

Mr Chairman, the reply to that is simple, because the hon member himself supplied it in reply to the argument of the hon member for Umhlanga. The new President’s Council is not the same as the old one, and its functions are not the same either. That is the reply to the question. The hon member actually answered that question himself when he was reacting to the hon member for Umhlanga.

The hon member says that I am blaming them for not being able to calculate it, and that I cannot calculate it in the light of my amendment. However, the hon members calculated the quantum which they publicized on the basis of the position as it was before the amendment, which is factually not correct. I am not talking about the hon member himself. If they look at the reporting, they will see that that reporting was based on a mistake which had obviously been presented as the truth in this House. I do not want to debate the matter any further at this stage. In those reports, an incorrect figure was given on the basis of what we are doing in this House. Even if I had not moved the amendment which I have now moved, it would still have been an incorrect figure. What do we want to achieve by this, and what are we to think, with great respect, of certain media which adopt a very sanctimonious attitude about the codes of the media themselves and then publish these figures uncritically, without publishing any argument used in this House to reply to them? Then we are not really dealing with information, but with media fraud.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has asked the hon member for Umhlanga and the Opposition in general to furnish figures. He asked what the figures would be with regard to the amendment moved by the hon member for Umhlanga and also with regard to the fact that this clause is not acceptable. I think the onus is on the hon the Minister, however. Before it occurred to him to move his amendment, I think the onus was on him to inform the country as to the estimated cost of the additional expenditure to be incurred in connection with these gentlemen as a result of the fact that they will be paid over a longer term.

A further point that I wish to make in this connection is the fact that section 102 of the 1983 Constitution was known to all when the Bill was published and when it was discussed on the select committee and on the President’s Council. I also assume that the fact that an undertaking had been given was also known at that stage. This is another one of the sections which was not discussed during the Committee Stage as a result of the notorious guillotine. Could those gentlemen not have taken cognizance of the fact as it was and as it appeared in section 102? Could they not have been content with that? Why, in view of the period between July 1983 and June 1984, is section 102 only now being amended? I say that this is another matter concerning which the onus is on the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the reply to that is simple. No date of commencement was laid down in the Constitution itself. When the Constitution was made subject to the result of a referendum, we placed the date of its commencement in the hands of the electorate. That is the reply to that.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether this is not also a matter which the members of the President’s Council would have taken into consideration?

It is not a question of what the members of the President’s Council did or did not do. It is first of all a question, and we may differ about this, of the undertaking which is given in the Constitution on a moral basis, and if its morality is not acceptable, then on a statutory basis. If we want to argue on technical legal grounds, then we are doing less for the members of the President’s Council than they are entitled to in technical legal terms. The hon member has made a point and I concede that it is a valid one. He said that I should actually have said what the financial implications were. I wish he had given that advice to the hon member for Barberton.

He was not entitled to it.

No, the hon member was entitled to any conclusion. Even if not a single one of the members who are on the President’s Council at the moment came to this House and even if they all went on pension, his figure would be wrong.

I concede that now.

I undertake to let hon members have the exact figure when the Constitution comes into operation after 3 September. Then it will be possible to determine the figure, because people have options. All I can do—we seem to have agreed to differ—is to undertake to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to carry out the undertakings given to those people in this House.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said that South Africa could never compensate the members of the President’s Council for what they had done for South Africa. What did they do for South Africa? The President’s Council has six committees and only one committee, namely the Constitutional Committee, dealt with this matter. Are the other committees to have the same …

Order! Could the hon member indicate to me in what respect his speech is relevant to clause 13?

The hon the Minister said that we could never reward those people. If this remuneration is now to be paid, it is only that one committee.

Order! The principle of remuneration has already been accepted. The hon member cannot discuss it again.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the wording of clause 6, provision is made for many kinds of circumstances surrounding the filling of a vacancy in the seat of an indirectly elected member. However, there is one facet for which no provision is made, and that is the situation where the member whose seat falls vacant was the only member of his particular party or where he was an independent. In terms of the provisions created in this clause, such a vacancy could not be filled and that would create a problem. Consequently we have drafted an amendment to eliminate this problem and I move the amendment as follows:

1. 1. On page 7, in line 16, after “vacant” to insert:
   • : Provided that in the case of a casual vacancy in the seat of an indirectly elected member who, when the vacancy occurred, no longer belonged to or was a supporter of the said political party, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a).

This would mean that the vacancy would be filled by the taking of a vote among the members of the House.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of the hon member for Helderkruin provides for the correction of an obvious omission, and I am consequently prepared to accept it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title:

Mr Chairman, I just want to take this opportunity of thanking all hon members who have participated in the debate for their contributions.

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, as we have already done during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, we shall also support the Third Reading of this amending Bill.

On this occasion I wish to express the earnest hope that the hon the Minister will make ample use of the powers which are being granted to him, particularly as far as free trading areas are concerned. I have already pointed out that I do not think that the Government’s record in this connection in the past was untarnished. In spite of the fact— technically speaking—that the initiative regarding the creation of free trading areas did not lie with the Minister, we nevertheless believe that greater encouragement on the part of the Government should have been given to local authorities to take the initiative in this connection. When this measure becomes law, the ball will undoubtedly be in the court of the hon the Minister and his department. I really hope that they will make use of this legislation and that the matter will be left to the various Administrators and local authorities. They should make it their task, as soon as is feasible, to create such areas in every centre in South Africa, whether it is a city or a smaller town, and even in places where there is the slightest need for such a free trading area. It should not be alleged that the Group Areas Act interferes to any extent with free trade or the free enterprize system. It is in the interests of all of us that people of other colours in South Africa should feel that they have access to the system and that they develop a loyalty to the free enterprize system in so far as it does not yet exist in respect of that system.

As regards Proclamation R 228, the hon the Minister has levelled indirect accusations in the course of the debate to the effect that the Opposition did not want to help him to have it eliminated. The hon the Minister places us in a very difficult position in not impairing the confidentiality of the select committee. The hon the Minister knows, however, that the trade-off which he offered us was so ridiculous that one could not take it seriously. He knows that he promised a long time ago that this proclamation would be repealed as soon as was feasible. Even his predecessor spoke about doing that, and several organizations recommended it. In this respect I want to make an appeal to him to get rid of this absurd and petty proclamation as soon as possible. He spoke about the free enterprize system and if there is anything which is blatantly opposed to the principle of the free enterprise system then it is this principle which provides that a person may not receive a senior appointment in a business on a racial basis, merely because of the provisions of the Group Areas Act.

We shall support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, before I confine myself to some of the most important consequences of the measure before this House, I want to react briefly to certain statements made by hon members of the official Opposition, as well as the hon member for Kuruman.

In his speech the hon member for Green Point indicated that he supported the Third Reading. We welcome that. He also mentioned Proclamation R228, and expressed the hope that the hon the Minister would soon repeal that proclamation. The hon member for Green Point, as well as the hon member for Langlaagte, associated Proclamation R228 with the prohibition on the employment of certain categories of workers. For the sake of the record I want to make it clear that this proclamation does not deal with the employment of certain categories of workers. It deals with the throwing open of restaurants and places of entertainment to all race groups. What the hon member for Green Point probably had in mind was Proclamations 3, 4 and 5. These proclamations do in fact have as their contents a prohibition on the employment of certain categories of workers in specific designated or group areas. It is those proclamations to which the hon member for Green Point was referring.

I have had no technical legal grounding, but as the legislation reads it may just be than when free trading areas are established, Proclamations 3, 4 and 5 become inapplicable. In fact, if this is the case it will be in line with the declared policy of this side of the House. The declared policy of this side of the House in respect of Proclamations 3, 4 and 5 can be traced back to page 222 of the Riekert Report, where it is recommended that these proclamations be repealed. The Government also accepted in its White Paper…

A White Paper is not legislation.

A White Paper is not legislation, but it spells out a specific policy. Just let me finish making this point. The Government accepted in its White Paper that Proclamations 3, 4 and 5 should be amended in such a way that all categories of bona fide employees should be exempted so as to occupy the premises of their employer with the purpose of doing the work for which they were employed. So much then for Proclamations 3, 4 and 5 and the possible confusion between these proclamations and Proclamation R 228.

The hon member for Green Point expressed his opposition to the Group Areas Act in the strongest terms, and questioned its moral grounds. I would be the last person to argue that in the past the Group Areas Act was dealt with in such a way that relations between groups were not marred as a result. But the fact of the matter is that through the operation of this statutory measure, a structuring mechanism for structuring communities, the qualities of communities were in some cases improved to such an extent that today tin shanties have given way to decent housing. This measure will also be operative in the new dispensation. The hon member for Kuruman said that this was merely the first step towards allowing the Group Areas Act to lapse in the new dispensation. Among other things, he called it an integration measure. As for this argument of the hon member, I want to point out to him that the Group Areas Act, or at least those provisions of the measure relating to residential area separation, will also be implemented by this side of the House in the new dispensation. After all, it is far easier to maintain measures that have to bring about separation or differentiation by means of consensus than to enforce differences between population groups by means of force and violence. In fact, the ideal situation would be to deal with the differences which exist in a plural society such as ours on a social community level without any legislation. But the question is whether this is possible. If we are able to deal with the differences between the respective population groups by means of consensus rather than by enforcing it through unilateral force of violence now and in future, we will undoubtedly achieve more success.

Next I want to point out to the hon member for Kuruman that he made a very irresponsible statement when he said that the legislation was now going to be used to place the hostels at the University of Stellenbosch and those of the provincial schools in the rural areas at the disposal of other race groups. That is completely devoid of all truth. [Interjections.] The hon member for Langlaagte must please listen now; then he need not make a speech in this debate and we shall get done sooner.

Free trading areas are being established in terms of clause 1. That is the main object of this legislation. Because free trading areas are being established in accordance with certain procedures, certain sections of the Group Areas Act do not apply, and they are sections 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and so on. As I have already stated, the main object of the legislation is the establishment of free trading areas, and the University of Stellenbosch, the hostels and other amenities are surely not trading areas.

As far as educational bodies are concerned, will this only be in business areas, or could it be anywhere? The same question applies in respect of people who render professional services.

The main object is the establishment of free trading areas. These will be in and near the central city areas of the major metropolitan areas. If there are certain educational institutions within these free trading areas then they will, in terms of this legislation, be exempted from obtaining a permit. It depends on where the boundaries of the free trading areas are. [Interjections.] I shall mention an example in this connection. In Pretoria there is a mosque, and adjoining that mosque is the so-called theological school of the Muslim community. This is what is meant by the exemption of educational areas. It is limited by the boundaries of the free trading area. To argue now that the schools and hostels are going to be thrown open in terms of this legislation, is devoid of all truth.

In the exemption of free trading areas one should not read only trade. Doctors’ consulting rooms are also included. Advocates’ chambers are also included. That is what is meant by professional amenities.

Technikons are also included.

I am coming to that now. It depends on what part of the proclamation is applicable to the demarcated free trading area.

What about funeral undertakers?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton wants to turn a very serious matter into a joke. This legislation should be read in the spirit that either one or a variety of provisions of the Group Areas Act may be rescinded. That does not at all mean to say that all the provisions of the Group Areas Act are going to be rescinded without further ado.

It is merely a question of time. [Interjections.]

There is no substance in the allegations of the hon members of the CP with reference to this legislation we have before us.

Particularly in regard to clause 2 the consequence of this legislation is going to be that the strain which is imposed on the infrastructure of human relations is going to be alleviated in the sense that certain restrictive provisions of the Group Areas Act in respect of the Chinese population group will no longer be applicable. Certain restrictive measures in respect of female persons married to persons of another population group will also be rescinded as regards the position of those women after the death of their husbands or the dissolution of their marriages, and this will contribute to stabilizing their position. The result of this legislation will also be that other population groups, the Coloureds and the Indians, will be given an opportunity to participate in the economic process of South Africa to a greater extent, thus enabling them to avail themselves of the opportunity of enjoying the welfare of South Africa which has been set aside for everyone. The participation of the other population groups in the economic process is, however, an integral building block in the structure of law and order and the protection of minority rights here in South Africa too.

I want to conclude with the idea that broadening the economic base of all the population groups in South Africa, broadening the housing base of all population groups in South Africa and broadening the democratic base of all the population groups in South Africa is the formula for success by means of which order, stability and peace will be guaranteed for all in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, a strange thing has just happened in this House. The hon member for Bellville reacted to me before I made a speech! It seems to me it could have been a delayed reaction to the Second Reading speech I made here.

The hon member said that they would rather advocate consensus politics than the use of force and violence. In respect of the new dispensation among the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the Government party advocates consensus, but surely the Group Areas Act is also applicable in respect of the almost 10 million Black people who are also resident in the White part of South Africa.

It is not. That just shows how much you know.

Surely places have also been set aside in which Black people have to live. [Interjections.] There are Black residential areas, and they are not part of the White group areas. However, because these people are also, like the Coloureds and the Indians, living in their own areas in the White part of South Africa at present, and because the hon member wants to reach a consensus with the Coloureds and the Indians, what is the hon member going to do with the Black people who are also living in urban areas, for example those who will be living in Khayelitsha, those people who also lay claim to carrying on a trade here in Cape Town, just as the Coloureds and the Indians do? What is he going to do with those Black people? Does he also advocate consensus in this case, or does he advocate violence? If the CP says that it rejects amendments to the Group Areas Act, amendments which rescind certain restrictions on people of other colours carrying on a trade and doing other things in white group areas, then the hon members of the NP on the opposite say that the CP is ostensibly seeking voilence, and that consensus is the solution. Surely the NP will also have to make provision for consensus with the Black people who are also living here and for whom the party of the hon member for Witbank is now making it possible to come and open businesses in the central business districts. The hon member said that the argument that this Bill was going to be used to make hostel amenities and buildings available to people of other colours was absurd. He said that the CP members did not know what they were talking about. In Stellenbosch the Hombre hostel is situated in the top part of the Volkskas Building, which is situated in the central business district of Stellenbosch. In the long title to this Bill it is stated:

If we now say that they are also going to make use of this Bill to throw hostels open, this is something which I shall go into further, and shall reply to.

In terms of the provisions of the Bill, the State President may, in consultation with the Administrator in terms of clause 1, do away with certain restrictions on the occupation and use of buildings, land and premises for trading, commercial, professional, religious or educational purposes. The State President may grant permission for certain buildings, land or premises in a White group area, for example, to be allocated for the following purposes to Black people, Coloureds or Indians, namely trading or commercial purposes, professional purposes—as the hon member over there said, for medical practitioners, advocates and so on—and for educational purposes.

In principle the Group Areas Act is aimed at affording each people or population group the opportunity to give full expression to their community life within their own group areas. This principle in the Group Areas Act is now being thrown overboard by means of this Bill, specifically in respect of the trading, professional, religious and educational activities of the one group within the group area of another. According to the spirit of the existing Group Areas Act it was the intention of the NP, who placed that Act on the Statute Book, that Whites within their own group areas would have the sole use of premises and buildings for trading, professional, religious and educational purposes and that Coloureds and Indians would have the sole use within their own group areas of buildings, premises and land for trading, professional, religious and educational purposes. That was the intention of the drafters of the Group Areas Act, as it is at present.

Consequently there would be separate development in respect of trade and the rendering of professional services, and the use of buildings for religious and educational purposes. All these activities, in terms of the standpoint of the NP that placed the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book were part of the community life of the relevant community within its own group area.

The lifting of restrictions in respect of the occupation and the use of land and premises and buildings for trading, professional, religious and educational purposes now removes these matters from the community life of the group in the group area concerned. The areas in respect of which the restrictions are being lifted, are areas which are being removed from the community life of the groups concerned—the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks.

When the restrictions are lifted in respect of the spheres covered by the Bill, these spheres become general affairs as the administration of the Group Areas Act becomes a general affair which will fall under a multiracial tripartite coalition Cabinet in the new dispensation.

The NP says that as far as it is concerned, own residential areas and own schools and own community life are non-negotiables, and the hon member for Bellville knows it. In the past we spoke about own group areas, but now it has already been watered down to own residential areas. The Group Areas Act is the guarantee for the retention of one’s own residential areas, own schools and own community life.

With these amendments the NP is itself shattering the foundation stones of the Group Areas Act. These amendments now enable the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks to get a foot in the door of the White group area, and also vice versa. For the Coloureds and the Indians the Group Areas Act is a discriminatory measure. The PFP supported the principles of this Bill, and are doing so now in the Third Reading as well, because discriminatory measures are to a certain extent being rescinded here. The Group Areas Act is a general Act, and this is the last time that the Whites are able to effect amendments to the Group Areas Act according to their own choice. This is the last time the White Parliament alone will be able to effect amendments to this legislation.

The self-determination of the Whites in respect of their own living space disappears on 3 September. I want to repeat: As a result of the amendments contained in this Bill which cause the Group Areas Act to be a general affair in the new Parliament, the self-determination of the Whites in regard to their own living space will disappear on 3 September 1984. The Group Areas Act is a discriminatory Act, according to the point of view of the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, the possible coalition cabinet partners of the Government party. The Government party must accept that after 3 September it will be pressured by its partners into making further concessions. The Government party is effecting these amendments, which are concessions and which enable the Coloureds and Indians to get a foot in the door to the living space of the Whites, voluntarily. The Government party will in future, as the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs did in regard to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, be forced by Rev Hendrickse to make further concessions. This is an outcome of this measure, and it is a cause of grave concern to members of the CP. What we are concerned about is that the NP, as it has in this Bill, will make further concessions, that the NP will in future allow its Cabinet partners to kick open the door to the living space of the Whites within their own group area further. The Government party is demonstrating with this legislation and with the concessions which are being made that it cannot resist the pressure of Coloureds and Indians and its left-wing supporters.

I said during the Second Reading Debate that certain things were going to happen as a result of this legislation, and I want to repeat some of them today. As a result of the depopulation of the rural areas there are many country schools and school hostels in the rural areas today that are standing empty. Once there were enough White children to fill those schools and hostels, but at the moment they are standing empty. In future it will be possible to argue that there are enough Coloured children in those towns to fill those schools and hostels. They will tell Rev Hendrickse that he must say in the Cabinet that the school hostels in Strydenburg, Vosburg or Niekerkshoop are now standing empty and that it would cost thousands of rands to build school amenities in the Coloured residential areas. Those Coloureds would have a good argument if they were to advance it as a reason for occupying those White schools and hostels. It would be a very strong argument in a future Cabinet, in which Coloureds, Indians and Whites had to reach joint decisions on matters. As a result of this legislation the NP will, at the request of Rev Hendrickse and the Cabinet, give in to the requests of the Coloureds in this connection and White schools buildings and hostels will be made available for use by Coloureds.

Then there is the question of university hostels. Already there are a large number of persons of colour who are for example studying at the University of Stellenbosch. The Hombre hostel is situated in the top part of the Volkskas building. If the chairman of the NP’s student branch at Stellenbosch emerges victorious in his struggle against the hon member for Stellenbosch, and is able to persuade the NP that this should be done—he is in favour of persons of colour who are studying at the University of Stellenbosch also being entitled to live in the hostels of the University—the NP will in terms of this Bill grant permission, or it will be legally possible, for students of other colours to stay in the hostels of the University of Stellenbosch.

Your leader also granted permission for that to be done.

The hon the Minister has just said that my leader also granted permission for that to be done. The party of that hon Minister, without his disapproving of such an action, caused a falsified document to be published in order to place my leader under suspicion in this connection. My leader, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs, granted permission for the son of a Prime Minister of a neighbouring State to stay in a White hostel. My leader granted that permission on the basis of a Cabinet resolution taken in 1959, and the hon the Minister is now using that case to try to put me off my stroke. I want to tell him, however, that in terms of this legislation his party will not only be granting consent for the son of the Prime Minister of a neighbouring state, but also for scores of Coloureds, to stay in the hostels of the University of Stellenbosch.

This Bill will also be used in order to implement the Government’s policy in respect of the sharing of facilities. I want to quote the MPC of the hon the Minister of Community Development in respect of the sharing of amenities:

He continued:

I do not think that the hon the Minister will still be there when the logical consequences of this legislation become applicable.

Because this may perhaps be the last Bill of the hon the Minister in respect of which I will the privilege of speaking before him, I wanted to tell him that over the years I have developed a very great respect and very great appreciation for him. I hold him in very high esteem, and personally I owe a great deal to him, but I want to tell him that he is dealing with a Bill today which represents a further step in the direction of integration. The PFP and the NRP support the Government in respect of this Bill. They also support its Third Reading. The PFP and the NRP say this is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the direction of full integration. This is a step in the direction of the total abolition of the Group Areas Act, and for that reason we are not able to support the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman has stated, in all three stages of the Bill now, that the PFP and the NRP are supporting this Bill because it is a step in the right direction. I regret to say that that is possibly the only part of his speech with which I really do agree. The position is that we will be supporting the Third Reading of the Bill as we supported the previous two stages. However, as I also indicated in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage, I am very sorry that the Bill leaves the full authority within the hands of the State President who will take decisions in consultation with Administrators, etc. As I indicated earlier on, we regret that, not because we are not likely to have confidence in the State President, or in the Administrators for that matter, but purely and simply because we feel that it is not a matter which a person of such eminence as the State President should be handling because the opprobrium relating to any problem will then devolve upon him. We believe that, although he is going to be an executive State President and, as we know, is to a very large degree going to be within the political arena, it is still unnecessary for him to have this particular function.

I am aware that this is an interim measure and that at some stage in the future there may well be amendments to it or the whole Group Areas Act may be removed and replaced, by this Bill and other Bills being coalesced into one; but this Bill presented us with the opportunity to put into effect what the Government keeps stating is its policy, namely the devolution of power to lower tiers of government. Surely this is something the local authorities could have undertaken. I believe it would have been less complicated and it would certainly have speeded things up if it had been a question of a local authority taking a decision that they want a certain thing within a prescribed area. I firmly believe that the relevant provision is going to delay the implementation of the intent of this Bill, which, certainly, I do not believe the hon the Minister intended it to do. Nonetheless, I believe it will have that effect. Nonetheless, I believe it will have that effect, and to my way of thinking it will be unfortunate. As I have indicated before, it has been stated time and time again that there should be a devolution of power. However, I cannot help but feel that when the government uses that expression, it does not mean the devolution of power. They think it means the delegation of power in respect of some things. There is of course a very substantial difference between the two. I know from experience that when one works on delegated power, one is not in the same position as when that power is yours by law.

I accept the argument that certain local authorities will not opt for this particular amendment in so far as the group areas within its area are concerned. They may believe that things should remain as they are and that matters should be run according to section 19 and that there should be no movement of non-Whites into the central business districts. I accept that, but in these circumstances there can surely be a form of appeal to the Minister concerned to investigate the matter. I believe this would be less time-consuming and less troublesome than what will potentially be the case with this Bill.

However, the real problem again is that the Government of South Africa, albeit it in the name of the State President, will be held responsible for problems under the Group Areas Act, and I believe the Government could have done itself a great service by passing this authority down to local authorities. However, this proposal is better than the situation which presently prevails, and we are therefore quite happy to go along with it.

As far as the other part of the Bill is concerned, I am rather surprised that this has not been put into effect before. I am now referring to clause 2 whereby a widow or widower relict of a marriage or cohabitation can retain the use and occupation of the joint home. I can imagine that quite a few problems emanated from this in the past, because assuming there was marriage across the line there were probably children involved. If the widow is White, the children might be Coloured in some category or the other. I would have thought that this would present quite a few problems. As it is, it may present certain problems because there is certainly no compulsion on them moving from there, and if the widow is White, she can resume her White status and move into the White area. I do not know what will happen to the Coloured children and this may also be a problem which needs to be looked at.

As regards the question of the Chinese, we as a party are very pleased with this measure because in our opinion the present set-up has been a great insult to keep a very great people in this status in the past. We are very happy indeed that members of the Chinese community can now enjoy all the privileges of the White population group. In fact, they are enjoying a few more because it seems to me they will be able to involve themselves with the Coloured community as well. They are therefore in a privileged position vis-à-vis the Whites. In addition to that, I believe this must be the forerunner of the true emancipation of the Chinese, whom, as I have said, are a very civilized people with a long history of civilization. In so far as the Republic of China is concerned, they have shown themselves to be extremely good friends of South Africa.

With these few words we will be very happy to support the Third Reading of this Bill, although we believe these powers should have been delegated to the local authorities instead of being exercised by the State President.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow on the hon member for Umbilo; one reason being his support, which I welcome and thank him for. The hon member, although supporting the Bill, directed certain criticisms at clause 1 of the Bill. I can understand his reasons for criticizing those provisions, namely in the light of his party’s local option policy. He should realize though that this party does not subscribe to that policy as it has found a different solution to the problem.

*If it gives me pleasure to react to the speech of the hon member for Umbilo, I regret to admit that it does not give me as much pleasure to react to the speech of the hon member for Kuruman. I like advancing reasonable arguments. In this House in particular one expects reason to triumph and emotional and illogical approaches to play a less important role in the discussion of matters. The hon member for Kuruman started by reading into clause 1 that if the hon member for Bellville, for example, were to live on the top floor of the Volkskas Building, a member of the Coloured population group would also be able to come and live in that building, as this clause provides that such a person may occupy a place in the centre of town for educational purposes. The hon member is quite wrong. This clause deals with occupation for trading, commercial, professional, religious and educational purposes. Surely the hon member does not want to tell me that when a person sleeps at a certain place, he is occupying that place for educational purposes. Surely it is clearly excluded from the provisions that a person occupies such a building for educational purposes because he wants to sleep there, or for whatever other purposes he may have in mind.

The hon member also went so far to maintain that the self-determination of Whites in respect of their own living space would disappear on 3 September. He said this on the basis of clause 1. How far-fetched can one be in one’s approach to Bills before this House! Surely that is not true; on the contrary, I maintain that it has been a long-felt need among Whites that non-Whites should be able to acquire premises for trading purposes in the centre of town. I have heard many Whites arguing in this vein. For instance, it would not be difficult to make out a case that the opportunity be created for Indians, who sometimes do business at places in their own particular and interesting way, to start business in the central areas of town. The argument is probably often advanced …

[Inaudible].

He does not understand this at all. Tell him what the position is, Mr Minister.

The hon member for langlaagte is completely off the rails. [Interjections.] It has been argued that Whites are afraid of competition from those people. While I was practising as an attorney I was never afraid of a non-White attorney competing with me and of my not being equal to the competition. So why should White dealers be afraid? I believe that this provision in the legislation is a logical and fair provision, one which all of us should support.

The hon member went on to say that these provisions allowed vacant schools in the rural areas to be places at the disposal of Coloured children. I cannot imagine a more far-fetched argument than to say that this provision in the legislation renders something of this kind possible. Consequently the hon the Minister pointed out by way of interjection that the legislation was not at all necessary for that purpose.

†I should now like to return to the hon member for Umbilo. He used as an example a White woman living in Coloured area because her husband was a coloured person, and asked what her position would be after promulgation of clause 2 of this Bill. The hon member must realize that that example is not covered by this legislation because of the Immorality Act. He will find other examples that do not really create the difficulties that he foresaw in his argument.

*This brings me to the other two provisions. The hon member for Kuruman did not even refer to these, viz clause 2 and its various subsections. I believe there is no need for me to deal further with the position of the widow or widower of a deceased, because in my view the provisions concerned constitute effective legislation and nothing else.

The last subsection deals with the Chinese group. As far as I know there is only one Chinese group area in South Africa and that is Kabega Park in Port Elizabeth. Only a few families are living there and I do not think that that residential area is a success. In my opinion the number of Chinese is insufficient to create a community there. In this connection, too, we would, however, be acting in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Whites in South Africa if we were to say that the Chinese should enjoy the rights given to them in terms of this subsection.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North made a very interesting statement. He said that he believed that the White man was not afraid of competition, that in reality, he was in favour of competition. He is therefore in favour of throwing everything open in general. [Interjections.] If one is not afraid of competition, one does not fence people off, and one also opens one’s schools. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Speaker, the hon member had his chance. I do not want to keep the hon the Minister for long. I shall therefore not reply to questions.

The hon member said that as an attorney he is not afraid of other attorneys, and the Blacks can come if they wish. He is therefore saying that in his opinion throwing things open is the right step. [Interjections.] I think the Government should therefore indicate whether they support the opinion of the hon member for Port Elizabeth North; if not, they must disclaim what he says. The hon the Minister must tell us what his standpoint is.

The hon member for Bellville, who was first rightist, and who is now relatively leftist, but who still has a good brain, is reading this legislation completely incorrectly since he began moving to the left. A business area could be a building by proclamation. Correct? [Interjections.] I like the hon the Minister because he admits it when one makes a correct statement. We must not bluff the people in Central Pretoria or in Stellenbosch—I do not want to go to Stellenbosch because I have nothing to go there for; I was a Witsie—when it comes to what appears and what does not appear in a law. The Government makes its own representatives ridiculous on public platforms when they say that certain things do not appear in a law, but meanwhile we know that they do in fact appear there.

We need only read the legislation—and I say that hon members do not read legislation. However, we know how matters are arranged in Parliament. Some hon members deal with a specific piece of legislation, whilst others need not study every clause or point. This legislation very clearly provides that any building can be proclaimed an urban area at will. Any building used for educational purposes can also be decaired as such.

That is not true.

Really, Sir, the hon member for Bellville must not tell me that is not true. He is contradicting the hon the Minister now, because he said a moment ago that that was in fact the case. [Interjections.] But I said that any building could be proclaimed a free trading area.

You spoke of an urban area.

The hon member for Mossel Bay has the ability to argue about nothing. Sir, you must interrupt me if I go too far, but that hon member and Mr Julies appeared together on a platform.

Order! Which clause is the hon member dealing with now?

Yes, Sir, I knew you would do that. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mossel Bay led me astray a little. We must be honest with one another and admit that in terms of this legislation any building or premises in which or on which education takes place can be proclaimed. If it is said that it is the same as the old section 19 area, why is section 19 now being replaced by this provision?

One no longer needs a permit.

The member for Welkom says one no longer needs a permit; not for the person, but for the building. The building is now becoming the issue. I have not yet stated how I feel about this matter, but what I do want to say is that this legislation does not arrange anything. [Interjections.] Nothing is being arranged, for the simple reason that a person will go outside this area as a nominee. As a White nominee he will go to any urban area, and all that needs to be done is to make those premises a free trading area.

What about a group area? [Interjections.]

That hon nominated member from the Free State is so afraid of group areas that he told the people in the Free State that nothing like that would ever happen.

What about a trading area?

He openly stated that this story of the CP that everything is going to be thrown open and that certain provisions of the Group Areas Act are going to be abolished is simply not true. We now have the same situation as with the Krugersdorp attorneys, where Blacks want to be accommodated in the building. The town council said that they did not want that and they voted about it twice or three times. I say that building will now be declared a free trading area. I bet hon members opposite that that will happen in terms of this legislation. No one will be able to stop those Blacks then. This could never have been done in terms of the present section 19.

Section 19 is being substituted.

That is just the point. Those hon members must not say that there is no difference, however.

I now want to discuss the powers of the State President. I feel a little unhappy about this matter, and I am angry about it, too. On 10 February this year I put a question to the hon the Prime Minister, which reads as follows:

I received the following reply from the hon the Prime Minister:

Even Rev Hendrickse does not understand what these people want to do. However, my information is that those two, the hon the Prime Minister and Rev Hendrickse, bullied the hon the Minister. This legislation before the House at present is part of that process.

The provisions contained in this Bill mean the destructions of the basis of the Group Areas Act. Now the Government must decide whether it wants to retain or abolish the Group Areas Act. Let us take the case of the Chinese. Has the Government not learnt from history that when one works with people one must be very careful? I am saying this because the soul of a human being, of whatever colour, remains the same and is hurt to the same extent. The Government will have to work very sparingly with the alteration of a law which has brought much hardship for White, non-White and others in this country over the years. If one cannot remove it, one must not interfere with it, since one causes sorrow. The Chinese are now being recognized, and the Indians and the Coloureds now have to find that as people they do not have the same rights according to this Government, they are not the same people, nor do they have the same education as the Chinese. That is what it amounts to. The one can be recognized, since he has been away from Peking for so many years, we are well-disposed towards him, and Heaven alone knows what else. There is pain linked to this statutory amendment. Last Friday I spoke about the differences one encounters, for example, when a White man with White children marries a Chinese woman, and that woman, in turn, marries an Indian. The White man, the Chinese woman and the Indian would all have to be removed. We accommodate a person who has violated the prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. We tell him that if he has violated that Act, he is now going to be accommodated in terms of this legislation. We are therefore sanctioning this Act in this Bill, in that violating it will not be a violation, but we will be accommodating such cases in the future. The rights of the State President in future, and which will go up to the local level, are disturbing because not only does it take a long time to go through these processes, but the Head of State should not be in such a dictatorial position in which he can declare the central area of the Northern Transvaal, which completely rejects the Government, a mixed area by way of delegation and other powers. He can say that he declares the city centre a mixed area.

All these things are problems which arise in terms of this legislation. One asks oneself: Is it really necessary to effect these amendments? An Indian or a Coloured could own 49% or 51% shares in any White area in South Africa. He could own that together with the Whites. Conversely, a White can hold 49% shares in a Coloured area, and the Coloured, 51%. The position is the same in the case of the Indians. In other words, open areas and the people who are not afraid, can mix with one another and carry on. It is as the hon member for Port Elizabeth North said.

Furthermore, the use of nominees has progressed so far, that one cannot stop it, and consequently it goes on from day to day. Then there are the section 19 areas for which provision was also made to a large extent. Once again, I should like to point out the position in the early years in Johannesburg. On the map I am showing now, one can clearly see the open business areas of those years. One can also see what the eventual problems were in that regard. The map shows the position in 1932. It would be very useful for every hon member to read the report of the commission in which this map appears. He Would see that the greatest problems arose in regard to title and open business areas and that the people were never sure about what their position would be the moment they moved out of those areas. Those areas never kept those people in. People always went across the road to establish themselves more firmly in another area.

If I were told that Coloureds and Indians were no longer being discriminated against, that would not be the truth. We still discriminate against them. If one says one wants to have discrimination abolished, one cannot go and tell a person that he can only do business in a particular area. What we are doing here is not implementing the Group Areas Act by law as such, but by way of proclamations people are being brought into areas where they could not otherwise have been. We have an unsolved problem and there are no clear guidelines for the people who have to implement this legislation. The result is that they cannot carry it into effect. The report of 1934 very clearly points to the experience of the people who investigated. They said that what was provided previously by legislation was never enforced and that is why it was a complete failure.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon the Minister. I also have a great deal of respect for the way he deals with matters, but this Bill cannot succeed, and that is why we oppose it.

Mr Speaker, many of the arguments advanced during the course of the debate are really just a repetition of the matters that had already been raised during the Second Reading debate. For the sake of clarity it is probably necessary for the replies given then to be emphasized once again.

The hon member for Green Point asked us to use the legislation to encourage free trading areas. He created the illusion that the department was not very enthusiastic about the section 19 areas in the past. I must say the section 19 areas came about as a result of the very initiatives taken by the department. Initially section 19 was taken up into the Act to make provision for the cases that had to be resettled because one had to find alternative accommodation for the traders who had to be resettled from certain urban areas.

When the report of the Riekert Commission was accepted on this point, viz that free trading areas had to be established, there were certain problems with regard to how this should be implemented, and this delayed the implementation of the Government ’s decision. If it were not for that, free trading areas would already have been declared and implemented in practice with the support of the hon members of the CP who supported it then, but who no longer support it today for the reasons explained by the hon member for Kuruman. They have changed their standpoint on this, and every person is entitled to change his standpoint. If there were no practical problems at that time, as to why it was not introduced then, free trading areas would have been introduced with the support of those hon members. Since then, whilst we were seeking solutions to see how this should be dealt with in practice, hon members changed their standpoint, which I am prepared to accept. Since there was a delay and the Government’s decision could not be implemented immediately, the department used section 19 to introduce free trading areas and to deal with the situation in those areas by way of permits. In the majority of cases we saw the need and took the initiative. The department can therefore not be accused of having been lukewarm or indifferent to the matter. That is also the reason why we now have this amendment to section 19 in the Bill. There is a specific movement away from the idea that one should only have a free trading area in the middle of a town. One need not necessarily have a free trading area in the middle of Adderley Street now, but it could, for example, be in Woodstock or in any other part of Cape Town. This freedom is now being granted and after the necessary investigations, and local authorities having made their recommendations, action will be taken accordingly. We are therefore taking greater liberties in terms of this new provision.

The second reason why we want to effect this amendment is because we no longer wish to control the situation by way of permits when it is no longer necessary, because it places certain restrictions on the population groups that trade in such areas. For example, in terms of Proclamation 228 and other regulations, it would place restrictions on people like clerks, managers and so on, who work in such areas. This amendment will mean that those restrictions on the staff of business undertakings will fall away. The hon member asked me to deal with the question of Proclamation 228 once again. I said during the Second Reading debate that there are certain problems that have to be ironed out in this regard. We are not the only department involved in this, since the Department of Co-operation and Development also has a direct interest on the basis of its powers with regard to the movement of Black people. On that basis the proclamation cannot summarily be withdrawn before all these problems have been considered.

The hon member for Kuruman spoke about the possibility of opening educational facilities. In this regard I also want to refer to religious facilities. I want to tell the hon member about some of the problems the department is experiencing in this regard. Many of the different religions, for example, the Muslims, have a hall at the their place of worship which is used for educational purposes and usually religious instruction of some sort takes place there. In such cases those places are registered as educational institutions. The hon member need only look at District Six to realize that church buildings are excluded from the provisions of the Group Areas Act. People attend services at such church buildings on Friday afternoons, Saturdays or Sundays. That is the case at present, and the situation is not going to change. The amendment has a specific bearing on buildings of religious groups which are used for purposes other than church buildings. Often there are places at Jewish synagogues and other churches where private instruction is given. We are therefore speaking about church premises on which buildings are situated that are used for educational purposes. The situation can now be arranged by way of this provision. Otherwise one does this by way of a permit. If a person wishes to place the school at Loxton, which is standing vacant, at the disposal of Coloureds, it is really the easiest thing in the world to issue a permit without anyone knowing about it. Why would the Minister first advertise in newspapers, have a committee of investigation sit at Loxton and hear the town council, the CP and everyone so as to ultimately place a proclamation in the Gazette that Loxton’s school is now going to be for the Coloureds? Surely it is foolish to provide for such a procedure to be followed. After all, this can now be done by simply issuing a permit. I therefore want to assure the hon member that in terms of this legislation we are not going to place school buildings in rural areas that are standing vacant at the disposal of people of colour. This can be done in another way as well, and we shall therefore not be making use of this legislation in that regard.

The hon member also referred to the Hombré hostel and said that in such a central urban area it could happen that an Indian is sitting below in the Volkskas building and the White students are sitting above in Hombré. However, the legislation is opposed to that. It states that this provision is not applicable “in respect of any building, land or premises which are occupied or used exclusively or partially for residential purposes”. If there were to be a free trading area in Bird Street—if that is the street’s name—that Volkskas building will automatically not be included, or, if it is included, I have to give the Indian who moves in below a permit because there are White students in the upper section of the building.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? In the Bill mention is made of permission for occupation in such a building. Surely that means that a person could also live in such a building, not so?

No, that is not what it says. It says “occupied for residential purposes”. The hon member’s argument falls away now. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? He spoke of a building which is used partially for one purpose and partially for another. What he is referring to is a building in which a business is conducted and which is also lived in. That is something completely different from what the hon member for Kuruman referred to.

No, the hon member must ask his colleague what he was speaking about.

He was speaking about an educational matter.

No, the hon member must ask the hon member for Kuruman about that later. I listened to him carefully. I happen to be familiar with the circumstances to which he referred. Perhaps the hon member for Langlaagte was just not listening very well. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman then held it against me that my MPC, who is also a member of the Executive Committee, made certain statements. Since the time when the hon member was still in the NP caucus, it has been the policy of the Government that as far as possible, every group should have its own facilities, but that when there are no equal facilities for another race group, facilities should be shared. Was that not our policy in his time, too? It remains our policy. It is not being altered. The hon member makes as though all municipal halls are closed today. However, under the same policy we are arranging by way of permits that municipal halls can be opened to other race groups. We are doing so under the policy the hon member supported and assisted in drawing up. There is therefore no change of policy as far as these matters are concerned.

As regards the hon member for Umbilo, I have already told him that I cannot support his local option.

I carefully avoided the expression “local option” this time.

Did the hon member not want an answer from me then?

I just said I did not use the expression “local option”.

The hon member has found out that local option does not work everywhere. I need only refer him to what happened with Durban’s city council. They took certain decisions, and members of the Executive Committee who belong to his party and who are in the majority in the Executive Committee, found it necessary to intervene in that regard. I want to put it to the hon member that it is all very well speaking about local option, but I believe that if this matter is left to local option—that local authorities should be permitted to decide for themselves—the CP would never open trading facilities in certain places to these people, and on the other hand, the PFP would want to open everything. The middle course must therefore be pursued and the Government must be responsible for that, since it is the Government’s policy that is at stake, and we cannot permit either leftists or rightists to undermine the policy of the Government. [Interjections.]

The Government is throwing everything open on behalf of the PFP.

That is a statement to which I need not reply.

I want to thank the hon members for Bellville and Port Elizabeth North for their support, as well as for shedding light on certain arguments from the opposite side of the House. Seeing that the hon member for Port Elizabeth North comes from that city, I want to refer to Kabega Park in particular. Kabega Park was the only remaining Chinese group area. In earlier years there was a Chinese group area in Kimberley, but that was deproclaimed years ago. It so happens that in passing this legislation, Kabega Park will be deproclaimed as a Chinese group area this week, probably on Friday, and it will therefore be a White group area in future.

I have already referred to the remarks made by the hon member for Langlaagte, and particularly his arguments in respect of the present section 19 areas. These areas will not be controlled by way of permits in future. Once these areas have been properly investigated, we shall issue proclamations and permit a greater degree of freedom for participation in trade in those areas.

As regards the Chinese, I want to put it to the hon member that de facto we are not effecting any changes to their situation. What is the CP’s policy in respect of Chinese? Do they want to put the Chinese in a homeland? The fact is that our attitude towards the Chinese as it was when hon members of the CP were still in the National Party remains the same. They are now being permitted as Whites in White areas provided that they comply with certain legal restrictions. No de facto changes are therefore taking place. The position is merely being stabilized by carrying this legislation through.

The hon member also referred to the nominee system. I hope that now that we are permitting people of colour greater freedom so that they can also have a share in the economy, they will restrain themselves from going into White communities by way of non-legal methods, as they are doing today. The hon member for Umbilo pointed out that in terms of the present Group Areas Act we have no provision to restrict the nominee system. Attention has already been given to this matter in the select committee. I hope that there will be changes, for if not, this situation will ultimately have to be looked at by way of legislation.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Mr L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs 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,

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. 1. On page 3, in line 17, to omit “eight” and to substitute “four”.
2. 2. On page 3, in line 21, to omit all the words after “Minister” up to and including “housing” in line 23 and to substitute:
   • on account of their special knowledge of housing matters, of whom at least three shall be from the private sector and at least one shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Urban Foundation.

The hon the Minister is aware that during the Second Reading debate I pointed out the strange provision that the UME had to nominate eight people from whom he was to choose two. I think the nominations could be left to the UME, but in order to give the Minister a certain degree of selection our proposal is that instead of nominating eight people from whom to make his choice they should nominate four. That is why I have moved the first amendment.

The second amendment relates to the situation where the Minister can appoint six additional members to the council. There we believe, in specific terms, that at least three of them should be appointed from the private sector. It may be that the hon the Minister intends doing that. Taking into account the importance of the private sector, not only on an informal basis but also its formal importance, we believe that that should be laid down by statute.

Thirdly, I have included an additional recommendation that I hope the hon the Minister will consider seriously, and that is that one of them should be appointed on the recommendation of the Urban Foundation. The hon the Minister might think it is unusual to include a non-statutory body but with the Urban Foundation having had its fifth anniversary and taking into consideration the impact that this body has made on housing for Coloureds, Indians, Whites and Blacks, we believe that the time has come to acknowledge the Urban Foundation as a factor and allow them to have one member appointed on their recommendation. I have no doubt that the hon the Minister will consider these amendments favourably.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks in regard to the speech by the hon member for Sea Point. One can understand that the hon member wants to reduce the number from eight to four. However, I believe that one should understand why there should be eight, although I personally have no objection to four. We have here 15 people who are going to form the South African Housing Advisory Council, and the hon the Minister in putting that body together will have to be very careful, no matter whom he takes from the various disciplines, that ultimately he ends up with a well balanced council that is representative of various regions, disciplines and skills. Therefore, the bigger the choice the hon the Minister has, the better the possibility that he will have a balanced council. Nevertheless, in my view four members will be sufficient.

As far as the hon member for Sea Point’s second amendment is concerned, I want to say that all of us who are involved with housing have a very deep appreciation for the selfless work that the Urban Foundation is doing. I think we all realize that they have played a very important and catalytic role in regard to housing. They have helped to bring the private sector into low cost housing and have found a modus vivendi there that has been a wonderful achievement. The hon member also suggests that the other members should be from the private sector and I think in this regard there can be little argument. I believe it is the hon the Minister’s intention to use people from the private sector. However, although one recognizes the wonderful work done by the Urban Foundation, this is not the only body with the kind of skills that the hon the Minister wishes to attract. Just offhand I can for instance think of the Institute of Housing that busies itself with low-cost housing throughout the country. This is an august body of long standing—that is very skilful, and one could develop an equally strong argument as to why their name should be mentioned in the Bill. Then there are other institutes, for example the Institute of Land Surveyors and organizations such as Sapoa, one that one could argue has first call on nominating people. However, I am quite sure that the hon the Minister, when he seeks to put this council together, will consult all of these organized bodies that deal with housing, for instance the Institute of Housing, the Institute of land Surveyors, Sapoa, the Institute of Estate Agents and the Institute of Valuers; in other words, the hon the Minister would call upon people who are involved with property in general to put forward nominations. Therefore, however much regard we have for the work of the Urban Foundation, I think it would be a mistake to write the name of a specific organization into the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in so far as these amendments are concerned , we will be supporting the first one moved by the hon member for Sea Point. We also feel that it is a bit unreasonable to call on such a body as the UME to provide eight from whom one would only choose two. As I think I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, I feel that this is almost an affront to people of such eminent stature. Therefore, we shall be supporting that particular amendment.

In so far as the hon member’s second amendment is concerned, whilst I fully agree with him that the private sector must be involved in this, I also agree with the hon member for Maitland that to choose the Urban Foundation specifically in this regard is quite wrong. There are many other bodies that have an equal and possibly superior right, certainly in terms of experience and know-how and many, many other respects. Whilst I have the greatest respect for the work the Urban Foundation is doing, it is a relatively new body and it does not have anything like the background of a number of other organizations that could be considered in this regard.

Such as?

Well, there is Bifsa, for example. The CSIR also has considerable experience. Just recently they produced a document dealing with cheap forms of housing and so forth. For that matter, others have also been mentioned by the hon member for Maitland and I cannot see any point in wasting time by simply repeating the ones that he mentioned. As I say, the Urban Foundation have done a wonderful job. I agree with that, but to specify them in an Act of Parliament as having to be represented on this body is really, I think, going a trifle too far. Therefore, I cannot support this.

There is no doubt about the fact that this council can be a very, very important body indeed. This being so, the private sector must be well represented on it. With due respect to the officials—and, as far as I can see, there are going to be a number of officials on this body—they do not have quite the same feel for the private sector as people from the private sector themselves do. They do not have the same understanding of the economies that are involved and can be incorporated as people from the private sector have. Therefore, it is vitally important that the private sector are included. There are several major developers in the private sector—I do not wish to name them—about which the hon the Minister knows probably as much as I do. These are major developers that have made major development schemes available very cheaply indeed. These people could also be used as consultants in this particular field even if they are not going to be appointed to the body itself. In fact, I think it may even possibly be undesirable to have them on the body but they should certainly be consulted because there are many of them with great ideas in regard to bringing costs down.

Therefore I want to repeat that while we will support the first amendment of the hon member for Sea Point, we shall not be able to support his second amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that I shall accept the first amendment of the hon member for Sea Point. I must now move a consequential amendment, something he did not notice. This is contained in my second amendment to this clause, in which the number must now be reduced from six to two. There will no longer be six members left over. The idea was that of the six members one does not take, two must be alternatives. But there are no longer going to be six members left, and I must now automatically take the other two as alternates.

I am very glad that the hon member for Sea Point drew up the second part of his amendment in such a way that a discussion could follow which specially singled out the contribution made by the Urban Foundation with regard to housing. This is particularly appropriate in this year in which they are commerating their establishment and which is a special year for them. The hon member for Umbilo and the hon member for Maitland were, however, quite right in saying that we cannot favour this relatively young organization and specifically single it out in the legislation while omitting others. If I just consider the contributions which such organizations as Garden Cities and the Housing League have made here in Cape Town during the past decades, then the contribution which the Urban Foundation has so far made is completely overshadowed. But I am glad that the hon member referred to the Urban Foundation on this occasion so that we could single out the work being done by this organization for a while. The fact remains that there are other organizations such as Sapod, the SA Housing Institute, the CSIR, which we shall have to recognize and consider along with the Urban Foundation and others when we appoint the members. I want to accommodate the hon member, and that is why I am moving my first amendment in which I state that those six members must be people who are not in the full-time employment of the State. The result is that we can now consult all these deserving organizations and accommodate them. That is why I worded the amendment in this way. If we take these six members and we take the two the United Municipal Executive may nominate in terms of the provisions of clause 2(l)(c), the members from the private sector already have a majority on the council. I agree with that; it is the intention of the department for members from the private sector to form the majority on this council. We are also spelling this out specifically here. This is also my reply to the hon member for Umbilo. We want to involve these people in housing and it is only fair that we make use of their knowledge on this council while still retaining the advantage of the officials we have in the day-to-day administration.

Consequently I think that I have accommodated the hon member by agreeing to his amendment and also by providing that the persons appointed in terms of clause 2, shall be persons who are not in the full-time employment of the State. I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 3. On page 3, in line 20, after “persons” to insert:
   • who are not in the full-time employment of the State and
2. 4. On page 3, in line 32, to omit “six” and to substitute “two”.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my satisfaction at the fact that the amendments I placed on the Order Paper stimulated the hon the Minister into moving an amendment himself. What he has done, was to place emphasis on the contribution the private sector must make in the field of housing. That was not the spirit of the original Bill. The least I had hoped for was that the hon the Minister would give us certain assurances across the floor of this House, but he went even further and moved in his amendment that those six members should be outside the public sector. Under those circumstances and with the leave of the Committee I shall withdraw my second amendment.

The reason why I referred to the Urban Foundation was to take this opportunity to emphasize the exceptional work that organization is doing. I am in no way detracting from the work of the Citizens’ Housing League or that of my friends in Garden Cities. I grew up with them. Nowadays we are seeking new building methods, new practices and new methods of financing houses. I think that in this specific sphere, in the five years of its existence the Urban Foundation, because it is a new organization, has come up with more innovations than all the other bodies put together. This in no way detracts from the work of the old established organizations, however, but I am glad that in his remarks here today and in his amendment the hon the Minister saw fit to make it clear that if we wanted to undertake this task there had to be innovation and new ideas. The amalgamation of the old and the new orders will perhaps lead to this advisory council being of tremendous use to the State and the general public.

For that reason, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my second amendment.

Amendment 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 1, 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clauses 3 to 12 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I am merely rising to say on behalf of the CP that we cannot support this legislation because the Bill makes provision for a multiracial advisory council with regard to housing matters and this is a consequence of the Constitution.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I have much pleasure in welcoming the hon the Minister back to the House. We are very glad to see that he has made it.

Only just!

The PFP will be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. We want to express our regret, as we have already done in the earlier stages of the Bill, at the fact that the hon the Minister has not seen his way clear to delaying the Bill and referring it to a committee, preferably one constituted in terms of the new dispensation, so that it could become the topic for discussion of such a committee consisting of Coloureds, Indians and Whites. We do not think that in the course of the debates on the Bill anything has been said to cause us to amend our standpoint in this connection. There is nothing of fundamental importance in the Bill that could not have been postponed till then. We believe that it could have contributed greatly towards improving relations and creating a better atmosphere amongst the various groups. It could have been a useful topic for discussion for such a committee to engage in. I have already said that only minor and small amendments would be necessary, in regard to the by-election system, to make provision for the possibility of by-elections shortly after the elections of 22 and 28 August. We regret the fact that this has not been complied with.

There are two other matters I should like to have clarified. The first relates to the question of the registration of voters. In this regard the Bill has nothing to say about an aspect that we think is reasonably important. Thus far we have not heard this aspect raised by anyone in the course of the debates on this Bill. At the commencement of this Bill there will be a certain category of voters, ie those who are on voters’ lists at present, or who will be on voters’ lists at the commencement of this measure, who will in fact be entitled to be registered as voters in spite of the fact that they are not in possession of an identity document. That will apply until such time as the following election takes place. The relevant question I should like to put to the hon the Minister is whether the legislation is merely creating a situation entitling those people to be registered, or a situation providing for those people to remain registered? I think it is important to have clarity about this distinction. As we see it, at present the Bill only provides for those people to have the right to re-register as voters. People who have moved from their constituencies, and who want to re-register in another constituency, are of course hereby excluded. They will not, in any event, be able to reregister in another constituency until such time as they are in possession of an identity document. We should very much like to know, however, whether it is the department’s aim—and whether this can be entrenched in legislation—that those people should indeed continue to be registered until such time it is said that they should no longer have that privilege, and whether they would then have to re-apply, in terms of the old system, for re-registration as voters. That is the impression the Bill leaves us with. I do not think it is something that necessarily has to be written into the legislation, and perhaps the hon the Minister could take steps to ensure, from an administrative point of view that that is the case. If that were to be done, it would ensure that people were not unnecessarily disfranchised. It would eliminate problems that various political parties have and would ensure all political parties of the best possible results under the circumstances.

During the Second Reading debate mention was made, by CP speakers, of the position of political parties, particularly amongst the non-White population, which adopted certain standpoints in regard to the elections in August and in regard to subsequent participation. I think specific reference was made to the UDF. I think it was the hon member for Kuruman who specifically asked the hon the Minister whether he was going to take any action against that organization. I was glad to read, in the hon the Minister’s reply, that he had said that as long as such an organization acted within the parameters of the Act, no action would be taken against it and that it would have the right to propagate its standpoint. We cannot fault that; in fact we are in full agreement with that standpoint. I am glad that this aspect has been clearly set out. The hon the Minister, however, made another point which does bother me a little and which relates to precisely the same situation, and I am referring to what he said about the Government being prepared to allow people to abstain from voting, but not being prepared to allow them to do any boycotting. The hon the Minister himself has referred to the fact that certain people act unlawfully because they perhaps try, by way of intimidation or in some other way, to prevent people from participating in elections or even being registered as voters, etc. I think the hon the Minister knows what our standpoint in that connection is. We do not have any sympathy with people who contravene the law in that respect. We do believe, however, that it is extremely important that if people do not contravene any laws of the land, there should be no interference whatsoever in their right to advocate participation in the new dispensation or to oppose it and to support candidates or work against them. It is specifically in regard to that aspect that I am a little concerned, because in several debates in the course of this session, for example the debate on the amendment to the Electoral Act, and in the debate on the hon the Minister’s Vote, we have thus far been unable to succeed in obtaining an unequivocal statement from the hon the Minister on this issue. If the hon the Minister is now saying that it is all right to abstain from voting, but not to boycott, I would very much appreciate it if he could define that term, because I think it is a person’s right to say that he does not want to vote and then to organize people accordingly. As long as such people act within the law I think that, whatever their political standpoint might be, they should have the right to act accordingly. It is not merely a question of whether a person agrees with that, but also a question of what one permits and what one accepts within the framework of a democratic system. I really do think that the hon the Minister owes it to us, to the public and, in particular, to the population groups which, in August, will have an opportunity of taking part in elections, to give us complete clarity on that matter. I think that any uncertainty in that regard could give rise to problems.

I have previously mentioned the fact that there were regrettable signs of unnecessary interference, for example on the part of the Police, in the activities of certain organizations. If they are acting unlawfully, that is one thing, but if they are not, that is quite another matter. It seems to me that there are just too many of these people’s pamphlets being confiscated on the grounds—so it is alleged—of their contents possibly being illegal. Then they are subsequently found not to be illegal and are returned when they no longer have any value, perhaps because they advertise something which, at that stage, no longer has any validity. As far as I am concerned, the simple fact of the matter is that if there is any doubt about something like that, one needs only one pamphlet to ascertain whether the contents are within the parameters of the law. If there is any doubt on the part of the authorities, whether it be the Police, the Publications Board or anyone else, they must not take any action until they have a reasonable suspicion that there is something wrong with such a pamphlet. The same applies to the confiscation of video tapes and other equipment and to the way in which leaders of such organizations, supporters of such organizations, people organizing meetings and others are treated. Interfering with such people simply does not accord with democratic principles, unless there are very clear indications that they are acting unlawfully. I must honestly say that my impression is that in recent months those principles have not always been adhered to. I would very much like the hon the Minister, who is responsible for the administration of the Bill before us, to at least clarify his standpoint in this regard. We hope that his standpoint will be that people should have the right to do what they think fit within the parameters of the law. I think that interfering in the activities of people whose standpoint it is to abstain from voting, can only be damaging to the campaigns and organization of those who do want to participate. I simply do not believe that if one creates even the slightest impression of Government intimidation in those communities this would, in any way, promote the interests of the new dispensation. I sincerly hope that the hon the Minister will make his standpoint in this connection quite clear.

As we have already indicated, we shall be opposing the Third Reading of this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I cannot understand why the PFP is opposing both the Second Reading and the Third Reading of this measure, because the hon member for Green Point’s arguments were really very tenuous ones.

We have great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill because we, as participants in democracy, believe that it is necessary to facilitate the electoral procedure in South Africa, as is in fact being done in this Bill. As Parliamentarians we should like to state, on this occasion, that we are looking forward to the new system in terms of which people whose names are in the population register will automatically be placed on the voters’ list. This means, in point of fact, that in future every citizen can be registered by way of the population register and the concomitant changes of address.

On this occasion I should like to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on one matter. I asked quite a few colleagues of mine on this side of the House whether they were convinced about people co-operating in terms of the new procedure, ie being registered as voters in terms of the population register, and whether they were satisfied that there would be the necessary reaction in regard to the changes of address. It would seem as if everyone is agreed that unless some or other legal sanction, compelling bodies to help the State, is imposed in the future, by municipalities for example, we shall be experiencing the same problem when it comes to drawing up comprehensive voters’ lists because, people being what they are, they neglect to give notification of changes of address.

During the Third Reading of this measure I should like to ask the hon the Minister and his department to have an indepth look at whether some or other legal obligation should not be imposed on municipalities and other bodies with which people do business compelling them to send changes of address to the Department of Internal Affairs. When someone moves to a new flat, for example, he furnishes his change of address when he has the water and electricity connected. The intention is that the department should request municipalities to co-operate in notifying the department of changes of address. I really do believe that if, in future, we want to obviate large shortcomings in the voters’ lists, some or other legal sanction will have to be incorporated at some or other point. There are many points at which this can be done, one example being municipalities, when people have their electricity and water connected. Business transactions are also conducted with banks and post offices where people have a post office savings account. Then there are also legal transactions, for example the registration of deeds of transfer, hire purchase and ordinary rental transactions.

The question in the minds of everyone in this House is whether our positive aim in regard to this measure, ie that of having the population register serve as a basis for our voters’ lists, will not be negated, with voters’ lists ending up in a complete jumble of confusion owing to insufficient co-operation being obtained from the relevant bodies and because people, true to their nature, do not meet their obligations in regard to this matter. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to keep a constant eye on this. In the long run democracy is undermined when Parliamentarians and political parties have to spend a tremendous amount of time on the registration of voters. In a country like South Africa it is very important for the political message of the various political parties, the message of democracy, and people’s participation in it, to be conveyed, rather than for time to be spent on administrative and organizational tasks such as the maintenance of voters’ lists. I really do believe that since it is our intention to have democracy triumph in South Africa, in the new dispensation, too—democracy in terms of which one can, by way of party-political involvement and participation in politics, maintain freedom of thought and political participation— it is vital to take the greatest possible load off the shoulders of political parties, Parliamentarians or other representatives in the constituencies. We have all come to realize increasingly that politics has become a full-time occupation. Politics, democracy, takes up so much of the time of each and every one of us that one simply has to try to devote less time to routine work and other administrative problems.

As it is a pleasure for us to be supporting the Third Reading of this measure, it is likewise an honour and privilege for us, on this side of the House, to know that the measure is going to ensure the future participation of Coloureds and Indians in the democratic process. We believe that in future a tremendous responsibility will be resting on the shoulders of each and every one of us, and also on the shoulders of those of our colleagues who will be participating in the democratic process in future. In welcoming them, I want to express the hope that we shall not be using this measure, in a complex South African set-up, to bedevil relationships in the political sphere or to arouse emotions. All of us who are going to participate in the new dispensation and who are, in terms of this measure, going to be participating in politics in practical terms, must continually bear in mind, on the road ahead, that democracy can only be maintained if we do not incite people against one another, because otherwise it will not be possible to ensure consistently sound relations in the sphere of practical politics. We on this side of the House therefore cannot see ourselves, in terms of a measure such as this, entering the parliamentary political arena as enemies. We should rather do so as partners in the maintenance of democracy. The White partners will be in this House, the Coloured partners in their House, and the Indian partners in their House. We all have a task, that of giving practical, visible and tangible effect to democracy so that all our children can pick the fruits of a free South Africa in which people can air their opinions, of a free South Africa in which people can be elected on the strength of the opinions they have aired on behalf of the parties for which they have stood for elections.

With these few words we on this side of the House would like to thank the hon the Minister for this measure and express the hope that as politicians we shall, in practical terms, be able to do credit to South Africa in the implementation of the democratic process.

In conclusion I should like to say thank you very much to our esteemed Chief Whip, who was chairman of the select committee which investigated this legislation. Those of us in the select committee greatly appreciated the fine way in which he contributed towards the proceedings. We should like to thank him for what all of us in the select committee were able to learn from him as chief Whip, a person who has served many years as a practical politician.

Mr Speaker, I should like to endorse the concluding sentiments of the hon member for Innesdal in regard to the hon the Chief Whip of the NP in the sense that it was an exceptional task the hon member performed in the select committee.

In no way, however, can I endorse the hon member for Innesdal’s pen-ultimate remark. This side of the House rejects any thought of a partnership with Coloureds and Asians in the same political dispensation. We completely reject power-sharing.

This amending Bill has actually fundamentally affected two laws, i.e. the Population Registration Act and the Electoral Act. If one were to judge this Bill at face value, one could say that it contained much that was important, much that was an improvement as far as the electoral system is concerned. The hon the Deputy Minister said that at present the population register contained the names of 95% of those who were entitled to vote and that it would be used in future as a basis for drawing up the voters’ lists for the three population groups. If, at present, the population register contains the names of 95% of those who are entitled to vote, the initial assumption is that as a result the voters’ lists ought to function at 95% efficiency. This percentage can, however, be increased on the grounds of the fact that the Bill before us makes provision for monthly adjustments to the voters’ lists. Deletions, additions and so on must be done on a monthly basis, and these corrections should, therefore, increase the percentage.

On the other hand there are also negative factors influencing the percentage, factors which can either decrease it, and one of these is the fact that voters move from one place to another. Voters are forever moving from one constituency to another, and in the process they neglect to register themselves in their new constituency. They fail to give notification of their change of address and are therefore not reregistered in their new constituency. That would create a problem, not only in regard to the voters’ lists, but also in regard to the population register, a problem that will have to be resolved in some or other way. What methods could we employ to prevent the problem occurring? There are probably various ways of doing so, but I would like to suggest one method that could perhaps be put to the test and which could possibly prove successful.

When a single person moves from one address to another, this could cause problems, but I think that my proposal could prove to be a solution in the case of families moving from one address to another. A present-day family moving from A to B is going to be living in a flat or a house, and the head of the family must eventually apply to the local authorities for the water and electricity supplies to be connected. He must therefore have himself registered there. So because certain forms must be completed at town or city council offices in order to register for the abovementioned purposes, I wonder whether the Department of Internal Affairs cannot make the necessary registration or change of address forms available in the offices of each town and city council in the country. As soon as anyone then comes along to register with the city council he can, at one and the same time, complete the Department of Internal Affairs’ change of address forms. The only further responsibility resting with the city councils would be to return the completed forms to the Department. I believe that in that way we shall be able to succeed in tracing a large number of voters who have moved from one address to another and be able to succeed in keeping changes of address up to date. I cannot believe that the town or city councils, which from time to time hold their own elections, and would therefore also have an interest in their voters’ lists being kept up to date, would not be prepared to be of assistance in this context. I think that because local authorities will, in future, be subject to the constraints of the central Government to such an extent, that small additional constraint can also be imposed upon them for the sake of a more comprehensive voters’ list which could then resolve the whole problem of absent voters to a large extent.

This brings me to my next point. In this House we lodged a plea for either postal votes or those for absent voters to be done away with. We said that they would fall into disuse as the voters’ lists were brought up to date and there were increasingly fewer absent voters. The hon the Minister, however, rejected this idea. I do not know whether he did so on the grounds that the hon member Mr Kritzinger immediately cast this in a political mould and did not debate the argument that I advanced in support of my standpoint in my Second Reading speech. He immediately cast it in a political mould by saying that the reason why we wanted to get rid of that system was, of course, because the CP’s political mechanisms were in such a parlous state that it would not be able to handle postal votes. That is far from being the truth, because the CP is quite capable of handling these matters, and has the necessary mechanisms for doing so. I was not viewing this matter in a political context at all. I was merely viewing it in a practical light, from the point of view of a voters’ list which would be as comprehensive as possible and would therefore result in their being the least possible number of absent voters. It was also my conviction that since special votes had, in any event, been substituted as an alternative to the postal vote system, the system having proved itself to be a very successful mechanism—so much so that the CP won Potgietersrus as a result—that had hitherto seemed to be very effective. I think it would be sufficient for that small percentage of absent voters who would find it necessary to vote by way of special votes, with postal votes eventually disappearing from the scene altogether.

In this legislation provision is being made for the State President to decide on occasion—as has already been decided in regard to the elections for the Coloureds and Indians—that the postal vote system shall not be used. So if the postal vote system is so terribly important in an election, I do not see why provision should be made for it not to be used on occasion. To me that is an indication that postal votes are actually becoming obsolete, that they are disappearing from the system and that they can therefore safely be omitted from the system. I am convinced of the fact that as it becomes apparent that the population register is so successful that the voters’ lists can be kept so much up to date that there are a minimum number of absent voters, the irrelevance of the postal vote system well become apparent and it will be seen how unnecessary it is.

Let me also refer the hon the Minister back to clause 12(c), in which provision is being made for the fact that if a person’s name is not on a voters’ list and he wants to vote, he will in fact be able to do so if he can furnish proof that he either was on a voters’ list, which can possibly be proved, or on the other hand that he had applied for his identity document. In my Second Reading Speech I referred to this matter, and I want to refer to it again because I believe that it constitutes part of the effect of this Bill. Someone might, of course, say that he has applied, but how does he prove it? How does he prove to the returning officer that he has applied if he has not received some or other document from the department on which he can base his statement that he has, in fact, made the application? Without that proof it would be a question of his word against the other man’s, and I would not blame the returning officer if he told the person concerned that he had to turn him away because he could not offer the necessary proof. That is why I am saying that this piece of legislation is going to cause embarrassment in such cases. It would therefore be a good thing if the hon the Minister—he could do it by some other means; it is not necessary to have it embodied in this legislation, nor need their be any legislation to cover the eventuality— could arrange for people to apply for identity documents in duplicate, so that when the application is handed in, the duplicate is merely stamped by the department and returned to the applicant so that he has some proof of having applied. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not, after all, be prepared to tell me, here in the Third Reading Stage, what he thinks of this idea. At Second Reading it was merely allowed to slip past. For the successful practical implementation of this legislation, in terms of which a right being conferred on a voter cannot be exercised by that voter with out his having the necessary proof, I am convinced that that right should be protected by way of a document which would be made available to him and which he could then submit as proof of the fact that he had applied.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether the question of deaths and identity documents cannot be separated from the Electoral Act and linked to the registration of deaths. If, upon notification of death, the dead person’s identity document must be handed in at the same time, the chances of having an odd document floating around are minimal.

Provision is being made for that in Act.

Provision for what?

[Inaudible.]

The question is simply whether this will have the effect of preventing identity documents from being left floating around when someone dies.

Another matter in regard to which I should like more detailed information from the hon the Minister is the effect of the proposed subsection (1A), as embodied in clause 71(b), which provides that if someone’s name is not on a voters’ list and he insists on voting, the returning officer can allow him to vote, but his vote will not count, being kept to one side. Does it mean that that vote would not be counted at all in that specific election, only being kept in reserve in the event of court proceedings being instituted?

Please repeat that question?

It concerns the proposed subsection (1A), as embodied in clause 71(b), in which provision is made for a person, whose name does not appear on a voters’ list, to vote, with the returning officer not counting that vote, but just putting it to one side. My question is whether that vote is not going to be counted at all in that specific election, in other words that permission is granted for that vote to be cast merely to make the voter happy at the fact that he is not being sent away without having voted, or does it mean that that vote will only be counted if there were to be a court case in that connection? The problem I have in this regard concerns who it is who must eventually determine whether that vote should be counted or not. Would it be the returning officer who would have to prove that that vote could, in fact, have been cast, or would the onus rest on the voter who was permitted to cast a vote? That is something which is not yet quite clear to me and about which I should like a more detailed explanation.

I think that in the legislation justice is now being done in respect of every political party for which the authorities are prepared to permit registration under certain conditions, because in future such political parties will be able to take part in any election without being compelled to submit statements or signatures or whatever. I think it is only right, in terms of the system of democracy, that if a party is permitted to register, it is sufficient for such a party to be able to put up its candidates in order to participate in an election and also to lay claim to the benefits to be derived from the voters’ list.

The legislation is a general piece of legislation which is now making provision for the election of all three the population groups involved. As we said at the commencement of the Second Reading debate, our one big problem with the Bill is specifically the fact of its being a general Act making provision for the election of representatives for a racially mixed Parliament. The hon the Minister said that it was necessary to have uniformity in this connection, but the hon the Minister said too that the other population groups themselves would, at a later stage, also be permitted to effect amendments, as it suited them.

If that were permitted, however, the effect would be to destroy the uniformity which the hon the Minister was endeavouring to achieve in the Electoral Acts. I am just pointing that out, because of course we on this side of the House do not see the loss of that uniformity as presenting any problem, because we would like each population group to have its own Electoral Act, for each Coloured and Indian group to have its own Electoral Act in accordance with its own wishes and requirements, with each group, by way of its own Electoral Act, electing its own representatives, its own Parliament, in its own territory so that they can govern themselves and not be part of one political system comprising Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

On the grounds of this Bill being a general piece of legislation, resulting from the new Constitution, which we reject, the CP will also be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Koedoespoort’s speech. I want to make it very clear in the House this afternoon that the process of the implementation of the new constitution, on which the voters of the Republic of South Africa gave a very clear decision on 2 November 1983, cannot be nullified. As far as this amending Bill is concerned, the CP has a problem, for the simple reason that as a political party it does not see its way clear to having provision made, in one piece of legislation, for registering voters, compiling voters’ lists and arranging for elections for all three groups. Within the parameters of the Bill we are dealing with this afternoon, each South African citizen will have the full right to exercise his democratic right in this country. I also listened to the speech of the hon member for Brakpan. The hon member for Brakpan’s standpoint was exactly the same as that of the hon member for Koedoespoort.

Surely that goes without saying.

It is their standpoint that they would not find the measure before the House to be a problem if only it were not made applicable to Whites. The course the CP has charted has only one end in view, and that is something I want to state very clearly this afternoon: The fact is that they begrudge other groups in the Republic of South Africa the same rights that they demand for themselves. That is the difference between the NP and the CP. Would they like the paper on which the Electoral Act for Whites is printed to be white paper, whilst begrudging that to people of colour? Surely that is ridiculous, and that is the kind of argument we must get away from. In the new dispensation the Government has committed itself, beyond all shadow of a doubt, to the fact that it will not begrudge the other two population groups, ie the Coloureds and the Asians, anything that it demands for itself. So why should there be separate Acts in this connection? The hon member for Koedoespoort should go and re-read the speech which the hon the Minister made during the Second Reading debate and in which he expressly said that elections would be an own affair. In this connection the hon member for Green Point contents that his party is going to vote against the legislation because the other population groups are not being given an opportunity to participate in legislation affecting them. I listened attentively, however, to the speech the hon the Minister made during the Second Reading debate, a speech in which he clearly stated that the other groups should be consulted in regard to the measure. And that is what happened.

The hon member for Koedoespoort spoke of the proof that officials should furnish when someone applies for an identity document. The hon member raised the same argument during the Second Reading debate. One must give the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs credit for what they did during the referendum. They furnished an extensive service, and we must pay tribute to them for that. The hon member also had a great deal to say about the system of postal votes, and to a certain extent I can understand his concern. As the hon member for Innesdal has said, we must continue to encourage the voters of South Africa to submit their changes of address when they move from one address to another. If that were to be done it would, to a large extent, resolve the problems relating to special votes and postal votes. One merely needs to look at what happened during the two recent by-elections. People who have been living in a different constituency for months neglect to give notification of their change of address. This causes a great deal of discontent when a voter turns up at a polling station to cast his vote, only to find that his name does not appear on the voters’ list. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, by way of his department, to make renewed efforts to bring it to the attention of very registered voter in South Africa that he should give notification of changes of address in good time, particularly in view of the fact that the drawing up of voters’ lists is now going to be based on the population register.

The hon member for Koedoespoort also referred to clauses 6 and 7 which deal with the cancellation of identity documents. Clauses 6 and 7 provide for the handing in of identity documents. The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to the registration of deaths, and in this connection I should like to make what I consider to be a practicable proposal. It need not, however, necessarily be incorporated in this legislation. The Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act makes provision for the registration of a death to take place upon notification of such death, accompanied by a death certificate issued by a medical practitioner.

That is precisely what I said.

The hon member should do himself a favour and listen. He should pay attention for a moment and be patient. Sir, I think that is where the solution lies. One cannot, in absolute terms, provide in legislation that registration of death cannot take place before such a document is handed in, because that would create practical problems. A person often does far from home. In such a case that document is not available. At present we find that when deaths are registered, identity documents are, in fact, handed in the majority of cases. The Assistant Registrar then cancels the document. One can, however, also register a death without the document being handed in. My standpoint is—and I offer this as a suggestion—that the issuing of an official death certificate, which is absolutely essential for the administration of an estate and for instituting a claim against an insurance company, should be delayed until the relevant identity document is handed in. That would then not cause people, in the midst of their sorrow, to be inconvenienced. I want to offer, as a suggestion, that we amend the relevant Act so as to bridge the problem.

I have asked myself what object the legislator had in mind with the measure before the House this afternoon. In that connection I have singled out a few points. Firstly, in this measure the procedures relating to the registration of voters are being improved. Secondly, the electoral procedures are being streamlined. Thirdly, the procedures relating to the nomination of candidates are being simplified. Fourthly, these measures even facilitate the registration of political parties too. Then there is the drawing up of the voters’ fist from the population register. I think that we shall thereby again be bringing home, to South African citizens, the value of their identity documents, with the result that anyone in possession of such a document will ensure that he gives notification of his change of address when he moves from one address to another. The hon member for Innesdal gave several examples of how this could be done, and I want to endorse what he said.

There is a further point I should like to highlight. It relates to the other groups. I really do find it regrettable that both the CP and the official Opposition have decided to oppose this measure. Let me tell them that in doing so they are merely going to do the other groups a disservice. In his second reading speech the hon the Minister spelt out very clearly that the measure before the House had nothing to do with the elections that are going to be taking place in August. There is a possibility, however, that shortly after the elections for those two groups, byelections might have to be held. I would not like to deprive those people of that right. That is why this party will take full responsibility for ensuring that we do not begrudge the other groups any of the rights that we demand for ourselves as voters in the RSA. Then, and only then, will we be manifesting the correct attitude towards other groups.

This afternoon I therefore want to tell both the PFP, the official Opposition, and the CP, that they will have to change their attitude towards the new dispensation, because the way in which they conduct themselves in the new dispensation, and the attitudes they display, will determine the degree to which they, as Opposition parties, will, in this House, be able to make a contribution which is in the interests of the RSA. I take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just resumed his seat made some very interesting observations during the course of his speech. There is much of what he said with which I agree wholeheartedly and which I would like to deal with in due course.

We supported, with a certain measure of reservation, the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe that the amendment which were accepted during the Committee Stage have certainly served to improve it, although they did not go as far as we would have liked them to go. However, I do not want to rehash all the arguments of the Second Reading or those we voiced during the Committee Stage as I do not believe that we will achieve much by doing that. I believe that we might achieve something by discussing the effects of this measure.

The most important effect is obviously that it will enable the coming elections to take place more easily. It enables vacancies to be filled in terms of the Act as amended to suit that circumstance. Most important of all, I believe, is the fact that this measure has at least put us on the road on which we should have been a long time ago, namely the road of modernization and computerization of our voters’ rolls. At long last we are reaching the stage where we will have the use of a very valuable document as a means of establishing the right of an individual to have his name included in a voters’ roll in a constituency in our country. In order to do that, we need to do something tremendously important. We need to highlight to the population the importance of the identity document that every individual should carry.

To date I think every South African accepts one thing, namely that he must have a birth certificate. From that moment onwards —particularly those who are senior citizens—we believe we are part of laissez-faire society in which we can do as we like. We believe that we have done the right thing as our parents have established the fact that we were born, and that all we ever need to produce to anybody to prove that we are in fact citizens of this fair country, that we are entitled to live in this fair country, is proof of our birth, by way of our birth certificate. However, I think that has changed, and that what we should instil into people now, is the fact that each and every one of us should have and identity document. It should not be a meaningless document but one which reflects accurately who we are, what we are and where we live. This should be accurate at all times.

We must make ourselves the sort of society where people understand clearly that without that identity document and without it being accurate, one will not be able to transact business or do the things which are so commonplace. We should ask ourselves— we have debated this ad nauseam—whether we expect the local authorities, the banks or the business houses to do this. It simply all comes back to the individual. We are the people who should do it and who should be motivated. This is where we come down to the matter of education and information. I believe the time is now upon us where the Department of Internal Affairs should start an education and information programme. It should not be a flash in the pan for one election only but they should start now on a continuous information and education programme for all the people of South Africa. They should be allocated funds for this but, let met say, not on the scale of things that we had with toll roads. It needs to be something more meaningful. It must get to the people. Everybody should be made aware that as much as they need to have a birth certificate they should also have that valuable document, that little booklet, on them and updated at all times.

I would venture to suggest that life should be made difficult without an identity document. I know it is easy to say that one should introduce some sort of legislation and make it an offence not to have an updated document. I do not think we need a 16 lb hammer to swat a fly. I do, however, sincerely believe that we can start, after a reasonable period of time and after a reasonable period of this education programme that I envisage, to make life a little more difficult if people are not prepared to listen and to adhere to a simple rule.

Having said that, I think we will find ultimately that we will move into new pastures. We will find ultimately that the whole electoral process and the whole voters’ roll system will become something far more modern in the sense that one may find in future that political parties may even be able to gain access to the computer main frame situated in Pretoria. After all, they cannot alter the information in that main frame, but they can certainly gain access to it if they are given the wherewithal to do it through their own computer terminals. I can see that this is going to come. I can also see that the day will come when political parties will be able to gain access to that main frame and withdraw information as often as they need to as long as they cannot alter anything. The only person who can do any alteration is the individual himself by submitting such requirement to the department who then makes the alteration. Only the department will be able to alter the information taken up in the computer. There are many exciting possibilities for the future. I think some people will even say that the day will come when people will be able to press a button and vote. I doubt if any of us will see that in our lifetimes, although never is a very long time. I think if we ever get to that stage there will be a certain amount of cheating.

The department will be on the ball then.

Yes, as my hon colleague says. However, whatever does happen, what we in this party would like to place on record is our sincere good wishes to the members of both the Indian and Coloured communities who will be going into an election process in order to elect representatives to their respective Chambers in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa for the first time at the end of August. I should like to place on record our sincerest hope that they will be able to go into that election peacefully and without fear of intimidation from any quarter whatsoever, that they will be able to exercise their democratic right to vote, and that they will return representatives to Parliament who are deserving of the positions that they will fulfil on behalf of their communities when their time comes. We support the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr Speaker, I can find no fault with what the previous hon speaker said. He actually made some very good suggestions.

The hon member for Witbank, however, has given evidence in this House of being someone who wants to give everyone the benefit of his didacticism and tell us what to do. I just want to ask him whether he was the one who told the members of the CP to change their attitude towards the new dispensation? [Interjections.] That is what the hon member asked us to do. He went on to say that he did not begrudge the other population groups any of the things that he claimed for himself. Is that correct?

That is correct. I do not begrudge others what I claim for myself.

Wonderful! That only applies to his vote, to registration, but not to residential areas. The hon member does not give the other population groups the same opportunities. [Interjections.] He must therefore not profess to be honest and sincere in saying that he does not begrudge other groups the same rights that he demands for himself, because he is only doing so in regard to registration. The hon member is trying to advocate here what he does not do in practise himself. The hon member had a great deal to say about the Rosettenville result.

I just feel very sorry for you.

Yes, I am sure he does. The hon member often works with corpses, and not one of them can contradict him. I am putting the hon member in his place, and that is why he feels sorry for me. The fact of the matter is that we did not have one registered party member in Rosettenville, but in spite of that we attracted 30% of the votes, notwithstanding the fact that quite a few obstacles were placed in our way.

The CP has not yet got over the shock.

The hon member should rather confine his attention to Witbank, because I understand there are already quite a few Creoles in the Witbank city centre. He should rather try to have them registered, because I understand that the people of colour are not actually applying to be registered there. If he can get those people to register he would at least be doing something positive.

Let me tell the hon the Minister today that I am concerned about this Bill, and I shall tell him why. For many years now I have been involved in by-elections, and there is one thing I have come across. A municipality registers people without having anyone sign as a witness, because there is no legislation that imposes any such requirement. Municipalities register anyone who asks to be registered. They register anyone who pays his accounts, on which his new address is reflected, by cheque. How can they check whether such a person really does qualify to be placed on a voters’ list? Over the years someone has had to sign as witness whenever anyone was registered as a voter, and the witness’s address also had to be supplied. If he did not furnish the address of his place of employment, the card was discarded. If there was no witness, the card was also rejected.

Times have changed.

Yes, I agree, times have changed, because even that hon member has a seat in Parliament.

To be sure that someone who has signed a registration form is not an insolvent, or someone who has served a term of imprisonment, there had to be a witness. In terms of this legislation one can register someone in Pretoria Central Prison because he has, after all, changed his address, and the day he leaves prison, he will be able to vote. I am just pointing out the practical problems that could be caused.

The municipality of Johannesburg has registered approximately 500 people, and I have checked up on the way in which this was done. A person can have three or four addresses, for example, at one of which he pays for electricity. That does not mean, however, that he is living at that address. The only indication the municipality has is a change of address submitted by the person by way of a cheque payment, and suddenly his name appears on a voters’ list. I am not saying this is a mistake made by the hon the Minister himself. It is, however, a matter that is going to cause very big problems, and I am asking for it to be put right.

Hon members spoke about postal votes and special votes. This is, of course, a process that has become very expensive, and one would naturally like to have a process in terms of which both these systems could be eliminated, or scaled down to such an extent that they fell into disuse. We shall, however, take things as they come. If there are postal votes, we shall make use of them.

You are divided on the issue.

If the Government wants to force them on us, we shall make use of them. We are familiar with both sides of the coin. So many objections were raised this year because we tied with the NP in Rosettenville as far as postal votes are concerned, but even the hon member for Kimberley South found it necessary to quote a Transvaal NP member, whom I do not think he had ever seen in his life, about the father-in-law of Koos van der Merwe having done this or that. He never got any further than that. Mr Vorster, who supposedly presented a problem, worked with me for more than 20 years in the NP, and he had a great deal to do with postal votes. In some elections he dealt with a average of 40 per day. Never, in the hundreds of postal votes he handled for the NP, was he ever a crook or was he ever dishonest. Nor did he ever falsify other people’s signatures. Now that he is working for the CP however, he is not good enough. I bitterly regret the fact that a man who had been really ill and who, in the process of recovering from a heart attack, thought fit to go and help his party, should have been treated in that manner. That is a biased approach that I regret.

There is something else that has become very clear to me today, and that is that in the future registration of voters, the three different groups in this Parliament are going to be confronted by overlapping and are going to encounter problems. If one of the Chinese wanted to have himself registered on a Coloured voters’ list, would he be able to do so?

No, not as the Act reads at present.

As the Act now stands, can he register with the Whites?

No, he cannot register anywhere.

He cannot register anywhere. He is therefore still a person who is not entitled to vote?

As the Act now stands he cannot register for any of the three Houses.

There are quite a few Chinese who are registered on the Johannesburg voters’ lists because only changes of address have to be recorded. There are also Chinese who are called Jones. There are Chinese called Butterfly. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that one cannot readily identify a person merely from a change of address form that is filled in. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate this matter and see wether, even at this stage, one cannot correct that situation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members who have taken part in this debate, even if they have not all supported the legislation. They did at least try to keep the debate on reasonably neutral ground at this late stage, when the legislation has already been discussed at length.

Before replying to hon members I think it would be appropriate if I were just to give this House some information on the coming election and on how the registration campaign for Coloureds and Indians in this connection has proceeded. Unfortunately the figure in respect of Coloured registration has not been finally processed and I am therefore unable to provide it. However, I do have final figures in regard to the Indian voters’ lists, and in this regard, after 62 000 duplicates had been removed by the computer, there are now 425 966 Indians on the voters’ list. This means an increase of 126 068 on the figure for 30 April, viz 299 898. This figure of 425 966 is 69 426 more than the population register’s number of potential voters of 356 540 as at 31 May and represents 82,8% of the 514 165 potential Indian voters according to projections of the Central Statistics Service. This figure is quite interesting if one compares it to the position of the Whites. On 30 June 1984, before supplementing of details of voters from the population register, there were 2 399 648 persons on the White voters’ lists, and according to the projections of the Central Statistics Service this figure represents approximately 73% of the potential number of White voters.

As far as the Coloured registrations are concerned, I want to say at once that we do not expect as positive a picture as in the case of the Indians, and it seems as if the final figure in that regard may be somewhat lower than the total number of Coloureds on the population register. Unfortunately, however, the precise figures are not yet available. The final number of Indian and Coloured voters for the various constituencies will be made known by the Chief Electoral Officer towards the end of this and next week respectively.

Allow me just to mention briefly at this point that the amendments effected by this Bill will not apply to the coming Coloured and Indian elections. These elections are taking place in accordance with a Bill which amended the Electoral Act earlier this session. These provisions will only come into operation when the new dispensation comes into effect, except where otherwise indicated. However, we must draw the clear distinction that the regulation of several facets, including the coming Coloured and Indian general elections, is being effected in terms of legislation passed earlier in the session, and not in terms of this Bill.

I should now like to react to hon speakers individually, and I wish to begin by referring to hon members on this side of the House. The hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Witbank, the hon member for Umhlanga, the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Langlaagte all touched, in one way or another, on the issue of changes of address and how we can get our population register, and with it our voters’ lists, more up to date so that the voters’ lists can be more correct and can contain the most recent information in order to reduce the number of voters—thousands of them—who have moved, and on whom so much energy is spent in elections. This aim, that is pursued by all the hon members, is also pursued by the department, and we are striving to achieve that goal to an increasing extent. Thus far, however, no simple solution has presented itself. The hon member for Langlaagte rightly referred to a problem we have begun to identify, and that is that people who request water and lights connections do not always necessarily live at the address at which they have requested water and lights connections. The person concerned may have a house elsewhere. He buys a property on which work is being done. For example, building work is done before he resells it. As the owner he pays a deposit, and when one has that absolute system, one is in due course saddled with an address at which he does not live. These, too, are growing pains we are experiencing due to the linking of water and electricity accounts. Other growing pains or problems are also involved. One immediately has the problem of the farming community. In this regard one could also consider Escom, because an increasing number of farmers are obtaining Escom power links, but after all, there are many farmers we know of, as well as occupants of smallholdings, who do not have electricity. Accordingly there is a considerable percentage of the population that cannot be reached in this way by way of water and electricity deposits per se.

On the other hand, it is true that as soon as one makes something compulsory one has to choose one channel, because if one makes it compulsory for a person to do so at the bank as well as when he pays water and electricity deposits, one is eventually saddled with five or six changes of address for the same man. This clogs up one’s whole system with excessive and unnecessary red tape. Therefore we are still seeking a solution which could achieve something of this kind at one point.

I still hesitate to say that we are beginning to provide a service of our own which amounts to our saying that a person may not do anything before he can prove that he has notified us of his change of address, because this can only be done if we can decentralize this entirely to the level of the local authorities and other similar bodies. This is done in certain other countries and in European countries.

West Germany.

Yes, West Germany specifically, where one cannot really obtain water and electricity connections if one cannot prove that one has presented oneself, that one’s name has been confirmed and that one has signed in as an inhabitant of a specific city or town. Therefore there is no simple solution, but like hon members, we are committed to the aim of making this stream of information increasingly accurate and ensuring that we obtain information as soon as possible through the network that we spread.

I may say that there is room for reform, and there is also room for reform in respect of voting procedures which will also make it easier if we simplify the voting procedure. The department is approaching this whole issue with a view to reform. I want to go further and say that there is also room for improvement in the correctness of our voters’ lists. Last year I addressed a request to the department—I am now replying to a facet raised by the hon member for Green Point— that we consider whether it will be possible to include on the population register in some way, the category of voters who do not yet have identity documents but are entitled to vote, so that we have only one source when we draw up a voters’ list. Therefore we must place them on the list once for election purposes, and not for other purposes, because they do not yet have an identity document. For the purposes of elections their names must be integrated with the population register. The reply to the hon member’s specific question is that they remain on the voters’ list. The idea is not that they are constantly being removed and are only being included on the voters’ list again at the time of an election. They remain on the voters’ list, and administratively speaking our aim is to approach the matter as he requested. Therefore he need have no fears in this connection.

Finally, as far as the population register is concerned, I just want to say something about the question of address changes and so on. This is also in reaction to the hon member for Umhlanga.

†I think that the private sector can play a role. I can agree with most of what the hon member for Umhlanga had to say, specifically also where he pleaded for an accurate and up-to-date population register. He also said that the possession of an identity document should be emphasized wherever possible. I think the private sector can play an important role in this regard if they should also say that they require the best evidence of identity when somebody asks for credit, they require best evidence when someone opens a banking account or if one enters into any transaction. If they do that, then the identity document will become a real asset because it will open doors to one and it will shorten procedures. I should like to say that I hope the private sector will, especially with regard to Whites in respect of whom they now know there is not longer any logical reason why a person should not be in possession of an identity document unless it is only for a very short time, insist on the production of that document whenever they need proof of identity.

*I should like to thank the hon members for Innesdal, Witbank and Umhlanga for their support. The hon member for Witbank made a positive suggestion but there is a problem in that regard. There are thousands of people who for really valid reasons do not possess an identity document. For example, one will also have people who die and whose identity documents were missing at the time of their death. If the hon member’s suggestion is adopted one would in any event have to create a procedure to provide that a person could obtain a death certificate without an identity document. However, we shall go into his suggestion that our implementation of the law in connection with death certificates can be carried out effectively. In this regard I just want to say to the hon member for Koedoespoort that he had better go and read clauses 6 and 7 again. After all, it is now specified very clearly what has to be done about an identity document if a person dies.

The hon member for Green Point referred again to the question of select committees. I think that we have discussed this aspect at sufficient length. I do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced in previous debates, just as he, in fact, did not do so. I just wish to reiterate that in the present circumstances this was really unnecessary, and that this is an urgent Bill which has to make provision for a situation that could develop from the time that the new dispensation is a reality, and that we could not, therefore, wait until the select committee had been appointed, had gone through the legislation and then, in a subsequent session, tabled its report. For that reason we were unable to refer the Bill to a select committee. However, there is so much opportunity for consultation and discussion of common interests that it certainly ought to be no problem for Coloured and Indian members of Parliament who are unhappy about certain facets to put forward their ideas. We do not say that this legislation is the law of the Medes and Persians and will apply for all time.

The hon member also referred to the question of the right to boycott. We find it extremely interesting that this facet is so high on the list of priorities of that hon member and his party. Please note that I do not say “strange”, because we know, after all, that they are experienced as far as political boycotts are concerned. He is very concerned that we shall prevent the boycotters from boycotting in some way. Surely steps have never been taken by the Government, in respect of the boycott campaigns of the PFP, preventing them from carrying out their boycotts. They conducted negative politics within the law, and it is anyone’s right to conduct negative politics as long as he does so within the law. However, the hon member wants me to go further. I do not know exactly what he wants me to say. He is seeking some assurance from me. It almost seems to me as if he wants me to say that we shall help the UDF to boycott. Before stating my standpoint anew, I want to ask him whether the PFP wants Coloured and Indian voters to participate in the coming elections to the maximum extent. Is the answer “yes”? Despite the lip service that the PFP have paid to the idea that they will co-operate to make a success of the new dispensation, they are negative to the extent that they refrain totally from stating their own standpoint as to whether there ought to be participation, and whether positive participation is in the interests of South Africa and of the democratic process in South Africa. Therefore we can only infer that they are in fact privately sympathetic to the UDF and the boycotters. That is why they raised the matter here, and we shall cast that in their teeth, because the attitude and the arguments advanced by the hon member for Green Point throughout the discussion of this Bill show where the true sentiments of the PFP lie. The hon member advances many vague accusations to the effect that the Government supposedly makes improper use of certain techniques to interfere when any individual, group or association exercises his normal political right by saying “Do not go and vote”. If one makes such a statement one should really come up with more concrete examples than mere vague references to pamphlets. Does he allege that the police or any other institution under Government control has acted illegally in respect of anyone?

It is odd that they sometimes confiscate things, whereas the suspicions in that regard are clearly unfounded.

No, Sir, the question is whether his allegation is that anyone has acted illegally. [Interjections.] He says he has no evidence … [Interjections.] Does he say that legal action has been taken?

No, I said that they acted on the basis of suspicion and that I did not accept that it was always a bona fide suspicion.

May I ask: If the UDF has the right to act within the law, do the police not also have the right to act within the law? Of course they do. What, then, is the hon member’s argument? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he knows of any occasion when the police have arrested and gaoled or detained people or confiscated material when, during a White election, a political party has put up posters which did not have the right stamp on them? Let him give us one such example.

I do not know of specific cases in that regard. [Interjections.] However, I do know that action has been taken from time to time against so-called White parties that have concerned themselves with activities which could also be regarded as dangerous to the country. I am not speaking about anything else now; the point I want to make is that the police also have a duty to ensure that the laws of the land are not disobeyed under the cloak of normal democratic actions. They will and ought to perform that duty. It is their duty, their calling and their task.

I again wish to give the hon member the assurance that anyone has the right to refrain from voting. Moreover, any leader or group has the right to say “I think you must refrain from voting”. However, they must act legally. I want to repeat that negative politics and boycott politics could ring the death-knell for democracy in South Africa. Therefore I want to appeal to the hon member and his party to associate themselves in good time before the coming elections, with all the responsibility at their command clearly and without qualification, with the democratic process that is being made possible and extended by the new Constitution. [Interjections.] The hon member also went on to refer to the question of voters and I have already replied to that. I think that I have now dealt with all his arguments.

I now come to the remarks of the hon members for Koedoespoort and Langlaagte. They made an effort to score political points. I do not at this point wish to lapse into an analysis of the results of the past two provincial by-elections, except to point out that if one analyses them scientifically, the hon members really have nothing to write home about. [Interjections.] I want to put it to them for their consideration that they should compare the handful of votes they obtained in Rossettenville with the result in Germiston District, which is a comparable constituency. They will then see how they and the HNP have slipped back together. They and the HNP together obtained far more than 50% of the votes cast in Germiston District, and therefore I should not be proud of the 30% in Rosettenville if I were they. Secondly, if one compares the joint CP and HNP majority in Waterberg with that in Potgietersrust then I should not sleep too peacefully if I were they. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House are relaxed.

The hon member for Koedoespoort confirmed once again that they opposed any form of partnership and power-sharing and once again displayed an absolutist attitude. Was he in this House when his leader said that when they came to power, he would be prepared to be elected President by the mixed electoral college? Is acceptance of the presidency power-sharing, if one is elected by a mixed electoral college and co-operates within a system of partnership? He would not only become President. He would also appoint the chairman of the Coloured and Indian Ministers’ Councils and would accept a Speaker elected by a mixed electoral college. He would go on to co-operate with a mixed President’s Council to reach a final decision on legislation that he wants to pass and about which there may be conflicts. [Interjections.] The logical consequences of his standpoint are that until he has convinced the Coloureds and Indian majority parties that his unworkable homeland is better for them than participation in the new dispensation, he will govern this country in partnership with the Coloureds and the Indians.[Interjections.]

Sir, if the hon the Minister were to find, in the new constitutional dispensation that certain entrenched clauses are to the detriment of the workability of the system and that the Coloureds and Indians refuse to help rectify them, what would the hon the Minister do then?

There is a system whereby to resolve conflicts. The hon member is repudiating his leader by implication. [Interjections.] What has the hon member given away by asking this question? He has given away what they are going to tell the voters. They are going to tell the voters that they will find a parliamentary way to evade these entrenchments. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon member for Koedoespoort that his leader admitted in this House that he would work within the framework of partnership and power-sharing when they obtained the majority in the House of Assembly. That is the necessary conclusion when he says that he does not …

That is your conclusion.

Very well. Now we have it on record. These hon members of the CP repudiate the hon member for Waterberg. [Interjections.]

You cannot take a beating.

The hon members always make such a noise when one has a strong point against them. I do not begrudge them the noise. Those among them who have some legal training know that my argument is absolutely well-founded, that it is logical and consistent and that they will have to find an answer to it; otherwise we shall hammer them. The best answer would be to get a new leader and then he, in turn can say that the hon member for Waterberg is wrong. [Interjections.]

Sir, I now wish to head for calmer waters. We have really had an in-depth discussion of the issue of postal and special votes. I just want to repeat that the reason for the State President’s power to suspend or not to suspend the system of postal votes for a specific election, is to achieve flexibility, because we are of the opinion that the needs differ from House to House. Postal votes have a special place. I see their special place as being in particular the case where it is really essential that a person be allowed to vote in his own home. If one only wants special votes that means that the State will have to provide the officials to go to every house where there is a bona fide instance of a person who cannot get to a ballot box. This would cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. Therefore I really regard it as essential for well-organized parties to have a service that must be rendered to bona fide people. However, I think there is room for reform. I do not reject reform with regard to the issue of postal and special votes, but at this stage I cannot support their abolition per se as I have already spelt out here.

The hon member also wanted to know how a person proved that he had applied. The hon member for Koedoespoort suggested a duplicate. In fact, what we have in mind is to add to application forms a tear-off receipt which would bear the seal of the department and be recognized as a receipt. In other words, we are going to provide something to a voter who has applied for a document or the replacement of a document so that he has a receipt.

As far as the issue of deaths is concerned, I have already replied to the hon member. As regards clause 71(b)(i) I want to say to him that the vote of such a person is not counted unless there is a court order. That is an old custom by now and it applies here, too. Indeed, it is also embodied in section 101(1) of the present Electoral Act.

I have already replied to the hon member for Langlaagte. I think that I have now dealt with all specific questions and arguments that have been advanced. I should therefore like to thank hon members …

[Inaudible.]

As regards the issue of potential Chinese voters we have already provided a considerable amount of information during debates and we have said that it is our intention that they will form part of the new dispensation. We have already said that they must obtain the franchise for the purpose of this tricameral Parliament. How we are to do so and precisely how this is to be structured, due to the special circumstances, can only be decided after we have conducted an adequate process of consultation with them. That consultation forms part of the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Hon members may rest assured that he is dealing with that, and that, as is his wont, he will come up with an effective and convincing solution when we meet here again.

Once again I thank all hon members who have taken part for their contributions.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, after this morning I am convinced that we shall obtain general approval for this Bill.

The spatial ordering of land usage at the national level is still, relatively speaking, a programme which is in its infancy in South Africa when compared with other Western countries. Therefore it is necessary that the Physical Planning Act, as the instrument at the national level, be adapted from time to time when it is found in practice that such adjustments are necessary.

As regards the control of land usage in the rural areas, in the course of time the land has been divided by proclamation into distinguishable controlled areas. Section 6 and 8 of the Physical Planning Act of 1967 contain the provisions in this regard. In accordance with these provisions the Minister may, on request, grant authorization by permit for a change in the use of land in the controlled areas. However, existing uses of land, as provided in section 6, which existed when a specific area was declared a controlled area, enjoy the protection of the Act, in that it is specified that they may be continued with without let or hindrance.

Because it sometimes happens that persons apply for a specific new right of land use and then fail to exercise it or terminate the specific usage after a certain time, it has in due course become the practice that on granting a permit it is specified as a condition for the approval that the new right of land usage will lapse unless it is exercised within a certain period or if it is not continued with for a certain uninterrupted period. This condition has become necessary since other prospective entrepreneurs who have applied for similar rights in the vicinity of such approved rights are turned down because sufficient rights of that nature have already been granted in that vicinity.

The United Municipal Executive of South Africa has made representations to the effect that this principle be laid down by way of legislation, and also that it be made applicable to land usages that existed when the area was declared a controlled area. In the latter case, the situation at present is that these uses can lapse into disuse for very long periods and then revive again. The Government body controlling such land usage does not, in these instances, have the opportunity to deliberate on whether it is still essential and desirable to permit the usage. It is in the peri-urban areas in particular that rights of this nature disappear after a time and then, as a town or city expands over the years, suddenly reappear on the outskirts of a town in what is sometimes an extremely undesirable situation.

These “sleeping” land uses ought, in all fairness to the prospective applicants for every new land use that they require, also to be subjected to the principle that necessity and desirability be proved. By amending the Act to this extent, at this point, the principle of equal treatment under the law is being consistently applied to all prospective developers of land uses.

Section 6A of the Physical Planning Act regulates the establishment of guide plan committees and the drafting of guide plans. It provides inter alia that the subdivision of land, except that land which is excluded in terms of section 1 of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, be dealt with in terms of the provisions of the said Act, for whatever use it may be reserved in the guide plan in question. Therefore this Act also controls the division of land reserved for non-agricultural purposes, and this is not in line with the broad purpose of controlling the division of agricultural land. The control of the division of land in guide plan areas, other than agricultural land, falls rather within the ambit of those development bodies, such as provinces and local authorities, which are directly concerned with the uses for which the land in the guide plan is reserved. Therefore it is necessary, in order to put this principle into practice, that the Physical Planning Act be suitably amended.

†Mr Speaker, this amendment will not result in the loss to agriculture of any valuable agricultural land in guide plan areas. The Department of Agriculture is represented on all guide plan committees. In the guide plan action great emphasis is placed on the fact that agricultural land should as far as possible be retained for agricultural purposes, and that it should not, without due regard, be used for urban development. For the same reason it is also not considered necessary to consult the Minister of Agriculture in the case of an amendment to a guide plan which does not involve agricultural land. In such cases the land has already been reserved for other non-agricultural purposes, and the Minister of Agriculture consequently does not have a direct interest in such requests for the amendment of a guide plan.

The Physical Planning Act has in its relatively short existence since 1967, already proved to be an important instrument in the physical, social and economic planning and development of the country. I am convinced that should Parliament approve the amendments, these amendments will contribute to the orderly development of South Africa and that the administration of the Act will thereby be facilitated.

Mr Speaker, the original Act was opposed by the PFP when it was introduced, chiefly on the grounds that some of the clauses, particularly clause 3, ran counter to the principles of free enterprize. The other clauses are chiefly those that dealt with the employment of Black people and the expansion of factories involving Black people. The amendments being effected here now are mainly of a technical nature and seek, as the hon the Minister said, to incorporate in the Act certain things that are already happening in practice.

Whereas the hon the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Planning, controls physical, economic and social planning, this legislation gives him the authority to put his Great Plan into effect. If one accepts that overall planning is necessary, one necessarily also has to accept that where bottle-necks occur in the planning, those bottle-necks must be rectified.

Except for clause 2, in terms of which the procedure is cut short somewhat, every other clause gives the Minister greater control over the physical use of land, and this applies to areas in which local authorities and provincial authorities are in a position to carry out thorough planning. One could scarcely imagine a situation in which anyone would all of a sudden want to build a block of flats in a maize field in the Western Transvaal. However, if there is oil or gold under the ground, and if people are necessary to extract it, then I am sure that such people would in fact be able to convince the Minister to grant such a change in use. Nevertheless, overall planning is necessary.

It is ironical, and also a pity, that the Act is of no force and effect specifically where there are no authorities with the necessary manpower or funds to plan, control and develop the proper usage of land. I am now referring to the national states. The problem, then, is that totally unrelated or even strongly conflicting land usage patterns are developing on both sides of the border. I refer for example to the greater Durban area which is thoroughly planned by the local authorities as well as the provinces up to the border of kwaZulu. There, however, good planning is now being thrown overboard because the area just across the border, just around Durban, is totally surrounded by a totally unplanned area. Incorrect land usage makes further planning extremely difficult. Some of those areas cannot be used for other purposes. What used to be rural areas have now irrevocably become densely populated but totally unplanned residential areas. I sincerely hope that the appointment of Mr Louis Rive in that area will draw attention to this problem and also, perhaps, lead to certain solutions.

With regard to the specific measures embodied in the Bill I first want to refer to the proposed subsection (l)(a) which, basically, replaces what appeared in the old subsection (1) and which is acceptable. Our interpretation of subsection (l)(b) is that it is retrospective, and that, of course, is a principle which is scarcely ever justifiable in legislation. The hon the Minister said that it was already the practice to specify a period. If it has already been the practice for more than two years that the proviso “that if it is not used within a period of two years”, is specified on permits then that is not, perhaps, such a serious matter. However, I believe that there is in fact a problem in that it does not make sense to us that if a person has for two years not used the land for the purpose specifically indicated on a guide plan and he then wishes to use it for that specific purpose, he has to apply for a permit. That is our interpretation of this, because it is clearly stated that if it is not used for the purpose mentioned in the proposed section (l)(a) for a period of two years, he cannot use the land as such other than by permit. Therefore if a person has a little farm in the Midlands of Natal and it has not been used as such for a period of two years…

Clause 2(b) refers to the deletion of subsection (18).

But I am discussing subsection (l)(b) to which reference is made in clause 1. I am not dealing with clause 2 now.

I now come to clause 2 which is acceptable to us because it reduces red tape in that the Minister of Agriculture need not be called in on every occasion.

Clause 3(a) is also unacceptable because it is the enabling provision for clause 1. Therefore we cannot accept it. Clause 3(b) envisages the insertion of a section 8(3) which provides that a permit issued for land usage other than that specified in the guide plan will lapse if not used as such for a period of at least two years. In those areas—particularly the peri-urban areas, as the hon the Minister says—there are local and provincial authorities, as I have already said, that can do planning, and one would say that they could indeed amend their township development conditions and other conditions so as to take cognizance of the permits that have already been issued. Moreover, taking into account the time it takes to plan an industrial area, for example, one could say that the period of two years for the automatic lapsing of the permit may be too short. It would be desirable either to extend the period or to make it compulsory for the State to give notice after two years that the permit will be withdrawn unless the land is used for the relvant purpose.

Clause 4 shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant, and we are opposed to that in principle when it is a matter of a criminal charge. The State will certainly have instituted such a prosecution on good grounds and we do not see why such good grounds cannot serve as proof and why the State cannot bear the burden of proof.

In these circumstances, therefore, we are not prepared to support this Second Reading unless the hon the Minister in his reply touches our hearts to such an extent that we change our opinion.

Mr Speaker, to a certain extent we cannot take it amiss of the hon member for Greytown and his party for not wanting to support the Second Reading of the Bill since they were opposed to the Physical Planning Act, Act No 88 of 1967, from the outset, and this was so due to one provision, viz section 3. The hon member will not deny that. Therefore I think he has been reasonably consistent when he says that over the years section 3 has been amended to some extent and does not apply to the same extent as previously, but that the PFP do feel that they have to boycott once again.

The hon member said that the legislation now gave the Minister control of all land, but that is not entirely true. It gives the Minister control of all non-agricultural land, which also includes agricultural smallholdings that fall under a different Act. However, I do not know why the hon member saw fit, in passing, to deal the Zulus a slap in the face today.

I did not.

The hon member certainly did. He said that there was fine planning up to the border of kwaZulu, but that there was chaos just the other side of the border, in kwaZulu. Why does the hon member not show a more positive spirit by proposing that we provide more aid and more advice.

But I said that I was pleased that that was being done.

Yes, but that was after administering the slap in the face. It does not help to make soothing noises subsequently. That is not how it works. That is the kind of racism applied by that party.

The bill amends four sections of the Physical Planning Act, viz sections 6(1), 6A, 8 and 12. Basically the Bill deals with two aspects. The first is that three years ago the United Municipal Executive felt that there should be uniformity in regard to permits, licences and existing rights. Hon members will recall that when new main roads and through roads were built, many small shops and filling stations along the old roads disappeared. How many small shops are standing empty along the road between Pretoria and Hammanskraal and as far as Warmbaths? However, there are existing rights in regard to those places. These rights were granted before the principal Act came into operation. When one purchases such property one finds that it also has a secondary value. One does not only buy the farm or agricultural smallholding, but also the licence that is still valid there. In the Bill this situation is now being amended due to representations received in that it is being provided that if, for example, such a shop has stood empty for two years and someone else applies for a licence or a permit in that vicinity, it must be possible to ascertain whether an existing permit or licence was granted in the vicinity. The hon the Minister made an excellent statement when he said that the new principle would be necessity and desirability. If that is the point of departure we can determine whether further permits or licences have to be or ought to be issued. That is all that is involved.

Section 6A of the principal Act deals with agricultural land. I think that the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy were wise to agree to our making the provisions of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Act No 70 of 1970, applicable only to agricultural land, so that it will be unnecessary for the Minister of Agriculture to waste his time by granting approval in respect of land identified for purposes other than agricultural purposes, eg for township development or for recreation. I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is in the House. We share the distinction of having started the first planning committee in South Africa in 1975, viz the Wonderboom Planning Committee. Before regulations with regard to land had existed in that area we had already begun to plan north of the mountain. Therefore it was possible for our guide plan to be one of the first.

I want to dwell for a moment on clause 2, which amends section 68 of the principal Act. The crucial provision is the one relating to the period of two years. That is what is at issue. Even if the person has not made use of his rights for two years we do not summarily deprive him of them. We give him the opportunity to re-apply and obtain a further period of two years. Therefore this is not, as such, an infringement of existing rights. We are merely creating a new mechanism so that we do not have to be a dog in a manger and keep the horse from the fodder when someone else applies. I think the hon member agreed with that.

I think that all of us who have agricultural smallholdings in our constituencies would like to see smallholdings as such being removed from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture when they are no longer viable for agricultural purposes. We are going to have to deliberate on this at length. I myself live on a plot and it suits me very well. I think that an agricultural plot, as an extensive kind of residential life, is probably something we would all want to strive for. On the other hand it is also true that we should infringe upon productive agricultural land as little as possible, for whatever reason.

If there is anything that bothers me it is the fact that when we build a new main road through farms, alongside the road there are reserves that are four times wider than necessary. That is a total waste of agricultural land. I travelled between Niagra Falls and Toronto in Canada on a four lane highway as we have here, but there were no reserves as we have here; there were farms along the road. I think that if the hon the Minister of Agriculture, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as well, could make any contribution in respect of those who carry out these expropriations, we should probably be doing South Africa a considerable service. We do not have a lot of agricultural land, and we cannot simply continue to put more and more agricultural land under tar or concrete every year. Since we are now amending section 6A, and Act 70 of 1910 will no longer apply to the parts we are now excluding, this is in my opinion a further streamlining of this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister and the hon member for Roodeplaat made out a good case for this amending Bill and motivated their arguments well, and we shall be supporting the Bill. There is just one matter that I am somewhat concerned about. I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Agriculture is present. The hon the Minister said that the Department of Agriculture was represented on the guide plan committees, although this is not stated in the legislation itself. Nevertheless I am pleased that that assurance was given. I wonder whether it will not perhaps be necessary to consider ensuring that in future it be specified in the legislation, too, that the Department of Agriculture be represented on the guide plan committee. We all agree that land in South Africa is extremely valuable. In a country like South Africa in which land is becoming increasingly scarcer it cannot be permitted that where a permit is issued for two years to use land for a certain purpose, it is not used for that purpose.

As far as the burden of proof is concerned, the hon member for Greytown said that he was somewhat unhappy about that. However, we agree that it is easier for the accused to prove that he did use that land during those two years. Moreover, he only has to prove on a balance of probabilities that he did use the land as such. This does not make matters so difficult for him.

As I said, this statutory amendment has in my opinion been well-motivated and therefore the CP will be supporting the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his support.

As I understood him, the hon member for Greytown requested inter alia that the authorities should give such a person notice before a permit or right of use lapses. I suggest that this would be a very impractical way of going about it. In the first instance it would involve the authorities in the matter once again. In contrast to what he suggests, this will in fact entail greater Government involvement, and this is undesirable in this instance.

I want to suggest that it is fair and right that the onus should rest on the person who has the permit or right of use. He has it, and he must know that if he does not exercise it he will lose it.

As already indicated, this legislation has two main aims. As far as controlled areas are concerned, permits and land usage rights may lapse if they are not used for the purpose for which they are granted for an uninterrupted period of two years. This entails two obvious benefits. In the first instance, prospective developers cannot be prejudiced thereby, as is at present the case, in that people simply do not exercise their rights and then, after a great deal of money has been spent on development, they exercise their rights to develop in competition with the new development. This will also ensure certainty in these controlled areas as regards who may and may not do certain things.

As far as the guide plan areas are concerned, the granting of permission by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to non-agricultural land, its subdivision and the amendments of guide plans relating to this land, is being done away with. This will eliminate administrative red tape and, in the long term, ought to streamline the administration of this legislation.

I know that the administration of the subdivision of agricultural land does not by rights fall under the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, but I do want to take this opportunity to make representations in this connection. I want to ask that this Act be applied more flexibly and humanely. In this connection I want to refer to a few cases. In one case, subdivision was planned before the Act came into operation. In this instance, those involved were incorrectly given the impression that they could in fact subdivide in terms of the Act, for example where surveyors neglected to submit plans to the Surveyor-General. In such a case the parties involved are substantially disadvantaged. I know of cases in which families have split up about this. Considerable improvements had been effected, and to crown everything, the land was situated close to urban areas and, in addition, consisted of a large number of small plots of land. There are estates that have not been finalized for almost 13 years now. While this approach applies I can give hon members the assurance that those estates will never be finalized.

I want to support the measure, but I appeal for a more flexible and humane approach with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land.

Mr Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon member for Greytown, but I found it difficult to ascertain the crux of the objection of the official Opposition.

As I see it, if land has not been used for the purpose for which it was intended to be used and for which a permit was granted, for a period of two years, that is reason for either giving the permit to somebody else to utilize for that purpose or for changing the purpose to something for which it will be used. As it is now, a person can own land which is not being used for the purpose of the guide plan as a whole, a purpose which is there simply on paper and not in reality. I can see no objection to an authority for the use of land being withdrawn if, after a period of two years, it is not used for the intended purpose. It is reasonable that the usage be changed or that the authority be withdrawn.

Mr P C CRONJÉ: That is not clause 1(b).

Do not fight; he is right.

I must say, I listened very carefully because I was trying to be sympathetic to the member’s case, but I could not find the crux of the objection. His objection is to the withdrawal of authority in respect of land which for two years has not been used as intended or as authorized. I think two years is long enough. If the hon member had asked for a shorter or a longer period then one could understand his objection. However, one cannot have a blanket objection in respect of the indefinite non-use of an authority for a particular purpose.

Clause 2 deals with the subdivision of land. The Minister of Agriculture is still recognized there. Together with the changes made in paragraphs (b) and (c) we have no objection to this clause. There seems no purpose in the Minister of Agriculture being consulted every time even when land is not being used for agricultural purposes.

Clause 3 also deals with the two year period and with the lapsing of a permit. It is all part of the same principle. As for the presumption contained in clause 4, we too are against presumptions in principle. There are, however, certain things which are impossible for a prosecution or the State to prove, or which are much easier for the defendant to prove. It is much easier for a person who owns or occupies land to produce the necessary evidence to prove how it was used. All a person who, for example, runs a garage has to do is to produce his petrol invoices, licence receipts or some other evidence. Similarly, a person who runs a trading store can produce the necessary evidence to show that he is a trader. It is, however, much more difficult for somebody who is not living on the land to produce witnesses to prove that continuously for two years that land was not used for a specific purpose. How often must a witness have satisfied himself—every week, every day or every month of the two year period? A person who occupies the land has no problem proving what he used the land for because it was his land. It is then easy for him to prove what he used it for. Somebody else cannot prove what another person did or did not do continuously for two years. In this case we therefore accept the presumption, and we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to thank hon members who have supported the legislation. In reply to the point made by the hon member for Roodeplaat in connection with the road reserve and the expropriation of land for road purposes, I want to say at once that he has adopted a very judicious standpoint in this particular regard. Not only is his standpoint judicious, but a committee investigating the expropriation of land for these purposes has already been appointed under the leadership of Mr P D Rossouw of the Directorate: Physical Planning of my department and has made considerable progress in investigating all aspects of expropriation and the fragmentation of agricultural land. This committee will soon complete its report and submit it to the Cabinet for consideration. Therefore we agree with the hon member in this regard.

I also thank the hon member Mr Schutte, the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Brakpan for their contributions. I want to say here and now to the hon member for Brakpan at once that it really is really for us to make statutory provision in the legislation for the presence of the Department of Agriculture on the guide plan committee. All the departments that deal with usage rights serve on such committees in terms of an existing rule. Secondly, a firm decision has been taken by the Government, and it is a general point of policy, that the fragmentation of agricultural land must be guarded against at all costs. Therefore there is not a single guide plan committee which does not have as a member a representative of the Department of Agriculture. I hope that the hon member will accept that.

The hon member for Greytown must please take a careful look at the legislation. Section 6(1) of the Act does not apply to guide plan areas but only to controlled areas as specified in section 5. I hope that the hon member now understands that the Act only applies to certain areas and that the guide plan areas are not included. Therefore the usages applicable in the specific guide plan areas are not being affected by that section, but only apply to the controlled areas as provided in section 5.

Although it is true that the period of two years is calculated retrospectively, people do not necessarily lose their rights. If anyone were to argue that he was, for example, engaged in drawing up development plans, and for that reason was not yet able to establish the use, then in my opinion it would be reasonable to extend the term of his rights. He need not, therefore, be concerned about that. As far as a right of use in controlled areas is concerned, the principle of desirability and necessity is therefore being applied. However, we do not want a man who theoretically has a right, not to use it, and thereby freeze development. However if he himself has explained that he has not yet used it because he has financial and physical plans that he has to draw up, then in my opinion it would in the nature of the matter be totally unreasonable to tell him that his right may not extended. Therefore we shall apply our standpoint in term of that consideration.

That is, before it is withdrawn.

No, it is not withdrawn; it lapses automatically. However, the man may come and ask that his right be extended because he is drawing up development plans for the area in question and advance this as the reason for not yet having brought the usage into line with the permit. Does the hon member understand the position now?

Yes.

However, we must do it in this way or else, as the hon member for Roodeplaat made very clear, we can have a lot of theoretical rights on paper which no one is using in practice, and that relates to the burden of proof as well.

Therefore we want to wipe the map clean.

Yes, exactly. Then we shall begin again from scratch.

†Let me say that the shifting of the onus of proof is because this fact is particularly within the knowledge of the owner of the land. Let me state my position quite clearly. I am as a matter of principle against presumptions against the accused but there are exceptions where certain facts are more within the knowledge of the accused than within the knowledge of the person who has to prove something. I want to ask the hon member under these circumstances to accept the assurance in this regard.

Finally, we are not giving the Minister more powers in terms of subsection (2) because the Minister is not going to exercise these powers. Other authorities will exercise these powers, for example the Administrator concerned.

This legislation has been requested by the United Municipal Executive. In fact, they wanted the period to be shortened from two years to eight months. The legislation is also supported by all the Administrators. Under these circumstances I hope that I have persuaded the hon member to withdraw his objection to the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.