Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition I should like to second the hon the Prime Minister’s motion. The State President, who is about to be retired, will be remembered for many years for his service both in Parliament, where he served in two Houses, and for his service as a member of the executive in his capacity as Cabinet Minister.

More particularly on this occasion we recall his service as Head of State. He and his wife took over this office under unusual and very difficult circumstances, and in a very short space of time they fulfilled their duties with dignity, with charm and with a sense of integrity. In doing that they not only brought lustre to the office of Head of State but they also set an example to all the people of this country. We should like to be associated not only with the tribute that has been paid to them but also to wish Mr and Mrs Marais Viljoen may happy years in retirement.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the CP I should like to associate myself with the motion of the hon the Prime Minister and express our greatest appreciation for their labours and for the service rendered to South Africa by the State President and Mrs Viljoen as a couple. In particular, I just want to point out that I believe that everyone will agree with me when I say that we pay tribute to them for the dignity, devotion and courtesy with which Mr Marais Viljoen held this office.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate the NRP with the motion moved by the hon the Prime Minister. We too want to express and record our appreciation of the services Mr and Mrs Marais Viljoen have rendered to South Africa. Despite the very difficult circumstances under which the State President took office he was able to maintain the office of State President at the highest level of impartiality and dignity, and he also succeeded in keeping it out of the political arena. As such he will be the last State President who will be in that unique position of serving South Africa irrespective of party loyalties, of serving all the people of South Africa without prejudice, without favour and without regard to party affiliations. As such we will remember the way in which he has occupied this office in the high traditions in which it has always been held. We support the motion moved by the hon the Prime Minister.

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, it will come as no surprise to this House to hear that we in the official Opposition oppose extended sitting hours. We oppose it on account of the burden and the strain it places upon members of Parliament, upon the Secretariat of the House and upon the administrative staff of Parliament. It also places a tremendous strain and burden upon the staff of Hansard, upon the Press and upon all those involved in the proceedings of Parliament. [Interjections.]

The previous occasion upon which the hon the Leader of the House moved an extension of the sitting hours was on 23 May. We are now in the seventh week of those extended sitting hours, which came into effect on 28 May. The hon the Leader of the House extended the sitting hours by six hours and thirty minutes a week, increasing the total number of hours to 30 a week. In that debate the hon Leader of the House had, inter alia, this to say (Hansard, 23 May, col 7167):

I concede that subsequently in the same speech the hon the Leader of the House had this to say (col 7168):

It is those circumstances to which I am refer ring.

No doubt the motion is being moved to enable us to complete our work this session, although nobody knows at this stage exactly when the session is going to end. If the hon the Leader of the House has a date in mind for the session to end, then the remedy lies in his hands. However, I want to inform the hon the Leader of the House that I have made a rough calculation of the time that will be required to complete the business still remaining on the Order Paper, and in my opinion we will require 24 hours of debate to complete the Order Paper as it stands provided no more legislation is introduced. If these additional sitting hours are forced on us, we will only have 25½ hours left this week wich will take us well into Friday if the hon the Leader of the House wishes the session to finish this week. If the hon the Leader of the House and the Government decide that the session should finish earlier, and if they want to relieve hon members in this House of the work entailed in completing this Order paper, instead of trying to legislate by exhaustion and instead of introducing involved and contentious legislation at a very late stage in the session, they should ensure that such legislation is available much earlier in the session. The remedy lies in the hands of the hon the Leader of the House himself. For example, there is highly contentious legislation regarding local government that could quite easily have been referred to a select committee. There is also contentious legislation such as that in regard to the Paarl Mountain that could quite easily be held over.

While we are here to do a job of work and while we wish to do that job of work in the best possible manner, we are not prepared to allow legislation to be forced through by resorting to motions such as the one under consideration. In the circumstances, we have no option but to oppose the motion for the extended sitting hours.

Mr Speaker, the CP will also be opposing the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House. The hon the Leader of the House said yesterday that he wanted us to adjourn tomorrow night, and only this afternoon one of the hon the Deputy Ministers gave notice of new legislation that this House will have to consider. The hon the Leader of the House also said yesterday that we wanted to go home because those in the Cape wanted to go on holiday with their children. Let me tell the hon the Leader of the House that those holidays are almost over. [Interjections.]

On the Order Paper there is the Regional Services Councils Bill establishing multiracial third-tier government for South Africa. There is the report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders that must give effect to the functioning of the future multiracial tricameral Parliament. The first report of the President’s Council dealt with third-tier government. The question of first-tier government was piloted through Parliament, a referendum was held on it, and on 3 September that first-tier system of government is coming into operation. As a result of a rotten Government that cannot finish its work, this legislation on third-tier government, which is going to have the greatest possible effect on the future of South Africa and its people, has been introduced at the very last moment. The Government waited until the very last moment before introducing the legislation, the object being to have it passed in two ticks. Then the Government tells us it believes in consensus politics. We have indeed achieved a great deal of consensus with the hon the Leader of the House about legislation during this session, but there is no consensus as far as this matter is concerned. Here the hon the Minister is adopting steamrolling tactics so that we can finish up.

The CP will not take this lying down; we shall be opposing the legislation. We are going to fight and oppose, with all our might, legislation that is in conflict with the CP’s principles. We shall not take it lying down. Let me tell those hon members that the CP members are fit and robust. [Interjections.] Hon members opposite will not tire us out. We shall not grow tired of opposing the Government’s policy of integration, and the hon the Leader of the House can subject us to adopt his bulldozing tactics if he wants to. Once we have adjourned, after he has got what he wants, we shall leave here and continue to fight the Government on the integration front.

We cannot support the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I compliment the hon Whip of the CP on a completely novel approach to an age-old problem. I his parliamentary session has been a particularly difficult one, and I have great sympathy with the hon the Leader of the House who, in his first year in the position of Leader, has had to face a session of this nature.

Having said that, I do want to place on record the fact that we are appreciative of the fact that the hon the Leader has seen fit to keep down the number of night sittings during this session, because we in these benches believe night sittings are an absolute bane of everybody’s life in this place, not only the members, but also the staff, the Press and everybody connected with Parliament.

Having said that, I want to say that it is a source of great sorrow to me that the hon the Leader of the House cannot at this moment give us an indication as to when he hopes this session will end. We heard what he said yesterday, and we all know that it is a physical impossibility to end this session tomorrow night, particularly in the light of the action of the hon the Deputy Minister who has just risen to give notice of yet another measure to be introduced into this House. To me it is quite incredible that this can happen at this stage.

Regrettably we have to oppose this motion, and we shall oppose any further motions that may seek to extend the sitting hours into the night.

Mr Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I have had the co-operation of all the Whips. I said that we would try not to sit in the evenings.

You have now lost that co-operation.

Since 1910, and particularly over the past 20 years, we have never sat in this House after 2 July.

A better Government.

Perhaps a better Leader of the House too. Still to be sitting on 10 July is an unprecedented state of affairs and I wish that every hon member who walks out here could deposit a secret note somewhere indicating when he would like to go home.

We wanted to be home already.

I am merely asking for co-operation. Hon members must not come along with stories about bulldozing. Hon members want four hours available to discuss the remaining stages of the Paarl Mountain Amendment Bill. Is that a bulldozing Bill? It is not a question of bulldozing. We began on the Paarl Mountain legislation as far back as 1968, but hon members want to go on waffling and waffling about Paarl mountain—for how many years to come?

We are not prepared to give the land away to our friends. [Interjections.]

We are simply wasting more time. Tomorrow I am going to prevail upon the Whips.

†The hon member for Umhlanga asked a very reasonable question. He wanted to know when we would adjourn. Everybody is asking that question. The hon member for Hillbrow said it would be Friday morning.

*There are hon members who have booked truck space to have their motor vehicles loaded. There are people who have made arrangements, and not only people on my side of the House, but people on both sides. I want to accommodate everyone. Since we shall be sitting tomorrow evening, I am going to ask the Whips tomorrow whether we cannot sit on Thursday evening until we have finished, even if the sun comes up on Friday morning when we are still sitting. Tomorrow I am going to obtain that co-operation from the Whips because we cannot go on like this.

And where do we get seats on the aircraft to get home earlier?

Let me tell the hon member for Umhlanga that if we get the necessary co-operation the session will come to an end by midnight on Thursday or, if not, by about 02h00 on Friday.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, when we come to a consideration of this motion, one inevitably looks back at the time, already spent in debating the issue which was referred to the select committee. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I want to pay a special tribute to the chairman of the select committee, the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, for the warm, friendly and efficent way in which he has guided the proceedings. I know it has become almost trite, but those of us who served on the select committee for many months had to attend many early morning meetings, and we are especially appreciative of the leadership and the good humour with which those proceedings were conducted by the hon the Deputy Minister. For that I want to thank him.

I believe that all of us on the select committee were aware that we were much confined to the terms of reference. They were difficult and binding. Despite that, the select committee listened with interest and read with interest the widespread evidence which was presented to it. There was a mountain of evidence and many delegations and individuals appeared before us, which is evidence of the widespread interest and personal concern relating to these two measures. Unfortunately there are no minutes available yet, which is an indication of the strain under which the parliamentary officials are working right now. If those minutes were available, it would be seen that the official Opposition moved an amendment, and I want to read it because it is very brief. Following on the report, which stated that the overwhelming evidence was in favour of repeal, we sought to add the following words:

That was put to the vote and we lost that vote. Then we proceeded to deliberate on other alternative proposals. Finally a report was Tabled and was agreed to by Government members, the NRP and by ourselves, with the CP voting against it. In other words, a large degree of consensus was achieved. I think that shows a considerable advance on where we were when we first started because we had many different views and opinions. I want to say that most of the evidence before that select committee was of such a nature that it provoked very careful thought and consideration by many on that committee.

We as a party welcomed the report. We believed that it was in the interests of all the people of South Africa, and that if the Government accepted it, it would extend the terms of reference and give the same select committee the opportunity to continue its work with an enlarged mandate, I read the recommendation:

There is no question here of repeal or retention. On the balance of the evidence before the select committee the majority of the committee, the three parties which I have already mentioned, was of the opinion that the terms of reference should be widened in order that the committee might also seriously consider repealing these two measures.

I had already written out a very brief speech when at lunch time today I was handed the amendment moved by the hon the Minister to the effect that the report be adopted but subject to the addition of the words “with the view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of communities”. I want to say right away that I was distressed to receive that so late in the day. I know that we are struggling; that the time is precious and that all of us are very busy, but these two measures are very important, as witnessed by the widespread written and verbal evidence before the committee. There were evidence from major churches throughout the country, the medical profession, the legal profession, other academics, ordinary people and political parties, including the Labour Party. There was widespread interest in and concern over these measures. The majority was in favour of the repeal of these measures. We could not do that because of our terms of reference. We therefore went back to the Government to ask for another mandate, for a wider terms of reference, so that we could follow logically the evidence before us. Now, at this eleventh hour, we have the amendment of the hon the Minister to add the words “with the view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of the communities”. Not only was I distressed at the lateness of this, but I am appalled at this addition. [Interjections.] I express my party’s profound disappointment that we have been given this sting in the tail. I can only describe it against the background of a deliberate attempt to seek consensus and even compromise in the select committee so that we could do what was best. To get this kind of response from the Cabinet means only one thing. It means that they are putting the select committee into a straitjacket. In the same way that the original terms of reference limited the work that we could do and the recommendations that we could make, so this additional paragraph again considerably limits the work of the select committee. It is nothing else than a contradiction in terms. On the one hand we say let us consider the repeal while on the other hand we come with the hardy annual of apartheid ideology, which is reflected in the words themselves and in the way they were selected. I would love to have been in that Cabinet meeting. I should like to know who on earth thought this up. Was it the hon the Minister, ably assisted by the Minister of National Education? Where is the vision in that Cabinet? When are they going to realize that the majority of people in South Africa regard these Acts with contempt and distaste?

Potgietersrus!

No, Potgietersrus is behind us. It is what is ahead of us that I am concerned about. I am amazed that this hon Minister should give this kind of sop to the CP. It is not going to help him. The CP will probably not even support this; they want it even tougher. The fact of the matter is that to those of us who want to move; to those of us who agree with the hon Minister that reform has begun in South Africa, this is a total slap in the face. [Interjections.] Just what does it say to the Coloured community? What does it say to those who are being urged to vote in the election in August? How on earth are they going to explain this? They will have to wriggle around as the leaders of those communities are wriggling around already, all because of this hon Minister.

You are over-reacting.

Oh no! Mr Speaker, I wish I could use the words that I really have in my heart and mind concerning this action. Then you would know what real reaction is. But I have to choose my words as they have to be parliamentary out of respect for the Chair, and I will observe that rule.

This hon Minister and the Cabinet—I assume it was a full Cabinet decision—leave me no alternative but to move as an amendment:

The consequences of this would simply be that the sting in the tail which is now being introduced by the hon the Minister, is removed. What I am saying is that I have confidence in the select committee. I have confidence in the hon the Minister’s Deputy Minister and in his NP colleagues on that select committee, even if the hon the Minister does not. I say that this is a vote of no confidence in the select committee and therefore also in his own colleagues.

Mr Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks to all the members who served on the select committee. They devoted many hours to carrying out their terms of reference, and each of them made an exceptionally responsible contribution. It has been a long time since there has been a select committee that has tackled its work with so unstinting an effort and with so much dedication than specifically this one, and I also want to thank the hon member for Pinelands for the words he addressed to me. It was easy being chairman of this committee, because such a very positive attitude prevailed. I also want to say thank you very much to all the people throughout the Republic who made written submissions to the committee. There were 79 such submissions, and 25 persons and bodies were asked, by the committee, to come and give oral evidence. With one exception, everyone’s conduct showed a great sense of responsibility. They all made meaningful contributions and were imbued with a serious desire to find a solution and to help us to carry out our terms of reference.

The hon member for Pinelands grew a little excited, and I want to agree with the hon the Minister that he has over-reacted to a certain extent, perhaps he did not have enough time to fully study the wording. What we actually asked the Government to do was to broaden our terms of reference, whilst still taking the related laws into consideration. The Government now having determined that the educational, political and social ordering of society should be taken into consideration, let me say that is specifically what is implicitly embodied in these laws. We do, after all, have an ordered society in South Africa, and that is the society in which we must judge these related laws. It is against the backdrop of this society that we should view the relevant laws and then decide whether they can be repealed, as recommended by the select committee.

On this occasion I want to refer back to the words that the hon the Prime Minister expressed in the House on 21 April 1983 when he dealt with this matter with great sense of seriousness and responsibility. On that occasion he said the following (Hansard, col 5279):

We did so.

I quote further:

The hon member for Pinelands has just said, by way of an interjection, “we did so”, and I want to agree with him wholeheartedly that we addressed our terms of reference on a non-party-political basis, and with a great sense of responsibility, and that that was the spirit in which we carried out our task. The hon the Prime Minister said he was prepared to offer the various church denominations and other people an opportunity to give evidence. On this basis all the important denominations in South Africa appeared before the select committee and gave evidence. Sociologists and others likewise appeared before the select committee. I want to place the emphasis, however, on the last sentence of the quotation, ie: “The Government will then consider the report of that select committee on its merits.” We have played our part, the report has been submitted to the Government and the Government has now added this rider. In other words, what the hon the Prime Minister said on 21 April last year has been done by the Government. Surely the Government does have the right to do so. The Government has the right to examine a report and then take certain steps. Surely that was the condition of our participation in the proceedings of the select committee.

Having said that we did our work in a very pleasant atmosphere and with a positive attitude prevailing, I also want to remind hon members of the warning given by the hon the Prime Minister on that occasion. We find it in column 5278 of Hansard of 21 April 1983, and it reads as follows:

About this extremely sensitive matter, this delicate matter, such an emotionally-charged matter, I want to make an appeal this afternoon to the members serving on the select committee, hon members taking part in the debate and all other hon members, because it is so easy to use this issue to score political points or to gain some political advantage. This afternoon I want to make this request: Let us leave it at that; let us accept the fact that we are dealing here with an extremely difficult matter, a matter which, as I have already said, is charged with emotion. Here we sit as parents. We realize that if one of our children wants to get married, it is no easy matter. We are interested in our children’s marriage partners. The old people have a saying: “Marry in haste and repent at leisure.” That is true indeed. Because the whole question of marriage, modern-day marriage with its many problems, is so charged with emotion, I want to make this request: Let us handle this matter very carefully.

This committee’s terms of reference were, amongst other things:

We have now reported on the deliberations of this committee and I think can rightly say that we set about our task in an absolutely clinical manner. A great deal of valuable evidence, both written and oral, was received by the committee. The majority of the recognized church organizations presented evidence, and experts in the fields of, for example, theology, dogmatics, ethics, philosophy, sociology, history, jurisprudence and genetics made contributions of fundamental importance. Equally valuable evidence was furnished by community leaders, organizations of various population groups and ordinary members of the public. All this evidence, which will be tabled in Parliament shortly, gave the committee an opportunity to launch an in-depth and scientific investigation on a non-party-political basis.

Although evidence was furnished in favour of both the repeal and the retention of the two relevant measures, the proponderance of the evidence points to the desirability of repeal because, as was very clearly apparent, these two measures could not be justified on scriptual or other grounds. Let me say immediately that there was evidence that also wanted to establish a scriptural basis for these two measures. It was clear to the committee, however, that the two measures were not amenable to any amendment with a view to bringing about an improvement. That is why, in all honesty …

Why did you people banish Huddleston and Scott from the country?

Let me point out to the hon member for Langlaagte that marriage is the point at issue here.

In all honesty we reported to the Government that we could not amend these two measures. There were about three people who came forward with proposals for amending and improving the measures, but we could not accept those proposals. It is true that at the very outset we could have argued that any evidence presented to the committee would, under the circumstances, have been irrelevant. We decided, however, to examine all the documents submitted, to hear evidence from the various people and bodies and then pass judgment, to reach a conclusion. Our subsequent finding was that we could not amend these two measures, could not improve them. We came to the conclusion that it was indeed a question of retaining or repealing the measures. So surely we do not have to argue now about their retention. It is surely unnecessary to ask for a committee to be appointed to determine whether the two measures should be retained. After all, they are already on the Statute Book.

Because the majority of the witnesses, however, asked us to attempt to determine whether the laws concerned should not be repealed, we felt free to approach the Government with the request that our terms of reference be extended so as to investigate that question. We asked the Government to so broaden our terms of reference that we could also investigate the related laws with a view to determining whether amendments should be introduced. We also asked for our terms of reference to be extended in such a way that we could determine whether these laws should be repealed, without any concomitant disruption to South African society. Surely that is what it is all about? We cannot, after all, simply repeal laws, draw a line through them, without paying any attention to the ordering of South African society. If we were to do so, we would surely be creating chaos, and in the long run we would all pick the bitter fruits of such a step. That is why we approached the Government in a responsible manner, asking that we be given an opportunity, by way of an extension to our terms of reference, for a further investigation.

The Government considered our request and granted approval for us to institute a further investigation. This single tiny sentence was added, as a result of which the hon member for Pinelands felt called upon to move an amendment. What the Government wants to add here does, after all, relate to the ordering of South African society; the maintenance of order in our South African society. I also want to point out that in the light of the evidence furnished, the majority of the members of the committee came to the conclusion that it was in the general interest for a proper investigation to be carried out into the desirability or otherwise of the repeal of the relevant measures. No one can, of course, now go and announce publicly that the Government will indeed be repealing these measures. Nowhere is there any statement to that effect. Nor can anyone find any such statement here. We are merely asking for an opportunity to investigate this matter.

Such an investigation will inevitably also have to include an investigation into other related legislation. Consequently, in its report to Parliament, the committee also recommended that its terms of reference be extended with a view to including such an investigation. In my capacity as chairman of the committee I can say this afternoon, with conviction, that in looking ahead—that is correct; we are looking ahead, and not backwards—we want to further extend and improve South Africa’s image. That is, after all, the endeavour of everyone who has the interests of South Africa at heart. We want to take note of those areas in which people’s human dignity and sense of personal honour are encroached upon. And it is no more than right for us to take note of this. Giving us the right to investigate this is also the correct thing for the Government to do. And it is only fitting and proper for the Government to tell us that we can investigate this, but that we should keep South African society in mind. I therefore want to invite hon members to work together as we have thus far worked together. There are people who want to make politics out of this. Let them do so if they want to. I believe, however, that the general public, the South African public, appreciates what is being done, understands what is being done and supports us in our efforts to complete a great and important task.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the opening words of the hon member for Pinelands. We, too, appreciate the way in which the chairman of the select committee, the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, dealt with the proceedings of the committee. I believe that he endeavoured at all times to obtain the maximum co-operation and goodwill from all hon members of that committee.

I also wish to remind hon members that when this matter was raised for the first time, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs called hon members of the various parties together at an informal level. On that occasion he gave an indication of what was envisaged. He intimated on that occasion that it is was not the intention to ramper with the main objectives and principles of the laws in question in any way, but rather to ascertain whether it was necessary, desirable or possible to amend them with a view to improving them. According we stated right at the outset that we stood for the retention of these laws, but that we were prepared to co-operate to ascertain whether it was possible to improve them, while retaining, of course, the basic principles and purport of the Acts in question. I believe that I can confidently say that we co-operated in that spirit and listened to the evidence submitted to the select committee. We do not agree with paragraphs 2(d) and 3 of the report. Paragraph 2(d) reads as follows:

Paragraph 3 arises out of that finding. When we discuss the preponderance of the evidence submitted to the committee, one can say that quantitatively that is true. However, we think that the concept “preponderance” cannot only refer to quantitative calculations. If one speaks of the preponderance of evidence one must also make an evaluation of that evidence before one is able to say that the preponderance of the evidence points in a certain direction. Even if it is true that various churches and other bodies, quantitatively speaking, have requested repeal, it is also true that some very important witnesses among the Afrikaans churches have advocated the retention of the two laws. I say this with reference to the issue of the preponderance of evidence.

I also have fault to find with the further wording in this regard, viz the words:

That is true.

The hon member for Pinelands says it is true but that is a debatable point. I also wish to say to the hon member that this point was not debated in the committee.

Yes it was.

It was not debated.

Yes it was.

The preponderance of the evidence before the commission was not, therefore, determined. The matter was not debated by the Select Committee. Therefore we shall have to go back to the evidence itself to indicate that the same people who advocated the repeal of these two laws had visible and obvious problems with regard to specific points when questioned at the theological level. Of course this also happened on the other side, too, with regard to those witnesses who advocated the retention of these laws.

Moreover it is not stated here, but the implication is that those who advocated retention did not do so on scriptural grounds. In my humble opinion it would be wrong to draw such an inference with regard to what I could almost call the simplistic way in which this sentence has been formulated. After saying that the preponderance of the evidence points to the desirability of the repeal of the measures because they cannot be justified on Scriptural or other grounds, the impression is created by the majority of the committee—my colleague the hon member Mr Theunissen and I voted against this—that the committee had evaluated the evidence before it. It determines what the preponderance of that evidence is and then, against the background, it states:

However we said that we were by no means so eager to have the repeal of these Acts considered, and therefore we were not in favour of the wording which appeared in paragraph 2(d) of the recommendation of the committee.

I do not really think it is necessary for me to argue the matter further except to say that we were satisfied with the assurance given, viz that there should be no tampering with the principle and the main purport of the legislation. Since the committee recommends that against the background of the preponderance of the evidence, the repeal of the measures be considered, I just wish to point out that in paragraph 2(b) the committee’s report reads as follows:

Therefore, when the committee states that it wants to consider such a repeal it seems to me as if the committee wishes to say that it wishes to repeal, or consider the repeal of, the objective of the measures as expounded in paragraph 2(b). We are not satisfied with the purport of this.

We have pointed out that we do not find this wording satisfactory that it is not acceptable to us. In the wording of paragraph 2(d) of the report it is intimated that this has been considered and evaluated, and against the background of that evaluation the committee would like to consider such repeals. We are not in favour of that; we shall not vote for that.

Then, too, I should like to ask this question: If the committee is granted this extension of its terms of reference, when, in the first place, do they want to do the work? Surely not in August. Secondly: To which Parliament must the finding, on the basis of these extended terms of reference, be submitted? The only Parliament to which it can be submitted is the tricameral Parliament in terms of the new dispensation.

For which there was a majority of two thirds.

That hon member can keep his majority of two-thirds for the time being; he should first ask himself how much of the support of the Afrikaner people he in fact had behind him. Since the hon member is chipping in now I want to say to him that he should keep his ear to the ground; if he does so, he will find out how many people are perceiving the implications of the yes vote they cast on 2 November 1983. Since he is so vociferous now he should just go and look at a few election results. However, that is not the point of my argument.

The point of the argument is that we now wish to give a select committee of this Parliament terms of reference in regard to which it will only be able to report to another Parliament. To me this seems meaningless. The further implication of this is of course very clear. One then comes forward with the report of a committee of this House of Assembly, but to whom is it submitted? To the House of Assembly in the new dispensation, one of the three Houses of Parliament; but, of course, that House cannot dispose of the matter. It is obvious that the terms of reference will be further extended so that they become terms of reference of a joint select committee of the three Houses of the new Parliament. One could just as well wait until the new Parliament is in operation so that the proposal could come before that Parliament; that would be better than for us at this point to give meaningless terms of reference to a committee whose work had been finalized and which cannot report back to this Parliament.

Sir, we oppose this.

Mr Speaker, it is true that these two laws arouse so much emotion in various quarters that it is difficult to conduct a balanced discussion about this. It is also true that one has the dilemma that these emotions are experienced by different people in different ways, and this could be seen again in this House today.

The hon member for Pinelands contended that they took part in the select committee conditionally and that they were satisfied with the original terms of reference of the committee. Those terms of reference included the words “without prejudicing the fundamental objectives with which they were enacted and the principles contained in other existing laws which may be directly or indirectly connected with the said Act, and the said section 16.”

I have a problem with the hon member’s amendment and the fact that he now no longer wishes to co-operate merely because the Cabinet also requires that order be established and merely because there is a motion “with a view to the community”. Surely that is the responsibility of the Government, and even if the terms of reference of the committee had been extended right from the outset so as not to indicate only the desirability of change, the committee would still, in coming to its decision, have considered the ongoing ordering of the community. Therefore I have a problem with the fact that the hon member for Pinelands no longer wishes to co-operate whereas the terms of reference of the committee are being extended, but are still in accordance with the committee’s original terms of reference.

†The extended terms of reference do not differ from the original terms of reference.

Why do you have to do it then?

The hon member was prepared to co-operate under the original terms of reference; I cannot understand why he is not prepared to co-operate in regard to the motion before the House.

*As the hon the Deputy Minister said, many bodies submitted evidence before the select committee, and those bodies were cross-examined. When the report and evidence of the committee’s investigation are available all hon members will have an opportunity to evaluate it. The objection of the hon member for Waterberg is that thus far the evidence has not yet been evaluated. But how does one listen to a person’s evidence, how does one cross-examine him and how does one peruse the sources he quotes without evaluating his evidence? The hon member had many witnesses before him to whom he put no questions. Now he wants to evaluate the evidence of those witnesses subsequently, without having cross-examined them. The concept of “preponderance” is a legal terms and refers to both the quantity and quality of evidence. After all the evidence has been evaluated I have no doubt that the conclusion one will reach will be the same as that of the select committee.

We are dealing here with an emotional matter and as such it is experienced differently by different people. Perhaps we may find in this an explanation of the fact that the hon member for Waterberg, too, interprets the evidence differently.

Another objection advanced by the hon member concerned the general terms of reference to the select committee. But since those terms of reference could not be carried out, the select committee is now requesting that they be extended. I cannot understand why the hon member for Waterberg should have a problem with that as well. Another objection advanced by the hon member, as I understand him, is that other groups who are also affected by this Act may also obtain a right to decide in this regard. But surely that is so obvious that I need not go into it further…

Mr Speaker, it gives me pleasure to support this motion. In addition I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for the able way in which he led the select committee.

Mr Speaker, I join with other hon members in congratulating the hon the Deputy Minister on the way in which he has guided the select committee. He handled the committee well. It was an honour to participate in the proceedings of the committee and to have heard evidence from many churches and other bodies outside Parliament. They put forward well founded and well-motivated and extremely interesting points of view on this subject. The select committee had a limitation put upon it at its commencement, as was announced by the hon the Prime Minister in the House, and the fact that it has come as far as this is therefore noteworthy. I believe the hon the Prime Minister made an extremely clever political move in attaching certain conditions and limitations to the terms of reference of the select committee. His words were to the effect that this should be taken out of the political arena. With a view on the debate on the proposed new Constitution that was a clever political move.

I believe that when the committee was constituted the leaders of all parties and the various Ministers involved discussed the purpose for which the committee was appointed. The groundwork was therefore laid with as little emotional input as possible and with as much clear thinking as possible. I believe that this committee from within its narrow terms of reference produced a report which constitutes a step forward.

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs had proposed an amendment to the report of the select committee. We in these benches are very sorry about that, because it is somewhat senseless and ridiculous to add this amendment as a tail to the report. The hon the Minister suggested that the hon member for Pinelands was overreacting, but I would say that the boot is on the other foot and that he, or whoever drew up this amendment, was overreacting to a report which simply requests the broadening of its reference to enable it to inquire into the desirability of repealing the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act as well as inquiring and reporting upon the desirability of repealing or amending other related legislation. Such terms of reference in themselves would constitute purely another inquiry. I do not believe it is correct to move an amendment such as the hon the Minister has moved. I believe, as a salted legal man he realizes this amendment is somewhat meaningless. So I believe if there has been overreaction it has been by the National Party and by the Conservative Party. I hope the hon the Minister will explain to us why he intends adding these words. If there is no reason for it, why add this tail as it really does not alter anything? The report as such is very clear.

At the same time we in these benches believe that the official Opposition is overreacting to the situation in a fundamental way because what is added by the hon the Minister does not limit the select committee. They think it does and that it reflects shades of National Party ideology. But in reality there is no way in which progress can be made except by having a further investigation. Our intention was—within limited terms of reference—to grasp every straw which came our way. This was also the intention of the official Opposition. We suggest that that was the correct way of going about it, and is the same in this case and to accept…

The amendment which I have moved asks for the acceptance of the report of the committee on which you and I worked. If you believe that the hon the Minister’s amendment is unnecessary, you should vote for my amendment.

The point is the PFP wants to reject the entire report.

No, just the addition of the extra words.

When it comes to the vote, that party will reject the entire report. [Interjections.] The proposal which will be carried today will be to vote for a select committee to continue investigating the matter.

No. That will have to be put separately.

No. The hon member for Pinelands’ amendment will not be carried and the PFP will therefore vote against the select committee investigating the question of the desirability of repealing these two measures.

No.

Yes, the PFP will. [Interjections.] If it is not going to do it, why then move an amendment?

Because we do not like the addition of those words by the hon the Minister.

The fact of the matter is that we are in favour of this going ahead. It is far more important to us to see that we enter into debate in the select committee and make progress, albeit little, in the best interests of repealing this legislation, which has been eloquently stated—here I disagree with the hon member for Waterberg—by the preponderance of evidence. It is important to note that not even representatives of the various churches who gave evidence for the retention of these measures could justify them on Scriptural grounds. [Interjections.] We in these benches will support the report to ensure that the select committee continues with its work.

Mr Speaker, I was just as amazed as the hon member for Pinelands, if not more so, to see what kind of amendment the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs moved to the report of the select committee. To people who have no experience of the Government s tendency to egg-dance, these words would probably make no sense at all. If anyone who was not intimately involved in politics were to read these words and try to compare them with the report that has been Tabled, he would probably wonder what semantic verbosity the Government was manifesting here now and what it envisaged thereby. Only those who are more involved in politics, and therefore are better acquainted with politics, will know that this amendment merely represents a new description, for the umpteenth time, of apartheid. One can only wonder, as the hon member for Pinelands also did, what process of manipulation, pulling of strings and compromise led to our having to add these pathetic few words to the end of a really sound report.

The terms of reference; not the report.

I say they are a pathetic few words.

The terms of reference are being extended, not the report.

Yes, the terms of reference are being amended. The hon member can put it as he likes. The original terms of reference given to the select committee were already limited, as the hon member for Waterberg indicated. It is probably for the Government’s own reasons that they were limited. I want to remind the members of the select committee, and inform the rest of the House, that the committee has already experienced problems with the interpretation of those terms of reference to a certain extent. Words like “without prejudicing the fundamental objectives with which the laws were enacted” and “without prejudicing the principles contained in other existing laws which may be directly or indirectly connected with these Acts”, are not so easy to interpret. Nor was there any clarity in the committee as to precisely what this meant. These are words that can be interpreted in different ways, and if the committee had to decide that it was necessary to give them a specific interpretation, I can give hon members the assurance that we would have deliberated on the matter far longer than was indeed the case. Fortunately, in its wisdom the committee decided rather to shy away from doing that and preferred to concentrate on the crux of the matter. As a result the committee functioned very successfully and was able to issue a report which to a large extent enjoyed the support of the members.

Now the Government, or the Cabinet, or whoever it might be, comes along and creates further confusion by adding these meaningless words to the terms of reference of this committee. I should like the hon the Minister, or perhaps one of his members, to tell us what exactly they mean by the words: “With a view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of communities”. Therefore the committee has to consider the possibility of the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act with a view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of communities. That is really a mouthful! What the hon the Minister is trying to say thereby, goodness alone knows. We know, of course, what is going on in his mind, but if he expects of the committee or any intelligent person to attach meaning to these words, they will spend days on that. I really do not know why it is necessary to add this clause to the terms of reference of the committee. Clearly it is once again one of those weak compromises reached between people who differ fundamentally with one another on an important matter. How do they wish to order communities further by abolishing these laws? We are in favour of the laws being abolished, but surely that is not a method of ordering communities further. How can one interpret it in that way? To what extent can one bluff oneself?

†The hon the Minister and the Government should really stop bluffing the public in this way. If they do not know where they are going, they should really make room for someone who does. How long must South Africa put with this jellyfish behaviour, this spineless way of using vague words that one can interpret and manipulate depending on the audience that one is trying to please? The obvious purpose of adding these words is to make it more acceptable in a place such as Potgietersrus, because I am sure that the report itself will go down in a place like Cape Town. But the Government wants it to go down in a place like Potgietersrus. I want to warn the Government that they will eventually only earn contempt for themselves in both Cape Town and Potgietersrus, and anywhere else for that matter. They will only earn contempt for themselves by their inability to say what their intentions are. Why do they not have the guts to do so? Why do they not make it clear that they in fact want to retain apartheid? Or why do they not make it clear that they want to move boldly in the direction of reform? [Interjections.] If they want to fulfil their commitments to apartheid, they must come forward and put their intentions beyond doubt so that the people in this country can know where they stand. If, however, they want to reform, they must stop beating about the bush. They must stop bluffing the public and they must refrain from hiding elaborate semantics out of sheer political cowardice.

I personally have found service on this particular select committee a magnificent experience. I believe that every member of that committee was privileged to hear some of the most respected leaders of churches and other institutions in this country putting across their point of view with great sincerity and conviction, and as clear as a bell. In contrast the NP Government of the Republic of South Africa has to use this pathetic and almost meaningless verbiage to hide their indecisiveness. The Minister and the Government should be ashamed of themselves, because this ridiculous attempt to hide their indecisiveness has in fact lowered the very standard of the deliberation on this question and I believe they have done an injustice to the select committee and particularly, and this is important, they have done an injustice to those witnesses, the real heavy-weights of our community, people who have taken time and have gone to a lot of trouble to come and give us of their wisdom and to put their point of view as clearly as they have done. I have no choice but to support an unadulterated version of the select committee’s report. I like the report of the select commit tee as it is. We have already made certain concessions from our point of view, but we feel this represents a bold step in the right direction for South Africa. I cannot go along with adding rubbish and virtually meaningless rubbish to the very clear report of the select committee and consequently I support the amendment of the hon member for Pinelands.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon the Deputy Minister when he was stating his standpoint, and also to the hon member for Nelspruit when he was speaking. I want to say to the hon the Minister—and I include his colleague—that they were not really speaking about the recommendations made by the select committee. The hon the Deputy Minister cast no light on the logic of his standpoint or on why he had adopted that specific standpoint. Even in his effort to motivate it he gave us no insight as to how he felt about the evidence submitted before the select committee. He was equally vague about what, in his opinion, should be done in future. It has been argued here that the preponderance of evidence before the select committee indicates the desirability of the repeal of the two measures. That is a very dubious statement. I have conducted discussions with my colleagues who were members of the select committee. The hon the Deputy Minister and I are both theologians and he will know that as such, and as members of the old NP, we had to justify the old Act Scripturally and in principle. We often had to do so. I think that, like me, the hon the Deputy Minister had to justify it abroad, to foreign visitors and to the Opposition. I want to ask him whether he has ever read the debates on these Acts that took place at the time. The Government now wants to go to the voters and say that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the Acts must be abolished.

That is not true.

One must state the truth correctly. I still want to know from that hon member—the hon member for Mossel Bay—whether a Coloured can become a member of the Rapportryers. [Interjections.]

Let us say that there is a select committee and 1 000 people come and give evidence, 95% of whom state a specific standpoint. Let us assume further that that standpoint is not well-founded and is not scientifically correct. Let us say that the other 5% is, in fact, scientifically correct. In such a case one ultimately allows oneself to be guided by that specific 5%. However, the Government wants to tell the public at large that the majority of people say “Abolish this’. Many members of our small people, because they are dyed-in-the-wool Nationalists—they are changing now—have been saying recently: “No, the Select Committee of Parliament found on the basis of all the evidence they heard, that the majority said that they should simply be abolished”. The Government wants to get away with that.

I want to say that one can get away with that kind of argument for a time, but eventually it catches up with one and means nothing to one. Therefore I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that to come here and hide behind the fact that the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that this should be abolished, and then to jump in behind that and say that we now have to go further, is typical of the methods of the NP for the past few years: If one has no answer to something or if one wants something changed, one appoints a select committee or a commission of inquiry and gradually prepares the people for it and conditions them. We know that game.

Sly reform.

Yes, it is sly reform. We know that kind of game. However, it no longer works. I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that he lives in our country, only too far south. If he would only move a little to the north he would realize that that does not work any longer. He might as well ask the hon the Minister about that. It no longer works, or else it is going to work less and less. That knowledge is flowing from the north and it will reach Oudtshoorn.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister who comprised that vast majority of witnesses. Were the majority of them not recognized members or supporters of the PFP? [Interjections.] Then one asks oneself what the content was. The hon the Deputy Minister states that the preponderance of people want it. However, what was the content? Today I want to ask the hon the Minister in a friendly way what the standpoint of the Government is. What is the standpoint of the present National Party on this legislation? That is the question. What is their standpoint? I remember that over the decades the NP was able to stand up here and say: “That is the principle and those are the projections that are made in this specific regard.” I now wish to ask the hon the Minister what the policy of the new NP is. We need not wait for a select committee. What is the hon the Minister’s standpoint?

I want to say to the hon the Minister that there are members of his party who want to retain these measures. He is compromised. After all, I know that last year, at the time of the referendum and when the hon the Prime Minister appointed the select committee, it was said that that lot of CPs were gossiping again that the Government wanted to abolish the Immorality Act.

Your leader said it.

I, too, say that the Government is going to abolish it.

What is the standpoint of your church? [Interjections.]

I know what the standpoint of my church is and I know what my standpoint is, and I also know what my party’s standpoint is, but what is that hon member’s standpoint?

I do not talk to you.

Why do you ask me a question? I know that the hon member cannot talk to me. I know that that hon member is supposedly one of the conservative members, but we know how he is shivering in his boots. He cannot talk with the hon member for Innesdal. After all, the hon member for Innesdal wants these laws abolished. Surely that is true. The hon member for Innesdal says that he does not need them, that his people do not need them. [Interjections .] I do not want to refer to Wynand; he and I are pals.

I want to say that there is another group of conservatives in the NP who want to retain these measures, and there are also those who want them abolished. That is the tension that prevails. I want to say to the hon member for Virginia that he has already lost. He has been losing for the past few years with regard to everything he believes in. He was a member of the select committee and in that regard, too, he is going to lose. Just as he forfeits that, he will go and rationalize it again in Virginia and in the Free State.

Sir, who is going to carry out this further investigation? Which committee is going to do so, and where will it submit its report?

As far as the fourth point is concerned—viz paragraph 2(d) of the report—I have a few points that I want to make briefly. In that paragraph it is stated that in view of the fact that the preponderance of the evidence before the committee pointed to the desirability of the repeal of the two measures, the committee wished to consider such repeal in conjunction with other related legislation. I now wish to make a statement, and the hon the Minister must indicate to me whether I am correct or not. It seems to me as if those who really hold sway in the NP, the people who really draw up the plans and who know in what direction they want to move, do not wish to retain these two measures. The hon the Minister is being used to prepare people gradually for the eventual repeal of these measures. As the hon member for Waterberg has already indicated, we are now entering a new dispensation in which consensus will be the watchword. After all, the keyword of the new dispensation is consensus. Now, I want to know from the hon the Minister how he is going to reach consensus with regard to the principles of these specific laws without repealing them. The principles embodied in these two laws are such that the measures can only be retained or repealed. There is no other way.

The hon the Deputy Minister goes on to say that the committee also wishes to investigate other related legislation. If the principles embodied in these two laws are infringed upon, then the principles of innumerable other laws will necessarily also be affected in the process; all legislation controlling the so-called social order of South African society. Therefore all the laws passed by the NP since 1948 will be at issue. I should like to put it to the hon the Minister that there is not a single Act passed by the NP since 1948 the principles of which are still sacred to the NP. In this regard I urge hon members merely to go and read what Fanie Olivier wrote in Rapport last Sunday about the national anthem. There is nothing left that is not being questioned. The left wing of the NP questions every principle on which the NP is based; every single principle. Therefore I want to know what new committee is now to carry out this investigation. I also want to know how the investigation into the relevant Acts will be dealt with in principle.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to the poor hon Minister himself. After all, on an earlier occasion he said to the hon member for Brakpan that he would prefer anyone else’s condemnations to his praise, or something along those lines. I know that the hon the Minister feels the same about me. I have experience of the hon the Minister, of course. He is a man who juggles with words. If it is parliamentary to say it, then I say he juggles with words. [Interjections.] He is a political word-juggler. In fact, I know about things that he wrote in 1977 which at the time were regarded as firm and unassailable, but which he subsequently started juggling with. I do, of course, wish to agree with the statement of the hon member for Green Point concerning the words that the hon the Deputy Minister added to the end of paragraph 3 of the report. I want to put it to the hon member for Green Point that I am not so sure whether this insertion is really for the edification of the people of Potgietersrus. I think that it is rather meant for the people of Vereeniging. It is meant either for the people of Vereeniging or for the right wing of the NP.

Or for the people of Vander bijlpark.

Yes, perhaps it is also for the people of Vander bijlpark,

It is not meant for the people of Florida, of course.

No, it is certainly not for the people of Florida. Nor is it meant for the people of Randburg; nor for the people of Cape Town. [Interjections.] I must say that I am sorry for the hon the Minister. This is the first time that he and I have seen one another after the provincial by-elections in Transvaal. I believe that the hon the Minister is again juggling with words. Therefore I want to say that the hon member for Green Point is right in requiring an explanation of the meaning of these words. I have not consulted a dictionary in this regard. However, I should like to know what these words mean. I am now referring to the following words of the hon the Minister:

They have to abolish the laws without abolishing them. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is here using a number of facets of the pattern of life of the people. However, I want the hon the Minister, when he speaks later, to tell us what he means when he refers here to a continued social ordering. What does it mean when he uses the word “educational”? Is he perhaps referring to the De Lange Commission, which had to pave the way for an educational dispensation for the so-called new nation that the hon the Minister is working on so ceaselessly? What does he mean by that constitutional ordering that he wants created? After all, he has already established a constitutional order. The basis of this new constitutional ordering comprises the three population groups; White, Coloured and Indian. The hon the Minister also knows that in virtually all of his speeches to the people of South Africa he has said that the basis of this new Parliament is made up of the three ethnic communities of the Whites, the Coloureds and Indians. What further ordering does the hon the Minister want? What do these words mean? Four years ago there was some doubt in my heart as to the course being taken by the NP, but after 1982 the reason for that doubt was confirmed. [Interjections.] From the ’fifties there was doubt as to where the left wing was going, those people who fought Dr Verwoerd.

Tom Langley.

Not this Tom Langley.

He was left wing at the time, yes.

No, Adv Langley was right wing when that hon member was still in junior school.

That is not so.

When Adv Pikkewyn Botha was left wing at the University of Pretoria, he was a leader, it is true. He was not a “sing-song” leader. [Interjections.] He was a leader of the student community. He has been conservative since I have known him and I have known him for many years now. [Interjections.]

Are there not at least some men sitting on the other side who still have some of the old resistance of the old NP in their hearts? I want to say to the hon the Minister that the more I listen to him—and I listen to him a great deal—the more I see that he is gradually moving away from those fundamental principles of the NP. He may deny it now, but what will the position be after six months or a year? There sits the hon member for Innesdal. He wants these laws to be repealed. He must stand up and tell us that he does, in fact, want these laws to be repealed. [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein sustained such a beating in Rosettenville that he should rather remain silent. [Interjections.]

The NP is here tampering with the fundamental things affecting the ordering of the peoples in Southern Africa. For the sake of the so-called goodwill of the outside world, the hon the Minister is no longer prepared to stand by those things. Therefore, in the nature of the matter, the CP will be unable to support matters of this nature, and time will show that what we are saying today is the factual truth.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to speak to the hon member for Rissik ad hominem, as he is so fond of doing. I am sure he will permit me, however, to make two remarks. Firstly I want to pay him a compliment. I think he is one of the most consistent members of this House. All that has changed in his political career is the fact that whereas he was previously an unhappy HNP member whilst he was a member of the NP, he is now an unhappy HNP member. [Interjections.] He is also consistent at another level. He has always lagged behind, is increasingly lagging behind, but at least does go on lagging behind. He is consistent.

I shall be replying to many of the statements the hon member made and many of the questions he put when I reply to hon members in general. I do, however, just want to tell him and the hon member for Waterberg, who also referred to the Scriptural grounds, that I do not want to presume to analyse those Scriptural grounds. Nor do I want to become involved in a debate on the merits of this legislation today. There was a Select Committee, and the question before the House is whether another select committee should be appointed and, if so, what its terms of reference should be. The question before the House is not what exactly should be done with these Acts. When we speak of Scriptural grounds, we surely must tell each other that we are aware of the fact that within the context of the church there are widely divergent opinions about this matter. In every Afrikaans church there are conflicting and divergent views about this. At best or at worst, whatever way one wants to view this, if we speak about the Scriptual aspects, we must tell each other that as far as this is concerned theologians from the same church do not hold the same views. [Interjections.] Forget about the more politicized individuals. Some of the moderators and leading professors of the theology emphasize different aspects and have different approaches to this.

That was why the background against which the hon the Prime Minister said that we should see whether we could not develop an approach in terms of which we could view this peacefully and calmly, without any emotion, was linked to his concern at the fact that amongst themselves the churches could not obtain clarity about this. It was meant to say, let us as a Parliament give the churches—and also others who are willing, but more specifically the churches—the chance, in struggling with this question, to engage in mutual discussion and exchange views with us as representatives of the voters who sent us to this Parliament.

That was one of the arguments and, I believe, one of the reasons why leaders of the Opposition parties, despite the resolute standpoints of their parties nevertheless agreed to look at this question against the background of the limited terms of reference. That is why I do not want us to politicize the Scriptural doubts about this legislation in the debate now; I do not think we would be doing the country a favour or the church a favour if we did so.

Then let me just say that you should not make one-sided demands.

No, I am not making any demands. I am just saying that there are many standpoints, and we should give the churches a chance and should enter into discussions with them. I think we are called upon to enter into discussions with the churches, with all their various alignments, and with all the standpoints that exist in the churches in that context.

In regard to the question of a preponderance, let me just say that I did not serve on the select committee, but it seems to me it was a finding based on fact, a finding definitely arrived at, by way of argument, by the majority of the committee, and for that reason I do not want to elaborate on that.

The hon member asks what the NP’s standpoint is. A few years ago the chief leader of the NP put forward clear and unequivocal standpoints about this matter at the Cape congress. [Interjections.] He said firstly that he did not believe that such marriages were a sin. He therefore adopted as standpoint in that connection. Secondly he said that he was opposed to immorality, all forms of immorality and lasciviousness, and that that should be opposed in the strongest possible terms. I am glad that this is also part of the committee’s findings in paragraph 2(a) of its report. Thirdly he said that certain facets of the social problems of South Africa give rise to the fact that these acts had been placed on the Statute Book and that they could not simply be ablished holus bolus. One should rather look at how they could be improved so as not to have a disruptive effect, but to try to remove what is nevertheless a thorn in the flesh of many other people. These happen to be my words, but that was the NP’s standpoint, and it is still the NP’s standpoint.

The hon member for Waterberg quoted from paragraph 2(b) of the report. If I have understood his argument correctly, he is saying that because it is stated in paragraph 2(b) that the object is to prevent racial mixing, this means that if one were to repeal the law, one would be in favour of racial mixing. With all due respect, that is a specious argument. Let me ask the hon member whether he is opposed to adultery. I am sure he would say he is. There is not, however, an Act on the Statute Book prohibiting adultery. Everything one is opposed to need not be embodied in a law. [Interjections.] The key words in paragraph 2(b) are, if that is one’s standpoint, whether one wants to combat this by means of statutory prohibitions. That is why it is a specious argument to say that if one does not embody something in a law, one is in favour of it. There are quire a few matters which are not regulated by any laws and about which we all have specific, firm views.

Let me now come to the hon member for Greenpoint, specifically in connection with one small point, before replying in more general terms. In his argument he said that in the committee there was no clarity about the question of the inclusion of the related laws. One of the reasons for this rider is specifically to make it clear what is meant by the related legislation. If the hon member reads this in conjunction with the report, he will understand what we mean by related laws.

Before reacting to the chief spokesman of the official Opposition and other speakers, I want to associate myself with hon members who thanked the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs for his chairmanship. All the reports I received—and this has been confirmed by hon members here—indicated that it was with distinction and with his characteristic friendliness and competence that he led the proceedings in the select committee. As Minister of the department I want to thank him for the guidance he furnished. I should also like to thank the other committee members for their co-operation in the committee. The committee had lengthy sittings and listened to a large amount of evidence. They certainly did some hard work.

The committee has now reported to the House that it wants to continue with their deliberations. Certain hon members have asked me why the committee should specifically do so now. The reason is because the committee has asked to do so. This request was made by the majority of the committee members, and I accept the fact that when their terms of reference have been extended, they may be of the opinion that they can even do some of the work in August. It is clear that their report will not only be furnished to this House of Assembly, as Parliament. By the time they report, the composition of Parliament may be different. In terms of the transitional measures it is also possible that when the new dispensation comes into effect and the work of the committee has not yet been completed, they could draw up an interim report that could be referred to a newly constituted joint committee in terms of the new Standing Rules and Orders, which we shall be discussing shortly. To make this sound like something very complex is merely to waste the time of the House.

†The hon member for Pinelands complained about the late notice he received of the amendment. In this regard I want to offer my apologies and I want assure him that it was not done deliberately. However I do not apologize for the amendment as such. The hon member calls it the sting in the tail of this motion, but he forgets the background of the appointment of the select committee, to which reference has already been made.

*I now come to the background of this committee. The PFP wants to abolish not only these two Acts, but also all other laws that grant any measure of group protection. The PFP wants mixed residential areas and open schools and have everything repealed that draws any distinctions or differentiates on a group basis.

We want to repeal discriminating legislation.

I shall be referring to the question of discrimination at a later stage.

In negotiations the hon the Leader of the Opposition said—I emphasized this when the select committee was announced—subject to the proviso that they continue to adhere to the principles inherent in their standpoint, that although he did not agree with the limitation being imposed, he was prepared to co-operate and to see whether, within the context of that limitation, he could co-operate constructively without relinquishing any principles. The hon members for Waterberg and Durban Point adhere to exactly the same standpoint. On that basis we obtained co-operation, with the proviso that everyone’s principles would remain intact, the object being to see whether, regardless of the proviso, one could nevertheless still reach consensus within the framework of a specific limitation—the limitation was clearly worded—about certain facets or aspects of this.

If the select committee had reached consensus about the terms of reference in general, it would not have been necessary to add any rider. The fact that consensus was not reached, however, means that I am honour-bound, within the framework of our original agreement, to embody the same basic limitation so as not to detract from the understanding in terms of which everyone participated in the proceedings of this select committee. It is therefore a way of keeping my word. That is the first point I want to make very clearly and very strongly.

It is a sop to the Conservative Party.

It is not a sop to anyone. From the outset there was a limitation, ie that fundamental objectives should not be encroached upon. Here I do not want to enter the lists against the select committee, but there are two ways in which the fundamental objectives in the original terms of reference can be interpreted. The one way is the way in which the select committee interpreted them, ie by looking at the Act itself and making a fairly juridical analysis of what the Act’s basic juridical aim is. The other way would be to look at it more philosophically. Let me say today that the philosophical approach was indeed the one intended. The intention was, in looking at the amendment of the Act, to do so in such a way that the pattern of life in South Africa was not disrupted. The fundamental pattern, which is part and parcel of reality, was not to have been disrupted. That pattern is part and parcel of reality.

When we add this rider, all we are saying—this brings met to the second reason for this rider—is that these Acts cannot be repealed without also reflecting on the influence that the repeal would have on the social life of the various peoples and groups in the country. The laws cannot be repealed without reflecting on the effect this would have on schools in their present form, and not as the PFP would like to see them, and without reflecting on the effect it would have on residential areas as they are at present, and not as the PFP would like to have them. [Interjections.] South Africa is ordered on an own-community basis. Constitutionally South Africa is ordered on that basis. Those hon members would do well simply to read the Constitution again. At this stage each of us knows it virtually by heart. Each of the communities participating in the new Parliament is to be given its own structure and control over its own affairs. Even when it comes to general affairs, they put forward their own majority opinion in their own group context. That is why the recognition of the existence of groups and the protection of that group existence in the constitutional spehere is irrevocably part of the new constitional dispensation, as reflected in the Statute Book and approved by the White population in the referendum. In the social sphere too, when it comes to residential areas and also numerous other facets, society is ordered in terms of its communities. There are own residential areas, and within those own residential areas there is an own community life for everyone. The educational sphere is also ordered on the basis of own schools. Whites have their own schools. In certain provinces respective language groups have their own schools and one encounters mother-tongue education. There are separate Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking schools which, by the way, proves that differentiation does not only have a racial basis. [Interjections.] The Coloureds also have their own education department and their own schools, as do the Indians. Surely hon members know that.

What this rider states is that, like the restriction in regard to the original terms of reference, the terms of reference of the committee are now such that when this legislation is examined, in accordance with the select committee’s request regarding its repeal, it should be done in such a way that the implications are discussed and taken into account, because the community context of this ordered society, which is part and parcel of reality, must be perpetuated in accordance with the same pattern. It is the Government’s standpoint that it is in everyone’s best interests to have that pattern perpetuated. Hence the word “continued”. We believe it to be in the interests, not only of the Whites, but also of the Coloureds, the Indians and the various Black peoples, that there be specific protective measures and that one should look to their security. We believe that only by those means can a true spirit of co-operation be created over the broad field of common interests that one finds in South Africa. Minority groups would only venture to co-operate if they know that the essence of their group existence is not to be threatened by such co-operation. In a sense we also obtained consensus about that amongst all the parties, although there are great differences in emphasis, but everyone says that we must, in some or other manner, ensure that we maintain and safeguard group existence. In our view the members of the PFP are merely paying lip-service to that idea and are not really serious about it. By contrast the members of the CP absolutize this reality—about which we and they basically agree—to such an extent that they fail to appreciate the necessity for mechanisms and structures within which co-operation should take place on matters of common interest, almost advocating a kind of isolation that cannot work or be realised in practice. [Interjections.] We have, however, basically obtained consenus about the fact that the reality of group existence is something that should be taken into account. So if the members of the CP were prepared to co-operate as far as the original terms of reference were concerned, I do not know why they now find them so completely unacceptable.

Mr Speaker, may I put it to the hon the Minister that what he is, in effect, saying is that after considerable evidence and the examination of that evidence, one comes to the conclusion that Scripture is silent on the question of, say, the prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and that in terms of human dignity it is an offence and should therefore be repealed, but that one will also have to be bound by past traditions and past prejudices—is that what the hon the Minister is saying?

We could now conduct a long debate about the merits of this legislation, but I said at the outset that this is not on our agenda now. The hon member knows me well enough; I am not one to avoid an argument. In fact, I do quite like an argument, but I do not think that we should discuss the merits of the legislation now. The hon member can proceed with the discussion of it in the select committee. He has asked a brilliant question, and the select committee can debate the matter for a three-day period. I do not, however, think we should debate it here. [Interjections.] All I want to say in this connection is that legislation bears some relation to one’s moral viewpoint, one’s view of life, the way one sees the world. Legislation also has a bearing on other practical situations and circumstances. A Government’s basic task is to maintain law and order in a country, and merely on that basis is it possible for the select committee to find that some measure of ordering is still necessary in this connection. It is also possible for them to come to the conclusion that there are sufficient measures for such ordering in other spheres and that repeal of certain Acts would not threaten such order. I would be able to develop the same argument in regard to other facets but I do not want to do the select committee’s work for it now. [Interjections.] What I do want to advocate is that the select committee should, in the same spirit in which it accepted its initial terms of reference, accept these terms of reference for dealing with one of the thorniest of future problems. Regardless of what party is in power, this legislation will continue to cause problems until the greatest possible degree of consensus is reached by as many people as possible about what should be done about this in future.

It is all just a question of words.

It is not all just a question of words; it is a question of realities. The CP’s policy is all a question of words, because that policy can never work. In an independent Coloured homeland, such as the one they envisage when they come into power, are they going to have, alongside each White town, an area where the Mixed Marriage Act has been abolished, whilst adjacent to it there is one where the Act still applies? [Interjections.] The CP policy will never establish itself because they will never come into power. They will not be relevant until they have won more than three elections.

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

No, I am not interested. My plea is that we should approach this matter, which is a contentious one in the context of the church, this matter with which a great many people who are not politically orientated are seriously struggling, in such a way that the discussion being conducted about it between the State, in other words ourselves as representatives of the electorate, and the church and other interested bodies, will be taken further with a view to finding a constructive solution. The restriction we impose is not a negative one. It is merely asking us not to abuse this investigation to pursue other political objectives that hon members might have in regard to this investigation. Those objectives can be pursued in other political debates and in other political skirmishes. The NP will then oppose them because we have our firm standpoints. In this context let us try to take a responsible look at an extremely thorny problem.

Mr Speaker, if one had to reply individually to the approximately 15 speakers who have made a contribution on this Bill, we would not be able to adjourn. Having listened to the discussion, one finds it difficult to believe or to understand that a number of hon members opposite have read the Bill at all. [Interjections.]

The legislation basically deals with one or two specific aspects, the first of which is the concept of uniformity in respect of the voting qualifications for people who have to vote for local authorities. The second aspect is the principle that such qualifications, whatever they may be, must be uniform for the various population groups participating in such elections. The same principle applies to parliamentary elections. What is the position at the moment? As far as the White local authorities are concerned, there are widely differing qualifications in the various provinces. In the second place, there are also different qualifications in respect of the elections for local affairs and management committees. Furthermore, it is important to see what the position is in respect of White local authorities. In the Cape Province there is a requirement, in the first place, that a person must be a voter in terms of the Electoral Act. Then there is the additional condition that he must be the owner or occupant of a property of a certain value. The third aspect is that a juristic person may vote. In Natal the position is that a person who qualifies to register as a parliamentary voter has to be a property owner. In the Transvaal the position is that generally speaking, parliamentary voters can vote for local authorities, but if a voter is a property owner, he can in any event choose between the two. As far as the Free State is concerned, if he is older than 18 years and resident within the municipality and if he appears on the parliamentary voters’ roll, and he is the owner of property worth R100, he may vote. Then there are further qualifications which I do not wish to go into.

As far as local authorities for Coloured people and Indians are concerned, the Cape Province requires such a person to be 18 years old and they say that a juristic person can also vote, provided he is the owner or occupant of property—of a certain value, I take it—within the area. In Natal, ownership of property is also required. The Orange Free State also requires property ownership.

For the Asians?

I am talking about local affairs and management committees established for non-White groups.

And I am asking whether they are for Asians.

The hon member should please listen to what I am saying. I am now dealing with the type of local authority.

I think you had better read my Hansard.

I want to take it further. It is a nonsensical argument, therefore, to allege that we are introducing a feudal system by linking the franchise to property qualifications. This is a position which obtains in any case in several parts of the country today.

No.

If the hon member for Greytown want to take part in the debate, I suggest that he should rise and ask for a turn to speak.

Now?

Order!

I now want to deal with the question of the uniformity of franchise qualifications. Since the investigations of the Schlebusch Commission in 1980 and the investigations of the President’s Council in 1982, local authorities have been inquiring into the whole question of franchise qualifications on the local government level. At the opening of the first meeting of the National Interim Liaison Committee on 31 October 1982 at Umhlanga, I adopted the following standpoint:

What I am talking about now goes back many years. I quote further:

After the second meeting of the National Interim Liaison Committee on 14 March 1983, a Press statement was issued in which the resolution adopted at that meeting in this connection was confirmed. The relevant part reads as follows, and this was adopted with the concurrence of all those present at the meeting:

That committee included representatives of the management committees of Coloured people and the local affairs committees of the Indian and Asian communities, and their presence was due to the association or the ad hoc committee for local authorities for the respective population groups. I quote further:

The respective provincial municipal associations were unable to reach consensus, on the basis of this resolution, about the specific nature of the qualifications. At the request of the UME, the Institute of Town Clerks investigated the matter and came up with a compromise proposal. The UME accepted this compromise in 1983, but two weeks later, the various municipal associations once again adopted conflicting standpoints, not on party-political grounds and not on the basis of colour or race, but on the basis of the differences which existed between the provinces. The compromise proposal of the Institute of Town Clerks is contained in a letter which I received from the chairman of the UME on 12 June this year. It corresponds in principle to the franchise qualifications referred to in this particular connection. So it is not true that there was no consultation about the subject of the legislation. Nor is it true that the various population groups were not consulted or that a new element is now being introduced with regard to municipal franchise qualifications, namely property qualifications. What happened was that the same principles contained in the report of the Institute of Town Clerks which was submitted to the UME are contained in the legislation as a compromise proposal between the various provinces.

†I now briefly want to refer to the hon member for Sea Point. I do not wish to discuss the past history, the past actions of the Cape Town City Council as it will serve no purpose whatsoever and as we can continue making recriminations about what has happened in the past. It will not serve the future at all.

As regards the question of uniform franchise, the Government believes—as I have indicated—and is supported by the National Interim Liaison Committee in this regard, that there should be uniformity for all these race groups in all the provinces. The aim of the Government is to establish a voting system which can be used for White, Coloured and Indian people. I believe—as the hon member for Green Point has said—that this is a sensitive issue and that the removal of discrimination must be clearly visible. A uniform system applicable to all groups will achieve this. There is not a single institution which did not eventually subscribe to the issue of uniformity. The Council for the Coordination of Local Government Affairs did not disagree on this principle. In fact, they accepted the principle. They disagreed on which system should be used in the new dispensation to achieve this. The divisions were not because of race groups, but because of the various provinces and their systems to which they had become accustomed.

Secondly, the existing qualifications for Coloured and Indian Management and Local Affairs Committees are more uniform than that for Whites, as I have indicated. It is therefore largely the systems for Whites which are not uniform to the same extent and which are being brought into line on a uniform basis.

*I want to repeat that I sincerely appreciate the fact that in spite of the divergent systems which had applied in the provinces, the Administrators of the provinces, the members of the Executive Committees responsible for local authorities, the representatives of the ad hoc committee and the representatives of the UME were all prepared, for the sake of finding a solution to a problem with which we had been wrestling for a long time, to accept a compromise which would retain the best aspects of the system. This has nothing to do with colour groups.

†The hon member for Sea Point will understand—and I do not say this in a derogatory sense—that there is no relation at the moment between the voting system of Blacks and that of White, Coloured and Indian people. We all heard the evidence in the Select Committee on the Constitution relating to that system. We had to devise a completely new system for those people, as the hon member will recall. Voting rights were—with due respect—a minor component of the discussions which took place on local government for Black people. A new system had to be devised, and even then we agreed that we would have to follow the White system as far as possible. Therefore I cannot understand how one can in principle argue against it when the same line is adopted in the legislation that we are considering at the moment. Moreover, it must be understood quite clearly that wards demarcated for local elections have no connection whatsoever with the parliamentary demarcation of constituencies. Let me further remind the hon member for Sea Point that parliamentary voters are not required to be registered within a local authority established for members of a group concerned. For this reason the Coloured parliamentary voters in the Tafelberg constituency, delimited for the House of Representatives, have a parliamentary vote although they do not live within a Coloured local authority. The hon member argued that this Bill disenfranchises people. It is not true. Approximately 6 000 of those Coloured voters living in the area to which the hon member referred are still on the municipal voters’ roll of Cape Town because they were so registered in 1971. They still do not live within the jurisdiction of a Coloured Management Committee. These voters’ existing franchise is protected by clause 4 of the Bill which we are considering now. I am therefore not disenfranchising anybody. They will retain their franchise in terms of this Bill.

Let me talk about non-viable communities. They will also have representation on a management body which will be elected, although they do not constitute an autonomous local authority. I think the mistake we all make is that when we talk about local authorities we think in terms of a local authority that has attained the status of a municipal council, which is obviously a fallacy. These people will therefore have municipal franchise. They will also be represented on the Regional Services Council, to which we will come later, if they have an elected management body, or a person appointed to look after their interests if they only have a non-elected representative body.

*The hon member for Sea Point and other hon members of other parties—I do not want to say too much about this now—asked the general question why the legislation had not been referred to a select committee. With all due respect, we are not changing the Constitution here. This legislation has only one purpose, and that is to lay down uniform franchise qualifications for local authorities after years of investigation. As far as I know, few other measures have been piloted through this House after such a long history of negotiation as this particular legislation.

I now want to refer to the question of the multiple vote, and in doing so, I am replying to a number of hon members at the same time. The hon member for Brakpan, the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Jeppe referred to this. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon member for Brakpan, but he is suggesting that we now want to import the Cape system, which we inherited from the PFP, into the Transvaal. The principle of property ownership as a voting qualification for a municipal voter already exists in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that.

That is not the point. You know that is not the point.

It is the point.

I spoke about two votes.

The hon member should go and read his own Hansard. He said that we had a feudal system which linked franchise to property values in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

No. You had better go and read my Hansard.

I have read the hon member’s Hansard. After that, the hon member advanced a further argument about the question of a second vote. The fact is that I am arguing the principle with the hon member. The principle of the property qualification as a basis for the franchise applied in the Transvaal in the past and it still applies there today. [Interjections.] Now the hon member comes along with a second argument. He says that the reason why we are doing this is that we are a fat cat government and that we have to pay the price in terms of municipal qualifications for contributions we have received from rich businessmen. That is what the hon member for Jeppe said. I cannot imagine a shoddier and more unsavoury argument than that.

Let us see what the position is, and let us look first at the franchise. The CP is supported by the hon members of the official Opposition when they say that we are swindling the Coloured people, because, they say, we are introducing this legislation just before the Coloured people are to start participating in the parliamentary process. What are the implications of that statement? It means that we have now taken away something from the Coloured people and the Asians which they have at the moment. Let us see whether this is true. I have just indicated what the voting qualifications are for the registration of a management committee and a local affairs committee where a property qualification applies, and I am now talking about the Cape Province. On the basis of the fact that they are parliamentary voters, they will also have a primary vote. In spite of this, it is now being alleged that we are swindling the Coloured people. Surely that is a lie. In actual fact, we are now enabling Coloured and Asian voters to vote for a local authority, not on the basis of any property qualifications, but only on the basis of an A-list for which they qualify because they are parliamentary voters. Why are we conducting this kind of debate? [Interjections.]

However, I want to take it further. The hon member for Langlaagte said that we were actually disenfranchising pensioners. He said that we were also disenfranchising national servicemen and then he advanced a long, emotional argument about the injustice which we were doing to pensioners and servicemen. What are the facts, however? The fact is that they were unable to vote on a parliamentary voters’ roll in the Cape Province in the past, and now they will be able to do so. In the Transvaal, where they were in fact able to do so, that right is being retained. In what way have we wronged the pensioners and national servicemen?

Then you give them…

No, I am now talking about the franchise which we are taking away from these people, according to the hon member. This is the type of argument to which we have listen in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member must please keep quiet. [Interjections.] A further fact is that a juristic person can vote in some of the provinces. In terms of legislation which we have passed, including the Close Companies Act, it is easier for people to organize themselves into a company, which normally contains partnerships. Are they not entitled to vote by virtue of the fact that they are taxpayers? It is not a new principle, therefore.

Now the hon members of the official Opposition ask why we are doing this before the beginning of the new dispensation. However, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, we are merely giving effect to a resolution adopted by their representatives in connection with uniform voting qualifications. When we talk about these matters, therefore, we should please stick to the facts. That would help us all.

The hon member for Jeppe says that we have deprived the Whites of their franchise. What conceivable grounds can people have for proclaiming such standpoints? [Interjections.] In this particular legislation, no one is being deprived of his franchise. On the contrary. In this legislation, people who do not own property are being allowed to vote, while they were not able to do so in the past in certain provinces. In this legislation, the property owner, irrespective of whether he is a natural or a juristic person, is being given the right, by virtue of that ownership, also to have a vote when it comes to the people who take decisions on his behalf. It is calculated that 50% of the revenue of local authorities comes from property rates paid by taxpayers.

I believe that the hon member for Langlaagte has to concede one point. In his sober moments he does not agree with the standpoint of his party.

Just listen to that. That was an ugly thing to say.

I do not think so. All I mean by a sober moment is when he is being sober-minded. I am not trying to give any other ugly connotation to it. The hon member for Jeppe asked me what about the Black people. After all, his party was represented on a select committee which worked out a municipal dispensation for Blacks. He knows that the approach in respect of the franchise of Blacks and the institutions for which they vote is not the same as in the case of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Why should we argue about this matter, therefore?

My standpoint is very simple, and I want to conclude by stating it. The legislation provides the solution to two identifiable problems. In the first place there is the question of franchise qualifications for local government systems in the four provinces, to which everyone said we had to find a solution. In the second place, it provides a solution with regard to the various population groups which everyone also said we should find. In order to do this, we had to find a compromise between the systems applicable to the various population groups and the systems applicable to the various provinces. Whereas the people who succeeded in negotiating these solutions should have received the thanks and the appreciation of this House, we have had to listen to a lot of frivolous, emotional and nonsensical arguments.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr D W Watterson dropped (New Republic Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I want to make one or two general comments in respect of this clause. Once again I should state it is a pity that the hon the Minister has had to cut short his reply to the second debate owing to the time factor. I think in having to do that he has not done justice to his own case or to the legislation. We would have liked a fuller reply, and also time to consider what amendments we should put on the Order Paper in the light of the reply given by the hon the Minister. In fact we are now having to proceed with this debate after a foreshortened reply by the hon the Minister, without any interval in between. I believe that is a most unfortunate set of circumstances.

There are of course some amendments on the Order Paper, and I will be the first one to admit that they are inadequate. That is because there has not been enough time to deal with them more fully.

Allow me to say, Mr Chairman, that the overall view of hon members in these benches is that everybody in South Africa should have a municipal franchise. If this Bill permitted it we would first of all have extended the provisions to include Blacks as well. Indeed the principle of the Bill would, however, not permit that. Within the framework of an Indian, Coloured and White franchise we believe that all of them who are parliamentary voters should have a local government franchise. That can be done by way of allowing the provinces to have their own rules but by explicitly forbidding them one thing, viz discrimination in their rules on the grounds of race or colour. It is in other words not necessary to have a uniform system throughout the country. What one needs is a prohibition on introducing into any provincial system a clause which would debar people on the grounds of their race or colour. I believe the hon the Minister will admit that there is a difference between having uniformity and having non-discrimination. There is a difference, and that is the basis of our agrument.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, we believe that the vote should not be loaded and that there should not be a multiple vote in favour of people who own property. It is a traditional basis throughout the country that one has a vote because one is a resident or because on has an interest by way of being a property owner. What one should not have, however, is two votes merely because one happens to be a property owner. We will try to give effect to that although it is extremely difficult without totally redrafting the Bill.

In order to give effect to the first of these principles I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 2. On page 5, from line 2, to omit all the words after “established” up to and including “group” in line 4 and to substitute:
   • for the area in which he is registered as a voter in respect of a House of Parliament or in which he is the owner of immovable property
2. 3. On page 5, from line 6, to omit all the words after “established” up to and including “group” in line 8 and to substitute:
   • for the area in which he is registered as a voter in respect of a House of Parliament or in which he is the owner of immovable property

The effect of these amendments will be that Coloured and/or Indian people will get a municipal franchise wherever they might live. The hon the Minister referred to the question of Tafelberg. He said of the 16 900 a total of 6 000 Coloured people would continue to enjoy the franchise because they had it as a result of the situation prior to 1971. I am concerned, however, about the other 11 000 who will not have a municipal franchise because they do not live under a separate local authority set aside exclusively for Coloured people. The hon the Minister says they have a franchise by way of the Management Committee. The fundamental difference, however, between voting for a body that makes decisions and voting for a body which merely has advisory representation on the decision-making body is quite obvious. Therefore we believe that the full municipal franchise is what the Coloured and the Indian people deserve, and not, as is the case in many areas, only an indirect franchise by way of a management committee. The effect of our amendment would be the enfranchisement of those further 11 000 people in the Tafelberg area.

If the hon the Minister believes it is correct that 6 000 Coloured people should continue to vote for a White municipality, and he finds nothing offensive in that principle, he should tell us why the remaining 11 000 Coloured people should not be given a vote in terms of that same principle. I would have understood it if the hon the Minister had said those Coloured people should all be placed on a separate voters’ roll. He has, however, admitted that there is nothing wrong, that the heavens have not fallen on Cape Town because those 6 000 Coloured people have continued to enjoy the franchise. All we say is that that same opportunity, which is a historical one which the government of the day tried to undo, should be given to future Coloured voters to enable them to have exactly the same voting rights. The proposed amendment to the definition of “local government body” seeks to give Coloured and Indian people exactly the same municipal franchise. Where they share areas with Whites, we believe that they should vote for that local authority. Where they are under separate local authorities, let them vote for the local authority under which they reside. We see no reason why 6 000 Coloured people in the Tafelberg constituency should continue to have a vote while the 11 000 Coloured voters who are going to be enfranchised at parliamentary level will not be allowed to have the same equal and full municipal franchise.

Order! I regret I am unable to accept amendments 2 and 3 of the hon member for Sea Point since they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, may I just enquire as to what the principle is with which they are in conflict?

As I see it, the principle is that members of the Coloured and Indian groups will exercise their municipal voting rights in the group area in which they reside. The amendments moved by the hon member seek to extend that right.

Mr Chairman, may I please address you in this respect? The hon the Minister has himself indicated that the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Coloured municipal franchise to all Coloured voters in order to bring about uniformity. There is a clause in the Bill which provides that Coloured voters living in mixed areas and who have the vote today can continue to exercise that vote. It does not therefore provide that the only Coloured people who can exercise a vote will be Coloured people in separate areas. It refers to existing Coloured voters living in mixed areas and provides that they can continue to exercise a vote for a mixed local authority. The hon the Minister has said that in the constituency of Tafelberg there are 6 000 of them. Therefore, this Bill does include the principle that Coloured people living under a White local authority can vote in certain circumstances. We do not ask that that principle be violated but that it be extended in order to accommodate the other Coloured people.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point. Naturally I do not agree with the interpretation of this legislation by the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member argues that if the franchise of the 6 000 voters in the Tafelberg constituency is retained, then this is not in conflict with the principle of an integrated municipal franchise. Specific rights are being protected in terms of clause 4, and that has nothing to do with the principle in the legislation.

Order! That is how I understood the principle. As I indicated to the hon member for Sea Point, members of the various population groups receive their municipal franchise according to the group area in which they reside. Therefore the amendments of the hon member for Sea Point seek to extend the principle, and that I cannot accept.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Maitland, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 23, to omit all the words after “a” to the end of the paragraph and to substitute:
   • share in immovable property registered in the office of a registrar of deeds as an undivided share, excluding a time-sharing interest within the meaning of the Property Time-sharing Control Act, 1983 (Act No 75 of 1983), registered as aforesaid; (v)

The hon member motivated this amendment in his Second Reading speech. Its intention is to make provision for rating rights on the basis of qualifying for such rights because of property held under sectional title, but specifically excluding property held under time sharing. Unfortunately the hon member could not be here, but as I said he has already discussed the matter in detail.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

This amendment does not appear on the Order Paper but I have circulated it among hon members and I did refer to it during my Second Reading speech.

During my Second Reading speech I indicated that the question of differentials in valuations could prove somewhat hazardous. Throughout the period I have been involved with local government, the valuation of property in terms of which a person should exercise a municipal vote has always been a nominal one to indicate that a person lives in a reasonable sort of home, a genuine home, and is not a squatter. One does not therefore have to set extremely high values for these various homes and buildings whether they be rural, peri-urban or urban. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see why it should be necessary to have this differential. Why, for example, if a person owns a property of say a value of R50 000 in one place should he have one vote while a person who owns a property of say R20 000 in another place should in addition have the ownership vote? I really cannot for the life of me see the necessity for this. To me it would be very reasonable to make the minimum value R20 000 or whatever the amount is, and then if that is the set standard price for a rural area, it could just as easily apply in an urban area.

Mr Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon the Minister referred to certain matters, but you will quite probably not allow me to reply to that now. In my opinion, what is applicable as far as this clause is concerned is his reply to the question of why this Bill was not referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. He said we were not changing the Constitution. That is the reason he advanced for not having referred it to that select committee. I see the hon the Minister appears to be unhappy with what I have just said, but then he must read his Hansard. I wrote his words down. He said it would not be referred to the select committee because we were not changing the Constitution. Did we change the Constitution when we dealt with the Black Local Authorities Bill, the Black Communities Development Bill and the legislation on the orderly movement and settlement of Black persons? I see the hon the Minister is impatient; he will just have to be impatient, that’s all, because we shall thrash out these matters with him, whether he likes it or not. He, who is seeking consensus, would be doing this House a favour if he would try to listen to the arguments and reply to them properly [Interjections.] I agree with the hon member for Green Point that the hon the Minister should rather take his customary long time to reply to the Second Reading, for then we can at least understand what he is saying.

In clause 1(1)(viii) a population group is defined. The provision reads:

It seems to me that this merely means that a population group is a population group. I think the hon the Minister should explain to us what he means when he says a population group is the White group, or the Coloured group or the Indian group or any other population group other than the White group, the Coloured group or the Indian group; in other words, a population group is a population group. Perhaps he could explain to us what this means.

Mr Chairman, I want to say at once that the amendment which was moved by the hon member for Randburg because the hon member for Maitland could not be here is acceptable. I just want to point out that the hon member for Maitland also adopted the standpoint that share block holders should qualify for franchise on the basis of the property qualification. This was considered, but it could create registration problems with regard to voters, and we shall have to reconsider this.

The amendment of the hon member for Umbilo is not acceptable. It is quite clear that values are far higher in metropolitan areas than in rural areas, and for that reason it is not acceptable that no distinction should be drawn between urban and rural areas. I do not want to debate this matter any further.

As far as the hon member for Brakpan is concerned, I want to say at once that I reacted to the hon member for Sea Point regarding the select committee. He argued that we had referred the Black Local Authorities Bill to the Select Committee on the Constitution. I said that we had had to devise a local government system for Blacks which had not existed before. We are not changing the system here. We are not changing the Constitution; we are investigating the franchise qualifications.

I am now being accused of bulldozing this specific legislation through Parliament. The legislation could easily have been introduced at the beginning of the session. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance. Would the hon members just listen to me for a change. The hon member for Sea Point has the ability to listen only to himself.

The fact of the matter is that the legislation could have been introduced then, but then it could not have been preceded by a long process of negotiation with the parties concerned. So it was the long process of negotiation that delayed the process. I explained earlier that this process has been under way since 1980 and that it was eventually referred to the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs.

The establishment of this council by means of legislation that was introduced last year, was a direct outcome of the National Interim Liaison Committee. It was then accepted by Parliament that the body which had to be consulted on local government affairs, was the council which had been established. This council has far greater expertise than a select committee. Hon members must consequently not accuse me, when I use bodies established by Parliament to undertake investigations and to advise us, of bulldozing legislation through Parliament and say that it should rather have been referred to a select committee.

I want to make a second point with reference to the standpoints adopted by the hon member for Sea Point, even if it is on an amendment that was ruled out of order. Whether or not we disagree on this, the fact remains that provision is being made for the participation of people on a group basis. The hon member may not like it but it is also true that when other groups, for example Whites, own or occupy property in open areas, they do not have franchise if they live in another area in terms of section 19. This is not discrimination against one group, because the provisions apply to all groups. This is also the meaning of the definition to which the hon member for Brakpan referred. I do not begrudge the hon member for Brakpan an opportunity to participate in the debate. We could debate this aspect at length, but I think it would be unfair to argue the way the hon member is arguing. There are 15 or more speakers making detailed speeches on certain provisions, while the person who has to reply to them do so in the time allocated to one member. I am being accused of not replying to questions in detail. But hon members cannot have the best of both worlds. I want to say in all fairness that I replied to the principles of the Bill, and not to what was dragged into the debate.

Mr Chairman, I believe this was a disappointing intervention by the hon the Minister. I was flabbergasted when he said that he could have introduced this legislation in January or at the beginning of the session. It actually makes nonsense of his Second Reading speech.

I did not say January.

The hon the Minister said at the beginning of the session. In his Second Reading speech he said this legislation was the consequence of 10 000 man hours …

Order! The hon member must come back to the clause under discussion.

I will then raise this matter during the Third Reading.

The hon the Minister said that these provisions apply to everybody and are not discriminatory as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned. I say that the definition of local government body for Whites includes areas where Coloureds also live. Whereas the definition for local government bodies for Coloureds and Indians is exclusive and only applies to Coloured and Indian areas. It is in fact totally discriminatory as no Whites are disenfranchised while Coloureds and Indians are not going to be enfranchised.

I want to put a practical problem to the hon the Minister as he will have to administer this legislation. I want him to explain the meaning of clause 1(1)(vi)(b), which reads:

I want to know what area in South Africa is designated for occupation and use by the Coloured people of South Africa. The Group Areas Act does not do that. That Act is very clear that there are certain areas where Coloured people can live and where others can only come by permit. However, it immediately states that certain categories of people are not affected by this, such as for example bona fide servants. The hon the Minister will know that all kinds of people use facilities. There is no area which people may not use. Occupation is not only defined for residential purposes. What about the CBD’s which are to be opened for occupation for all kinds of people. Church properties are not subject to any restriction on occupation or use. Sports clubs and sports facilities are in no way exclusive to one or other group. I therefore put it to the hon the Minister that the words in the Bill are vague and embarrassing and of no real effect in law. There is no area which is set aside for use and occupation by Coloureds or Indians. Every area of South Africa, while it may predominantly be used by one group, is subject to a whole range of qualifications which limit that exclusiveness and allow other people to also use the area. The word “use” is vague. I would say that the OK Bazaars store in Adderley Street is used by Coloureds as much as it is used by Whites and others. The words “occupation or use”, I argue, have no force and effect in law. I should like the hon the Minister to explain under what criteria or statutes he is going to apply that particular provision.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the remark made by the hon member for Sea Point. With all due respect, I cannot allow the hon member’s misinterpretation and distortion to remain on record without correcting it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister entitled to allege that another hon member is guilty of “verdraaiing” of facts?

The hon the Minister is allowed to say that as long as he does not say it was done deliberately.

Did he then not do it deliberately?

Order! What did the hon member for Turffontein mean by that?

Sir, I asked the hon member for Sea Point: “Did he then not do it deliberately?”

The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

[Inaudible.]

Order! It is hon members who shout remarks from the side-lines who cause all the trouble. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to clear up the problem in a single sentence. I said it would have been possible to introduce the legislation at the beginning of the session if it had not been for the process of negotiation. This means that 120 people would not then have spent 10 000 man-hours on the legislation, but that I would have drafted it myself. Now the hon member says I am contradicting myself. [Interjections.]

In reply to the hon member’s further question, I want to say that the areas referred to are the areas proclaimed in terms of the Group Areas Act, in terms of which the local government bodies are constituted by the provincial ordinances.

Mr Chairman, the act which the government is going to administer talks about “an area designated for occupation or use by members of the Coloured Population group”. I argue that there are no areas designated for occupation and use by Coloured people. In fact, there are areas where certain restrictions are in force. However, the hon the Minister knows that in all of those areas members of other communities are allowed to use it.

They were not designated for that group.

Then it must be stated that it applies only to areas which have been determined under the Group Areas Act. I want to say to the hon the Minister that this will be challenged. As it stands at the moment it does not refer to the Group Areas Act. It does not refer to any Act of Parliament. We do not believe the wording as it stands now will be interpreted to be valid in a court of law.

Mr Chairman …

Order! I just want to point out to the hon the Minister that I have in the meantime ascertained that the use of the word “distortion” is per se unparliamentary. I would appreciate if if the hon the Minister would withdraw it.

Sir, if that is your ruling, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The reply to that is that the Group Areas Act allocates areas to specific population groups. What the hon member said was true. Under certain circumstances other people may also live and work there. I grant him that. In terms of that legislation, management committees have been established for specific population groups. I am not going to conduct a legal argument with the hon member now. This specific point was discussed with the legal draftsmen, and I stand by their advice. After all, I cannot draft my own laws.

Mr Chairman, in my opinion the wording can be interpreted in different ways. If the wording in the respect of the Coloured population group had been “ … a management body or local authority established for an area designated for exclusive occupation …” it say have been better. This is what the hon the Minister intended, namely a management body established for an area for the exclusive occupation or use of the Coloureds. As the provision stands here, the hon member for Sea Point is quite correct in his statement. This cannot remain as it is.

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to debate the legal-technical aspects of this matter with the hon members. These specific points were cleared up by the legal draftsmen. He cannot expect me to argue with the legal draftsmen about the drafting of legislation.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 4 negatived (New republic Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I have circulated an amendment on clause 2(l)(a). It is a very simple amendment, but it has substantial ramifications for the people who could be adversely affected by it. As it stands at the moment the majority of the White electorate are on the voters roll through the population register. As far as Whites are concerned the population register is to my mind very adequate because there are very few Whites who are not on the voters’ roll. However, as far as the Coloured and Indian communities are concerned, the registration of voters is very low, especially because of the fact that they had to register specifically for a franchise. In the latter part of the clause, namely in line 14 on page 7 when it comes to the voter who is a property owner we find the words “entitled to be” registered as a voter. In other words, a person who owns property merely has to be entitled to be registered as a voter whereas in paragraph (a) a person has to be registered as a voter. There are many reasons, not necessarily through the fault of the person concerned, why he would not be registered. A person could thereby be deprived of his vote through an error in the preparation of the State voters’ roll or for a number of other reasons. Therefore I believe that this amendment is a very reasonable amendment. It brings this provision into line with the wording in line 14 on page 7 in respect of property-owner voters. I request the hon the Minister to accept my amendment, which I hereby move, as follows:

Mr Chairman, in reply to the hon member I want to tell him that as regards his reference to percentages of voters registered for parliamentary elections his information is obviously not correct. According to the best information I have—and that is not final—over 80% of the Indian people who are registerable are in fact registered for the parliamentary elections. As far as the Coloured people are concerned, the figure is over 60%. Those are the percentages registered according to the information we have, but that is not final; the percentages are actually much higher. However, before a man can vote, he must be registered. We have determined what the qualifications are, but he must still be registered, even for a parliamentary roll. A person must be registered before he can vote. I cannot say that he is entitled to vote if he is to be registered on a certain date. He must be registered. There is a difference in respect of the property qualification, because that is linked to the parliamentary vote which presupposes that he must already be registered. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is not correct that a person may stand as a candidate for election even if he is not on the voters’ roll if he is entitled to be registered as a voter? So one has the anomaly that a person can stand as a candidate even though he is not a voter but a person cannot vote or register to vote as a local government voter because his name has been left off the parliamentary roll. In other words, if his name is left off the roll but he is entitled to be on the parliamentary roll, why should he not be able to register as a local government voter?

With due respect, Sir, I can stand for Parliament without being on the roll provided I qualify to be on the roll, but I cannot go and vote on election day unless I am actually registered. That is all this is about. The same is being provided here.

Mr Chairman, as regards the wording, the wording in my amendment is directly taken from the Natal local authorities ordinance for municipal voters. If the hon the Minister does not accept this amendment, he is making it very clear, on his own admission, that 40% of the Coloured voters will not be able to have a municipal vote because they are not on the roll and that 20% of the Indian voters will not be able to vote because they are not on the roll. They will not be able to vote in a municipal election until such time as they are on the roll. I cannot help but feel that the hon the Minister in this instance is just being plain stubborn! [Interjections.] OK, so anybody can be stubborn. I am not being unreasonable in this regard, but this is depriving people of their municipal vote. The hon the Minister just does not want to say that he has had to accept an amendment. That is all this little lot is about. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to pour oil on troubled waters and suggest to the hon the Minister that, in spite of the verbal lashing he has had to endure, he should accept the hon member’s amendment. The hon the Minister says that for the ordinary parliamentary elections one has to be eligible to vote but that, before one can cast one’s vote, one actually has to register. In terms of this provision one will still have to be registered because one will have to be registered not only for a parliamentary vote but also for a municipal vote. All the hon member for Umbilo wants to accomplish is that one of the qualifications before one can be registered for a municipal vote should be that one should be eligible to vote for Parliament. In other words, what he wants to achieve, is that one should be eligible to vote for Parliament; that one should have to meet the parliamentary qualifications. Those should become the qualifications before one can actually be registered for a municipal vote.

I believe it would be quite disgraceful if somebody, because of a failure of a computer in the Department of Internal Affairs, should be taken off the voters’ roll, or even that somebody’s name, because he has been abroad, should be deleted from the voters’ roll. It would be disgraceful if somebody should find that in practice he has lost his vote because is not physically registered. Provided one meets the requirements of the Electoral Act, provided one does not disqualify oneself as a voter for a local authority, we believe one should be entitled to qualify. We therefore certainly support the amendment moved by the hon member for Umbilo.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this matter one step further with the hon the Minister. We know that at the moment there is a feeling among a certain section of the Indian community that they want to be no part of the House of Delegates, which is to become a House of Parliament. Those people therefore do not necessarily want to become parliamentary voters. However, they have all the the qualifications required in order to become parliamentary voters.

What the hon member for Umbilo is trying to say is that those people, because of those qualifications, should be entitled to register as municipal voters because, after all, they have municipal rights in that they are either property owners or occupiers of property, and in that they may have been occupiers of property within a municipal area for many, many years. There is therefore nothing to preclude them from a municipal vote. There should indeed not be anything to preclude them. The only requirement should be that they can qualify for a parliamentary vote. I do not believe, however, it should be conditional upon them to be registered as parliamentary voters on the parliamentary voters’ roll because there are many people in South Africa who do not wish to be on the parliamentary voters’ roll. The hon the Minister is now wanting to compel them to do something which they may not require and which they may not want to do. By doing that he is depriving them of their municipal vote. Or alternatively, as the hon member for Sea Point has suggested, their names could have been left off the voters’ roll owing to a computer error or owing to some other error. This, I submit, is grossly unfair.

That can of course be rectified.

The hon the Minister says that can be rectified. The point is, however, that they should be entitled to a municipal vote as long as they qualify for a parliamentary vote, and I do not believe it should be conditional upon them to be on the parliamentary voters’ roll.

Mr Chairman, I may be able to make it even easier for the hon the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Umbilo. In terms of the amendment brought about this year to the Electoral Act, 1979, to be able to be eligible to qualify as a parliamentary voter one will have to have an identity document. This will be the case save for a very limited number of exceptions which will all disappear in due course. To be able to qualify, one will have to produce one’s identity document. As soon as one has that identity document one is actually going to be on the voters’ roll. The only people who are not going to be in that category will be people in respect of whom errors have been made by the Department of Internal Affairs. Therefore the eligibility, I believe, is highly desirable because it covers those people in respect of whom the Department of Internal Affairs or their computer or whatever else has made an error causing their names to be deleted from the parliamentary voters’ roll. Therefore I do not think it should cause any problems whatsoever.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon member for Umbilo that the fact that he is shouting at other people does not strengthen his argument at all.

In practice the position is of course that the Department of Internal Affairs sends the population register lists to municipalities—that is how it works in practice. The Electoral Act provides that the voters’ list may be compiled from the population register. For the reasons indicated by my hon colleagues, an exception has been made in respect of the Coloured and Asian populations. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. The fact of the matter is that here we have a qualification to be able to vote, based in the first place on the fact that one is registered on a Parliamentary voters’ list. This is the principle we accepted. In the second place there can be a second vote if one is the registered owner of specific property. The one qualification is linked to the other. There may be mistakes—I readily grant the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that—but this also applies to the Parliamentary voters’ lists, and then there are other mechanisms to rectify the matter. For that reason the amendment is not acceptable to me.

Mr Chairman, I would have participated in the debate on this clause earlier, but the hon the Minister has already replied to it and I am in full agreement with this standpoint.

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

1. 1. On page 7, in line 35, after “is” to insert “equal to or”.
2. 2. On page 7, from line 3, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
   1. (b) every person who in terms of the Electoral Act, 1979, is registered as a voter in respect of a House of Parliament, and every juristic person which in terms of section 3 is deemed to be a member of the White, the Coloured or the Indian population group, and who or which is the owner of ratable property in the area of jurisdiction of a local government body of which the value, or the total value in the case of two or more properties, is equal to or higher than the qualifying value,
3. 3. In the English text, on page 7, in line 11, after “who” to insert “or which”.

Amendments 1 and 2 deal inter alia with rectifying the position when a person who has property equal in value to the qualifying value, would not be able to vote because a higher value is required. Amendment 2 also deals with the insertion of the requirement to be registered as a voter, so that aliens are disqualified from casting a vote. Amendment 3 merely seeks to correct a grammatical error in the English text, namely to insert the pronoun “which” with reference to the juristic person.

The amendments are acceptable to me.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to put our point of view in respect of this clause because on this will depend amendments which we may or may not move.

Our view is that in order to register one should be eligible to be a Parliamentary voter, and that anyone who has a direct interest in a local authority should be entitled to a vote. That direct interest could be because that person is resident in the area or because he owns property in the area and is therefore a ratepayer. However, we are totally opposed to the concept that some people should be more equal than others and be able to qualify for two votes in their own right in a particular ward and under a local authority. We say that a person must be either an owner or a registered voter living there, but that a person who is a registered voter should not be given an additional vote because he is an owner of property.

I tried to move amendments to clause 1 to give effect to this principle as far as Coloureds and Indians were concerned, but my amendments were ruled out of order. I now have the choice either of moving the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper to delete reference to an owner of property or another amendment in the following terms:

In terms of this latter amendment one would have to be a registered Parliamentary voter or an owner but there would not be a vote for both; in other words, we do not want to have a loaded franchise in favour of a property owner. To the extent that there are hon members who are registered elsewhere but who own property and reside here, it would not be unreasonable to say that as they are ratepayers here they should have the vote. However, we are totally opposed to the concept that one individual can have a vote both as an occupier and as an owner.

In the circumstances I formally move this last mentioned amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to get back to one of the statements made by the hon member for Sea Point when he referred to the fact that his proposed amendments to clause 1 were inadmissible. The way he put it was that the only qualification should be the possibility of being registered as a Parliamentary voter. If that were to be the point of departure, it would mean that the town clerk or the responsible officer in the local authority would have to compile a new voters’ list, because people must apply to be registered on the basis of this qualification, whereas at the moment the complete voters’ roll is merely received from the department of Internal Affairs, and the people are automatically on the voters’ roll. I think it would have deprived quite a number of voters of their voting rights if the amendment had been agreed to, because fewer people would apply to be registered on the voters’ list of the local authority.

Mr Chairman, once again I want to make the standpoint of the CP very clear in this regard. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon the Minister replied to our arguments and launched quite a vehement attack on the hon members for Langlaagte and Jeppe because they spoke about disenfranchisement. The point the CP is making in this regard, is the following: Two neighbours have always had one vote each for municipal elections, but now one neighbour is getting a second vote, as well as a third vote, because he controls an effective company. That neighbour therefore now has more votes and the other neighbour becomes disenfranchised, hence his vote becomes worth less. The argument of the hon member for Langlaagte must be assessed in this light. The votes of the soldier who does border duty, the pensioner who does not own properties and who does not have freehold, and women who are married in community of property and do not have freehold, become worth less pro rata as a result of this multiple vote. The hon the Minister did not reply to that argument. He scolded us about our arguments concerning the feudal system, but it is a feudal system; the more money one has in one’s pocket, the more properties one owns, the fatter the cat is, the more votes one has. That is the point, and the hon the Minister did not reply to that.

If it were not for the system being established here, we would have considered the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point, but we will not be voting for that either.

Mr Chairman, once again the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point is in conflict with the principle that has already been accepted, viz that there will be a dual system of voting, since the insertion of the word “or”, as envisaged by his amendment, means that one will have one of the two. In view of the ruling you gave earlier, Sir, the amendment is out of order, in my opinion, but apart from that, I am quite prepared to argue the matter on merit.

Let us look at the situation of the hon member for Brakpan once again. I tried to explain so nicely to the hon member and his colleagues that a qualification applies in certain provinces now. In the Cape Province there is a property qualification, an ownership qualification for the first vote. If I remember correctly, that is the position in Natal as well.

Ownership?

Yes, that is what I am speaking about. The Afrikaans for “owning property” is “die besit van eiendom”. [Interjections.] There is also a provision as regards value.

It is the parliamentary voters’ list and occupation.

I think I should read what it is so that we can have the facts. This is the qualification in Natal:

I think that whilst I am waiting for the other details, I should set out the position in the Cape Province …

We know that.

But if the hon member knows that, with respect, his argument is in fact false.

Why?

Because the legislation is effecting a change in the Cape Province as far as the position of people who do not own property is concerned. In contrast with the present position, voters in the Cape Province, if they are registered on the parliamentary voters’ list, can vote without a property qualification in terms of ownership. The hon member’s statement is therefore not generally applicable.

I want to place the facts in this regard on record once again. The position in the Cape Province—I am now referring only to natural persons, since this is what we are arguing about—is that every natural person who is registered as a voter in terms of the Electoral Act and who is the owner or occupier of property in a ward can vote. In other words, it is a property qualification. In Natal it is a person who qualifies to be registered as a parliamentary voter and who is the owner of ratable property in any ward of the municipality …

Order?

I am coming to the “or”. The hon members only want a particular part. [Interjections.] Please can I put my point? All I am trying to say is that in Natal a property qualification is not a foreign principle. There it is an alternative.

He must also be an occupier.

Of course. The same applies to the Cape Province. He must be the occupier of a particular property. [Interjections.] The hon member must just give me a chance to react in full. We can conduct a debate in which I listen to the standpoints of hon members, and they to mine. We could very easily arrange something like that.

I want to reiterate that the voting qualification in Natal provides that a person must be able to register as a parliamentary voter and own a property, or he must be the occupier of ratable property three months before 1 March. Once again, therefore, this is concerned with the concept of propery that is ratable. To be a parliamentary voter is not sufficient, but there must be a connection with property that is ratable, whether as an owner, or an occupier. This provision therefore already exists, and it is a valid provision.

In the Free State the provision is that a person must be 18 years old, he must reside in the municipal area and his name must appear on the parliamentary voters’ list, or—hon members must listen now—be the owner of ratable property to the value of at least R100. In other words, the principle that applies in the Transvaal applies in all four provinces and municipal voting rights are linked to property rights, although—and I concede this—it is linked to an alternative in certain provinces, viz the ownership or occupation of ratable property. What has happened here—I have explained this to hon members—is that all the provinces have accepted that there must be uniformity in respect of qualifications for voting rights.

Why?

Was the hon member for Soutpansberg not listening when I debated that? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot compel hon members to listen, but I can at least compel them to be quiet.

The National Interim Liaison Committee does not only consist of members of the NP or of members of the PFP. They unanimously proposed a uniform system. Not only did they ask for a uniform system, but they also asked that the UME and the ad hoc committee should work out such a system. They were unable to do so, and the Institute of Town Clerks then did so. It only lasted for two weeks, however. I told hon members that the way in which to obtain consensus here—these are decisions that these institutions took themselves—was to work out a compromise between the systems of the four provinces. The question of parliamentary voting rights without being linked to property is being further extended to the Cape Province and Natal. [Interjections.] The other provinces therefore accept the right of a juristic person to vote, and the property qualification as qualification for a second vote. We could argue about that ad nauseam, but that is what was agreed on and what I intend adhering to.

Mr Chairman, during the earlier part of the hon the Minister’s explanation I thought he was moving towards accepting my amendment. What he says is that in all four provinces, with slight variance, the qualification to vote is linked to the parliamentary voters’ roll combined with either occupation or ownership. All that gives a person just one vote.

In the Cape that is not so.

It is so. In the Cape an individual cannot have two votes at his own right. It is so. Even the parliamentary voters roll links one to property because one has to be registered at the address at which one is normally resident. The hon the Minister says that we want uniformity and he explains that there is already basic uniformity. Now he says the new uniformity must be to add an additional vote, which does not exist in any of the provinces. The hon the Minister has imposed this on these people. They did not ask for that. The compromise could have been quite easy, namely the parliamentary voters’ roll plus ownership or occupation. To come with a concept of two votes for the owner and only one vote for the occupant is neither common amongst the provinces at the moment nor do I believe it is wanted by the majority of the provinces or the majority of local authorities.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to refer back to my own amendment, which was not finalized. I cannot help but feel that the hon the Minister learned his diplomacy from Attila the Hun and not from Dale Carnegie. [Interjections.]

As far as we are concerned most of the details to which we object are in this particular clause. As the hon the Minister is not prepared to make that amendment, even though we were very unhappy about this clause before whereby so many people are deprived potentially of the municipal vote, it reinforces our view that this clause cannot be supported…

I want to take the point further which the hon member for Sea Point referred to of people having two votes. I can quote a personal example where in my own ward I would have three votes. I would have one as a personal vote, one as the owner of the home in which I live, and also a further vote as the owner of a property which is a juristic person. I can therefore have three votes in my own ward. I believe an amendment will be moved on one of the other clauses to provide for a juristic person to have one vote only, but I am not so sure that I could not be responsible for directing the votes to several other people in the same ward because I happen to own several properties that are juristic persons in that ward. This is one of the reasons why we felt that a lot of detail in the Bill was wrong and that it should have been referred to a select committee in the first place. We will not be able to support this clause because far too much is wrong with it and it has too much potential for trouble.

Mr Chairman, I cannot understand the hon the Minister. We are arguing at cross purposes. I am well aware of what the hon the Minister says, that one has voting rights in the various provinces as a result of the fact that one is an owner, or in certain cases, the occupier, of fixed property. We quite concede that. The problem we have in this regard, however, is that the hon the Minister is introducing a system of two votes, as opposed to other people who only have one vote. In addition, he is also introducing a third vote as opposed to other people’s one vote.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member willing for us to introduce the system in the Cape Province throughout the country?

No, we are not willing to do that. Apart from that, does the system in the Cape Province have two votes? Would the hon the Minister please answer my question? [Interjections.] I am asking whether an individual person has two votes? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must answer me. The hon the Minister can rise again and tell us whether a natural person has two votes in a municipal area in the Cape Province.

No, he does not.

This is what it is about. The hon the Minister is imposing his will in all four provinces by saying that one person must be given more than one vote due to the fact that he owns property, that he has his natural vote and the fact that he controls a fictitious person. The hon the Minister has not yet replied to that. Why does he want to give more votes to those people who are financially stronger than the normal voter who is 18 years old? Let us take this point a little further. If this kind of voting qualification exists in respect of the third level of government, what prohibits him from applying it to the second and first levels of government as well? Or the other way round? Why are the qualifications for an 18-year old sufficient to grant a person voting rights at the highest level of government, whilst he is given more votes at the third level of government because he has a fat purse in his pocket? The hon the Minister has not yet replied to that.

Mr Chairman, I think the entire debate on this amendment is out of order, and as soon as the hon member for Sea Point has restrained himself, I shall take the matter further.

Mr Chairman, I wonder if the hon the Minister can help me. Let me quote an instance. Assuming there is a township within a local authority and in this township there are 40 stands registered in a certain man’s name.

[Inaudible.]

But each stand is a rateable property. [Interjections.] If that person owns 40 stands and he is also an executor in an estate and is exercising authority on behalf of someone who owns two other stands and three other houses, he will then get 45 votes. Is that the interpretation?

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon the Minister to reply to my question. He was angry with the hon member for Sea Point and resumed his seat without replying to me. In my opinion it is only fair that the hon the Minister reply to my question.

Mr Chairman, during this debate the hon member for Brakpan made many statements that do not correspond with the facts. He had just made another such statement, and I now want to give him a little advice. The hon member must go and make sure of his facts before making wild accusations. For example, he said that I am imposing my will. However, the legislation does not represent my will.

Oh yes.

Let us ascertain whether that is true. I explained to the hon member—apparently he was not listening—that the National Interim Liaison Committee took a decision in 1983, and I quoted it to him. All four Administrators, as well as the MECs in charge of local government serve on that liaison committee.

Appointed by the Government.

I do not know since when an MEC is appointed by the Government. [Interjections.] Representatives of the UME, who are elected people, as well as the representatives of the Association of Management and Local Affairs Committees of both the Asians and Coloureds serve on the liaison committee. This committee took a decision concerning the concept of uniformity. Now the hon member is saying that I am imposing this on them. That is not true, however. The hon member had no grounds for saying that again now. If he had said that during the Second Reading he could perhaps have been under that impression. Not anymore, however, since in my reply to the Second Reading debate I quoted to him what the decisions taken at that meeting were. Now that the hon member is aware of the facts, he is nevertheless prepared to place an untruth on record in Hansard. I take that amiss of him, since I do not think that this is the way in which one should conduct a debate in this House. After it had been decided that those two bodies should come together and go and work out uniform voting qualifications, and they were unable to do so, the UME asked the Institute of Town Clerks to come up with proposals for voting qualifications. The general principles of these proposals correspond with what is contained in the Bill. I am now asking the hon member directly on what factual basis he made the statements he has just made. There is no such thing. Furthermore, I take it amiss of the hon member that notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of all the facts, he says that we are imposing someone’s will on other people. The subcommittee of the co-ordinating council did not achieve unanimity concerning the voting qualifications, for the reasons I have given. The co-ordinating council took a decision about this because consensus could not be reached. That was that the matter should be left to the Government to decide. The Government did not take a decision in a dictatorial way—as the hon member for Brakpan said—impose it on people. After proposals had been formulated and considered, they were submitted to a meeting of all the Administrators and the MECs responsible for local government. The hon member for Umbilo has already said that he does not feel bound to what the Executive Committee of his province decided about that. We subsequently extended the composition of the action committee of the co-ordinating council by way of additional members so that consultation could take place on as wide a front as possible. It is therefore a lie to claim that we are imposing legislation on people.

Finally, I want to point out that the amendment of the hon member is in conflict with the principle we accepted that there would be a dual system of voting rights.

Mr Chairman, I think that the principle here is that there will be an alternative vote. Apart from the fact that a person is a parliamentary voter and can therefore also vote at local authority level, a person who is the owner of property …

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon member but I want to point out that I have permitted hon members to discuss at length matters relating to principle. However, I cannot continue to permit hon members to discuss the principles. They must now confine themselves to the details of the clause and in addition they may not repeat arguments.

Mr Chairman, do you interpret the Bill to mean that a person who is a parliamentary voter can have an additional vote if he possesses property?

I do not interpret it like that, but I should like to point out that when the hon member started to speak, he said: “This is a principle of the Bill …

If that is a principle of the Bill, Mr Chairman, then I suppose it is pointless to argue further.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are you ruling that in addition to uniformity and your previous ruling with regard to Coloured group areas that a further principle of the Bill is that people will be entitled to two votes on the grounds of being on the voters’ roll and because they own property?

Order! I did not give a ruling on what is a principle and what is not. I have merely been reaching to the hon member Prof Olivier. He used the words “It is a principle of the Bill …”In response to that I remarked that he should not discuss the principle of the Bill again and that hon members should not repeat arguments. If the hon member Prof Olivier wants to carry on, he is free to do so. I do not want to stop him.

Amendments 1 to 3 agreed to.

Amendment 6 negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment 7 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move amendments 3 and 4 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 3. On page 9, in line 12, after “belong” to insert:
   • and is in terms of the Electoral Act, 1979 (Act No 45 of 1979), registered as a voter in respect of a House of Parliament;
2. 4. On page 9, after line 21, to insert:
   • (g) no person shall cast a vote on behalf of more than one juristic person.

I motivated these amendments during the Second Reading stage and consequently I am not going to devote any more time to this.

That is a beautiful speech, Wynand.

Mr Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon member for Randburg are quite acceptable to me. I also move the first and second amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. In the Afrikaans text, on page 8, in line 10, after “2” to insert “(1)(a)”.
2. 2. In the English text, on page 9, in line 4, after “2” to insert “(1)(a)”.

Amendments 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting)-

Clause 4 agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5 agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Title agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, during the rapid passage of the final three clauses of this Bill I noticed that the hon the Minister was sitting in his bench with a smug grin of satisfaction of his face. He is obviously very pleased with himself. He is very pleased because those clauses have been rushed through Parliament without any debate. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that I believe that the debate so far has justified every criticism on our part that this Bill is being bulldozed through Parliament. [Interjections.]

We are dealing here with the franchise of people. The hon the Minister has conceded the point I made earlier that when one deals with the franchise one deals with a critically important and highly emotional element. What this hon Minister has succeeded in doing during the past few hours has been to unite the Opposition in spite of their far ranging differences in ideology—all the Opposition parties: NRP, CP and PFP—in their rejection of clause 2, which is the critical clause of this Bill. I believe that however pleased the hon the Minister may be with using his built-in majority in this House to force this legislation on the people of South Africa, he is going to unite local authorities, ratepayers’ associations—Coloured, Indian and White—around the country in opposition to the particular form of franchise which he is imposing on them. I believe that the hon the Minister has been responsible for bulldozing. He will tell us that he could have introduced this legislation earlier in the session but the fact remains that this legislation carries his imprint. He has simply used other people to assist him to get it through Parliament. I also believe that the hon the Minister has shown insensitivity. All along we have conceded that the co-ordinating council has worked long and hard. We accept that within the parameters set by the hon the Minister these gentlemen worked very, very hard indeed. We have no criticism of what they did. However, that goes far beyond the small group of people who were not deemed to be representative. They were there because of their office and in their individual capacities but they were not representative of either political parties or local government institutions. They were chosen because of their knowledge and status but they were not representatives. I believe it is quite wrong for this House to impose a new system of franchise without getting the support of the local authorities of the very people who are going to be affected by it.

I accept the fact that from the hon the Minister’s and the Government’s point of view, they want to get this legislation on the Statute Book no matter what. I can understand that that is the hon the Minister’s mandate namely: Get it on the Statute Book because it can be amended later on. I think the hon the Minister has shown extreme insensitivity in regard to the feelings of people at local level. I must warn the hon the Minister in this respect because, in effect, he is going to continue as the Minister in charge of local government. He must not underestimate the feelings of people at local government level because this is a very, very sensitive, important and personal form of political representation. My experience has been that it is far more intimate and sensitive than voting for Parliament because one is actually dealing here with the very intimate matters that affect one in one’s daily life in the place one lives and in the way one lives.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that he has not started well. As the Minister who is going to be responsible for local government I hope that this debate has conveyed something to him. In spite of his majority in this House we urge him and the Government to be a little more sensitive than they have been in the past to the feelings and attitudes of the ordinary citizens of South Africa at local level. I believe that in this Bill he has ridden roughshod over the feelings of people. He has not consulted them or sought their opinion. He has obtained an exclusive group of people to advise him but he has not gone down to grassroots level. If local government is going to succeed in South Africa then it must not merely be an agent of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It must succeed because somehow or other at local level people feel that their status is recognized and that their dignity and areas of responsibility are recognized. We hope that whatever success the hon the Minister may have achieved in this debate from his point of view, he will also have learnt that this Government must be more sensitive to the feelings of the ordinary, average citizens of South Africa when it comes to the question of local franchise.

The second point that has emerged in this debate is that in terms of the Constitution that we passed last year, local government is an own affair except in so far as there is a general law. It rests with the Government of the day—I mentioned this during the Second Reading debate and I mention it again today—to decide whether there is going to be more apartheid or less apartheid. That is the prerogative of this House because it is an own affair. When we deal with the next Bill I think the hon the Minister is going to have to argue that he is in fact going to have less apartheid. However, as far as this legislation is concerned, I was appalled at the hon the Minister’s, indication and the ruling which the Chairman of Committees had to give that the basis of local government in South Africa in terms of this Bill is the dreaded and hated Group Areas Act. That is what it was.

The hon Minister instead of going down in history as the man who opened the door of political representation to Coloureds, Indians and Whites at local level, will in terms of this Bill go down in history as the man who entrenched apartheid in local government in South Africa. I think it is a pity. I believe that personally the hon the Minister himself would want better. The problem is that the Government while it is agreed on the new Constitution, is hopelessly divided on the direction in which that new Constitution would lead us. I believe that this hon Minister—I give him some credit—would prefer to have less apartheid. That would be the direction in which he would like to move, but when he sees on those same benches the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon the Minister of National Education he realizes that they want this Constitution developed in the direction of more apartheid.

I believe it is a sorry day for South Africa that this White House without allowing Coloureds and Indians to decide for themselves should pass this legislation. What is critically important is that seven weeks before Coloureds and Indians become members of this Parliament, we Whites sit here and we decide for them on the pattern of local government which they will have to endure or which they will have to enjoy.

If one takes the history of the Groups Areas Act, the history of the Erika Theron Commission, the history of the President’s Council and all the evidence which has come to every Government and every commission in South Africa over the last 10 years, one finds that if there is one law that stands out as a red rag to the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa, then it is the Group Areas Act. All the others fade into insignificance because no other piece of legislation than the Group Areas Act has that same effect of making Coloured and Indian people in South Africa angry. Yet the hon the Minister has admitted during the course of the debates on this Bill in reply to a question which I put to him, namely how he would determine the areas of occupation and use for Coloured people, that he would go to the Group Areas Act. I think it is a disgrace that the very moment we should be enfranchising Coloured and Indian people at local level, we should be entrenching the Group Areas Act as the basis of that representation.

We are entering a new era of greater participation for Coloureds and Indians. I believe that the Government must not only enter that new era by giving them increased representation, but it should also take into account their deep-felt emotions. I believe the hon the Minister, when he is talking silently to himself and not across the floor of the House, realizes that the Group Areas Act as the basis of segregation, of apartheid, of discrimination is a non-acceptable basis for the Coloured and Indian people of South Africa. If this debate revealed anything at all, then it is this hon Minister’s admission that local government in terms of a decision of the White Parliament, taken without the consent of the Coloureds and the Indians, is going to be based on the Group Areas Act. For that reason alone I believe that this House, taking into account the future of the people of South Africa, should vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I did not think it was possible that a front-bencher of the official Opposition could say so little in so many words about a measure which is before this House. I really want to reject, with the contempt it deserves, the standpoint adopted by the official Opposition as expressed by the hon member for Sea Point, as manifested here tonight in the attack launched by the hon member on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning…

I want to convey my sincere appreciation to the hon the Minister, and the officials who assist him in his department, for the measure which has come before this House. There is one thing we must accept in this country, and that is that we must not make separate laws for every province in the highest legislative assembly of this country. The measure which is before us is intended to bring about uniformity in all the provinces, and I want to convey my special appreciation for that.

I come now to the standpoint adopted by the hon member for Sea Point tonight. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning put it to him that he had consulted the UME, which is the highest authority at the local government level in our country. The hon the Minister then consulted the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, and this council consists of elected people who have been designated by voters in the Republic. However, the hon member for Sea Point referred to those people with contempt when they took a stand in regard to this measure.

As regards the legislation which is before the House, it is true that there used to be different systems of franchise in the provinces in terms of which people had to qualify. Particulars of these have been spelt out over and over again by the hon the Minister. I welcome this measure because there will now be a uniform decision and uniform voting qualifications throughout our country.

No municipal voter is disenfranchised by this measure. However, people are being given a right which they do not have at the moment. Is this not a step forward? I realize that it is a new principle to give two votes to a person who owns registered property within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. However, we also want to give people who own property which is zoned for business, industry, agriculture, or which is not zoned for any specific purpose, and who have no vote at the moment, the opportunity to vote. When one looks at the list of valuations of local authorities, one finds that in most cases, these people pay the largest amounts in tax to local authorities. This cannot be denied. On what grounds are those people to be denied the right? For many years, these people have been complaining because they have not had any say in the decision-making process which affects them intimately.

I want to emphasize a further important point. This measure still enjoys support, in spite of the criticism voiced by the hon member for Sea Point. I challenge the hon member for Sea Point to say whether he and his party will encourage the Coloured community to participate in their general election. [Interjections.] In nine weeks’ time, the Coloureds and Asians will take decisions concerning matters which affect them.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer a question by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. [Interjections.] With this measure …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Bryanston should resign as a member of the House of Assembly and should stand for the Randburg Town Council, and then we shall see whether he makes it there. [Interjections.]

With this measure, we have reached a milestone and we are giving the other two population groups in this country exactly the same franchise as that which I demand for myself as a White. We must accept once and for all that making separate laws for each population group when it comes to matters of common concern will not work. I shall spell out very clearly under the next measure on what grounds I demand certain rights for my group within the area of a local authority, while I am not prepared to give the same rights to the other groups as well. I want to make it very clear tonight that it is a long felt need for local government to be entrusted to each group as an own affair. Those matters which affect the Coloureds, those that affect the Asians and those that affect the Blacks should not just be an addendum to the agenda of a White local authority. Those people must have every right to govern themselves at the local level and to take decisions concerning their own people. I take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Witbank concluded his speech by pointing out that every community must have the right to decide its own affairs. Of course that goes without saying. After all, that is self-determination. But the point is that this Bill does not deal with that matter. This Bill deals with franchise, a basic right of a citizen in a democracy.

The hon member for Witbank also said that those persons working in business areas and owning property there were the largest ratepayers and should consequently have two or more votes. Very well, but then he should also advocate that in respect of the House of Assembly, the highest body in the country. [Interjections.] It is a principle. If he says that paying more tax at local level entitles one to an additional vote, then one should also have an additional vote in the highest body in the country. Surely that goes without saying.

Mr Speaker, does the hon member not know that there is a difference between the tax structure of the central government and that of a local authority where rates are paid on property?

Rates paid on property are a form of revenue the city council receives from its citizens, not so? But in the Transvaal the citizen’s voting rights are determined by the fact that he is on the voters’ list or that he owns property.

What is wrong with the “or”?

It is in this respect that the hon the Minister has always misunderstood me. I have never said there was anything wrong with the “or”. I said there was something wrong with the “and”. The hon the Minister does not want to reply to me on this point. “Or” is perfectly acceptable. That has always been my argument, but up to now the hon the Minister has neglected to tell us why a person may have two or even three votes.

It seems to me as if the hon the Minister is the great advocate of consensus. He badly wanted all the provinces to reach an agreement for then there would have been no problem. They could have adopted either the Cape system or the Transvaal system, as long as they were able to reach consensus, for then everything would have been fine. But they did not reach consensus. They referred the matter to the Institute of Town Clerks, in which there was consensus for two weeks, and after that none. Then the hon the Minister solved the problem and the consensus he introduced was that everyone should simply be given two votes provided they had enough money in their pockets. This is the matter on which we have now been waiting for a reply since the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, throughout the Committee Stage, and again now. He has neglected to take the country into his confidence on this important, urgent and basic matter, namely the question of voting rights on the basis of the fact that one owns property added to the fact that one is 18 years of age or older. [Interjections.] I should like the hon the Minister to pay attention. [Interjections.] He is the person who is seeking consensus, but see how unhappy and impatient he is now. I have put this question in a very friendly way, but time and again he advances other arguments and never gets round to this basic point.

If it is such a sound argument that one can have a second and a third vote on the basis of the fact that one is richer than one’s neighbour, the hon the Minister must also tell us why we do not apply this principle to the House of Assembly as well, and why he does not want to accept the policy of the old United Party. What the policy of the United Party amounted to was that one’s voting rights were determined according to one’s contribution to the welfare of the State, and that is what is happening here. One receives extra votes in the local authority according to one’s contribution to that local authority.

We now come to the other aspect of the reply the hon the Minister gave during the Committee Stage to the question of whether this Bill could not have been introduced here in the first place and then referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. The hon the Minister said that if he had done that he would not have been able to consult all the organizations he did in fact consult. But when we consider the various Bills in connection with Black affairs that are being dealt with by the Select Committee on the Constitution, we are also dealing with matters in regard to which the Government could have held negotiations first, inter alia with Administration Boards, the Institute of Town Clerks and various other organizations which could have advised the hon the Minister. So why could this Bill not also have been referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution,, as the hon the Minister suggested at the beginning of this session? Then the Institute of Town Clerks, the United Municipal Executive and the managements of the various provinces could have given evidence before the select committee and the select committee could have taken the final decision on matters regarding which the hon the Minister himself has admitted that there was no consensus. The select committee could have tried to reach consensus on the basis of the evidence submitted to it by the various organizations.

The hon member for Witbank also raised the question of separate legislation for each province again. But we have had separate legislation for each province since 1910. Certain things have developed in the course of time and the people living in the various provinces have become used to them. What is wrong with that?

Western Province will win the Curry Cup again.

Yes, that may also happen. But that will no doubt pass away, just as the NP will pass away. [Interjections.]

Uniformity and consensus were not reached with regard to voting rights, and why could things not have been left as they were? Under those circumstances, for what reason could things not have been left as they were? [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister again that with this legislation he is giving the “fat cats” an advantage—if he does not like the word “disenfranchise”—that detriment is to the pensioners, the married women married in community of property and the soldiers on our borders. If a person has two or three votes to my one, compared to him I am disenfranchised. The hon the Minister must tell us whether he intends to extend this wise new principle he wishes to apply in connection with the third-level of government to the first level. He is violating democracy and thinks he can reach consensus in the process. Never in all his born days will he be able to reach consensus with this kind of autocratic legislation. Under these circumstances and particularly owing to the hon the Minister’s behaviour during his reply to the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage, his almost arrogant behaviour, this again emphasizes that when one is seeking consensus one must also be an embodiment of consensus. He must not be friendliness personified one moment and want to trample one into the dust the next. Sir, we shall vote against the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Witbank made a very impassioned speech this evening. He obviously has a great obsession with “eenvormigheid”, with conformity, whichever way one wishes to express it. Personally I do not set so much store by conformity in a matter such as this. His argument is that because of the conformity this legislation will lead to better local government. His attitude is that if one does not like their form of better local government they will ram it down one’s throat. This seems to be his attitude to the situation and I cannot help but feel that this sort of attitude is not going to be very helpful to the local authorities who are going to have to pay for this administration and who are going to have to organize all this. Anybody who knows about the organization and administration of this sort of thing will realize that this is going to cost local authorities a great deal of money, not in respect of the ordinary voter but in respect of the property owning voter and in particular in respect of the juristic voter, because everything has to be checked and rechecked.

Local authorities who are going to have to do this will have to spend a lot of money. They will have to appoint extra staff to do the work. Who is going to pay? Is the Government going to make special contributions to help them pay for it? I am firmly convinced, in spite of the consultative committee in which the hon the Minister has great faith and I accept that it works hard, that if one were to put this proposition to the 10 major local authorities in South Africa, the majority of them would throw it out. I am not referring to town clerks now, but to local authorities.

Johannesburg has accepted it.

I cannot imagine Mr Oberholzer, the chairman of the management committee, falling for this sort of nonsense. This system is being imposed on local authorities. They have not been consulted. I can give the assurance that if any provincial government would want to make major changes to the local government scene in their province, especially in relation to franchise, the first thing they would do would be to consult local authorities. I can talk with some authority on this, because there have been very many instances where we had wanted to make changes in the local government system and in respect of which we obtained honest local government opinion. [Interjections.]

The position is that this is going to pre-empt the opinions of the non-Whites who are allegedly the people who are going to be favoured by this massive improvement in their franchise position. As I have already indicated, it makes very little difference to them. They have already thrown it out. They do not want it. They want to be part ot the discussions. As far as I can gather, there was no unanimity even in the consultative committee in this regard. Personally, I also believe that, in trying to implement this Bill in so far as local government is concerned, the Government has created a monster which is going to give them a lot of trouble over a long period, because proving of these juristic voters is not going to be very simple. There are going to be a lot of problems and every time there is a by-election the whole juristic voters’ list has to be brought up to date. Property changing hands is also going to present great problems.

I am sorry there has been a lot of acrimony in this debate. Even in this Third Reading stage it was unavoidable as far as I am concerned. I realize that the hon the Minister is very tired. I think most of us are very tired. All these Bills have been brought before us at short notice. As far as I am concerned, I hope the hon the Minister will forgive my rather sharp attitude.

As I have said before, I do anticipate great problems and I am sorry if there has been acrimony, but the acrimony is because we on these benches feel so strongly about this. We feel we are being ridden over roughshod and that local government is being ridden over roughshod. The Coloured and Indian communities as well as the Whites are being ridden over roughshod. We consider this to be a bad Bill and we shall definitely not be supporting the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he can show me a single resolution of a provincial council in which that province itself has decided to relinquish these rights. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether his need to get South Africa’s local authorities into his system totally as regards the franchise has driven him so far that he no longer cares about the rights of the provinces and the local authorities in this country.

You are talking nonsense, man.

Sir, I could react, of course, but an eagle does not catch flies. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must tell me this evening whether this Bill makes provision for lesser rights and greater rights. The hon the Minister does not always understand these things. He is so accustomed to listening to himself that he does not listen to anyone else. That is why he replies to one in the manner in which he thinks one should have spoken when one spoke. The hon the Minister says there are no lesser rights. I say that there are lesser rights. A woman has lesser rights. Her husband has two votes and she only has one. When he goes to vote, he votes as a voter and he also votes as the registered owner of the house. The wife therefore has a lesser right, whilst the husband has a greater right. In South Africa this rule applies to approximately 86% or more of the inhabitants of the country.

Surely property can be registered in the name of women, too.

Not when a woman is married in community of property.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Witbank must please just try to remain calm. I am going to come to him in a moment. He must just be patient for a while. In a moment I shall also refer to the small pieces of land which he will perhaps also want to register. [Interjections.] The man, the landowner and the company therefore each have a greater right. What about the pensioner? Does he have a lesser right? The men on our borders, whom we have to hear about so often, and the students at our universities, do they have a lesser right then?

How many more times are you going to come up with that argument?

Until you understand, and until it makes an impression on the hon the Minister.

And until the hon the Minister replies to that.

These are the questions that have to be answered. These questions concern the lesser right of the woman and the greater right of the landowner with his two votes.

I do not want to take the story regarding the financially powerful further here now. [Interjections.] However, I believe that anyone with a little sense will realize that a company can subdivide its properties because this gives it certain tax benefits. For example, if 150 houses belong to a company, it does not register them all in one company; it registers only 10 of them in a company. It therefore has 15 votes.

Is that how you do it?

Very easily, yes. I could quote even more examples of practices of this nature. [Interjections.] However, the point is that the rights of companies could be totally abused. Of course, I do not believe that that was the hon the Minister’s intention with the legislation. Those rights could, in fact, be abused, however. A party could also win a municipal election by 30 votes; even by only one vote. That is why the real interests of the inhabitants are by no means being served when it comes to these rights of companies. A company is a disadvantage to a constituency. The workers of a company, Whites and those of colour, lie around on pavements, and are a nuisance in many other respects, too. The workers of a company are a disadvantage to a community and to a constituency. I therefore do not think a company should have more privileges than the ordinary voters.

The hon the Minister must listen carefully to what I am saying. I would not like him to misunderstand me. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation entitled to say that the hon member for Langlaagte is a fool? [Interjections.]

That is the understatement of the year. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon the Deputy Minister say?

Mr Speaker, I said that if the hon member for Langlaagte is opposed to companies, he would be regarded as a fool by a company.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon member for East London North said that that was the understatement of the year. Is he entitled to say that? Or is he going to try to get away from what he said again?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Bryanston permitted to say that the “Botterossie”

said that? He made that remark with reference to the hon the Deputy Minister of Cooperation. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought that “Botterossie” was the hon the Deputy Minister’s nickname. If that is not his nickname, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Bryanston is not permitted to address other hon members of this House by their nicknames.

Mr Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: If the hon member for Bryanston refers to me as “Botterossie”, he deserves to be treated with absolute contempt. As far as I am concerned, he therefore need not even withdraw that remark. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon member for East London North said that if the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation refers to the hon member for Langlaagte as a fool, that is the understatement of the year. I maintain that that is an insult to the hon member for Langlaagte, and I should like to ask for your ruling in that regard.

Order! The hon member for East London North must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I hope that I will not be interrupted again. No one takes any notice of the hon member for East London North, in any case. I do not know why people get so excited when he says anything. However, I agree that he should behave himself. [Interjections.]

On becoming a Union, rights were transferred to the provinces. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he submitted no decisions by any provinces whatsoever to deprive the voters of these rights to which they are lawfully entitled. A Coloured or an Indian can vote or participate in voting in a White area, just as a White can participate in voting in a Coloured or an Indian area.

Where does the hon member get that nonsense?

Of course, the hon member for Mossel Bay is not one of our most intelligent hon members.

I appreciate the hon member evaluating me in that way.

I just want to tell the hon member that Einstein always had problems with slow children. [Interjections.]

Let us take the example of a company with a White franchise of 49% and a Coloured or an Indian franchise of 51%. They will take a joint decision to designate someone to go and vote.

But then it is a company in which Coloureds or the Indians have a majority interest.

I just want my learned friend to listen. I want to tell him that a Coloured or an Indian can vote in another group area in this way. [Interjections.] If a company with a White franchise of 49% is situated in a Coloured area, it can vote in that area because it can cast a joint vote in respect of who is going to vote for them. In such a case these people have a vote across the colour bar.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he has in fact succeeded in doing the Transvaal—which he does not like, of course—in the eyes as far as its local authorities are concerned. [Interjections.] Of course, he achieved this without the hon members of the CP, since if we were sitting opposite he would never have accomplished that. We want to warn him that we are going to take it away from him. He will not continue treating the Transvaal like he does at present.

The Transvaal is much better off without you. [Interjections.]

If the hon member is referring to a rugby team, that is possible, since my rugby days are past. The hon the Minister will still regret those words in politics, however. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has won this round, but he has now closed doors to himself due to the way in which he has dealt with this legislation, since when we put questions to the hon the Minister, he was not even prepared to reply to them. That simply does not work. We shall not accept it, and I say that local authorities throughout the country will have to pay a high premium of 20% to 30% due to this dictatorial method of government from the top—the Galtieri type of government.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Having continued to listen to the hon member, may I now withdraw the withdrawal of the statement “understatement of the year”? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, if I may come back to a more serious discussion of this Bill and its consequences, I want to concur at once with the stirring plea made here by the hon member for Sea Point concerning the merits of this legislation and the reasons why we cannot really go along with this Bill.

In this regard I just want to say that I was unable to follow the hon member for Witbank. He made a very strong point of the issue of the double vote or the more than double vote. He said that the hon members of the CP and we, too, by implication, were not concerned about the interests of property owners. Surely the hon member knows that in terms of this Bill there will be a large number of people who will be excluded from the municipal franchise because they do not live in the relevant group area for which the body was established. I ask the hon member for Witbank …

Ask Phillip; he knows.

No, I am asking the hon member for Witbank.

Ask Phillip; he will tell you.

I ask the hon member for Witbank, if my statement is correct—it is correct—that there will indeed be large numbers of people who will be excluded from the municipal franchise, why he does not display the same concern about the interests of those people.

Ask Phillip; he will tell you.

I do not even know what the hon member for Hercules means by that. [Interjections.]

I just want to say to the hon member for Witbank that if he is in earnest and he states that that complaint is not acceptable to him because it excludes from the municipal franchise people who have an interest in that area, then if he wants to be honest he cannot accept this Bill, because we are excluding large numbers of people simply because they do not live in the specific group area for which a local authority of some nature has been established. I expect of him to display the same concern about that.

In the second place the hon member for Witbank said that we should give to others what we demand for ourselves. The hon member knows then, that in the implementation of the Group Areas Act, far more members of the Coloured and Indian groups are affected than Whites. He knows, too, that a far greater number of Coloureds and Indians are resident outside those group areas than there are whites living outside the White group areas, and therefore he cannot honestly say that we are doing for them what we are doing for ourselves. I merely ask that when we seek to apply these powers, we apply them equally to all.

He went on to say that every community should have the right to decide on its own affairs, but I again want to ask him why it is that we are excluding so many people living outside those group areas from having a say even as regards their own affairs. Therefore I just want to say that from a rational point of view I fail to understand the whol argument advanced by the hon member for Witbank.

I want to revert to the fundamental principles at issue here. There are three points of departure that apply in the new dispensation created at the central level. In the first in stance there is the principle of joint responsibility in regard to matters of common or communal concern and own decision-making on own affairs. In order to give effect to that joint decision-making and co-responsibility on matters of common concern the standpoint was adopted, secondly, that there should be an extension of franchise, including the granting of a say, in respect of the other two groups, too, in that central decision-making process in regard to matters of common concern. We have said time and again that we cannot carry on with the policy we have maintained here over the years whereby those people have been totally excluded from participation in those central decision-making mechanisms concerning matters of common concern. Moreover, joint mechanisms have been created by way of the three Houses and the related bodies, namely the Cabinet, the standing committees and so on, in order to give effect to the point of departure that there must be mechanisms whereby all three groups will be involved in order to give effect to the principle of joint responsibility with regard to such matters of common concern. The third basic principle is that these mechanisms must assist us to achieve consensus. Those are the three points of departure. What happens if we apply these basic points of departure to this Bill? In the first instance—and I am not referring to the Regional Services Councils Bill now—what we get is that purely at the level of local government there is no example of joint mechanisms, because the whole Bill is structured on the existence of separation, of separate councils in terms of the Group Areas Act. Even in separate group areas there are joint facilities used by the various groups. [Interjections.] Where at the local level is effect being given to the principle of joint responsibility on matters of common concern? Hon members will concede that even if a person lives in his own group area he shares common facilities with other groups within the municipal context. In other words, that basic principle is in my opinion violated by this Bill.

Is the hon member unaware of the Bill that comes next on the Order Paper?

That measure relates to government at regional level. I am now referring to government at local level.

The second principle to which I want to refer is decision-making on own affairs. What about those people who reside outside those group areas, and who will be left totally devoid of rights as far as the franchise is concerned? Where is their participation in matters of common concern and decisions on own affairs? If rights within the White group context cannot be given to, say, Coloureds living in a White group area, because they have to conduct their own affairs and because they are Coloureds, what provision is then being made for them as Coloureds? None at all. Therefore a situation is being created whereby people are being left without rights, and this is in conflict with the basic point of departure accepted by the Government itself.

As I said earlier, the Government wants to base its policy on consensus. Time and again it has been said that this system can only work if consensus is achieved. This is true, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has pointed out time and again to us and to everyone who will participate in the new dispensation that the success of this system will not depend on the structures created but on the spirit in which the structures that exist are used. In other words, consensus can only be achieved if there is a willingness to give and take.

The first essential principle of consensus is the use of the mechanisms that exist in order to achieve consensus. In other words, consensus is not something that can be sucked out of one’s thumb. It is a laborious process. The hon the Minister has spoken time and again about the vital need to give and take. However, what is being done on the first occasion that consensus is to be sought? A unilateral decision is being taken about a matter which fundamentally affects the interests of all the groups in the country—Whites, Coloureds and Indians. At the first opportunity we have to seek consensus, we make a law. The bodies that the hon the Minister consulted and that advised him cannot take the place of the consensus mechanisms which the hon the Minister has created.

Do you know better than they?

The Association of Management Committees indicated what they found unacceptable. Does the hon member for Mossel Bay know more than this association? Can the hon member speak on their behalf?

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member a question. He makes the statement that there was no consensus among the various groups, but can he tell us what mechanism exists at present to achieve consensus among neighbouring White towns?

The answer to that is very simple. If this Bill had only dealt with the municipal franchise of Whites it would not have been necessary for the other groups to be consulted in this regard. That is the point. However, because this Bill affects other groups as well, used should have been made of the mechanisms we have created in this Parliament to achieve consensus. Otherwise it simply means that the term “consensus” is a tinkling cymbal. It is meaningless. It is as simple as that.

What are we doing, however? A few days ago a proclamation was issued in terms of which this legislation is to come into effect on 3 September—in a few weeks’ time. Why is it so urgent that we should finalize these matters, which have the most intimate effect of the interests of all of us, before 3 September, when the new Parliament will come into being? I cannot understand that. I am sorry to say this—in this regard I associate myself with the hon member for Sea Point—but what we are doing by means of this measure is a total denial of the spirit that is basic to the dispensation that the Government is establishing at the central level. It is as simple as that. This is not a matter of the technical details of the franchise that are being provided for here; it is a matter of what we are doing here, viz attacking the roots of the entire concept of consensus which the hon the Minister himself has been putting forward time and again. If I were a Coloured or an Indian it would be very difficult for me really to believe that the Government gives consensus top priority in its thinking.

Mr Speaker, let me begin at once with the last statement of the hon member. The Government does not regard consensus as the highest priority. That would mean that one could not govern a country. I expected far better insight from the hon member Prof Olivier as regards administrative capability and its effectiveness than to make such a general statement. I shall come to him again later.

I have been listening to the debate for a long time, and the overall impression I gained is that in fact we have heard nothing from the other side of the House to improve the legislation. From that side we have had only one thing, viz joint opposition to the legislation.

†Sir, what surprises me is the hon member for Sea Point’s observation that with this legislation we have succeeded in unifying the Opposition. He believes that is a singular achievement. [Interjections.] Let me grant him a sense of exaltation in this regard because apparently it does not count with him what the basis is of that agreement between the Opposition parties provided they can oppose. It is not very strange coming from him because we have had experience of this attitude in the referendum. [Interjections.] I did not interrupt any hon member during the debate. The record of the hon member for Sea Point and that of his party is there for everybody to see. The same opposition that they had against the Constitution they have against this legislation.

*It is pointless our arguing with one another about that. The fact is that if we accepted the standpoint of the hon member for Sea Point we should not have had a new constitution. If we accepted the standpoint of the hon member’s party as regards the participation of White, Brown and Asian, we could not have begun a new dispensation on 3 September. His greatest pride as far as his standpoint in respect of this legislation is concerned is that he was able to achieve consensus with the CP. [Interjections.] That is his great achievement. It does not matter what they differ about. He is proud of the fact that they differ.

[Inaudible.]

I listened to the hon member and he can at least show me the courtesy of listening to me too. [Interjections.] The hon member went on to say that we used a built-in majority to impose legislation. The implication of what he says is that the Government decided on a specific standpoint and is going to apply that standpoint whatever opposition it may encounter. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the co-ordinating council received no directive from the Government in regard to an investigation of franchise qualifications, and members of that hon member’s party served on the subcommittee and on the council itself.

Did they reach unanimity?

Could the hon member not wait a moment? They also served on the National Interim Liaison Committee and supported a standpoint of uniformity. If the hon member wants me to provide the names of his fellow party members I shall do so with pleasure, although I should prefer not to mention their names here.

You can do anything you like; it is your prerogative.

Those hon members served on that council and all endorsed the principle of uniformity. [Interjections.] I do not intend replying further to the hon member for Sea Point except to say to him “At least I succeeded in making him smile”. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must now please give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply.

It is quite interesting that all the hon members on the other side discussed the sensitivity of the legislation we are dealing with here. However, very few of them show the basic decency of waiting until their statements have been replied to. If that is the spirit in which they are going to participate in the new dispensation, I shudder for the future. Apparently it is the standpoint of all the parties on the Opposition side that only their standpoints are to be heard; moreover they do not want any reply to their standpoints. [Interjections.] In my opinion this is a pity, because I concede that this is a sensitive subject and that we should at least discuss it in a rational way, even though one differs on it. That, at least, is the spirit in which I had hoped we could discuss the legislation.

The official standpoint of the Opposition is that we must obtain the approval of the population for the legislation. I now ask, with all due respect, how we are to test the opinion of the population in this specific regard, unless the hon member for Sea Point expects us to hold another referendum. I know of no way in which the opinion of the population could have been tested. His own words were: “The population have not been tested in this regard.”

No single local authority has been tested.

I want to ask the hon member when legislation on local authorities has ever been submitted in this House in regard to which each individual local authority has been tested. I also want to ask the hon member how one tests the opinions of individual local authorities. Are we to go and test the population’s opinion in every local authority area, or are we to test the opinion of the council members and then add them all up? Surely it is an absolute absurdity to argue that we should operate in that fashion. The fact is, after all, that like other organizations, local authorities have organized themselves into specific institutions that comprise the mouthpieces recognized by us. There is not a single hon member who disputes the fact that successive governments have recognized the United Municipal Executive as the mouthpiece of local authorities. However, we are now to ignore them and instead go and test the opinion of their component members on an individual basis. If we want to have legislation passed in the House on that basis we shall not succeed in getting any through. That is the standpoint of the hon member for Sea Point in this regard.

The hon member went on to say that the legislation implied more apartheid, but that he would argue, with regard to the next Bill to be discussed, that it would represent less apartheid. Therefore he wants the best of both worlds. I make no apology for my standpoint in this regard. I say as a general statement that I shall do everything in my power to give Whites, Brown and Asian the opportunity, in this instance, to participate on an equal footing in a system of local government. I do not apologize to the CP or to anyone else for the fact that at the same time I adopt the standpoint—and the country that has to decide on this has thus far endorsed this standpoint—that there must be institutions at the level of local government which will enable people to participate in decision-making affecting their lives. I cannot enable every individual to do so, but I have at least tried to enable the majority of people to do so. I emphasized that I shall propagate, against all opposition, the statement that people must be able to participate in decision-making. On the other hand, I shall not be prepared under any circumstances to sacrifice effective government to what the hon member is advocating. I want to say to the hon member for Sea Point and his party that it is pointless paying lip service to the concept of rights. The hon member Prof Olivier did so again this evening. He referred to the Group Areas Act, but he should rather refer to what happened to Coloureds and Asians when they were still on the common voters roll. At the time their votes were manipulated. In certain constituencies there were 2 000 voters whereas in others there were 16 000 voters. We know that rentals were collected weekly instead of monthly in order to keep them off the voters’ roll. I really do not think we have reason to go into that history, but if hon members wish to do so, we can do so. In terms of what I propose—deficient as it is because society is not ideal—there are proposals to enable people to participate in the decision-making that affects their lives. We are not capable of achieving the ideal situation in this country in this regard. Not one of us can achieve that. However, the fact remains that to the extent that we were able to use the existing mechanisms with regard to this legislation to achieve the greatest possible degree of unanimity, we have done so. Parliament has created an instrument which is to advise it on matters relating to local government, namely the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. It is being ridiculed, but that council was appointed without taking into account the political conviction, colour, race or province of origin of people. The greatest success that they achieved was that they were able to make unanimous recommendations in spite of mutual differences. They were unanimous as to the need for regional services boards. They were unanimous as to the need for training. They were also unanimous as to the criteria for the delimitation of wards or local authorities. However, we simply want to cast this aside and say that this old council is an inferior council and those who are best able to judge this matter are not the skilled people at the level of local government, but we who are sitting in the select committee. I object to that because people of all political parties and, in this instance, all the relevant population groups, served on the council. I wish I could give hon members a visual image of the spirit in which those people deliberated with one another so that we could compare that with the spirit in which we deliberate with one another about this. I want to say that there is a very important lesson for us to learn from the way they did this in comparison with the way we do it. The people in that council did not try to score points against one another. They did not try to maintain their standpoints in all circumstances. They understood that we live in a complex society which makes it extremely difficult for us to find one another.

The legislation that comes after this will, if we accept it, usher in a new level of local authority in the history of this country, a level which has never existed before. I want to say once again that I do not believe that that legislation is perfect. However, I do believe that the legislation we are going to discuss after this represents an approach which I hope will make it possible for people at this level of administration to participate in the administration of the country and to use that as a basis for further development on the road ahead. If we do not wish to do that we must say to one another that there are no solutions to our problems. I cannot reconcile the standpoint of the hon member for Sea Point and that of the hon member for Brakpan. That is impossible. Those standpoints represent the extreme opposite poles in thought. What I can do is to see whether the reasonable people of all groups are prepared to initiate a certain process. I emphasize that in that way we are beginning a process, because that is not the end of the road.

Integration is the end of the road. [Interjections.]

I do not really wish to react to interjections, but what bothers me as regards the hon member for Kuruman, just as it bothers me with regard to the hon member for Pietersburg, is the emphasis on the accusation of integration.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must please give me a chance. I am not quarrelling now. [Interjections.] Do we not understand the effect on other people of such a repellent and haughty attitude?

I now come to the hon member for Brakpan—I shall deal with this very briefly. I want to ask him—and I do so in all fairness—whether anyone who has property within the jurisdiction of a local authority has an interest in that authority.

You are giving him a double interest.

I ask him whether such a person has an interest in it.

Yes.

Very well, Mr Speaker. If the hon member says “yes” then I accept that. What, then, of the man who does not live there but who does have a property? Must I not give him a right as well?

But that is not the point.

No, wait a moment please. That is indeed the principle involved.

Now he is getting two votes.

No, wait a moment. Let us forget about the votes for the time being. The principle …

The same man is now getting two votes.

No, Mr Speaker. The hon member for Brakpan cannot escape his dilemma now. He said yes. What, then, about the man whose name does not appear on the Parliamentary voters’ roll for that particular ward, the man who lives elsewhere and who, according to the hon member for Brakpan, himself has a right to decide who administers that ward?

But not two votes.

Let us forget about the two votes for the time being. Let us first argue …

But first answer the question about the two votes.

Just give me a chance please. [Interjections.] Let us first take the case of a man who does not have a Parliamentary vote in that ward …

He and his wife, yes. [Interjections.]

Oh, please. [Interjections.] Let us, for example, take the case of the man who lives in Cape Town and has a Parliamentary vote here but who possesses a property in Pretoria where he does not live but where, as the hon member for Brakpan concedes, he has the right to vote, because he possesses property there. Surely this is a principle that the hon member concedes. The moment the hon member concedes that, he will be making a little progress; without party and without minority.

And if he lives in Pretoria and owns property there?

Please give me a chance now. I should like to proceed with my argument. The hon member will concede that a juristic person—and this applies in two provinces at present—may in fact cast two votes in terms of the existing legislation. He may cast a vote on an individual basis, and if he happens to have organized himself as a juristic person possessing property, he can have another vote in his capacity as a juristic person. This, in fact, already applies.

It is unacceptable.

The hon member must not say that it is unacceptable now. It is the case in terms of the existing legislation.

Nevertheless it remains unacceptable.

In fact that is the case in terms of the current legislation. Indeed, I never…

It remains unacceptable.

Oh really, please just give me a chance. The hon member must not fight with me now. After all, he asked me to reply to his argument. Now, however, he does not wish to give me the opportunity to do so. I should very much like to reply to him. [Interjections.] That principle has already been accepted in our legislation. The principle that a juristic person may cast a vote has already been accepted in our present legislation. I concede that this is not the case in all the provinces. However, the principle does exist. Therefore, if we now begin to argue, then surely, in all fairness, it is wrong of the hon member to contend that we want to do this now in order to benefit certain wealthy people. [Interjections.] No, the hon member must not cause us to start fighting about this now. There is one more statement I want to make to him; then I shall be finished with him. It is that in the Cape a Parliamentary vote does not only apply …

But one does not have two votes in the Cape [Interjections.]

No, just give me a chance now. Mr Speaker, I have just explained to the hon member for Brakpan that this is the case when someone is a juristic person. However, I want to know from him what the case is with regard to the national servicemen of the Cape. What about the pensioners of the Cape?

You have always maltreated them. You have never given them their rights.

Surely they do not have a vote unless we accept this legislation?

We in the Transvaal will not take it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan contends that we are violating democracy. However, do you know what his argument amounts to? His argument with regard to democracy amounts to the basis of one man one vote without a property qualification.

Your argument amounts to one man, two votes.

No, wait a moment. I want to know from the hon member for Brakpan whether his definition of democracy amounts to a system of one man, one vote without a property qualification.

Must I reply to that question?

Just say yes or no.

One man, one vote in his constituency and in the unit in which he governs.

Very well, that is fair. The hon member said that it amounts to a system of one man, one vote in the constituency he lives in. What, then, about the Black people? A system of one man, one vote. That is really very fine. It is most interesting. The hon member states that it is a system of one man, one vote in the constituency he lives in.

He said in his homeland. [Interjections.]

No, it is not as easy as that. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister must accept my word. [interjections.] I said a system of one man, one vote in the constituency where he lives and in his unit, viz homeland where he governs. [Interjections.] Because it is typical of the hon the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order!

Then, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan must choose his words more carefully in stating his standpoints. The hon member states …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister is now putting words into the mouth of the hon member for Brakpan that he did not say. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order.

Yes, it is not a point of order, it is merely a point of waste.

That is typical of the hon the Minister.

The member must not be angry because he walked into the trap. He must not be angry with me. He must be angry with himself. [Interjections.] He might as well go and read Hansard.

I just want to make one final point and then I shall be finished with the hon member. He says that this is autocratic legislation. What makes it autocratic legislation? Is it the fact that we consulted all the interested parties? Is it the fact that we consulted the co-ordinating council? Is it the fact that we consulted the UME? Is it the fact we consulted the management committees? Is it the fact that we consulted each one? Is it the fact that I consulted the provinces? [Interjections.] Is that autocratic?

†The hon member for Umbilo has recorded his objection to this Bill, and I do not want to take the matter any further. I accept the spirit of his objection and I want to assure him that I also accept his apology. There are no hard feelings between us.

*I now come to the hon member for Langlaagte.

Leave him!

No, I do not wish to leave him. There is something I just want to say to him. He made a remark about an hon member on this side of the House. He said that an eagle does not eat flies.

No, does not catch flies.

I accept that. It does not catch flies. The implication is the same. All I want to say to the hon member for Langlaagte is that he need not be afraid. [Interjections.] I now come to the hon member Prof Olivier, and I want to be very brief. I want to tell something to the hon member that he ought to know better than any other hon member in this House, and I hope he accepts it in the spirit in which I am saying it to him now. At one stage of his life the hon member wrestled with issues relating to relations politics.

I am still wrestling with them.

Yes, I shall come to that. Just give me a chance. At that stage of his life, when he was confronted with the factual issues of his country, the hon member adopted specific standpoints. [Interjections.] I am not scoring points now. Please give me a chance. The hon member knows that and he will concede one thing; viz that it is not possible to establish an ideal system in our country. The hon member knows as well as I do that there is not a single hon member in this House who does not profess the same thing in theory, viz that every person must be able to participate in the decision-making that affects his life. There is not one of us who differs on that score. We all know that that is not possible in the ideal models that we know.

The hon the Minister does not include us in that.

But I spoke about all of us.

Yes, but not about me.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member wants to exclude himself then he must do so.

Yes I do, because tomorrow you will say that I agreed with it. [Interjections.]

We all say so. Indeed, the hon member for Jeppe said that by means of this legislation I was tricking the Brown people.

Of course, yes.

Therefore he wants to give them more rights than I am giving them.

Yes, in their own territory.

I accept that. This legislation deals with rights in one’s own territory, and if I understood the hon member for Sea Point correctly, this very point constitutes his objection to the legislation. Therefore I want to say to the hon member Prof Olivier that there is not one of us in this House who even has the assurance that any of the morals we propagate will be capable of maintaining a democratic system in the country.

All we can say is that the one person’s model has a better chance than that of the next person. I want to say at once, in all fairness, that this is a matter of subjective judgment. In the final instance I want to say that one can judge post facto whose policy was the most successful. I then want to say to the hon member and to all the other hon members that it has been the policy of the NP—I praise it for this—that has meant that 60% of the White voters in whose hands the democratic process was, consented last year to bring Coloureds and Asians to Parliament for the first time in the history of our country.

Moreover, they were prepared to accept that at the local level—this is the sensitive one, and the hon member is not wrong, because this is at home, next to him—there must be institutions of local government which enable everyone to participate in that decision-making, and the legislation in that regard comes after this. In spite of the differences in the way we see the legislation—and, with great respect, this was not my success; it is largely the success of the people sitting to the left of me in the officials’ benches …

Do not put the blame on them now.

No, I am giving them recognition for it. If the hon member for Langlaagte cannot understand that then I should rather not speak to him.

Instead of our accepting that during this session we passed legislation relating to the development of the system of local government, instead of our accepting that we are getting a voting system which is feasible for us within the limitations of society and is acceptable …

To whom?

I told the hon member to what extent there was unanimity in this regard and I cannot take it any further.

I am now specifically addressing the hon member for Sea Point when I say that instead our finalizing the debate on this Bill and going on to the other Bill, which will make it possible for people to participate at the local level, because what we are propagating there is an institution of local government, we are splitting hairs with regard to our respective standpoints. I do not think this does us any credit.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether one of the main points of my objection was not specifically that the consensus machinery we have created in the new dispensation was not used with regard to this important sphere.

The consensus machinery I created for local government matters is to be found in the co-ordinating council, and I have used it to the full.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The joint rendering of services by way of regional services councils is not a new concept in South Africa. It is an essential further development for which a need has existed for a long time, particularly in the metropolitan areas where co-operation between adjacent local authorities is a prerequisite for reducing the costs of rendering services and for enhancing efficiency.

The object of regional services councils is co-operation in regard to and co-ordination of the rendering of services among local authorities to ensure the optimum utilization of scarce resources; in other words, to ensure cost-effectiveness and efficiency. [Interjections.] The greatest possible measure of independence for the participating local authorities and the entrenchment of the right of the respective population groups to exercise self-determination within the context of their own communities, is an integral part of the proposed model. The rights of minority groups will therefore continue to be recognized and protected in accordance with the constitutional guidelines of the Government.

On 17 January 1980 the United Municipal Executive of South Africa officially submitted evidence to the Commission of Enquiry into the Constitution, the Schlebusch Commission. The hon member for Sea Point will remember this. The establishement of what the UME termed “urban regional councils and rural regional councils” was advocted in the UME’s proposals. Because the evidence which the UME, as official mouthpiece for White local authorities, submitted as a carefully considered document of 43 pages and 3 diagrams to the then Schlebusch Commission corresponds almost verbatim to what is contained in the Regional Services Councils Bill, I want to quote from pages 33 and 34 of the document. Now, this was before I autocratically enforced my will upon the UME. I quote:

It is clearly apparent from the UME evidence that the joint rendering of services will be to the benefit of the existing White local authorities, but will also benefit local authorities for all the other population groups.

A Committee of Enquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities was appointed a few years ago by the Minister of Finance—the Browne Committee—and in 1980 this committee recommended that bodies be created that could render joint services in the larger urban areas in order to provide such services more cheaply. In paragraph 9.4 the Browne Committee summarized its conclusions and recommendations on joint services. In paragraph 9.4.4 the committee pointed out “dat daar ruim geleentheid is vir die beter benutting van dienste wat op ge samentlike basis in die Republiek se groot stede voorsien kan word”.

In paragraph 9.18(i) of the President’s Council report on Local and Regional Management Systems in the RSA it is stated “that joint services committees should be established as soon as possible to provide bulk services at low unit cost to local governments”. Further inquiries in this connection were recommended in the report.

When the Government’s guidelines were made known during the Federal Congress of the National Party in Bloemfontein on 30 July 1982, the hon the Prime Minister announced inter alia in this connection “op metropolitaanse of streeksgrondslag stellig gesamentlike dienste gelewer sal moet word vir doeleindes waarvan liggame geskep moet word waarin plaaslike besture op die een of ander proporsionele grondslag deur afge vaardigdes wat die plaaslike besture self aan wys, verteenwoordig word”.

Recommendation 43 of the President’s Council that the recommendations of the Croeser Working Group for the establishment of joint service committees be implemented , could not at that stage, ie before the further technical inquiries which had been envisaged by the President’s Council itself had been completed, be accepted by the Government.

Further inquiries into the matter by a fact finding committee of the co-ordinating council were completed during April 1984, and the recommendations were submitted to the Government by the co-ordinating council on 10 May 1984. The co-ordinating council, on which all interested parties had representation, also recommended that regional services councils be established to enable certain regional services to be rendered more efficiently and more cost-effectively.

From the historical background three incontrovertible facts clearly emerge: Firstly, that it is the primary function of a local authority to render services to its community which, within the scope of its financial and other means, are of such a nature that they raise to as high a level as possible and maintain on that level the standard of living and quality of life of life of the community; secondly, that the concept of the economics of scale make it inevitable that certain services could be rendered more efficiently and more cost-effectively, and with better utilization of scarce resources, if they were initiated on a larger scale and over a larger areas than merely the for the limited numbers or in the limited area of a single local authority; thirdly, that in view of the historical social and political patterns of settlement of the various population groups in the RS A, as accepted and recognized by the Government in the July 1982 guidelines, which were approved by the electorate during the referendum and structured by Parliament in the new Constitution, any rendering of bulk services will have to take place with the retention of the principles of each population group having its own autonomous local authorities, with its own say over its own affairs and joint responsibility for matters of common concern. On these three pillars rests the entire concept of a new type of institution by means of which shape has to be given to a better future for all the inhabitants of South Africa.

This new institution is not a new level of government. The building stones or components of the RSC’s are in fact the own local authorities of Whites, Coloureds and Indians including any that may still be established, of whatever grade and whichever one of the three population groups. They are a horizontal extension of local authorities—a new instrument in the hands of and controlled by local government. If the RSC’s succeed in their aim, it is going to become easier for communities of all groups to reach maturity more rapidly and with fewer financial sacrifices and growing pains.

In this connection the facts of the situation in South Africa are that a joint supplier of specific bulk services makes it relatively easier for the respective population groups to establish their own viable local authorities and maintain them economically, as was in fact stated by the President’s Council in paragraph 9.3 of its report. Without joint rendering of services and co-ordinated action it will not be possible to give practical implementation to the Government’s policy of own institutions on local level for the respective communities. The new structure and the own local authority should therefore be seen as the two hands of the same body, complementing and helping one another at local government level.

†The local authorities, management and representative bodies in the region decide which one or more than one of the Schedule 2 services ought to be regional services. The approval of both the Administrator and the Minister must be obtained. Schedule 2 to the Bill contains a list of 15 possible regional services. Item 16 of Schedule 2 comprises “other regional functions” that make it possible for a council also to render other services that are used jointly by the members but are not listed under the first 15 services. A local authority, management or representative body may therefore be a member of the RSC for the purpose of certain functions only if the council agrees.

The services referred to are all of a general nature, in other words general affairs of the region which affect the interests of more than one community in a region. If a matter contained in Schedule 2 affects only the interests of one community in the region, it is not a regional function but an own matter for the community concerned. Matters affecting the interests of more than one region are also not regional functions but general matters which will have to be treated in another way. Where regional functions are transferred to the council, the institution which at the time was executing the function concerned, will transfer its power over the function with regard to the region concerned, in terms of clause 3(2).

Clause 3(4) provides that to prevent duplication the Administrator may, after approval by the Minister and publication in the Provincial Gazette, declare any rural or peri-urban body as one or more councils after consultation with such a body. Through this the duplication of functions is eliminated and services can be rendered more effectively. However, it must be stressed that the security of employees of rural or peri-urban bodies shall not be endangered by such rationalization. The Administrator may stipulate any condition he thinks fit for the purposes of such transition. I want to give an explicit and unequivocal assurance on behalf of the Government that personnel presently attached to rural or per-urban institutions need not fear for their future job security as a result of these provisions. In fact, my concern is not that any employee will lose his work but that we are facing a shortage of qualified staff in this regard. One of the committees of the coordinating council has investigated the training of personnel for local government.

When a regional service is identified, it is transferred to the council according to existing procedures as applicable to all local authorities in the various provinces as if it were being transferred from one local authority to another. If necessary a provincial council is empowered to adapt the statutory provisions in its province to provide for special arrangements in this regard, and the Administration may make an arrangement on grounds of fairness. The transfer of assets and liabilities to a council is done without compensation. Assets and liabilities are taken over simultaneously. Rural communities in Natal, Transvaal and the Free State in this way for the first time obtain a potential say in those local government matters affecting their interests and the circumstances of their daily fives in those rural areas.

Although only White, Coloured and Indian communities will be represented in the joint decision-making body, clause 4(3) enables an RSC to enter into any agreement with other institutions or bodies to provide certain services on behalf of such institutions. In terms of this clause it would legally be possible for an RSC to provide a Black local authority with services on contract even if the Black local authority is situated outside the Republic. Domination of other members by the “core city” in particular, is prevented by the requirement that no member shall possess more than 50% of the total number of votes. Management or representative bodies will in practice not have so much voting power because their contributions to the income of the council will be much less than those of local authorities.

In terms of clause 11, a majority required for decision-making purposes constitutes two thirds of the number of votes of those representatives present. In this manner it is ensured that large city councils do not dominate the meeting but that true co-operation and consensus are striven for before a decision is made. A decision of a council or a proposal that has not obtained the required majority may again be debated at the following meeting at the request of any one member of the council who was present when the decision was originally taken. A member may only appeal to the Administrator after he has been unsuccessful in bringing an issue that affects his community or authority unfavourably to the attention of the council by means of the procedures described in clause 11(2). Where a proposal on an issue such as levies on services does not obtain a majority vote and a resolution is not passed, the chairman may, in terms of clause 11(8), refer an issue to the Administrator for adjudication although no appeal had been lodged by a member. The Administrators concerned shall after consultation with their various Executive Committees adjudicate over the appeals.

The Minister may promulgate regulations concerning any issue regarding the contents of this Bill after consultation with the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs.

*Mr Speaker, as I have indicated, we have come a long way to reach the point where we are able, tonight, to introduce this Bill in this House. It is indeed the product of protracted and complicated enquiries and negotiations, extending over a period of many years. This product is not the result of the work of one body, one group of people, one province or one population group or even one political party.

It is indeed the product of the collective thinking of all interested bodies that we are considering today. We are dealing—I readily concede this—with a complex and sensitive matter but at the same time also with a very important matter which could benefit South Africa and all its inhabitants greatly. I am aware of the fact that with this Bill the last word has not been spoken on this complex matter. We shall still learn in future; yes, we shall learn through our mistakes as well, and we shall possibly have to make adjustments. However, I am encouraged by the knowledge that the instrument we are creating here is an instrument for an improved rendering of services to the people of our country.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister has given us his explanation for this measure in his Second Reading speech and I shall deal with one or two of the detailed points he made in it. Once again he has referred in his speech to the work done by the co-ordinating council. In an earlier speech, the speech he made just before this, he referred to that council and said that there were members of my party and of other parties on it and that, if necessary, he would name them. I want to say to him that I think we have to be fair to all of those gentlemen. They worked exceedingly hard. The hon the Minister is aware, however—he acknowledged it in his Second Reading speech on the preceding Bill—that they were prescribed by the guidelines set by the hon the Prime Minister at the NP conference in July 1982 in Bloemfontein. They were prescribed by the policies of the NP.

The hon the member for Houghton and I sat on the Select Committee on the Constitution which dealt with Black local government, but we are not in favour of segregated local government for Blacks. However, within the framework of Government policy we had no alternative but to find the best possible solution.

Within those parameters.

Yes, within those parameters. In exactly the same way the hon the Leader of the Opposition is sitting on the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, looking at how one can frame rules and orders for the new Constitution, of which he does not approve. That does not mean to say that he must therefore be identified with the structures the Government is proposing. In exactly the same way the people who served on the co-ordinating council were not asked to devise new structures. They were asked: “Within the framework of the parameters of Government thinking will you help us to find solutions?” That is the first point.

The second point is that none of those people were there—the hon the Minister must be fair to them—as representatives of political parties. They may have had a variety of political views …

Of course.

Sir, they were there as invitees or delegates but not as representatives of parties as the hon the Minister keeps on saying. In fact, as a result of the confidentiality of proceedings, they were even precluded from reporting back to political parties. So they were individuals who were doing the best they could within the parameters laid down by the Government.

Thirdly, they were not there as representatives of local government bodies. They did not get mandates from the city council of Cape Town, the city council of Port Elizabeth, or the village management board of so-and-so. They acted on their own, in good faith ‘and as best they could within those parameters.

It was only last week that the city councils and the local authorities became aware of the Bills the Minister was going to produce. I think that, having got the assistance and co-operation of these people to do the best they could in the circumstances, he should be careful not to taint them by identifying them with the actual concepts included in this legislation. Let them be free men …

Why io you say “taint them”?

He has. He has indicated that they are co-responsible for this legislation. We say that, within the parameters he laid down, they did the best they could, but that, given a free hand, they would not have come up with these three pieces of legislation in the form in which they have been presented here. That is the whole point. We say that not a single member of a provincial council was aware of this legislation until last week, nor were any of the city councillors. This has not been canvassed widely at representative level. I want the hon the Minister to be fair to the members of that co-ordinating council. They did the best they could within the parameters he laid down, but they were not there to devise new systems of their own. They were there to advise him within the parameters of Government thinking.

I come to a further point. When it was suggested that the previous two Bills and particularly the latter one should have been referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution, the Minister was at pains to point out that we were not devising new structures but that we were expanding the voting participation. He said we were not devising new constitutional structures but that it was just a “verlengstuk” of existing provincial ordinances which would not be adapted to allow Coloureds and Indians to participate.

Did you accept the argument?

I understood the argument. However, in this Bill he is devising new structures. In his speech he used one of those tortuous phrases which only the NP can use. He described a regional services council as “’n horisontale verlengstuk van plaaslike owerhede”. What is a “horisontale verlengstuk van plaaslike owerhede”? I put it to the hon the Minister that these are new structures of government because local government have traditionally provided soft and hard services and have acted as local authorities or as service agencies. If one looks at the budget of local authorities it appears that much more money is spent on providing services, which are going to fall under this particular measure, than on providing the soft services such as looking after the communities’ concerns. What one is going to take away from local authorities is this whole field of government, which is going to be placed under a new umbrella organization, irrespective of whether one wants to call it a metropolitan or regional board. This Bill indeed makes provision for these new authorities to have the authority which was delegated to local authorities in terms of provincial ordinances. They are therefore not merely service agencies. They are new structures of government. I believe that the hon the Minister, once he has crossed this particular hurdle, is going to concede it because these are structures of government which are perhaps in the end going to become more important than local authorities themselves. If ever there was a case for presenting this to the Constitutional Select Committee—and particularly to the Coloured, White, Indian Constitutional Select Committee—it is this case, which is ever so much stronger than was the case of the Black Local Authorities Bill, which was referred to a select committee. In that case the hon the Minister said it was a new structure. Now we are coming with a new structure and yet the hon the Minister says it is a “verlengstuk van plaaslike owerhede”. It is no such thing. It is a new tier of government. It is not just a division of local government into two separate compartments.

As a result of what I have just said we have no compunction in moving, as I am doing right now, in order to place it on record, the following amendment:

Let us look at one or two elements of this Bill. The concept of having joint bodies or centralized bodies of various kinds for providing services is nothing new. If one looks at the Cape Peninsula area for instance, one has a joint services body composed of all the component elements of the local authorities in the Cape Peninsula, in respect of ambulance services. Ambulance services are controlled jointly by the local authorities in the area. I believe the various alternatives for providing services should be examined. When, for instance, it comes to providing water in the Cape Peninsula it is done on the basis of a core city. Cape Town is the core city providing water to the areas of the various local authorities. When it comes to providing other services such as electricity or gas or even road transportation it is done by a body which is not a local authority at all. Gas is provided by the Cape Gas Company, which is a private company. Transport is provided by City Tramways, and electricity by Escom. It appears therefore that there is a variety of ways in which joint or separate services can be provided. We believe that these concepts should be considered by a joint select committee of Parliament.

Hon members may well ask why we move this amendment before Second Reading and not thereafter. We do this in particular because once the Second Reading has been passed certain principles will be entrenched. Just as in the case of the previous Bill, in which I tried to get an amendment accepted which would have allowed Coloured people to participate in the process of decision-making together with White people in mixed areas, it was ruled that that was in conflict with the principle of the Bill. One of the principles of this Bill is that Black people should be excluded from participation in the decision-making process in respect of joint services. Once this Bill has been passed it will not be possible for the Opposition to argue that Blacks should be included. I argue this point not from a liberal or progressive or ideological point of view. I argue this from a point of view of fundamental common sense first of all as far as the provision of services is concerned, and also from a point of view of fundamental equity on the strength of the principle that people who have to pay for services should have some say in the regulation of those services. These are the two reasons.

This is not a new concept coming from the PFP. If one reads the report of the Economic Committee of the President’s Council, one sees that they refer quite specifically to this. They say that there is a need to find a body, Coloured, White and Black to regulate these services. They mention the fact that it is going to be necessary to include Blacks in this whole system. They do not argue the details of it but in terms of the thrust of their report all the authorities and areas should be included in this process.

What is the factual position? We can look at this matter from the point of view of the President’s Council and the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment under the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. It is that there are certain features in areas or regions that should be considered on a common basis. The fact that some of the planning functions operate in Black areas does not mean that it makes sense to exclude the Blacks from that decision-making process. One of the provisions is planning. How can one have planning for the metropolitan area of the Witwatersrand or the metropolitan area of the Cape Peninsula if the Khayelitsha’s, the Guguletu’s, the Langa’s, the Soweto’s and others are excluded from this process? Where is the equity in it that Black people should pay for the services but have no right of representation on the body that provides those services? I want the hon the Minister to answer that. He might give the old traditional excuse: “We do not want to be swamped”. The formula designed in this particular system means that one cannot be swamped because there is a limit placed upon the number of votes that any local authority can have. No local authority can have more than 50%. No decision can be taken by the new council except with a two-thirds majority. That would mean that one third of the people would always have a minority veto in respect of any decision. Therefore the hon the Minister cannot use the argument of swamping or the fact that there is no area of common interest. He cannot argue against the fact that in all equity people who pay for services should have some say in the regulation of those services. We find this quite monstrous, especially coming from the hon the Minister, because he was chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution when we dealt with Black local authorites. One of the most important features of the debate on that committee—the hon the Minister was part of those debates—was that if one wanted to give Black local authorities credibility they should be seen to have the same kind of authority as White local authorities. What is happening now is that, having established them, one cuts them out of the new regional or metropolitan authorities. They are going to be excluded but the Coloured, White and Indian local authorities will be included in these regional service councils.

However beneficial this legislation may be for Coloureds, Indians and Whites—we can argue the details later on—the effect of this legislation is that it is going to bring Black local authorities into even further disrepute among the Black people. Whereas the Government has promised that Black local authorities are going to be given extended powers, we find that Coloured, White and Indian local authorities are going to move into the area of regional service councils but that Black local authorities are going to be excluded. This legislation is going to make it more difficult for the Government to make the Black local authority system work, and there are difficulties abounding at the moment in that regard. Therefore, apart from a number of other reasons, for this reason in particular I have moved my amendment.

This legislation also affects local authorities intimately in a range of ways. It changes local government structures. In the decision-making process, instead of its being the decision of a single local authority it will now be the collective decision of a number of local authorities. Whether this is right or wrong, it changes the power structure within the regions of South Africa fundamentally. All we are arguing is that if one is going to change the power structure, if one is going to change the decision-making rights of the existing local authorities, then one must do it with their consent and one must put one’s cards on the table with them and not rush legislation of this kind through.

Secondly it is going to make a fundamental difference to the financial position and the financial viability of local authorities. I do not want to argue whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that local authorities can succeed by running their services efficiently in making a surplus, let us say on the provision of water. The fact is that certain local authorities, because they do have an efficient service, have managed to provide certain facilities at a cheaper price than the price which people are prepared to pay and they have therefore made on those facilities a profit or a surplus whatever one may wish to call it. Those profits have gone towards the general revenue account.

One can argue whether that is right or wrong, but all that we are saying is that this is to be taken away from local authorities. If one is going to take this away from local authorities, then one has to change the tax or revenue generating base. One has to replace this with some other tax formula or some other source of revenue. Until one knows what the new tax base or the new revenue base of local authorities is going to be, I believe one is going to have financial chaos in the local authorities of South Africa.

The Bill vitally affects the financial base of local authorities and it also vitally affects the staff. I say that the largest number of staff members of most local authorities are directly involved with the provision of services. Whether the local authorities like it or not, those staff members are going to be taken out of the general control of the local authority in whose service they are at the moment and whether they like it or not, they are going to be put into a pooled regional council structure. I am not arguing for or against it; all I am asking is whether the staff association or the staff members have been recognized in what is a fundamental situation, namely to be transferred out of an authority with whom they have had a long standing commitment to a new authority with different kinds of bosses and different kinds of people making decisions.

Furthermore the Bill fundamentally affects the power or voting structure, and I do not want to argue for or against it, but here one is going to have the situation where voting rights are pegged in respect of the amount of services for which one pays. They can be limited to 50%. One can argue for or against this. One can say that a decision cannot be taken except by a two-thirds majority. This is not something which the Government can pass and then stand back to say: “Well, what a fine constitutional structure!” This is going to affect vitally the day-to-day living and the practical implementation of the provision of services at local government level. We do not believe that people have been considered in this matter.

I am amazed at what the hon the Minister says in respect of the identifying of these various services. He says “when the local governments have decided on what services they need”, but that is not so. The Bill makes it quite clear that it is the Administrator, with that Minister’s approval, who will decide, and whether the local authorities like it or not, once he has proclaimed the region and once the Administrator, with that Minister’s approval, has declared what services should be included under the aegis of that council, then all the local authorities must belong to it and all the local authorities must surrender their services to that particular body. There is no choice, there is no decision-making.

They will be consulted.

The hon member for Kroonstad says that they will be consulted, but what does that mean? The law says that the Administrator will make the decision with the approval of this Minister. I have counted seven or eight places where time and time again the words “the Administrator with the approval of the Minister” appear. This is a piece of legislation which puts this whole new tier of government at the complete mercy of one man, and that is the Minister. The Central Government, in other words the Minister, appoints the Administrator, and the Administrator even if the local authorities advise him, cannot act except with the approval of the Minister. We have a new line of local government dictatorship evolving. Instead of the local authorities, constituent bodies and staff associations deciding, the Minister will decide. This new body which is being instituted, will not decide which is the seat of government; in other words they cannot decide if, for example, it should be Goodwood or Cape Town. It will be the Administrator who will determine where the seat of a particular council should be. Furthermore, they cannot elect their own chairman as he will also be nominated by the Administrator.

The detailed provisions of this Bill—as we understand them—are monstrous. There are various forms of providing regional services, but one cannot impose this particular brand of regional services on local authorities without their joint decision in the matter. The hon the Minister has stated that when a local authority surrenders its services to the regional services councils, they will also take over its assets and liabilities. The Bill actually determines that only the assets should be taken over. What about their liabilities?

A local authority may for example have built a market at great expense and purchased land. Its ratepayers have therefore paid for a particular piece of land and a building. They have taken the risk and paid it off. However, its assets will be taken over without any compensation whatsoever. I believe this is monstrous. Surely a group of people who for years have been frugal and wise in their own planning, and who have collectively acquired property, have built a building and therefore have a going concern, should receive some consideration when that going concern is taken away from them. Once again, this decision rests in the hands of the Minister and the Administrator.

We will deal further with this in the Committee Stage, which I hope will be Thursday.

It will be tomorrow.

The Second Reading debate might continue all day tomorrow. I do not know how long it will last. It is a critically important debate.

The hon the Minister knows, I believe, that there is no particular hurry with this legislation. He said that the process leading to this legislation started way back in 1980. He can therefore give a few more months of public disclosure of his intentions, because this is the first time that he has given public disclosure of his intentions. The public should consider those intentions and the Bill should then be referred to the select committee.

This legislation cannot be implemented until the new local authorities have been implemented. This can perhaps be started with White local authorities, but there are no Coloured local authorities to speak of. If the intention is to institute a new council which will represent Coloured, Indian and White local authorities, then at least for the sake of decency, if for nothing else, we should wait until the local authorities have been established before the new council is established.

The hon the Minister has received the power by way of the Local Government Bodies Franchise Bill to re-district and create local authorities under certain general directives. He also has the power to extend the franchise, provided it is within the framework of the Group Areas Act. The hon the Minister should get on with that, and while he is doing that, Coloureds, Indians and Whites should come together in a standing committee and collectively discuss this legislation and look at alternatives. I do not suggest that everything in this legislation is bad, but I believe that the committee could look at alternatives at the same time.

This is why we believe it is unwise for the hon the Minister, a day and a half before the end of the session, to want to pass this Bill. He has given us a 10 foolscap page Second Reading speech and, when the Second Reading debate ends, we will be compelled by the rules of the House to rush straight to the Committee Stage; and the moment the Committee Stage ends, we will rush straight on to the Third Reading. In all these circumstances the hon the Minister should realize that the way he is going about this, he is wrecking what may be a reasonable idea. However, he is so determined to have things his own way and that the only way of solving the problem is by way of his decisions, that he is going to jeopardize the whole new system of regional services.

For these reasons we have no hesitation in moving that this Bill should not be proceeded with but that it should be first referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution so that we can all have a better look at it, so that we can get the views of local government, the town clerks and everybody else involved, and so that Coloureds and Indians can have a real say in decision-making as far as this new important level of Government is concerned.

Mr Speaker, at the conclusion of his speech the hon member for Sea Point said he hoped that the Committee Stage would only be discussed on Thursday. I almost feel like saying that the Second Reading should only be proceeded with on Thursday. If the hon member for Sea Point understands the Bill correctly, I understand it completely incorrectly, and if I understand it correctly, the hon member understands it completely incorrectly. We would then need time to study the matter and to determine who understands the Bill correctly. On this basis, I want to enter into a discussion with the hon member concerning a few of the arguments he raised. I regret having to spend time on this, but I think it is important. The first remark to which I want to refer really does not have a bearing on the Bill itself, but deals with the set-up in the coordinating council. It is true that they had to carry out their instruction within a framework and that they did so on that basis. At no stage, however, did the hon the Minister try to create a different impression about that in any way. That matter was made very clear, in some of the previous Second Reading speeches of the hon the Minister as well. [Interjections.] The hon member is now pretending that the hon the Minister intimated that the people were free, no matter which political party they belonged to, and that they in fact came up with this proposal. The hon the Minister never intimated that.

Secondly, the hon member must take note—the hon the Minister confirmed this, too—that these members served on the coordinating council in their personal capacities and that they were not representative in the sense that they represented specific standpoints of associations there. This was made clear by this side of the House. Then the hon member must not keep repeating the idea that there was no consultation with other institutions. The hon the Minister had to repeat that aspect time and again as well. It seems to me that those hon members do not want to understand that.

I now come to the principles of the Bill itself. The hon member quoted from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech and referred to the horizontal extension of municipal government and said that he did not know what that meant. I suppose one should be sympathetic.

It is a vertical extension.

The hon the Minister says that it is not a vertical extension, but a horizontal extension. The hon member says it is a vertical extension. He stated that a new tier of government, a “fourth tier of government” is being established.

A fourth tier of government.

Yes. [Interjections.] Basically, there are three tiers of government. [Interjections.] I would very much like to speak to the hon member for Sea Point. He stated that a fourth tier of government was being built in here. Surely a fourth tier of government implies some kind of authoritative function. If there is no authoritative function, we cannot speak of a fourth tier of government. A fourth tier of government also implies some form of tax basis.

Not necessarily.

In the past we incorporated two tiers in one for tax purposes. That applied in the past, but that is the general premise. In any case, a fourth tier of government also implies executive power over other institutions. The hon member, also referred to the old concepts that were used, viz hard and soft functions. He is obviously misunderstanding the legislation in that respect as well. Functions identified in clause 4(1) of the legislation are set out clearly in Schedule 2 of the Bill. The hon member ought to be able to see that no distinction is made between the so-called hard and soft functions. The new regional services councils are not taking over the function of, for example, the supply and distribution of water to inhabitants of a municipal area. It is only rendering a bulk service and acts as a wholesaler. It has to obtain water supplies and supply municipalities, which will control the internal network themselves.

Soft services as well?

The hon member must listen now, because I am speaking about hard and soft services. He claims that soft services do not include reticulation; ie in his opinion, internal reticulation still constitutes hard services. Inter alia, the hon member said that in future a municipality will no longer be able to show a surplus on its revenue account, for example, as far as the supply of water is concerned.

That is correct, the hon member did say that.

Yes, he said that. He said that at present the municipalities can make a small profit on that so that they can show a surplus, but because the regional services councils are going to take over this hard function now, they will no longer be able to show a profit on water in future. I think he said that approximately 80% of the functions of local authorities are now being taken away and given to this fourth tier of government. That is not the case, however, a number of statements by various institutions have already appeared in the newspapers, inter alia, by the chairman of the TMA. He was referring to his own town, which is situated in the Randburg constituency, and he said that the bulk services that fall within the framework of the regional services councils will only represent a decrease of 12% in the total revenue budget by way of this distinction. If internal reticulation—the network—should also be taken over, however, between 75% and 80% of the revenue budget would be taken away. Due to the very fact that the Bill does not make provision for this, however, it is in fact aimed at bulk services in the regional context.

[Inaudible.]

The Bill expressly refers to this, and the functions are identified in Schedule 2. The hon member may well look up Schedule 2 himself, since I cannot quote it to him myself at this stage.

We know what is in it.

The hon member for Bryanston says he knows what it says in the Schedule and that he will inform the hon member for Sea Point. I am very grateful to him for that. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred inter alia to the staff who now find themselves in an uncertain position. That is not the case, however. He mentioned Cape Town as an example and investigated possible services in Cape Town to ascertain what the implications would be. I now want to apply that to an area I am familiar with, and I shall limit it to three services. At present Johannesburg is the core city of that area. It is the city that is providing all bulk sewerage services to the surrounding municipal areas at present. That excludes internal reticulation. Johannesburg generates approximately 30% of its own electricity, whilst Escom provides the rest. The city obtains its water from the Rand Water Board.

How is a regional services council going to function? They have to investigate the provision of bulk services in the entire region, and the power for this is granted in the Bill. We can consider that during the Committee Stage at some time or another, since I do not have the time to discuss that now. For example, a regional services council can request a specific local authority to perform services as an agent on its behalf. The regional services council can therefore ask Johannesburg to continue providing the sewerage services it is providing now. The generation of electricity can be taken over and an agreement can be reached with Escom to act as a one-off contractor for supplying electricity to the various municipal areas. As regards the supply of water, once again this can be negotiated with the Rand Water Board on a one off basis, and it can simply be made available. There are therefore no individual contracts that have to be entered into everywhere. It was the premise in the recommendation throughout—the hon the Minister referred to this in his speech as well—that a saving on capacity in fact has to provide greater financial benefits for the municipal authorities. I concede that there will be cases in which this will not be the case, but in such cases other arrangements will have to be made. However, it still lies within the framework of the decision-making power of the regional services council.

Having listened to all this, one thing should be clear to the hon member, viz that the regional services councils do not have the power to make decisions about the internal affairs and the own affairs of a municipality that do not fall under what is identified in this legislation. They do not have the power to impose taxes on the inhabitant: of those areas, but they can obtain money: for providing services, inter alia, for supply ing water in bulk. At no stage, however does a regional services council become an authority of local government.