Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we do not intend holding up the work of the House for very long.

Hear, hear! That is good news!

Nevertheless, Sir, especially for the sake of the hon the Leader of the House, there are a few important points that have to be made. Therefore, he is going to extend my speech by about five minutes as a result of his interjection.

In the main we support this legislation, as we indicated during the Second Reading debate. Some of the amendments included in this Bill are to our mind inevitable. They are what I would call reasonable and sensible housekeeping, and are necessary from that point of view. In particular we support the amendments to the procedure for replacing existing nominated members in the event of such a member ceasing to be a member. We also support the amendment to the Constitution which makes it easier to convene joint sittings under certain circumstances. I want to emphasize the point once again that it does not change the purpose for which joint sittings can be convened but it does provide machinery within the ambit of Parliament via Mr Speaker for convening such joint sittings, and in that sense it makes it easier to convene them. In regard to the reason for convening a joint sitting, we shall debate this point when the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders is discussed.

As I also indicated earlier, we have reservations to some degree in respect of the right of the State President to handle portfolios. As the hon the Minister has already indicated, it is implicit in our present Constitution that he may do so. All we say is that we hope experience will show that it is going to be unwise for the State President who is both the titular head of State and the head of the executive to become embroiled in party politics at the level of the handling of portfolios. Therefore, while we have reservations in this connection, to the extent that this is not a fundamental departure from our present Constitution we are not going to oppose it.

While we will support the Third Reading of this measure, we must make use of this opportunity once again to register our disapproval of clause 13 which makes provision for the extraordinarily generous golden handshake or, to use the expression used by the hon member for Umhlanga, the diamond and platinum encrusted golden handshake. While the hon member for Umhlanga supported this clause during the Committee Stage, we find that we are still unable to support the clause. However, at this stage we are unable to vote against the Bill as a whole because of our objection to this particular clause.

I want to repeat seven reasons why this clause is unfortunate. I was unfortunately unable to hear the hon the Minister wind up the debate the other morning, and I want to express my regret in that regard. However, the argument that the hon the Minister advanced in support of this clause was a subjective one. It was that the President’s councilors had done good work and that we should reward them for doing that good work. I do not believe that one should judge individual President’s councillors or individual members of Parliament or Senators or whoever they may be on the basis of whether they did good work or not because this becomes a subjective judgment in the hands of the people with the power to decide as to whether like what was done or not. We say that irrespective of whether the Government approved of the work they did, either there is a case for their being given a statutory reward or not. However, I hope that we have not reached the stage where we are going to decide that people be rewarded where the Government approves of political action having been taken by particular individuals holding statutory office. I dismiss that argument. If the hon the Minister had advanced other arguments, I could perhaps have supported them. However, to say that he likes what they did and therefore they should be rewarded is not a valid basis for reward in respect of statutory services rendered to the State or to society.

I should like now to list the seven reasons why we think the hon the Minister is wrong in persisting with this particular clause. Firstly, the reward or the remuneration is not just a question of salary or remuneration because the provision is extended to include tax-free allowances—the cost of providing various services which we all know that these gentlemen are not going to have to provide. Therefore, in addition to remunerating them for services rendered they are also going to be paid tax-free allowances in regard to matters for which they have no responsibility. By no stretch of imagination can this be reasonable.

The second point is that whatever the hon the Minister may say about the Public Service, there is no precedent in respect of Parliament or quasi legislative or advisory bodies. The point was made by the hon member Prof Olivier that when this Parliament abolished the Coloured Representative Council in 1980 it cut short the political lives of a whole number of people. We did not then say to them that because we, the White Parliament, decided to cut short their lives that we would recompense them. We merely said to them that they were out. So no compensation was paid to those people of the CPRC who had their political careers cut short, cut short not in terms of a State President’s proclamation under section 1A of the relevant Act; they were cut short in terms of an Act of this Parliament. We decided to abolish the CPRC, and nobody came along and said that they had done good work. Nobody said that their career were being cut short. We just said that they were out and that there could be no compensation for the fact that their political careers or term of office had been cut short.

Thirdly, the hon the Minister argued that these people were quaranteed five years in office. The hon the Prime Minister mentioned this across the floor of the House, but the hon the Minister will be the first to admit that what the Prime Minister says across the floor of the House, no matter how important it is, cannot be a statutory commitment. A statutory commitment is laid down in an Act. The hon the Minister was cautious to say that in terms of section 102 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, they were to have five years in office, but he was careful not to mention section 105. Section 105 relates to the determination of the President’s Council. The hon the Minister knows that the President’s Council could have been terminated at any time within 90 days of the House of Assembly being reconstituted after a general election. So there always was a political risk involved, and while five years was set as the term of office of members of the President’s Council, in terms of section 105 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, there always was provision for the dissolution of the President’s Council before the five year term of office. Therefore there was the element of risk. There was never a guarantee.

Fourthly, it is well-known that many of the people involved are both drawing pensions, statutory pensions either from the Public Service or from Parliament through the Parliamentary Pension Fund, and at the same time they have been drawing salaries from the President’s Council. The hon the Minister can say that they would have earned more if they had not retired in 1980. Perhaps they would not have been re-elected in 1981. I do not know. But the present President’s Council pension is not geared to their retirement pension of 1980; it is geared to the parliamentary pension of 1984. Therefore these gentlemen have actually enjoyed extraordinary generous provision during their term of office.

The fifth point I wish to deal with is a provision that, quite frankly, I found shocking when I first read it. The Act constituting the President’s Council states that they shall have a five year term of office subject to a possible dissolution of Parliament, but the regulations framed under the Act state that provided that they have served two and a half years and they continue until dissolution they shall be deemed to have enjoyed seven and a half years term of office. I think that comes fairly close to being ultra vires. On the one hand the Act of Parliament lays down that they shall enjoy a maximum of five years while the regulations state, irrespective of what the Act of Parliament states, that we shall deem that their pensionable service will be seven and a half years, two and a half years in excess of what Parliament has authorized. I find that extraordinary generous.

The sixth point that the hon the Minister made was that it could be that a number of these gentlemen and ladies have made midcareer sacrifices. I want to say quite honestly to the hon the Minister that if he can mention a single one of these people who in fact made mid-career sacrifices, I think we should try to find some way of accommodating them, either by way of reappointment to the new President’s Council or in some other way. We on this side of the House have actually made a study of it and I do not know want to single out individuals, but, quite honestly, we cannot find anybody who has made a mid-career sacrifice in order to go to the President’s Council. If the hon the Minister can mention them, we would be very sympathetic towards them.

What about Mr Mentoor?

That hon member must make his own speech. All we say is that if there is the odd individual, I believe that there are other ways in which the executive can resolve this problem other than a blanket legislative process in terms of which 53 people are going to enjoy this extra one and a half years of golden handshake. We find, on looking at the people, that 15 are ex-MPs or ex-Cabinet Ministers, all of whom will be enjoying a double pension and a salary. Another 12 who are either Coloureds, Indians or Whites have been candidates who at various times stood for either White, Coloured or Indian legislative bodies. They have been the kind of people who throw themselves at the mercy of the electorate. Suddenly it is said that these people must be protected in a mid-career situation in the President’s Council. One also looks at the range of public servants and other people. The retired public servants—I say this not disparagingly of them—went with every good intention in the world into the President’s Council. To argue that every one of these people should get a golden handshake of a year and a half’s salary because one or two may have had a mid-career interruption we think is stretching it beyond belief and beyond the contemplation of any reasonable taxpayer.

Finally, when this President’s Council is abolished, there is going to be another President’s Council. In that new President’s Council 20 of its members can be elected by the NP Caucus. In addition to that 25 are going to be nominated by the State President. Over 10 of them he has no control because they will be nominated by the Opposition parties but the nomination of 15 of the 25 are completely in the hands of the State President. The NP can nominate 20 of these people by election and the State President can reappoint another 15 of them. We believe that this will be the sensible, practical way of dealing with one or two of these brilliant people who have had mid-career interruptions, but to say in the alternative that every single one of these people should be first of all deemed to have had seven-and-a-half years’ pensionable service and then to be given five years of full salary and tax-free allowances, we believe is being unreasonable towards the taxpayers of South Africa. We say this: By all means give these people what they are due. If there are individual hardship cases, then we say it is in the hands of the State President or the governing party to deal with such individual hardship cases, but we cannot support the concept that 53 of these people, irrespective of their personal circumstances, irrespective of whether they are receiving pensions or not, should receive a salary and tax-free allowances for another one and a half years at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer of South Africa.

We regret that even at this stage the hon. the Minister is not prepared to reconsider this one clause because this one clause as it is a blot on this legislation as a whole. We would have hoped that there was a way in which it would be possible even at this Third Reading to vote against this clause. In the circumstances we are unable to vote against this clause, but we want to use this occasion to register our verbal protest against clause 13.

Mr Speaker, my speech will definitely be shorter than that of the hon member for Sea Point. In my opinion this amending Bill will have three consequences. The first of these is probably not a consequence in the true sense of the word, and perhaps it would be better to refer to it as a symptom. It is that there has been a drastic change in the approach of the official Opposition between the time the Constitution was discussed in this House last year and the date of the discussion on the amendments incorporated in this Bill. The NP has succeeded in convincing the PFP to accept this Constitution for South Africa. I think this is a very important step. I must say I think the voters helped us a great deal in the entire process, and we are very grateful for that. A great deal of progress has been made, so much so that the PFP now finds that up to a few days ago it had 28 candidates for a body which had it boycotted until a year ago. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most important symptoms of the way in which the PFP has also accepted this new constitutional dispensation. With regard to these amendments we also accept their support with thanks. I am sorry that the hon member for Sea Point, a person who is known to support a boycott policy, could not allow the opportunity to pass without having his opposition to one specific clause placed on record again.

Another effect of this amending Bill is that the hon member for Kuruman is going to change his identity on 3 September. With the first ceremonial sitting of the new Parliament, consisting of the three Houses, the hon member is going to lose his identity because it is going to be a joint sitting. The greatest problem of the radical right-wing party opposite is that they feel that their identity is being threatened. A joint sitting is going to jeopardize their identity. But it is definitely not the intention when a joint sitting on the Second Reading of a Bill takes place for example, to continue the debate in that joint sitting. This is consequently what has been recommended by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. One of the most important aims of the new Constitution is to eliminate the confrontation element inherent in the Westminster system. Sir, could you imagine what tremendous confrontation potential could be created if members of the radical right-wing party opposite had to enter into a debate with members of the other population groups as well? Just consider the racist statements they have already made here. This is the very thing we want to avoid in the new dispensation. But those hon members cannot do otherwise but resort to racist statements because there is a hungry ear which has to be satisfied, the ear of Jaap Marais. He must be satisfied at least once a week by strong racist statements. For that reason I am glad they will not be given the opportunity in a debate with people of colour to make the kind of conflict-generating speeches they have made here recently. I think we should offer them Robben Island to realize their dream of an Afrikaner nation state, where the hon member for Waterberg can establish his “staatsvolk” because they are removed from the realities of Africa and can live under the illusion of partition. Every morning he can glance towards Africa and forget for a moment that 4½ million Whites are sharing this southern portion of the continent with 40 million Blacks. He need not be afraid that we shall say he has run away.

Allow me to say in passing that the concept “staatsvolk” was created to equate the concepts “nasieskap”, “volkskap” and “burgerskap” with each other. I maintain that this is academic terrorism because one does not come across any such concept in political science or social anthropology or constitutional law or any of the other allied sciences. It was merely thought up and created for the occasion to represent this utopia of a pure, ultra-white white world.

These statutory amendments are going to have a third effect, and this is that they are going to stabilize democracy in South Africa, particularly the aspect of proportional representation. Through these amendments we are ensuring that when an indirectly elected member has to be elected, that member will be elected in accordance the principle of proportional representation, viz according to the number of seats a party has in Parliament. He is not simply appointed by the majority party. This was the case under the old Constitution.

The National Party intends to meet its obligations to the country. That is the reason for the amendments we are making to the new Constitution. It is a pleasure for me to support these amendments at the Third Reading of the Bill as well.

Mr Speaker, I do not think the hon member Dr Odendaal expects me to react to his nonsensical remarks. The repeated nonsensical allegations on the part of some NP speakers, reveling us as racists and I do not know what else, are becoming rather boring now. This kind of utterance received the answer it deserves last Wednesday in the provincial by-election in Potgietersrus. I would be grateful if the hon member Dr Odendaal would help us once again during coming by-elections.

I now want to return to the Bill. In his Second reading speech, referring to the amendment in clauses 3 and 4, which provide that the State President may also administer a department of State in the same way as a Minister does, the hon the Minister said that the intention with the new Constitution Act was to move away from the Westminster system. A ceremonial head of State is also being done away with. For the rest the State President will retain all the powers which the Prime Minister has in the present dispensation. Perhaps it is possible to debate in this way now, but when the Constitution Act was debated last year, and in particular sections 24, 25 and 26, there was no doubt in my mind at least that in terms of the provisions of those three sections it would be for the new State President to appoint Ministers to the new general Cabinet. There was no doubt in my mind, however, that he would not administer a department of State himself. We may differ in this regard. If it was the intention that the State President, as the amendments now provide, would also administer a department of State, as the Prime Minister does at present, then I find it strange that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, with his exceptional knowledge and experience and with the assistance of competent State lawyers could have made such a slip, as he put it, that there may now be uncertainty in law. I should like to know from the hon the Minister the reason for provision suddenly having to be made now tor the State President also to be able to administer a department of State on general affairs if he feels like it. The State President has the power to appoint Ministers, and if vacancies or temporary problems arise, the State President has the power to appoint another Minister to act in the temporary capacity or to appoint another person as a full Minister.

As for clauses 8 and 10 of the Bill, these were and still are difficult to debate without inevitably having to refer at the same time— and this you will not allow me to do, Sir—to the proposed new Standing Rules and Orders. Sir, but you will probably allow me to refer to them briefly. The proposed new standing Rules and Orders are already on our desks. It is strange that the proposals contained therein make this proposed statutory amendment essential.

But surely I said that.

Yes, the hon the Minister said that. I am not differing with him on that score. Section 64 of the new Constitution, which we now want to amend in clause 8, made specific provision for joint rules and orders, but which would only refer to the new standing committees to be established by the new Constitution. It is a pity that we did not have the opportunity last year to debate section 64 of the new Constitution. In terms of the provisions of that section, however, there was no question of joint rules and orders for joint sittings of the three House.

Hon members opposite may now argue, as they have already done, that without the amendments that are now being proposed in clause 10, the State President could call a joint sitting by a message to a House. Nevertheless it is very clear that that joint sitting, as provided in section 67 of the new Constitution, was of such a nature that it was not deemed necessary for joint rules and orders to be drawn up for it. Otherwise the hon the Minister and his law advisers would surely have made provision for it in the new Constitution that has been passed. Therefore we are justified in arguing that the Government has already changed its standpoint in regard to its view of joint sittings.

During the debate and in his reply to the debate the hon the Minister said that he was not allowed to debate the proposed Standing Rules and Orders as provided for in clause 8 of the Bill, amending section 64 of the Constitution. It does not matter what is stated in the proposed new Standing Rules and Orders, by accepting clause 8 we are now giving the green light to any further amendments to Standing Rules and Orders in future to make provision not only for a joint sitting of the three Houses that may only give a hearing to the Second Reading of a Bill or the Budget, but also that the Standing Rules and Orders may be amended to make provision for a full joint sitting, which will also make provision for the conducting of a full joint debate.

And pass no resolution on it.

Of course not. For that one will have to change the Constitution. It is a somewhat ridiculous situation. I refuse to believe there was no change of standpoint in this connection on the part of the Government. To say now, as the hon member for Mossel Bay said, that it is a case of scaremongering on our part, is not a valid argument. It is interesting that when the hon member for Mossel Bay was asked whether this would not happen in future he said that, to the best of his knowledge and although he did not want to play the prophet, it would not happen in the immediate foreseeable future. He added, however, that politics had taught him that one should never say never. [Interjections.] He was therefore holding the options open for his party.

I want to refer next to the way in which leave is being taken of the present members of the President’s Council. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon the Minister said on Friday in his reply to the Second Reading debate. The hon the Minister referred to the provisions of section 102 of the 1961 Constitution, in terms of which these gentlemen were appointed for five years. However, he subsequently referred to an undertaking that had been given by the hon the Prime Minister in a debate in this House, and inter alia he referred to what the Prime Minister had said, namely (Hansard, 29.6.1984):

The hon the Prime Minister went on to say:

This is an undertaking given by the hon the Prime Minister on behalf of Parliament, and I believe that one should honour one’s undertakings. The undertaking which the hon the Prime Minister gave to these honourable gentlemen was, however, that they would not be prejudiced. It was most certainly not an undertaking that they would financially be benefited by the early termination of their period of service. I am still waiting for an explanation for this, and I am referring specifically to the payment of a tax-free allowance to these hon gentlemen, that is to say an allowance which is normally paid to a person to compensate that person for expenses he has to incur to enable him to discharge his obligations in the office to which he has been appointed. I am still waiting for a reply. The hon member for Randburg may as well give me that reply.

Why should such a tax-free allowance now be paid to these gentlemen after the dissolution of the President’s Council while they will have no function and no personal expenses in connection with the business of the defunct President’s Council? The undertaking given by the hon the Prime Minister was that these gentlemen would not be prejudiced.

Did you agree?

That hon member should ask his Whip for an opportunity to speak. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasize that that undertaking given by the Prime Minister did not include the undertaking that they would be benefited. By means of this provision, however, they are now indubitably being benefited, and this is being done at the expense of the taxpayers in this country.

I just want to dwell for a moment on the argument of the hon the Minister that these gentlemen had supposedly done such exceptionally good work for South Africa. The impression was created that the hon gentlemen of the President’s Council had objectively and impartially conducted a scientific, sociological, constitutional and political investigation in connection with what South Africa should do, without interference from others, to solve its problems. I also want to refer briefly to the leakage—we know by whom— of a Cabinet minute of February 1982, which read as follows:

From this document it is crystal clear that instructions were given to the gentlemen of the President’s Council on the part of that Minister. In addition the initial recommendations of the President’s Council did not deal with the Constitution as it was ultimately passed in 1983. Only after the NP had come forward with its constitutional plans did the President’s Council subsequently place its seal of approval on them. So much then for the “fantastic” work done by these gentlemen for South Africa.

On the part of the CP we express our total opposition to this Bill and we shall also vote against the Third Reading of the measure.

Mr Speaker, we are now making the final amendments to the new Constitution Act before it comes into operation in a few weeks time. In the Bill reference is made to the work done by the members of the President’s Council. The hon member for Barberton has just referred to this and has implied that the Cabinet gave instructions to the President’s Council. I want to point out to the hon member however that the President’s Council is the product of the report of the Schlebusch Commission in which that commission said that it was not able to make final recommendations without an opportunity being given for full consultation and the involvement of Coloureds and Indians in that consultation being brought about. When we come to the recommendations of the President’s Council which gave rise to the final drafting of the Constitution Act, and it is true that recommendations were made by the Cabinet, we should not lose sight of the fact that Indians and Coloureds served as members on the President’s Council and that they participated in the final deliberations on, the dealing with and eventual endorsing of certain guidelines accepted in the new Constitution. It is consequently not important whether there were indications or recommendations from the Cabinet. What is important is that there was a body which succeeded by means of discussions and deliberations in achieving a reasonable degree of consensus. It is of decisive importance that this was possible. This is in fact what the members of the President’s Council succeeded in doing.

It is a fact that with the new Constitution which has been accepted we are entering the situation that a new population ratio in South Africa has been given a constitutional basis. Most hon members will remember that there was a time when the Cabinet recommended that it was not appropriate to shake a Black man’s hand in greeting. But times have changed. There was a time when the Cabinet recommended that no member of the Cabinet should attend diplomatic functions if non-Whites were also invited as guests. But times have changed and so have points of view. Even today there are members of the CP who will no longer cling to recommendations of that kind. As circumstances change and the time is ripe for a different approach, one cannot find any fault with a different approach being adopted.

We are now entering a situation in which we are able to adopt a different approach as far as constitutional matters are concerned. This is because the time is now ripe for this and not because we are sacrificing the fundamental approach that whatever we do in South Africa must be done in such a way that the interests of the Whites will also be guaranteed and preserved. It is merely that we can now deal with that principle in a way which was not possible 20 years ago. What is important is that these matters are being dealt with an attitude of goodwill towards other population groups in South Africa. Since provision is being made for a tricameral Parliament and for joint responsibility of Coloureds and Indians on matters affecting their future—on their own or together with our interests—we are doing things in this Constitution in such a way that no interests of the Whites are being harmed by it.

It is a pity that there are people who are implying that because we are dealing with matters in this way now, the sovereignty of the Whites is being sold out and our future is being placed on the altar of a mixed population situation in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that we have a multiracial situation in Southern Africa, that we have to deal with this matter and that the interests of the Whites are not being sacrificed in the process. It is true after all that these matters are being dealt with in a way in which we feel they can be dealt with without sacrificing the interests of the Whites in any way. For the reason it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that this final amending of the Constitution will now enable us to proceed with the implementation of the Constitution, hoping and trusting that if everyone who participates in it does so with the right attitude, we shall make a success of it. I am not suggesting that all this is simply a vision of success. There will be problems which will have to be overcome, but this Government at least has the ability to deal with this in such a way that it will be to the advantage of the Whites and of good relations between the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks in this country.

Mr Speaker, I do not think that this will be the last time that we will seek to amend the new Constitution and I venture to suggest that on every occasion when we do seek to amend it, whatever we do, it will be met with vociferous complaints from our friends in the CP. I do not want to get involved in the race argument. I just want to place on record that we support the right of Mr Speaker of the new Parliament to call joint sittings. Whatever happens at those joint sittings is the subject matter of a debate on the Standing Rules and Orders on which one of your committees has been working these last few months, and hopefully we will be considering their recommendations here within the next seven to ten days.

I find it interesting that neither of the Government speakers today got anywhere near clause 13. It appears that that delectable little delicacy is being left…

For you and me.

Yes. However, I am not going to belabour it too much today. We have heard what the hon member for Sea Point has had to say and I must say that I agree with every word of what he said here this afternoon. As a matter of fact I think I have said everything he has said, either in the Second Reading debate or during the Committee Stage. He is an experienced politician and well-salted in the game. He had a little go at us this afternoon but I should like to point out to him that in line with the practice of this House, we supported an amendment that we had moved to clause 13. We had already accepted the principle of some form of payment for services rendered. That is a nice way of referring to a golden handshake. However, what we do not like, is the size of what I described as the platinum and diamond encrusted golden handshake. Having accepted the principle of an ex gratia payment we could hardly vote against the clause because we would have been voting against the very principle that we had accepted. With all due respect to the hon member for Sea Point, I want to say to him that it was a nice little political trick to try and I do not blame him for trying it. However, he is going to be in exactly the same position because any moment now he is going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. The only members who are going to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill are the hon members of the CP, unless of course the hon members of the PFP change their stance completely from that which they adopted at Second Reading. I congratulate the hon member on his attempt but I am afraid it did not work this time.

We want to reaffirm our point of view that what is happening in terms of clause 13 is a blatant misuse and abuse of taxpayers’ money. I want to warn the hon the Minister and tell him that he must be very careful from this moment forward. While we are debating the Third Reading of this Bill, he has perpetrated the very same act that he has perpetrated in this Bill. The hon the Minister has provided me with a certain document which I have in my possession. I appreciate the fact that it is confidential but it supersedes another document which he gave me two days ago. If he cares to consult page 9 of this document—I do not want to discuss its contents—he will find that it provides there that the chairman of a certain council, in compliance with certain conditions as a certain person may determine, is appointed for a maximum term of office of five years. The next provision is that a member of this proposed council shall hold office for a period of five years and may be reappointed or renominated. These provisions are contained in a document that was sent to me not five minutes ago. A body is going to be established to which members will be appointed for a period of five years. This is amending legislation which is not yet before the House but when it does come before the House, if this provision is embodied in the legislation—as this document purports will be the case—and it should be decided within the next three to three and a half years that this body is not really what is wanted, do you know what is going to happen? The hon the Minister is going to come back to this House and say: “Look at what you did. You agreed”. Therefore, he is making exactly the same mistake here.

May I please ask a question? Where in the legislation I have given notice of, is there a stipulation that if people’s terms of office should be shortened they will receive payment for the full term?

Mr Speaker, this is the explanatory memorandum to that legislation, and the explanatory memorandum provides that a member shall hold office for a period of five years. This is exactly the same provision as is laid down in section 102 of the Constitution which I shall quote so that hon members will be able to appreciate the similarity in terminology. It provides:

What is the difference between these two provisions? Perhaps the hon the Minister will explain to me what the difference is between the words “A member shall hold office for a period of five years” and the words “A member holds office for a period of five years”. [Interjections.] I said yesterday that this hon Minister was busy to “trap klei” and he is doing so again, but he is going to land himself in the soup with this one if he is not very, very careful. It is a pity that I cannot keep a straight face when I say these things, but, nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will think very carefully about the legislation that he intends introducing in the next few days so that he does not fall into the same situation in which he finds himself right at this moment.

Having said that I want to say in all sincerity that we in this party have played our part in respect of the President’s Council. We have had members on that council and they have done the right thing at all times. We have a record in the President’s Council which I think is something that the official Opposition cannot claim in this House.

Do you have any record at all?

Yes, we have a fine record. We have two gentlemen who went into the President’s Council from this party and they have acquitted themselves nobly. I grant that one of them recently left our party, but he has worked very, very hard in the President’s Council and has done sterling work while he has served there. The other gentleman, Mr Sutton, is also still in the President’s Council and is still very much a sympathizer with our cause. I want to take this opportunity this afternoon, as the chairman of the caucus of the NRP, to announce with great pleasure that we intend asking Mr Sutton to go back to the President’s Council as our representative. We are doing so because we believe that there are very few who have contributed as much as that gentleman has during his time in both this House and the President’s Council. It has been for me a great personal privilege to have been Mr Sutton’s benchmate in this House. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to have sat next to him during the years he attempted to put across his constitutional ideas to the hon members opposite. But what has been a greater privilege was to have heard of those very same ideas coming out of the President’s Council and today to know that so many of those ideas are embodied in the very constitution that we are going to implement in September this year. That gives us a tremendous feeling of pride in not only the work of Mr Sutton, but also of this party.

Therefore we support this measure. We thank the members of the President’s Council for what it has done. We wish its members well with this magnanimous golden handshake and we certainly offer every blessing to the incoming President’s Council.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umhlanga referred here to Mr Bill Sutton, a former member of this House. I remember very well how I sat opposite listening to him, and how we Nationalists jeered Mr Sutton when he tried to explain the constitutional dispensation of the NRP to us here. Now I want to agree with the hon member for Umhlanga and his party. Today they are the smallest party in this House, but I think their two members in the President’s Council have achieved a great deal. Mr Sutton and his colleague have to a great extent persuaded the President’s Council to accept their policy so that today it can be implemented by the governing party sitting opposite, that party, the new Prog Party. [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Odendaal said something here I do not want to allow to pass unchallenged. He said if the CP were to make the same sort of speeches in the new Parliament that they had made in this House during the past week, there would be conflict and strife. That is the reason why the NP rejected power-sharing over the years. Over the years the NP said that if one placed people of different races, cultures and so on in the same political decision-making body, there would be conflict and strife, and that is why the NP rejected power-sharing over the years and said that separate development of peoples was the answer. This is also the standpoint the CP adopts today and the solution it offers. This is still the recipe for peace today.

The hon member said that if right-wing radicals acted in the new Parliament in the same way the CP had acted in this House during the past week, there would be conflict and strife in this Parliament. The hon member is saying in advance to members of the House of Assembly who are going to participate in joint sittings of the Parliament with Coloureds and Indians that they must not fight for the interests of the Whites as the CP does. [Interjections.]

That hon member and the hon member for Kroonstad, who are now making interjections, say that if one wants amity and peace in the new Parliament, both in the joint committees and in the joint sittings, then one must not fight for the interests of the Whites as the CP does. He is saying in advance to the members of the House of Assembly of all parties who are going to serve on joint committees and standing committees that they must not fight for the interests of the Whites like the CP does.

A consequence of this Bill is that in the new Parliament there are going to be conflicting group interests which will also be discussed in the joint sittings, in the standing committees and when the President Council has to take a final decision on a matter on which unanimity could not be reached. As a result of the path of integration the NP has elected to follow the CP will be represented to an increasing extent in the House of Assembly and therefore also on the standing committees and the President’s Council.

I want to tell the hon member Dr Odendaal that as a result of the path the NP has elected to follow, the CP will be represented to an increasing extent in the House of Assembly and therefore also on the standing committees and the President’s Council. The CP will be represented there in order to take up the cudgels for the interests of the Whites. It will do so both in the House of Assembly and on its standing committees and on the President’s Council.

If the interests of the Whites in these multiracial Government institutions are in conflict with the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians, then the CP will take up the cudgels for the interests of the Whites. If the interests of the Coloureds are in conflict with the interests of the Whites, the Rev Hendrickse and his people will take up the cudgels in the interests of the Coloureds. They will do so in Parliament, on the standing committees and on the President’s Council. The CP will not place the interests of the Whites on the altar merely for the sake of amity and peace, and nor will the Rev Hendrickse place the interests of the Coloureds on the altar for the sake of amity and peace.

That is why the CP now rejects power-sharing, as the NP used to do over the years, because power-sharing is the best recipe for conflict and strife. The hon member has just told us that power-sharing in this multiracial country will bring strife. The hon member Dr Odendaal has just said that the new dispensation can only work if Parliament consists of a lot of yes-men, who place all group interests on the altar for the sake of consensus. That is why the CP says that the new constitutional dispensation and these amendments to it are not going to work. On the contrary, this is the best recipe for conflict and strife in South Africa. For that reason the CP rejects this Bill and will continue under the new dispensation to convince people of colour that separate development is the recipe for peace and that every people can only really be free and not in conflict with the interests of other people, if it governs itself in its own geographic area.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Klip River and the hon member Dr Odendaal for their contributions to the debate. It is regrettable that the course of events in this House often forces one to react to the negative things and does not always leave one the time to convey one’s thanks for positive contributions.

†I now come to the contribution of the hon member for Sea Point. Sir, I have always believed that when one deals with a particular subject one will arrange one’s arguments in support or against in the order of priority and I submit that when one has to reply to a debate one must do the same thing in dealing with the arguments of your opponents. Let me point out that I did not advance the debt of honour that we have towards members of the President’s Council as the first priority when I reasoned in favour of clause 13. As a matter of fact I made the plea that we in this House ought not to argue about the position of other people in the way we were doing, especially in the light of the commendable and laudable work which members of that council have done. Therefore, for the hon member for Sea Point to put this as the first of his seven reasons against this clause was unjustified, and I do not wish to comment any further on this.

I put it as the sixth.

No, please. Secondly, let me say that I believe that the hon member for Umhlanga put the argument much more ably than the hon member for Sea Point after he took it over from the hon member for Umhlanga. [Interjections.] Let us take this further. The hon member asked what member had ended his career in midterm and if there are members who did so I should give him the names. [Interjections.] That is what the hon member said. He said he would like to hear their names. In other words, he expects of me to discuss individual cases across the floor. I am not prepared to do that.

I never said that.

If the hon member thinks I am misquoting him he should go and check his Hansard. He said that he knew of no member who had stopped his career in mid-term and that if there were such members, he would like to know their names so that we can deal with them individually.

*That is what the hon member said. One should weigh one’s words when one wishes to conduct a debate in this House, and I commend this approach to the hon member for Sea Point as well.

Let me go on. There is one question put by the hon member which I did not answer in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I should like to do so now, the hon member adopted the standpoint that when it came to constitutional amendments in future, the accepted procedure should be followed, ie it should be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. I want to state at once, on behalf of the Government, that this is our standpoint as well. The impression should not be created, therefore, that a deviation in this particular case implies that we shall deviate from this custom as a rule. I should just like to give the hon member that assurance.

I now wish to refer to the remarks made by the hon member for Barberton. In the debates on the Constitution, and in the way in which it has been presented and propagated, there has never been any doubt about the fact that the deviation from the Westminster system with regard to the head of state or the head of government meant that the two posts would be combined in one and the same office. With regard to the powers of the State President under the new dispensation, too, there has never been any doubt about the fact that he will have the responsibilities and the rights which the State President and the Prime Minister have under the present dispensation. The effect of those responsibilities is that as head of the executive authority, he will be accountable in this House to the parliamentary institutions in respect of the administration of the country.

In fact, the hon member was present—for some inexplicable reason this has slipped his memory; only he will know why—when questions were put to me in this connection during the discussion of my Vote, ie about the question of whether the State President would act and would be held accountable in Parliament, in the House of Assembly and in the other Houses, just as the Prime Minister is today. The reply to that was “yes”.

He is not a member of the House of Assembly.

Of course he is not a member of the House of Assembly, and that is why the answer to those questons was “yes”. I shall come back to the question of whether or not he should be a member of the House of Assembly.

There was no doubt about what the intention was with the deviation in this particular connection. In fact, in the transitional stage of the Constitution, it was provided that any reference to the Prime Minister would be a reference to the State President, and the hon member knows that this is true. In other words, when a merely technical correction is made to the Act, to the effect that any reference to the Prime Minister shall include a reference to the State President under the new dispensation, the hon member is the one man in this House who is now hearing for the first time that the State President will be able to handle a portfolio in the new Parliament. Coming from certain other people, I could understand it, but it is difficult to understand that this hon member, with his background, did not know that. This attitude on the part of the hon member is ingenious and lacks any foundation in law. I submit that the hon member knew this when he advanced his argument.

Of course the new State President will have a very important task in future—I am now referring to remarks of the hon member for Sea Point—in the sense that he will have to play a conciliatory role. It will be a conciliatory role among the parties in the House of the group to which he belongs, and it will also be a conciliatory role among the various Houses which will constitute Parliament. I do not doubt for a moment that if the Constitution is successfully implemented, the State President will develop conventions around him which will make him less involved in the petty political quarrels among the parties. Having said this, I want to make it clear that we have always adopted the standpoint that the State President will remain the national leader of his party. This does not imply partiality. There are many other examples of where this is done with success.

It simply means that one has a coalition Cabinet.

That hon member should just give me a chance to deal with all the arguments. [Interjections.] I gave the hon member for Lichtenburg some good advice the other day, when I said that he should rather concentrate on animal genetics and steer clear of constitutional law and political science. I do not know what specific subject the hon member for Langlaagte could take up, but he should please stay away from these matters. [Interjections.]

Let us rather compare our degrees, you and I.

I do not want to compare degrees now. [Interjections.] I want to state my standpoint on the position of the State President in future. In this connection, I am replying to the hon member for Sea Point, the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Umhlanga.

†Let me deal with this new argument of the hon member, namely that they are no longer arguing the principle that members of the President’s Council should be paid the salary part of their remuneration. They have discarded that argument. Now they object to the non-taxable allowance being paid.

*The way I know the hon member for Barberton, I expected him to apologise for the figure which he mentioned and which he said would be involved. The hon member knows that that figure is not correct, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he did not know it when he mentioned the figure. I am stretching my imagination in order to give him that benefit, but I expected him, as an hon member of this House, to have the courage to say that the figure was wrong.

Give us the right figure. [Interjections.]

One does not reply to an argument by making a lot of noise.

Just give us the right figure.

I am coming to that. The hon member for Brakpan had better be careful. I want to put it to the hon member for Barberton in plain terms that he now knows that the figure which he gave was wrong. He is an hon member whom I respect, and he knows it. It does not become him, as a person who has a great deal to say about moral behaviour, to advance this kind of argument in public. If the hon member is not prepared to admit this, as I expect him to do, I can only conclude that he did this merely for the sake of a little political propaganda, so that it could be recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.] I am serious when I tell the hon member that I did not expect it of him. He knows exactly what I mean. Now the hon member goes on—and the hon member for Sea Point has also climbed on the band-wagon—and today it seems that his argument is no longer concerned with the salaries, but with the non-taxable allowance. Those hon members argue as though the non-taxable allowances of members of Parliament and members of the President’s Council were used only to cover their expenses as members of these two bodies. I say once again that the hon member realizes that that argument is not correct. The fact is that the non-taxable allowance is also used as a basis for calculating the gratuities and pensions of hon members. If the hon member wants to argue these matters with me, therefore, he should please take the argument to its logical conclusion.

That argument does not hold water.

Of course it will not hold water for that hon member, because it does not suit him. When the hon member tells me that we should pay the non-taxable allowance only to those who have constituencies, I must take cognizance of that argument and I must give consideration to it, but then the hon member should also substantiate it. He cannot argue only one side of a matter. He must take it to its logical conclusion. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point spoke about people who had served in the Public Service and who had gone from there to the President’s Council. However, there are also people who have come to this House from the Public Service and who receive pensions and salaries. Moreover, it is a fact that the Public Service Act also contains a principle which says that under certain circumstances, and where the services of a particular official have become redundant, he can be credited with additional service, which has a favourable effect on his income, and I believe that this should indeed be done. If this is acceptable to us, we cannot argue with one another about the principle contained in clause 13. The most we can do in that case is to argue about the quantum of the remuneration, as the hon member for Umhlanga did. Now the hon member for Sea Point reproaches the hon member for Umhlanga—with whom I disagree, and he disagrees with me—for having voted for a principle which is contained in the Constitution; ie for the same principle which this House accepted when the 1961 Act was amended. Surely this is a fact. Why, then, should we quarrel with one another about this?

Let us now see what the Act provides, for it is no use quoting only one part of the Act, as the hon member for Barberton does; one has to quote the Act as a whole, and that is what that hon member should have done, especially in view of the fact that he knows all the provisions of the Act. The fact is that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind about the responsibility which the Government and this House have towards the members of the President’s Council upon the occasion of its premature dissolution. In terms of section 102, the President’s Council is appointed for five years. However, it was also foreseen that the President’s Council might be dissolved before the end of its five-year term, that is to say, if we want to argue the matter on a purely technical legal basis. Because this was foreseen, provision is made in section 105 for the circumstances under which the President’s Council may be dissolved before the end of the fixed term in terms of section 102. It is provided that the State President may dissolve the President’s Council upon 90 days’ notice after a general election of a House of Assembly. Let us be liberalists, if we have to, for if words have any meaning, it remains a fact that if there has been a general election of members of the House of Assembly, and we want to take the argument to its logical conclusion, we cannot dissolve the President’s Council before 90 days have elapsed after that general election. If objections are raised to clause 13, therefore, a suitable amendment would have been to propose that the provisions of sections 102 and 105 be complied with. Then this House would have been acting purely in terms of its own laws. Why are we arguing about these matters in this way? People outside get the impression that we are saying, “I am okay, Jack,” and that we forget about the other people. That is not the way to behave.

They are all your friends.

The hon member says that they are all my friends. But is Mr Herman not his friend too?

You appointed him.

No, we appointed him. At that time the hon member was still one of us. The hon member for Soutpansberg had better not wake up, because he only gets into trouble. He also helped to appoint him. After all, the hon member was not sitting on the other side when Mr Herman was appointed. Nor was he sitting there when he gave his approval for a mixed President’s Council. [Interjections.] It seems to me that I am awakening something in the hon member.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg should now give the hon the Minister an opportunity to deliver his speech.

If I heard him correctly, the hon member for Brakpan congratulated me on the fact that I had woken up certain people, and I accept the compliment.

I have referred to the fact—and with this I want to conclude the argument in connection with clause 13—that in terms of section 102 of the 1961 Constitution, the term of the President’s Council is fixed at five years. On 25 August 1981, and at that time the hon the Prime Minister was still the leader of the hon member for Barberton as well …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Soutpansberg entitled to say to the hon member for Innesdal that the Americans say that he is the cheapest thing they have ever bought?

If the hon member for Soutpansberg said that, he was saying that that was what the Americans said about the hon member for Innesdal.

Mr Speaker, I did not mean that as an interjection. It was not my intention that the hon member for Randburg should repeat it. I said it to the hon member for Innesdal, but it was not meant as an interjection. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg has repeatedly tried to create the impression in the course of this session, in his typical acrimonious way, that I am being used by other people. I am simply wondering whether the remark which he has just made does not reflect on my person. I request your ruling on the matter.

The hon member for Soutpansberg has indicated that he has withdrawn it.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I did not hear it.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I do not think we should talk about prices, because there is not even an offer for some.

Mr Speaker, does the remark which the hon the Minister has just made not also imply that the hon member for Soutpansberg is cheap? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said that we should not talk about prices, because certain people would not fetch any price. [Interjections.] Then the hon Minister should explain what he means by that. He is insinuating that certain hon members of this House do not have a price. [Interjections.] Sir, I am addressing you.

Order!

If that din would only stop, I could address you further. I think that the hon the Minister owes it to this House to say what he means by that insinuation, and he should not whisper it softly to the hon members around him, so that we cannot even hear properly what he is saying.

The hon the Minister did not say that some of the hon members of this House were cheap or did not have a price. He made a general statement in the course of his argument. I cannot accept that it was necessarily aimed at an hon member of this House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I was saying that on 25 August, the Prime Minister, who was at that time the leader of the hon member for Barberton as well, said in this House that statutory effect would be given in this House to that arrangement and that it would be confirmed.

I want to go further and to say that the argument that members of the House of Assembly who have been elected or nominated for a term of five years have obviously accepted the risk that they may serve a shorter term if an early election is called, is not applicable to the President’s Council, because the members of that body are appointed and not elected. Section 105 of the 1961 Constitution, which provides that the President’s Council may be dissolved within 90 days after a general election for the House of Assembly, is not applicable either, because there is no question yet of the dissolution of the House of Assembly for the election of members. This is clear from section 102(4) of the 1983 Constitution, which provides that the present House of Assembly shall be deemed to have been constituted for the purposes of the new Constitution. So there has been no question whatsoever of the term of the House of Assembly being ended. In fact, it is possible, in terms of the same section of the Constitution, to extend the duration of the House of Assembly beyond the five-year term.

Now the hon member for Barberton says that we did not debate these matters, but as far as I can remember, no amendment was moved to the clause concerned on the select committee. However, to say that we did not debate the matter is not true. If I remember correctly, the select committee sat for 50 hours, if not longer. Then why are we arguing about this? In the light of this, I say that it is impossible for the Government to act in any other way while still maintaining that its conduct is morally right.

I come now to the next point. It seems that the objection to the salary component has been abandoned; the objection is now directed at the non-taxable component of the remuneration, which I have already dealt with in part. As far as the amount is concerned, I am naturally unable to give hon members the final amount. However, I can give them the difference between the implications of the alternatives, and that I shall do.

The hon member for Sea Point says, with reference to the former members of this House who are now members of the President’s Council, that we can place them here by virtue of our nominating powers.

As far as the new council is concerned?

Yes, that is what I mean. However, it is not our responsibility alone. After all, the party of the hon member for Sea Point did not participate in the President’s Council; on the contrary, it suspended its people or threatened them with suspension. Now, in the year of our Lord 1984, the party is going to participate in that council, and it has announced its candidates. Does the hon member for Sea Point not wish to fulfil a moral obligation towards those people whom he suspended or wanted to suspend from the party by rather bringing them here through the President’s Council, thereby setting a good example to those of us on this side of the House? [Interjections.] The hon member for Sea Point must realize that he cannot apply arguments to one side only. He must apply the arguments to both sides.

That is a very weak argument.

Well, then you should be able to understand it. If it is a weak argument, you should understand it. [Interjections.]

*As far as the amount is concerned, I should prefer to draw attention to two important provisos which have been built into the clause. Provisos have been built into the clause which have conveniently been ignored in the course of the debate. In the first place, the members of the President’s Council may choose whether they wish the payment of their salaries to continue until the end of a five-year term or whether they wish to receive a gratuity and a pension now in the place of that salary. This proviso has been ignored. In the second place, members of the President’s Council who are elected or appointed to a political office or who accept an appointment in the service of the Republic after the dissolution of the President’s Council are not entitled to payment of a salary in terms of this arrangement, and that includes the non-taxable portion of their remuneration, for the information of the hon member for Barberton.

Since it is not known at this stage—I concede that—how many members will opt for the gratuity and pension instead of a continued salary, and how many will be elected to a political office or appointed in the service of the Government, I believe it is mischievous and irresponsible of the Opposition and certain sections of the media to allege that the relevant service benefits of members of the President’s Council will cost the State an additional amount of R4 million. That is absolute nonsense. In any event, no final calculation of costs can be made at this stage, except by the hon member for Barberton.

Since blatant misrepresentations of this situation are being published, in spite of the fact that the final amounts cannot be calculated, you will understand that I have to state the facts in the interests of the truth. I hope that the media which so eagerly echoed the hon member for Barberton, for reasons which were exactly the same as the reasons he had for mentioning the amount, will now publish the full explanation. Then they can comment on the matter if they wish.

I had calculations made by the department so as to be able to provide at least an indication of a maximum limit to the financial implications for the State, and the following possibilities were considered: Firstly, the payment of normal pension benefits to members of the President’s Council without any continued payment of salaries up to the end of their term of service. In this case, the State would have been obliged to make exactly the same pension benefits as those that are applicable to members of Parliament at present—the hon member for Sea Point spoke about it—applicable to the members of the President’s Council. Surely they would then be exposed to the same risks, and therefore there should not be any difference between the risk factor in their case and the risk factor in the case of members of Parliament. I accept the argument for the purposes of this particular hypothesis. This would cost the State an additional R2,2 million in increased gratuities and pensions. I could mention examples, but then I would have to mention people’s names, and that I do not intend to do. Moreover, the State would have been faced with problems relating to technical difficulties and matters of principle; for example, members would have had to pay back their pensions with effect from 1 January 1981, which would have caused further tax complications.

The second possibility that was considered was the continued payment of salaries and allowances to members of the President’s Council up to the end of their present term, ie up to the end of December 1985, (a) on condition that no pension benefits be paid to members who have been admitted to the pension scheme of the President’s Council and (b) bearing in mind the fact that quite a number of the present members of the President’s Council could again be appointed to a political office or in the service of the Republic, in which case no further salary would be payable in terms of the arrangement. This is important. It has another important advantage in that the payment of a pension plus a salary is eliminated in the new occupation, which has not been the position up to now. Even if not a single member were appointed to a political office or in the service of the Republic again, this arrangement would cost the State approximately R1,8 million at most.

The Government has accepted the latter option, not only because it will cost the State less, but also because at the present time, it is the most practical and principled way of dealing with our undertakings.

Where does the hon member get the figure of R4 million from? Not only is this amount based on a period of 18 months instead of just under 16 months, but no account was taken of the fact that a large number of members would receive a pension which would not be the case for the next 16 months and which should therefore be deducted from the final figure. Surely the hon member for Barberton cannot tell me that he did not know that. Surely the hon member for Sea Point cannot say that either.

I did not talk about figures.

No, I know the hon member did not talk about figures, but he spoke about the magnitude of the payment without using any figures. This shows how casual some people are in their approach to the facts.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize that the absolute maximum figure which is being calculated at my request will eventually be much lower, of course, if the members of the President’s Council are afforded the opportunity, as I have already said, of choosing between a pension and a salary, and when we can see after 3 September how many of the present members of the President’s Council are going to return to politics or to the service of the Republic. Only then shall we be able to arrive at a final figure. I undertake to make the final figure known, but until then, it behoves each of us to identify as such the lie which has been published.

I conclude by referring to the other arguments. The hon member for Barberton says that the NP first decided on a policy and that the President’s Council only made a recommendation afterwards. The hon member has been developing a tendency of late to ignore the facts. After all, the hon member was still a member of the NP at that time. I can understand why he has been behaving in this way since his departure, but before that date, the hon member had never behaved like this. I think the hon member has acquired some bad habits since he left us, and I find that regrettable.

The report of the President’s Council was tabled in the President’s Council on 17 May 1983. On 27 May, it was tabled in the House of Assembly, and on 4 June, the Cabinet formulated its guidelines in response to that report. I come now to the point at issue. The hon member for Barberton knows that in many respects, the guidelines which were eventually accepted by the Government for a new constitutional dispensation did not follow the recommendations of the President’s Council. Now let us examine his logic. If there had been any shadow of truth in the suggestion that we prescribed to the President’s Council in connection with the advice it had to give us about a constitutional system and the form it should take, why should we have accepted guidelines and placed a Constitution on the Statute Book which differs on material points from the recommendations of the President’s Council? surely the hon member for Barberton—I am specifically addressing him—can do better than that from a moral, legal and factual point of view. I suggest that he reconsider all three these points of view.

The hon member referred to clauses 8 and 10. I believe that we may discuss them now, but I shall abide by your ruling, Sir. The fact is that there was a subcommittee which dealt with the Rules and the Standing Orders, and the party of the hon member for Barberton was represented on that subcommittee. Like a good democrat, his party’s representative helped to formulate those rules. In fact, he took a very strong stand on the need for joint sittings. The hon member can look this up in the records, so I shall not take the matter any further. The fact is that on the basis of this, a request was made that we should amend the Constitution in respect of joint rules for joint sittings. What right does the hon member for Barberton have to say that we have changed our standpoint, and as a result of the fact that we have changed our standpoint, we are now introducing an amendment in this connection ex post facto? Allow me to say, for the record, that the hon members of the CP opposed the Constitution on that committee, of course. Naturally, they protested against the rules as well.

I suggest in all fairness that we really should check our facts before arguing about matters such as these. Section 67 of the Constitution Act, 1983, provides for joint sittings of the Houses, this is not a discovery which was made after the passing of the Constitution. The hon member went on to say, if I interpret him correctly, that a full joint sitting could now take place. That is what he said, but what does “full joint sitting” mean?

You tell us.

I shall, but then the hon member must listen.

A full joint sitting begins with the introduction and continues until the final decision has been taken. That is what a full joint sitting means. I ask the hon member whether there is any proposal here that section 67(5) be amended. The answer is “no”. Once again, we are faced with a deliberate and calculated attempt to have certain standpoints recorded in Hansard and then to use Hansard as official authority for the Government’s standpoint. I want to put it to the hon member for Barberton …

You should go and read my Hansard again.

Yes, I will.

You have completely misquoted me.

Of course the hon member said that. If I am wrong, I shall apologize to the hon member, and he knows that. The hon member referred to a full joint sitting. I want to repeat that this particular clause does not effect any change to the quantum or to the principle of the holding of joint sittings. All it does is to change the procedure for the calling of joint sittings. In the existing legislation, it is provided that it shall be called by the State President by message. Now it is being provided that in addition to this procedure, such sittings can also be called by the Speaker of Parliament. There are many reasons—on which I need not elaborate now—why it is possible to conduct a debate between opposing parties in committee which could not be conducted as effectively in an open debate. The hon member for Barberton will grant me that. The hon member also knows that it is often possible for us to conduct debates on select committees and to reach consensus on matters on which we cannot reach consensus here in the public Chamber. Surely this is true. The position will be the same in the future dispensation. So we have good reasons for accepting as a general principle—the rules will provide for this—that there will be joint standing committees. [Time expired.]

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

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

Question declared affirmed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This is the fourth time since Union, 74 years ago, that the Government has come to this House with comprehensive and consolidated legislation to regulate the employment of persons in the Public Service and everything connected therewith. The first piece of legislation of this nature was the Public Service and Pensions Act, 1912—Act 29 of 1912— which had to make provision for the consolidation of the Public Services of the former British colonies. Eleven years later this Act was replaced by the Public Service Act, 1923—Act 27 of 1923—which, evidently, was drafted so well that it survived a full 31 years on the Statute Book. In 1957 the present Public Service Act—Act 54 of 1957—saw the light of day, but since it was capable of meeting the demands of the future only after it had been amended extensively, the Government gave approval in 1983 for it to be replaced by a new and consolidated Public Service Act. The Bill at present before this House puts this resolution into effect. Hon members will understand that provisions which in some cases have existed for nearly 72 years in legislation relating to the Public Service cannot simply be obliterated from the Statute Book in one fell swoop. Consequently the Bill has taken over, with few changes, the measures from the Public Service Act, 1957, regulating good order in the Public Service establishment and maintaining the principle of efficiency and merit in the Public Service. However, the language of these measures has been modernized and they have, where necessary, been arranged more functionally in the Bill. Where necessitated by circumstances, however, existing measures have been adapted drastically and new measures introduced to make provision for present and foreseeable circumstances.

†Until now the commission has had no effective decision-making powers concerning, for example the pension scheme or the 100% housing loan scheme for public servants. In order to grant the commission a say in all the conditions of service of public servants for the sake of a comprehensive approach to personnel administration, clause 3(4)(a)(v) of the Bill provides that the commission, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, may make recommendations concerning any scheme which is a condition of service of officers or employees. Although such recommendations will be concerned with the operation of the scheme and not related to the application of the scheme to any individual officer or employee, any such recommendation may, in terms of clause 4(2), be rejected or amended by the State President. This provision is necessary because it is not the intention that the Minister entrusted with the administration of such a scheme, should in any way be deprived of his basic functional responsbility and powers in this respect.

Although in the opinion of the State law advisers, the commission already has a right to reduce or rescind a condition of service applying to officers or employees where such changes become necessary as the result of new circumstances, clause 4(6) of the Bill now establishes this right explicitly and beyond all doubt. All laws on the Public Service which in the past were introduced into this House have resulted in changes in the classification of employment and posts. This Bill is no exception to this rule. In terms of clause 7, all posts and persons in the administrative, clerical, professional, technical and general A divisions will in future be included in the A division. Likewise, all posts and persons in the general B division will be included in the B division. This change in classification is the direct result of occupational differentiation in terms of which, for the purposes of determining conditions of service, differentiation is no longer mainly between the different divisions of the Public Service, but rather between the different occupational groups. The involvement of the commission with the career incidents of persons in the Public Service will, however, not be affected at this stage.

As was already envisaged in this House on 22 February this year, clause 11 of the Bill provides for heads of department to hold office for specific terms. The first term of office will be for a period of not more than five years, which may thereafter repeatedly be extended for further periods each of from one to five years’ duration. If the Minister or the Administrator concerned, on the recommendation of the commission, should decide that a term of office should not be extended, or if a head of department should not desire such an extension, the head of department concerned will be retired. Furthermore, all the other provisions concerning the transfer, retirement, discharge and other career incidents of an officer, will remain applicable to a head of department.

The system of holding office for specified terms is being established at the request of heads of department and the conditions relating to such an office have been laid down in close consultation with those concerned. In order to make provision for special service benefits for heads of department during or at the expiry of a term of office, I shall move an amendment to clause 31 during the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Government considers the envisaged system as one of the corner-stones on which effective and dynamic management in the Public Service can be further extended.

*Hon members will recall that comprehensive and involved procedures exist in the Public Service Act, 1957, in accordance with which investigations into allegations of inefficiency and charges of misconduct against officers have to be conducted. Without affecting the right of such officers in any way, the Bill now makes provision for the procedures concerned to be prescribed by regulation. However, the basic rights are still being embodied in the Bill. This makes the simplification of the procedures less cumbersome and at the same time prevents the time of this House being occupied by effecting purely procedural amendments to the Act.

The provisions affecting the privileges, rights and obligations of officers and employees are being consolidated, as far as is practicable, in a separate chapter in the Bill. Since the Public Service Act, 1957, was silent as regards the way in which grievances of officers and employees had to be settled, the Bill makes specific mention of the way in which this is to be done. Unlike the position which pertained in the case of previous Public Service laws, a real need has arisen to lay down by law measures for the maintenance of the general security in departments. Consequently the State President may in terms of the Bill, and on the recommendation of the commission, make regulations on the general security in departments and the security requirements with which officers and employees must comply. Furthermore an officer may, on the recommendation of the commission, be discharged from the Public Service if his continued employment constitutes a security risk to the State.

On several occasions in this House this year, when the Public Service was being debated, I was particularly impressed by the in-depth discussions which were held and by the well-considered contributions made by hon members. I know that this will also be so during the discussion of the Bill. For the rest I trust that the Bill will enjoy the wholehearted support of this House.

Mr Speaker, I wish to deal with this very important Bill under three headings, firstly, the new features contained in it; secondly, the total annual remuneration of public servants and their obligation to the public; and, thirdly, the confidentiality between members of the public and the public servants.

The Bill before the House is more than the consolidation of the Public Service Act, No 54 of 1957. A large portion of the Act was amended a short while ago when we passed the Commission for Administration Bill. Although one could perhaps criticize some of the provisions in the old Act, there are so many new features in this Bill that must be dealt with.

Clause 3(2)(f) allows the commission to make recommendations regarding the utilization of computers and labour-saving devices to improve working conditions, which shows how up to date the Public Service has become. Clause 3(4)(v) allows the commission to make recommendations regarding the establishment or operation of any pension, housing or other scheme which will be a condition of service and which cannot be provided for in terms of this Bill. For instance on page 23 of the 1982-83 annual report the commission recommended and obtained Cabinet approval for the following: The 100% housing loan scheme was improved by including unmarried officials of all races. The bond limit was raised to R50 000 and the Public Service Pension Fund could be used to finance a special loan fund. The medical aid scheme was also improved so that in certain respects 100% benefits are now being paid out. The State’s contribution has been increased to 200%. The Stabilization Fund was also established and special travel allowances were obtained. In terms of this Bill these things will be able to be done much more easily, which is a very good thing.

As the hon the Minister has said, clause 6 defines a head of a department and allows him to have full control over the personnel in his department. Clause 7, as the hon the Minister has also mentioned, brings about a completely new classification in that the A division now consists of the administrative, clercial, professional, technical and remaining general A division, which enhances flexibility and makes very good sense.

We are going to move an amendment to clause 10, because it provides, inter alia, that “no person who qualifies for the appointment, transfer or promotion concerned shall be favoured or prejudiced”. We are going to move an amendment to the effect that they shall not be favoured or prejudiced by reason of race, religion, creed, language, colour, sex or marital status.

Clause 11 lays down the conditions of appointment of a head of a department or a Director-General on contract. Schedule 1 indicates that there are 26 departments of State which have Directors-General or people of equivalent status who really form the foundation on whom the whole Public Service rests. Clause 11 allows the head of a department to be transferred to another post on the recommendation of the commission, while other clauses allow him, if he wishes to retire, to request that he be retired.

I want to draw particular attention to clause 14. Clause 14(4)(a) allows for exchanges of staff to be made between the Public Service and other Government or statutory bodies or other organizations, bodies or persons. For example, a firm like Premier Milling could allow one of its top men to serve on the marketing council of the Department of Agriculture, while the Department of Agriculture could allow one of its officials to be transferred to the marketing department of Premier Milling, and they will still both remain employed by their original organizations. This interchange of experience will be fantastic.

Clause 16 deals with the discharge of officers and includes two new reasons for discharging them. In terms of paragraph (g) an officer can be discharged on account of misrepresentation in relation to permanent employment and in terms of paragraph (h) he can be discharged if his continued employment constitutes a security risk. As regards paragraph (g), that misrepresentation can only mean that he is not a South African, that he is a bad character or that he did not have the necessary health qualifications. Paragraph (h), however, implies a very difficult question. How is a security risk to be assessed? Even if a person is imprisoned without trial, surely the question whether he is a security risk can only be ascertained on conviction by a court. Is belonging to a trade union a security risk? Is belonging to the UDF a security risk? Clause 16(3)(a) and (b) must be deleted because it perpetrates an absolute lie to state that, if a person is discharged in terms of subsection (3)(a) or (b), he is actually discharged in terms of subsection (2)(e) or (d) respectively. This demeans the Bill and is an injustice.

In terms of clause 19(t) misconduct can mean the contravention of a prescribed code of conduct. We believe that it is not the commission which should draw up this prescribed code of conduct. We shall accordingly move an amendment for this code to be drawn up by a judge of the Supreme Court after consultation with the commission and the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. Clause 29 deals with grievances and requests of officers and employees. I believe that this clause should be prominently displayed in all offices so that all public servants will know their rights. Clause 32 concerns wrongly granted remuneration. This will be dealt with in the Committee Stage by the hon member for Pinetown. Clause 33 refers to the establishment of the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. This is rather problematical because it is a question of the Public Servants Association talking to other public servants. The Public Servants Association really only wants to talk to either the commissioners or the Minister. I should like to hear the Minister’s view on whether the Public Service Advisory Committee is really functioning properly. Clause 35 deals with regulations and those are quite voluminous as can be seen from the book I have here. The new regulations should be submitted to a standing committee for condensation and approval before publication. Clause 36 now for the first time allows the Public Service Staff Code to become part of the Act where before it was part of the regulations.

So much for the Bill. I should now like to deal with the question of the total remuneration of public servants and the obligations of the State towards its public servants. During the discussion of the Vote of the Commission for Administration I discussed the question of the improvement of conditions of service. That was on 4 May 1984. I presented the Minister with a table, which appears in cols 5855-6 of Hansard, showing the total annual payments by the State. There are, in addition, many other benefits for which the State must pay, inter alia subsistence and travelling allowances, sessional allowances, study allowances and bursaries and professional allowances. It is also necessary to add the benefits an officer will receive when he retires. I have, therefore, drawn up a supplementary table which I shall now send across to the hon the Minister, as follows:

TOTAL OBLIGATION BY THE STATE

All officers must belong to the Government Service Pension Fund to which the State provides a 275% contribution. It is possible for an officer, no matter when he joins, to buy back to the age of 16. Let us assume that he retires at the age of 60. I shall just deal with this on the basis of monthly salaries. Let us take four people who receive stated monthly salaries in the Estimates of Expenditure of R800, R1 500, R2 250 and R5 000 respectively. A social worker gets a stated monthly salary of R800. His take-home pay is actually R970, but the State is responsible for R1 846 per month. When he retires he receives a gratuity of R35 578 and a monthly pension of R720. A Senior Training Officer who gets a stated monthly salary of R1 500 actually receives R1 839, the State is responsible for R3 032, he receives a gratuity of R67 446 and a monthly pension of R1 375. An Assistant Director receives R2 250 as a stated monthly salary and actually receives R2 730, the State is responsible for R4 317, he receives a gratuity of R100 127, and his monthly pension …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member but is he still discussing the Bill before the House?

Yes, Sir. It deals with the remuneration of public servants and the obligations of the State in respect of public servants.

Yes, but this is the Public Service Bill. It deals with the organization and administration of the Public Service.

Yes, Sir, but it also deals with the question of the remuneration of public servants.

The hon member has not yet convinced me that what he is saying has to do with the Bill before the House.

The Bill contains a definition of “salary range” which means a minimum and maximum salary limit linked to a specific level of work; and “scale” in relation to salary includes salary at a fixed rate.

The long title of the Bill states inter alia:

The hon member is now discussing the remuneration of public servants.

But surely, Sir, remuneration is a condition of employment. After all, that is the reason why one works.

The hon member is discussing salaries and giving figures in that regard which I do not think form part of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am trying to show the obligations that the State has in providing conditions of servive in respect of its employees. I submit that it is very important that we should know what the State has to provide. If you will allow me to continue on this basis, Sir, you will then be able to appreciate the rest of my argument.

I shall allow the hon member to continue but he must come back to the principle of the Bill as soon as possible.

Thank you, Sir. The last example I wish to deal with is a Director-General who receives a stated salary of R5 000 per month. His actual monthly salary is R5 946, the Government is responsible for R8 561, and he receives a gratuity of R218 000 and a monthly pension of R4 415.

It is Government policy that the remuneration and other service benefits—the total service benefits package—of Public Service personnel be brought up to a level that is competitive with other sectors in private enterprise. Public servants today are well paid while in service and are well looked after in retirement. In this regard, however, I want to state what I have stated previously, and that is that the image of the public servant in the eyes of the public is poor. It is up to the Public Service Advisory Council to ensure that the individual’s productivity, responsibility and answerability are commensurate with his total salary. Persons who fail must be eliminated. It must be a highly productive organization otherwise the Public Service will sow the seeds of its own destruction in becoming a lumbering bureaucracy.

During the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, the hon the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the dangers of bureaucracy in Africa when he referred to Challiand’s book Revolution in the Third World: Myths and Prospects. I should like to quote again what he said, namely:

Section 7 of the Commission for Administration Act, 1984, deals with the powers, functions and duties of the commission, which may at the behest of the State President make recommendations in respect of all Public Service, semi-government and statutory bodies and co-ordinate these recommendations in conjunction with the SA Transport Services and the Post Office whose budgets are approved by this House. Although it is not within our present ambit, the public believe, because the Post Office and SA Transport Services are State-owned and Parliament must approve their budgets, that they are part of the public sector. I shall deal only with those departments that come under the direct and indirect control of the commission.

In the central Government, provincial government and statutory bodies last year, according to the Bulletin of Statistics, Vol 18.1, March 1984, we had 663 445 public servants. Their monthly earnings came to R475 883 000, giving a total per annum of R5,7 billion out of a total expenditure of R21 billion, ie some 27%. However, the total for the 1985-86 fiscal year will increase substantially because about R1 billion will have to be added for the teachers. The salaries and benefits will increase according to my estimate to something like R7,7 billion. It is necessary to pay these people but I am just warning of the danger. The total expenditure is estimated to be some R25 billion or about 30% of total expenditure which will be an increase of 3,8%.

South Africa is both a First World and a Third World country which requires tremendous amounts of capital expenditure on service and infrastructure.

With a third-class Government.

It must be understood by the Public Service that they are entitled to be well paid, but what one requires is a small, well trained, highly efficient and highly productive Public Service. We live in a complex multiracial country, and with the development of the new constitutional dispensation it becomes even more important that the hard earned revenue of the private sector is not overproportioned to a top-heavy bureaucracy.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member how much money would be saved if all the public servants engaged in stamping permits for passes and other apartheid legislation could in fact be relieved of that work?

I should like to pass that question over to the hon the Minister of Cooperation and Development because I can see with his magic brain he has already got the answer. Perhaps he can tell the hon member for Houghton across the floor of the House. I shall try to find out and let the hon member for Houghton know, but it comes to many billions.

The Public Service must be there to carry out the laws of this Parliament, and it must do its work so that this Parliament is not undermined by undesirable forces. I am sure that the Public Service of South Africa, mindful of its obligations and duties, will show the public of South Africa that it can well handle the affairs of State now that it has this new Bill and now that its salaries are as good if not better than those of the private sector.

There is another very important point that I should like to mention. It is the question of confidentiality between members of the public and the Public Service. The confidence of the public in the Public Service is very important indeed. Clause 19 of the Bill refers to misconduct and is in effect all but one subsection of section 17 of the present Public Service Act, No 54 of 1957. It covers many forms of misconduct for which an officer may be discharged, but to me the most significant is clause 19(f) which states:

The public of South Africa are in constant contact with the Public Service on a whole host of subjects ranging from applications for a passport to highly delicate matters of intricate business. They know they are safe in proceeding with such correspondence because it is a misconduct to allow any confidentiality to become public knowledge. It is this feeling of confidence in the absolute integrity of our Public Service that makes the public have confidence when dealing with our Public Service, and because of this I move as an amendment:

So jealous is the State—here I talk about the State of South Africa and this Parliament— of this confidentiality that every public servant is also bound by the Archives Act, 1962. In terms of the Act “archives” means any documents or records preserved or created in a Government office during the conduct of affairs of such an office and which are from their very nature not required then to be dealt with otherwise than in terms of the Archives Act. The Minister of National Education is held responsible for all documents once they have been filed.

Section 9 of the Archives Act ensures the confidentiality of a document long after it has been filed, for it cannot be disclosed to any Person, even for research Purposes, until 30 years have elapsed. Even then the Minister of National Education may on the grounds of public policy direct that access to any such archives be withheld. Thus the public can be sure of the confidentiality of any dealings they have with officers and employees of the Public Service.

Section 9(4) of the Archives Act provides that subject to the provisions and conditions referred to in subsection (1), the Minister of National Education may, upon application by any person, in his discretion and subject to such conditions, authorize that person to have access to any archives to which members of the public have no access. Thus if a person wishes to have access, it is only on the authority of the Minister of National Education in his discretion and subject to conditions, that access is possible.

The Act even goes further in section 9(6) to state categorically that subject to the provisions of any other law no person shall have access to any archives in a Government office, provided that the head of such office may, in his discretion and on such conditions as he may determine, but subject to the directions of the Minister of National Education and the provisions of the Act authorize any person to have access to such archives.

So important is this that in each and every department there is a code. The code that I have here is that of the Department of Justice, paragraph 64 of which was quoted by the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development which I should like to read:

Section 17(f) has now become 19(f). It is trust like this which makes our Public Service the remarkable body that it is.

In terms of section 12 of the Archives Act any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any condition of an authority granted in terms of section 9(4) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200. Naturally, the public servants convicted under this Act will immediately be discharged from the Public Service for misconduct.

Sir, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Therefore, if a document is published without the consent of the Minister of National Education, it appears that an offence has been committed. Oh 25 June 1984 the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in this House …

Order! The hon member is not discussing the Bill before the House.

Mr Speaker, I am dealing with the question of confidentiality and I am trying to show that while this confidentiality exists between public servants and the public, the same applies to all of us, whether I be a member of Parliament or a Minister. We are under exactly the same degree of confidentiality. From this point of view it is important that the public must know that the Public Service can be trusted.

Order! The hon member is, for instance, using the Archives Act as an example. I have allowed him to motivate his amendment, but now the hon member is also discussing the present Act.

Mr Speaker, I am dealing with section 17(f) as it applies …

Order! The hon member is dealing with section 17 of the present Act.

No, Sir, I am dealing with section 19(f) and I am indicating how it applies to civil servants. I want to show that this should also apply just as much to hon members of this House.

According to the unrevised Hansard of 24 June 1984 the Minister of Co-operation and Development stated that he, and not the Minister of National Education, gave his approval that a specific State document may be made available to a third person for publication. There may be additional facts of which I have not been informed, but it does pose the question as to whether the Minister of Co-operation and Development has not exceeded his authority and contravened the Archives Act. This matter needs further investigation.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s arguments in connection with this measure. He did, of course, deviate from the Bill at intervals.

We on this side of the House want to give our wholehearted support to this Bill, which is a consolidation of certain pieces of Public Service legislation. The Public Service in South Africa has always played a key role—and will also do so in future—in the development of our country. In March 1984 a report appeared in Beeld in which people with Public Service connections pointed out how the Public Service was viewed both by people in the Public Service and by people outside the Public Service. I want to link up with the debate by referring briefly to the relevant findings by people in the Commission for Administration. Their findings were that a stigma attached to the Public Service; that communication was poor, that there was too much red tape; that officials had a feeling of inferiority; that officials were honest and that corruption was therefore minimal; that senior officials were dedicated and competent and that there was a high degree of job satisfaction. I started off with this negative standpoint put forward as a result of an investigation carried out by the commission.

This Bill before us today was preceded by legislation in connection with the Public Service Commission and also ties in with the Government’s policy of rationalizing and structuring the Public Service before we enter upon a new dispensation. I think we have laid the proper foundation for the establishment of a sound and strong Public Service in the future.

I want to highlight a few significant things that have recently happened in regard to the Public Service. The commission’s role was restructured. We passed the legislation this year. It has also been decided that departments would, to a much greater degree, administer their own affairs. We have also passed the necessary legislation for that. That will result in management personnel in those departments having much more of a free hand in bringing about positive, effective and sound administration in the relevant departments.

In order to indicate the sincerity of the Government’s intentions in regard to our top officials in the State machine, for the sake of interest I just want to quote certain figures. All the figures are available in the Estimates of Expenditure. It is therefore not secret information that I wish to convey here. At present the Director General’s salary is R66 225. Added to that there is a holiday bonus of R5 118, a housing subsidy, the maximum amount being R6 000, a parliamentary allowance of R3 600 and a car allowance of at least R300 per month. That brings the total remuneration package of a Director General to R84 543 per annum.

Let us look at the position of a Deputy Director General. He earns a salary of R56 548, his holiday bonus is R4 712, his maximum housing subsidy is R6 000, his parliamentary allowance is R3 600 and his car allowance R3 600. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, could the hon member tell us how he worked out the maximum housing subsidy of R6 000?

I talked about a maximum subsidy of R6 000. That does not mean to say that every single official gets that specific subsidy. It depends on the bonds on his house, and also on other factors. R6 000 is, however, the maximum amount that he can get.

How do you work out that maximum amount?

I obtained this figure from an official of the department. [Interjections.] The hon members can get the figures with regard to housing subsidies from the Estimates of Expenditure for the Department of Community Development. [Interjections.] Does the hon member want to know the basis on which the figure is calculated? That he can find out from the department.

*I should also like to mention the salary package of a Director, the third highest rank in the Public Service. He receives a salary of R44 385, a holiday bonus of R3 698, a maximum housing subsidy of R6 000, a parliamentary allowance of R3 600 and a car allowance of R3 600. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but I really find it difficult to relate the finer details of the salaries of officials to the Bill before the House. Could the hon member please assist the Chair? Do I perhaps not understand the Bill properly?

Certainly, Sir; I know exactly what I want to say, and I shall assist you. [Interjections.]

I introduced the very good remuneration of the managerial personnel in the Public Service into the discussion of this Bill because we are dealing, in this Bill, with the commission’s arrangements, regulations and powers relating to salaries, cost determinations, the abolition of departments and the transfer of people from departments. What I wish to prove here is that we on this side of the House are not at all ashamed about the aforementioned salaries having been paid to Public Servants during 1984 and are not apologizing for the fact either. If one relates that to the legislation before us at present, one sees that it is one of the elements that can be used to quash complaints from outside sources about the State machine not functioning efficiently and to indicate that we appoint competent managerial personnel. Not only are such managerial personnel properly remunerated, as I have just indicated. They, the ones who must regulate Public Service functions in the future, are now also being appointed on a contractual basis. This means that a contract is signed between the State and a top official. The State expects certain things from a top official and he, in turn, must ensure that he administers the relevant department to the best of his ability. In a previous debate the hon the Minister said that in view of the tremendous financial scope of the Government departments that top management has to deal with, the salaries they are paid are not at all excessive, even though there is criticism in the private sector at present about the so-called high salaries.

It would be a pity if we in South Africa had to compete for the same people at the same level of remuneration. What I mean is that if people were to move from one department to another with the object of earning a higher salary, thus creating competition between the respective Government departments, this would give rise to an undesirable situation. So Government departments must not compete with one another for high-level manpower, of which there is a great shortage, by offering excessive salaries. There must be a balance between the State and the private sector’s demand for workers.

Quite a bit of the criticism which is levelled at the Public Service, and which is now being met by this legislation, concerns the effectiveness and the quality of the expenditure and control in the Public Service.

†In this regard I should like to relate the following story: King Solomon had two armies. One army was employed to watch his wives while the other army’s function was to watch the army that was watching the king’s wives.

*As far as the Public Service is concerned, one must be careful not to have two armies—one to watch the wives and another to watch the army that is watching the wives.

As far as that is concerned, the question that immediately comes to mind is whether the State machine is not too large. The hon member for Bezuidenhout’s contention was that the State machine was too large, whilst his leader said recently that there were altogether too many people in the Black states and that we had a extensive bureaucracy.

I said I was afraid that the Public Service was becoming too large.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is afraid that the Public Service is becoming too large, but his leader has already said that it is too large. Just as the CP thinks there are not really any Black people in the White areas, the PFP thinks, in turn, that there are not really any Black people in the Black states. Since those people are there, however, and since we have under-development and a problem of tremendous socio-economic proportions in those states, we in South Africa will be needing many knowledgeable people, in future, to uplift the Black people and try to help them. What is important in South Africa, particularly in regard to a measure of this nature, is that one should try to avoid having too many hands in the State coffers. That is something that can very easily happen in a democracy. In America, for example, there is at present a debate being conducted on the question of deregulation, whilst in Britain there is a fierce debate in progress about privatization. In West Germany and France, too, debates are being conducted on aspects of this nature, and in each of those countries the accusations being levelled at the Government are that the bureaucracy, the State machine, has been allowed to grow too large. That is why this legislation, with the powers being granted in it to the Commission for Administration, is placing a tremendous responsibility on the commission to ensure that the manpower, the finances and the managerial talent that we have is optimally utilized. In regard to basic resources such as raw materials, labour, managerial ability and money the State will be able to say, in all honesty, that with a view to the problems of South Africa, we are tackling the task to the best of our ability.

It bothers me that, although one can deduce this from the Bill, in the Bill itself provision is not being made for the fact that in future the commission will be giving attention to and carrying out investigations into those facets of the national economy that should actually be dealt with by the private sector. I think that efficiency is one of quite a number of aspects that can be improved in the process. I again want to point out that in a country like South Africa it is simply not possible for the State to take upon itself too many of the tasks that can be carried out by the private sector. In this connection I should like to give the hon the Minister one or two suggestions. When I was making a study of the appropriation, I asked myself what aspects could meaningfully be investigated in future as being aspects of the Public Service that could be taken over by the private sector, something that would be in line with the Government’s policy. When it comes to the Government Printer, for example, we are talking of expenditure of R70 million. It so happened that as a schoolboy I worked at the Government Printer during the holidays, and even then I came to realize that it was not necessary for the Government Printer to do all that work. An amount of R70 million would be a tremendous stimulus to the private sector in Pretoria. I therefore want to suggest, with the utmost deference, that this matter be investigated.

Then there is also the question of Government motor transport, or to put it differently, the Government garages. If what I ȧm about to say sounds like criticism, it is well-meant criticism, because we and the Government service would like to join together in making South Africa strong. The Government garage in Pretoria has a tremendously large building, and there is also an extensive repair service.

Order! Earlier on the hon member had to explain to me why he was discussing a certain matter at that stage. I am afraid that I shall now have to ask him to do so again, because I think he is deviating from the Bill once again.

Certainly, Sir. The measure before us relates to the appointment of officials and the allocation of specific functions to those officials. I want to contend that one of the functions that can be carried out by the commission would be to relieve a department of certain of its obligations. I therefore wish to submit that there are certain obligations that need not be a part of a department’s functions.

Let me come back to the question of the Government garage. The Appropriation reflects amounts of R150 million and R160 million that will be spent on repairs to police vehicles and on the employment of people to do that work, etc. All these functions could, in my opinion, profitably be transferred to the private sector.

There is another amount, involving millions of rand, which is allocated to the provinces. Last year I was involved in a violent argument with a Transvaal MEC about the State’s involvment in the economy. The argument involved ambulance services, the question being whether the province should provide those services or whether they should rather be left to the private sector. In that specific case there were private undertakings which provided ambulance services and which, at a certain stage, had to compete with the State. The tariff laid down by the State, however, was such that it was impossible for the private ambulance company to do business. Worst of all, however, was the fact that the tariffs laid down by the State were completely preposterous, because it was impossible to run an ambulance service on the basis of such tariffs.

I want to round off this subject by asking the hon the Minister very nicely whether we cannot, in future, work towards the better utilization of the excellent people we have in the Public Service by transferring, to the private sector, that work which can be done by the private sector. On this Budget alone we would, in the process, save hundreds of millions of rand. The person who eventually does the work for the State does, after all, pay tax that revert to the State, and the Public Service must help generate development in this country. I should like to tell the new chairman of the commission, Dr De Beer, and all the commission’s members, that I look forward to a very enjoyable joint working relationship with them. It is our privilege to support this measure. We are all members of one team, the object being to consume as little as possible and to generate as much as possible in the interests of our country.

Mr Speaker, in the respect that it is the duty of all of us to wish the Commission for Administration under Dr De Beer everything of the best in the tremendous task that lies ahead for the Commission with regard to the structuring of the Public Service in the new dispensation, we should like to endorse what the hon member for Innesdal said. We have a very high regard for the work being done by the Commission for Administration. We respect the work done by the officials of the Public Service.

†When the hon member for Bezuidenhout said the Public Service has a bad image, I think that that spoilt a very good speech. It was not necessary to damn the whole Public Service by a sweeping statement like that.

*In the Public Service we have to do with a wide variety of officials, from the Master’s Office to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths—one could mention many more—officials who have to be at the service of the public from morning till night. The only problem we experience is that there are perhaps delays which are due to a shortage of staff. I agree with the hon member for Innesdal that we should give the Commission for Administration every possible assistance, moral support and physical support in order to let the Public Service work at its most effective. However, the hon member also blurted out the salaries and service benefits, with everything that that entails, of a Director-General, a Deputy Director-General and a number of others. If you had not stopped him, Sir, he would probably have gone as far as the messengers in the service of the State. Those data are now being published throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, whilst the same Government was not prepared to disclose the salaries of teachers before having consulted with the teachers’ associations.

Just look at the Estimate of Expenditure that has to be defrayed out of the State Revenue Account. That is a public document.

Yes, but how many members of the public look at that public document and read in conjunction with that about service benefits such as the benefits linked to attending the session, housing benefits and all the other benefits the hon member took a great deal of trouble to look up and blurt out in this House, and in so doing, throughout the country? The hon member by no means did the Public Service of South Africa a service.

I now want to refer to the remark of the hon member for Bezuidenhout concerning the question of the confidentiality of documents. I think it advisable that the hon the Minister should perhaps go and read the relevant Third Reading speeches of the hon member for Soutpansberg and others in this regard, since the standpoint of the CP in respect of confidential documents is set out in them. As far as that part of the argument of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is concerned, we agree with him wholeheartedly. We just want to say that the conduct of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development in that regard will not be left at that.

Once again, this Bill must be seen in the light of the new dispensation. Whereas we were happy with normal circumstances, to which we were accustomed, and with the Public Service as it was structured over the years, we cannot vote for this Bill in the new dispensation in which the Public Service is now going to become a general affair. Whilst we have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, unfortunately we cannot vote for it, since we are opposed to the Bill in principle because it is now making provision for an integrated Public Service as a general affair.

Once again we come to the question we put when the hon the Minister dealt with the Population Registration and Elections Amendment Bill. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution of 1983 provides:

That is an own affair. It is the duty of the hon the Minister to give us an answer in this regard. When we put the same question to the hon the Minister during the discussion of the legislation with regard to population registration and elections, he gave a very woolly reply in the terminology he is so fond of using. I refer in this regard to column 9214 of Hansard of 18 June 1984. When we asked the hon the Minister to tell us which aspects of that legislation are own affairs and which are general affairs, he referred us to the Constitution. In this regard he referred to sections 87, 98 and 102(2)(a) of the Constitution. He went on to say:

He then said that the State President would certify that that particular measure is an own affair. He went on to say:

He was really referring then …

We were dealing with the Electoral Act then.

And now we are speaking about the Public Service.

That is correct.

I now want the hon the Minister to explain to us what are general affairs and what are own affairs in terms of paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution of 1983, since we are dealing with general legislation here.

The hon the Minister must also furnish a reply in respect of our problems with regard to section 16 of the Constitution. That is what he was referring to when he spoke about a lengthy process whereby an own House, one House, identifies a matter which it will then regard as its own and, if it obtains a certificate from the State President, it will be its own. However, when we come to section 16 of the Constitution of 1983, we see that it provides that it has to follow a certain criterion, viz:

The hon the Minister must tell us which aspects of this legislation will give a population group a right which does not affect another population group. I also want to tell the hon the Minister that as they deal with this Schedule 1 in the future, as well as various laws which are general laws, they are going to land up in a maze of problems in determining what are own affairs and what are general affairs in respect of the so-called general laws to which reference is made each time in Schedule 1. That is going to be a problem for the hon the Minister on the road ahead. The hon the Minister said earlier that there would only be one Public Service in the new dispensation; in other words, one integrated Public Service.

There is still only one.

Very well. The hon the Minister says that there is still only one now, but that one is structured under the present dispensation. In the new dispensation, however, it is going to be structured completely differently, since we are going to be dealing with general affairs and own affairs. Directors-general and other officials are going to be appointed in respect of general affairs and they are also going to serve under a Minister of colour. It is therefore obvious that in the course of events those people will progress to the posts of Directors-General, and so on. In other words, we are dealing here with a completely different structuring than is the case at present. When Dr Cameron of the Public Servants Association addressed the annual meeting of that association in September last year, he said that he did not yet know what was going to happen. I know that that was a year ago, but the question is: To what extent have officials been given clarity about their rights, duties and similar matters which are going to affect them intimately in the new dispensation? Take clause 33 of this Bill for example. Clause 33 reads:

1. (1) There is hereby established a council, called the Public Service Joint Advisory Council, consisting of—
   1. (a) the prescribed number of officers nominated by the Commission; and
   2. (b) the prescribed number of officers representing officers in the public service, other than the services and the National Intelligence Service …
2. (2) The Public Service Joint Advisory (Council shall advise the Commission regarding—
   1. (a) any matter which the Commission shall or may deal with under this Act or any other law.

The question is: Of whom will this advisory council consist? Is it going to be only Whites, or is it going to be Coloureds, Indians and Whites who advise the Commission? Until now the Public Service has also been accessible to people of colour; at first as workers in the lower ranks, and then it was also accessible to people of colour in posts in those departments which had to do directly with the own affairs of the population group concerned. People of colour could only be given higher appointments and promotion in those departments that dealt with the own affairs of their own people. Top posts in State departments were not open to people of colour until this stage. We are aware of changes that have taken place over the past two or three years under the Government’s new policy of power-sharing. We do not object to people of colour serving their own people in their own public service in the highest posts, for example in education, welfare and so on, but not in a joint dispensation. It is going to be different in the new dispensation. Coloured and Indian Ministers are going to be appointed over general departments and they are going to insist on having their own ministerial staff, as well as their own heads of department. For example, what is going to happen when there is a change of portfolio?

Allow me to single out a few points in passing, which we would regard as good points in normal circumstances.

Clause 2(5) guarantees that the position of any officer who was in service before the new Act commences will not change. We welcome that. In the second case, in the case of transfers, secondments and changes in salary, the right of consent of the officer concerned is built in. However, we want to know from the hon the Minister whether, if such a public servant is not happy with a change, a transfer or a secondment, it will count against him. Will he not be discriminated against as a result?

Are you referring to particular clause now?

I am referring to the clauses in terms of which the permission of officials is needed for transfers, secondments, changes in salary, and so on.

Clause 29 deals with the method officers can use when they have complaints or grievances concerning an official act or omission, which they can then address to the Commission. In this regard I want to tell the hon the Minister that in the past we have received complaints because an official who has a problem normally has to refer that problem to his immediate superior. Sometimes that problem in fact relates to his immediate superior, and he is stumped to a certain extent in the sense that he cannot express the problem or grievance he has. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would look at this matter.

We are also happy about the fact that the Public Service is becoming much more professional and that it is going to function on a more occupationally differentiated basis, in respect of administrative and other matters as well. There are other benefits such as the remuneration, promotion, pensions, gratuities and other conditions of service.

As regards criticism, I want to refer to clause 11 again. The CP referred to this point in other debates as well, viz the question of the appointment for five years and then the appointment for a further period of five years, or on an annual basis. I note that the hon the Minister said in his introductory speech that this aspect has in fact been cleared with the Commission for Administration and with the officials. I do not quite understand that. An official could find that as a result of the new dispensation, and not necessarily only on the basis of seniority, he becomes a Director-General in a department at an early age. He is then appointed for five years and subsequently, for a further five years, or for periods of one year. This then gives him a maximum of 10 years, but what becomes of such an official? I know that subject to chapters 5 and 6 he can stay on until he is 65 years old, but where is he going to be placed? A person who is appointed a Director-General has a great responsibility and he is a tremendous asset to the State, but he is only appointed for five years and subsequently for a further period not exceeding five years—what becomes of him then?

He can be appointed again and again until he is 65 years old.

It does not look that way according to clause 11, but the hon the Minister can elaborate on that further.

Does the reason for this not lie in the new dispensation? If a Director-General or a head of a department is appointed under a specific Minister, and another Minister takes over, can that new Minister, by making use of this provision, bring his own people into that department?

I now come to the question of misconduct, and I am referring here to clause 19. There are a few important causes of misconduct relevant here. In terms of clause 19(b) and (h) it is deemed to be misconduct if as a voter an officer goes to his MP with regard to his position in the Public Service. I want to know whether I am right when I say that it is misconduct when an official goes to his Member of Parliament to discuss with him a problem he has in the Public Service. The hon the Minister must take cognizance of clause 19(h). An important provision is clause 19(g), and I quote:

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would spell out very clearly what this entails. For example, I have a letter here from a person in Natal. He wanted to know, for example, whether he is guilty of misconduct if he does the following: “If I write letters to the Press; if I do canvassing; if I am in charge of the management of a campaign; if I am an office-bearer in a political party, etc.” Such cases are permissible. What is the position, however, if he does canvassing for a political party?

I see that the hon the Minister complained because he claims that the election result in Potgietersrus did not reflect the true state of affairs. The problem the hon the Minister will have with that kind of thing will become increasingly greater because the NP intimidates and victimizes officials in the Public Service and in the semi-Public Service. The hon the Minister must take cognizance of that.

Do not be so vague.

The hon member for Rustenburg wrote to a school teacher and asked her to find out who was well-disposed towards the Government and who was not. I can show the hon the Minister proof of that. I know what is happening in Brakpan. People who have done good work in semi-Government institutions and on school committees have been thrown out of their posts because they support the CP.

Name them.

I shall give their names to the hon the Minister confidentially. The hon the Minister of National Education knows who they are, since I have already put questions about this in the House. [Interjections.] This will happen more and more in this dispensation. The hon the Minister must remember what happened to Prof Avril Malan, Oom Commie Combrink, Prof H O Mönnich and Mr Vennie du Plessis and other public servants. During the government of Gen Smuts the same steps were taken against them as the present Government is taking against officials in the Public Service today. The hon the Minister is being warned in this regard.

I now want to refer to clause 20(7)(b). Here the CP objects to the fact that a fine not exceeding R2 000 can be imposed on an officer, for misconduct of whatever nature, by a quasi-court and not by a State court, where a judge or magistrate presides. Such an officer can be represented by another person, but the quasi-court trying him can impose a fine not exceeding R2 000 on him. I think that that is too heavy under the circumstances.

I now want to refer to clause 32. It concerns an official being granted remuneration wrongly. One can imagine an officer to be completely innocent in such a case, but he nevertheless has to repay the amount. However, no protection is built in here in respect of the period of repayment or the way in which instalments are payable.

With regard to Schedule 1, I want to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on the fact that we are in fact entering a new dispensation which is going to be put into operation as soon as on 3 September, and that a department such as the Office of the Prime Minister is going to disappear.

I want to come back to clause 19(g), read in conjunction with the important clause 30, which deals with the political rights officials. An official may be a member of a party and serve on the management. Secondly, it does not look as if he is prohibited from working for a party or from canvassing. Thirdly, he may not preside or speak at a public meeting, or draw up and publish any writing. I want to ask a question in this regard. If he serves on a management and does canvassing and furthers the interests of one party at the expense of another party, is he not abusing his position as a public servant? One could ask the same question in the case of a senior public servant who canvasses a junior public servant. The hon the Minister made a great fuss on previous occasions that officials should be loyal in view of the implementation of the Government’s policy. Would it constitute misconduct if an official from another party does in fact implement the policy, but disagrees honestly with his colleagues about it? The question of intimidation and victimization is once again relevant here. This I conclude the question of specific arguments.

I just want to reaffirm that whereas this Bill would establish a more streamlined and more effective Public Service under normal circumstances in the normal course of events, a Public Service in respect of general affairs which is going to be integrated and the future of which is unknown is now going to be established. I am also sure that the hon the Minister is unable to spell out its future clearly. Because we are opposed to the new dispensation and an integrated Public Service in principle, we shall be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I really thought I was hearing the referendum being fought all over again while I was listening to the hon member for Brakpan. The hon member made a few wild statements, inter alia that members of school committees are summarily being discharged from their posts. It is not the Government that elects members of school committees, but the parents. The hon member now makes the blustering allegation that it is the Government that is discharging and appointing members of school committees right and left. Surely he knows full well that those members are elected by the parents. [Interjections.]

The hon member made other statements, too, concerning inter alia the scales which the hon member for Innesdal supposedly made known. These scales for Directors General and other senior officials appeared in the Press long ago and were publicized. What has been revealed here is no secret. Surely he knows that these things were in the newspapers. He knows that people have seen them.

The hon member also put certain questions to the hon the Minister. I really want to say that these questions have now been answered over and over again. If the hon member still does not have the replies to them, then I do not believe he will ever have them while he lives.

He also came up once again with his old statement of separate State services and separate State departments and institutions for the various peoples. Let us be a little practical. Let us consider what the present situation is. At present we have people of all colours in the Public Service. We even have people of all colours serving the public. Does the hon member really want to tell me that he wants a separate Public Service Act for Coloureds, Asians and other people of colour? He really wants this legislation only to apply to Whites, and he wants other legislation for people of colour. Is this only because the skin colour of those people is different to his? Surely those people are not lepers. The only problem that the hon member could have is that they are of a different colour, because surely they provide the same services as the Whites. Then the hon member asks, inter alia, whether a Director-General, for example, could be a Coloured or not. Let me now tell him what the present situation already is. It is that at present there are already certain situations in which Whites are working under Coloureds.

Mr Speaker, may I please ask a question?

I regret that I do not have the time to answer a question now. In this connection I can just mention one classic case, namely that of Prof Van der Ross, who has Whites who have to report to him, without this causing any problems. Honestly, we must begin to grow up in this country of ours; we cannot carry on as we are.

Surely we are not going to appoint people of colour left and right simply in order to create problems. There are many services for example in the Police Force, the Post Office and elsewhere, where people of colour already occupies senior posts, however, and no problems are being experienced in that regard except in the case of one or two hotheads who are unable to handle the situation.

The hon member reminded me quite strongly of two asses. There are two heaps of fodder, and the two asses stand there tied together with a piece of rope. Each pulls in a different direction to get at its own heap, but neither succeeds. Eventually they find out that if they co-operate, they can eat one heap together and then proceed to eat the other heap. In my opinion it is time for all population groups in this country of ours to stand together and not to pull in opposite directions. If we co-operate we shall all be able to share what the country offers us.

The hon member made a very interesting statement here, viz that over the past two to three years he has seen certain things which have caused him to conclude that we are on the road to integration. However, three years ago that hon member was still with us in the NP. Why did he not say then that we were on the road to integration? At the time he still sat with us in these benches. Now he makes statements of this nature only for the sake of a little political gain. The hon member said that they were not going to support the Bill because it concerned the new constitutional dispensation. However, this Bill only consolidates the many other Acts which at present control the conditions of service of people working in the Public Service.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a few statements about the Public Service which, as I understood him, were not very flattering. However, I want to point out to him that there are several companies in South Africa whose workers do not do their work properly either. The hon member must accept that not all officials of the Public Service, nor all employees in the private sector, do their work equally well. Has that hon member ever in his life written a letter to the head of a State department to convey his thanks for the good service he received from a Public Servant? Has he ever praised a Public Servant in writing?

Yes, at least five times already.

He says he has done so at least five times already, but I can tell him that he has probably had good service from State departments at least five hundred times.

I now wish to make a few general remarks about the Bill before us. In any business the most important factor is probably its labour force. Without them nothing can be achieved; without them nothing can be done. Whether it be a business, a welfare organization, a church or a political party, without its human resources it can achieve nothing. This universal truth also applies to our Public Service. Without the men and women working in our Public Service the State cannot exist, and no services can be provided to us as citizens of the country. However, there is one very important proviso, namely that the labour force of the Public Service must as far as possible be administered and dealt with on the basis of sound scientifice staff principles, just as we find in the private sector. We must not overlook the fact that over the past number of years the Public Service has really developed into a professional management-oriented company in the widest sense of the word. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to say this here today. The previous image of the Public Service, that of a clumsy machine with archaic methods and earnest, grey little men whose ego had to be flattered, has virtually disappeared. In contrast, we now have men and women who are well grounded, well trained and who really try to do their share and, in general, are also outstandingly motivated. If in addition one implements dynamic management methods, this provides the basis for a good and sound Public Service. However, just as one cannot service a modern motorcar using old technical manuals, one cannot modernize the Public Service and still seek to manage it by using old manuals. The need to employ modern methods in administering the most important resource of the Public Service, its people, is not something that anyone can dispute. Accordingly the Government is attempting to give manpower administration programmes the highest possible priority. I reiterate that our labour administration programmes include Coloureds, Asians, Blacks and Whites. Everyone in the Public Service is treated equally. Just because someone’s skin is White, we must not benefit him at the expense of another individual. Everyone must be afforded the opportunity to compete and be equally treated.

Several other Acts which have in the past laid down conditions of service are now being combined in this one Bill, while a few other amendments are being effected. The Commission for Administration which, as far as I am concerend, is really the staff department of the Public Service, is now being given a single set of directives in terms of which it may act. These are principles which in some respects are considerably better and more just than in the case of many private companies, particularly from the point of view of the worker. The official is still very actively protected against victimization, exploitation and unjust discharge. But in this connection I should like to raise a few ideas with reference to the Bill.

While I accept that it is essential that conditions of service and directives in regard to the handling of the work force be laid down, and that we should abide by them strictly, I do feel that I want to use the following image today: If one gives a captain a ship, one specifies for him how he has to handle that ship in a storm and how he has to pay his sailors, but what is very important is that one permits him to appoint those sailors himself and even to discharge them. We have heard that the salary scales and packages of senior staff in the Public Service amount to between R61 000 and R84 000 per annum. I really think the time has come for us to permit these senior department heads to appoint and even discharge their own people. Perhaps this will immediately cause people to sit up and say that they will be victimized, but if the senior people receive this kind of salary I really think that they are responsible enough even to perform those appointments, although, it is conceded, this must be done within the framework of the conditions of service that are still laid down by the staff department, the commission. Therefore the commission tells the captain: It is your ship and you have so many crew, but I permit you, within that framework, to appoint your own sailors and, if they do not work properly, even to get rid of them. For example, one can specify all kinds of requirements with regard to the discharge of staff. Let us just consider one example. To prevent anyone from perhaps acting unjustly with regard to a discharge he can be given the power only to discharge people who are two or more ranks below him, unless he obtains the permission of his immediate supervisor. There is another facet which in my opinion we could also consider. The hon member for Brakpan also touched on this. I refer to the case of a person being overpaid as far as his salary is concerned. I think that the deductions permitted are perhaps a little too large and that we should perhaps impose a restriction on the repayment instalments. For example, we could make it 15% of the salary from which it is deducted. With those few ideas I want to say that it is a great privilege for us to support this consolidating legislation.

Mr Speaker, as has been mentioned by other speakers, this is basically a Bill consolidating the old Public Service Act and a host of amendments to it over many, many years. It is an important Bill because it is essentially the charter for the biggest group of employees in South Africa. If this legislation is only consolidated roughly every 30 years, it is important that we endeavour to ensure that we give them a fair deal.

As far as I can see, other hon members have covered a great deal of what I wanted to say. So, in view of the fact that I do not like repetition, I will not cover the ground that has been covered by other hon members if I can avoid it. There is one aspect that intrigues me somewhat. That is that the National Intelligence Service is mentioned time and time again throughout the Bill as being exempted from various clauses. Perhaps the hon the Minister could indicate why it would not be practical to cut the National Intelligence Service out altogether and provide them with a separate Bill.

They have their own Act.

I see. In this Bill they are excluded from clause after clause. Could there not have been one clause inserted at the beginning excluding them altogether? It would have made for a cleaner Bill as far as I can see. Quite obviously, I am not too sure what the National Intelligence Service people do …

Just wait till they knock at your door at 4 o’clock in the morning.

Well, I have read a lot of James Bond stuff and have a rough working knowledge of what such people do, but do the door-knockers come into that category? Anyway, I do suggest that they could have been omitted from this particular Bill entirely or that one clause could have been inserted stating that these measures do not apply to them at all.

In clause 2(4) reference is made to a further category of people, viz those employed by the State President or an Administrator, who are not affected by the terms and conditions laid down in the Bill. I know what type of employee is being referred to as far as Administrators are concerned, but I am not too sure what type of employee the State President would employ who would not be affected by this Bill. Perhaps the hon the Minister could give an indication of who are involved in that regard.

To what clause are your referring?

To clause 2(4).

Clause 3(2)(f) provides that the commission may make recommendations in respect of certain matters in order to promote efficiency, improved organization, improved supervision, the simplification of work and so forth. I should like to suggest that this should be one of the primary functions of the commission. This provision should not be permissive but mandatory in my opinion. The same position holds good as far as subsection (3) is concerned which provides that the commission may give directions regarding certain specified matters. Here too I feel that it should be mandatory on the commission to make recommendations in this regard. I am making an issue of these permissive or mandatory aspects because I think they are important in that there may come a time when one may start arguing about justifiable decision-making. If the provision is only permissive the attitude may well be: “Well, I did not do it but perhaps I should have done it”.

Clause 6 would seem to imply that Schedule 1 cannot be changed without the recommendation of the commission. This is the schedule dealing with departments and heads of departments. I would have thought that that is an authority that should have been completely in the hands of the State President. Perhaps I have misread it, but it appears to me that there has to be a recommendation from the commission before another department can be established. Perhaps the hon the Minister will be able to give me some indication of whether I have read this provision correctly or not.

Clause 9 deals with non-citizen employees. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the position of non-citizens who subsequently became citizens would be as far as prior service is concerned. Although I know that it is a general rule that public servants can buy prior service, would non-citizens be able to buy prior service if they subsequently became citizens and if they had been employed in the department for a number of years?

Clause 15 deals with the question of retirement at the age of 65. There was a time when I thought that a person aged 65 was really ancient and decrepit but I am beginning to think that today 65 is a relatively young age. [Interjections.] Especially in view of our ageing population and the fact that young people are spending more time on their education, one finds that the group in the middle is having to carry a heavier load. It may therefore well be that we will have to give further consideration to the question of people being thrown compulsorily on the scrapheap at the age of 65. While I do know that there are facilities for extending service up to a maximum of, I think, five years, we in South Africa with out peculiar problems can less afford to put people on the scrapheap prematurely than most countries because even if we only used them for training purposes, their expertise and experience would be enormously valuable to us. I know of a number of people who have been retired who are as fit as fiddles, and it does seem a pity to me that we are not continuing to make use of the services of such people.

Clause 17(5)(a) seems very peculiar to me because it provides that if it is found that an officer is unfit for his duties or incapable of carrying them out efficiently, one of the options open to the officer conducting the inquiry is to recommend that no further action be taken in the matter. To my mind it is a most peculiar provision. One of the options in this clause, as stated in line 41, is “that no further action be taken in the matter”. That to me does seem rather strange.

For the rest the principles of this Bill are wholly acceptable to this party, and we shall be supporting the Second Reading. However, before I resume my seat, there are two further points I should like to touch upon. Firstly, the amendment that the hon the Minister has to clause 31 is going to take some considerable motivation because this looks like another of these “Golden handshake” clauses if a person has done a very good job. I cannot help but feel that we employ people in the first place to do a very good job. Therefore to say that because a person has done a good job one has to give him an extra consideration, will require a considerable amount of persuasion to accept.

In so far as the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout is concerned, I regret that we shall not be able to support it because the crucial part of the amendment states: “Until the Minister of Internal Affairs takes steps to ensure that the confidentiality of documents between members of the public and officers of the Public Service is maintained at all times.” In the first instance, no matter how hard people try and no matter what rules are laid down, I do not believe that one can ensure that this happens. One can attempt to do so, but to a very large degree I think clause 19(f), which was also mentioned by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, does cover this particular point because clause 19(f) clearly makes it a misdemeanour to disclose information to the embarrassment of the State, and clause 20 states clearly what can happen, including all sorts of penalties, in the event of one committing this sort of misdemeanour. Therefore while I regret to have to tell the hon member for Bezuidenhout that we shall not be supporting his amendment, we shall be supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, essentially this debate has, unfortunately, degenerated into a series of questions put to me, questions which should rather have been raised during the discussion of this Bill in the Committee Stage. Very few themes emerged from the speeches which were delivered but I shall nevertheless endeavour to deal thematically with the contributions to some extent.

May I, at the outset, thank the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Stilfontein on this side of the House, as well as the hon member for Umbilo, for supporting the legislation and also for the constructive and positive contributions made by them. The hon member for Innesdal as well as the hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to the matter of the salaries of our top officials in particular. Both of them said, firstly, that the salaries were reasonably good at the moment and, secondly, that the salaries were well-deserved, in their opinion. I just want to say that these salaries, after the whole exercise of occupational differentiation, were determined on the basis of scientific research, and whereas the amounts mentioned appear to be fairly impressive, I want to say with regard to the matter of the salaries of, for example, Directors-General, that a consultant from the private sector lent weight to the determination of those salaries after having made a thorough evaluation of five Directors-General’s posts in various departments and after having tested them against equivalent positions in the private sector. He came to the conclusion that the lowest notch of the remuneration package of the private sector for comparable work was still higher than the newly adjusted salaries being paid to Directors-General at present. Consequently we have only become somewhat more competitive and the position is not that we are paying better salaries at present or that employees shouldering equal responsibilities are better off than people in the private sector. I, wanted to make this point, because I think it is necessary that we clear up this matter.

The hon member for Innesdal advocated that more work be given out on contract. It is the Government’s policy and stated intention to give work out on contract where it is able to do so in a way which is also in the interests of the State when it is done. In supporting the general principle advocated by the hon member and in telling him that I agree with him, I must also tell him that this is difficult at times, as there is also a limit. For example, he referred to the Government Garage. In the first place I want to point out to him that work is given out by the Government Garage on contract, but in the second place I also want to tell him that many large farmers at times employ people to service their tractors. Why does such a farmer do this? Because it is more economic for him to do so than to give that work out on contract. What the State is able to do with the taxpayer’s money should, in my opinion, really be the test. If the State is able to do something with the taxpayers money more effectively than would be the case if it gave that specific task out on contract, surely the State must definitely consider performing that task itself. Does Sanlam have all its printing done outside or does it have certain machines, and does it do certain printing itself? The same applies to Anglo American and other large companies. Somewhere there is a limit, and we also have to look after the taxpayer’s money. If we are able to do something more effectively, then either the private sector has to become more competitive so that it can do the job cheaper than we can, or we must consider performing the service ourselves. In my opinion this would be a sound economic approach but in saying this I agree that there definitely is room for more work to be given out on contract. Consequently we are constantly keeping an eye open to this. However, this matter could be discussed more effectively when the individual Votes are under discussion since it would then be possible to mention specific examples. The Commission itself plays a role and takes an interest in this subject. Consequently the Commission handles programmes for the promotion of giving work out on contract to the private sector, within the framework of the policy, and for that reason I thank the hon member for this positive contribution.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a strange speech. He was extremely complimentary as regards the innovations in the Bill. He did not come forward with any material criticisms whatsoever of any provision in the Bill, but nonetheless he told us that his party would vote against the Bill. Why are they going to do that? They are going to do that because of the confidentiality of documents, if I read his amendment correctly. In his speech, however, by quoting legislation with regard to various departments, he succeeded in proving the high premium which the Government and the State placed on the question of the confidentiality of documents. In other words, if I analyse his speech I find that he has proved that the confidentiality of documents is guaranteed in terms of the legislation which the Government has introduced. As a matter of fact, it is fully guaranteed.

He complained about the whole incident regarding a document which was released within the Department of Co-operation and Development.

*Surely the hon the Minister said that this happened with his knowledge. In all the examples quoted by the hon member, it is stated “with the approval of the Minister”.

The wrong Minister.

A Minister has to account for what he does, and consequently this is the principle. The hon member himself proved that his amendment in respect of the Bill is unfounded, because the Bill in no way weakens the standpoint that State documents are confidential and are to be released only under specific circumstances and if specific conditions have been complied with. For that reason his amendment really has no value; it is unfounded. The hon member also referred to the question of risks. He wanted to know who would decide what a security risk was.

†In this regard I would like to refer the hon member to the fact that the commission has certain powers to issue instructions. One will further find that the regulations which are drawn up in consultation with the advisory council constituted in terms of clause 33, and therefore the source of the rules and regulations, will not simply be made at the whim of an individual or at a subjective decision of a Minister or the Director-General but will be contained within a framework of rules and regulations.

I also want to refer the hon member to the fact that in terms of clause 29 anybody who feels himself aggrieved can ask the Commission for Administration to look into the matter, and in terms of clause 34 he can also go to court. There is therefore no question that a person who feels he is victimized—this is also in reply to the hon member for Brakpan—does not have any redress.

“Having listened to the hon member for Brakpan one could think that a Public Servant was defenceless and that anyone could do anything to him and that he enjoyed no protection. It is for this that we have the Commission for Administration, and in terms of clause 34 an officer may, in addition, go to court. So there is no question of the officers being at the mercy of the Government. There are rules and regulations, and the commission has to report direct to this Parliament. If the Government were to commit a wrong, this Parliament is the establishment which would have to see to the interests of the officers. The remarks of the hon member for Brakpan are simply a matter of playing politics. Most of the clauses about which the hon member for Brakpan complained have been on the Statute Book since 1910. Some of the clauses to which he referred have been there since 1956 for all to see. Now he is trying to imply that this is something new, and all of a sudden it is a source of grave danger to the officials. In actual fact, it is merely a mere reiteration of existing and tried and tested provisions. If this did not give any trouble in the past, why would it do so now?

It must be read in conjunction with the statement which you made about the officers.

The statement I made about officers and politics simply reflected the real situation and is in fact also embodied in this Bill. The Bill determines exactly what the political rights of officers are. Therefore I did not make a statement as such but merely stated the law. Now suspicion is being sown because I stated the law as it stands.

I fully understand that the hon member does not have confidence in us on this side of the House, but he should not deny Ministers the right to explain the laws of the land when it is necessary to do so. No officer need have any fear if he does not support the governing party. As long as he acts within the rules and regulations of the Public Service and as long as he implements the policy of the Government of the day in his work, he has nothing to fear. If, however, an officer in his official capacity, in his job, frustrates and undermines the policy which he has to implement, then he is not acting within the framework of his obligations and in that case he may make himself liable to prosecution and action against him.

What about the magistrate at Louis Trichardt who was transferred?

Anyone is entitled to refuse a transfer. Refusal will not count against him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bezuidenhout pleaded for productivity to be increased.

†In this regard the commission has embarked upon a specific programme, a programme which is regarded by the commission and by myself as one of our top priorities. With this programme we hope to improve productivity and efficiency in the Public Service. We have even decided to bring the National Productivity Institute into the programme. This is an unprecedented step in the history of our Public Service.

*The hon member again raised the argument of a too large bureaucracy. [Interjections.] Sir, I wonder whether we cannot make arrangements through the Whips for the hon member for Soutpansberg to be given a turn to speak in the Committee Stage. If so he might keep quiet now. [Interjections.]

The hon member complained about a too large bureaucracy. When we corner them in this regard they come back by … [Interjections.]

Nobody wants to listen to you.

Because of that statement of the hon member I shall not give any further replies to the arguments of the hon member for Brakpan. They come back by saying that apartheid is the cause of this large Public Service. I want to ask the hon member how many federal parliaments they would have if they were to come into power. How many federal states would they have? Each one of the present self-governing Black states would certainly be regarded by them as a federal unit and they would maintain those parliaments. Surely that is so. How ever, they say they are going to have even more. When we corner them by saying that Johannesburg and Soweto would be one integrated state, they hint at dividing the federale states in a different way so that group interests will be taken into account. Their system will result in a larger Public Service because each federal state will have its own little bureaucracy to carry it. Just look at the position in Australia or America. A federation results in an increase of the number of legislative bodies and the officials required to carry the larger number of legislative bodies and to implement the resolutions of those bodies. Those hon members can argue until they are blue in the face, but their federal policy will result in a larger Public Service and will also be more expensive. [Interjections.] However, they can advance their arguments, because they know that they will never have to accept responsibility for their policy since they stand no chance of coming into power. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to clause 19(m), which reads as follows:

This is a provision which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information. The hon member says, however, that he is going to oppose the legislation as it does not guarantee the confidentiality of documents. The hon member’s argument in this connection is totally lacking in substance. The contrary is true: There is a provision in the legislation prescribing precisely what is evisaged by the hon member. Let’s face it; this, too, is simply a case of playing politics.

†I come now to the hon member for Umbilo. He referred to clause 2(4). I want to tell the hon member that he apparently missed certain key words in this interpretation. When we speak of “persons” other than those falling under the commission we are referring to those persons whose appointment , remuneration and other conditions of service may, in terms of any law, be made or determined by the State President or a Minister or an Administrator. In other words, that is where he is excluded from the ambit of this Bill in terms of another law, and that is the category which is referred to in this instance.

He then referred to the question of why the power of the commission to make recommendations is permissive and not mandatory. I would say that it depends on where the law places the responsibility. If the final responsibility rests with the commission, then they must make recommendations. If the final responsibility for a particular decision or step to be taken is left in the hands of somebody else, the commission may make a recommendation, but then the responsibility rests elsewhere. Then the mandatory duty to take steps does not rest with the commission but elsewhere.

The hon member also referred to the question of the maximum age. I think that the age of 65 is accepted throughout the world as scientifically the ripe age at which most people would like to retire and when, from a professional point of view, most people reach the stage from where they start losing some of their sharpness. I fully agree with the hon member that there are people who at the age of 75 are as sharp as they have ever been and who supplement sharpness with experience. Such people could fill posts long after the age of 65 with distinction and with honour. However, a rule is made for the general situation and not for the exception. In any event, provision is made for exceptions and it is therefore possible to accommodate exceptions whenever it is regarded as necessary.

I am just staking a claim!

The hon member also referred to the section providing that if a person were to be found inefficient, one of the options was that no steps need be taken. This sound strange, but let me give a few practical examples of what I was thinking about when the hon member was making his point. It might be that that finding was made, say, four weeks prior to that person’s retirement. It might also be that when such a finding is made he might give notice of his resignation. In such cases all the other steps would not be appropriate, for example, transferring him or reducing his grade, because his services are going to be terminated in any event. This is more or less comparable to the power of a magistrate who finds a person guilty of a crime, whereupon he cautions and discharges him without imposing a fine or a penalty. As regards the other questions put by the hon member, I was really unable to keep up with my notes. Perhaps he could raise them once again in the Committee Stage.

I come now to the hon member for Brakpan. In view of the action of the senior Whip of that party I really do not feel inclined to reply to him, but since we have known each other for such a long time, I shall nevertheless react to some of his questions.

Who is the senior Whip?

The Whip sitting in front on the hon member, the hon member for Kuruman, who said that he was not interested in listening to my speech.

In the first place, the hon members of that party are opposed to the Bill.

No one is listening to you …

Sir, I think the hon member for Brakpan should repeat his questions in the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.