I have to announce that Adv D J Fölscher, SC who recently retired as Chief State Law Adviser, has been appointed to the Parliamentary Service as Parliamentary Law Adviser, with effect from 1 August 1984.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we have debated this Bill at length during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage. Several matters about which there were problems have been explained by the hon Minister and I want to concede that as usual, he acquitted himself well in this connection. I agree with him that in a homogeneous situation a Bill such as this one will have great success. However, I must also say to him that he has not satisfied the CP with his interpretation of the structuring of the Public Service in the new dispensation. There is going to be a Public Service for general affairs as well as a Public Service for the own affairs of the three groups, and I take it that in regard to the national states which have not become independent, provision will also have to be made in the Public Service for general affairs. How these matters are to be dealt with and structured in terms of paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution of 1983 is a matter about which great uncertainty prevails as far as we, the Public Service Association and the country are concerned. It is also on record that there is uncertainty in the Public Service Association as to what the future offers a person who wants to make the Public Service his career and wants to put his life at the disposal to the Public Service of the country, particularly as far as the Whites are concerned.

I also wish to refer briefly to an incident which I am unhappy about that occurred during the Second Reading debate of this Bill. In my opinion the Second Reading debate as well as the discussion during the Committee Stage could have been far more fruitful if the hon the Minister had not upset himself so. I refer here to an event which he interpreted wrongly. In the interim he has undoubtedly read the Hansard from which it is very clear that the hon member for Kuruman did not say to him: “Ek wil nie na jou luister nie”. It is quite clear that the hon member for Kuruman said: “Niemand luister na u nie”. I do not think the hon the Minister, who is in deep waters at the moment, can so easily shift the blame for the problems he is encountering onto the hon member for Kuruman. After all, it is not the fault of the hon member for Kuruman if the hon the Minister’s Whips cannot keep his own members quiet while the hon the Minister is speaking. [Interjections.] Nor is it the fault of the hon member for Kuruman if the hon the Minister is in deep water at the moment. Nor is it the fault of the hon member for Kuruman if the state of the hon the Minister’s party in the Transvaal is deteriorating rapidly. [Interjections.] It is not the fault of the hon member for Kuruman that the hon the Minister is falling behind in his race against the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] Nor is it the fault of the hon member for Kuruman that the followers of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs are being promoted.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I really do not know in what way what the hon member is saying now is relevant to the Public Service Bill.

I shall permit the hon member for Brakpan to complete his introduction and will subsequently call him to order if necessary.

Mr Speaker, I have made my point in this regard. I just want to say to the hon the Minister that it is not his style, and it is not in accordance with his pleasant personality, to have acted in the way he acted the day before yesterday, and we take it amiss of him.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon the Minister that we are not going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, because by way of this Bill the governing party is getting deeper and deeper into trouble with their new dispensation by introducing three different ethnic groups into a unitary system without making provision for sovereignty in the own territory of each. We shall be voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House find it a pity that when the interests of the Public Service, the administration of the Public Service and the benefits and treatment of officials are at issue, the hon member for Brakpan should have used this Third Reading debate to attempt to score petty political points. We on this side of the House would like to say to the hon member for Brakpan that the CP has a way of presenting the problems of South Africa as if they are the problems of the NP. All the problems mentioned by the hon member for Brakpan, eg those of coexistence among people, among groups and among the peoples of South Africa, are problems of South Africa. Let us tell them bluntly: It does not matter which party is governing South Africa; the realities of South Africa demand that we make plans, relating also to State administration, with regard to the problems of co-existence and administration, problems that affect all of us. I want to say to the hon members of the CP, while we are discussing the Third Reading of this Bill, that power-sharing in South Africa is something that stands squarely in the world of reality in South Africa. In South Africa we share the economic power base. We all do so together. The raw materials of South Africa belong to all people.

Mr Speaker, in view of the hon member’s emphasis on power-sharing may I ask him whether this applies to the Blacks as well?

We are now dealing with the Third Reading of a Bill that concerns the handling of the State machine, the administration of South Africa. I should like to say to the hon member for Jeppe that when we talk about power-sharing, when we talk about the future of South Africa, then we are talking about all people. We are talking about White people, we are talking about Coloured people, we are talking about Asians and we are talking about Black people, but at the same time we are talking about specific co-existence structures in South Africa, and also surrounding the State structure. Let me point out to the hon members of the CP that there have been White officials in our State administration in South Africa who for donkey’s years have worked under Black Ministers in Black independent states. There is integration in the public services of the independent and national states. Why? It is because we have to administer South Africa and the independent states in the light of the realities we are faced with in South Africa. If we want to follow the path that the CP wants to follow, the path of an absolute separation of all people, then South Africa will collapse entirely. The raw materials of South Africa, the limited manpower of South Africa, the limited managerial talent of South Africa and the officials of South Africa demand of us that we look at South Africa as a whole.

I now come back to a matter to which the hon member for Brakpan referred in the Committee stage. I should like to say to the hon member today, as a fellow-parliamentarian, that I envy him the fact that he apparently regards himself as one whose calling it is to pass human judgment on other people. I think it must be a wonderful privilege for anyone to be an anointed, to be one who is called to try to injure other people at a personal level and at a petty level.

During the second reading debate I referred to the salaries that are payable and that are paid to the officials of the State machine. I quoted figures and pointed out that a Director-General of a State department receives an amount of approximately R84 543 in salary, allowances and so on. In my opinion this figure is conservative; in fact it is more. A deputy Director-General receives an amount of R74 460 and a Director, R61 283. We can take these amounts even further. Any member of Parliament worth his salt could obtain all those figures from the budget that we debated in this House earlier this year.

A second consideration is that it is not in the public interest of South Africa that we should have secrets in respects of rights and privileges of people. Thirdly, I do not think that these amounts received by the top people in our Public Service are too great. Indeed, if we consider what is expected of our Public Service managers in South Africa, I want to say from our side of the House that we do not think that these people are paid too much, particularly when we consider what is required of these people. We say to the managers and top officials in our State machine that we, as the people in Government, wish them to have the money they receive. We respect them and we want to assist them to develop further the already sound State administration in South Africa. We are proud of them.

When I mentioned that, the hon member for Brakpan—this is just the point—came along and quoted these figures. He said that the hon member for Innesdal had referred to these things and then he made the remark: That is the type of person that the hon member for Innesdal is. I should like to say to the hon member for Brakpan that I envy him the wonderful honour and privilege of being a person with a vocation, one who is called to pass human judgment, in that petty political way, on other people. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg went even further. I want to take him up on this because he made a remark here that the Americans say—these are his words—that the hon member for Innesdal was the cheapest investment. The implication of that is that I am for sale, that I can be bought. You, Sir, directed the hon member for Soutpansberg to withdraw that remark. He did so. I want to ask the hon member whether he withdrew it because Mr Speaker directed him to withdraw it because it was unparliamentary, or did he withdraw it… [Interjections.] … because what he said the Americans said, was a lie? I ask him to tell me that. I want to ask him this morning whether there are people, perhaps only one person, who said that to him. He is nodding his head and therefore I take it that he says there are people who said that to him. I ask him whether there is just one person attached to the American embassy or the American Government who said to the hon member for Soutpansberg that I could be bought. Is there one person who said that to him?

Albert, before you went to America I said that you must beware of the Americans …

Sir, I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg across the floor of this House that what he said, viz that there were people who say that of me, is an infamous lie. I want to say that to the hon member for Soutpansberg. I also want to tell him, with regard to that point that he goes around outside this House and then enters the House and then, in his characteristic personal way, says things about hon members of this House that are false and a lie. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member for Soutpansberg that if he were a man, he would stand up and say who told him that. [Interjections.] Everyone in this House knows…

Order! The hon member for Innesdal must withdraw the words “infamous lie”.

Sir, I withdraw those words. I am merely seeking the truth with regard to what he said.

The hon member for Soutpansberg must tell me frankly in this House whether there is one person attached to the American embassy or the American Government who told him what he insinuated about me in this House the other day.

You are the cheapest investment they ever made.

No, Sir, it is one thing to say that politically I was an investment, but it is something else to state falsely that people—the Americans—do say that. Let me tell the hon member for Soutpansberg here and now that what he did with regard to me is characteristic of the kind of politics conducted by the CP. They are smallminded, petty and over-sensitive when we attack them on political points. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member for Soutpansberg today that we as parliamentarians owe it to one another to maintain a certain ethic in politics. That is what I want to ask him on this occasion.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Brits entitled to say “voetsek jy” to the hon member Mr Theunissen?

Order! If the hon member for Brits said that I want to point out to him that that is an expression we apply to a dog. Nobody in this House is a dog. I think that in all decency the hon member should withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I was provoked by hon members sitting at the back here. I agree with everything that the hon member for Innesdal has said about the mentality of the CP but I withdraw what I said.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder whether you would kindly rule on whether the argument advanced by the hon member for Innesdal is relevent to the discussion of this Bill.

I want to tell the hon member for Hillbrow that the hon member for Innesdal has been reacting to a statement made by the hon member for Soutpansberg, but I am about to call him to order.

Mr Speaker, I leave the matter at that. I just want to make the statement that in the final analysis, all of us as members of this House owe it to one another to try to protect one another’s integrity and honour. I want to say to the hon member for Soutpansberg that on one occasion one of my colleagues wrote something about an hon member of the CP, and I told him that I did not like it. That is the spirit in which I should like to conduct politics. I believe that when we are discussing a matter such as this which affects the interests of our Public Service we should keep petty party politics out of it.

I should now like to refer the hon the Minister to what I said during the Second Reading debate. I again want to make a plea to him. I do so as one who had had the privilege of working in the State machine for ten years. One does so as a person who has had the honour and the privilege of conducting discussions with hundreds of officials in the course of many years. One also does this on the basis of practical experience in the business world. Since we are dealing here with the administration of the State I want to ask him to ask the Commission for Administration to carry out an in-depth investigation in the coming year into the degree to which work which at present is being done by the Public Service—and here I include all sectors of the public sector—can be contracted out to the private sector. The Bill contains a provision in terms of which the Commission can eliminate certain work of specific departments and I really believe there is room for similar action with regard to other activities of the Public Service. When one analyses this year’s budget critically and scientifically, one sees that there are hundreds of millions of rand that could be utilized positively by privatization in the interests of the country if we adopt an action approach for example, during the Second Reading debate I referred to the Government Printer and certain ambulance services of the provincial administration. However, I do not wish to become involved in a debate on specific institutions and therefore I shall leave these examples at that. My plea will ultimately be to the benefit of all officials. In its next annual report on this matter the commission must give us a more clinical analysis of all the implications of such a step. They must therefore identify for us certain aspects that could be transferred to the private sector.

There are three things that we must consider in future in the interests of public servants. In the first place we must consider what functions can be eliminated with a view to preventing the performance of unnecessary tasks. There are several examples in this regard. This year we received from several departments annual reports that were far more compact. An annual report comprising a few hundred pages is a completely different kettle of fish, from the point of view of cost, than a brief and concise report like a few we saw this year. If all State documents were to be cut by half, we should already be speaking about phenomenal amounts that could be saved. In my opinion the instruction issued by the Government that letters, documents and memoranda must be cut down in length, is a very positive development. The third aspect is the elimination of unnecessary work, vis work which would rather be done by the private sector. For example, there is a tremendous number of periodicals issued by State Departments. The question is whether a clinical and scientific analysis has been made of the position in order to determine how many of those periodicals we ought still to be issuing and of how many it could perhaps be said that time has caught up with them. Time does not permit me to elaborate on this further. I also referred to the contracting out of work and to staff management.

I wish to conclude. The question in South Africa is whether we want to control or generate. Basically, I represent a constituency of public servants, and it is in the interests of all the voters in my constituency and in the interests of other hon members that every cent of State money is spent as effectively as possible. The question whether we want to control or to generate must be given priority in our State administration by the commission and by every public servant.

The next question is whether we want to generate or consume. Yesterday I used the example of old King Solomon who had two armies, one to watch his wives and the other to’ watch the army that watched his wives. If we were to have the position in South Africa that the army watching the wives became bigger than the other army, if I may put it that way, then we should have the growth of a bureaucracy. All of us in this House are aware of the challenges of South Africa. A heavy burden rests upon the Public Service, the Commission of Administration and all the officials. We in this House are very proud of the Public Service of South Africa. We are proud of the quality of our senior officials, we are proud of the quality of management in South Africa. We are proud of the Government in South Africa. Therefore we are fully entitled to ask that the elimination of unnecessary paperwork, the contracting out of all possible work to the private sector and the concept that we should rather generate than control, should come first and foremost in the thinking of all the officials. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, at the start of this last phase of the discussion of this legislation I just wish to associate myself with the hon members who, in the course of the debate, conveyed their good wishes to Dr De Beer, the new chairman of the Commission for Administration. However, there was no mention of the fact—it was not deliberate, of course—that it is not only Dr De Beer, as the new chairman, who is an addition to the commission, but also Dr J E du Plessis, who, since 1 July, has sat as a member of the commission.

Hear, hear!

We want to extend a cordial welcome to him, too, as a member of the commission. He is a man who, in the first place, is outstandingly suited to render this service due to the managerial skills he has acquired as Director-General. In addition, however, he has come a long way with the commission, and what is more, the subject of his doctor’s degree relates to State administration and staff administration within the State. Therefore we have in him not only a leader of calibre and a man with a strong personality and sound managerial experience, but also a man who, academically speaking, is extremely well equipped for the task he now has to perform, and we extend a very cordial welcome to him.

I should like to thank the hon member for Innesdal for his penetrating analysis of some aspects of the administration of the Public Service. Perhaps he missed this in my reply, but if I remember correctly I did try to make it clear that the commission was indeed engaged in a programme and an investigation with regard to privatization. I think that is a very constructive suggestion on his part that in a future annual report we may report back to some extent on what has been achieved in this connection. He can also rest assured that we take note of his suggestions. I just want to sound the warning—and I do not want to create expectations—that the commission is not per se in charge. In the normal course privatization will be given effect to in terms of line function decisions within departments. Therefore the Commission for Administration has an advisory and co-ordinating role to play in this connection. The real decision no longer to provide a specific service in respect of a specific facet, but rather to have it done for the Public Service from outside, is a line function decision which must be taken within the departments themselves. However, the commission has been instructed to perform a co-ordinating function, not only in respect of privatization, but also in respect of the elimination of red tape. What has already been achieved with regard to the elimination of red tape is showing significant results, and a standing committee has now been established in each department, under the guidance of the commission and with the support of the Cabinet, which is expected to meet regularly and which, on the basis of target planning, concentrates specifically on the question of how unnecessary red tape can be reduced and, preferably, totally eliminated in Government departments. The subjects to which the hon member referred have therefore already been identified as being of the utmost importance and I wish to thank him sincerely for his contribution. He can rest assured that the inputs he has made will be given due consideration.

I now wish to refer to the remarks of the hon member for Brakpan. I find his compliments more insulting than his insults. That a senior member such as that hon member should find it necessary to stoop to the level of petty political remarks and ad hominem politics as he did here this morning can only attest to one thing and that is the political bankruptcy of the CP. [Interjections.] In lighter vein I wish to point out to the hon member that he need not be concerned. I am quite able to swim, in whatever water I find myself. I am certainly not, like the hon members of the CP, a fish out of water. It goes well with me in whatever waters I may find myself. [Interjections.]

The short-temperedness on my part to which the hon member referred was not short-temperedness, but a calculated reaction, because we are tired of two things from the CP, and both of them affect facets which the hon member for Brakpan raised in the course of his speech. The first is the total negativism in regard to the administration of the country. The hon members will have to decide when they are going to stop opposing every Act simply because it will be applicable in the new dispensation. They are making an absolute farce of political debate by adopting this negative attitude, particularly against the background of the fact that the leader of the CP stated that if he came to power, he would continue to implement all the laws within the context of mixed Government—as they refer to it. He would take his place and participate in the new dispensation until he could persuade people to take a different road with regard to the entrenched elements. Therefore it is absolutely ridiculous and farcical to oppose every clause of a Bill seeking to promote the effective operation of the Public Service merely because this Public Service is also going to render service in the RSA under a new constitution which has been democratically approved by Parliament acting in terms of a two-thirds majority of the White electorate. This kind of “last stand” resistance of theirs shows that in essense they are not disposed to recognize democracy in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with the exposition of power-sharing by the hon member for Innesdal.

I am not discussing that now. I am discussing the CP. I should like to tell hon members of the CP that there will be only one Public Service. Surely we have already settled that matter amongst each other. To what is the hon member referring when he says that there will be a Public Service for general affairs and a Public Service for own affairs? We made it quite clear in debates during this session that there will be only one Public Service and one Commission for Administration. That Public Service is not going to be different to the present Public Service. Why do those hon members create the impression that we are going to have an integrated Public Service and that in the past we supposedly had separate Public Services? Surely that is untrue. They suggest that it is now going to be possible in the Public Service, for the first time since 1948, for Whites to serve under Coloured officials. That has been occurring for years. Long before those hon members left the NP, White education officials began to serve in the Department of Coloured Education under Coloured officials. Surely there is nothing unusual about that. [Interjections.] I spelt it out clearly that it was still the policy that wherever we could find a suitable person for promotion in the service of his own population group, that would be done. Therefore those hon members are creating a false impression. If they believe that the picture they present is true, then I can find some slight excuse for their totally negative reaction. However, what they believe is not true. I accuse them of not even believing it. They are kicking up a fuss and making typically petty propaganda about this matter.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to the Public Servants’ Association. Has he had any official contact with that association, yes or no?

I saw what Dr Cameron said according to the newspaper.

Sir, the hon member suddenly arrogates to himself the right to speak on behalf of the Public Servants’ Association. [Interjections.] I am in constant contact with Dr Cameron and his executive. The Public Servants’ Association has an absolutely open channel to the Public Service Commission and to me, and we discuss matters with one another on a regular basis. Therefore the hon member need not play a role in the liaison between the Public Servants’ Association, which is a non-political body, and the Government of the day.

The public services of the national states fall outside the jurisdiction of the Commission for Administration; they fall under the separate authority of the states in question. That is the position.

I do not think that this is the time or place to conduct a debate on the broad political and constitutional facets and, for example, to make a long story of power-sharing. The policy of the NP is clear, and there is no problem as regards the statement made by the hon member for Innesdal. The policy of the NP is clearly that every people and population grop must come into its own, that there must be own decision-making structures and that there must be co-operation on matters of common concern. Due to the special nature and circumstances of the various Black peoples, we see their own structures in a different light to those for Coloureds and Indians, and due to their characteristic nature, circumstances and history we also regard the structures that are to be developed for co-operation with them in a different light to those relating to Coloureds and Indians. That there must be co-operation, and that there are common interests, is a fact. After all, when hon members of the CP were still on this side of the House they, too, said that they stood for confederation. Nowadays, however, they are silent as the grave about these structures for co-operation. Why? They are silent as the grave about structures for co-operation with the Blacks because that does not suit the style, tone and approach of Mr Jaap Marais and the HNP. That is the only reason. They have moved so far to the right that they have even forgotten where their political ideas came into being and developed. [Interjections.]

I now come to the second facet raised by the hon member, and this is my so-called short-temperedness and his explanation of it. The hon member for Soutpansberg has degenerated to such an extent that he did not blush this morning—and in fact that is tragic, because even he should have blushed—when he was exposed to public contempt in connection with the statement he made about the hon member for Innesdal.

[Inaudible.]

The drastic difference is that in his previous remark the hon member tried to intimate that others had said that, whereas in the altercation here this morning he admitted that that was his own standpoint. Moreover, he was not prepared to mention a single name of another person who had supposedly made that statement. [Interjections.] Hon members would do well to watch the hon member. I deliberately provoked him now because he behaved in the same way as he is behaving now while I was discussing facets of the speech by the hon member for Brakpan. I said then that those hon members were not interested in a reply and that I should accordingly not provide an answer again. Later in the debate, however, I decided to reply to the hon member for Brakpan after all, because the two of us get along better than I do with some other members of that party. Apart from that, I wanted to be courteous and reply to significant questions he had asked. At that stage, however, the hon member for Soutpansberg was sitting talking to our Chief Whip, but he interrupted his conversation and addressed an insulting remark to me. [Interjections.] For that reason I decided rather to conclude my speech, because if even the Whip of that party is not interested in a reply that I can give to an hon member of his party, it seems to me as if that party as a whole is not interested. [Interjections.]

Throughout this session those hon members have consistently created the impression that they do not take part in the debates with a view to putting better legislation on the Statute Book. The overall impression has been that they participate in debates with the aim, firstly, of undermining something; secondly, of obtaining quotations that they can misuse in Die Patriot under the guidance of the hon member for Jeppe and Dr Connie Mulder, and, thirdly, to play party politics. However, we understand that, because at the moment the CP does not give two pins for anything except making progress at the ballot box. [Interjections.] All their time is devoted to that, and therefore their hon leader was unable to reply to me when I asked him to mention to us any step, effort or significant action whereby his party was liaising with the Coloureds in an effort to sell the CP’s unworkable policy to the Coloureds. I could carry on in this vein to sketch the negative, destructive and undermining role played by the CP in regard to democratic and constructive debating in this House throughout this session. It manifested itself again during this debate, and for that reason it was a calculated action on my part when I said for the second time that if that was the attitude, we should tell them, for once, that if they were not interested they should not expect replies. However, I should like to thank the hon members because apparently that has had the desired effect. The rest of the debate went well. I want to thank them for that, and I ask that for the rest of this session, and in the session next year, they must keep purely party-political interests, for which a great deal of time is set aside in political debates, separate from the debates concerning things that have to be done in the interests of South Africa as a whole. With regard to those things, we must display the objectivity to say: Despite the fact that we differ politically, let us co-operate to see whether we cannot improve legislation within the framework of the principle, particularly if the principle has already been accepted at Second Reading. It was in that spirit that hon members participated in the Committee Stage debate yesterday, and for that I am grateful to them. I think that the modicum of medicine administered had the desired effect.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. 1. On page 3, in line 42, to omit all the words after “Act” up to and including “provision” on page 5, in line 1.
2. 2. On page 5, in line 6, to omit all the words after “Act,” up to and including “proclamation” in line 9, and to substitute “1 July 1984”.
3. 3. In the Afrikaans text, on page 4, in line 66, to omit “onmiddellik”.

I should like to explain these amendments briefly. As far as the first one is concerned it merely refers to members of the President’s Council. As far as members of Parliament are concerned the Bill comes into operation on 1 July 1984, and in the case of the President’s Council it may come into operation with effect from 3 September 1984. Because two dates of inception apply to members in this regard this causes confusion, and certain provisions of the Bill containing the words “fixed date” are not clear. By deleting the reference to the President’s Council the Bill will not change. The President’s Council has been so defined that the provision can only apply to the new President’s Council. Paragraph (a) of the definition of “fixed date”, as is now being amended, will therefore only keep alive the proclamation regulating the pensions of the present President’s Council until the new President’s Council is established.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, it was agreed from the beginning of the negotiations we conducted with one another that the Bill would have to come into operation from 1 July 1984. Moreover, this date was specifically mentioned in the original draft of the legislation. When it became clear that the Bill would not be promulgated before 1 July 1984 we altered it to its present form. However, this could cause hon members to be uncertain as to whether the Bill will come into operation on 1 July 1984 as agreed, and the amendment will eliminate this uncertainty.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, the word “immediate” is superfluous. The amended Afrikaans text is now in line with the English text.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the CP advanced a standpoint based on principle and said that we had reached certain agreements and that we had co-operated in order to assist in the improvement of this legislation. I just want to quote what the hon the Minister said after we had stated our standpoint and thanked him for the co-operation we had received. The hon the Minister said inter alia (Hansard, 4 July):

He was referring to me:

The hon member went on to say:

I should like to say to the hon the Minister with regard to this legislation that we should like to co-operate, because members of the House of Assembly, too, are involved here. When I negotiated with the hon the Minister I negotiated with him about the pension and pension benefits of members of the House of Assembly. I negotiated with the hon the Minister on behalf of members of the CP who are members of this House. I did not negotiate with the hon the Minister for and on behalf of members of the Coloured and Indian Houses.

Order! That matter does not affect clause 1.

Clause 1 contains all the definitions in regard to this whole piece of legislation, legislation we are opposing for reaons that we have spelt out.

Mr Chairman, as the first speaker on our side, I had hoped that you would give me the opportunity just to rectify under this clause a matter, which, I think, had very unfortunate consequences last night, and which could also determine the actions of our party on the road ahead. Accordingly I ask that you afford me the opportunity just to rectify this. I did not negotiate with the hon the Minister on the pensions of members of a multiracial President’s Council. Nor did I negotiate with the hon the Minister on the pension and gratuity of the Prime Minister, an office which will disappear in the new system of government. I negotiated with the hon the Minister on the pension benefits of members of the House of Assembly and in my Second Reading speech I singled out various aspects the inclusion of which in this Bill we were grateful for. We said in advance to the Chief Whip of the Government party that we could not agree to the Second Reading of the Bill because the Bill provides for the payment of pensions to members of a multiracial tricameral Parliament and its officebearers and to members of the multiracial President’s Council with its office-bearers, as defined in this clause.

The hon the Minister is trying to create the impression that when it comes to personal advantage the CP has no objections in principle. The hon the Minister said that the benefits embodied in this Bill in regard to all these definitions in clause 1 would not entail extra expense for the State. We agree with him in that regard. However, he says that we throw our principles overboard when it comes to benefits. I stated this very clearly during the Second Reading, and I want to repeat it, because it is on this that our future co-operation with regard to this Bill depends. The objection that the CP has to this Bill in principle is that it regulates the pensions of members of a multiracial tricameral Parliament. That is why we voted against it at Second Reading. I should like the hon the Minister to accept that where we as Whips reach agreements with one another when the benefits of members are at issue, we are grateful to be able to co-operate with him. I should also like the hon the Minister to accept in this spirit that the CP has expressed its objections in principle and, although we have not moved an amendment, have voted against the principle of the Bill. I hope that the hon the Minister will now accept that this is the spirit of the CP’s standpoint, and that applies to this Bill too.

Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief. I think there are two matters which we must just spell out very clearly. The one is a matter of principle and the other is an actual situation here. The matter of principle is not at issue now. Therefore I shall not discuss it. You, Mr Chairman, would not allow me to do so in any event. I mention it merely to contrast it with what is in fact relevant. If the CP states that they want a separate homeland and a separate Parliament, then that is correct. As far as their side is concerned, I have no fault to find with that. They are fully entitled to that point of view and it does not represent an insult to anyone. However, when one is dealing with this matter, where Parliament and the President’s Council are being defined in terms of this clause, we are dealing with a situation in terms of which the Coloureds, for example, will in fact be physically present here. The question now is how one is going to treat them, and that is what is at issue here. If one says that one wants a separate homeland, one wants a separate Parliament, then that is all very well, because that is one’s policy. One can accept it as a policy, and it does not constitute an insult to anyone. When one says, the moment a Coloured or an Indian is present here, that he may not join you in being a member of the parliamentary pension scheme, that he may not join you in being a member of the medical scheme and that he may not be in the same Public Service, then that is an absolute insult to that man. If one tells him that he is coming here in conflict with your policy, and that you will use the existing system to change that in accordance with your policy then that is all very well. Some of the Coloureds also say that they will come to Parliament to change the system in accordance with their policy. Now, however, the hon members of the CP say that while that man is present here he may not be treated equally. The principle that applies throughout this Bill is that all members of Parliament must be accorded equal treatment. The moment one says that that man may not join one as a member of the medical or pension scheme and that he may not be treated as one is treated oneself, then that constitutes an absolute insult to that man. If the attitude of the CP were: “Look, you are here against my will, but while you are here I shall treat you decently, I shall give you equal freedom,” then the CP has a reasonable standpoint, while using the constitution to change the system. When it is the standpoint of the CP that while those people are here they object to them so strongly that their reasonableness and power of judgment is lost, and they say that those people may not be members of the medical or pension schemes as we are, then I say that the CP are absolutely insulting those people. This is something that is going to boomerang against that party, and they are going to have to account for it. It is absolutely blatant racism and nothing else.

Mr Chairman, I believe that I can speak of a misunderstanding here. The misunderstanding that arose originates in the fact that we differ on what the principle of a Bill is. I still think that we never differed with one another on the principle of the Bill, and that was to establish a pension scheme for members of the House of Assembly. What the hon member does object to is the Constitution. I concede that point to the hon member, and he can act in that regard just as he likes. However, I still say that the difference concerns the Constitution, and not this Bill.

One cannot say that this is a neat Bill and then at the same time say one differs from it in principle.

Technically it is a neat Bill.

It simply cannot work that way. That is our only difference as far as the principle is concerned. I did not say that the hon member was lying and he did not tell me that he objected to it. I told him yesterday, too, that I do not begrudge it him. But the hon member should also accept that I also never told him that he could come and say what he liked here, without my taking him to task. I did not tell him that either. Therefore I repeat that I think that even today we did not differ on the principle of the Bill, but we do differ on the principle of the Constitution. However, it does not seem to me to be correct that we should differ in principle on the Constitution when we are dealing with pension legislation. That is all that is at issue here and that is how I see it. I say this without casting a reflection on anyone. Those are the facts of the matter, and that is why I put it that way.

Mr Chairman, I do not want us to cross swords about this. The hon the Minister said at the outset that there was no difference in principle between us as regards the pensions of the House of Assembly. As far as the provision of pensions of the House of Assembly is concerned I agree with the hon the Minister that there are no differences in principle. However, the Bill is the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers Pension Scheme Bill. According to the definitions in the Bill we are dealing here with a multiracial tricameral Parliament, and we object to that in principle.

Order!

Mr Chairman, that is exactly what I have just said to the hon member. The new Constitution creates a Parliament, but the hon member differs in principle with me about the Parliament being created by the Constitution. I concede that he differs with me in that regard. All I am doing, however, is implementing the provisions of the Constitution. In my opinion the man who differs with me because I am implementing the provisions of the Constitution is on the wrong road.

Amendments 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

All that this amendment seeks to do is to bring the English and Afrikaans texts into line with one another.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr Chairman, clause 8 deals with the qualifications for pensions of members of Parliament and of the President’s Council. It lays down that a member should have at least seven years and six months pensionable service to his credit or have been a member during the full duration of at least two “successive” Parliaments or President’s Councils. In this respect I move as an amendment:

The object of the removal of the word “successive” would be that if a member has served for the duration of a Parliament but is not a member at the moment or will perhaps serve for a subsequent period of time so that he would qualify as having served for two Parliaments, he would qualify for a pension. It is not clear why a member should serve for the full duration of at least two successive Parliaments. As far as existing members are concerned, I think it is common cause that this Parliament ends when we finish our deliberations and that when we are all sworn in again on 4 September a new Parliament will commence so that all present members will eventually qualify for a pension. We therefore do not need the word “successive” to cover the present situation. However, I think that because of this word some people will be affected. It is not a major amendment and I think it will assist a number of people. I want to ask the hon the Minister to please give careful consideration to my amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member was kind enough to warn me beforehand that he was going to move an amendment of this kind, but I am afraid that I cannot simply accept the amendment. I am sympathetic in this regard, and should it prove to be necessary, we may have another look at the matter at a later stage. However, to simply delete the word “successive” could cause us problems for the simple reason that if a person had served for a period of time and had not been a member for some time, his pension contributions are paid out to him. Therefore, if we delete the word “successive” we shall at least have to make provision for repayments in the remainder of the Bill.

†Merely to delete the word “successive” would therefore land us in trouble. I think this matter should be thoroughly looked into before we do anything in this regard. In the meantime we have made provision in clause 5 which will entitle a member to buy back certain previous service he has rendered. So, we are helping those people. However, simply to delete “successive” might land us in trouble in relation to the rest of the Bill. As a result of that, I am not in a position today to accept that. We can look at the position again in the future if it is necessary in order to accommodate certain people. I must warn against our trying to make laws to suit certain specified people, irrespective of who they are, because that can land us in trouble. I must, therefore, advise against that. Nevertheless, as I have said, I do have sympathy with the hon member’s proposal and we can look into this in the future, but today we will have to do more than just delete “successive” to make it acceptable.

Mr Chairman, I accept the hon the Minister’s undertaking to look into the matter in the future. I shall nevertheless persist with my amendment just for the sake of the record.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

Clause 10 makes provision for special pensions or, as the hon the Minister also referred to them, pensions for office-bearers. It provides that a member who has occupied an office in this House of Assembly and who has laid down that office and resumed his seat here as an ordinary member, may then receive an office-bearer’s pension or special pension. According to clause 10(a), a member who “on the fixed date is an ordinary member and at any time before that date held any office” is entitled to such an office bearer’s pension. I want to thank the hon the Minister for having been accommodating in this regard. There are such members in the House of Assembly who are today ordinary members of the house of Assembly and who were previously office-bearers and who will therefore be entitled to this office-bearer’s pension. Clause (b) refers to a member who—

It may happen that a person who at present occupies an office in this Parliament may lay down that office in the near future. He will then be entitled to a pension in terms of this provision. If my amendment is accepted clause 10 will read as follows:

Such a person would then also be entitled to such an office-bearer’s pension.

Let me mention the hon member for Umhlatuzana as an example. He won the election in his constituency with a very small majority and he occupies an office in Parliament. If he were to lose his constituency in the next election …

Then I would shout “hurrah!”. [Interjections.]

No, just wait a moment. If he were to lose his constituency in the next election and his party in Natal were to see fit to give him a seat as a nominated member or if he were to be re-elected in a by-election and were to return to Parliament, then I feel that because he had been a member before he should be entitled to such a pension. There are at present former members of House of Assembly outside Parliament who occupied an office in Parliament when they were still members.

That can only be Connie.

The hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications says that I am speaking of Connie Mulder. I agree with the hon the Minister that Dr Connie Mulder is certainly coming back to Parliament, and will do so as the hon member for Randburg after the next election. [Interjections.] Since the hon the Minister has mentioned this example I want to point out that Dr Connie Mulder receives a pension as a former Minister. If my amendment is accepted and Dr Mulder returns to Parliament he will receive the salary of an ordinary member of the House of Assembly but we feel that such a member should also be entitled to the office-bearer’s pension. That would not cost anything more because Dr Mulder receives a pension at the moment.

You are making an example of a weak case.

There are many other examples. Former Minister Jimmy Kruger, for example, may return to Parliament. Dr Carel de Wet, who is a member of the NP and was also an office-bearer, may also return to Parliament. There is talk, for example that Dr Jan Haak would very much like an appointment to the President’s Council. At present these people are receiving a pension and we feel that they ought to be entitled to an office-bearer’s pension.

Mr Chairman, before replying to the hon member for Kuruman I move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 13, in line 60, after “date” to insert:
   • : Provided that if any gratuity was paid to a member under section 9 of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No 81 of 1971), in respect of any office in respect of which a gratuity is payable in terms of this paragraph, the amount of the gratuity shall be set off against any gratuity payable to him in terms of this paragraph.

If this amendment is not accepted, too liberal provision will have been made. It will mean that anyone who had previously received a gratuity could receive another gratuity later on without account being taken of what he had already received.

I want to repeat my earlier warning: It is wrong to make laws for specific persons. I am very sorry that the hon member for Kuruman referred to Dr Connie Mulder.

The hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications referred to him.

The hon member for Kuruman elaborated on that, but I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications referred to Dr Connie Mulder. That results in our debating a person with one another in this debate. A person is not at issue here, but I think it is much nicer … [Interjections.] I wish there was another by-election so that that Van der Merwe, the hon member for Jeppe, could leave again.

At least I am not yet the laughing-stock of the Orange Free State, which is what you are, old Nak.

At least I have not yet damaged the doors of Parliament by kicking them.

I have never done what you do in the Free State, old Nak.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Jeppe entitled to refer to another hon member in this House as “old Nak”?

Order! That is not parliamentary. I want to point out to the hon member for Jeppe that the Speaker made an appeal to hon members— perhaps it was in the absence of the hon member—to conduct themselves with dignity in this House.

I thank you for the protection, Sir. However, one becomes accustomed to certain things from certain hon members. [Interjections.] I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon member for Kuruman.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend referring to any specific person in this context. If the hon the Minister does not wish to accept the amendment because certain names have been mentioned in this connection …

I never said that. I am not prepared to deal with the matter further because the hon member, as Whip of his party, has no control of that big mouth behind him. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister rather to approach the matter in a calm and peaceful way. I believe that we reached agreement a moment ago. He must not cause us to begin hurling insults at each other at this point. I know that the session has been going on a long time and that this, together with the progress made by the CP in the Free State, is causing him tension, but we do want to ask him rather to adopt a calm approach to this matter.

In this clause the hon the Minister accepted the principle of an office-bearer’s pension for a person who had previously occupied a parliamentary office and is still a member of the House of Assembly. The principle has been accepted that a person who is now a member of the House of Assembly and later vacates the office is entitled to such a pension. If a person who used to be a member of this House of Assembly and is no longer a member of whatever reason, were later to return to the House of Assembly, I cannot see why the principle should be changed in respect of such a person. After all, it does not cost the State anything more. That person is receiving a pension at the moment, and if he returns to the House of Assembly he will receive the salary of an ordinary member of the House of Assembly. In such a case he ought also to be entitled to an office-bearer’s pension. Therefore I should like to ask the hon the Minister to forget about the names mentioned. It is not only the CP that will always be sitting on this side and may be involved in such instances; the hon members of the hon the Minister’s own party may find themselves in such a situation. I am not now advocating the cause of any one person. I am merely asking that the principle implemented in this clause be taken to its logical conclusion in respect of other persons who were members of this House.

Mr Chairman, I repeat: I was not referring to specific cases. The hon member must please not put words into my mouth to the effect that I referred to specific cases. Indeed, I warned that we should not pass legislation for persons. Originally I had a provision in the legislation to the effect that a pension should be paid to people who had performed their service here uninterruptedly. The hon member addressed requests to me—because members of that party were involved—to the effect that as far as this Parliament is concerned I should make this applicable to everyone. Because I could be accused of legislating against certain persons, I complied with the hon member’s request. However, we must have a cut-off point somewhere. If I were to throw this open so that it applied to all former members, it would mean that anyone could come to the House of Assembly who is at present receiving a pension which will be considerably less than the salary he receives as a member of Parliament. The hon member now expects me to agree to those people receiving an office-bearer’s pension on top of that. I fear that that is asking too much. That is why clause 1 was changed so that the date would be very clearly specified as 1 July 1984 and so that we need have no doubt in that regard. We did so without regard to persons. The names of several were mentioned here. For the sake of this Parliament, for the sake of clarity and since we cannot be accused of making laws for or against certain people, we are cutting it off on a specific date, as is now being provided in the legislation, and this will apply from now onwards. That is how pension laws work. As soon as we make pension laws retrospective, problems will arise. Therefore I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment. I want to reiterate that I did not mention people’s names here. In fact, I warned against mentioning specific names.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

This is only a consequential amendment arising out of the amendment to clause 10 that has been accepted.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

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

The aim of this amendment is to bring this clause into line with the previous legislation.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

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

This amendment merely rectifies an error.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Yesterday reference was made by hon members, particularly the hon member for Witbank, to the deletion of certain benefits applying to minor children in the event of their father and mother dying simultaneously. I may just say that such a provision no longer exists in any piece of legislation administered by the department. It has never happened and it has never been necessary. This is a provision which existed in legislation before there was such a thing a gratuities. In our opinion, gratuities provide ample protection, or at least an aid in the same sense as that which was provided for by that provision which used to be inserted. Indeed, according to our calculations, this provides for better benefits than did that provision.

While I am discussing this matter, I think it would be as well if hon members were to bear in mind that in terms of section 20(b) of the general pensions legislation, they are entitled to make over that gratuity to minor children. Therefore, if they want to make provision for minor children in this way, they are entitled to make arrangements with the Director-General with regard to payment of the gratuity if they die. However, they must make those arrangements in advance, and if not, the Director-General of the Department will have the right to decide on the matter for himself. I think it is necessary for hon members to consider that. There are several hon members who have, in fact, given such an instruction to the Director-General. However, I just want to appeal to hon members to take note of this and, if necessary, to give the Director-General that instruction in writing.

May I please ask a question? Is the ordinary testament of a member not recognized in this instance?

No. In terms of this legislation, the Director-General has the right to decide on the gratuity. That is the only right he has and there are very good reasons for it. Precisely the same provision also exists in respect of the Government Service Pension Fund administered by the department. Therefore we are not an exception to the rule. Hon members can take it from me that there are good reasons why the Director-General has to look after minor children. I have consulted attorneys in this regard as well and they have said that they are satisfied that this should be so. The point of departure of the State is simply that in the first instance minor children must be looked after. Therefore hon members must address a written request to the Director-General as far as the handling of this gratuity is concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with certain clauses in the Bill with reference to the financing of the independent, self-governing Black states. One must bear in mind the fact that this is a Finance Bill and, when one looks at the present value of the rand in US dollar terms, I believe it is very appropriate to look at the financing of these Black states. I feel that we so frequently stare ourselves blind looking at symptoms and not at the problems. I believe our problem is actually the way we are organizing this economic entity that we call South Africa. The repeal of sections 1 of the four Financial Arrangements Acts does not mean that we cease to support these States financially. Indeed, the amount that we have to spend on them annually is escalating fast and last year it was R2,2 billion, almost 9% of our Budget. This raises the whole question of taxing hard-pressed South African citizens in order to finance foreign States.

I think we must ask ourselves about three separate issues. First of all, if they are in fact foreign independent States what is our responsibility towards them, or are they just a pretence? Secondly, what are their financial needs? In other words, are they viable? Thirdly, do we have the financial strength to assist them within the political structures that the NP has created?

The first issue that we must look at is therefore how they came about. We do not have the time to go into this in any depth now, but I believe there cannot be any argument about it that they are the creations of a carrot-and-stick process. Blacks who suffered discrimination, oppression and denial of basic human rights were told that they had an opportunity to achieve freedom, self-determination, control of their own land and control of assets that we would make available to them if they accepted independence. On this basis some Black leaders led their people into accepting the Government’s offer. Millions of Blacks, however, would not endorse the deal, but it was made applicable to them nonetheless. If these States are foreign and independent, one would expect that the South African Government would at least accord their citizens the same status that it accords the citizens of other independent foreign States who are in South Africa. Does it do this? Does it for example treat Transkeians in the same way that it treats Greeks or Englishmen living in South Africa? No, Sir, on the contrary. They still feel the full effects of apartheid whether they were born here or are here as migrant workers.

The special relationship South Africa has with the TBVC countries is illustrated by clauses 12, 15, 18 and 20 of this Bill.

The Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984, provides that Blacks will be taxed on the same basis as Whites, the so-called harmonizing taxation. We are now being called upon to amend sections 2(l)(a) of the Financial Arrangements Acts with the TBVC countries. The amendment provides that amounts equal to the amounts of tax paid by the citizens of those countries in South Africa be paid to those respective Governments by the South African Government. I ask: Why? Do we pay an amount equivalent to the taxes paid in South Africa by 500 000 Portuguese to the Portuguese Government? If we maintain that these territories are independent, we must add this amount to the other amounts of financial support we give them, because this handing over of domestic tax to a foreign Government is quite unique. The truth is of course obvious. Their independence is a tawdry device. These countries are a convenient repository for surplus people and unpleasant statistics. They are a mechanism with which we can control anybody who challenges the system. A person can be sent home because he is no longer a South African. There will be no Black South Africans. On the flimsiest of reasons everyone will attach to one or the other of these independent Black States.

How viable are the independent Black States and what is their need for financial assistance? This is an important question. It does not mean “are they self-sufficient?” It means: Can they exist now or ever without massive economic hand-outs?

The hon the leader of this party made a speech in the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, and I am sure thoughtful hon members on the other side of the House will study it carefully and think about it. It exposes the cracks in the very foundations of the NP policy. Starkly put, it establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that what they saw as the solution to our social and political problems, namely the creation of independent Black states, is the design fault which will cause the whole edifice to collapse. Why? Because there is no possible way that we can afford to support such uneconomic creations, and yet there is no way to avoid the responsibility of attempting to do so.

The final irony of the situation is that what the NP saw as the problem, namely the influx of people from the rural Black areas to industrial regions, will increasingly be seen as the solution to this problem.

My hon leader quoted certain statistics that relate to the viability of these states, and they bear repeating. The gross domestic product per capita at 1970 prices of the self-governing national states increased from R40 in 1970 to R46 in 1980—this is among the lowest in the world. Any improvement in living standards during that period came overwhelmingly from sources outside those states. The income earned by commuters and migratory workers accounted for 72% of the gross national income of the national states. The contribution of internal production to the gross national income in the national states declined from 35% to 26% over eight years. The economic development programmes estimate unemployment at 20%— this was a couple of year ago and it is now in excess of that—and over 2 million of their workers are employed in South Africa.

Do these statistics, measured against a rapidly growing population, indicate viability? Obviously these states will become increasingly heavy burdens on the Republic of South Africa. Development aid from the Republic accounted for 77% of the total income of the governments of the self-governing states in the 1981-82 year.

The statistics for Transkei are very interesting. Half of Transkei’s 1980 national income of R1 200 million came from the earnings of migrant workers. The Republic of South Africa then financed a large proportion of the balance with the result that a mere 28% of the total national income was generated by the local economy.

If anybody thinks that our obligations to these territories will reduce with time, then I believe he has more faith than common sense. Between 1960 and 1980 the population of the homelands increased from 5 million to 11 million people, and the number of indigent people rose from 250 000 to 1,5 million.

What is our financial responsibility and our financial ability to help? The return that an investment yields has a great deal to do with the question of whether one can afford it or not. If the investment is good enough, one can normally find the finance for it. It is appropriate then to ask what return we get on our investment in the TBVC countries. In order to answer that question one needs to know certain things. First of all one needs to know how much is being invested. It is difficult to establish the exact amount because the investment is made in all sorts of obscure ways—soft loans, loans that nobody expects ever to be repaid, payments through development corporations, decentralization incentives and so forth. One also wants to know what the financial return on that investment is. One wants to know what the interest is, what the profits are, one wants to know what the viability is of the projects which have been started and one also wants to know what the social return is, like jobs created and housing provided. One wants to know whether capital redemption is taking place as originally envisaged. One must know who is accountable and whether non-financial objectives are defined and whether they are being achieved.

I state emphatically that nobody on that side of the House, from the hon the Prime Minister and the Cabinet downwards, knows the answer to these questions. The hon the Prime Minister can state in this House, as he did the other day, “Met ander woorde, one is nie being met ‘hand-outs’ nie. Dit word vooraf deeglik bereken en gekontroleer”, but unless he and his staff can answer these questions they are living in cloud-cuckoo land. I want to give an example. Last year the hon the Prime Minister told this House that there had been 777 successful applications for decentralization benefits in 1982-83. These projects involved a total investment of R2 400 million and would create jobs for 66 000 people. The decentralization scheme is really the main pillar, the main support the Government intends to use to make these states viable. When I asked the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism recently about these things, he admitted that even now we do not know how many of these 777 industries have gone ahead with their plans. We do not know how many of the 66 000 people have in fact been employed and we also do not know how much of the R2 400 million has been invested. We are still waiting for the Decentralization Board’s annual report. This is the type of uncontrolled investment we cannot afford. South Africa is simply not rich enough.

What is the effect of this spending on our economy? Government theory is that the Black states are part and parcel of our economy, but that they make up separate political entities. This involves us in a paradox. We distort the economy, tax ourselves ruinously and then hand the resources to inexperienced people and in some cases to irresponsible puppets whose domestic prestige stems from their licence to spend our money as arbitrarily as they choose. We must not blame them for spending our money on futile airports, jet planes, harbours, defence establishment and bureaucracies. The fault is ours and we should know better.

If South Africa is to achieve economic growth, and we all agree it must, it must compete in the game of international trade where the contestants play for keeps. This involves ordering our society and our economy on a businesslike basis. We cannot tax ourselves R2,2 billion per annum and then hand the money to others to squander. We cannot spend R800 million, with much more to come, on homeland consolidation and not increase the output of that land with one iota. We cannot invest R2 400 million, no matter out of which pocket it comes, one establishing industries where it never should be in order to realize some ideological pipe dream. We cannot move millions of Blacks against their will to rural slums and then declare that they are no longer our responsibility. We cannot artificially bottle up the bulk of the country’s labour force in territories which cannot employ them.

If any South African Minister of Finance has to conduct his responsibilities according to the dictates of these considerations, he will fail in the same way the last one did. Our economy will stagnate, inflation will increase, the rand will depreciate and our country will eventually become ungovernable. Occasional rallies in the price of gold will give new meaning to the term “gold fix”. It will be analogous to a junkie’s fix which leaves him on each occasion worse off than before and more desperately in need of the next fix.

Independent states of the type and size we have created are incompatible with a healthy growing economy and with a stable society. The Government must therefore think again.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on this financial Bill, but because hon members have put certain specific questions to me and have asked me to react to them, I shall do so with pleasure. But before I refer to these questions I should like to refer to clause 1 because I want to ensure that there is no uncertainty with regard to this clause and that there will be clarity in regard to the total Defence Budget, including they Special Defence Account.

The total Defence Budget agreed to by Parliament consists of two components. The first component is a cash amount and the other component is the amount of underexpenditure. Together these two form the total Defence Budget. This is the obligation authority this Parliament has given the department to commit itself by placing orders and by incurring certain financial obligations for the relevant financial year. If we look at the approved amount of underexpenditure we therefore find, in the first place, that no cash is being provided and, in the second place, that the department may now incur financial obligations in respect of approved requirements. The reason for this amount of underexpenditure is that as far as the delivery of armaments is concerned, these are major items which are delivered over a long period. If one places an order this year, it will not necessarily be delivered during the present financial year, but perhaps only next year or even in a few years’ time. That is why provision is made for this amount of underexpenditure. Sometimes the supplier makes delivery sooner and instead of making delivery during the next financial year he does so during the present financial year. Then one has cash problems because the suppliers have to be paid for the delivery of the items concerned. This usually happens when there are tight economic conditions such as those prevailing today, which result in the supplier having unutilized production capacity so that he is able to deliver items sooner. This creates a cash-flow problem, and there are cash requirements.

Consequently the amount of R60 million for which provision is being made in clause 1(a) does not represent an increase in the Defence Force’s Budget, but merely an increase in the cash requirements. This means that certain cash-flow problems are being experienced. There is consequently a need for money to finance authorized items. Referring to the amount of R60 million, the hon member for Amanzimtoti said that he hoped it would not increase. I think he said this in the sense that he hoped there would be a scaling-down of the Defence Budget. I do not think there is a single hon member in this House who does not share that wish. But this can only happen if we reach that level of preparedness to which the hon member for Yeoville referred with regard to one specific branch of the Defence Force—the one he was concerned about. I want to assure hon members that the price of peace is a very high price to pay, because to ensure peace one must prepare for war. The hon member for Sunnyside said that he hoped there would always be sound financial management and I also want to emphasize this because it is an important facet.

Clause 1(b) is concerned with the paying of the surplus on the State Revenue Account into the Special Defence Account, to which the hon member for Yeoville referred. Because the cash in the Special Defence Account has been placed under so much pressure during the past few years, owing to the light economic conditions, my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, decided to continue the practice which I think was introduced by the late Minister Havenga to pay any surplus on the State Revenue Fund into a specific account when the books are closed. When the books were closed for 1983-84 the hon the Minister of Finance decided to pay that surplus into the Special Defence Account. My colleague has indicated that he will go into this matter further and will reply to the hon member for Yeoville in greater detail.

Does the hon the Minister know what the amount is?

The hon the Minister of Finance will give the hon member the reply to that question.

The hon member for Yeoville asked what the purpose of the Special Defence Account was and how the funds were applied. He was concerned about whether they were being applied in one direction and whether current expenditure was included. I want to refer the hon member to section 2 of the Defence Special Accounts Act. It provides how the money in this account shall be applied, and I am quoting:

The money in the account need not only be used for the purchase of major equipment, viz aircraft, tanks and ships, etc. In practice the fund is used mainly for the purchase of military stores, viz major equipment and spares, ammunition, operational vehicles, such as the Samil series which usually have long and uncertain preliminary times. It does not matter what the origin of the equipment is, in other words, it does not matter whether it is obtained from local sources, for example ammunition, or whether it is obtained from overseas sources. The normal day to day expenses incurred by way of tender, for example with regard to clothing, rations, fuel, etc, are not defrayed from this account.

The hon member for Yeoville also made an important statement in regard to clause 10. He wanted us to give the assurance that arms sales were not being made to the detriment of the South African Defence Force or the country. This is an important assurance he is asking for, and I am giving it to him. There is very good control regarding two aspects in this connection, namely what is sold and to whom one it is sold. A special organization has been established at Armscor to deal with arms sales, in other words, the transactions entered into. Whatever is to be sold, whether it be new equipment, surplus equipment or ammunition, is decided on by a committee on which the South African Defence Force, Armscor and other interested State bodies and departments are represented. Consequently I can give the hon member the assurance that there is good control over this matter.

Surplus arms and ammunition are sold by Armscor to the credit of the State and the funds collected in this way are paid into the Special Defence Account. These funds are later used to purchase other arms and ammunition, according to the prescriptions I have just referred to.

The other facet is which the hon member for Yeoville was interested was to whom arms were being sold. There are clear and approved written guidelines which are kept up to date regarding the parties to whom arms may be sold. I am quite satisfied that the control that is being exercised here is very good.

Is it not clear that an examination of the weapons we sell might equip people better to combat us? Is it not clear therefore that certain weapons should not be sold?

The hon member is correct. One should never sell certain weapons and one should also never sell to certain countries and organizations. This is what I have tried to explain to the hon member. We are trying to overcome this problem and we have organizations and controlling bodies to prevent this.

*As far as surplus and obsolete equipment is concerned, what is bought by way of tender, such as tents, non-operational vehicles, beds, etcetera, is, as is customary, sold by public auction. The proceeds are paid into the Treasury.

Because this is the last time the hon the Minister of Finance will be appearing personally in this House, I want to wish him everything of the best on behalf of the South African Defence Force and Armscor. Our good wishes go with him and his family. I want to thank him for the help he has given Armscor and the Department of Defence during the time he was the Minister of Finance. He was always helpful and very sympathetic. He is one of those who realized that security plays a very important role in our country. When funds were available and it was within his means to do so, he always made the necessary funds available to our security forces. I also want to thank him for the good understanding which existed between his department and the Department of Defence. One of his outstanding characteristics was that he always tried to preserve this good understanding.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister gave an explanation on defence matters. From the outset we on this side of the House had no problems with those matters because our view as far as defence matters are concerned, is that our cash flow position should always be such that the necessary funds are available for the procurement of arms. We realize that quite often it involves very short notice. We do not want to do anything which may impede the work of the Defence Force in any respect.

Of course, the hon the Minister has a bit of a problem, too. Politically we have now made a few friends. Some of those friends simply go overseas and state that they once again support the ANC and Swapo, and for that reason one has to prepare oneself for any eventuality. We want to assure the hon the Minister that clause 1 gives us no problems. We are absolutely confident that the sale of arms will take place in the way we have come to expect from the Defence Force.

†Coming back to the Bill, I should first of all like to extend the best wishes of my party and myself to the hon the Minister of Finance. We have seen one of the great Ministers of Finance in the history of South Africa. Many people in 1948 and before talked about Ministers of Finance without really knowing what problems the future would hold. We will not find the calibre of this hon Minister, who held the portfolio for the last 10 years, in the next 10 years. He had a very difficult task. One need only look at the extent the financial situation has changed since 1980. It is unbelievable. One need only look at the big increase in personal and direct taxes. One must not point a finger at the hon the Minister but rather at the Government’s system and philosophy. One must look at the Government’s way of using an economic sheepskin to cover its big political elephant. [Interjections.] During his long term of office the hon the Minister has done a tremendous job. His best asset was the fact that he could handle the mining companies. He was strong enough to handle the Stock Exchange of Johannesburg without threatening them, but merely by his personality. My biggest fear is that when the hon the Minister retires we are going to have serious problems because a young Minister may be as brilliant and speak English as well as anybody else … [Interjections.] The fact remains that it is an art for a Minister of Finance to hold down these companies.

Clauses 6, 7 and 8 refer to the goldmining industry. Oyer a period of years the so-called marginal mines have been subsidized to the extent where a completely wrong impression of the real cost of a single ounce of gold has been created. The hon the Minister at least had the courage—I do not like the word “guts”—to put a stop to the idea that we have to carry on with mining operations at a time when the price of gold is so low that it is not feasible to operate low production gold-mines.

This Government’s attitude to world peace and love is the biggest cause of the low gold price. [Interjections.] I want hon members to listen. When the supply of a certain commodity is threatened, the price goes up. Why is it that the Russians only place a certain amount of their gold production on the world market in a specific year, while at other times they play a low key and in that way cause a rise in the price of gold.

During the period when we were supposed to be threatened by the communists, there was always the danger that the gold-mines could be blown up and that that could cause a shortage of gold. [Interjections.] A situation like that could lead to an increase in the price of gold. However, we do not have to wage a war in order to increase the price of gold. I suggest that we should hold back a quarter of our gold production or transfer it to commodities. In that way we could depoliticize gold.

Do hon members realize that platinum has already reached R1 000 an ounce? What can that be ascribed to? There is far more platinum than gold in South Africa and other countries. Why then has the price of platinum already reached R1 000 an ounce? Because it is not a politicized metal. Therefore, by ensuring that gold is in short supply in the monetary system, other nations will point out to the USA that they do not accept the fact that the dollar is not backed. In that way we can have an increase in the price of gold. [Interjections.] These sensible young men unfortunately prefer to talk instead of listening. Some people maintain that if there is a greater demand for jewellery, the price of gold will benefit. Why then not use gold to make cups and saucers that can be sold all over the world? I maintain that in that way we will be able to increase the price of gold twofold and threefold.

Gold cups and saucers?

Yes. Can the hon member imagine Russian tea being served in a gold cup? Fantastic! Even I would buy it if it was available.

The point I am making is that we must depoliticize gold. We must not believe the story that gold must be paid into the monetary system. Why do we mine gold today that is not profitable and then hand it to the Americans, to a world system that do not want to accept it?

What about the mineworkers?

That hon member only knows something about sugar and should therefore limit himself to that. Mr Speaker, the hon member asks about the mineworkers. At the moment there is a shortage of people to work the cane fields in Natal. I am just joking, Sir. No mineworker will be out of work. I worked on the mines and I know what I am talking about. To put a mine into operation requires a skeleton staff of about six people to check the air ducts and a few other things after which that mine can again be put into operation. I say that there are better ways of earning foreign exchange for the country than the way in which we are trying to do it today.

May I please ask a question? Perhaps the hon member will tell us when he worked on a mine that was run by six people? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, that just serves to prove how irrelevant a question by the NRP can be. I am talking about marginal mines that close down. One cannot just lock the front gates. The air ducts and certain other equipment have to be maintained in operation to ensure a flow of fresh air and to keep an eye on the pressure situation, and that is why one needs a skeleton staff of about six people to ensure that if there is a rock-fall somewhere the various levels of the mine can still be reached. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I know that a large number of these hon members who are interjecting, know nothing about economics. [Interjections.] I also know that a number of those members do not realize that this country is experiencing one of the biggest crises in its history. The hon member for Walmer made a very good speech this morning. Although I do not agree with his politics, his approach to the economic position was very sound. Many other hon members also made good speeches such as the hon member for Sunnyside, the hon member for Vasco and the hon member for Yeoville.

The hon members who have discussed this Bill talked a great deal of sense. Where we are going to have a new Minister of Finance in the future, I am very much afraid that in the new dispensation the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will run the country constitutionally, economically and financially. That is why I have my doubts in regard to the appointment of a young Minister. A Minister of Finance must be a strong man who can stand against anyone.

Order! I have nothing against the hon member using the word “finance” to pretend that he is discussing this legislation. However, the hon member must stop handing out presents now.

Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that when, for instance, it is a question of having to deal with mining companies, one needs a strong hand at the financial helm such as we have had over the past ten years. I am concerned that we will not have that strong hand in the future.

In general, this is a very necessary Bill. I want to tell the Government that if we have an asset, that asset must not be wasted. It should not be promoted throughout the world when it can be sold on our own markets. I have already made the point that people with the necessary knowledge say that we must use our gold assets for the manufacture of jewellery. If that is so, then we may just as well convert part of our gold production into these commodities. We shall not get anywhere in this world with any other nation until such time that we do not have to throw every ounce of gold that we produce on to an open market. Only when we use this metal selectively, will we see the real value it has for South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I am very glad that we are able to discuss mining matters in such a relaxed atmosphere. Unfortunately I cannot react to the hon member for Langlaagte because I do not want to hazard a prediction as to what the price of gold may be in future. I just want to tell the hon member that he need not feel too concerned about the mining industry. The mining industry is in very good hands. It is in the hands of the private sector. The private sector has definitely made the mining industry of South Africa one of the best and most responsible industries in the world. Consequently I do not think that the hon member need feel concerned that we shall not be able to handle mining matters. I think we shall handle them very well because we shall use the foundations laid for that purpose by the hon the Minister of Finance.

The hon member for Yeoville made a remark and I think I understood him correctly to mean that he was appealing to us not to close down the marginal mines, or rather for us not to put a stop to the financial assistance we are giving the marginal mines. If I understood the hon member correctly, I should like to agree with him. I am concerned about two impressions which may be created, however, because if we look at clauses 6, 7 and 8, these clauses are not creating the last impression nor can one deduce from them that we intend to put a stop to assistance to the marginal mines. Having said this, I do not want to suggest that we are not investigating this aspect because, as the hon member will know, assistance to mines was introduced in 1964—and by legislation in 1968—during a period, as the hon member for Amanzimtoti correctly stated, when the price of gold was $35 an ounce. Consequently it is essential for us to reconsider the entire matter. The provisions before us are actually an outcome of the Franzsen Committee’s inquiry and report in this regard and have been in operation since 1 April 1983.

Another concern I have is that the hon member’s plea may create the impression that we are going to do this, and I want to state here that at this stage we have absolutely no intention of stopping assistance to marginal mines, although an investigation is in progress with regard to the assistance that is being paid. I can just mention that at the moment there are eight marginal mines which are receiving assistance, and during the past five years these eight marginal mines have received R108 million from the State to keep them in operation. Consequently I should like to associate myself with the hon member, unless he had ulterior motives. At present 7 000 Whites and 67 000 Blacks are employed in those eight marginal mines. From an economic point of view it is therefore extremely important for these marginal mines to remain open and to continue to receive assistance. All we are doing in this legislation, and the hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to this, is to confirm the principle, and I think this principle is quite sound—I think the hon member will agree with me on this score—that a marginal mine should not be able to make a profit on the assistance it receives. That is all we are doing.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether these mines made a profit from the Government subsidies in the past?

Sir, if the hon member studies the provisions as they read before these amendments were moved, he will find that the possibility existed for the marginal mines to make a profit out of the assistance. Now we are eliminating that possibility entirely.

I know the hon member now wants to cast a measure of suspicion on the system. I want to point out to him that this system came into operation in 1968. Between 1968 and 1983 we spent R259,853 million on assistance to marginal mines in South Africa, but from those same marginal mines, under profitable conditions, because the profit margin of those mines fluctuates as the price of gold fluctuates, we received rent and tax revenue totalling approximately R358 million. Actually we had a tax benefit of R98 million on those marginal mines. So what the hon member for Langlaagte is now trying to imply with his question is not really true. He wants to create the impression that we paid out large sums amounting to millions of rands to these marginal mines.

We realize the importance of gold production in South Africa, and that is why we introduced the principle of assistance to marginal mines. This is a very old system, because as I have already said, it was introduced in 1968. This system is being reviewed at the moment and we are not reviewing the system in isolation. We are in constant contact with the Chamber of Mines and with the mining industry as such. What we introduce and what we decide on we do with their concurrence and consent after consultation with them.

I should like to repeat that at this moment we do not intend to put a stop to assistance to marginal mines. We are revising the system. These three clauses, that have been in operation since April 1983, are merely being included in the Bill to ensure that marginal mines cannot make a profit on the assistance being given to them in terms of a formula which we are at present not changing in any way.

In conclusion I should like to take this opportunity to address the hon the Minister of Finance because at one stage I was his Deputy Minister of Finance. My service in that capacity was my introduction to the Cabinet and the Ministerial ranks and I cannot think of anyone who makes things more pleasant for one if one has to be a Deputy Minister. I do not think there is a better training school one can go to than to be the Deputy Minister of Finance under the hon the Minister. I want to thank my hon colleague most sincerely for the very pleasant co-operation. I shall remember that year and a few months for a long time. I want to wish him, his good wife and his family everything of the best.

Mr Speaker, to start with I should like to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said and, on my own behalf and on that of the department, express our very sincere appreciation to the hon the Minister of Finance for the courteous and friendly co-operation that the department and I have had from him. We sincerely appreciate it and would like to wish him everything of the best.

Yesterday evening the hon member for Yeoville referred to clause 3, whilst the hon members for Amanzimtoti and Walmer referred to clause 5 of the Bill. As far as clause 3 is concerned, I think the hon member for Yeoville will also concede that it actually relates to a purely financial measure, as is stated here. The hon member, however, made certain remarks in connection with the National Supplies Procurement Fund and the supplies, which I briefly want to deal with.

In regard to the control of strategic supplies, to which the hon member for Yeoville referred, all information and evidence by officers of the Department of Industries and Commerce was given to the Select Committee on Public Accounts on 20 March 1984. I accept the fact, however, that the hon member for Yeoville could not be present on that occasion. Control is exercised over the acquisition and stock-keeping of commodities for which money is provided under the relevant programme. All expenditure is subject to standard auditing practices which are employed throughout. In addition, the National Supplies and Resources Committee, which is an interdepartmental committee, reviews the position in regard to strategic supplies on an on-going basis with a view to ensuring the adequate stockpiling of essential supplies. I should like to emphasize that we do not want unnecessary supplies because that would, in fact, be dead capital. I trust that I have hereby given the hon member enough of a reply.

In connection with the provisions of clause 5, to which the hon members for Amanzimtoti and Walmer referred yesterday, I should like to refer them again to the explanatory memorandum made available on the Bill. I shall be dealing with a few supplementary matters. In the explanatory memorandum, in regard to clause 5, it is stated, amongst other things, that the prevailing return on the relevant assets is estimated by the SBDC at 6%, on average, before tax. The implication of the provisions of the clause are then dealt with and it is stated that the rental income derived from the relevant properties will therefore not have to be subsidized by the State, effecting an estimated saving of R2,6 million per annum. According to the memorandum, the effective saving to date, from 1 December 1981, the take-over date, is estimated at R6,28 million. That is indeed the expenditure that is being obviated, and this represents a potential saving, because normally we would again have had to ask the Treasury to make provision for this expenditure.

I should like to refer, too, to the provisions of paragraphs 7(c) and (d) of the provisional SBDC foundation memorandum between the State and the private sector in which, under certain circumstances, the principle of writing off assets is accepted. Paragraph 7(d) of the foundation memorandum reads as follows:

Since the take-over of the relevant assets—in the introductory paragraph of the explanatory memorandum there is an explanation of the take-over of the assets of the bodies involved in the take-over—the SBDC has consistently made representations to both the Department of Industries and Commerce and the Department of Finance in connection with the quality of certain assets that were taken over, ie both the outstanding loans and the business premises. The result was, firstly, that in regard to certain outstanding loans, in connection with which interest rates cannot, for various reasons, be increased, a subsidy on returns was granted up to the level of the SBDC’s minimum lending rate. Secondly, in regard to low-remuneration and non-remunerative business premises that were taken over, the department was not prepared to approve the subsidy on returns, which would have amounted to approximately R2,6 million per annum, but did agree to consider a partial writing-off of the assets. The choice was therefore either to carry the R2,6 million per annum subsidy on returns on the one hand or, on the other hand, to scale down the assets to an income value. It was decided to adopt the second alternative, and agreement was reached with the department on an amount of R17 million-plus. The basis is that the revenue-earning value of the buildings was capitalized on the date of take-over. As far as the scaling down of the assets is concerned, I should like to say further that this inevitably relates, amongst other things, to the serviceability of the assets that have been taken over. Let me, for example, refer to a cinema, in a specific area, which has been empty and therefore does not have any current value for the SBDC. The SBDC must re-develop such a building. It could, for example, convert it into a supermarket. This would result in a renewed increase in value and would also result in development.

With this measure the establishment of the SBDC, in relation to the value of the assets contributed by the State and the private sector, is being finalized. The rental which the SBDC can charge has, like all other rental, an acceptable ceiling related to demand. If, for example, we look at the specific development of industrial parks being carried out in certain areas, we find that a maximum of R1,50 per square metre can be charged. What is important, is that the benefits the SBDC receives—by way of this measure too—are employed by the SBDC for the benefit of small business development. We are committed to the optimum expansion, promotion and development of the small business sector, and we are also hereby attempting to do so. I trust that with this explanation I have given hon members enough of an answer.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he would agree that there is really no economic difference between writing off capital of R17 million per year and writing off the R2,6 million which is the interest charged? Secondly, would the hon the Deputy Minister not agree that it is very important that something like the Small Business Development Corporation be measured against a real value, which could be achieved far better by a sworn appraisal than by taking an arbitrary 15%? [Interjections.] I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to know that we support the Small Business Development Corporation and are not against it. It is just a question of measuring it properly.

I should like to invite the hon member to come and discuss this matter with me. Then we can go into it in detail. I have said in my reply, however, that the quality of the assets have the closest possible bearing on this. I have also indicated what the basis is for the calculation of the assets. I told the hon member that the basis was the revenue value of the buildings furnished on the date of take-over. That revenue value was capitalized. There is consequently a basis for calculation. It is not simply a arbitrary figure that was taken. Let me give the hon member that assurance. He is also very welcome to come and discuss the matter further with us.

Mr Speaker, on this occasion you will allow me to thank most sincerely all hon members and colleagues who addressed such kind words to me. I should also like to express my appreciation not only for the cordial co-operation but also for the spirit in which we have been able to do so. When I announced my retirement last week, the hon member for Yeoville, the hon member for Sunnyside and the hon member for Amanzimtoti had good things to say about me, and I greatly appreciated their doing so. This is the first apportunity I have to thank them. I appreciate it most sincerely.

Today a number of hon members did the same thing and they are the hon members for Gezina, Paarl, Vasco and the hon the Ministers of Defence and Mineral and Energy. Affairs as well as the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and the hon members for Langlaagte and Walmer. Last week the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, too, addressed some exceptionally kind remarks to me.

†I would like to thank all these hon members very sincerely. I shall always remember their very kind words and the friendly and pleasant relations that I was honoured to have with them. I was amused by the hon member for Langlaagte’s reference to—as I understood it—the elephant in sheep’s clothing. That is quite a novel idea to me, but I want to thank him for his remarks.

I now want to refer to the remarks made by the hon member for Yeoville on the Finance Bill. He mentioned, quite correctly, that no fixed figure is given in clause 1 for the surplus with which we will end the financial year 1983-84. At the time of the Budget it was quite impossible to give a figure as we did not know what the precise amounts were which departments had and which were later surrendered and also what amounts were in transit. Even now it is difficult to give the final figure, but it seems to me to be something over R100 million. We are now seeking the approval of the House to appropriate the R60 million, which has an earlier history, and at this early stage we would like the authorization of the House to appropriate the balance and transfer it to Defence, as set out in the clause. I hope this will satisfy the hon member as I think it is a very useful way to use this amount.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism referred to the Small Business Development Corporation. The question of the gold mines and subsidies was referred to by the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. In the course of remarks about the gold mines reference was made to the rand and its low value at present. This is of course the low value in terms of the dollar, which is exceptionally strong. It is not only the rand which is taking a buffeting against the dollar, but also the Deutsche mark, sterling and the Swiss franc. It was not long ago that the Deutsche mark was as strong as the dollar. Today its value is way down, and so is that of the Swiss franc, not to talk of the French franc. I am afraid that it seems that this condition will continue—with a little relief now and again—for some time. I doubt whether we will see much change before the American presidential election in early November. It is simply a fact that we have a floating rand subject to a certain amount of intervention by the Reserve Bank from time to time. We believe that this is the best system to follow.

I now want to refer to development aid. Reference was made to the International Development Association and others bodies and the hon member for Yeoville made the point that we should tend to concentrate more on project finance. I fully agree with him, and this is in fact what we are doing. We have in this regard created what I believe is a very important instrument for development purposes, namely the Development Bank of Southern Africa. That bank is still new and is only just coming on stream. It will concentrate very substantially on project finance and will monitor very carefully what happens to the money and also the progress that is being made by these projects. So I think that point is undoubtedly being met.

If I understood the hon member correctly, he asked what countries in this part of the world really benefited from the funds of the International Development Association. I do not have the list easily available in front of me. I can get that information and pass it on to the hon member. What I can say, however, is that South Africa does benefit too by having a part in contracts that are put out to countries for development purposes. This is quite an important part of the whole development process. Undoubtedly we share in contracts that are awarded. These are usually done on a joint basis.

*The hon member for Gezina wanted to know whether the restriction in clause 16 was applicable to statutory bodies as well. This is in fact so. It covers statutory bodies just as it will cover other potential insured parties. The hon the Minister of Defence has already replied in full to the more technical aspects concerning clause 1.

†I now want to come to clause 16, which I think is an important clause. We have a somewhat unusual procedure here. It is not something that is being done lightly. Normally speaking I would be the first to say that one should not adopt that type of procedure and that one should leave these things to competition and market forces. However, we have a very special case here. This consortium of insurers, Sasria—South African Special Risks Insurance Association—is a relatively new group of insurers to provide cover in a very risky area, and to many of these insurers a somewhat new area. It is in fact set up to offer insurance cover against loss of or damage to property caused by persons intending either to destroy or violently disrupt the existing political, social or economic order. It is risky business. What has happened in the short experience that Sasria has had is that many of the large potential clients of Sasria seeking this sort of cover have tended to bypass Sasria and gone elsewhere. Many of them have gone to very big overseas underwriters where they have been able to obtain better and more competitive terms. This has undoubtedly been a setback for Sasria which is trying to build up adequate reserves for the future, as any sound insurer would try to do. We have discussed this at length on several occasions and eventually it was proposed that we should try to set a limit to enable Sasria to say to potential policy-holders that they should take out cover with it to a specific minimum amount and that after that, if it had funds available, they could take out more over with it or go elsewhere. A figure had to be fixed. It was fixed at R100 million. The position is that a potential insured party seeking this sort of cover will come to Sasria, who will then ensure it for up to R100 million. The amount might be less, but if it is more and the client is prepared to continue doing business with Sasria and the facilities are available, Sasria may be prepared to go further. Sasria will tell them that for amounts of more than R100 million they can certainly go elsewhere, unless it tells them in the first place that they can go elsewhere from the start.

This is rank protection for Sasria.

No.

Mr Speaker, if the intention is to limit this to R100 million, why did the hon the Minister not put that in the statute?

That was gone into and it was felt that it might be better to deal with it administratively. There is an agreement and it will be scrupulously carried out. It is simply a case of which of the two does one adopt. I think the one is as foolproof as the other. That is what it actually amounts to. I say again that it is not the sort of thing that one would normally wish to see. I certainly do not. There are, however, analogous cases that we have had for so many years. There might be a new industry that finds it difficult to get off the ground. It might seem, however, to have good potential if it could get some kind of protection, for instance tariff protection in business. There are many examples like these where it has paid off extremely well. However, I do not want to give the impression that this can last forever. We are trying to assist Sasria in this way to build up adequate reserves in a very risky field.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister: Is this in fact not a form of rate protection as a result of which people who wish to take this type of insurance are going to have to pay more? These will normally be companies and they will pass it on to the consumer in terms of increased costs and the whole thing will in fact have an inflationary effect, however small within the South African economy.

I do not think that could be serious. The difference in the rate is not so great. As the hon member knows, there are some huge groups of underwriters outside against which a new insurance group such as Sasria really cannot compete, and we are trying to find a compromise. After many discussions, this is the best we felt we could do in order to try to get Sasria soundly off the ground. That is all that is involved, and I hope that it will not be long before we can dispense with this type of thing. This is therefore something that we will watch very carefully. I should like to assure the hon member that that is the view also taken by the insurers involved. They are not looking for permanent protection but they are certainly looking for a temporary opportunity to stand up to this very cut-throat competition from very big underwriters.

Will it cover consequential losses also?

This covers the lot. That R100 million will include consequential losses. If Sasria and the prospective insured parties should come to an agreement that from the very start they can go elsewhere, they will do that, and I have no doubt that there will be several of such cases. There are, however, cases where I think Sasria needs a little preferential treatment as a temporary measure.

I hope that I have covered all the points raised in the debate.

*I should like to thank hon members on both sides of this House for their support of this measure and also for the interesting debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon the Minister for giving us an estimate as to what the surplus in the State Revenue Fund was at 31 March 1984. I must say, however, that I was somewhat startled by the figure, because the Budget figure was R3 million while the actual figure is R100 million. There is quite a big difference between those two figures, and the question that arises is whether or not the difference of R97 million does not actually affect the budgeting figures. An amount of R60 million has been transferred to the Special Defence Account, and we are now putting the remaining R40 million into the Special Defence Account as well. This could actually mean that, particularly as far as the amount of R40 million is concerned, we could cut back on the Defence budget by that amount of money. If we assume that an amount of only R3 million was available for transfer to the Special Defence Account, at the very least Defence now has an additional R37 million at this stage. At a time of financial stringency such as we are experiencing at the moment, is there not a case to be made out to say that in view of the Fact that there is now an amount of R97 million more than was estimated, relief should be granted elsewhere? As the hon the Minister of Finance announced, the whole purpose of the Budget was one in which he was seeking to restrict expenditure as far as possible, and here we have a situation where we have an amount of R97 million in excess of the figure originally budgeted for. Whichever way we look at it, the fact of the matter is that it is money which is available in this financial year. It is for this reason that I should like the hon the Minister to tell us how he intends compensating for the additional money that is now available as a result of the underestimate in respect of the surplus at the end of the financial year.

Mr Chairman, it is extremely difficult in March to estimate precisely what the surplus or deficit may be. One can only make the best estimate one can. The hon member must remember that we are dealing here with a budget which last year amounted to more than 22 billion, and that this is an amount of R100 million which is in fact a minuscule part of that figure. It is especially difficult where one has a very big organization in regard to which there are many ramifications such as money in transit and money lying in various departments. In fact, this is nothing unusual. If the hon member goes back over the years he will find that there have been many occasions on which figures approximating to this amount have been involved. Therefore, I can assure him that it is nothing unusual.

The question of the R60 million is something quite different because we have a commitment in this regard. However, what does one do with the balance? I am simply taking the amount at R100 million at the moment but it should not be taken as an absolutely final figure. However, supposing it is, then there is a balance remaining of roughly R40 million. After discussing the matter with Defence, going through the gamut of all the possibilities that are available under these conditions and looking ahead, it would probably be the wisest thing to earmark that money for this Defence account. The Defence Vote is very, very vulnerable to cost escalations as the hon member will no doubt appreciate, and an additional R40 million will probably be as useful there as anywhere else. It could perhaps be put into the Suspense Account or allocated in three or four other directions, but we believe that with the expenditure controls operating here, unless that money is really needed it will not be used although we may find it difficult to escape using it. However, if it is not used then obviously we have the machinery to re-allocate it. That is the best I can do under the circumstances.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon the Minister that R100 million represents 1% of GST for one month. Therefore, this has some significance for the man in the street even though it may not perhaps have as much significance in comparison with the Budget as a whole. I could perhaps be more easily persuaded to agree in this regard if the hon the Minister of Defence would utilize this money in order to purchase some aircraft. If he will agree to buy some new aircraft, then I will go along with him. I should like to hear from him in regard to whether he is prepared to do that or not.

I wonder whether the hon member’s figure of 1% per month is correct. I must check that.

It is 1% for one month.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the mining issue. I am indebted to the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs for what he has said in this regard. If anything, what the hon the Minister has said has strengthened the case that I tried to make out, namely that there are some 74 000 jobs involved with marginal mines. If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt this figure, then the case for keeping the marginal mines on the go is even stronger. I think it is correct to review the basis of subsidization from time to time. I have no quarrel with that at all. I also think it is incorrect to seek to pay dividends out of Government assistance. I think that the mining owners have to accept that their function is to keep the mines going because it is as much in their interests to see to it that when eventually the gold price is higher, they can show the profits. It is therefore fairly clear that in so far as this concept is concerned, it is one we have to foster. I am also gratified to hear that keeping the marginal mines open is in reality over a period of time costing us nothing, but is in fact showing a profit. Therefore I do not think any attack on the mines as some sort of great power that is holding the hon the Minister of Finance or somebody else to ransom is of substance. I think the reality is that mining is a capitalistic enterprise; it is a profit-motive exercise, but at the same time it creates jobs and it also creates foreign exchange. Therefore I can only commend the hon the Minister for keeping it going and keeping it going on what to my mind at the moment appears to be sound principle, but one which obviously have to be reviewed from time to time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr Chairman, here I like to cross swords slightly with the hon the Minister of Defence. The way that we see the Special Defence Account is that there is a fundamental difference between that and current expenditure. If we are not going to have a separation of current expenditure from the Special Defence Account we are never going to be able properly to reequip the SA Defence Force and keep up to date with modern equipment. I would like to have it established that the defence budget is to cater for current expenditure with regard to defence and that the Special Defence Account must be kept solely for major equipment. When the hon the Minister of Defence finds that he needs extra money for current expenditure, then it is for the hon the Minister of Finance to come and ask for that extra money in the Additional Estimates. We do not want a situation where we drain the Special Defence Account in order to cater for a particular operation whereas the hon the Minister of Defence thereafter may come along and say that there is not enough money in the Special Defence Account in order to buy major equipment that is required. Therefore I should like to see that a clear distinction is drawn. It is true that the Act is in more general terms, but the intention behind it was as I have indicated, and that is the commitment that we should like from the hon the Minister of Defence.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr Chairman, we have listened very carefully to the hon the Minister’s reply to this, but I am not sure that he has convinced us on two points.

The first is that I am not sure that the proposed subsection (1 A)(a)(ii) gives effect to what he intends doing, but that is something which he will have to put right if it is wrong. If he does not put it right, then somebody else will have to do it in time to come because I think there is something wrong with the wording.

The second point which perhaps is an important one is that if there are no competitive circumstances, then the question of what the premiums are has to be very carefully watched by the State because if there is no competition, then it may well be that the consumer will overpay. It is perfectly true—I do not argue it—that people always look for the business on which they can make the greatest profit in the short-term insurance business. It is also true that there is conditional business which people seek to do, but when one creates virtually a monopoly here, then the State has the extra duty to ensure that the premiums are kept at a level which is reasonable under the circumstances, because if that is not done, then we are falling into the biggest trap of what is in fact then a socialized State industry, and one must caution against that.

Mr Chairman, I agree entirely, but there is competition even up to R100 million because, as I say, there will be cases where Sasria will certainly agree that some of these intending insured parties could in fact go elsewhere from the start. Some of the amounts are very big. One might have cover for R300 million or R400 million. All that we are saying is that Sasria must at least be assured of the first R100 million if it wants that business. The balance could then be obtained elsewhere. The hon member can be quite sure that in such a case the insured parties will compare the rates that they have to pay Sasria with the rates they have to pay somewhere else. Any insured party will bring that very fully to the attention of Sasria. I can assure the hon member that there is already machinery available to the State Actuary to monitor this matter very, very thoroughly. It is fully accepted by the consortium of insurers and I think we shall find that this will be watched very, very carefully. As I say, let us hope that it will be for shorter duration rather than longer.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr Speaker, I believe that this debate is actually the closing of an era and it is the closing of an era of the hon the Minister of Finance which was extended over a long period of time. I have already spoken about the hon the Minister and I do not intend repeating what I said on that occasion. There is little doubt that every Minister of Finance and perhaps every politician leaves his own mark upon both this House and in the case of some members, especially in the case of the hon the Minister, the country. History judges all of us as to what we do, whether it is right or wrong. There are for instance the hon the Minister’s moves towards the opening up of the economy, the removing of certain constraints and the introduction of GST, and history will be the judge whether those actions were right or wrong. Perhaps the hon the Minister will be proved right, and some of us will be proved wrong. That, however, is not for us to say.

On this final occasion I want to say to the hon the Minister that I believe that while we part as political opponents we do not part as enemies. I believe that each of us is trying in our own way to achieve the same result, which is the prosperity of South Africa. For the efforts which he has made I want to thank him from the Opposition benches and again take the opportunity of wishing him well in his retirement and hoping that he will continue to make a contribution in the field of finance in the Republic of South Africa which he has tried to serve well.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to thank the hon member for Yeoville very sincerely for his very gracious remarks. We have had some good sessions across the floor and I want him to know that as far as I am concerned we part, and I am sure he feels the same way about it, as good friends who have had some good fights. It is all part of the game. There are absolutely no hard feelings on my side. In fact, there is a great deal of respect.

Mr Speaker, in that spirit I take my leave and I thank this most distinguished House once again for its great indulgence over the years, for its very warm support and most of all for its friendship.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The object of the Bill is to empower the provincial administrations to impose a levy on all heavy vehicles. The motivation for the proposal stems from the report of the erstwhile Franzsen Committee of Inquiry into the Socio-economic Passenger Services of the South African Transport Services. As far back as 1979 this committee recommended that a levy be imposed on heavy vehicles in order to compensate, in the first place, for the proven road damage inflicted by these vehicles and, secondly, to promote more equal competition between the heavy vehicle industry and the SATS which, of course, is responsible for the full costs of its own transport system.

After completion of this report, Dr P N W Freeman of the National Institute for Transport and Road Research of the CSIR, in a study entitled ’‘The Recovery of Costs from Road Users in South Africa”, found that damage to roads increased exponentially in relation to an increase in vehicle mass. It was also found that the costs for which road users were responsible had exceeded their total 1980-81 contributions by R184 million. According to the institute the estimated present shortage amounts to R305 million. Since then other investigations have also been completed, all of them endorsing these basic facts and reaching the same conclusion, ie that this sector of the transport industry is not contributing its rightful share. The sharp increase in maintenance costs that have had to be incurred merely in order to preserve these expensive assets, has unavoidably meant that an increasingly larger portion of the expenditure on roads has had to be devoted to maintenance, with less consequently available for capital works. The growing vehicle population and the transport needs have clearly emphasized a serious shortcoming.

Last year I consequently appointed another committee under the chairmanship of Prof Franzsen and consisting of, amongst other, various provincial secretaries, to take the matter further. This committee recently published its support and recommended that a levy be imposed on all heavy vehicles, ie lorries, truck-tractors, buses, trailers and semi-trailers with a gross vehicle mass of 5 000 kg or more, in order to combat road damage.

†Mr Speaker, it has now been proven by these various studies that cost responsibilities of road users exceed their total contributions significantly. It has also been verified scientifically that a gross vehicle mass of 5 000 kg represents the point after which licence fees on motor vehicles do not compensate for damage done to roads.

In order to correct this ever-increasing problem, it is therefore deemed essential to impose a levy, apart from the existing licence fees, on those motor vehicles.

As the provinces already have all the basic information available for the imposition of such a levy, it has been decided to place this new levy within the jurisdiction of provincial councils. The Bill consequently makes provision for the provincial councils to impose, by ordinance, a levy on any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle mass of 5 000 kg and more.

It has been recommended to the provinces that the amount of the levy for different weight intervals should bear a relationship to the actual damage done to roads, in this way establishing a very direct and pure form of user-charging. A levy on fuel, for example, would not have this positive effect as it would normally include all road users. Even if imposed only on diesel fuel, a fuel levy still would not address the main problem of the exponential damage caused by mass, especially as the heavier vehicles become more fuel efficient in relation to a rise in the ton/ kilometer relationship.

I may mention that according to the Automobile Association light vehicles at this stage subsidize heavy vehicles to an extent which would imply a 50% rise in licence fees of vehicle of 9 000 kg and more. A levy on fuel would aggravate this situation.

It should also be noted that the Public Hauliers Association, which has also been consulted, has expressed opposition to a fuel tax vis-á-vis a levy on weight.

*I therefore want to emphasize that the proposed levy is completely in accordance with the principle of placing costs where they belong, ie with the road-user himself.

In accordance with this it has been recommended to the provinces that the levy be uniform in all provinces.

Although the committee found that no exemptions ought to apply in regard to the levy, the question of partial exemptions is a matter for the provinces themselves. Even vehicles in use by the Government can be brought within the ambit of the levy.

In conclusion I want to state that at a reasonable tariff the estimated revenue from the levy could be approximately R80 million to R100 million per year.

The total proceeds will, for the first two years, exclusively accrue to the provinces, after which thought will be given to the rational distribution of the proceeds from the levy for national, provincial and local roads.

Mr Speaker, I believe that this Bill has certain good features and perhaps also some that cause a degree of worry. Having weighed up the one against the other, we of the official Opposition have decided that we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

The first question which, I think, has not been answered in the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech is: Why a levy? He has told us why there should be a levy on vehicles rather than a levy on fuel—that answer he has given us—but at the moment the provinces have the power to charge licence fees. They could actually increase licence fees on vehicles with a mass of 5 000 kg or more. In that way the users of these heavy vehicles would be charged directly. If the licence fees had to be increased by 50% or more, it could still amount to less than the amount that is going to be levied. The point I am making is, simply, that I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister has explained adequately why we have to have a levy rather than increasing licence fees.

I have heard that this could be due to a certain practice that has developed recently, namely that in some of the independent countries surrounding us licence fees on heavy vehicles can be considerably cheaper than they are in the Republic of South Africa and that certain, shall we say, shrewder operators of heavy trucks have been licensing their vechicles in these countries and then utilizing them on South Africa’s roads. On that particular point I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if levies will be made on vehicles which come from independent homelands and transport goods through the Republic of South Africa. I believe that if they are utilizing our road system, they should contribute to its upkeep and to the building of roads.

Secondly, perhaps the main reason why we are supporting this Bill is the present state of the roads in the Republic of South Africa. The present condition of roads in South Africa is, as I believe everybody knows, remarkably poor. I want to quote from the Department of Transport’s National Transport Policy Study, the decision document and the final report on stage 3, I quote from page 100 of this report:

Those statistics relate to the expenditure on national and provincial roads:

So there has been considerable underspending on the roads of South Africa and in many areas of the country, particularly on the road between Durban and Johannesburg, and we are paying for this. The additional R100 million which will come in will be a welcome addition to the funds to be spent on roads, and I hope it is quite clear that these funds will only be spent on roads and that they will not be diverted to any other usage. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to comment on this.

The problem which arises is the whole question of private sector hauliers versus the South African Transport Services. The basic argument here is that the private road haulier does not need to pay for infrastructure whereas the SATS, and in particular the railways, do have to pay for the infrastructure, such as rails, stations, etc. According to the SATS, this creates an inequity in the market, and while this inequity exists they have to resort to cross-subsidization and while they have to fulfil a socio-economic role, they also need to have a degree of cross-subsidization. However, if one looks at what the SATS has to pay on certain transport items, one becomes concerned about inequities in favour of the SATS on road motor transport. For the moment I am leaving rail transport out of it. I believe I am correct in assuming that this levy will not apply to vehicles which are used by the SATS.

I did not say that.

I say I am making the assumption. If I am wrong, the hon the Deputy Minister must correct me.

The current situation as regards licence fees is that the SATS do not pay licence fees in the same manner as private hauliers or contractors. They pay one lump sum per annum which is considerably less than they would pay if they were levied licence fees in the normal way by the provincial authorities. This levy is going to be introduced and if the SATS do not have to pay this levy it is going to make the private haulier even more uncompetitive in relation to SATS road motor transport services. I do not think this will be equitable. Consequently I will be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage that on page 3, in line 7, after the first “vehicle” to insert “including motor vehicles owned by the SATS”. That would give the provinces the right to levy these funds against road motor vehicles owned by the SATS on exactly the same basis as they are levied against the private sector.

We must remember that already they have an advantage on fuel, spare parts, plant, equipment and vehicles in terms of duty. The advantages amount to about 20% of the cost to the private sector of running the equivalent vehicle. They therefore already have major advantages. I must confess that we do not particularly like the thought that those advantages for SATS road motor transport are going to be increased. The whole problem of course arises from the cross-subsidization situation within the SATS. Just to give an idea of what the extent of those are, let met quote some figures from the same report, for the financial year 1981-82. Apart from the money that was paid as a subsidy or as compensation for rail passenger services by Government to SATS there were deficits on rail passenger services of R311 million, on airways passenger services of R118 million and on goods conveyed below cost of R595 million. On the other hand there were also surpluses made by the SATS, on pipelines R163 million, on harbours R140 million and on goods conveyed above cost R642 million. This, of course, is where the problem lies. The fact that goods to the value of R642 have been conveyed above cost means that the tariffs on particular items are very high and that the private sector can compete with these tariffs very easily. Hence the desire by private sector to get permits and to get into this business to transport those goods.

It would appear to me that this Bill dealing with levies is actually the beginning of the process of getting rid of inequities between the private sector and the SATS. I hope it is the case. I believe these inequities should disappear. I hope that we will therefore look at this Bill in the light of the whole cross-subsidization issue and the competition between the private sector and the SATS. I hope the hon the Minister will give consideration to the amendment which I will move in the Committee Stage. I believe that if the SATS vehicles are using the same roads as the private sector and if they are of the same carrying capacity, then without doubt they are going to be doing exactly the same amount of damage to the roads that the private sector’s vehicle does. It will therefore only be equitable that if the private sector has to pay the costs, in an increasing measure, of those roads the SATS should do the same. We will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I can find no fault with what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central had to say about the legislation. I want to thank him most sincerely for his support of the legislation. However, there is a problem I should like to raise, viz certain discrepancies he raised and the amendment which he gave notice he would be moving in the Committee Stage.

The hon the Minister pointed out clearly in his Second Reading speech that this legislation makes provision for all vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 5 000 kg or more to pay this levy. He also specifically mentioned that this includes vehicles belonging to State institutions. The problem I have with the proposed amendment of the hon member—I think this will become clearer when we discuss it during the Committee Stage—is that when one mentions one undertaking by name, for example, the SATS, one should also mention other undertakings that enjoy these benefits by name. However, I do not think it is necessary for us to go into that now, since this amendment is not necessary in view of the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

At present South Africa has a sound road network, but it is also true that problems are beginning to arise in this regard. I am convinced—and I think everyone in this House shares my opinion—that we are building too few roads at present, and this is going to cause a problem in the future in that our infrastructure will not be able to meet the demands.

Particularly on the West Rand.

I endorse that interjection.

There are considerable demands being made of the Budget cake, particularly as regards the distribution of funds, and the building of roads is only one of the those demands. The backlog which is gradually building up in our road building programme, is cause for concern. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has already pointed out on various occasions this year that we need additional funds for building roads in South Africa.

Since increasingly fewer roads are bring built in South Africa due to a lack of funds, and we have to maintain our existing roads, I want to ask that we should make use of private contractors to an increasing extent in the future. I am not speaking on behalf of the hon member for Walmer now, however, but I think that hon member would support me in this case, viz that private contractors should play a greater role in the future, not only in the construction of roads, but also as regards the maintenance of roads. In my opinion, the maintenance of roads should be given top priority in our transport infrastructure at this stage, since there is no money for building new roads. I therefore ask the Government to investigate this matter and that existing construction teams, the people who are building roads at this stage, be used for the maintenance of roads in South Africa as well.

We could mention how many thousands of kilometres our roads consist of, roads of different standards. Undoubtedly it is an important figure. However, the most important figure is that the replacement value of the RSA’s road net work, calculated at the present cost of construction, is estimated at more than R20 000 million. Consequently, we should try to maintain the investment that has already been made and which is going to cost so much money to replace, at all cost. For this reason I am of the opinion that a greater contribution could be made to the construction of roads, and consequently, I support this legislation introduced by the hon the Deputy Minister today.

Another important aspect is that maintenance costs are estimated at approximately 2,5% of the total running costs of all vehicles in South Africa at present. That is a small percentage. We can therefore expect these people to contribute a greater portion to maintenance costs in the future. In overseas countries it is claimed that an amount of approximately 5% as a guidline is a reasonable percentage as a contribution to maintenance costs. Our contribution is approximately half of that, and we will gradually have to start looking at the sources we could use to push this figure up a little, even if it is only a matter of 2,5% to 4%.

The hon the Minister of Finance took 2 cents for the Treasury in the 1984-85 Budget, which, according to him, will bring in R163 million. However, I hope that the finances of the State will improve to such an extent that those 2 cents per litre can be used for the purpose for which they were initially meant, viz for the building and construction of new roads of a high standard in South Africa. I trust that the new Minister of Finance will bear this point in mind when he draws up his Budget for the 1985-86 financial year.

The question is often asked why it is a levy and why not on fuel. I believe that the reason why it is not on fuel, has already been spelt out very clearly and debated. One of the important things we must remember as regards the levy on diesel, is the problem being experienced in that so may exceptions are made, as is the case at present, with regard to the use of diesel for agricultural purposes, diesel motor-cars, diesel bakkies, etc. As regards the administration of the levy on diesel, it is not a sound principle, in my opinion. However, in the same breath I want to say that if we want to impose a levy throughout as regards the maintenance and building of roads, a levy on fuel still remains the best way of financing this, since in this way one is paying more or less according to consumption.

The additional levy on heavy vehicles, if it is imposed in conjunction with licence fees— in my opinion it ought to be linked to licence fees in respect of vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of over 5 000 kg—would only bring about a marginal increase. There should really be no increase, since the licences of each of those vehicles have to be replaced annually. If a certain cost per ton above a fixed mass of 5 tons is added—if the vehicle has a gross vehicle mass of 6 tons, the levy on the additional ton could be R25, for example—as the vehicle become heavier, one simply multiplies the number of tons by the amount decided on. That would make it so much easier.

I want to appeal to the four Administrators that when they announce this levy, they do so in such a way that it is collected at the same time as the licence fees and that they do not cause additional administrative work by having to impose it on another occasion. I also want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to convey that advice to the Administrators.

Another request I wish to address in this regard, is that the four provinces should impose the same levy, since if different levies are imposed in this regard it will mean that vehicle fleets will move from registration point to registration point, whether or not they are used in that province. Most of the large companies and transport undertakings have branches and offices throughout South Africa, and they move from time to time.

I also want to associate myself with the statement made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that the people who come from outside South Africa should also pay a levy of some sort. If one travels between countries in Europe that do not belong to the EEC, one has to pay a certain levy when one gets to the border if one wants to enter that country, since one is using the road. The two countries that are the finest examples in this regard are Switzerland and Austria, which do not belong to the EEC. Because these two countries lie on the trade routes crossing from north to south and from east to west in Western Europe, this technique is used to considerable extent. We should also try to prevent people moving out of South Africa with their vehicle fleets and registering in a neighbouring country whilst still making extensive use of our roads without paying the levy.

I am grateful that the initial idea to make use of tare has been dropped, and that we have gone back to the gross vehicle mass, since it is the gross vehicle mass which is responsible for damaging the roads, and not the tare. At this stage the tare does not have a great deal to do with damaging roads. I am including all vehicles. I also want to ask that no exemptions should be allowed, since as soon as we begin allowing exemptions we will once again be destroying the funds that are available. There must therefore be equal treatment of the vehicles in the four provinces, as well as of all vehicles travelling on those roads. No discounts should be allowed, for once the Administrators, together with their MECs, begin allowing discounts, they will be reducing their own funds about which they are quarreling now.

I support the hon the Minister’s statement that the AA does in fact have an argument by saying that the heavy vehicles are subsidized by the light vehicles. I also want to refer to the relative damage axle load has on a road. In the case of one vehicle with an axle load of five tons it will do just as much damage as eight vehicles with an axle load of three tons each. This proves to us what influence the weight of a vehicle has.

Another aspect I should like to raise is the evil which local authorities, as well as the provinces, must stamp out, the evil of overweight. At present there is an over-demand on capacity in South Africa, and there is too little work. Most of these people try to get the most tonnage on a vehicle and consequently the vehicle is overloaded. The result is that if all vehicles are overloaded by 20%, the standard of the roads over which those vehicles travel decreases to 60% of the originally designed standard. Over and above the danger these vehicles constitute to road safety, overloading is an evil we must stamp out as soon as possible.

I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Dr Welgemoed said a number of things with which I agree. However, I do not want to elaborate on them. There is one matter which I, too, want to bring to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister. The two speakers who spoke before me also referred to this, and that is the vehicles which register in South West Africa or in the independent Black states, for example, and operate from there, thereby escaping this levy. We shall have to give this our attention. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Deputy Minister said that it was recommended that the levy should be uniform in all four provinces. Why is it not compulsory? I think it ought to be compulsory. It should not only be a recommendation. It could happen that the owner of a vehicle could register the vehicle in the one province where the tariff is low and then do all his transport work in another province. Let the tariff be the same countrywide.

The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to the fact that it is heavy vehicles which do the most damage to roads, and that is true. If one looks at the roads on which heavy vehicles travel constantly, one can see that those roads get ruined to a considerable extent. I agree with the hon member Dr Welgemoed that there should be no exceptions. The State should also pay the same levy.

I now want to refer to Act No 65 of 1976. The Schedule to that Act is now being amended. If one looks at the Schedule of the Act there are seven meagre sources from which the provinces obtain their revenue. Inter alia, there are hospital fees, dog licences and game licences. Then follow paragraphs 3 and 4 to which reference is made in the Bill. Paragraph 3 reads:

Paragraph 4 reads:

In my opinion, the provinces at present have the power to impose levies, not levies as such, but licence fees. Why was this Bill brought to this House in order to make it a levy? It can only be a levy if, as I have already mentioned, the motive is to impose a levy on the vehicles coming from the independent Black states. The provinces have the power to impose licences. After all, there is a difference in the licence fees for the different kinds of motor vehicles. A licence for a small car differs from that of a heavier vehicle. I therefore think that it was hot that necessary to introduce this legislation. I think the provinces could have extended this further under their power to issue licences. If we wanted to make this uniform and an agreement could not be reached about that, it would have been necessary to introduce legislation in order to be able to do so.

For the rest, we support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the previous speakers who supported this Bill. In particular, I support the idea of the hon member Dr Welgemoed that a levy or tax should be introduced for the building and maintenance of our roads. The hon member for Sunnyside raised a few interesting points with which I agree. There are other aspects on which I do not agree with him. It is true that this amendment makes provision for levying an amount over and above the wheel tax and the licence fee; in other words, provision is being made for a levy over and above that tax. The Schedule, as the hon member for Sunnyside read out, contains no provision for such a levy, and provision is now being made by way of this amendment for imposing such a levy on vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 5 000 kg or more. The hon the Deputy Minister told us that this levy will be uniform throughout the provinces, and consequently I think there will be little opportunity to go from one province to another for the registration of a vehicle.

There is practically nothing left to say about this matter. I associate myself with the legislation and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, I think it is common cause in this House that insufficient funds have been spent on roads in South Africa in recent years. We have had quite a number of debates earlier in this session where this was fully discussed. It is therefore logical to assume that sooner or later one hon Minister or another would come forward with some form of legislation to increase the amount of money which goes to roads. Because we in the NRP believe that a growing and advanced industrial economy requires good roads and because we know that South African roads are in a bad state of repair, we are in favour of this measure and we shall support it.

Just to elaborate on that, let me say that while our country has good roads—our national roads are excellent—I believe that we should have better roads throughout the country. They should enable vehicles to travel at speed, within the limits but at a constant speed, and they should allow heavy vehicles to travel on them. We know the economy of scale principle which ensures that one can transport a unit of goods cheaper on a bigger vehicle than on a smaller one. If we want to reduce the transport costs in South Africa, then we need good roads and good, big vehicles in order to achieve this. Therefore, if this measure is going to bring in another R80 million to R100 million into the coffers of the provinces to build roads, then we say it is in the interest of the country—let us get on and build those roads.

There are a number of questions which I have. I want to make sure that this money will in fact go to the construction or maintenance of roads. However when looking at the amendment, I find that it does not seem to say so I wonder therefore whether the hon the Deputy Minister, when he replies to the debate, will give us the assurance that it will be the case. Perhaps we should have an amendment which could read something like this: That after the words “motor vehicles” the following words are added “the proceeds of such levy to be used solely for the construction or maintenance of provincial roads” because then we shall know definitely that this money will go to provincial roads.

The second point I should like to raise concerns the question of the types of levies. Is it envisaged that there will be just one levy or value for, let us say, a 15 ton truck, or will hauliers be graded into various types, the one paying a greater levy than the other? I ask this question because I want to know whether professional hauliers whose vehicles are on the road virtually 24 hours a day will pay a higher levy than, let us say, a company which may have a truck that has a crane on it in order to enable the company to move the crane about from place to place to serve that company’s business. On the other hand one can think of a member of the farming community who has an 8 000 kg vehicle which he uses to haul fertilizer from the station to his farm but who is not a professional haulier. My question to the hon the Deputy Minister is whether there will be different types of levies for different types of operations.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central raised the question of whether there will be a special disc, while the hon member for Sunnyside asked why we do not just put up the licence fee and get the money that way. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central then asked what would happen to the vehicles licensed in the TBVC countries or other neighbouring States who operate on our roads. This reminds me of the situation in the United States where you will see heavy duty vehicles with possibly five, six or seven different discs displayed on a part of the vehicle. These discs indicate that they are licensed in or have paid their levy to operate in a particular State. For example, vehicles travelling from Canada down to Florida may have State levy discs put up on a part of the vehicle so that the local traffic police in any State will be able to check that they have in fact paid the levy to use the freeways and highways of a particular State. I think that this is possibly the answer to the question asked by the hon member for Sunnyside. We want to make sure that the vehicles operating on our roads have in fact paid this levy and that the money raised will be used for the construction and maintenance of roads so that the vehicles travelling on those roads will be able to operate efficiently. Will we in future have on heavy duty vehicles another disc, in addition to the license disc, which will indicate that this levy has in fact been paid? I think this is a good idea, especially in respect of foreign vehicles operating on South African roads.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central raised another very important point. He asked whether the vehicles of the SATS will have to pay this levy as well. I definitely think they should. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the General Manager of the SATS have said that they want competition, but you cannot have equal competition if licence fees and levies such as these are not paid by the SATS on their vehicles.

The final point I want to raise is the question of whether it should be a levy or whether the licence fees should be raised as opposed to increasing the price of fuel. At a function I went to earlier this session, I spoke to some of the members of the Public Hauliers Association who said that they would be happy if the price of diesel went up as long as the money was used to construct better roads. They were willing to pay more to get better roads. I was in favour of increasing the price of fuel, but after listening to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reasoning and thinking about it again, I believe that forcing a haulier to pay a levy will actually promote the better utilization of South Africa’s transport fleets. I say this because the levy will be a fixed cost, just as licence, depreciation, insurance and so on are fixed costs. Those of us who operate equipment and vehicles know that the prime objective of any owner of a machine or a vehicle is to reduce the fixed cost per unit of operation or distance travelled through higher utilization. By adding a levy to the cost of operation there will be a greater incentive on the part of operators to get greater utilization out of the vehicles, whereas if one just had to increase the price of fuel, it would become an operating cost and there will be no incentive to improve the utilization of the vehicle. I therefore believe that this is a good move and I will support it.

We are pleased that this measure has been brought before us. We hope that this R80 to R100 million will be in the hands of the provinces as soon as possible in order to upgrade existing roads and assist with the construction of new roads. The hon the Deputy Minister has said that is has been estimated that the damage caused by heavy vehicles is in excess of R180 million per annum more than the actual licence fees they pay. We believe that there had to be an adjustment here and that this levy will correct this underpayment on the part of hauliers. I think, too, that they will welcome it, providing, as I say, it will be used for roads and not for some other expenditure in the provinces. We support this measure.

Mr Speaker, I thank hon members for the balanced way in which they took part in the discussion of this short Bill. I think they put forward all points of view.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central posed certain questions. In the first place he asked—other hon members also referred to this—why we do not simply increase licence fees, which looks like a very logical question to ask. The position is, however, that licence fees are part of the income of the particular province raising those fees. Those fees go into the pocket of that particular province only. Secondly, the licence fees are in fact different for the different provinces. The provinces are, of course, autonomous and it is therefore not for Parliament to pass a law forcing them to charge standard licence fees. There are certain reasons why they charge different licence fees.

As regards the levy we are dealing with here, I want to point out that that money will go into a common pool after which it will be distributed amongst all the provinces. It is a very important point that it will not necessarily be distributed only in accordance with the number of vehicles paying levies in a particular province. The example was pointed out to me of the Orange Free State which has fewer vehicles but more roads in proportion than other provinces. There will therefore have to be a distribution not exactly in proportion to the number of vehicles registered or paying a levy in a particular province. Licence fees do not provide us with a solution to this particular problem.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? The provinces are obviously going to collect the money individually. What will they then do with it? Will they have to pay it into the central Treasury or will they retain it until some method of distribution has been devised? What practical method is going to be employed if the provinces themselves are going to collect the money?

Naturally, there are numerous matters that will have to be cleared up with the provinces, and this is one of them. Let me say that this is purely enabling legislation to enable provinces to make provision to get money in their pockets to pay for road maintenance.

*As far as vehicles of neighbouring states are concerned, I concede that this is a problem that will have to be addressed. However, as the hon member Dr Welgemoed pointed out, this is a problem that occurs in other parts of the world too, for example, in the states in America. A mutual arrangement will have to be reached among the various countries. However, I want to point out that some of the Republic’s vehicles will, in turn, use the roads of national and independent states. Therefore, an arrangement will have to be made among the States in this regard.

†The hon member also referred to the amendment he intends proposing. I think we can deal with that in the Committee Stage if the hon member sees fit to move it. I have already replied to that to a large extent during my Second Reading speech.

I can assure the hon member that I also see this measure as a further step in removing inequities in our system of free enterprise.

*I should also like to thank the hon member Dr Welgemoed for his contribution. Since he is a well-known authority in this field I listened to him with satisfaction, knowing that his contribution carries weight. I want to thank him for this, as well as for the fact that he has pointed out the importance of uniformity. He also referred to the question of levies on foreign vehicles, to which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, too, referred. The provinces will handle this themselves when the levy is introduced.

I have already referred to the question of exemptions. The recommendation is that there should be no exemptions. The provinces pointed out certain problems to us in this regard and I appreciate the fact that they will have to give this matter further serious thought. The recommendation is once again that if there are to be exemptions they, too, will have to be uniform.

The hon member for Sunnyside referred to vehicles registered in other states. I think to a large extent I have already replied to his questions in this regard. An arrangement will have to be made with our neighbouring states in this regard. The net effect of this will have to be that vehicles registered in neighbouring states and using our roads will also have to contribute towards road maintenance.

I want to repeat that to make these provisions compulsory for provinces would mean tampering with their autonomy. We believe that it will be possible to persuade these bodies to make the system uniform, and that is also our recommendation. However, I do not believe that this will be a problem because the money will be paid into a common pool, to be redistributed afterwards. I think the hon member will understand why this is to be a levy and not a licence fee.

I also want to thank the hon member for Maraisburg for his contribution. I have already replied to the matters he referred to.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti put it that we had good roads in this country. That is in fact the case, and the legislation under discussion will help us to keep our roads that way. Although we cannot prescribe to the provinces to earmark this money only for the maintenance of roads, it is in fact meant to be only for the maintenance of roads. I can assure the hon member that the provinces need much more than the money provided for in this measure to do a proper job.

As I see it, there will be different levies. The hon member is quite correct when he says there are different categories of hauliers, depending on their particular business. This will determine how much they use our roads.

As regards the disc to which the hon member referred, it is an administrative matter which the provinces will certainly sort out.

I think I have now replied to all hon members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. 1. On page 3, in line 7, after the first “vehicle” to insert:
   • , including motor vehicles owned by the South African Transport Services,

I have already motivated my reasons for this amendment and I will therefore not do so again. However, the hon the Minister said in his speech:

It is not clear whether that in fact is intended to cover SATS vehicles. I should like a clear statement from the hon the Deputy Minister that SATS vehicles will be levied by the provinces in terms of this enabling legislation.

Mr Chairman, there is no objection in principle to SATS vehicles paying for the use of roads. As the hon member has stated in his speech the SATS pays a globular amount for the use of roads. Therefore, in principle, they do make a contribution. The Bill before the House is an enabling Bill. It authorizes provinces to levy heavy vehicles but it does not prescribe to them how to do it. Although I am not prepared to accept the amendment, the suggestion advanced by the hon member in his amendment can be accommodated within the present wording of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I have a small problem with that in that the clause actually states that a vehicle should be registered in a province in terms of any law relating to the licensing and registration of motor vehicles. I am aware that at one stage the licence on a SATS vehicle was certainly not a provincial licence—I am not sure to what extent that is true today—but does a SATS vehicle fall within the description of a vehicle “registered in a province in terms of any law”? I want to get clarity on that.

A second point relates to the answer of the hon the Deputy Minister about vehicles entering South Africa from neighbouring countries and using our roads. It became apparent from his reply that no adequate steps have been taken to ensure that these people pay a reasonable price for the roads that they are using. I would simply like to urge at this stage that the department take the necessary steps at the earliest possible moment to reach an equitable agreement with these neighbouring States on the use of South Africa’s roads. The hon member for Amanzimtoti suggested perhaps having a special disk enabling them to use South Africa’s roads. One already has a differentiation in that licence fees in some of these countries are lower than licence fees within South Africa. This levy is now going to be brought into force but if the neighbouring States are not going to introduce a similar levy it could be of fairly major financial importance to a company operating out of, say, Johannesburg to move the centre of its operations to a neighbouring State. I would urge that that be looked at at the earliest possible moment.

Mr Chairman, we have listened to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply to the Second Reading and I believe we can accept what he said. However, I do not want him to ignore the feeling of this side of the House in regard to this measure. We are supporting it, but on certain conditions. First of all, the money raised must go to the provinces to maintain their roads. Secondly, it must be all encompassing. There cannot be any exceptions or exemptions. There certainly will be a different grade of levy but it has to cover not only the private owner of a vehicle but also SATS vehicles because they are breaking up our roads as much as any privately owned vehicle. Thirdly, it has to cover any vehicle from outside the RSA that is doing a hauling job of work over South African roads. The solution to this problem is very simple. Any haulier from the TBVC countries, from South West Africa, Zimbabwe or wherever, travelling on South African roads must have a levy disc on the windshield or somewhere on the vehicle. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister understands my feelings in this regard. We need this money, and more, and, therefore, as I have already said, it must be all encompassing. I sincerely hope that we can feel secure in the hon the Deputy Minister’s assurance that this is what the intention is and what in fact is going to happen.

I should like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we will watch this very closely, especially with the Public Carriers’ Association also acting as a watchdog, to see whether the views I have expressed will in fact be confirmed in practice once this levy becomes law.

Mr Chairman, in my opinion, there is another problem. The hon the Deputy Minister is now granting authorization for introducing a levy, but there is no indication of which fund it should be paid into. If the provinces should refuse to pay that money over because they need it for other purposes, the hon the Deputy Minister cannot compel them to pay that money over. A province could refuse to have its autonomy encroached upon, and can insist on keeping that money. What would the situation be in such a case?

Mr Chairman, the hon member quoted the provisions of the Bill to indicate what the provinces could do. However, nowhere did he read that we prescribe to the provinces what to do with that money, since there is an understanding between central Government and the provinces. A large sum of money is paid over to the various provinces by central Government annually. This particular money is now going to be used for the maintenance of roads, and of course this will be taken into account when that money from the Treasury has to be allocated for further maintenance. It is therefore logical that the money the provinces already obtain will be taken into account.

When we come to the question of how these moneys should be collected and dealt with, I do not want to prescribe to the provinces how they should collect and use the money, but I believe that each province will probably keep the money and ask central Government to regulate it according to the mutual agreement, for example, that more money goes to one province than to another province in terms of the agreement. I do not think this is a problem we will not be able to iron out; we will, in fact, be able to solve it easily. The important point is that we have to establish and launch a principle, since this is something that has been dragging on for a number of years. However, I think we have already made considerable progress. Hon members have probably had more experience with provinces than I have, but I can assure hon members that this will be done under proper supervision, as the provinces normally do it.

I want to tell the hon member for Amanzimtoti that I quite agree with him. I have no problem with that. I also want to tell the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that the vehicles of the SATS are in fact registered vehicles.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Before I proceed to explain the provisions of this Bill, I want to make just one observation, with your permission, Sir. Hon members will recall that during the discussion of the Constitution Amendment Bill, and clause 13 of that measure in particular, I referred to a certain report which had appeared and which was not factually correct. I spoke to the correspondents concerned in this specific connection, they rectified the situation in ensuing editions of the publication, and I should like to express my thanks for the fact that this was done. Mr Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to say these few words.

Mr Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me today to deal with this Bill relating to one of the most interesting and one of the most important and most challenging occupations in our country—that of town clerk of a local authority. It is significant that the office of town clerk is also mentioned in the Bible, in Acts 19, verse 35. It so happened that on that occasion the town clerk of Ephesus was called upon the restore order after the trade union leader of the silversmiths, a certain Demetrius, had stirred up unrest among the inhabitants of the city. In the Bill before this House today provision is also being made for interaction between town clerks and trade unions, as in the Bible narrative, but I trust that in terms of this legislation matters will proceed in a far more orderly way than the position was at the time, in Ephesus!

The Bill under consideration is a direct result of representations addressed to me by the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa and the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities. The former body is a professional institute, while the latter is a trade union representing the chief administrative officers of local authorities.

This Bill is applicable to local government institutions for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, under whose jurisdiction local authorities for Black communities fall, is dealing with the chief administrative officers of such Black local authorities in terms of other legislation.

Although the short title of the Bill refers to “town clerks”, the concept of “town clerk” in the definitions clause is defined as a reference to the chief executive officer of a local authority, regardless of the designation of the post occupied by that officer. Consequently the legislation will also, in addition to being applicable to town clerks, also be applicable to officers such as the Secretaries of Divisional Councils (Cape), the Secretary to the council for Development of Services (Natal), the Secretary to the Council for Development of Peri-urban Areas (Transvaal) and the secretaries of Health Committees.

Two aspects relating to the remuneration and the conditions of employment of town clerks should be clearly distinguished from one another, namely:

1. (a) the granting of occupational security to the chief executive officers of local authorities. This aspect has already been dealt with by means of an amendment to section 2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1956. The amendment was recently effected by means of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, 1984. As a result of this statutory amendment, town clerks will in future be included in all respects in the provisions of the Labour Act with the result that they are, for the purposes of their occupational security, gaining access to industrial councils and to the industrial court. Only in one respect, namely in so far as the negotiation and the determination of this remuneration is concerned, will the town clerk be excluded from the labour legislation. In the determination of the town clerk’s remuneration, the Bill at present under discussion will be made applicable.
2. (b) The determination of the remuneration of town clerks. At present the four provincial Administrators determine, in terms of provincial ordinances with divergent provisions, the maximum salaries of town clerks in their respective provinces. Although the provinces have attempted over the years to coordinate the determinations on an interprovincial basis, there is no authoritative standardization, and consequently anomalies still occur. This unsatisfactory position is aggravated by the fact that all other employees of local authorities are able to negotiate their conditions of employment in terms of labour legislation in industrial councils and in the industrial court. Such determinations for other employees in terms of central labour legislation may exceed the Administrator’s determination pertaining to the salaries of town clerks. The result is a situation that is unsatisfactory for two reasons: Firstly, contradications and anomalies exist between the various provinces and, secondly, employees of various local authorities, who are subordinate to the town clerk, receive a salary equal to and even exceeding that of the town clerk himself.

A Sub-Working Group of the Croeser Working Group, with all the interested parties represented on it, investigated the matter under the chairmanship of an official of the Office of the Commission for Administration and made recommendations which would be an acceptable compromise for all the parties represented on the investigating committee.

I should like to give hon members the assurance that prolonged and exhaustive consultations were held with interested parties, including the Department of Manpower, which effected the statutory amendment; the Commission for Administration, which took the lead in this matter; the four Administrators; the United Municipal Executive; the Association of Management Committees; the Institute of Town Clerks; the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities; the SA Association of Municipal Employees (SAAME); the Transvaal Municipal Workers’ Organization; and the Permanent Finance Liaison Committee, on which many of the bodies to which I have referred, are also represented.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking all the organizations concerned for the constructive and responsible way in which they co-operated with the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning to resolve and settle this matter, which was complicated and sensitive, in a way that was satisfactory to all the parties.

The Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa and the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities addressed urgent requests to me in writing, and during interviews, to rectify, in view of the importance of local authorities in the new constitutional dispensation, the present unsatisfactory position in which the town clerk finds himself, prior to the commencement of the new constitutional dispensation on this level of administration.

The town clerk is in charge of the municipal personnel, and an orderly system of salary determination is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the new dispensation for local authorities. It is therefore necessary for the amendments contained in the Bill to be passed during the present session of Parliament, and I hope that I shall receive the support of hon members in this connection.

†The most important principles underlying the legislation before us, are the following:

This Bill must be read with section 2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1956, as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, 1984. In terms of the labour legislation the town clerk will be granted security in his work, while he will be granted the right to negotiate the determination of his remuneration in terms of the provisions of this Bill.

At the request of the two organizations representing town clerks—ie the Institute of Town Clerks and the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities—the determination of the remuneration of town clerks will be done by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, after consultation with a widely representative advisory committee under the chairmanship of the Director-General: Constitutional Development and Planning. Coordination in the determination of the remuneration of employees of the three tiers of government is, I believe, a necessity. All three tiers of government are therefore represented on the advisory committee that must be consulted before a determination is made. The Chief Officer of the Commission for Administration will be a member of the advisory committee to ensure that the inputs of the commission, as central personnel authority in the Public Service, are considered by the advisory committee.

Other interested parties represented on the advisory committee include the provincial administrations; the town clerks through their institute and their association; the employer’s organizations; and the South African Association of Municipal Employees.

As a general rule the town clerk will be receiving: (a) a fixed remuneration—ie it will be binding on a local authority—and (b) a higher remuneration than that of any other employee of the local authority with a difference of at least 7,5%.

The general rule may be deviated from on application to the Administrator-in-executive-committee of the province in which the local authority is situated. The Minister, after consultation with the advisory committee, may issue directives as to the norms, standards and criteria which must be followed in taking decisions on deviation from the general rule.

Appeals against decisions of Administrators are provided for: (a) to the Minister in the case where permission was granted that a lower remuneration than a general determination be paid to a specific town clerk, and (b) to the Industrial Court where a local authority or employee is aggrieved by a decision of an Administrator regarding a possible higher remuneration than that of the town clerk, to another employee. One can understand the reason for this.

The underlying reason for having different bodies of appeal is that in terms of the provisions of this Bill, the fixing of the remuneration of the town clerk is the responsibility of the Minister while the remuneration of other municipal officials can on appeal be determined by the Industrial Court. Furthermore the intention is not to take away existing rights of any employees of local authorities.

Both bodies which represent town clerks requested me not to let the Administrators play any role whatsoever in the determination of their remuneration. They were supported in their representations by the United Municipal Executive who requested that the power to decide upon possible waivers to permit relaxation of the general rule should be granted to the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. After careful consideration of this request and the supporting representations I decided that the exercise of these powers should be conferred on the provincial Administrators for the following reasons: Firstly, waivers will affect individual local authorities with peculiar own circumstances of which the facts are well known to the Administrators and the officials on provincial level. Secondly, the Minister and the advisory committee should rather concentrate on general policy issues and on determinations and leave the individual waivers to the provincial Administrators. Thirdly, some of the appeals against the decisions of the Administrators will in any event be dealt with by the Minister, while other appeals will be dealt with by the Industrial Court. Fourthly, the decisions of the Administrators will have to be taken with due regard to the directives on criteria, norms and standards which will be issued by the Minister after consultation with the advisory committee. I want to stress that the decisions will be taken with due regard to the directives on criteria, not on the directives themselves.

The argument will perhaps be raised that the effect of the Bill will be greater centralization and that it will be contrary to the Government’s stated policy of placing the emphasis on devolution of power to local authorities. The answer to that is simply that one small facet of local government needs to be co-ordinated on central level in order to make it possible to decentralize a great number of other more important facets. It was in fact with devolution of authority to local government in mind that the town clerks of South Africa requested me to introduce this Bill to safeguard their interests.

*Mr Speaker, I have informed this House in detail of the reason for the introduction of this legislation and the reason for conferring specific powers upon the provincial Administrators, since I may have the accusation levelled at me again from certain quarters that we are empire building. The fact of the matter is, however, that the parties directly interested in the matter requested me, firstly, to introduce legislation of this nature after long and exhaustive investigations and negotiations had taken place, and, secondly, to confer even more functions and powers in regard to the determination of the remuneration of town clerks on the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning than provision is being made for in the Bill. In this connection I want to quote paragraphs 5 of a letter, dated 11 June 1984, which the secretary of the United Municipal Executive wrote to my Department as follows:

The determination of the remuneration of town clerks of White, Coloured and Indian local authorities by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, after consultation with a widely representative advisory committee, with the possibility of deviations which may be applied by the Administrators in terms of specified criteria, will create an effective and acceptable procedure for regulating the co-ordination of remuneration structures on various levels, viz:

1. (a) co-ordination between the public service and local authorities (the Chief Officer of the Commission for Administration serves on the Advisory Committee);
2. (b) co-ordination between the local authorities of Whites, Coloureds and Indians (the Minister of Constitutional Development and planning is generally responsible for the local authorities of these three population groups);
3. (c) co-ordination between local authorities for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and local authorities for Blacks by liaison between the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Commission for Administration; and
4. (d) co-ordination between local authorities in the four provinces.

It is essential that these statutory amendments be piloted through at this juncture, particularly in view of the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation on the third level which will go hand in hand with: The establishment of own local government institutions for the respective population groups; the transfer of greater powers to local authorities in terms of the devolution principle; the inevitable increased politicization of local government matters with the accompanying implications, particularly for chief administrative officers who serve as official liaison between the elected councillors or the municipal government on the one hand and the officials of the municipal administration on the other, with the result that the chief administrative officials will be regarded as representing the employer; and the possible poaching of officials by prospective new local authorities unless a regulated salary structure is established.

As I indicated earlier in my speech, I am aware of the fact that anomalies exist in regard to the present position of town clerks. As for the determinations in terms of the provisions of this Bill, I have no intention of making any determinations before the contemplated advisory committee advises me on the grading of local authorities. In the interim the Administrators-in-Executive Committee of the respective provinces will therefore continue to make the determinations.

In a letter dated 6 June 1984 and addressed to the Director-General of my department, the president of the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa, and also the chairman of the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities said, inter alia, the following:

Town clerks will be in charge of municipal personnel who will implement the new constitutional dispensation on a local government level. They will therefore play an extremely important role, and as greater recognition is given to the devolution of authority, the importance of the town clerk’s task will increase.

I trust that the implementation of the provisions of this Bill will help to strengthen local authorities and prepare them for a key role in the future of our country.

To sum up, Sir, it may be said that the proposed Bill will create the procedure for determining the remuneration of town clerks, while the already agreed to amendment to the Labour Relations Act will provide the town clerks with occupational security.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the comprehensive explanation the hon the Minister gave us in justification of this Bill. I just want to say that I was not aware of the fact that the hon Minister knew the New Testament as well as is apparent from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. As the hon the Minister has indicated, this Bill caters for specific shortcomings that exist. Those shortcomings were also clearly spelt out to us in the Select Committee on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, in which it was proposed that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would be introducing a Bill to regulate this matter. You will remember, Sir, that on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill the hon the Minister of Manpower did indeed sketch the background to indicate why it was essential for those amendments to be introduced and why other legislation could also be expected from the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In column 8295 of this year’s Hansard the whole matter is set out.

It is very clear that, as the hon the Minister has indicated, this Bill is the result of widespread liaison and consultation and that there is indeed a shortcoming in our existing legislation concerning the position of town clerks. That is why I think, on the grounds of those considerations, that this Bill should be welcomed. It creates the procedure and the mechanism, as the hon the Minister has also indicated, for the determination of the renumeration of town clerks and for other Service benefits, whilst other conditions involving employment can be arranged without reference to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The outstanding characteristics of this Bill are, firstly, the creation, in clause 2, of a comprehensive advisory committee on the remuneration of town clerks. Secondly, the Minister, acting on the advice of that committee, is being empowered to grade local authorities, excluding those of Blacks, in accordance with certain fixed criteria. In that connection I want to point out to the hon the Minister that I shall be moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to the effect that in view of the differential grounds on which the Minister may make a determination, the provision should be such that there is no differentiation on the basis of race or colour. I take it that it is not the hon the Minister’s intention that race or colour be a factor when it comes to grading local authorities.

You need not move an amendment in that connection, but can simply accept the fact.

I thank the hon the Minister for the assurance.

The other main principle is that the remuneration and other service benefits of town clerks will be determined in accordance with the various grades into which local authorities are divided. That determination will be binding on local authorities and they will not be in a position to pay town clerks a higher or lower remuneration or offer them better or worse service benefits than those determined by the Minister from a certain date. In that connection there are certain problems I should like to focus upon. It is also provided that no other employee of a local authority shall receive remuneration higher than 92,5% of that which a town clerk receives nor, as far as other fringe benefits are concerned, be placed in a more favourable position than the chief executive officer of a local authority.

The remuneration is much more than a mere salary.

Yes, correct.

The hon the Minister has not yet indicated how the figure of 92,5% was arrived at, and I would be glad if he would explain to us, in due course, how this figure was arrived at. Provision is made for possible adjustments and deviations in the case of individual local authorities. Representations can be made to the administrator of a province if a local authority or a town clerk is not satisfied with the state of affairs.

The hon the Minister also referred to the appeal to the Industrial Tribunal. Clause 14 is important and logical. As is apparent from the hon the Minister’s speech, the intention is very clear. In the hierarchy of municipal employees the chief executive officer is indeed regarded as the chief officer and will be treated and remunerated accordingly. As the hon the Minister also indicated, it is essential to obtain co-ordination at the various levels, ie between the various provincial administrations, the various local authorities and the Public Service. For these reasons we shall be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

The hon the Minister will probably not hold it against me if I focus on quite a number of practical problems that we have with the Bill. I would be glad if the hon the Minister would react to them in his reply. Although we accept the fact that a special mechanism must be created for the remuneration of town clerks, I nevertheless do want to point out that a mechanism is being created to determine the remuneration and conditions of service of the relatively small group of people. By that I mean several hundreds. Yet we need a special Act and a special mechanism to do so. Bearing in mind how industrial councils function, ie the primary point of departure in labour legislation thus far having been that agreements are concluded between employers and employees, we now have a situation here in which the determination of remuneration and conditions of service of town clerks comes from above, from the Minister. In that sense we are moving away from the fundamental point of departure that we accepted with the Labour Relations Act and the regulation of the relationship between employers and employees. I am pointing this out, because I think it has further implications. One would inevitably prefer not to have the principle of a special mechanism for the determination of the remuneration and service benefits of a special group possibly being extended to other spheres. This has detrimental implications for the whole economy of the country.

Secondly I want to point out that it is indeed a very elaborate mechanism that is being created here. A body consisting of at least 18 and at most 22 members will be entrusted with the task of determining the remuneration and service benefits of town clerks. It is therefore a very large body. Industrial councils, for example, function with a relatively small number of people who have to determine the salaries and wages of thousands upon thousands of people. I am therefore not quite convinced about whether other possible ways could not be found for determining the service benefits of town clerks. I do understand that the hon the Minister was faced with the problem of having a representative body in which a large number of people could have a say, but I think this body is clumsy and awkward. Time will have to tell whether it does indeed serve it purpose. I think that at some or other stage consideration will have to be given to making the body smaller and more streamline.

In this connection I want to say that it is a pity that the private sector is not included in this body. The hon the Minister could well accuse me of being illogical in my references, on the one hand, to the unwieldy nature of the body whilst saying, on the other hand, saying that it was a pity that the private sector was being excluded. The hon the Minister, however, has the powers in regard to the composition of the advisory committee for the appointment of four additional members, as he deems fit. In view of the relationship between the remuneration of town clerks and those of other municipal officials, for example city engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers and health officers, it seems to me highly undesirable that there should not be a comparative criterion in the form of representatives of the private sector. Because these people all have their origins in the same sphere, one could run the risk of their placing unbalanced emphasis on the question of the salaries and conditions of service of town clerks. I want to recommend very strongly that the private sector should, in some or other way, be included in order to create the necessary balance.

What seriously disturbs me about the Bill, from a purely legal point of view, is the provision contained in clause 12(2). There it is provided that agreements that are in conflict with the Minister’s binding determination, which must be made after grading has taken place, are null and void. It is a fundamental point of departure in our law than when it is a question of private contracts between employers and employees, the law is there to protect those contracts. At this stage I just want to point out the legal implications that could stem from this provision that bona fide agreements between employers and employees can, with a single stroke of the pen, be declared completely null and void. The hon the Minister will probably remember that in the discussion of the legislation on labour relations my colleague, the hon member for Pinelands, and I strongly objected to a similar provision in that Bill. I want to give notice, at this early juncture, that in the Committee Stage I shall be moving to have that particular provision deleted. I am now speaking merely from a legal point of view. Nevertheless, in looking at the practical implications of these provisions, I can foresee many extensive problems.

If I interpret clause 12(2) correctly, it means that as soon as a local authority has been graded and a binding determination has been made, all agreements lapse and will therefore be null and void. Let us say that a municipality appoints a city engineer at a specific salary, but his salary does not comply with the provisions of the binding determination because it is higher than the 92,5% of the remuneration that may be allocated to a town clerk. At a later stage I shall be dealing with the question of the individual determination. As soon as the determination has been made, however, the contract in terms of which the engineer has been employed is illegal. It is not enforceable, being null and void. Then negotiations must be entered into from scratch. As far as the practical effect of this legislation is concerned, it therefore seems to me we are creating tremendous problems for ourselves.

You must bear in mind that it covers specific elements …

That is quite correct, but I am speaking of those elements. The 92,5% relates to the remuneration and service benefits. I take it that the hon the Minister would not want us to be looking at benefits other than the housing subsidy and the car allowance to compensate for the possible losses that may be suffered by such officials.

[Inaudible].

Correct, but that is exactly my point. If this measure is passed and if I am interpreting it correctly—it means that as soon as that determination is made, for example, the municipality can no longer pay the engineer a salary higher than the remuneration received by the town clerk. That may indeed be an injustice that is being done to that person. In my view the logical solution would be to provide that any agreement that is concluded will not affect existing agreements in this respect.

The same applies to town clerks too. It is theoretically possible, at present, for a town clerk of a municipality to be receiving a higher salary than would be the case after the grading has taken place. In terms of clause 12(2) such a town clerk, as far as remuneration and service benefits are concerned, could be placed in a less advantageous position, the agreement between him and the town council being illegal. That is a basic point. In my view we do not have the right to pass laws detrimentally affecting people under existing circumstances. I therefore suggest that we accept an amendment to ensure that existing agreements are maintained as far as these aspects are concerned. That is the kind of practical problem that I foresee in connection with this measure.

It is reasonably easy to find town clerks to work for the smaller municipalities. The required qualifications are frequently not as stringent as those required in the case of technically trained people such as engineers. For example, an engineer who works for the Public Service as a “backroom boy”, if I may put it that way, earns a salary of R38 000 per year after 13 years service. Because of the needs of many of the smaller municipalities, they frequently have trained engineers in their employ. Frequently those engineers also receive higher salaries than the town clerks owing to the scarcity factor and also the particular technically specialized service that engineers have to perform for the town councils. In the light of clause 12(2) an impossible situation could possibly develop, not only as far as the engineers are concerned, but also in regard to the relevant town councils. If the town councils are not permitted to pay those engineers what they are paying them now—not more than 92,5%—the probability exists that the relevant town council would, in some or other way, have to increase the salary of its town clerk by 100%, or that it will simply have to say that under the circumstances it cannot employ a town engineer. The town council would therefore be compelled to make use of consultancy services, which would cost the town council and the taxpayers considerably more than the salary of the engineer would have cost them. As far as the practical implementation of this is concerned, I therefore foresee extensive problems at that level, and that applies to town clerks as well. What I also envisage, in the final instance, is continual competition between town councils on the one hand and technically trained individuals on the other.

That is the position even now.

I know that, but it is my honest view that these provisions are going to exacerbate the situation. It also seems to me that one category is going to ask for an improvement—from the Minister or Administrator or whatever—whilst the other category is going to complain about that. In that way we shall find ourselves in a never-ending spiral of salary adjustments and related issues. That seems to me a definite possibility. Added to that we shall also have the inflationary spiral being aggravated, and the taxpayers are going to be the people who are going to pay for it. The local taxpayers will have to cough up for all the salary increases that are going to be granted. I am just putting forward these points, because I have already indicated that we shall be supporting the Bill, but these are the serious problems and the implications that I foresee in the implementation of this legislation.

Let me say further that in my view the mechanism that is being created here could lead, not only to tremendous frustration, but also to a great deal of mutual friction amongst officials. The hon the Minister has already said that friction also exists. That friction, however, is friction between the officials and the local authorities. Here we shall now have friction arising as a result of action taken from above.

With all due respect, is it not true that the town clerk’s remuneration is determined by the Administrator?

Yes, that is correct. I am aware of that. The hon the Minister made it very clear in his introductory speech. I just want to explain what I mean. Here a binding determination is being made in regard to the salary of a town clerk. For some or other reason the local authority may feel that that determination is too high. The Bill now makes provision for the relevant local authority to apply to the Administrator to have the salary of that town clerk decreased. I am using this as an example. What would the situation be, and what would the relationship between that town clerk and the local authority be, if the town clerk were to become aware of the fact that that local authority had so little confidence in his services … [Interjections.] Wait a moment. The hon member for Mossel Bay must please wait until I have completed my argument. What situation would arise if that chief official were to be aware of the fact that the local authority had so little appreciation for his services that it had applied to have his salary decreased? [Interjections.] Let me point out to the hon member for Mossel Bay that that is what is stated in the Bill. Let me go further. The town clerk himself is going to submit an application if he feels he has been wronged. Hon members can understand what kind of situation would be created, under these circumstances, between the town clerk and the municipality. The hon member for Mossel Bay was, for a very considerable period, a member of the local authority of Riversdale, and if he cannot understand what we are going to create a tremendous source of friction here …

It is because I was involved for such a long time that I know that you are wrong.

I am speaking about the effect of this Bill, and the hon member for Mossel Bay must indicate to me where my interpretation is at fault. I would very much like to hear it. If an application is made in terms of the provisions of clause 13, and that application is refused, the relevant person can go to the Industrial Tribunal. Then the Industrial Tribunal must give a decision. The Industrial Tribunal can, in fact, reverse the Administrator’s ruling. Obviously the Industrial Tribunal is going to apply other criteria, but I take it that the Industrial Tribunal, in terms of its own experience regarding the criteria that is laid down, will employ its own criteria in judging whether a person’s remuneration or service benefits are really in line with the work he is doing. If that is the criterion that the Industrial Tribunal is going to apply, the 92,5% ratio can be thrown overboard; in other words, there is nothing to indicate that the Industrial Tribunal will, of necessity, apply the same criteria as the Administrator.

It therefore appears to me, in all sincerity, that in spite of all the good points this Bill has—I think one must issue this warning—it does embody the possibility of a great deal of friction amongst officials, between officials and local authorities, and between the local authorities and the taxpayers.

There are two or three further points on which I should like to focus the hon the Minister’s attention. The hon the Minister referred to the exclusion of Black local authorities. He indicated why. He said that the relevant co-ordination was done by the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I actually assumed that co-ordination was already taking place between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, and that it was to be implemented in this Bill. If there is a need for the proper regulation of officials in the employ of local authorities, that need is a hundred times greater in the case of Black local authorities. In that connection let me say that I regret the fact that Black local authorities are not being included in this Bill.

The hon the Minister has gone out of his way to say that the impression could be created that here there was a large concentration of power. He assured us, however, that the Government was actually aiming at deconcentration. With all due respect to the hon the Minister, if one looks at this Bill one sees that we are moving increasingly further away from deconcentration. If I were to judge on the basis of this Bill, all the powers the hon the Minister is going to have—and now I am not speaking of the hon the Minister in his personal capacity, but of the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—it would seem as if there is hardly any question of the Government’s policy of the deconcentration of powers and functions being implemented in public life.

I have now put forward my doubts, and I would be glad if the hon the Minister would react to that, because the questions one asks oneself when considering this legislation are serious questions, but in the light of the present shortcomings and the fact that representations have been made, by all the bodies concerned, to have those shortcomings rectified, and in the light of the fact that a special mechanism certainly is needed to bring this about, we support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to thank the hon member Prof Olivier for the promise of the support of the official Opposition for the Second Reading, even though the hon member found it necessary to interfere where it was not necessary to do so. I think that was unnecessary. I shall come back to some of the doubts the hon member raised later.

As far back as in my first speech in this House on 22 August 1974, I pleaded for closer liaison and co-ordination between the central government level and the local government level. In the above-mentioned maiden speech I said the following in that regard, inter alia, and I am referring to Hansard, 1974 (2), col 1268. The only reason I am referring to this now, is that I think it is relevant to the Bill under discussion. I quote:

If that was true 10 years ago, it will be that much truer in future with a view to the new constitutional dispensation. After all, the chief executive officer of a local authority is the head of staff of that particular authority, and an ordered system of determining salaries is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the new dispensation for local authorities.

In what will probably be my last speech in this House under the present dispensation, I therefore take pleasure in supporting a measure which, in the words of the hon the Minister—

The regulation mentioned firstly entails coordination between the Public Service and local authorities, inter alia, by the Chief Officer of the Commission for Administration serving on the advisory committee. Local government does indeed form an integral part of public administration as a whole. It would therefore scarcely be beneficial to public administration if personnel were permitted to vacillate continually and in an uncontrolled way between the Public Service and the local government level for the sake of personal financial considerations. The proposed liaison can fulfil an extremely important role in this regard.

Secondly, the proposed regulation entails co-ordination between local authorities of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, inter alia, in that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will be wholly responsible for the local authorities of the three population groups. The fact is that the local authorities of the Coloured and Indian population groups will probably have to contend to a much greater extent with a shortage of trained and expert personnel than White local authorities. If local authorities were permitted to entice one another’s personnel away in an uncontrolled manner or bid against one another for the services of a limited corps of trained and expert municipal officers, the viability and success of Coloured and Indian local authorities in particular would be seriously endangered. In fact, a lack of sufficient municipal officers from the Indian and Coloured population groups, would mean that White senior municipal officers would probably have to be used to run the Coloured and Indian local authorities. Co-ordination in respect of the salary scales of officials of local authorities of the population groups concerned is absolutely indispensable under these circumstances.

The proposed regulation entails further co-ordination between local authorities for Whites, Coloureds and Indians on the one hand, and the local authorities for Blacks on the other. In my above-mentioned maiden speech I said the following in this regard (Hansard, 22 August 1974, col 1270):

I believe that the proposed co-ordination of salary scales can effectively prevent a repetition of this phenomenon.

Finally, the proposed regulation also entails co-ordination between individual local authorities, as well as between local authorities in the various provinces. Over the years some local authorities have shamefully neglected their duty as regards the training of personnel. They have found it easier, and apparently more beneficial, simply to buy staff trained by other local authorities for their own purposes by offering them better salaries. It is to be hoped that the proposed liaison will also combat this malpractice successfully.

It is hardly beneficial to the general discipline and mutual attitude of the staff of a particular local authority if the remuneration of the chief executive officer of that local authority is disproportionate to that of other officials. On the other hand—and the hon member Prof Olivier referred to this as well—the fixing of the maximum salary of the chief executive officer according to merit—this is a point I shall come back to later and on which I disagree with the hon member Prof Olivier—and the implementation of the rule that no member of the staff of that local authority may receive a higher salary, creates tremendous problems, for example, in filling posts. I am referring, for example, to technical staff, engineers and so on. The proposed grading of local authorities—that is where the hon member Prof Olivier is mistaken, since it is the local authorities being graded and not those who happen to occupy the posts concerned—for the purposes of remunerating their chief executive officers, for which provision is made in clause 7(1), together with the provision in clause 12 that the remuneration of the chief executive officer has to be at least seven and a half per cent more than that of any other member of staff, read in conjunction with the proposed appeal mechanism, should deal effectively with these problems.

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

Just give me a chance. I am convinced that this Bill is going to make a tremendous and essential contribution to the success of the new constitutional dispensation which is so extremely important to all the people of South Africa. Under these circumstances, I take great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. If the hon member Prof Olivier wants to put a question to me now, I shall react to it with pleasure.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon member what the function of grading is if it is not linked to binding determinations in respect of the remuneration and service benefits of town clerks.

Of course the Bill relates to the determination of the salaries of town clerks, or chief executive officers of local authorities. However, it is not concerned with the determination of Mr A’s salary: It is concerned with the determination of the salary of the town clerk of town A.

Yes, in a particular category.

That is correct. There will be different categories. Therefore, if one reads this provision of the Bill in conjunction with the appeal mechanism for which provision is being made, it is apparent that sufficient flexibility is built into the Bill to accommodate the exception.

The hon member Prof Olivier also expressed certain other reservations which I want to dwell on briefly. He was concerned about the fact that a salary structure is to be determined from the top. When has it been any different? The salary structure is now being determined by the Administrator. It is therefore also being determined from the top now. The salary of a town clerk has never been determined on the basis of negotiation.

I was referring to the fact that it is in conflict with the principle accepted in the Labour Relations Act.

Yes, there may be a difference between the provisions of the present Bill and the provisions contained in the Labour Relations Act, but we are dealing with a completely different situation here. Surely one cannot simply transfer or apply a principle which works well with one set of acts just as it is to a completely different set of circumstances. As regards town clerks, it is a fact that at present their salaries are also determined from the top. It is therefore not a new principle as regards the determination of the salaries of town clerks.

Another objection of the hon member relates to the size of the advisory committee. The reason for the size of the advisory committee was really identified by the hon member himself. It is obvious. That is to give all interested parties a say in the committee and to obtain inputs on all interested parties, thereby ensuring that cognisance will be taken of all possible relevant facts in the grading and determination of a salary structure. The hon member himself conceded that and proposed that the private sector should also be involved.

I gave my reasons for that.

Yes, the hon member gave his reasons, but that does not detract from the fact that if the hon member’s wish were to be acceded to, it would probably result in an extension of the advisory committee. In motivating his standpoint, the hon member claimed that there was the danger that there could be an unbalanced emphasis of particular circumstances in the advisory committee. When cognisance is taken of the list of organizations that will be represented on the advisory committee it appears that all possible interests will in fact be represented. Instead of making an unbalanced emphasis of one facet possible, I believe that the constitution of the advisory committee is such that an unbalanced emphasis will in fact be eliminated.

The hon member was also very concerned about existing contracts which could possibly be jeopardized. The clause concerned does not refer to existing contracts at all. The only thing the clause provides is that any agreement which is contrary to the norms laid down is null and void. It therefore does not refer to “existing agreements” at all.

If it is contrary, it is null and void.

The fact I am emphasizing is that we are dealing here with laying down particular norms. This is concerned with norms that have to be laid down in terms of which town clerks, the chief executive officers of local authorities, have to be remunerated. In the same measure, however, provision is made for appeals when persons feel aggrieved when these norms are applied to them. It may be the town council or the official. I suggest that when such an appeal is considered, the fact that an agreement exists and that the officer concerned or the authority is prejudiced in that that agreement is being jeopardized, will be a very important consideration when the appeal is considered.

You are contradicting yourself.

All I am trying to explain to the hon member is that machinery exists, and that the necessary flexibility is built into the measure to prevent a person or institution being prejudiced unfairly. I therefore do not think that that particular objection of the hon member is valid.

The hon member also stated that smaller municipalities can obtain town clerks more easily. Essentially, this concerns the question of standards. Of course a smaller town council can obtain a town clerk more easily, particularly if he does not set any prerequisites. In other words, if a smaller local authority is satisfied with a town clerk who has practically no training, experience or expertise, his services can be obtained at a modest salary. It could then easily happen that the local authority concerned is compelled to pay technical staff more than the town clerk.

As has already been said, this is concerned with standards and norms. If the activities of a local authority are of such a nature that it needs a qualified engineer, that local authority also needs a town clerk who meets more requirements than the absolute minimum. If the standard of the town clerk is at the same level as that of the engineer that local authority has to employ, the local authority ought to remunerate the town clerk at the same level as an official of that standard should be remunerated. That is where the dilemma of local authorities usually arises. I have personal knowledge of this. It happens that a local authority has a town clerk whom it does not feel free to pay more. There are no technical staff available at his salary, however. That particular local authority should have a town clerk who should be paid a better salary, however. In other words, it is therefore unfair that that local authority has a town clerk who is prepared to work at that salary. That is where the fault lies.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I take great pleasure in supporting the measure. I trust that it will also be given the support of the other parties in this House.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay that the best part of his speech was where he referred to his maiden speech. While this was his last and historic speech, as he said, I want to tell him that he has set up a record, because he devoted more time to answering the question of the hon member Prof Olivier than the duration of the rest of his speech. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House has promised us that if we co-operate so that the House can adjourn next Wednesday, he will give each of us a bag of oranges. I shall do my best to earn my bag of oranges. I shall come to the point at once, therefore.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that two officials, Dr Cloete and Mr Dekker, visited us and gave us some information. They impressed us with their knowledge and expertise. We thank them for that.

In the light of the constitutional transformation which South Africa is undergoing at the moment, the Conservative Party has to evaluate new legislation in terms of the principle of the CP, namely that we reject mixed government and that we believe that the provincial councils should be retained. This legislation has the effect, among other things, of reinforcing the principle of mixed government admittedly to a minor extent—and of undermining the authority of the provincial councils. In my opinion, it should be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. These are some of the reasons why we are opposing the Bill.

However, the CP is also concerned about the position of town clerks and we sympathize with the anomalies which exist. It is also unsatisfactory that the top official of a local authority should sometimes receive a lower salary than his subordinates. We understand this problem and others experienced by town clerks. Therefore it is necessary, of course, that there should be better co-ordination, proper regulation, but we believe that this should be brought about on the provincial level and not on the central level. As a result, a very important part of the powers of provincial councils are now being transferred to the central level, and that is what we are objecting to.

Under the new dispensation, an Indian or a Coloured person could be Minster of Constitutional Development. It is totally unacceptable to the CP that the salary of the top officials of White local authorities should be controlled by a Coloured or an Indian. This is totally irreconcilable with the old NP policy of separate development and is more in line with the PFP’s integration policy.

However, there is a further strong tendency which emerges in the Bill, and that is the building up of a power base around the Ministry of Constitutional Development which gives us cause for concern. It is clear that the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is successfully building up his own empire. The hon the Minister seems to feel guilty about this, because he is adopting a defensive attitude, and in this document which we have received, he is actually throwing up a smokescreen by saying that he may be accused of empire-building again in certain circles. He has a guilty conscience, therefore, and in that respect I agree with him. [Interjections.]

More and more power is systematically being concentrated in the hands of the hon the Minister. His ministry is receiving the biggest single amount from the Budget, approximately R4,6 billion. That is almost R1 million more than the amount which is being budgeted for defence, for example. Under these circumstances, one wonders who is really South Africa’s new Minister of Finance, when one takes a good look at the constitutional development situation. Will the real Minister of Finance under the new dispensation be the hon member for Florida or the hon member for Helderberg? The amazing way in which the Transvaal leader of the NP is being stripped of his ministerial powers, so that they may be conferred on the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is almost inexplicable. It seems that the leadership struggle in the NP now belongs to the past.

Order! I must point out to the hon member that this aspect has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I have a standpoint which I am stating, and that is that in terms of this legislation, there is a concentration of power in the ministry of Constitutional Development, and I am motivating my statement.

This Bill does not deal with the building up of a power base. The hon member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, with all due resepct to you: The fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will in future control the salaries of the top officials of all municipalities is an additional power which is being vested in this ministry, and I am furnishing proof to substantiate my standpoint that a power base is developing around this Ministry.

In terms of this Bill, therefore, the hon the Minister is indirectly taking over control of local authorities in South Africa, since the remuneration of the top officials of the local authorities will now be controlled by him. The hon the Minister referred to this as follows in his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 9 July 1984):

When one controls the salary of the top official of a body, it is not a small facet. It is essentially a strengthening of the process of empire-building around constitutional development.

In terms of clause 2, a multi-racial advisory committee is now being established. Although it is only an advisory committee, it once again testifies to the new leftist policy of the NP of sharing political power with Blacks as well, and of undermining separate development.

What nonsense are you talking now?

That hon member says that I am talking nonsense, but I can only refer him to Rapport, where the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that the same principles, namely self-determination with regard to their own affairs and co-responsibility with regard to general affairs, applied in respect of the Blacks as well. The hon the Prime Minister has said that co-responsibility with regard to general affairs is healthy power-sharing. It is power-sharing, therefore. The NP’s official policy in respect of Blacks is one of power-sharing, therefore. [Interjections.] Then hon members must repudiate the hon the Prime Minister. Furthermore, they need only have listened to what the hon member for Innesdal told us today. He said that it applied in respect of Blacks as well. The bluff has gone on long enough. [Interjections.]

The question why Administrators cannot be in control of the remuneration of town clerks themselves has not been satsifactorily answered. The ostensible reason seems to be that the Administrators cannot reach consensus among themselves. This seems to be the ostensible reason which is given. This argument makes a mockery of the Government’s new so-called consensus policy, of course. After all, we are moving away from the conflict style and towards consensus, and now I ask: Is it not possible to achieve consensus among four Administrators? All four the present Administrators are Afrikaners, all four are Christians and all four speak Afrikaans. As far as I know, all four belong to the NP as well. If it is not possible for those four Administrators to reach consensus, then I want to aks how consensus will be reached in the new dispensation. [Interjections.]

One man, one consensus.

One man, one consensus, and that is the reason, of course, that as far as constitutional development is concerned, the State President will occupy an absolutely dictatorial position in the new dispensation. That is how consensus is going to be reached—one man, one consensus! [Interjections.] The reason why the provincial councils are being deprived of these powers is to vest more and more control over local government in the Heunis empire. It also forms part of the process of phasing out provincial councils.

Because the Bill reinforces the principle of mixed government, even though to a limited extent, and because it detracts from the authority of the provincial councils, which contributes to an unhealthy concentration of power in one ministry, this Bill cannot be supported.

In conclusion, I request that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. [Interjections.] Hon members must give me a chance. I shall go on with my speech. I have some notes here concerning the lack of credibility of the Cabinet and of certain hon members, and if hon members provoke me, I shall start on those. [Interjections.] I shall do that. [Interjections.] I shall only refer hon members to the letter from Gen Malan dated 4 July 1977.

I repeat that I ask that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution, and I just want to motivate this request. It is customary for legislation dealing with constitutional matters to be referred to this select committee. The hon the Prime Minister followed this procedure in the past in the case of certain legislation dealing with Black town councils, Black community development and Black influx. The hon member for Brakpan has also told me that the hon the Minister confirmed this practice in his Third Reading speech on the Constitutional Amendment Bill earlier this week. There is great uncertainty about the constitutional future of town councils and members of provincial councils. I find it interesting to see how many bodies the hon the Minister says he has consulted, and I accept unconditionally that he has consulted them. However, there is another aspect, and that is the real future of second and third-tier government, and we have made enquiries about this.

What about your future?

My future is very secure, because I am in the CP. [Interjections.] On enquiry, it appears that certain Transvaal MPCs and town councillors are still uninformed and also have very little knowledge of this legislation and the other three pieces of legislation which are to follow. [Interjections.]

This was not said to me personally, but I understand that Mr Steyn van der Spuy and Mr John Griffiths, MEC, have said that the matter is still confidential and that they cannot talk about it because they do not have enough knowledge of it. Therefore I say that if this legislation were referred to that select committee, it would be in accordance with the traditional procedure, it would remove great uncertainty and it would contribute to better legislation. Consequently I move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Jeppe completely missed the purpose, the central point which is being debated here, and he ignored the Bill which is under discussion. He built his whole speech around one concept, the concept of empire-building. Now one wonders whether the peevish tone of his speech is not due to the defeat which he personally suffered in Rosettenville. After all, the hon member boasted that he would personally exert himself and that he personally guaranteed that Jeppe’s MP would conquer Rosettenville with his charm.

I agree.

His hopes were dashed to the ground.

I received 30% of the support.

Actually he lost in his own party, and that is why he has made an ill-considered speech today about the legislation which is before the House.

This Bill raises the status of the office of town clerk so the level at which it should be. This Bill protects the office of town clerk, and this is something which town clerks deserve. It takes that official out of the political arena when he has to carry out Government policy.

The hon member Prof Olivier pointed out that this Bill was legislation for a small number of officials only. So it may seem, but these people are important instruments in our social structures. I represent a rural constituency, but I can assure hon members that almost two-thirds of the voters in the constituency fall under the control and care of a handful of town clerks. Even though only a small number of officials are going to be protected in terms of this legislation, the positions which they occupy are important, so it is essential that we should do this.

The hon member also said that the advisory council was a cumbersome body. I want to assure the hon member that the advisory council will not often meet. It is not necessary, except in the eastern regions of our country. There development is taking place; there towns are growing so rapidly that I believe that the councils will frequently have to receive attention with a view to upgrading them.

It is a good thing that this House should emphasize the status of the town clerk today. These people have a special task in the ordering of our local communities. We all know that for years, town clerks were responsible, not only for the Whites in their towns, but for the Whites, the Asians, the Coloureds and the Black townships adjoining the White towns, before the Administration Boards, later followed by the Development Boards, were established there. Everything in this connection fell under the jurisdiction of the town clerks. These were great responsibilities, and the sources of revenue from which that work had to be financed were limited. Under difficult circumstances, the town clerks did their work as an extension of the central government or the provincial government, and they did excellent work. We want to pay tribute today to a succession of town clerks who planned their work carefullly and who showed initiative.

In this particular piece of legislation, provision is being made mainly for three particular facilities. In the first place, there is the grading of local authorities; secondly, there is the determination of the scope of their functions; and thirdly there is the introduction of a salary structure for town clerks. Even though the introduction of such a salary structure may sound autocratic, it is a well-known practice. Those of us who have been in the teaching profession know that the salary structure of a particular post in a particular school is linked to the grading of the school. Any teacher is free to apply for the post knowing what the grading of the school is and knowing that the salary structure of the post is linked to that.

We trust that the effect of this legislation will be that the office of town clerk will be such as to facilitate the performance of his task. It is our privilege to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is the first of a quaternary of Bills which are on the Order Paper one after the other and which, if they are approved by this House in their present form, will consolidate the hon the Minister in the position of el supremo of local government. This is part of the consolidation following the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Bill of last year. That was the first of the Bills establishing him in this position. I hope, if he does succeed in getting them right through, he is going to enjoy being the Gauleiter of government on the third tier.

I hope that you will assist in getting them through the House.

Well, we shall see about that.

I have some problems here in respect of what constitutes the principles of this Bill. I know that the rationale for the necessity of this is that the town clerk will be granted security in his work, that there will be co-ordination of remuneration in the three tiers of government…

May I interrupt you for a moment? The security is not being dealt with in this Bill.

I realize that, but in part of the hon the Minister’s explanation earlier on, it was.

Furthermore the town clerk will have the right to negotiate. I know that that is the rationale of this Bill, and bearing that in mind, one wants to know what are going to be the principles because if we are going to support the Bill in the Second Reading, I at least want to know what we shall be able to argue about in the Committee Stage. As far as I am concerned this is a very important point.

As I read it, there are potentially five principles or points that could be construed as being principles. The first is the removal of town clerks from the control of provincial councils. The second is the principle that they should be under the control of the Minister. The third is whether the establishment of this advisory committee constitutes a principle. The fourth is whether it is a principle of the Bill that the town clerk has higher pay than anybody else. The fifth principle, as I see it, is whether the Minister will fix the pay, assuming that the other principles are principles, of all town clerks, whether they be Coloured, Indian or Whites. It will be helpful to know if all those points are accepted as principles and that we will not be able to argue against them during the Committee Stage. If they are principles, quite obviously I do have a problem here because it would mean that I would have very little option but to oppose the Second Reading. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that we in these benches have no quarrel with the concept of the review of the position of town clerks. We know that there has been a problem in establishing the salaries of town clerks for some time …

I am listening. Please do not be so sensitive.

I am not unduly sensitive. I am just being courteous by letting you finish your conversation.

The position is that we realize that there has been considerable trouble over the years in the establishing of town clerks’ salaries and that for quite a while town clerks have been agitating to be removed from the aegis of control of the Administrators of the provinces. I am perfectly aware of it as I have had some experience of dealing with town clerks on this very issue for a number of years. I also know that certain of the Administrators, and here I include MECs of local government as well, would be quite happy to off-load the responsibility of determining the salaries of town clerks. I am therefore aware of the background to this situation. An ad hoc set-up was arranged and it seems to have been working very satisfactorily until I left provincial government. Of course, when I left everything went to pot! In any event, there was an ad hoc system in operation between the UME, the Administrators and the various other officials whereby local authorities were graded and town clerks received salaries according to the grade of the local authority. I am well aware that this arrangement did not have the status of an Act of Parliament. However, it seemed to be working well. As I said, I know that town clerks have been agitating to get away from the control of the provinces because in so far as some of these gentlemen are concerned, they feel they will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of somebody in Pretoria far more easily than they can pull the wool over the eyes of somebody in their own provincial capital city.

That is a scandalous remark.

I said some of them. If the hon member thinks it is scandalous, that is his opinion. I happen to know that it is fact with some of them.

I want to come to the next point which is of some concern to me. In so far as the trade, profession or occupation of town clerk is concerned, I am not sure how many there are in South Africa, but I would say something in the order of about 1 200. There are about 100 odd in Natal and about the same number in the Free State. There are probably about 500 in the Transvaal and about 400 in the Cape Province. I know what the position in Natal and the Free State is, the provinces that run their affairs pretty well, but I am not too sure about the other two. Again, I do not know whether something is a principle of the Bill. Is the advisory committee a principle of the Bill or not?

The establishment, yes, but we can discuss its composition at a later stage.

In that case, if I want to argue against the establishment of that, I must do so at this stage, not so? I want to do that because it is an entirely new concept to have a committee for only one category of employees. This is to become an Act of Parliament for the 1 200 to 1 400 town clerks and for nobody else. There are hundreds of thousands of municipal employees but they are not going to have an Act to look after their affairs. Only the town clerks are going to have this Act. There has never been such an instance before and I cannot help feeling that it is not necessary to have the proposed body for such a relatively small group of people, although I do realize the importance of these people. I have had to work with town clerks and I know how important they are. For the good running of local government they are vital. However, there are city engineers, city treasurers and medical officers of health, amongst others, in local authorities all of whom have to be highly qualified. They have to have professional degrees. Many of them have to have advanced degrees. However, town clerks are one category of people who do not have to have any qualifications at all. I know of a town clerk who was running a local authority—very successfully, I might add—and who only had a Std 6 education. I know of many town clerks who have no higher standard of education than matric. I also know, of course, that in the major local authorities the gentlemen in that post are highly qualified. I am aware of that. The point I am making, however, is that these gentlemen, who need no set professional qualification to be appointed to that job, are being given something that professional bodies cannot get for themselves, namely the direct and personal attention of the Minister. I have some doubts whether that is either fair or desirable.

There are other aspects of the Bill which worry me. There is the question of the higher pay. Is that a principle or is it not a principle?

The principle that can be discussed is the quantum of the difference.

In other words, the principle is being established that the town clerk must always under any circumstances, with exceptions for which allowance can be made, roughly receive 10% more than any other employee. That could present certain problems. One of the major local authorities in South Africa chose, for its own good reasons and for purposes of good local government, to pay its four senior officials exactly the same. One of our largest local authorities chose to do that. It chose to give the town clerk, the city treasurer, the city engineer and the city medical officer of health exactly the same pay. I can assure you, Sir, that, if it is forced to change, there is going to be some bitterness in that local authority.

That could be dealt with under the exceptions to which we have referred.

Well, are we now going to start making laws that work by exception? That does not really seem to be the answer. As far as I can see, that is why it is important that one should get the position clarified. There is, again, the question of the difference of at least 10%. One has to be very careful when one puts a stopper on the top in respect of any set of salary structures, because that tends to create what is called in employment circles a concertina effect underneath it. If one does have that sort of situation, I am afraid that we are going to create more problems than we will resolve in local government. As regards the question of town clerks of all races being under the control of the Minister, I somehow had the idea that local government was to be an own affair. If local government is an own affair, then surely, where there are Indian local authorities, they will want direct control over their local authority? In reply to a question I put earlier, the hon the Minister gave me to understand that he would be handling Indian, Coloured and White town clerks. If this is to be an own affair, there will be an Indian Minister who will want to look after his town clerks. I do not know what the situation is and I am trying to elicit some information from the Minister in this regard.

At present this is treated as a general affair, but the actual employment will be an own affair.

In other words, we, the White community, will lay down the salary schedules for the different categories of local authorities and they will administer it. Will that be the situation? I am trying to obtain the facts.

The Whites are only one group. The Minister in charge of general affairs in local government will make a determination.

I am sorry, but I am still at something of a loss in this regard. If local government is to be an own affair—and it has been made clear to me that it will be an own affair—each group will surely want to determine the levels for their own town clerks.

We people from Natal are the only people who can talk with some degree of authority on the question of Indian town clerks and Indian councils because we are the only ones that have had them. I can assure the hon the Minister that in so far as the Indian local authorities under the Indian Council is concerned, they were very unhappy about the very high standards and rates of pay which we insisted their town clerks should get. One of our big problems was to persuade them to pay the town clerks properly. One may well find that if the standards of pay in that community is somewhat lower than in the White community, they may resent it bitterly if a town clerk has to have the same high rate of pay. They might want to have a say in what goes on.

The Minister who determines the salaries will also determine the categories for all authorities.

I am aware of that, but some of the local authorities will be non-White local authorities.

That does not matter.

I have no quarrel with that, as I believe a person should get paid the rate for the job. However, I can assure the hon the Minister that some of the problems which we had with Indian local authorities was that they also believed in the rate for the job, but they had a different idea of what constituted the rate. This is the problem, and this is why we were everlastingly in trouble with them and they with us, because they were trying to underpay in comparison with the scheduled rates which we had for White, Indian and other local authorities. This is why I consider it quite important to have this position established as to whether it will be done at the appropriate stage. One must remember that there are four Indian local authorities, and I know that the hon the Minister’s intention is to encourage a larger number of Indian local authorities and Coloured local authorities to be established. Such being the case, there will be a lot of Indian and Coloured town clerks. Under these circumstances I feel it is very important to clarify the position as to whether there will be an Indian Minister of Local Government, or whatever he is to be called, who will handle this.

As far as the advisory committee itself is concerned, as I have said before I do not believe there is a real need for this. Nonetheless, that is perhaps something that can be argued at a later stage. I am, however, firmly of the opinion that this Bill is likely to present a number of problems which the hon the Minister has not yet thought of.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo arrived at a few conclusions that are not altogether true. It is not true that a town clerk need not have any qualifications whatsoever. He need only read the advertisements in which these posts are advertised to see what qualifications are required. Nor is it true that the “White community” is now going to determine the salaries of Coloured and Asian town clerks. This advisory committee, consisting of all the population groups, is going to do the grading.

Because Paul has figured prominently in this debate—I am referring specifically to the introductory remarks of the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech—I want to follow this up by saying that I shall not prolong my speech until midnight. I only have a few minutes left. With reference to this Bill I just want to say that this is definitely the year of the town clerk. This Bill makes provision for the security of the town clerk as regards his salary, and I think it is high time this happened because the present system created many reasons for dissatisfaction. In this regard I want to address myself to the hon member for Jeppe. The town clerks themselves asked that their salaries be determined by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We are not dealing here with any kind of empire building. This is a matter the town clerks have campaigned for over the years. This dissatisfaction regarding their situation was merely a result of the fact that consensus could not be reached between the administrators. The hon member must go and ascertain from the town clerks himself exactly what the cause of the dissatisfaction was. It was definitely not the reason he pointed out here.

I want to agree with the hon member for Standerton and say that the town clerk is the pivot around which a community revolves. In the new constitutional dispensation the function of the town clerk is going to become more important, for the following reason. I think it is inevitable that in the new constitutional dispensation town councils will be structured on a party basis. I have no doubt about that. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon the Minister in his introductory speech when he referred to the town clerk in Ephesus. That town clerk did one important thing. He reconciled conflicting standpoints in Ephesus. I think that this is increasingly going to be the task of the town clerk in the new constitutional dispensation. Because town councils are going to be structured on a party basis it will be his function to reconcile conflicting standpoints. For that reason he deserves that his salary be well structured.

In conclusion I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question with regard to the fact that the advisory committee will now determine the grading. At the moment town councils are divided into categories. I wonder whether this division into categories of the various town councils and the new grading which can be undertaken by the advisory committee cannot be synchronized in some way or other.

Mr Speaker, I thank hon members for their contributions.

†I am not quite sure whether I have the support of the hon member for Umbilo for the Second Reading.

*I want to tell the hon member for Randfontein that the necessary mechanisms do exist to synchronize the grading of town councils in terms of this specific Bill and the grading in terms of any subsequent legislation, so that everyone will reach the top together.