as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, as follows:

1. (1) matters relating to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968 (Act No 51 of 1968); and
2. (2) the subject of the Second Electoral Act Amendment Bill [B 129—84].

In the light, however, of the imminent prorogation of Parliament, your Committee will be unable to consider these matters before the end of the session, and recommends that they be again referred to a committee at an early stage during the next session.

J C HEUNIS, Chairman.

Committee Rooms House of Assembly 11 July 1984.

Report to be considered.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was reacting to the remarks of the hon member for Sea Point and I had already dealt with most of the principal arguments he had advanced as to why his party did not support the legislation. But there is another significient principal objection, namely that Black people are not being included in this dispensation for regional services councils. This sounds a lot like the same debate we conducted last year on the Constitution, on the exclusion of blacks and the tremendous centralization of power. In a certain sense one could make out an argument for this. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister referred to the co-ordination between himself and the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He referred to the possibility of in fact allowing Black local authorities to participate, on a contractual basis, in the services that have to be rendered. He stated categorically that the regional services councils had to exist for the benefit of all groups. I want to point out to the hon member that this matter too is one of the matters which have to be discussed and planned on the special Cabinet Committee. If we also see this against the background of the recommendation of the President’s Council that Black local authorities should be involved in some or other way in the provision of joint services, and the explicit standpoint of the TMA that one would not be able to render these services on a regional basis unless all municipal areas in the region were included, then this is a matter the special Cabinet Committee must investigate fairly urgently.

Owing to the limited time the Whips are allowing me I want to refer briefly to the comments of the Transvaal Municipal Association on the proposals of the President’s Council, were fundamentally in line with the proposals of the Browne Committee and the Croeser Working Group. This appears in the TMA’s comments which were published in June 1983, and which reflected the standpoint the TMA adopted at its congress held in Nelspruit during October 1982. This report was unanimously accepted. It was accepted unanimously and representatives of all parties, including the PFP and the CP, and of all the municipalities in the Transvaal were present. The objections they raised were aimed at the proposals in respect of joint services committees, the so-called JSCs. If one analyses the legislation—unfortunately I do not have the time to do so in detail here—one finds that it resolves all these objections except for one or two technical objections. One of these we can rectify in the Committee Stage. I think it is important for us to have it placed on record that this Bill resolves the objections raised on page 24 of the comments submitted by the TMA on June 1983 and that the principles of this Bill are in accordance with the TMA standpoint.

Mr Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall reply to certain observations which the hon member for Randburg made.

We on this side of the House do not support the legislation which provides for the establishment of regional services councils on which Whites, Coloureds and Indians will be represented. These are reacially mixed bodies on which the Coloureds and Indians will become joint decision-makers at regional level on matters inter alia affecting White local authorities. For the purposes of certain functions a farmers’ association could for example become a member of such a council. In this case the racially mixed council would also be the decision-makers regarding the services provided to such fanners’ associations. The Administrator may, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, local authorities and management bodies—he need only consult them—establish a regional services council. Naturally this takes place with the consent of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In other words, he has the power to force any local authority to fall in with this planning. We cannot agree to this either.

If this regional services council renders a certain service, the power of the body which performed that function up to that stage is abrogated. Consequently could for example have a case where an abattoir is being operated quite successfully by a municipality. That abattoir could then be handed over to a regional services committee to operate. It could also be decided that a municipality may no longer bury its dead, for example, but that a single common cemetery will be established for all population groups. [Interjections.] In terms of the Bill local authorities have to make use of all services provided by the regional services council. They have no choice.

To a major extent these regional services councils are going to take over the functions of local authorities. In addition to the powers I have just mentioned, the regional services council have the same authority and powers the local authorities in the relevant province normally have in regard to the functions entrusted to them, but with one exception, namely that the right to determine and levy rates is an own affair, and in terms of the Bill this will remain a function of the local authority. With regard to the aspect of property tax, I agree that it should remain a function of the local authority.

The representatives of local authorities and other bodies that are now being incorporated into the regional services council will not have much say over the tariffs their own authority or body must pay to the regional services council for services rendered. Once that authority or body has become a member of a regional services council and has made use of its facilities, it cannot extricate itself either. The Administrator has direct control over such a council.

The Administrator also determines the seat of the regional services council, and in respect of this provision I should like to ask the hon the Minister to give orders that the moving of staff to the seat of the regional services council should be done very judiciously so that the White schools in the smaller towns are not prejudiced when parents with school-going children are transferred to larger centres, ie the seat of the regional services councils, At the time when the divisional councils were amalagamted we unfortunately had the situation that many of the staff members were transferred to the seat of the new council and that the schools in the smaller towns were detrimentally affected by this in spite of promises made at that stage that this would not happen.

This entire system of regional services councils is not real de-concentration of power. To a major extent the functions of the local authorities are being taken over. The chairman of a regional services council is not elected in a democratic way for example, but is appointed by the Administrator. As regards all his functions, the Administrator may only act with the permission of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We must also assume that with each appointment of an Administrator by the State President, the State President will obviously accept the recommendation of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In other words, the power is in actual fact centring around on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is consequently the strong man with regard to the third level of government. Tremendously wide powers are being vested in the Minister and although I do not agree that this should be the case, I want to say that I can understand this because this new dispensation cannot succeed unless tremendously wide powers are given to the State President and to his Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

We cannot support this Bill. Consequently I move as a further amendment:

Mr Speaker, in the course of my speech I am going to be fairly critical on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I thought it might be appropriate if at the outset I said something nice about him. The thing I want to say about him is that I find him a very interesting Minister. I mean that sincerely. I find him a very interesting Minister and I read his speeches both inside the House and outside the House with a lot of interest, because I believe that both in the content and between the lines of his speeches there are some very interesting pointers to the fundamental thinking of the leading reformists within the ranks of the NP. I also believe that this Minister, for better or for worse and whether the reforms of the Government succeed or not, was largely the generator of those reforms within the NP. I wonder whether if it was not for his particular drive and ability to force things through against all sorts of opposition, the NP would ever have accepted the limited reforms which they have and which South Africa is now experiencing.

I know that the hon the Minister is having some trouble in his own ranks and that there is a great contest between him and the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, but I want to tell him that he must not be worried because nobody kills the goose that gives the golden handshake. I hope that the day I leave this Parliament the last man’s hand I shake will be that of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Then I would be able to retire in some considerable luxury for the rest of my life.

Make me an offer in this regard.

I am going to make the hon the Minister many offers during the course of my speech and I hope he will accept some of them.

The first point I want to make is that one gets the impression that the Government thinks that the PFP is negative about and critical of the concept of regional services councils or metropolitan government. That is definitely not the case. Throughout the process of the investigation into a new form of local government for South Africa, we have looked forward to the announcement of new system for local government which would introduce a new era of dynamic and effective local government which would meet the problems at that level and, in particular, would do away with race discrimination at the local government level. What we are against, is the way in which the Government is bulldozing this legislation through Parliament and denying us the opportunity of proper study, proper examination, proper debate and denying us the opportunity of seeing to it that the legislation is the best possible legislation which this House can pass. We looked forward to this trilogy of Bills. We thought that they would herald a new era in South Africa’s local government history. However, on examining them, we believe that they are a grave disappointment for all of South Africa. Once again the Government have missed a golden opportunity. These Bills in respect of local government presented them with the opportunity to introduce a system—and there is no doubt that it would have taken insight and courage—which moved effectively away from the apartheid system of the past and created a system for a society free of discrimination and which also at that level would have provided for equality of opportunity.

The fatal and fundamental flaw in the Government’s new local government legislation is that this legislation is once again cast in the restricted, rejected and hazardous mold of apartheid. When one looks at this legislation, it is clear that it is apartheid legislation and that the Government have not effectively moved away from apartheid. They have not grasped the opportunity they had of producing apartheid-free local government legislation for South Africa.

The most fundamental flaw of course is the exclusion of the Black people. I find it fascinating and frightening to see the way in which this Government blunder mindlessly, without a clear set of goals and objectives, along a confused and haphazard path of change which they seem to think amounts to real reform. I think that that is most unfortunate. The Government have not learnt any lessons. They are constantly faced with the embarrassment of having to repudiate policies and ideas which in the past they said they would stand or fall by. They said that, come hell or high water, they would stand by certain things. They continue to say that. Also in respect of this legislation they said they would stand by the apartheid basis. They consistently refuse to admit that they are in fact accepting ideas which have been put forward by the Opposition parties, by the opponents of their philosophies in the past.

This inability of the Government, this failure of the Government clearly and concisely to divorce themselves from their past and to say that that is what they are doing—not just to move away from it but to say that they are in fact repudiating their apartheid past, are moving away from the philosophies, principles and policies which were holy cows to them in the past, that they are accepting new principles and philosophies of creating an equal, discrimination-free society in South Africa and are going to apply those principles in new legislation for South Africa—this failure of the Government, I say, has the result that, instead of the Government’s initiatives being seen to be positive, constructive and gaining goodwill and support from everybody, those initiatives turn out to be a shambles in so many cases.

The legislation presently before us once again indicates this fundamental failure of the Government. I have listened carefully to the hon the Minister. He says there are constraints, emotional and human constraints, to the pace and extent of change. He said yesterday that this problem is to bring about consensus between the various factions in South African society and that he can only do what it is possible for him to do. I understand and appreciate that. He has an extremely difficult job. One of the things this hon Minister must, however, persuade the Government to do is, when it decides to move away from discrimination and apartheid, to do so in an impressive and effective wav and not to retain within the new system and the new ideas fundamental aspects of the old apartheid structures which discredit the new system, weaken it and build into it the germ of its future destruction. In particular the totally unacceptable, illogical and senseless exclusion of the Black community from the new local government dispensation is a frightening example of the Government’s inability to come to grips with real reform. The Government displays such determination when they do something which is immoral and unjust, and their whole record is one of passing laws which are immoral and unjust. They pass those laws with such determination that the question arises why the Government cannot display the same courage in doing what is right and fair in respect of all the people of our country. Now the Government, contrary to their past standpoint of insisting on total segregation among Whites, Coloured, Indians and Blacks on all levels of government, have conceded to the sound logical and compelling reasons why Coloureds, Whites and Indians must have an opportunity on the local government level of co-operating and of sharing power on some level or other, and for this purpose the system of regional services councils has been adopted. However, Mr Speaker, we accept that those are sound, logical and compelling reasons—they are indeed in line with the philosophy and the approach of our own party—because these communities are interdependent and should therefore operate in close contact with each other. We believe they have to communicate and to co-operate, and that they have to serve in integrated constitutional systems. We do accept those reasons, and we also believe that the Government have indeed taken a small step in the right direction by creating these bodies.

Precisely the same sound, logical and compelling reasons, however, exist for the inclusion of the Black communities and the Black local authorities in those regional services councils. It is an idiotic suggestion to say that it is reasonable and sound policy that Lenasia should, together with Johannesburg, Roodepoort and other local authorities, be included in one regional services council but that at the same time a city as vast as Soweto, a city with 1,2 million inhabitants, all of whom share the same interests and all of whom form part of the same economic community, should be excluded altogether. It is absolutely idiotic that that situation should arise. It is not only illogical in terms of constitutional development; it is also dangerous to exclude those communities from the provisions of this Bill. Referring to Schedule 1 of the Bill, on page 17, we find the considerations that are laid down for the establishment of regions, of which no 6—and I believe this is the crux of the whole matter—reads as follows:

This is a consideration which should be taken into account when regional areas are established. There cannot be any consideration more important and more vital than the economic interdependency of the Black community of Soweto and the White community of Johannesburg. There exists the closest economic interdependency between those two communities. The one cannot operate without the other. There is the closest economic interdependency between the residents of Johannesburg and those of Soweto. Yet this hon Minister is producing legislation which will effectively exclude the people of Soweto from a regional services council, which is intended to provide services to those two communities within the same region.

Furthermore, if we look at employment opportunities, it is clear that those two communities work cheek by jowl in the industries and the businesses of Johannesburg and the whole surrounding area. It is therefore inconceivable for the Government to think they can be separated when it comes to regional services councils. Even as regards public passenger transport and commuting it is clear that the people of Soweto commute in their hundreds of thousands to work in Johannesburg. The two communities also share recreational facilities.

Referring to Ellis Park I should state that I regard that as a credit to Johannesburg, although it is a financial disaster. However, the biggest injection of revenue and income that Ellis Park receives is derived from the Black community of Soweto. This is what happens when they go to Ellis Park to watch major soccer matches.

Predominant consumer spending is another consideration. If the Blacks of Soweto stopped spending their money in Johannesburg, the economy of the CBD of Johannesburg would collapse like a pack of cards. The major percentage of consumer spending in the White city of Johannesburg comes from the consumers of the Black city of Soweto. Then this hon Minister suggests that it is possible to establish a form of metropolitan government for these two cities and to exclude the one from participation in that government. That is totally unacceptable.

This provision is fundamental in the establishment of regions, and it demands the inclusion of all Blacks towns and cities in the regions and the Regional Services Councils that are established. Equally so, provision No 6 would condemn this legislation of the hon the Minister as being a fraud if the Black communities were excluded. When we consider Schedule 2 that sets out the various possible functions of regional services councils, we see that these functions provide incontrovertible proof of the inalienable interdependence among all communities within the metropolitan areas or regional council areas as far as all the interests that have to be served and the services that have to be provided for those communities are concerned, and that the inclusion of the Blacks is absolutely essential. It is essential and not only to give the system credibility because the credibility of the system will in fact depend upon the inclusion of the Blacks. It will be directly related to the inclusion of the Blacks and will also serve to show that the system is non-discriminatory. As it stands at the moment, this system is discriminatory in respect of Black people. This is new legislation in a new era in which there is a new spirit, and it is legislation which is discriminatory in respect of Blacks. If one wants the system to work effectively in practice it is absolutely essential that the Black communities be included.

I should like to quote the words of the hon the Prime Minister when he addressed some of the more “verkrampte” members in his own caucus in regard to the Coloured people. He asked: “Is die Kleurlinge melaats?”. I want to ask the hon the Minister and his Government, in view of the exclusion of the Blacks of South Africa from these regional Services Councils, whether they are lepers. Are they considered to be lepers in this constitutional sense?

The next point I want to deal with is the fact that the Government is treating Parliament as a rubber stamp. The Government argue that a qualified body, the co-ordinating council, produced the recommendations on which this legislation has been based. Obviously we accept that they were knowledgeable and experienced and that they did a good job of work. There is no doubt about that. However, the Government is missing the entire point of the debate, namely that it is the responsibility of this Parliament to pass legislation and that therefore it is the prerogative of Parliament to inform itself fully and to its complete satisfaction in regard to all the matters relating to this legislation. It is not the co-ordinating council that takes the ultimate responsibility. That was a technical body that produced the information required for this legislation. However, we take the ultimate responsibility. Therefore, it is our prerogative to examine all the information available, to discuss it, to call witnesses, to listen to representations from all the bodies concerned, and to listen to the co-ordinating council and to question them on their recommendations. Then, once we are satisfied that we are fully informed, we can pass the legislation that is required.

This Government has a peculiar mentality. It thinks that Parliament is a rubber stamp which is there for the sole purpose of placing a legislative imprint on the political policies of the NP. That is not so. Therefore we have made a great deal of the essential requirement of putting complicated legislation of this nature before a select committee of Parliament, and later a standing committee of the tricameral parliament, on which the elected representatives of the various communities which will include experts from the three communities on local government, will have the opportunity of examining and studying the situation thoroughly and then producing legislation which will not only be acceptable but will also be seen to be good legislation.

I find that the Government has once again shamelessly abused Parliament and has displayed contempt of Parliament in the way in which it is handling this legislation. Within a matter of a few days we have to pass legislation here based on many months of full time examination by other bodies who had all the facilities at their disposal. We are denied the opportunity of doing the same. Bulldozing legislation of this nature through Parliament is not in the interest of the country, it is contrary to the democratic system, and I believe that the Government will one day be most unhappy because of doing this.

There is a very good reason why the Government wants to bulldoze this legislation through as soon as possible and to get it off the Order Paper. The Government knows that the day the Coloured and the Indian Houses operate they have to approve this legislation, that they will not have a snowball’s hope in hell of getting this legislation through Parliament because there is no way that the Government can persuade the Coloured and Indian communities to pass legislation which is structured on the apartheid principles of the NP. The Coloured and the Indian communities will co-operate They will do their best to make a success o the new system, I believe, but there is one thing the Government will not get past those people. The Government will not get apartheid past them because apartheid is as unacceptable to them as it is to us.

Typical UDF supporters!

I believe that the Government will do South Africa and itself a favour if it would be prepared to delay this legislation just long enough to allow the new system to give it its attention. Then legislation will be produced which will really be accepted by and have the support of the majority of the people for whom it is intended.

The Government often claims that it is a representative Government, but it is nothing of the sort—it represents a small percentage of the South African people, and the Government will soon find out that the vast majority of South Africans, via their representatives who are elected and via those people who cannot be elected, are totally opposed to the apartheid policies of the Government.

I should like to deal very briefly with the concept of rationalization and uniformity as it applies to this legislation. I believe that uniformity, purely for the sake of uniformity, is something which must be avoided because it can be dangerous, but if rationalization and uniformity in the South African context conforms to the following four principles, it will always receive our support. In the first instance it must improve the standard of services rendered to the people of South Africa. Secondly it must increase efficiency. Thirdly it must reduce the costs of providing those services. Fourthly—this is exclusively a South African requirement—it must remove the remaining aspects of discrimination based on race or colour. If it meets those four principles, then certainly we shall support it.

In terms of one of these principles there is a problem in South Africa, and it has been referred to by the hon the Leader of the Opposition and other people. I refer to the fact that we see in the future of this country bureaucracies mushrooming out of control, absorbing all the financial resources of our society and withdrawing those resources from the provision of services of jobs and of better standards of living for the people of our country.

How can one talk so much rubbish in half an hour?

Oh that poor Minister!

I should like to indicate something to the hon the Minister. The hon the Prime Minister, when he announced the rationalization of the Public Service, gave the indication that the intention was to increase efficiency and to reduce costs. That was the indication. Even if one takes off the additional teachers appointed—because this was an area where an increase can be justified—then between 1978 and 1983 the number of civil servants increased by 61 000. Let us look at the costs involved. Between 1978 and 1983 it increased from R3,5 billion to R8,5 billion, an increase of almost 150%. So you see, Sir, there are reasons why we are concerned.

Have you compared it with the wage packet in the private sector during the same period?

In the private sector productivity is the measure and there there is competition. People working in the private sector go to their offices sometimes at 7 o’clock in the morning and are sometimes still working at 2 o’clock the next morning. But go to any local authority office at half past four in the afternoon and you will be lucky if you find anybody there. A different atmosphere and a different attitude prevails there. A leader in private enterprise told me the other day that the private sector cannot compete with the Public Service, as the Public Service was taking away staff from the private sector. They get high salaries and they work less hours. Look at our top civil servants. The Cabinet decided that we should rationalize. As a result the salaries of Directors-General went up by 210% since 1979. Those of Ministers went up by 160%. It is a golden handshake before they have even resigned.

When these new bureaucracies are created it must be accompanied by the dismantling of existing bureaucracies in so far as staff and facilities are concerned. The Government, and in particular this hon Minister, must be wide awake to the danger of creating new bureaucracies and finding that the existing bureaucracies rationalize reasons why they should continue.

Let us have a look at the position of the provinces. The Government has not yet taken the country into its confidence regarding the future of the provincial system. We do not know what the Government’s thinking is in this regard; so we do not know what the future of the provinces is. We have not been told whether they are going to be phased out or whether they are going to be retained. It is very important that we should know what the position is going to be. Looking at the legislation before us, obviously the Administrators will play a very important part in its application. But the Government has not indicated whether the Provinces are going to play that role as a transitionary function or whether it is going to be a permanent role. I think it is highly irresponsible of the Government to keep the country in the dark in regard to this very important aspect of the new dispensation. The position surrounding the provinces abounds with anomalies and illogicalities, and this has to be cleared up before a rational consideration of a new tier of Government can be made. The provinces are going to lose many of their powers to the central Government and will also delegate many to the new regional councils. What powers will remain to them? Is it justified to keep the provinces going when they will have no real function or role to fulfil? Supposing the Government takes its constitutional proposals to their logical conclusion, how much longer after that are we going to be saddled with the huge cost, often obstructive intervention and what will then be a constitutional anomaly, viz the Provincial councils. What will happen? The provinces are being called upon by this legislation to take decisions with regard to regional councils, decisions which will affect the rights of Coloured and Indian local authorities while the Coloureds and Indians are not represented in those provinces. You see, Sir, if one wants to be logical and consistent, the Government needs to do one of two things. It must announce that provinces will in effect act as transitionary agents to introduce the new legislation after which they will be phased out, or that they will remain and be changed from purely White bodies into bodies representing the other race groups as well. If that is not done, there is no morality in this system at all.

What will the effect be if this legislation is carried out in South Africa? There will then be a four-tier system of government for the Whites, namely the central Government, the provincial government, the regional services councils and the local government. For Coloureds and Indians there will be a three tier system of government, namely the central Government, the regional services councils and local government. For Blacks there will be a two-tier system of government. There are a hell of a lot of “tiers”, Sir—“Cry the beloved country”. This is clearly embarrassing and unacceptable, and I believe the Government should do something about it.

I lastly want to refer very briefly to something which I believe the Government owes South Africa, and that is an explanation or an answer as to whether or not elections will in future be fought on party political lines. As hon members know, a circular was sent to all the National Party constituency committees. Paragraph 2 of this circular reads: “Munisipale verkiesings op party-grondslag”.

*I did not steal this circular and therefore the hon the Minister of Law and Order cannot arrest me. [Interjections.] He should rather concentrate his attention on members of the National Party who stole a letter and then falsified it and used it in a pamphlet. [Interjections.] This letter was sent to me anonymously by someone in the National Party. [Interjections.] The letter reads as follows, and I quote:

I would say that South Africa as a whole would very much like to be informed on the intentions of the National Party as regards the fighting of municipal elections. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bryanston is a PFP front-bencher and is sometimes inclined to be fairly arrogant. He uses for example such expressions as: the Government has no hope in hell of doing certain things. I do not think it befits a front-bencher of the official Opposition to use such language.

The hon member followed the example of his leader and again came to this House with an anonymous letter. It seems to me it has become the style of the PFP to quote letters written by anonymous persons here.

It was written by the National Party.

That does not matter. The hon the member said that an anonymous person had sent it to him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randburg has already replied to the hon member for Sea Point but I also want to refer briefly to some of his remarks.

The hon member for Sea Point pointed out that the PFP were strongly opposed to this measure. But in the same breath he expressed doubt by saying: I am not against it or for it, I am merely asking … This gives one an indication of what is going on in the minds of those hon members. The party has decided to oppose it, but at the same time the hon member said that he was not totally opposed to it. Let us consider the standpoint of the hon members for Sea Point and Bryanston regarding the part played by their representatives in the discussions on this measure. They were terribly concerned about the fact that the supporters of the PFP did not talk on behalf of that party. We accept that, but surely there must be supporters in the PFP who can use their own judgment. There must surely be intelligent people among them, people who will not do anything stupid. However, I shall not pursue this matter.

The hon member also made the statement that the regional services council would now fulfil a more important function than local authorities. The hon member for De Aar said exactly the same thing. One finds that they complement each other beautifully in their opposition, even if it is for different reasons.

This is an authorizing measure. It authorizes the establishment of regional services councils. It is not being enforced. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sea Point also said that this was a drastic measure, but in the same breath he said that it was nothing new and that the people in the Peninsula were used to this kind of thing. He said that this had been done for some time now in the Peninsula. According to him electricity is supplied on a large scale and an urban bus service is operated on a large scale in the Peninsula. According to him this is nothing out of the ordinary. [Interjections.] It is strange that he is objecting to the fact that this should take place in an orderly way.

The hon member for Bryanston and the hon member for Sea Point objected to the fact that Black people were not also being included. Black towns will also have an interest in bulk services. But those hon members know that at the moment Black towns are being dealt with in a different way by the development boards. In clause 4(3) of the legislation it is provided that regional services councils may provide services on a contract basis. Consequently the possibility cannot be ruled out that regional services councils could provide Black towns with services on a contract basis.

We know that. But they cannot be represented on those councils.

What objection is there then to them being provided with services?

The hon members also objected to the fact that the Administrators have a say. On the one hand they are saying that the powers of the provinces are being scaled down by certain measures while on the other hand they are saying that they are not happy about the fact that the Administrators have a say in this matter. The hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Bryanston did not make out a good case here.

I want to go a step further. We must guard against regional services councils being established in such a way that unnecessary buildings are erected and too much staff appointed. It is not necessary for this to happen. The hon member for De Aar referred to a tremendous amount of relocation that could take place. He alleged that officials would be relocated and that schools would eventually stand empty as a result. [Interjections.]

I am speaking from experience of what happened when divisional councils amalgamated.

Very few people will be involved in this matter. It will not be of great magnitude. It is simply not logical to assume that large-scale relocation of people will take place. It is unnecessary. The fear being expressed that the regional services councils will take over the most important tasks of local authorities is unfounded. This is simply not possible because they are being restricted to bulk services.

The hon member for De Aar again referred to “racially mixed” councils and expressed his fear about this. He also said that it was the CP’s self-imposed task to oppose steps of this nature. The objections of the CP, as they were again expressed by the hon member for De Aar, remind one of the lament of Prince Hamlet when he exclaimed:

The hon members of the CP feel it is unfair that they were born in these disruptive times to take on the task of setting matters right and bringing order. [Interjections.] One can only tell them that it is not possible to undo a long history in an unrealistic way. Unrealistic objectives, no matter how attractive they may be, do not get one anywhere, and a country and its people do not benefit by them either.

We know that the CP oppose this legislation and that they have advanced reasons for their attitude. But the legislation will be to the benefit of all the residents of the towns making use of these services, and as such it deserves the support of everyone.

I want to refer to specific cases in the Orange Free State, which is mainly a rural area. Even there the need was felt to introduce regional services, although not in the way prescribed in the legislation. A number of small towns in the Southern Free State established a company, for example, to erect electric transmission lines to provide them with electricity, something which the individual towns could not do. As a matter of fact there are many such cases, inter alia Bloemfontein City, Bethlehem and even Sasolburg which make their top officials available to surrounding small towns to assist them in carrying out certain tasks, since they are not able to employ such officials themselves. Consequently it is only logical that these services will be provided by the regional services councils in an orderly way, and this can only be to the benefit of the towns concerned.

In terms of the prescriptions for and the constitution of the regional services council they cannot dominate surrounding towns. In addition all the towns have a say in the services which are going to be provided. Almost 20 years ago I saw that Toronto had a similar scheme for Greater Toronto. They established a metropolitan council to provide certain services, and their experience is what we are building on here. Virtually all the services were first allocated to the large metropolitan council, but eventually it was found that there were certain local services, viz services the smaller communities could provide for themselves, and these were then given back to them, while the larger metropolitan council merely supplied the bulk services. As far as I know that system still applies today and it works very well. So why can it not be emulated in the South African metropolitan areas and certainly also in our rural areas where neighbouring towns can provide regional services to the benefit of everyone?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Welkom quoted Toronto as being a model where things work beautifully on a regional basis. I am not too sure when he was last in Toronto, but I was there not so very long ago and I want to tell him that they are having a great deal of trouble with their regional authority. There are strong attempts to break it up again. I just thought I would mention that in passing. I do not want to go on with the hon member for Welkom, because he dealt largely with what was said by the hon members for Bryanston and Sea Point.

We in this party are not opposing this Bill as a matter of politics, particular racial politics. I want that clearly understood. However, on an analysis of the Bill we find very considerable inadequacies. I hope to be able to illustrate those inadequacies without overemphasis and, if possible, without any acrimony. I hope hon members on the other side will accept that, because after all is said and done, we are trying to achieve the best we can for our country.

We have no objections to the concept of regional services boards of some sort or another, but we do have very strong reservations about this Bill. A little later on I will illustrate and prove why we have no objections to the concept. One of our principle objections is that again as in other Bills whilst provincial councils still exist a new level of government is being created in terms of clause 4. I know it has been said time and time again by the Minister and other people that it is not a new level of government, but I am sorry to say that it clearly states here that they will have the powers of a local authority and will even have overriding powers in respect of a local authority. I will come to that later. As I have said before, these councils have all the powers of a local authority and can divest existing local authorities of their functions and various services, even if they cannot run them as efficiently and economically as a particular local authority can.

There is no provision in the Bill for a specific income for this regional authority other than the income from its trading undertakings. Many if not all the services that are scheduled are at present services which lose fairly heavily financially, but they are subsidized from the general rate fund of a local authority.

Is it not true that in many instances the reverse is true, namely that rates are being subsidized by profit-making services?

I am afraid the hon the Minister will have to explain that in his reply.

It means that unless there is a new source of taxation to meet these losses the services councils will have to increase the service costs to even break even. I believe that this will place a greater financial burden on the public.

Another strong objection is that in terms of clause 4(4) no compensation may be paid to any local authority whose services are taken over by a services council. There is, of course, nothing in the Bill to indicate whether the services council must take over any public debt, although the hon the Minister in his address did make it clear. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister made it clear in his address that they take over the assets and the liabilities. Again no discrimination is made in the Bill—normally we are against discrimination but I think this is one case where discrimination must be considered—between the more prudent local authority who may have hit its ratepayers rather hard to liquidate the debts on their capital services as opposed to those local authorities who have kept rates at a relatively low level and have retained heavy capital debt. Again, I would ask the hon the Minister what happens to the various capital development funds in some local authorities in respect of trading undertakings. Some local authorities have built up enormous reserves which are attached to particular trading undertakings. I know of one local authority whose consolidated capital development funds in respect of its trading understakings are well in excess of R100 million. Are those funds, as part of the trading undertaking, going to be taken over? I would draw the hon the Minister’s attention to this point because I believe it is quite important. It would seem to me that a clear injustice would occur if, where ratepayers in one area have made provision for posterity, that money were taken to supply these facilities to other local authorities who have not made such provision and who have adopted the attitude of letting posterity look after itself. To a large degree this sort of problem could, of course, be overcome if the core city in the case of a large urban area were to become the regional council, but according to the Bill this is not intended and I do not believe that it will in fact be practical in terms of the Bill.

So far as certain essential services are concerned, such as the provision of water and electricity, I am not sure how all the provinces work, but I do know that in Natal we put a profit limit on those services. In other words, the local authority is not allowed to make more than a certain percentage of profit based on its capital investment. It is not clear to me from the Bill whether in fact this sort of protective device is going to be built in.

Can I just say …

No. Please reply to that later. You might upset my continuity. Again, will these regional authorities, who will supply for example water in bulk, take over the functions of bodies such as the Umgeni Water Board, the Rand Water Board and bodies of a similar nature which are specifically set up and created by the Government itself for the provision of bulk water supplies to local authorities for reticulation purposes? I am not sure how this works at all.

The hon the Minister said in his speech that—

Yet, in terms of clause 3(2), if a function within a region is identified as a regional function, the relevant authority or body “shall” be divested of that function. To say the least, this does appear to be a little contradictory.

As anybody who has had dealings with the system of local government and trying to create regional authorities will know, the chairman of that body must wield very, very substantial influence. If he does not wield that sort of influence, quite frankly he is no good as chairman. I think that that is a point that must be borne in mind. I believe too, that this could present certain problems, as an appointed chairman, a chairman appointed by the Administrator or anybody else for that matter, could have a political attitude at variance with that of many members of his council and, not being a nominated person, he would not be subject to what we would refer to as the “Latsky principle”. We passed a Bill on provincial councils in terms of which members of the executive committee would be removed if they changed their political persuasion or did not enjoy the confidence of the rest of the council. This of course applies to the ordinary elected members. They can be removed by the Administrator if they have lost the confidence of the people who elected them. The chairman, however, not being elected, cannot be removed on those terms. Not even the Administrator can remove the chairman because it is stated that he shall be appointed for five years.

Again, in terms of clause 10(4) the council may exclude the public from the meetings of the council; and presumably also the Press of course. Nowhere in the Bill, however, can I find that the affairs of the council shall be debated in public. That I cannot find anywhere in the Bill. There is no provision that those meetings must be open to the public for debate.

These are just a few matters that preclude our support for this Bill, and there are several more which I could go into. In the interests of brevity, however, I believe I have made enough points to illustrate our attitude and opinion. As it stands however I should like to make the following points. There is nothing to stop the provinces from setting up regional authorities now, and I should indicate to the hon the Minister that Natal began to do this some time ago in the Greater Durban area by setting up what they called a “Metrocon”. This represented 14 fully fledged local authorities from the city of Durban down to small local authorities, five Indian local affairs committees, two Coloured local affairs committees, and of the 14 local authorities two were Indian local authorities with Indian mayors and councillors, such as Verulam and Isipingo. They were part of this Metrocon set-up.

That was not a statutory body as far as I know.

No, it was established with the approval of the province but it was not a statutory body. I might tell the hon the Minister, however, that the intention was that at some stage it would become a statutory body. We endeavoured at that stage to muster some support from Government departments, and I am afraid—as in he case of our local government proposals—hey were not very well received.

Inaudible.]

Yes, I realize that. I recognize many of the aspects. I was the one, however, who created the greater part of that particular set-up. The hon the Minister will therefore appreciate why I cannot in principle be against the concept of a regional authority for services. A point which I should make because I believe it is important, however, is that we did have representations from local affairs committees. We also had representations from Indian local authorities and from White local authorities. We also had the two Black local authorities who sat in there as observers with the right to speak but not the right to vote because it was outside the ambit of provincial authority. I should therefore make the point that in the system we had, the Black local authorities were not ignored and could have been part of Metrocon if it had been a legally possibly.

As far as I can see this Bill does not meet the needs. There are so many defects in this measure that although we do not object to the concept, as I say, of regional authorities for services, etc, we believe that those defects are of such major importance that this cannot be made a statutory system. One of those defects is of course the absence of the compulsion aspect. I am therefore afraid that if one is going to do with a Bill of this nature what the hon the Minister wants to do with it, there must indeed be a compulsion aspect. Again, it must also include a proper financial base. I cannot see how this can be implemented without a sound financial base because apart from water and electricity most of the other services are definitely loss leaders. In the case of water restrictions should be placed on the profits that are made, and the same could of course apply in the case of electricity supply.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, although we have no problem with the concept of the Bill there are many principles contained in this measure which we cannot accept. Certainly we can also not accept many of the details of this Bill. Therefore we will be supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Speaker, I rise simply to reinforce the arguments advanced by the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Bryanston in regard to the exclusion of Black local authorities from the purview of this measure. It is quite clear that whatever changes may be made after the Second Reading debate has been concluded, one thing will not be changed and that is in regard to the basic principle as accepted by this House at Second Reading ie the exclusion of Blacks. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, there is no possibility that that principle can be changed in any way.

There are several provisions in the definitions clause that make it absolutely clear that the Black local authorities and management bodies are excluded. The definition of a management or representative body would certainly not include any of the Black local authorities. Indeed, the Bill makes it clear that bodies over which provincial councils exercise legislative functions will be the only bodies other than the management committees and so forth that will be included in this Bill. To obviate any misunderstanding in this regard the department has issued an explanatory memorandum on the Bill which also makes it absolutely clear that Blacks are excluded. The explanatory memorandum states that the purpose of the Bill is the establishment of bodies for the joint provision of services on local authority level in which Coloureds, Whites and Indians are represented on a proportional basis. There is no mention of Blacks and, as I say, this is clearly a principle of the Bill and nothing is going to be able to change that fact.

We do not accept the rationale behind this and, of course, we classify this measure as a further discriminatory one that should not be placed on the Statute Book, more particularly at this moment when the Government is talking about reform and even in some directions beginning to act like a reformist. As the hon member for Sea Point pointed out, this matter should have been thoroughly discussed and should have been left over for the new tricameral parliament to decide upon.

When one looks at Schedule 2 of the Bill, one finds a list of 15 possible regional services, each one of which is really relevant to Black local authorities. There can be no reason at all in practice for excluding the services which the regional council is going to provide. It is true that clause 4(3) enables a regional council to contract with other bodies which are not mentioned specifically as being included within the ambit of the Bill, and so contracts can be concluded with Black local authorities, although not as of right. This would have to be a decision taken by the regional council concerned and presumably, by the Black local authority itself which will nevertheless not have the same right to participate in decisions as the Coloured, White and Indian local authorities will have. Furthermore, although it is very likely that a Black local authority such as Soweto which in fact has a higher population than Johannesburg itself may very well in the end be contributing more in payment for those services than certainly some of the satellite municipalities attached to the region, it will have no say in the decision-making processes of the region unlike the other local government authorities or management committees which, proportional to the amount that they pay for the services, will have voting rights on the council. Clause 9 of the Bill makes this position absolutely clear.

The only real point I want to make is that this exclusion is going to add materially to the long list of grievances which the Blacks in the urban areas already have.

The hon the Minister must be aware of the fact that the Government decided to accommodate Blacks on local government level by setting up local authorities or town councils and that it claims to accommodate Blacks on a national political level by giving them votes in the homelands. He should also be aware of the fact that this is not acceptable to the Black community throughout this country, and moreover, the very fact that the fairly recent local authority elections—in fact, they were held last year—for the town councils of Soweto, Dobsonville and other areas revealed a very low participation in those elections. Over the country as a whole in the 29 local authorities where elections were held, the average poll was 21%.

In one local authority it was much lower.

Yes, but one would think that Blacks who have so little political say anyway would have been activated, more particularly as they had been told that this was the alternate to having a say in the town councils of the areas where they lived. As far as the overall average is concerned it was 21%, and a miserable 10,7% for Soweto, the largest Black city in the whole of the country. I think this is going to add to those grievances. Black local authorities do not suffice. Black urban leaders have said that they require full citizenship, that they require freehold rights and that they require proper financing, but none of this is taking place, of course, and that is the reason for the lack of enthusiasm.

The existing Black local authorities are in a parlous state financially. The party which won the election in Soweto last year did so on the promise that it would be able to lower the rents, but it has obviously been unable to keep that promise and we find that charges for services are going up.

The hon the Minister said he believed that this sort of provision of regional services was essential for the viability of Coloured and Indian local authorities, but I say he surely must extend that reasoning to the viability of the Black local authorities. He has not yet given us any reasonable explanation as to why he excludes the viability of Black local authorities from his intelligent reasoning as far as Coloured and indian local authorities are concerned.

The last question I want to ask the hon the Minister is this: Did the Cabinet committee consult with any of the Black local authorities on this whole question as to whether or not they could in any way be included in the establishment of a regional council for the provision of these very important essential services? We have had no good answers from the hon the Minister as to the exclusion of Blacks. I believe he can only give us one answer and that is that like the Constitution Act itself, like the reforms which have been introduced, they are to apply only to the three groups in the country, the Whites, and the other two minority groups, the Coloured and the Indian people. There can be no other good reason for that. Therefore we in these benches are obviously going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Houghton and her party do not support the Bill because the Bill does not also provide for the presence of Blacks in the regional services councils. That is the same reason that prompted that party to reject the Constitution, viz that Blacks are not also involved.

We are consistent.

Yes, they are quite consistent in their point of departure.

If a party adopts the point of departure of joint responsibility on matters of common concern and advocates joint provision of services, I cannot see how the Government can morally justify excluding Black people from these regional services councils.

You agree with the PFP.

The hon member should just wait a moment.

If the Government admits Indians and Coloureds to these regional services councils, then the Government has no moral right to exclude the Black people as regards this matter of common concern. I want to put it to the PFP that the Government is already committed to a certain direction. The Coloureds, Indians and Whites are together being forced in that direction, and what this will lead to is that Black people will also be included in the regional services councils. This is why the CP rejects the establishment of these regional services councils, which give rise to power-sharing and mixed government at the third tier of government. This is why the CP states that the Whites must have their own institutions of local government within their own geographical area, as the Coloured, Indians and Blacks must have in their areas. We reject these multiracial regional services councils that are to be established.

I want to put it to the hon member for Welkom, who would so much like us to cooperate with the PFP, that we differ in principle from the PFP. But yesterday, when the issue was the repeal of the Immorality Act, the NP agreed in principle with the PFP. With every Bill that moves further away from separate development the PFP supports the NP in principle. As far as this legislation is concerned the Government is being forced in a certain direction which will eventually mean that Black people will also be included in the regional services councils.

The hon member for Umbilo is an expert on matters of local government. One realises this when one listens to his speeches. This hon member differs with the Government on certain matters and has also pointed out certain dificiencies of which they have had experience in Natal.

The hon member for Welkom contended that the hon member for De Aar had once again revealed the fears of the CP as far as multiracial councils are concerned. I want to put it to the hon member that the CP has no fear of people of colour. Nor will the CP grovel before people of colour. [Interjections.] The CP believes that true peace in South Africa can only be achieved by way of separate development. Separate development will afford every population group the opportunity to enjoy self-determination in regard to its own affairs. To a large extent the Bill under discussion hands over the Whites’ right to self-determination at the level of third tier government in regard to all those matters to which reference is made in Schedule 2. The NP is on the road of integration. However, the CP is not prepared to do that, not because we are afraid, but because we believe that true peace in this country can only be brought about by way of separate development.

I now wish to quote a short poem written by Mr Theo Wassenaar on the occasion of the death of President Steyn on 28 November 1916. I quote the last verse:

[Interjection.] Since the hon member for Welkom spoke about fears, I wish to point out to him that the daughter of President Steyn, who was a prominent member of the NP of the Free State and sat in the Senate for many years, is today a very valued member of the CP.

Order! I think we should forget about family trees now and rather come back to the Bill.

This morning the hon member for Nigel wrote the following note under this poe

Order! I must point out to the hon member that the quoting of poems and the detailing of family histories has nothing to do with this legislation.

Sir, I said earlier that the hon member for Welkom quoted a poem. He said that the CP was full of fear. I am now reading this poem in order to tell him that the CP is not frightened and that as far as the self-determination of the Whites in respect of third-tier government is concerned, the CP will not run away in fear. We enter the future with hope. We shall fight within this House which will form part of a multiracial tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.] We shall fight in the hope with which this poem is imbued, to restore the right of self-determination of the Whites. [Interjections.]

Yesterday, during the discussion of previous legislation, the hon the Minister said that this legislation was ready to be introduced in January.

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

Very well. The hon the Minister said that it would have been possible to introduce the legislation in January, but that he first wanted to negotiate with the Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] He negotiated with them for six months in order to achieve consensus on this Bill. After six months of negotiation we find that the Association of Management Committees in the Cape rejects the legislation. The hon the Minister struggled for six months to achieve consensus with the Coloureds and Indians concerning the legislation, but in the final week of the parliamentary session the Opposition parties are being driven to pass the legislation. [Interjections ]

It may be that the hon the Minister is now going to accede to the request of the PFP to appoint a select committe to seek further consensus. However, the CP feels so strongly about the legislation that we do not even want to consider that idea. We want the legislation to be read this day six months.

The definition of “Minister” reads as follows:

This Minister may be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. [Interjections.] He has certain powers. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given the hon member for Kuruman the floor, but now there are other hon members confusing the issue from the sidelines. Hon members must please refrain from doing so. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

I said that this Minister had certain powers. In terms of clause 2 the Administrator may, with the approval of the Minister, establish a region, combine two or more regions, include any part of the area of any region in the area of another region, and also abolish a region. The Minister must grant permission for the Administrator to be able to do so.

In terms of clause 3 the Administrator may, with the approval of the Minister, establish a regional services council for any region. In the first four clauses it is provided in eight different places that the Administrator may do certain things with the approval of the Minister. The Administrator is also an appointment of the governing party.

In three clauses it is provided eight times that the Administrator may perform one function or another with approval of the Minister.

Clause 11 relates to decisions and revisions, and subsection (7) thereof provides:

The Minister may therefore make regulations in terms of this provision. Clause 12 reads:

Therefore, the Minister may make regulations in connection with any matter. [Interjection.] The Minister may make regulations with regard to any matter and in the furtherance of any of the objects of this Act. He may also make regulations after consultation with the multiracial Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs.

It is quite clear that as far as the functioning of regional services councils are concerned, the Administrators of the four provinces will be nothing but liaison officers for the Minister, and they are Government appointed.

And they are content with that.

An hon member over there states that they are content with that. But I say that in terms of this Bill the Administrators of the four provinces will be nothing but liaison officers for the Minister. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is a powerful man. The Administrators can do virtually nothing without his approval. Will the Minister who is appointed to administer a department of general local government affairs have his own portfolio? Or will the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning take this post for himself as well? Do we not perhaps have another extension of the hon the Minister’s empire in this regard? [Interjection.] The Minister who will be in control of regional services councils may be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. If the Department of General Local Government Affairs is administered by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the chances are at least very good that a Coloured may be appointed as Deputy Minister to assist the Minister in his task.

I can say to the credit of the hon the Minister that he is a man who works towards a certain goal, and he may achieve his ideal and become a powerful man with regard to the third tier of government in South Africa as well.

Let us consider the appointment of the regional services councils. The chairman is appointed by the Administrator. Ten to one it will be a political appointment, a person who can be of service to the Government. The chairman is not elected because I do not believe that the hon the Minister could find a formula to constitute an electoral college as in the case of the election of a State President. The council is a multiracial council which can make decisions in regard to the matters mentioned in Schedule 2, inter alia planning of land usage within each region, abattoirs and fresh produce markets, the places where the products of the cattle and vegetable farmers are marketed. This is a multiracial council which can make decisions on general affairs at the third level and can provide services. Here we have the finest example of power-sharing and of integration at this level of government. This is a multiracial council which takes joint decisions with regard to matters of common concern. Clause 5 provides that every local authority in the region of the regional services council is compelled to make use of the services provided by this multiracial council. It is a multiracial council with a joint task. The council sits together, deliberates together, debates together and decides together. In the regional services council the function of joint responsibility is somewhat different to that at Parliamentary level with regard to matters of common concern. At the Parliamentary level we have joint Second Readings and separate debates and resolutions, separate committees and Third Readings. The standing committee of Parliament is a little closer to the way in which the regional services council will function. It is multiracial, there is joint debating and a joint decision is made in terms of a certain formula. The regional services council is a multiracial council which debates together and will decide together on matters of common concern. I can already tell the Leader of the House that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will tell him in two to three years’ time that this principle has already been accepted with regard to regional services councils and that that principle must be extended to Parliament. In terms of clause 2 the Administrator may establish a region, assign a name to it, determine the boundaries of the area and determine the seat. He does so with the approval of the Minister.

At his discretion and with my approval.

But the hon the Minister is still ensuring that he has a finger in the pie.

In terms of clause 3 the Administrator may, with the approval of the Minister, declare a divisional council a regional services council in the Cape. In the Cape, divisional councils are White local authorities that impose taxes and people living within the area of those councils have to pay for services controlled and provided by that institution of White local government. If the divisional council of Kuruman were now to be declared a regional services council by the Administrator, with the approval of the Minister, it would mean that the divisional council of Kuruman would be converted into a multiracial regional services council. One can list the divisional councils in the Cape. They are all White local authorities, but when they are converted with the approval of the Minister, they will become multiracial regional services councils. A White local authority is destroyed to be able to do this. Kuruman’s divisional council disappears and I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether the rates levied by the divisional council will also fall away in such a case. The hon the Minister is now walking out of the House while I am putting a question to him. It is the fault of the hon the Minister that we are still sitting here, because we could have been finished on 15 June if he had done his work. It is his fault that we are here, but when we conduct a debate with him he walks out of the House.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to suggest that a speaker addresses the Chair and not a Minister.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

I said that Kuruman’s divisional council could now be converted into a multiracial regional services council. The hon the Minister is back again. I now want to ask him whether the rates levied by the divisional council fall away when that happens. Will that be the carrot dangled before the noses of the Cape divisional councils so that they may be converted into multiracial regional services councils? I say that the abolition of divisional council rates by this clause is the carrot dangled before the divisional councils of the Cape by the hon the Minister so that they will decide to become multiracial councils. I want to ask the hon the Minister: If the divisional council of Kuruman refuses to be converted into a multiracial regional services council, would it—as a local authority—be included in a services council to be founded, would the divisional council retain its right to levy rates and would it continue to provide services? In this situation could we not be placed in the position that certain devisional councils that have been converted cast off their divisional council rates while those who refuse to do so have to retain their rates in order to continue to exist as local authorities?

I now turn to a different matter. The composition of the regional services councils is not based on the number of voters in each participating local authority. The reason for this is obvious, and even the Government party flinches from it. If these regional services councils are to be constituted on the basis of enfranchised persons in the various local authorities, then, in view of the numerical ratio between Whites and Coloureds in the Cape towns and districts, the Coloureds would have the majority in virtually all Cape regional services councils. Therefore different formulas are used in the composition of the regional services councils, formulas which will mean that even in the Cape, where the Coloureds are in the majority in virtually every district, the Whites will have the majority, and therefore the control, in the regional services councils. Now I can already hear how “verkrampte” members on the Government side, for example the hon member for Innesdal, are going to tell the people: “But we have specified these electoral qualifications in this way. We are tricking the Coloureds. It is true that they are in the majority, but we still have the control in the regional services councils.”

[Inaudible.]

I know what the hon member for Swellendam said to his voters during the referendum. I am almost afraid to repeat it here.

I know what you told my voters.

I am not ashamed of that.

Order! We are not dealing with the referendum now.

Sir, the result will be that although the Coloureds are in the majority in virtually every town in the Cape, they will be in the minority in the regional services councils. This will be achieved by way of the formula of the hon the Minister.

What, then, is going to be the position when decisions have to be taken in these regional services councils?

[Inaudible.]

We do not want these councils at all. Therefore we propose that the Government must accept our amendment that this Bill be read today six months. I ask: What is the position going to be now, when decisions have to be taken in the regional services councils? Whites, who represent the minority of the voters, have the majority vote in these regional services councils, and Coloureds, who represent by far the majority of the voters, have the minority vote in these regional services councils. Where do hon members think the need will be the greatest as far as the supply of services in the Cape is concerned? Who will fight the hardest when a decision is taken about the determining of water or electricity tariffs? The Coloureds will certainly fight to keep the tariffs as low as possible to enable their voters to make use of the services delivered . It is understandable that they should fight for that.

But not the Whites?

Yes, the Whites will also fight for that, but to a large extent the Whites already possess these services that these services councils want to make available. Surely the hon member knows that. They have them, but the Coloureds and the Indians do not have all these services. They are the people who are going to fight for them. However, when it comes to the voting, the decision-making, the Coloureds will find that they are in the minority. I can give an example. In a town like Britstown there are, I think, 4 000 Coloureds and 800 Whites. If a regional services council is established there, then the representatives of these 4 000 Coloureds will find out that the 800 Whites have far more votes than they do. Then they can fight as much as they like for the interests of their people, but they will be voted down by the Whites. It is still the White town in which the streets are tarred and electricity is provided. That, too, is where group interests come into the picture; within the regional services councils. Therefore, when decisions are taken affecting group interests, clashes and conflicts will be the order of the day within that multiracial council. When in those multiracial councils the Coloureds fight for their own interests and for their own local authorities, and the majority of the Whites vote them down time and again, there is not going to be a President’s Council that will be able to settle differences that arise in this way. There is no President’s Council to settle differences. Voting takes place in those councils. Therefore when the Coloureds have made a request and their vote is turned down, I believe there may be clashes …

[Inaudible.]

Oh really, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein is a former member of the old United Party. Therefore his policy for 1973 is embodied in this measure. Accordingly he is quite satisfied. Therefore I do not even want to argue with him about this. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Witbank, of course, has swallowed the policy of the hon member for Turffontein hook, line and sinker. [Interjections.] I believe that within these multiracial regional services councils, clashes and conflict are going to occur. Moreover, that is the most important reason why the NP said over the years that one cannot include people of diverse races and cultures in the same decision-making body, because group interests …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I am not answering questions now. [Interjections.] Conflicting group interests can cause clashes and conflicts within those multiracial councils. That is why the CP still supports separate development. That, too, is why the CP requests that this Bill be read this day six months. We request this because we should like to maintain separate development. [Interjections.]

Order!

We believe that the separate groups must make their own decisions within the framework of their own local government affairs with regard to every facet affecting their lives in that area. We reject these regional services councils that are to be established, not because they are multiracial councils as such; we reject them because group interests are going to result in clashes in those multiracial councils, clashes that will lead to bad relations between Whites and people of colour. Moreover, we should prefer to maintain those relations on a congenial and sound basis. The moment I spoke about attitudes, Mr Speaker, I noticed that the hon the Minister began to write. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is a person who keeps talking about attitudes. However, I want to put it to him that if he acts towards a fellow-Afrikaner as he is doing now, I wonder how he is going to achieve consensus in his own Cabinet with someone like the Rev Hendrickse, when he differs with him. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman, and other hon members of his party, are apparently under the impression that they can resist any form of contact or liaison with Coloureds and Indians, and that they can hang a cloak of respectability about their resistance by referring to it as separate development. That resistance of theirs to any form of liaison with people of colour has already led them to propagate a policy of homelands in the broad national sphere. If their homeland policy is impracticable, their policy with regard to local authorities, as the hon member for Kuruman expounded it here, is a policy that will drive them into an absolute frenzy.

Let us, for example, just consider the circumstances in the metropolitan area of Durban. The hon member for Umbilo referred to this. There a metropolitan authority, a metropolitan liaison body called Metrocon by the people of Durban, came into being quite spontaneously. The hon member for Umbilo said that there were 14 local authorities there, and two of those 14 local authorities were Indian local authorities. Five local affairs committees for Indians have representation there, as well as two local affairs committees for Coloureds. The policy of the party of the hon member for Kuruman is that those group areas of Chatsworth, Phoenix and Reservoir Hills for the Indians in Durban, and yet more, plus Wentworth and Sparks Estate for the Coloureds, will be the components of their homelands. That is part of their policy. [Interjections.] I am not asking the hon member for Kuruman to ask me what his policy is. I am asking him to deny this if it is not his policy. The hon member states that those group areas will be the components of their homeland policy. According to what he has just said, this means that at the local authority level, each of the two local authorities and the five local affairs committees for Indian group areas in Durban, and the two Coloured local affairs committees for Coloured group areas in Durban, will no longer be able to obtain their water from the common source. Nor will they be able to obtain their electricity from the common source any longer. Eventually they will not be able to share their sewerage service with the communal source either. Each will have to have its own separate organization because, after all, that is the component of his homeland. This is absolutely crazy, and it arises from his resistance to contact with Coloureds and Indians.

It has already been said here that the concept of regional co-operation is nothing new, and indeed, the hon member for Umbilo has confirmed it. He gave us the example of Metrocon, which developed without statutory powers in Durban. It developed spontaneously as a regional liaison body. All that this legislation is in fact doing is to formalize this liaison mechanism.

The hon member for Umbilo tried to make out a case in passing for the concept that these regional services councils will represent a new level of government. I just wish to put it to him for his consideration that in fact the regional services councils are only a variation on the old local health commission which is now the Development Services Board in Natal and which is indeed a local authority for all the smaller communities that are not strong enough to be their own local authority. This is absolutely on all fours with the peri-urban development organization in Transvaal. However, the hon member for Umbilo and his party have never intimated that the Board for Development and Services in Natal forms a new level of government in any way, and in exactly the same way, the regional services councils will not do so in the new dispensation. Reference has already been made here to the practical advantages of these regional services organizations, and I do not wish to go into that further. I just want to mention one aspect, which to me makes this legislation perhaps more important than any other, and that is that these regional services councils that are to be founded may become an extremely important factor in the development of vigorous Coloured and Indian towns. The most important underlying reason for the resistance encountered among Coloureds and Indians with regard to the development of full-fledged municipal status for their own residential areas is their allegation that many of these areas are not economically viable. I sugges that this may be the result of short-sighted planning in the past. In many of our cities and larger towns, Coloured and Indian township areas only developed as residential areas without taking into account the need to develop an industrial and commercial infrastructure for those communities. After all, it is pointless taking it amiss of the White-controlled local authorities for concentrating virtually all commercial and industrial activities within their boundaries. Their sources of revenue were limited and the demands made on them up to now have been tremendous. However, the fact remains that we are today faced with the reality of the situation, that the Chatsworths and the Sparks Estates and so on are not economically viable because they have remained purely residential suburbs. I believe that these regional services councils can play a role in the development of such areas as full fledged, vigorous local authorities.

On 25 June, in the Third Reading Debate on the Appropriation Bill, the hon the Minister of Finance referred to the possibility of new sources of revenue for institutions of local government arising out of the recommendations of the Croeser Committee. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance held out as a prospect that these new sources of revenue could be exploited in the next year or so, but we already know that what is being considered is along the lines of a turnover tax, an investment tax and a wage and salary tax on employees. I suggest that some of these new sources of income for local authorities are ideally divisible as regards their origin and as regards the communities from which this revenue is derived, the White communities, the Coloured communities and the Indian communities. I believe that because they are not bound to specific existing local authorities with their own interests and preferences, the regional services councils would be the ideal instruments, the ideal channels for these new sources of municipal revenue so that the revenue to which the White community is entitled will go to that community, and the same will go for the Coloured and Indian communities, so that in this way the resistance encountered among those different population groups to the development of institutions of local government as full-fledged bodies will be broken down. In that sense I believe that these regional services councils will constitute an important step in the development of the new South Africa that we shall be entering in September.

Mr Speaker, thus far this has really been an interesting debate.

Now we are going to give it the coup de grâce.

The hon member said that we are now going to give it the coup de grace, but I shall do my best not to do so. In his introductory speech the hon the Minister made the statement that this new institution, the regional services council, does not constitute a new level of government. He also made the statement that what we have here is in fact a horizontal extension of local authorities. I gained the impression from the speech by the hon member for Umlazi that he did not agree with this statement by the hon the Minister.

I spoke about a process of development.

Apparently he did not understand the hon the Minister correctly. I should like to put it the other way around. I think that it could with justice be argued that local authorities are going to become the instruments in the hands of the new regional services councils. After all, we have already heard it argued here that established White local authorities must form the instruments and the components where by to help establish local institutions for Coloureds and Indians. After all, those are the arguments we have heard being advanced.

To come and tell me now that these regional services councils are going to be an extension of local authorities, both existing ones and those that are still to be established, simply does not hold water. I believe that the contrary is true. I contend that existing local authorities will be instruments in the hands of the regional services councils. If the hon the Minister makes the statement that we do not have in this a new form of third or fourth tier Government, then I differ with him. In their composition and functioning, regional services councils probably differ from Government institutions as we know them at present because those councils do not have powers of taxation.

Do you regard the Peri-urban Areas Board in Transvaal as a different level of government?

I definitely regard that board as a form of government.

Is it a different form of government?

It is a different form and a different level of government.

The position is that the powers of taxation of second-tier government are virtually non existent for all practical purposes. They were taken away from second-tier government years ago and for the most part placed in the hands of first-tier government. To argue that because these regional services councils do not have the power to impose taxes, they are not a form of Government institution, simply does not hold water. [Interjections.] I infer this from the hon member’s argument, because the hon the Minister said that the regional services councils were not a new level of government.

The fact is that recently the Government has been loudly pronouncing that its aim—and the aim of this Minister is particular is the maximum devolution of power. If this Bill is measured in terms of that ideal of the hon the Minister, one finds that the contrary is the case. If an Administrator, with the approval of the Minister, decides to establish a regional service council, the local authority falling within that region does not have the right to say that it does not want a share in this. They are forced to have a share in it. Therefore this new institution is not comparable with the establishment of an ordinary utility company. It is a mixture of both, and is therefore a form of government which, to an extent, will perform the function of a utility company.

I want to refer once again to the differences in approach between the various parties and the House. The standpoint of the PFP is that they do not want separate institutions of government for the various population groups in the country, and that goes for the level of local government as well. On the other hand, in recent time the National Party has been toging with a mixture of two ideas, namely separation and mixing. They give it the agreeable description “co-responsibility” in order to make it easier for the “verkramptes” in the National Party to swallow the pill. [Interjections.]

In this debate the main objection of the PFP—I can understand their basic standpoint—is that they are not in favour of separate Government institutions for the various population groups and that they would apparently be satisfied if representation in the new council were to be given to Black local government institutions together with Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I do not know whether that is so, but that is my inference. The reaction of the spokesmen on the NP side has been very interesting. I refer in particular to the hon member for Welkom. He quickly disposed of the arguments advanced by the PFP that the Government dealt with the Black people in a different way.

I want to refer once again to the ambiguity encountered within the NP. In this regard I want to refer to the standpoint of my good friend, the hon member for Randburg. What was his reply to the PFP? he does not reject the PFP’s standpoint that Black institutions of local government should also obtain representation on the regional services councils. He says that it would be a good idea for the Cabinet Committee to consider this proposal.

To consider the problem.

Very well then, to consider the problem. However, he did not say, as the hon member for Welkom did, that the standpoint of the PFP in this regard was unacceptable to him. He said that it was a good idea that the Cabinet Committee should consider the problem. Therefore he is receptive to these ideas advanced by the PFP. [Interjections.] After all, we know that the hon member for Randburg is not the only hon member on that side of the House who is receptive to the ideas and ideals of the PFP. The dilemma of the NP—I do not want to mention names now …

Mention them if you like.

I might as well. However, it is definitely not the hon member for Turf fontein. However, one calls to mind the previous standpoints of the hon member for Gezina, the hon member for Middelburg or even the hon member for Overvaal. How many more can I mention? [Interjections.] They all used to be fellow-“verkramptes”. They have to be satisfied.

Order! What clause of the Bill is the hon member discussing now.?

I am not discussing a specific clause, Sir, but the basic philosophical approach of the various parties in regard to the provisions of this legislation. [Interjections.]

the same pattern followed by this hon Minister in his preparation and eventual success within the NP in getting his ideas of joint decision-making by White, Coloured and Indian at the first level of government accepted, is now also being put into effect with regard to third-tier government. If it is the standpoint of hon members of the NP that White, Coloured and Indian should be represented jointly, although on a group basis and separately, in a regional services council which will decide jointly on local government affairs of all three groups in a region, what argument can they advance to show that group representation cannot and will not be given to Coloureds and Indians within a single local authority as well?

Those are unrelated issues.

The hon member says that those are unrelated issues. I ask: What argument do those hon members advance to justify giving representation on a group basis to all three groups on a regional basis in respect of matters of common concern, while not also giving it to those two groups within one municipal authority on a group basis? Hon members opposite must not point a finger at us and say that we reject Coloureds and Indians because we object to a single regional services council with representation of all three groups although on a group basis. They must not accuse us of basing our standpoint on racism. [Interjection.] It does not matter what it is. I have always been under the impression that the task of any authority, including the first-tier authority, is to render service to the people it represents, and that also applies to every individual local authority.

What do you suggest?

Surely that hon member knows what our standpoint is. Our standpoint is that every population group must govern itself, at the leval of local government as well, and for that reason these proposals are unacceptable to us.

I have a feeling that the PFP are going to have their way as far as this Bill, too, is concerned, and now the following question presents itself: When the new dispensation comes into operation and this Bill has to be considered by the new tricameral Parliament, what is going to happen? The representatives of the Coloureds of the Cape have already informed the hon the Minister that this legislation is not acceptable to them.

The Progs say so too.

Yes, the Progs say so too. The legislation will be unacceptable to the Coloureds because they want only one mixed institution of local government. Is the hon the Minister going to accept their standpoint for the sake of consensus? Or will the NP cease to govern? This is a choice they will have to make.

This Bill is in conflict with our basic view of matters and it is for that reason that the CP moved the amendment.

Mr Speaker, anyone who attaches value to history must be aware, I think, of the importance of the debate we are now conducting. Although we adopt divergent standpoints when it comes to solutions to our problems, hon members will understand that I should like to react to this debate in accordance with the spirit of the occasion. It is a pity that it was not possible to practise reasonable politics throughout, but that certain hon members had to practise emotional politics in its stead. Let me concede one point at once to the hon members of the CP. It is far easier to preach the politics of emotion than the politics of reason. I readily concede that to hon members as a debating point. It is popular in the short term to make an appeal to the basic emotions of people, but I want to tell the hon members in all earnest that nowhere has this ever brought any reasonable solutions. Nowhere has it ever provided rational answers. Nevertheless I can understand the natural temptation of hon members in this connection. Although hon members may derive pleasure from it, it contributes nothing whatsover to a solution to the problem. I shall come back later to what the various hon members said. I should now like to turn to the hon member, and then leave his arguments at that.

He devoted his speech to the philosophical standpoints which motivate the respective parties in this House and determine their conduct. I just want to refer to this quickly. The hon member for Barberton made a very interesting statement. He said that just as I had succeeded in persuading my party compatriots to accept joint decision-making on the first level of government, I was now carrying the same principle of joint decision-making through to the third level. I do not think that I am summarizing the hon member’s standpoint in this connection incorrectly. The hon member has just confirmed that I am summing up his words correctly. This would imply that the concept of joint decision-making is my brain-child. I now want to take the hon member back to the days when his moral codes and those of the members of this party found a different practical embodiment than that of their statements today. The fact of the matter is that the CP had no scruples about incorrectly quoting a former State President and Prime Minister in support of their standpoint during the referendum campaign.

It was he who repudiated you.

I am now dealing with the hon member for Barberton, and I really do not wish to quarrel with anyone tonight. The hon member must please given me a chance.

I want to ask the hon member for Barberton whether it is not true that in the philosophy of and in what was stated in the 1977 draft legislation that had to embody that philosophy, there was, in the first place, a multiracial Council of Cabinets? Is it not true that that multiracial Cabinet …

It was not a Cabinet.

A Council of Cabinets. Just allow me to finish speaking. I am not proclaiming my standpoint or his standpoint at the moment. That Council of Cabinets was to have had the same powers in regard to matters of common concern as the White Cabinet has today in regard to general matters. In fact, if the hon member looks at clause 26 of the draft legislation which was to have given shape to the 1977 proposals…

No one accepted them.

I shall come to that. I did not interrupt the hon member when he was speaking. I am now dealing with the hon member for Barberton. In that Bill the legislative powers of Parliament, of the House of Assembly, if you like, were qualified. The Council of Cabinets would inter alia decide which functions that were vested in the White Parliament would be entrusted to others. The other day I quoted the provision in that Bill which read that if there should be a difference of opinion between the Houses, the Council of Cabinets would have the final say in the matter. The hon member for Kuruman said that no one accepted the proposals. No less a person than his hon leader accepted them.

On the contrary, I went to your leader and told him that I objected to them.

He said in Parliament, when he was interrupted while making a speech, that the NP’s standpoint had been submitted to the Schlebusch Commission in the form of the Bill. He cannot get away from that no matter how he trifles with the truth. Those are the facts. I want to say this to hon member for Barberton: Let us practise reasonable politics among ourselves and at least remember what our previous standpoints were.

The same applies to you.

I am not talking to the hon member for Waterberg. I never had anything to say to him, nor he to me.

Very well, goodbye then.

I am talking to the hon member for Barberton about his standpoints. I am talking directly to him. Did he not fight an election in 1981 under the banner of specific standpoints? I ask him now, man to man: Did he accept the election manifesto that was issued and make it his own as far as his philosophy and standpoints were concerned? After all, he is an honest man. I ask hi Did he? Did he associate himself with those standpoints? The hon member has two choices. If he did not do so, he was practising dishonest politics. To my knowledge the hon member for Barberton is not a dishonest politician and I would not like to level that accusation at him. I would prefer to say that he believed what he said, and that he therefore believed in the documents that were issued to suppport him in his fight against the HNP in Barberton. I want to add immediately that in the past there was no one who could do that more vigorously and with more enthusiasm than the hon member for Barberton. In that election the hon member accepted that there should be co-responsibility among Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics on matters of common concern. If the hon member rejects that now, he has the right to do so, but he does not have the right to distort the facts to such and extent that he accuses me of being the father of joint decision-making on the first and third levels of government. I want to add that I make no apology for still endorsing the standpoints which I endorsed at that time. [Interjections.]

I shall come to the hon member for Kuruman in a moment. He must just have a little patience. I first want to refer to the hon member for Sea point. He and I differ deeply and essentially in our standpoints, but both of us owe one another a few things. I should just like to dispose of this for the sake of the record in this debate. I never alleged that the members of the co-ordinating council who supported specific political philosophies or policies, spoke on behalf of their political parties on that council. Nor did I ever say that they committed their parties in that way. The hon member also said that not one MPC knew about this legislation. On what basis can the hon member really say that?

Not one of them know about it, not in his capacity as an MPC.

Wait a minute; let me finish speaking. After all, the hon member does not know what I want to say. Nor does he know with whom I negotiated. Let me give him an example just to show him how wrong his facts are. All the MECs are elected MPCs, but the hon member bruited the generalization abroad that no MPC knew about it. [Interjections.] I addressed the Transvaal provincial caucus of my party on the Bills on request. But the hon member said that no MPC knew about it. Yet, at their request, I addressed the Cape provincial caucus of my party. Nevertheless the hon member for Sea Point alleged that no MPC knew about it. All I am objecting to is that when we argue, we argue on the basis of such generalized statements, statements that have no factual grounds. Surely we cannot get anywhere if we do that.

Furthermore, the hon member for Sea Point alleged that this was a new level of government. That is what he said.

†Let us, however, examine that statement. Firstly, in terms of the Bill before us, if a regional service board or council is established it is considered to be a local authority. It performs its functions in terms of the local government ordinance of the province concerned. Therefore I submit with all due respect that there is not juristic substance whatsoever in that argument.

Allow me, Sir, to take the matter even further. Is it argued that the rural system of local government in the Cape Province is another tier of government? Nobody has ever argued on that basis. Nobody has ever argued that in the Transvaal the peri-urban councils …

It is something in between.

No, it is not something in between. It is not in between because it serves urban areas. Nobody, however, has ever argued that this is another level of government. It is of course another form of third-tier government. That I do concede immediately.

*I therefore request the hon member for Sea Point to at least evaluate and formulate his terminology and his standpoints clearly. Let us please take note of this one aspect again, so that we can dispose of it once and for all now.

I told all hon members that we would have introduced this legislation earlier in the session if I had wanted to do so without reference to the council created by this Parliament itself. With all due respect, I say that this House itself established the Co-ordinating Council on local governments. This House also defined the functions of that council. I also believe that the first people who would have reproached me if we had not adopted this process of consultation with that council would have been hon members on the opposite side. They would then have been able to accuse me of having ignored my own creation. Because we have now adopted a process of consultation, we are being reproached for doing so. What kind of statement is the hon member for Kuruman now making in this regard? He is saying that I struggled for six months to reach consensus with the Coloureds and Asians. That is what he said. But what are the facts? The hon member for Kuruman simply says things so that he can have something to go and proclaim to the voters of the country. What are the facts? Comprising the Co-ordinating Council, which was the instrument by means of which and within which the negotiations took place, are representatives of all the population groups involved. The Coloureds and the Asians are there in the minority. With scant regard for the facts, however, the hon member for Kuruman said that we sought consensus with Coloured and Asian leaders for six months, but could not achieve it because they rejected the legislation. Both these statements of his are untrue. But he derives pleasure from constructing his arguments on a parcel of untruths and false assumptions.

I now want to quote from the report—if I had had time to do so, I would have furnished the names of those who served on that subcommittee; however, I shall leave it at that however—brought out by this subcommittee, which had no directive whatsoever from anyone in regard to regional services councils. The subcommittee had an open mandate to make recommendations on regional services councils and on the rendering of community services to local authorities. That activity was of course not limited to the rendering of community services among Whites, Coloureds and Asians, but also had a bearing on adjoining local authorities of the same group which required services on a collective basis. I quote what they said; and they said this without any coercion or compulsion on my part:

The hon member must listen to this:

The word “primêre” I am simply inserting myself:

So what are the facts here?

†I want to reply to the hon member for Umbilo in this regard as well. This is not another level or tier of government. It is quite obvious that the autonomous constituent level authorities for the various groups will be entrusted in the new system with own affairs within that community.

The new level will handle general affairs.

But is not a new level. It is an extension of the present one.

But they have taken it away from the others and created a new level for general affairs.

Just a moment, please. The hon member asked me not to interrupt his train of thought and I shall be pleased i he will extend the same courtesy to me.

We shall follow one another’s pattern.

But when I could see that the hon member could not follow what I was saying, I acceded to his request. The point is that a third-tier institution will deal with general affairs and, when they handle general affairs in terms of this Bill, they will do so in terms of the provisions of the local government ordinances of the provinces concerned. Therefore one cannot possibly argue that what is being proposed in this Bill will in fact be another tier of government. However, I should like to take this point further.

*I come now to the hon member for Umlazi, who has now left. The fact of the matter is that the Browne Committee instituted an enquiry—and all hon members know this—into additional sources of revenue for local authorities. The fact of the matter is too that for purely technical, economic and financial reasons, which had no political connotation whatsoever, they recommended that joint service committees should be established. To do what? To accept responsibility for collecting … [Interjections.] The Croeser Working Group recommended this… [Interjections.] Pursuant to the Browne report, the Croeser Working Group recommended for purely technical, financial reasons that joint services committees be established, which would collect and re-distribute the new sources of revenue. Those were the facts. It was only when the President’s Council made a recommendation that it was given a political connotation. However, all responsible local organizations advocated the establishment in one way or another, of joint services councils or institutions.

†The mere fact that the Metrocon exists in the Greater Durban area is evidence of the fact that they have identified the need for functioning and operating collectively for the rendering of services. If the hon member for Umbilo agrees with me he must not shake his head negatively.

But we do not like the way you are doing it.

Well, you have the right to think like that.

‘When we discussed previous legislation I told the hon member for Sea Point why it has not been referred to a Select Committee. I told him that that legislation which he had requested be referred to a select committee was not constitutional legislation. The hon member will remember that. He is now quoting that one argument only and he is trying, in what I think is an unreasonable way, to turn it around by saying that it does not apply to this legislation. Let us argue about this for a moment in a reasonable way. Did the Black local communities have institutions of their own for consultation and advice? Surely the Black local authorities did not have a co-ordinating council. Nor do they as yet have legislation in terms of which such bodies could be established. In terms of the legislation we discussed on the committee, we would have had to consider the whole issue of the establishment of the body without having had a frame of reference in terms of institutionalized co-operation and consultation as we have with this co-ordinating council. Surely it is unfair to argue with one another on that basis as though these things were simply the same. Surely they are not the same.

When I was discussing the Bills in general I went on to say that under normal circumstances I would have adopted the standpoint that such legislation should be referred to the select committee, but I also explained the circumstances making it impossible in this case. Let us disregard for a moment the fact that Black people are not participating in this process. I make no apology for that, but this legislation complies with a fundamental standpoint of the Government of which I am a member and whose policy I endorse, which is that Whites, Coloured and Asians should be entitled to decide jointly on their common interests, and do so on the third level of government as well. The fact of the matter is that the Coloured and Asian leaders came to me with a request and expressly stated at their congresses that we should expand the powers of the management committee and the local affairs committees so that they could adopt resolutionsind not be dependent solely on the resolitions of White councils.

The fact of the matter is that these institutions, if we were to establish them, would afford them the opportunity of participating in the decision-making on what, on a local level, represents interests which they and the two other communities have in common. Some of us in this House are quite prepared to postpone the participation of people at local government level because it just so happens that it does not satisfy our own standpoints.

No.

Yes, those are the facts. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat that there is an overlapping of the interests of Black communities in the urban areas with those of the White, Coloured and Asian communities. I said that, and the hon member for Sea Point knows that I said it.

And?

And I also said that the Special Cabinet Committee would have to institute an inquiry, in co-operation too with the local governments of those Black people…

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to the hon member in a moment. I am now trying to deal rationally with the argument of the hon member for Sea Point and I shall react to hers if she would give me a chance.

*We must make no mistake, the co-operation structures or methods among Black communities in the urban areas in conjunction with the other groups is on the agenda for discussion. I am not blind to the facts, and surely I have said this in the House. I want to say one other thing though: I had the opportunity of negotiation with these three communities over a long period and in a specialized way, and my colleagues and I intend to hold talks with the Black communities to see whether we cannot find a way out of this impasse. I am making no apology for that, I am merely asking for understanding for the fact that this represents lengthy processes.

Is the door open?

The hon member must listen to what I am saying. I am saying that there are matters of common concern among Whites, Coloureds, Asian and Blacks in the urban areas as well, and between their institutions and ours. The Bill does not exclude them from geographic incorporation into a regional services council. They may be included; the Bill merely excludes their representation on such a regional services council. For that reason the method of cooperation as far as they are concerned must, at the very least, be discussed thoroughly with them before I can cast it into the mould of legislation.

That is why I am saying directly to the hon members that that specific item is on the agenda for discussion. There is one thing we must remember, however, and it is possible that the hon members of the official Opposition will not like it. The premise of the NP is that Black peoples in the urban areas as well should be accommodated in a different way to the way in which Whites, Coloureds and Asians are accommodated. [Interjections.] All of us need not like this. For that reason it is wrong of the official Opposition, just as they were wrong during the referendum, to deny Coloured people and Asians the right of participation on the basis of their inference that Black people are being excluded. [Interjections.] Do not let us argue about this now. The hon Leader of the Opposition is a reasonable person and he will therefore concede that I am correct when I say that if we had waited for the process proposed by the PFP, namely a national convention, the result would have been—these are the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s own words—that the White Parliament would govern until consensus was found. This would have meant that Coloured people and Asians would have been totally excluded from any participation in decision-making.

Oh no!

That is what it would have meant, and there is no other reply to that.

The hon member for Sea Point said: “However, beneficial to Coloureds and Indians this may be, the Black people are being rejected”. With very few exceptions not one Black leader of any stature has so far adopted the standpoint that he did not want to talk or negotiate with the special Cabinet Committee on Black affairs. I want to state candidly today that I do not know what the answers will be, but the fact remains that we are engaged in a dialogue with these people. I want to ask that we do not, informulating our standpoints, obstruct the people who are responsible for the government of this country and who are also responsible for creating systems which are able to accommodate people’s aspirations as far as possible. One thing must be accepted, though, and that is that the National Party Government does not intend to exchange one form of domination for another. [Interjections.] Hon members must please give me a chance now. I do not wish to reply to questions of a technical nature now, since we can do so during the Committee Stage. The hon member will grant me this, otherwise we will be discussing the matter for hours.

The hon member for Sea Point is suggesting that I wish to enforce my own will here.

†Sir, I believe I have effectively argued that what was contained in this Bill is not my own, but is the culmination of investigations and negotiations that started as far back as 1981.I leave at that for the moment.

*I want to thank the hon member for Randburg for his contribution. He argued effectively that the new councils would be providing bulk services, and that small-scale services would remain the function of local authorities as is the case at present. The hon member also referred to Black People, and I took cognisance of what he said. The hon member also referred to the 1983 TMA report in which this principle was accepted.

I come now to the observations made by the hon member for De Aar. He advanced the strangest arguments I have ever heard. The hon member said that his party was opposed to the legislation—he must tell me if I am misinterpreting what he said—because it was multiracial because Whites, Coloureds and Asians would serve on those bodies.

You understand me correctly.

In other words, the hon member is opposed to the concept of multiracial councils. Let us see what the hon member for Kuruman says. It is almost impossible to believe. He maintained they they were not opposed to the councils because they would be multiracial, but because there would be a conflict of group interests on such a multiracial body. In other words, his objection to the councils is not their multiracialism, but their inherent potential for conflict. I want to ask the hon member for Kuruman to have a discussion with the hon member for De Aar. I think they should try to reach consensus among themselves. [Interjections.]

It is as a result of the possibilities of conflict on those councils.

The hon member says it is as a result of the potential possibilities for conflict on those bodies. Let us take that point further. He said I may be given a Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and then he objected to his also being able to make decisions in regard to White affairs in the case of a general affair. Surely it is just a question of colour; surely there is no potential for conflict. Surely it is … I almost put it in a crude way, and I do not want to say anything in a crude way today. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon members of the CP in all earnestness, and without wishing to score any points, why they are so apprehensive and why they have such an inferiority complex about the possibility that contact with other people could destroy their identities and could contaminate them? [Interjections.] Why do hon members of the CP huddle together like scared little boys in a dark room behind a locked door so that no one may come in or go out?

You are an old straw doll.

The hon member also went further.

Order! Did the hon member for Jeppe say that the hon the Minister was a straw doll?

Yes, I said that. [Interjections.]

The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I meant that the hon the Minister was setting up straw dolls. [Interjections.] But I said he was a straw doll and I did not deny it. [Interjections.]

The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I have already withdrawn it unconditionally, Sir.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for De Aar objects to racially mixed councils, and the hon member for Kuruman supports that specific standpoint of his. The hon member for Kuruman made a very interesting remark, and I should like to know whether the hon member for De Aar agrees with it. He said that if a person included Whites, Coloureds and Asians on this type of council, there was no moral reason why Black people should not also be included.

According to your policy.

Very well, then, Coloureds and Asians have been included now. The hon member for Kuruman said that in that case there was no moral justification for excluding Blacks. I want to ask the hon member for De Aar what he was doing in the NP for he did after all draw a clear distinction, during his own election as member of the NP, between the handling of Black matters and those of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. He is a person with high moral values, who signed undertakings in regard to what he would do if he ever changed his standpoint, and a person who wanted to teach other people a lesson in morality. He came to this House on the basis that as far as Coloureds, Asiatics and Whites were concerned, there were areas in which each group would make its own decisions and there were areas in which they accepted co-responsibility in regard to matters of common concern. [Interjections.] Where was the hon member’s morality then? He, as well as the hon member for Kuruman, said it was immoral to include Whites, Colourds and Asiatics, and to exclude Blacks. What about the hon member’s moral codes of 1981?

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the exclusion of Blacks in terms of the NP’s policy. [Interjections.]

The hon member accepted that Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics would have co-responsibility in regard to matters of common concern. At that stage he did not bring in the Black people on the same basis. Then it was morally acceptable to him. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Jeppe has now used the same words which you have just ordered him to withdraw, namely that the Minister is a straw doll.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member had opened his ears he would have heard me saying that the hon the Minister was setting up straw dolls again.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

I come now to the hon member for Bryanston, and I do not want to spend much time on him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is speaking. I did not call upon anyone else to speak.

Mr Speaker, the hon Whip is constantly …

Order! I did not ask the hon member for an explanation.

Mr Speaker, there is no substitute for good manners.

†The hon member for Bryanston made a very interesting statement. For some reason or another the Government believes that the PFP is against the Bill, he said.

Against regional services councils.

But the Bill creates regional services councils. The hon member says it is not true that the PFP is against the Bill and he can therefore not understand why we should be under that impression. However, I have never heard an argument from that party in favour of the Bill. In fact, all their arguments have been against it.

Against the way you are bringing things about.

Furthermore, the hon member says we are bulldozing the Bill through and that Parliament has the right to debate Bills. Of course Parliament has that right and what is more, nobody has stopped the hon member for Bryanston or any other hon member to participate in this debate.

You are bulldozing the Bill through Parliament.

Since when is the acceptance of a Bill in this House without reference to a select committee a bulldozing process? On the basis of that hon member’s argument, if he wants to be logical, and Bills must be referred to a select committee.

All complex bills of this nature, yes. I want to be friendly to you.

I am also being friendly to the hon member. The hon member said that his objection to the legislation and to the spirit of the legislation was the fact that we were not getting away from separate development. I want to point out to him, however, that his own party is making group participation an integral part of its constitutional proposals, that is to say, if I am to believe that party.

No …

Please give me a chance now. I am quoting from the PFP pamphlet, or does the hon member not want to hear this? [Interjections.] Here is a pamphlet which sets out the principles for a general framework of the constitutional policy of the PFP, and in it they say, inter alia:

“Vrywillige”.

But the point is not whether it is voluntary or not. We can argue that point. The point is that the hon member’s own document states that certain areas may be developed on a voluntary basis for specific groups. The hon member therefore accepts, although he does not want to give statutory recognition to this, that this may also happen on a group basis, and not only on an individual basis. In point (c) on page 6 of the same pamphlet we read the following:

But how is one going to protect the rights of a group if one does not recognize the existence of that specific group? On page 9 the following occurs:

But are the Whites not a group? I want to say with all due respect to the hon member for Bryanston that if our perception of how the groups should be protected differs, surely he cannot argue with me that we cannot find the answers in any other way except on a group basis. The hon member is losing sight of one fact. We all pay lip-service to the challenge that we must find unique answers to the complex problems of our country in that whenever we discuss our models, the familiar models of the developed world are held out to us. I want to say this today, and I do not want to be misinterpreted: None of the models which the hon members of the official Opposition have announced has a record of success under comparable circumstances in any country. For that reason, with all due respect, the hon member should not advance such arguments.

†I now come to the hon member for Umbilo. He has raised many matters which I believe require attention. If I understand him correctly, the hon member is not against the principle of the Bill. I submit that if he is not against the principle of the Bill he should vote for the principle of the Bill. He put many questions to me which I think can better be dealt with during the Committee Stage of the Bill. I would like to suggest to the hon member that many of the issues he has raised are in fact catered for in the Bill itself, but I do not believe that in view of what I will propose in a moment, it will be necessary to canvass those issues at this stage.

With regard to the hon member tor Houghton, I think I have already referred to the question of the position of Blacks in urban areas. I want to leave the matter at that, but I just want to tell her one thing. When one talks about percentage polls, one has to look at the percentage polls for local government elections in respect of people who have been exposed to local government for a much longer period and should understand the importance of this sort of institution much better than people who have not been exposed to it for long.

There is a difference. The one group is apathetic, while the other refuses to use it.

I am not quite sure whether that is so. I think that is only a conclusion drawn by the hon member without any scientific foundation. I do not understand the hon member. She refers to the low percentage polls in an attempt to deride these institutions, but then she asks me whether I have negotiated with these Black local authorities. She cannot have it both ways. I accept their existence and that we must negotiate with them. I am sure that the hon member and I can reach agreement on this.

You put your faith in them. I do not.

The hon member for Kuruman was not present when I replied to his speech. He once said, and he must tell me wheter I am quoting him correctly, that his party stood for White rights, and that if here was a conflict, they chose White rights. He has every right to do so. We differ on the yay in which White rights may best be served. There was a time when the hon member believed something I also believed, and I should just like to quote it to him. Not only did he believe what I believed, but he also appended his signature to it.

You have quoted it three times already.

No, I have not quoted it at all. But it is strange how quickly the hon member reacts when one addresses his conscience, or what is left of it. He advocated the standpoint of South Africa first as it is contained in paragraph 3 of the NP’s programme of principles. Paragraph 4 states, and I am quoting it as follows:

I can therefore understand that the hon member no longer feels at home in the party which adopts this standpoint. I am saying to the hon member in all earnestness today that White rights cannot be protected at the expense of other rights. White rights cannot be protected by trampling other rights underfoot. White rights cannot be protected by referring to the other citizens in the country in the terms in which hon members refer to them. For heaven’s sake let us accept that there are different peoples and groups in this country We must stop dominating those whom God made different, arid we must also stop being inferior to what is not the same as we are.

This is one of the last debates we will be conducting in this House, and I, more than many others, grasp the significance of that, I, more than many others, participated in the negotiating process on behalf of the Government, and I am still doing so. The difference between the hon members on the opposite side and we on this side is that what we are doing has to withstand the test of practical implementation, because the feasibility of our plans must be gauged by their practical implementation possibilities, and not in terms of vague definitions or alternatives. The hon members will accept that the standpoint I am now stating is a reasonable one.

They will also understand that the constitutional models devised in other countries under comparable circumstances, have not been successful in the experience of those countries. If we want to achieve anything, guarantees must, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition himself said, be given to the Whites, because the Whites have the constitutional negotiating process in their hands and they are not going to be prepared to gamble with it. This applies not only to White rights, for if one gambles with those rights, one is also gambling with the rights of the Coloureds, Asians and Black people in South Africa. There can be no question of the maintenance of the rights of the Blacks, Coloureds and Asians without the maintenance, presence and security of Whites in South Africa. Hon members may differ with me on this score. Perhaps I am being too idealistic. However, I also want to protect the security of the Whites, not only for the sake of the Whites, but also for the sake of the systems of, and order in, our fatherland. Whether it can be done I do not know. What I do know is that every step we take—which is typified, on the one hand, as inadequate and described, on the other, as surrender—is a step in the direction of finding answers to the country’s problems.

All I am asking for—and since this might be the last opportunity I have to discuss this point, I am doing so in all earnestness—is that we should understand that if we are not prepared to motivate our lives with a search for attitudes to relations which are based on spiritual and intellectual flexibility, if we are not prepared to build with insight and understanding for the complexity of our country and for the aspirations of its people, if we are not prepared to give substance to the concept of South African citizenship for all South African citizens, we shall not succeed…

Now you are closing the door again.

Oh please, Sir, I am not opening or closing any doors. We are even negotiating to give people in other countries citizenship as part of a solution. We need not agree on this matter, but we are looking for the substance of citizenship. We are seeking methods to enable people who have citizenship of this country or of other countries to experience the benefits of their citizenship. Then I should like to give the advice which I give myself to all the hon members of this House as well, regardless of how much we may differ from one another.

It was Langenhoven who said the following, and I quote:

I believe, Mr Speaker, that if we can experience this, the uniqueness of the Whites, together with the uniqueness of others, is going to help build a safe South Africa for all its people. The fact that this was not possible in most other countries need not mean that we cannot succeed. However, it must not also mean that we did not try, so that if we should fail, we would be able to say that it was our fate, and not our choice. I also pray that when we return to Parliament, when we assemble here again in a new Parliament, we shall also temper our formulation of standpoints, our terminology and our employment of arguments in this sense that we must help to build those pillars to which I referred.

Mr Speaker, I now move:

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the hon the Minister in his motion that the Bill be referred to a select committee, and to thank him for having accepted the advice of the of the official Opposition in this matter.

We said that this Bill should have been referred to a select committee after the institution of the new Constitution so that the Whites, Coloureds and Indians could consider it together. What is the practical effect of the motion the hon the Minister has moved? This Parliament is going to adjourn tomorrow or on Friday. This Parliament will be prorogued on 2 September, and the next time Parliament will meet, it will meet in the form of a Coloured/Indian/White Parliament, and the reference of this Bill to a select committee will fall away. Unless the select committee completes its work, reports back to the White Parliament and the White Parliament has time to pass the remaining stages of the Bill, this order will drop on 2 September and the Bill will have to reintroduced in the new Parliament comprising three Houses. [Interjections.] I have checked up on this and it is in fact so that all references will fall away. In any case, the select committee that will be considering this Bill will in practice be a select committee of the new Parliament, the tricameral House. The legislation that emanates from the select committee will not be passed by the White House; it will have be referred to the Committee of the three Houses and to the three Houses for Second and Third Reading.

Although we have had this two-day debate, and it has been an interesting exposure of points of view, the practical effect of the hon the Minister’s motion at this stage is that our request that the matter go to the three Houses will be granted. In those circumstances we have much pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr Speaker, when the first of the hon the Minister’s three Bills were tabled in the House of Assembly, the CP asked, because this was a constitutional matter, that the Bills be referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. On that occasion the hon the Minister tried to make fools of the CP because we had asked that the Bills be referred to that select committee. He shot us down and pretended that it would be ridiculous to refer this Bill to a select committee. I think the hon the Minister must explain to us why the Bill is now being referred to a select committee. If we had known that earlier in the week, we could have been home by now. In that way he would have helped the hon the Leader of the House and the Whips, who arrange the debates. Tomorrow, when we must struggle to complete the rest of the Order Paper, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will not be here. [Interjections.]

This Bill encroaches on the right of self determination of the Whites on the third level of government. The last opportunity this White Parliament has to debate this measure up to the Third Reading is now being denied it by the motion of the hon the Minister. If the hon the Minister’s motion is passed, the Bill will be referred to a select committee and I assume that it will be converted into a multiracial standing committee. When a report is then published, it will be submitted to a multiracial Cabinet, the legislation will have to be agreed to by all three Houses of the Parliament, and consensus will have to be reached on it. I assume that this is why the PFP asked for this measure be referred to a select committee.

The PFP can smile because they have won this round against the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] The PFP need not be concerned about the National Party. All the PFP need do is give the National Party enough rope. Eventually they will do exactly what the PFP wants them to do. [Interjections.] As I have said, the report of the standing committee on this Bill which encroaches on the right of self-determination of the Whites in South Africa, will eventually be submitted to a multiracial Cabinet for a decision.

Order! The hon member may only debate the motion that the Bill be referred to a select committee.

Mr Speaker, I am stating the reasons why the Conservative Party does not want this Bill to be referred to a select committee. It is because the self-determination of the Whites on the third level of government is being encroached on. In the long run it will not be a White Cabinet and a White Parliament that decides this matter, but a multiracial tricameral Parliament, and consensus will have to be reached in the standing committees of that Parliament. If one considers what the result of consensus has been thus far, there will be a further encroachment on the right of self-determination of the Whites.

Tonight we take our leave of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the White Parliament. That was his last speech here. Today he quoted at some length from a pamphlet we are supposed to have signed. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that, when the report of the select committee is submitted to a standing committee after 3 September, this party will take up the cudgels for the self-determination and the interests of the Whites. With these words I take my leave of the hon the Minister.

We cannot accept the motion.

Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the motion of the hon the Minister, although we also regret the fact that this measure was not referred to a select committee before Second Reading.

However, I want to record the fact that the hon member for Sea Point is, with all due respect, completely wrong in his opinion that this matter will not be debated by the new Parliament. To substantiate my argument, I want to refer to clause 102(3) of the Constitution Act and I quote:

Therefore that select committee, which is part of this Parliament, will do its work within the framework of the new dispensation. We support the hon the Minister’s motion.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sea Point’s interpretation of the procedure to be followed in future is of course not correct. But I do not want to debate this with him now. It is not necessary.

I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that nasty remarks do not get one very far.

Just tell me when I was nasty.

The hon member knows. I want to go further. In respect of the previous legislation, those hon members moved exactly the same thing I am moving now. [Interjections.] They moved exactly the same thing, and I pointed out the implications of that motion to them. They knew what the implications were, namely that the relevant Bill would eventually have to be discussed by a joint committee. But it is only wrong when we move it. It is not wrong when hon members of the CP move that legislation be referred to a joint committee of the three Houses. I do not blame those hon members for their standpoint. If I had had the same traumatic experience playing on a political roundabout that those hon members have had in the past few years, I would have been just as confused.

Order! I now put the question. The question before this House … [Interjections.] Order! I shall take immediate action against any hon member who interrupts me again while I am putting an amendment or a question from the Chair.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, T Langley, F J le Roux, Dr W J Snyman, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, J H van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl en J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill introduces amendments to the Marketable Securities Tax Act, 1948, the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, and the Stamp Duties Act, 1968, and a substantive provision whereby transfer duty and stamp duty exemptions are provided in respect of transfers of certain undertakings to the South African Development Trust Corporation Limited and the Economic Development Corporations of various national states.

Hon members have been provided with a full explanatory memorandum on the Bill and I do not propose repeating what it says.

The amendments relating to the abolition of the stamp duty on cheques and the introduction of a new duty on debit entries in bank and credit card accounts give effect to the proposals in this regard announced by the hon the Minister in his Budget speech. The additional revenue expected to be raised from this source during the currect financial year was estimated at R15 million. This may not appear to be a large amount in the context of the total estimated Inland Revenue collections amounting to over R19 000 million. I think, however, that it should be borne in mind that stamp duty is levied on a number of different instruments and one must look at the total revenue from this source and not merely at each of its different components separately.

The estimated stamp duty collections for the current financial year amount to R 235 million. One should also look at the expected yield from transfer duty, R340 million, and marketable securities tax, R50 million, which are similar taxes.

*All in all, these taxes are an important source of State revenue, therefore.

Stamp duty is levied on several instruments, so it is necessary to reconsider the provisions of the Act in respect of each instrument from time to time, in order to ascertain whether the stamp duty on that instrument is still effective, in the light of changed circumstances. This is an on-going exercise. Last year, the stamp duty on certain items consisting mainly of fixed amounts was increased to bring it into line with the changed value of money. The proposed amendment with regard to the stamp duty on cheques, ie its replacement by a stamp duty on debit entries, is necessary because the use of credit cards and “plastic money” has to a large extent eliminated the use of cheques. The levying of stamp duty on debit entries is regarded as a logical development which is necessary to maintain the relative contribution made by stamp duty to the State revenue.

Hon members will recall that the provisions relating to stamp duty on the transfer of marketable securities have been repeatedly amended over the years in order to counteract schemes for the avoidance of stamp duty. Stamp duty was originally levied on the registration of transfer. Stamp duty was avoided by registering shares, etc, in the names of nominees. Stamp duty provisions were then amended to combat this practice. Subsequently, several provisions of the Companies Act were used to carry out artificial transactions in order to transfer interests in companies without any significant change in shareholding. This was combated by means of further statutory amendments. It has now come to light that an existing exemption in respect of the registration of the transfer of shares in a foreign branch register lends itself to avoidance schemes which are carried out quite cynically. In clause 11 of the Bill, amendments are being proposed to put a stop to these malpractices.

Mr Speaker, I think I should right at the outset make our attitude to this piece of legislation clear by moving the following amendment:

Let me motivate the amendment I have just moved. One of the issues which I think arises, is the issue of whether it is correct to tax consumption as opposed to taxing income. The whole concept of taxing consumption has received more and more attention with the idea that indirect taxation as opposed to direct taxation is a more acceptable form of taxation. There are some people in the House, for example the hon member for Amanzimtoti, who actually believe that the main accent should be on consumption taxation as opposed to income taxation. Consumption taxation can be reasonable in a society where there are not large income gaps, but in a society where those who earn a smaller income than others, because there are large income gaps, have to spend in order to live and therefore have to spend pro rata far more than those in the higher income groups, to them it is not a fair means of taxation. Consumption taxation where there are wide income gaps is in fact discriminating because in reality it means that people who have low incomes have to spend virtually everything they have in order to exist, whereas people with higher incomes can spend a smaller portion of their income on a pro rata basis and save more. If the intention is to encourage savings, there are other means of encouraging savings at all levels than to impose what is in effect discriminatory forms of taxation. What is happening is not that we have some consumption taxation, because there is no objection to some consumption taxation, but that we have increasing taxation on consumption as opposed to increasing taxation on income. That does not mean that I am suggesting that we must have higher income tax. It does mean, however, that one has to keep the level of taxation on consumption within acceptable norms, because, if that is not done, one discriminates against the lower income groups.

Let us consider the question of taxing credit card transactions. In South Africa today the credit card has taken the place of money in many respects and it has advantages over ordinary money. It has the advantage of being much safer to carry on one than cash. It has the advantage that, if one gets robbed of a credit card, one has the appropriate credit card insurance—I have indicated in previous speeches that that should be obligatory by law on the part of the issuers of such a card—and that therefore one does not suffer the loss one would in other circumstances. It also has the advantage that, if one needs cash at a particular time, it is readily available in that one can get one’s cash without being limited to particular hours within which to obtain that cash. With the modern development of the use of this plastic money, we find the authorities deciding that this is another milk cow from which a little milk can be obtained and therefore taxation is being applied to these cards. Every time there is some new development, the Government decides to introduce another form of taxation. That is all that is happening. With the increased use of credit cards, the Government has decided to use this as a means of obtaining tax.

Let us look at the actual provisions of the Bill. It provides that tax has to be paid in respect of every debit item on a bank account from which money is withdrawn by cheque or on—

And those are the exemptions:

Then there is a list of a number of debit items which are specifically exempted in respect of particular types of banking transactions. There are, however, other cards in use for the withdrawal of money such as the cards used to withdraw money from bank accounts which are not cheque accounts. There are, for example, credit card accounts which are purely savings accounts. There are also cards issued by the Post Office for the withdrawal of money through their schemes.

Let us look at section 1 of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. In that section “credit card” is defined as—

We now have to look at what a “credit card scheme” is. It is defined, inter alia, as a scheme whereby a person can obtain—

Both the Post Office card and the bank card used merely for a savings account are therefore credit cards in terms of this section. That being so, it appears that there should be further exemptions, because, if one can use a card to withdraw money from a building society savings account, there is no reason why one should not be able to use the other cards for the same purpose. We therefore believe that the exemptions should be widened in that respect.

As regards the remainder of the provisions in the Bill, all we want to say is that we believe that the loopholes to which the hon the Deputy Minister referred, which require changing the register in respect of certain share transactions, clearly have to be closed. We will therefore support that.

There is just one last issue that arises out of the question of transfer duty and that is the recently published report in regard to the suggested abolition of transfer duty on transfers of property between private individuals. That report has just recently been tabled. We understand that the Government has in fact accepted it. If that is so, we would ask the hon the Deputy Minister to tell us whether it is in fact his intention that transfer duty in respect of those transactions will be abolished, whether we can look forward to private property transactions not being subject to transfer duty.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, this evening the hon member for Yeoville advanced certain arguments here. But I am sorry that the official Opposition is opposing this measure, and has seen fit to move an amendment. At least the hon member for Yeoville was consistent by saying that it was his democratic right to oppose revenue legislation when it was being discussed in this House. But he was also consistent in voicing criticism without offering any solutions. With reference to certain arguments he advanced here, I just want to point out that I have appreciation for and sympathize with certain of those arguments. I also listened attentively to them. But some of his arguments do not apply to the legislation under discussion at all.

The hon member referred to credit card benefits for example. Of course I can agree with his remarks in this connection. But when we consider the history of the credit card system, it is after all clear that the arguments advanced by the hon member here—except for the credit benefits I referred to—are not valid. Consequently I cannot agree with him. But I think this is not the right time to elaborate on this.

Do you use a credit card?

Yes, I use credit cards.

I think the hon the Deputy Minister raised one important aspect here this evening. This was his remark in connection with the important source of State revenue from stamp duty. It is also essential to note how much it is estimated the State is going to earn from stamp duty during the present financial year. It is also important to note what transfer duties mean to the State as a source of revenue. Consequently the hon member for Yeoville can go ahead and criticize. But then he must also suggest solutions, and he must tell us what alternative sources there are from which to obtain finance.

Actually the Bill under discussion emanates from the Main Appropriation the hon the Minister of Finance introduced in this House earlier this year. In many respects we can consequently refer to this measure as omnibus legislation, emanating from the Main Appropriation. In it certain principles of the Main Appropriation are put into operation and streamlined in order to be applicable in practice.

In the process one could of course also take note of the Marketable Securities Tax Act, 1948, which is really being scrutinized here, and the Stamp Duties Act, 1968. One of the very important clauses in the Bill under discussion is probably clause 2, which amends section 9 of the Transfer Duty Act, 1949. It is important for this proposed new provision to be brought to the attention of hon members of this House. In terms of this provision no transfer duty is payable in respect of the acquisition of any property by housing utility companies from other housing utility companies in terms of transactions concluded on or after 1 October 1983. This evening I do not want to elaborate on the matter of a utility company because it is not applicable to this debate. But I can just tell this House that in consequence of the Government ’s rationalization programme the interests of certain housing utility companies, which are non-profit-seeking organizations registered under section 21 of the Companies Act of 1973, are being amalgamated. By means of the addition of a new subsection (13) to section 9 of the Act this clause is introducing an exemption from transfer duty in respect of immovable property being transferred as a result of such an amalgamation.

Clause 4 is also very important, and I just want to draw the attention to this House to the proposed amendment to section 4 of the Stamp Duty Act. The Development Bank of Southern Africa which was established on 13 June 1983, is an international organization which, in accordance with international practice, comes into consideration for certain tax exemptions. Clause 4(l)(b) adds a new paragraph (vii) to section 4(1)(b) of the Act which provides for an exemption from the payment of any stamp duty which would have been borne by the bank. I think it is extremely important for this body to be recognized in this way as well.

This Bill is actually a “hardy annual” but it is also legislation which is necessary to ensure that the State obtains revenue in a more practical and streamlined manner and that the Budget is applied in practice. Consequently I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister made an introductory speech on this Bill that was short and to the point, and we also have the explanatory memorandum on it. It is a short Bill and I do not want to elaborate on it because the previous speaker has already done so. But I do want to make mention of the fact, that such a long period has elpased between the introduction of this legislation and similar legislation last year.

In terms of clause 14 of this Bill certain amendments in it come into force on 1 July 1984. This means that the actions of people who act before the commencement of this legislation are actually illegal. This sort of action is detrimental to any country particularly as far as its legislation and administration is concerned.

With these few remarks I just want to say that we in the CP shall support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we in the NRP have studied this Bill and have found that there are a number of technical amendments in it that we can accept. Most of the provisions of this Bill deal with the duty which in the past was paid on cheques. Because of the changes in the banking system of South Africa it has now become necessary to effect certain changes. In the future, therefore, cheques will no longer bear a revenue stamp because the legislation provides that banks will in future debit their clients in accordance with the number of cheques that they issue, or with the number of entries against their credit card accounts. Clauses 3 and 5 to 10 all deal with these amendments that are necessary in order to bring about this change in the system. Clause 12 deals with refunds that will be paid to people who may have purchased cheque books in respect of which the stamps have already been included, including those people who may have printed cheque books such as the printers themselves. There are ways in which these people will be able to recover the duty that they have already paid.

There are other clauses which grant certain exemptions to certain institutions. In the case, for instance, of one housing utility company taking over another we find that there will be no stamp or transfer duty on that take-over. Similarly we find that where there is a transfer of assets to the South African Development Trust from mining corporations and on, such transactions will also be exempted from stamp or transfer duty.

In clause 11 we find a measure which closes the loopholes which some financing institutions have found in order to avoid paying stamp duty by having a branch of that company registered outside the country.

Therefore we agree with the measures which close these loopholes. We also agree with the measures which grant exemptions to certain organizations. Therefore we shall support this measure.

In supporting this, one has to look at the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville. I should like to refer to it. He says in his amendment that while there are certain provisions which the PFP can support, nevertheless, and I quote:

I have studied this. I should like to appeal to the hon member for Yeoville to show me the courtesy of listening to me while I am talking to him. When he addressed the House, I listened very carefully to him. He also referred to me saying that I was a member of this Parliament who believed that there should be a consumer tax as opposed to direct income tax. He said that a consumer tax prejudiced the lower income groups who spent most of their expenditure on living, such as the purchase of food and so on and on housing in the form of rental.

I agree with the hon member that the lower income group does spend a large proportion of their income on food and on their accommodation. I know that the hon member has for years risen during the debates on general sales tax and has moved amendments calling for the removal of GST on basic foodstuffs. In the past, he will recall, we opposed his amendments mainly because we listened to the advice of the experts in the Department of Inland Revenue who said that the cost of administering such a scheme, both from the private sector and from the Department of Inland Revenue viewpoints, was so great that it would be far better not to remove GST from foodstuffs, but rather utilize the savings that result from a uniform GST system for subsidies to basic foodstuffs such as bread, maize and what have you.

We listened to the hon the Minister who in the past debated this matter, but we must say, looking back in retrospect, that the hon member for Yeoville scored a point here because we now know that the hon the Minister of Finance has decided to remove GST on certain basic foodstuffs. I think this is an example to hon members who sit in the Government benches…

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Standerton says “hear, hear”, but it certainly is an indication to hon members in the Government benches that they are not always right. There is for instance the standpoint of the hon member for Springs, and when we consider the Income Tax Bill, I shall once again refer to him. The hon member for Springs stood up here during the debate on GST and he made certain statements, but I do not want to go into that right now because I shall have an opportunity later on and I ask him to be present then. The Government says that they can in no way accept what the Opposition asks for. Yet, it has happened that members of the Opposition—and here I give credit to the hon member for Yeoville—could prove the Government or a department wrong.

Having said that, I want to put it to the hon member for Yeoville that when he says that consumer tax is placing a burden on the poor, he should tell us who the poor are. What income does a “poor” man earn per month? I know that it varies depending on the race group. I asked the hon member for Yeoville just before we convened and his figure was the same as mine viz, about R300 per month for a Black and R500 for Whites. If one takes a married man with one child—I have the tax tables here—a Black earning approximately R300 per month and a White—who does not live in subsidized housing or use subsidized transport—has to earn R500 per month to be on the poverty datum line. These are the poor people, and now that there is no GST on basic and essential foodstuffs or on rental, they are not paying a consumer tax as I call it. But not only that. A person earning R300 or less per month in South Africa, even if he is unmarried, pays no income tax, and if he earns R500 per month and is married with one child, he pays R7,58 income tax per month. I am now referring to his taxable income after deductions. I therefore want to put it to the hon member for Yeoville that neither consumer tax nor income tax will hit the poor people in South Africa. It will hit the “fat cats” of South Africa, those people who drive around in 350SE or 380SE Mercedes Benzes. They pay up to R50 000 for a motorcar and in future they will need to pay up to R5 000 GST on that motorcar. This is why we support consumer tax.

The funny thing about life in South Africa is that the people who squeal the most about consumer tax, GST or fringe benefit tax, are those who are squeezing the most out of the economy and those who are paying the least tax. [Interjections.] The ordinary working man and the poor in South Africa should praise the Lord that a fringe benefit tax is going to be introduced because it will sock the tax avoiding “fat cats”. [Interjections.] The debit tax, as referred to by the hon member for Yeoville … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not get so excited.

This Bill provides for a debit tax on credit card transactions, but the hon member for Yeoville objects to it. How many poor people have a plastic card such as most of us carry?

Me.

Then you are a “fat cat” and we know that because of all your overseas trips. Koos van der Merwe of the CP is one of the “fat cats” in Parliament.

Is it not permissible for a poor person to have a card in order to draw money from a savings account at a bank?

I was referring to a credit card. [Interjections.] I am coming to my advice to the poor people of South Africa.

The hon member for Yeoville tried to justify the position of credit cards by referring to it as a guarantee to the poor of South Africa against robbery. From the age of 18, when I first started earning an income, which require that I had to travel 9 000 miles over to the United States, I have carried my money in my hip pocket and I made sure that no one picked it. Somebody once tried unsuccessfully to pick it on the underground metro in Paris, but I have never lost any of my hard-earned money. Looking back, I was advised just before my first trip to the USA never to look up at the skyscrapers of New York because if you do someone might pick your pocket. So when I did look up I made sure I held my hand on my back pocket. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville has advised that the credit card, the plastic card, is safe against robbery and theft. Is he suggesting that the poor people of South Africa should get plastic credit cards? I want to tell the poor people of South Africa … [Interjections.] They will not hear us because the Press will not print this as it is the NRP that says it. [Interjections.] The poor people of South Africa should listen. South Africa’s rand is now worth US 66c. The poor people of South Africa should realize that every time they use a plastic credit card 5% on that purchase goes to whoever administers that card. [Interjections.] Every credit card also carries a credit facility of R500 or R1 000 and every time a person makes use of that he is charged interest. What is the rate of interest today? Is it 28%?

In terms of the Act the maximum limit is 26%.

Thank you. I bow to the hon member’s superior knowledge. We also know that the prime rate is going to be increased to 22%, and maybe the maximum rate on credit cards will also be increased The hon member for Yeoville also talked about savings accounts. I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville whether the poor people whom he is trying to protect have savings accounts. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville is advising the poor people of South Africa to carry plastic credit cards so that they will be safe against robbery. My advice to the poor people of South Africa is, firstly, to pay cash. They should not buy on credit but rather pay cash. Secondly, whenever they pay cash, they should ask for a discount. They will be surprised how often they will get 5%, 10%, 20% or even 30% discount at some furniture shops for cash purchases. Then I say: Save the balance which is saved by paying cash. If more South Africans did this maybe we would not be in the financial mess which we are in today. We support this measure.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the speech made by the hon member for Yeoville as the official al Opposition’s chief spokesman on finance. I must say I really could not discover where the hon member thinks the State should get its money from. He began by saying that he was opposed to sales tax because it discriminated against the poor. Because be was afraid that I would ask him where the tax should come from in that case, he said in the same breath that he was not in favour of an incresase in direct taxation either. Then he moved an amendment in which he rejected this indirect tax which we are now levying on credit card transactions. So he is against direct taxation, indirect taxation and sales tax as well.

I fully agree with the hon member for Amanzimtoti that if sales tax discriminated against the poor, one would have expected the hon member to say thathe welcomed the small stamp duty which was being levied on credit card transactions. [Interjections.] People who are really poor do not carry credit cards. The hon member for Yeoville is completely out of touch with reality. [Interjections.] In a society such as ours in South Africa, one specifically needs the broadest possible tax base. One needs direct and indirect taxation as well as consumption tax.

And a new Government.

No, the hon member will have to wait a long time for that. He will still be waiting long after he and I have retired from politics.

Look at the Leader of the House, the richest man in the House.

In a society such as we have in South Africa, we specifically need a broad tax base, so that everyone, rich and poor, may contribute his share, for otherwise the unequal tax burden might weigh too heavily on some.

The hon member asked me a question in connection with Post Office savings accounts, and I want to confirm that these have been exempted from stamp duty. The hon member should look up section 4(1) of the Stamp Duty Act. Then he will see that this is in fact the case. The hon the Minister also announced in his Budget speech that savings accounts at banks were exempt from stamp duty. I want to confirm, therefore, that there is no stamp duty on savings accounts. Surely a savings account can never, from its very nature, be a credit card account. Anyone who wished to convert a savings account into a credit card account would be changing the very nature of a savings account. Afterwards it would no longer be a savings account.

The hon member also referred to the proposal in the Strydom Report concerning the question of transfer duty, but there is not yet any finality in this connection.

The hon member for Overvaal referred to the importance of stamp and transfer duty as a component of our total State revenue. He also referred to the exemptions for which provision was being made in respect of the utility company transactions.

I thank the hon member for Sunnyside for his support, and I many tell him that I do not feel happy myself about the fact that the financial legislation is being introduced so late in the session.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to the clauses of the Bill. It is evident that he made a careful study of the Bill before the House, and I thank him for his support. In his argument with the hon member for Yeoville he especially put the consumer tax in proper perspective.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to the wording contained in this clause which reads, inter alia:

Section 7 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

If the hon the Deputy Minister would also look at section 1 of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, which I will refer to again when we come to clause 10, he will see that a credit card scheme does not have to be a scheme whereby you only obtain credit; it is also a scheme whereby you may obtain an amount of cash from a manager on the strength of a valid credit card issued to you by such manager. In other words, a cash card in that sense could fall into the category of a credit card. It is perfectly correct that when you borrow money you are going to pay interest if you are in debt, as the hon member for Amanzimtoti has said, but when you are in credit you do not pay interest. I will give a simple example. Let us take the case of the bank card on the one hand and the so-called petrocard on the other. If you have a credit balance on your petrocard the amount of petrol you buy is debited against that credit balance and the bank does not lend you any money; on the contrary, it pays you interest. Similarly, one can deposit money in one’s bank card account as a savings item—banks give these particular savings cards different names—and one can then draw cash from those cards at the appropriate automats. I welcome the hon the Deputy Minister’s assurance that these withdrawals of cash where there is no credit involved should not be subject to any levy. I have an amendment on the Order Paper in respect of clause 10, but if the hon the Deputy Minister gives the assurance, whether the law provides for it or not, that administratively that will not be levied and that, if necessary, the law will be changed if he turns out to be wrong, I will be quite satisfied. I think he will agree that what is provided for in clause 7, read with the definition of a credit card scheme in section 1 of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, leaves the matter at the very least open to doubt. An undertaking to deal with it administratively will, however, satisfy me in this respect.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that one can argue the way he has done on the basis of the present wording, but I want to confirm that transactions through a bank savings account are free of stamp duty. I can give him that assurance. If it is necessary to go into this matter further at a future date, we will do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr Chairman, I want to record my appreciation for the undertaking which has been given by the hon the Deputy Minister. Accordingly I will therefore not move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. However, as this goes to the root of what our objection to this Bill has been, namely the imposition of a levy, we will vote against the clause as such.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I think we have put our arguments adequately. We will merely record our objection to the Third Reading as we did to the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, this legislation makes one realize again that laws that are drafted never remain completely up to date as times change. That is why it is essential for them to be reconsidered every year and kept up to date. If one looks at this Bill one or two retrospective questions crop up. I should therefore like to put one or two questions to the hon the Deputy Minister.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, one reads in the Third Report of the Venter Commission that they recommended inter alia that transfer duties on houses below a certain price be abolished. In clause 2 transfer duties are being abolished in respect of housing utility companies when land is transferred from one company to another. Then one immediately asks oneself whether transfer duties should not be abolished in all cases where a profit motive is not involved. Consequently the question arises whether the hon the Deputy Minister should not consider abolishing transfer duty with regard to all purchases of land for the erection of houses by utility companies. When one is not dealing with a profit motive, when that company is providing housing for the general public, this would in the long run be the cheapest way in which one could allow this benefit to accrue to the relevant persons? I am saying this particularly with reference to what the hon member for Amanzimtoti said, namely that this was not concerned with the provision of housing for the “fat cats”, but for the masses for whom it should be made as cheap as possible. For that reason I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to react to this.

One realizes that the two certainties in life are death and taxation. One also realizes the necessity for tax and that the Government of the day has to levy it in one way or another. Now the hon member for Amanzimtoti has said “the Government cannot always be right”. But I think that on a balance of probabilities the Government of the day is right in the majority of cases, and of course this is a good testimonial for them. To the electorate this means that the Government of the day is at least more frequently right than any Opposition which, as far as the voters are concerned, is usually wrong. That is why I think that the hon member gave the government a testimonial this evening when he said “you cannot always be right”.

†That implies, of course, that the Government is right most of the time although it may sometimes in exceptional cases be wrong. I thank him for that.

*I think that the measures before this House definitely contribute to good legislation and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading, and I also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on these measures.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Vasco referred to clause 2, which provides that a non-recurrent transaction between housing utility companies is being exempted from transfer duty. The hon member suggested that we should consider exempting transactions in which the profit motive is not a decisive factor or is not present at all from transfer duty. I must say that in times like these it is of course very difficult to consider any request for tax concessions.

In any case I do not find the hon member’s suggestion repugnant because he argued up to a logical point, a very pertinent one. It was namely the provision of housing to the really poor; of course not necessarily poor people walking about with credit cards, but really poor people. Consequently I should like to thank the hon member for Vasco for the contribution he made.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give formal substance to the process of determining the priorities of actions by the public sector in general, and actions by the State in particular. As a supplier of common goods and services, and in effecting and promoting a climate which is favourable for private entrepreneurial initiative, the public sector to a large extent supports the economy of the country. In carrying out its functions, the public sector nevertheless lays claim to the limited sources of production in the country in competition with the private sector.

For example, the choices made concerning both obtaining and apportioning funds by the authorities must therefore necessarily also be assessed in accordance with the effect this could have on the economy as a whole. It could be that specific governmental services, given their nature, make a smaller contribution to economic growth and the provision of employment than economic activities in the private sector. The extent or structure of financing governmental expenditure could also from time to time place an excessive tax burden on the economy in general, or on specific activities in particular. Under circumstances of this nature the claim of the authorities on sources of production could prejudice the economy’s capacity for growth and creating employment, and in so doing, also inhibit the capacity of the national economy to finance such governmental services in the long-term.

On the other hand, however, failure to provide sufficient basic services, such as education, training and infrastructure services, could also cause problems in the effective workings of the economy. Apart from that, shortages of specific public services could also give rise to political and security conditions which could in themselves undermine the country’s stability, and consequently, the economic base of the country.

The public sector therefore has a tremendous responsibility to meet the various common needs of the national economy in such a way and to such an extent that it will at all times best serve the country’s national objectives, including economic objectives, such as the promotion of economic growth and the creation of employment, in the national interest.

It is therefore not necessary for me to explain how important it is that correct decisions be taken concerning matters such as the kind of functions for which the public sector should assume responsibility, and the distribution of scarce resources between use by the authorities and use in the private sector, the appointment of funds and manpower between the various main governmental functions, such as defence, education, et cetera, as well as between different programmes of expenditure, at which level of government or by which governmental institution a particular service should be provided, in which regions or areas a service should be provided or a construction should be erected, and the distribution of resources between general and own affairs in the new constitutional dispensation, and how such distribution should be determined, the income structure and its extent and suitability, given the position of the economy and economic development in the country, the potential for its further extension and broadening, and the implications of that for economic activities in the country as a whole. It is therefore a particularly opportune time to give more formal substance to the Government’s process of determining priorities. Decisions about, and laying down guidelines for priorities, remain the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, after all, but taking the powers and responsibilities which particular public institutions may have into account. The process of determining priorities can therefore only be promoted effectively by the institution of a committee that advises the Cabinet.

In practice, the decisions taken by the Cabinet concerning the committee’s proposed guidelines for priorities, will form an important framework for determining and managing the activites of public institutions both in the short and long-term. The process for formulation overall guidelines can scarcely keep in touch with practice, however, if the committee does not also have the power to launch or have investigations carried out, as and when necessary, into the effectiveness and purposefulness of programmes and projects in relation to national priorities. This requirement can best be fulfilled by establishing the envisaged committee as a statutory body under the chairmanship of the State President and by granting representatives of all three Ministers’ Council the right to sit on the committee.

Although provision is made for flexibility in the institution, it would appear that the committee will be in a better position to formulate its advice in an impartial way if at least its permanent members do not represent programmes of expenditure.

Mr Speaker, since there can be no doubt the merits of introducing the State President’s Committee on National Priorities, I now ask this House to consider approving the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am rather pleased that the hon the Minister of Finance elect is present in the House and following the debate. I say this particularly for two reasons, firstly, because I think it is a sufficiently important debate to use as an opportunity to congratulate him formally on his forthcomming appointment, and secondly, that this particular Bill is perhaps an issue which will have to receive very careful attention on his part in the time that lies ahead. That is why I think this is an appropriate occasion on which to wish the hon the Minister well in his new portfolio.

In old Roman law there was a concept called damnosa hereditas, which was an inheritance that did not exactly please one when one received it. It was an inheritance in which one had to take over all the debts and problems and everything else that went with that inheritance. I hesitate to say that the present hon Minister of Education and Training has received a damnosa hereditas but, my goodness, it is very close to it! I say this bearing in mind the value of the rand, the gold price, the growth rate, the inflation rate and so many other matters that give cause for concern at the moment. Nevertheless, with all this, I want to wish him well and to say that I think that he is going to need a great deal of good fortune in the job he is being called upon to do.

In dealing with the question of priorities, I want to analyse the need or otherwise for this Bill. However, I think it needs to be said at the very outset that there are very many Government agencies at present that are busy with planning including the department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that is planning in all sorts of directions. One needs to ask, because it has not been dealt with in the speech of the hon the Deputy Minister, how this is all going to fit into the new concept of planning and determining priorities in this economy.

I do not think that anybody inside or outside the House has to be convinced of the need for long-term planning and the need to establish priorities, but when one deals with the question of establishing priorities, one immediately comes to the issue that we, in spite of being a very rich country, in spite of having great natural resources and in spite of having manpower in a degree which is surplus to what is being used at the present moment, appear to have limited resources to deal with the problems which we have to face.

In addition to that, in establishing the priorities, we have the problem of having to satisfy the aspirations of people who feel that they are deprived, and that is perhaps one of the major priorities at which we have to look, because unless we can actually satisfy the aspirations of people who feel deprived, there will not be stability in South Africa, and if there is no stability in South Africa, no amount of management or no amount of resources is actually going to solve our problems. Therefore the satisfaction of these aspirations is one of the major issues. Until one satisfies these aspirations, the issue arises how one actually handles the dissatisfied persons until one has the resources to enable one to satisfy them. These are matters which to my mind are fundamental priorities in the thinking and the planning of anything which has to do with the future of South Africa.

I think unfortunately we have some differences among us, not in regard to the objective—that is stability and satisfaction—but as to means of achieving those objectives. As far as we see it, there are two fundamentals of which we have been unable to convince the Government as being the priorities to which they need paying attention perhaps more than most.

The first of these is job creation on the basis of the cheapest cost per job and with the least amount of social disruption because if the unemployment which continues to exist in South Africa goes on and escalates at the rate at which it is going on, we are not going to solve other problems in South Africa. We have a population which is increasing at a rate where the resources are just not capable of dealing with it under existing policies. We have more than 300 000 people being added to the pool of unemployed which at the present moment is over 2 million in South Africa. Every year another 300 000 people are added to that pool, and we are not creating the jobs which will enable us to deal with that. If one continues to have increasing unemployment in South Africa, one will not solve the other problems which exist.

The second fundamental is that there is a demand—it is a demand, something more than a mere aspiration—for the removal of services by the State of a discriminatory nature. It is one of the first priorities of the new Parliament that the services which the State provides for all people in South AFrica must be provided on a non-discriminatory basis, and that must be a priority and must be something which we need to do in order to achieve stability in South Africa, and these are priorities which we have to debate with the Government because those are the issues which we think are fundamental for the future of South Africa.

The Bill itself deals with financing resources and it deals with manpower. I have put an amendment on the Order Paper because there is a fundamental omission and that is the priority in respect of the natural resources of south Africa, because manpower and finances are only two of the ingredients, and the third ingredient is the natural resources. Let us take a simple example, the question of water. How much water do we have available? Where must it be used? How must it be used? How much should be saved? [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Fisheries agree with me?

Yes.

That is why the hon the Minister will vote for my amendment. [Interjections.]

The same applies to priorities in regard to arable soil and how we use these resources to meet the requirements of the growing population in South Africa. Having dealt then with the available resources, we have to decide how we will apportion them. We will not only have to deal with the budgeting of moneys but also create incentives or disincentives depending on where the needs are and there should be discouragement as regards certain activities.

The question arises—in this regard the Bill deals with the public and the private sector—as to what the public and private sectors should do and what should be apportioned. However, before that can be done, we should determine what can be done more effectively by the private sector as opposed to the public sector. As regards the solution of South Africa’s problems, whether it be in regard to education, training, services for the sick or housing, both the public and the private sectors have roles to play, and it should be determined where each has to play its role and how they should co-operate in this. In this regard there is an amendment in my name on the Order paper which deals with the question that before one can apportion between the public and the private sector, one needs to know what falls into each of these sectors.

I want now to refer to the question which is really the crux of this Bill, namely who is to determine the priorities which have to be applied in South Africa. The difficulty with this Bill is that this will not be necessary if all that has to be achieved what is determined in the Bill, because everything that is determined in the Bill can be achieved without the Bill being passed. All the Bill does is to establish a committee, and this can be done presently either by the Government or the State President in the new dispensation. The committee will consist of Cabinet members and members of Ministers’ Councils and it can make recommendations and give advice. There is no legislation necessary to do that. It can be done without this Bill. Who therefore will determine the priorities?

You are spoiling your argument.

No, the hon the Minister will be convinced on this argument as well.

Who will determine the priorities and how will the determination of those priorities be enforced? I accept that the final responsibility lies with the government of a country. Under the new constitution the final responsibility must therefore rest with the State President and his Cabinet. There can be no question about that. However, how does one arrive at that final decision?

To my mind some of the priorities are determined by market forces. If these market forces are allowed to operate properly they actually work things out for one in that way. There is the question of State policy, in other words where the State has a certain policy as regards a certain matter; for example, the establishment of Sasol to deal with an oil shortage. There are also privatization policies which are again matters of State policy.

However, the real issue is who should actually make decisions as regards priorities generally. Here I venture to suggest that we should take an example from what is done in other parts of the world where this is not purely the function of the State but is a cooperative function between the public and the private sectors.

I see the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is supporting me again.

You are spoiling your argument.

No, it is a question of co-operation between the public and the private sectors. If that is done, the private sector should be incorporated directly into the structure that is created. The committee which determines the priorities should not only consist of members of the Cabinet and Ministers’ Councils but also of representatives of bodies fundamentally responsible for the private sector in South Africa. The FCI, Assocom, the Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Mines and, on top of that, the trade union organizations should be represented. They too play their role through their capital on the one hand and their labour on the other hand. Together with Government that would be a marvellous combination to determine priorities. If that is what could be included in this Bill—that we would have this co-operative effort between capital on the one hand and labour on the other hand, together with the Government—then we would really have a body that can work together on what is said to be the new concept of the Constitution, namely that of concensus, in order to achieve the priorities which South Africa needs.

I end by saying that I believe that the goals which people have are mostly identical, but that the means of achieving those goals are different. Sometimes the goals are note the same. Some people have goals that relate to race supremacy, some which relate to exploitation, and some which relates to things which are foreign and which to my mind are on the extreme poles of the political scene in South Africa. However, the broad picture of South Africa is one where the goals are the same, namely of achieving stability, achieving opportunity, achieving equality of opportunity and giving people rights in order to achieve the things which they want to do in life. If that is what the point is then we must bring the private sec tor into the picture. I am going to move an amendment to give effect to that. If the hon the Minister accepts the concept of it, then obviously, we will not pursue it. I therefore formally move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, this side of the House greatly appreciates the general approach of the hon member for Yeoville to this Bill.

Before elaborating on that any further, I should like to be so bold as to thank the hon member on behalf of the hon the Minister of Finance designate and this side of the House for his kind words of appreciation to the hon the Minister designate. I want to tell the hon member that this side of the House is particularly pleased with the Government’s choice. [Interjections.] We are very proud of the Minister designate.

I just briefly want to deal with the first small point of criticism of the hon member for Yeoville—it is not very serious. He said that he did not quite understand the reason for the legislation before us because there were already quite a number of other agencies and institutions who have occupied themselves in the past, and who are doing so now, too, with determining priorities, in any case. That may be so, but as I read the legislation, its purpose is in fact to give formal substance to that process of determining priorities. Therefore, to me, it is concerned more with the co-ordination of the various institutions in one central authoritative committee to give attention to this. I therefore want to tell the hon member that this legislation is necessary. If one looks at the constitution of the proposed committee, about which the hon member has objections, as well as an amendment on the Order Paper, I want to tell him that as I understand the legislation, the purpose is not to involve the private sector in a formal way because one is dealing mainly with governmental expenditure and the determination of priorities for government expenditure by governmental bodies. It is herefore my personal standpoint that his two amendments to clause 4 are unnecessary and that consequently, they are unacceptable. As far as clause 3 is concerned, I agree with the hon member. In my opinion, the idea that reference should also be made to the natural resources of our country in this clause, is a very good suggestion. The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has already supported the idea, and I would like to add my support as well. I therefore hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment of the hon member for Yeoville.

Very serious problems arise at certain levels in a developing country, despite its wealth, the hon member has already singled out a few of these problems, and I specifically want to refer to our capital market where there is strong competition, not only from the Government, but also from the private sector. It is therefore necessary for the priorities to be determined by an authoritative committee in that field as well, so that we can utilize our capital market more systematically.

That brings me to a final remark. Clause 4 makes provision for the constitution of the committee, and provision is made in clause 4 (f) for two Ministers to serve on this committee. One is the Minister of Manpower, and the other ….

The Minister of Constitutional Development.

Provision is made for the Minister of Constitutional Development and planning in any case. However, I think the Minister of Manpower should serve on the committee, since despite our surplus of manpower to which the hon member for Yeoville referred, the hon member would be the first to concede that our real problem in this field is a shortage of highly skilled and skilled manpower in general.

The hon member’s final point of criticism was that we should have a committee that can make decisions. As I read this legislation, this committee will only be an advisory body. The committee will not make decisions. Decisions will be taken at the executive level by the Cabinet, and if it is an own affair, by the Ministers Council of the House concerned. The hon member need therefore not be afraid that there will be no central decision-making body. The legislation makes provision for that.

With these few remarks I welcome this legislation, because South Africa needs it.

Mr Speaker, when I obtained a copy of this Bill, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. To think that a National Party Government could introduce a little Bill like this! Is it too ridiculous for words. What does this legislation entail? What does this committee mean? It is a mere little Cabinet Committee—a glorified Cabinet committee. The hon member for Ermelo says that this committee has to advise the Cabinet, but what has the Cabinet done in the past, and what is it going to do in the future? Do they not have the sense, the knowledge and the competence to work things out for themselves and decide about them? [Interjections.] Since giving advice was mentioned, I want to refer to the President’s Council with its Committee on Economic Affairs. We were told that experts would serve on the President’s Council. During the first two years the President’s Council cost the country R8 million. What is the President’s Council going to do in the future? Are they only going to draw salaries and pensions? What are they there for? [Interjections.] This Bill should never have been introduced. The functions of the President’s Council should rather have been extended. What does the HSRC do? That council has many talented people. Some of our most competent people and officials are assembled in that organization. Why can they not investigate certain things? Their time is wasted on investigating the Afrikanervolkswag. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, the HSRC has to investigate the Afrikanervolkswag in a deliberate attempt to intimidate and persecute members of that movement.

Let us look at the Bill to see what the objects of this committee will be. One object of the committee will be to determine, in promoting the national interest, the priorities by virtue of which the available financing sources and manpower of the Republic may be apportioned between the public sector and the private sector and the portion thereof available to the State, local authorities and governmental institutions may be utilized. As far as this Cabinet Committee is concerned, it seems to me that the Cabinet has already foreseen that there will not be consensus in the Cabinet in the new dispensation and that its members are not going to speak to one another, and consequently, a Bill of this nature has to be introduced to make provision for such a committee. This Cabinet Committee will consist of the State President, who will be the chairman of the committee. Furthermore, the committee will consist of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the chairman of each of the Ministers’ Councils, and if not the chairman, the member of each of the Ministers’ Councils to whom the administration of financial affairs has been assigned. There are two other Ministers as well. In terms of clause 3, one of the objects of the committee is to determine priorities with regard to manpower. The hon the Minister of Manpower is not a member of this committee, however. Is the Cabinet of the opinion that he is not competent to serve on this committee, or is the Ministry of Manpower being abolished? If there is no co-operation between the public and the private sectors, what would the purpose of the committee be? It would be useless, and this Bill would not be worth the paper it is written on. I think we are overlapping and wasting the country’s time and money.

Jan, are there two Ministers that still have to be included?

Yes, two other Ministers are included.

Where do you read that? Read clause 4(f).

No, I do not mean only two Ministers. It was a slip of the tongue on my part. Clause 4(f) provides that the committee will also consist of “other Ministers who are members of the Cabinet or a Ministers’ Council as the State President may designate from time to time.” If the object of the committee is to determine priorities with regard to the manpower of the Republic, why is it not stipulated in clause 4 that the Minister of Manpower should be a member of the committee? Or does the Government no longer care very much about the manpower situation in the country?

What about the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism?

He could be one of those Ministers. However, my question is why the Cabinet cannot perform this function. Why must time and money be spent on this measure? The Cabinet has performed this function over the years, after all. Or has it not? Of course the Cabinet has made these imputs in the past. Why can it not continue to do so?

Look at clause 4(f).

Yes, but until now any member of the Cabinet could make inputs if necessary, and if it was a matter relating to his responsibilities. However, we are now making a farce of the constitution and function of the Cabinet.

What are the duties and powers of this committee? One almost feels like laughing when one reads this. Let us look at the provisions of clause 5(1). I assume hon members of the Cabinet have read this clause, since the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has already pointed out the provisions of clause 4(f) to me. I therefore assume that they have also read clause 5(1). What does clause 5(1) say? I quote:

If the committee has to advise one of the Ministers’ Councils on these matters, I want to ask how they will know more about them than one of the other governmental institutions to which reference is made here? Why are representatives of those governmental institutions not on this committee? The hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism introduced legislation last year to introduce a Tourism Council, and we know that the broad spectrum of people involved or who could have an interest in extending tourism in this country were appointed to that council. A little Cabinet Committee was not appointed by way of legislation. We could just as well pass a little Bill like this for every Minister’s little subdivision and create a little committee and appoint two or three Ministers to advise. That is all they are doing. They have no power; they only advise.

Clause 5(l)(b) provides that the committee can advise the Cabinet with regard to—

Is it really necessary to constitute a little Cabinet Committee by law to do this work? In a clause which follows this clause it is provided that the administrative work will be done by the officials of the State President’s office.

Where do you read that it is a Cabinet Committee?

What else is it? It is nothing but a glorified Cabinet Committee. All that is happening is that the Ministers’ Councils and the cabinet are being united. That is all it amounts to.

It is not a Cabinet Committee.

It is nothing but an ordinary little Cabinet Committee.

We can by no means agree with this. I think that it is not to the credit of the Cabinet, the NP Government of South Africa that we place something like this on the Statute Book. I therefore move as a further amendment:

Mr Speaker, this is such an exciting Bill and it holds out so many possibilities which could be to South Africa’s benefit, that the hon member for Sunnyside reminded me of something Confucious said on occasion—if it was he—viz that it is better to be pecked to death by a fowl than to be married to a quarrelsome woman. [Interjections.] The hon member will still cause one to buy him a fowl. [Interjections.] Sir, I said that this was exciting legislation. A previous speaker pointed out how many people and institutions are involved in the determination of priorities at present. We now have a committee that can co-ordinate all this research and the determination of priorities. The hon member for Sunnyside will agree that in this country we have good examples of incorrect spending where the method of determining priorities has been incorrect.

The law of economics is to meet unlimited needs from scarce resources. Even more so is it the case in South Africa that these “unlimited needs” are so great mainly because we are still a developing young country. Even more so, too, because only a small section of the population has to bear the greatest tax burden. The necessary infrastructure has by no means been provided for everyone yet. I believe that it is therefore extremely important that the chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils who are members of the commitee should in fact be there. In fact, I expected the hon member for Sunnyside to make a great fuss about this.

In his second reading speech the hon the Deputy Minister expressed a very important thought in this regard. He said that apart from the other facets that are important, shortages of public services could also give rise to political and security conditions, which in themselves could undermine the country’s stability, and therefore also the economic base of the country. I do not think that anyone would disagree with me when I say that apart from the needs of the Whites in this country, we have really not met the needs of the other population groups. That is why I believe it is so important that the Coloureds and the Asians are now being given a say in determining priorities; that they, too, can say what is important to them and what their priorities entail with regard to how money should be spent in order to meet their needs.

The scarce resources are money and manpower, of course. I believe that this committee has an extremely important task to perform, particularly as far as the utilization of money and manpower is concerned. I have already referred to the many priorities determined at a number of levels of government. This is undertaken by the State, by the provincial authorities, by the town councils and all the other governmental bodies with a view to co-ordinating these priorities in the spending of money so that we can determine what the real priorities are and what is really in the interests of the the country as well. I really do not think that anyone can find fault with that.

Having said that this is an exciting piece of legislation, I also wish to add that by way of this measure, for the first time in the history of this country we have arrived at the point where we can determine the real priorities at the highest level. I think it is just a pity that this is only happening now. I believe that this measure will, to a large extent, be to the benefit of South Africa and all its people.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon the Minister of Education and Training on his promotion. Allow me to say it is some promotion because he is now being elevated to a very top Cabinet post; that of Minister of Finance. I want him to know that we who sit in these benches fully understand and appreciate the immense task that he has ahead of him. Mr Speaker, I want to say to Barend—if you will permit me to use his first name—that I for one have a great deal of confidence in him because he is of 1974 vintage. That was the year in which a good many of us first came to this House. [Interjections.]

The one thing that has impressed me, particularly since he was elevated to the Cabinet ranks, is his enthusiasm. From what I have heard from my benchmate the hon member for Durban North he is a very enthusiastic worker and puts a great deal of hard work into his task. I think this is a very basic essential for any job.

The other trait that I have noticed is that when he answers questions he is not afraid to say that he does not know something when he does not know it. He is honest with us, and we in the NRP appreciate it if, when a Minister is asked a question, he says that he is not sure and that he will come back to us on it. In the third instance, from what I have heard from my hon colleagues and also from my own observations, there is the depth of investigation that he puts into specific matters and the manner in which he reports back in that regard. I believe that these are three essential attributes in respect of the post that he will shortly assume. I want to assure the hon the Minister that we wish him well and that we will co-operate with him in the future in the interests of South Africa in the knowledge that he will be performing a very important task for our country especially at a time when the gold price is as low as it is, the rand has dropped to a record low, exports are not as good as they have been and the country is in the process of tightening its belt.

I should like now to deal with the measure before the House. I want to say immediately that this is legislation that I am exceedingly pleased to see before the House. Hon members will recall that during the Budget Debate this was one of the matters I emphasized. In the light of the new dispensation and in the light of what is going to happen in September and certainly in January of next year and thereafter, we need a committee to look into the priorities in regard to State expenditure and the question of economic priorities in South Africa. Therefore, we in these benches and myself in particular welcome this Bill.

Having said that, I should like to draw the attention of hon members to precisely what this Bill is all about. I want to do so because, after listening to the hon member for Sunnyside, it is quite clear to me that that hon member and the hon members of his party have no real understanding of what is happening in South Africa.

I want in the first instance to refer to clause 3 which sets out the objectives of this committee. The clause provides, inter alia:

The objects of the committee shall be to determine, in promoting the national interest, the priorities by virtue of which—

This is extremely important because this has been the thrust of most of the speeches from my party over the years. We have said that we believe that the State has been apportioning itself too much of these resources. The clause provides further:

This is also a very important object.

Having said that, let us look at the composition of this committee as it is set out in clause 4. When one studies these provisions, one finds that the members of the committee are all politicians. They are the State President, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Chairman of each of the Ministers’ Councils, and other members of Ministers’ Councils who may be in charge of finance. Despite what has been said by hon members of the CP, the point that I want to put to them is that this committee consists of politicians. That is what Parliament is all about. It is all about politics. This also affects the question raised by the hon member for Yeoville when he said that unless we can satisfy the aspirations of those who feel deprived, the new Parliament is not going to succeed. He said that this was one of the major tasks and problems. That is exactly the point of this committee because this committee will consist of the elected representatives of the three groups that are going to form the new Parliament of South Africa, the Coloureds, Whites and Indians. As I have stated repeatedly in this House during the session, one can rest assured that once Coloureds and Indians become members of Parliament they are going to be under pressure from their constitutents for more and more and more. We have seen throughout Africa what has happened when democracy has been extended to other groups and where political power has been put into the hands of so-called liberated people. They are going to want more.

What remained of democracy in the rest of Africa?

Exactly, because it was put into the hands of those people under a system which the PFP propagates, a system where the majority takes power and then they rape the economy to satisfy their electorate.

What is the difference here?

The difference here is that they do not have that total power; they have to come to this Parliament and they have to reach consensus among the three Houses, but that is something of which the hon members of the CP have no conception. They believe they can rule South Africa through the fist, through their dominance.

But we ruled you for many years. When you were still in the United Party we ruled.

The hon member for Langlaagte said they ruled us.

Yes, since 1948.

Yes, but now suddenly the NP is beginning to think the way we have been thinking all the time.

That is absolute correct.

The point I want to make is that this committee will consist of the elected people of South Africa from all three Houses. They will be put into this committee to try to achieve the objectives which are stated in clause 3 and to perform the duties set out in clause 5. They will have to determine the rendering of services by the State, as stipulated in clause 5(l)(a) and in terms of paragraph (b) the utilization of moneys in connection with the financing of expenses in respect of rendering these services. In other words, this priorities committee of politicians from all three Houses is going to have to discuss these essential economic concerns of South Africa, that is to say where the money is coming from and where it should be spent. One also notices from clause 5 that they will advise the various Ministers’ Councils should they so decide.

This is an essential part of the new dispensation which is going to bring about consensus among the different race groups in South Africa. This is what pluralism is all about and this is why we welcome this particular measure.

The hon member for Yeoville is going to move amendments, and I want to say that I agree with his first amendment where he says that in studying the resources of South Africa, one should also include the natural resources. We support this because we think it is essential that one takes cognizance of that. I am afraid that we cannot support his second amendment where he says that this committee should include representation from the private sector. The reason for this is, as I have already said, that in the new dispensation one is going to have three groups of politicians representing the three race groups. We just have to look at the PFP to see how politicians react when they try to win the approval of the electorate. They are the ones who are always calling for less tax and they are the ones who are always calling for more State expenditure. This is typical of what I call an Opposition which lacks responsibility. If one may say that, they are political opportunists and they are full of political cynicism because all they do when they try to curry favour with the electorate, is to want to have it both ways. Where they think the money comes from, heaven only knows. We know what has happened elsewhere in the world where social democrats or socialist states have just spent the wealth of the nation.

In the new dispensation, as I have said, we believe that the politicians from all three groups will have to reach consensus, and we sincerely hope that in this committee all the representatives from all three Houses will learn to understand the economic needs of South Africa. The hon member wants to put some members from the private sector onto this committee, but will they necessarily have the interests of the Coloured and Indian electorate at heart? We have passed amendment after amendment in this House to legislation with a view to closing gaps since the private sector has found a loophole by means of which they can enrich themselves and fill their pockets. We have to watch out for the free enterprise people. [Interjections.] I do not complain about it, 1 am one myself. But, as I have said often in this House, give them a gap and they will take it. [Interjections.] I look upon this committee as a committee of Parliament, ie, the elected representatives of the people, and as such it will be essential.

The hon member for Sunnyside asked if it was really necessary to have a Cabinet Committee to conduct these investigations. I certainly believe it is, because it will be a Cabinet Committee consisting of members from all three Chambers. As I have said, the new Parliament will have to reach consensus on these things because the Budget will in future have to be approved by all three Chambers. One therefore needs to have this preplanning on the expenditure of State funds in order to ensure that the Budget can be passed.

For these reasons we will be supporting this Bill, but I am afraid we cannot support any of the amendments which will be moved.

Mr Speaker, how we would have succeeded without the contribution of the hon member for Amanzimtoti I cannot imagine.

This side of the House is very well aware of the necessity for a priorities committee. It has indeed been commenting on the each ministry-for-himself scramble for funds for a long time. Everybody knows that this has resulted in misallocation of resources to all kinds of futile and ideological projects. We will not get South Africa on an even keel unless we come to grips with certain basic concepts.

Firstly, South Africa is a poor country with rich goldmines. Our economy is balanced like an inverted pyramid on this very narrow and volatile base. It is the Government’s duty to broaden that base and to establish the economy more firmly. This is quite possible. Secondly, South Africa has a large population relative to its productive sources, and as we all know, a human flood tide is on its way. Thirdly, we have one of the most unevenly distributions of wealth of all the developed and major trading countries in the world. This distribution is moreover on a racial basis. Fourthly, of the world’s top trading nations, we are probably the most dependent on international trade. In fact, Kleu estimates that over 60% of our GDP is tied directly to international trade, which compares with 25% to 35% for countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and even Japan. We are therefore highly vulnerable to sanctions and once sanctions have been imposed, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Fifthly, our future is consequently that of a trading nation. In the past our wealth has been built on extractive industries, but these are facing increasing competition from Third World countries. Inescapably we come to the same conclusion as Kleu, namely that our future lies in the export of manufactured goods.

A very interesting article by the chairman of Anglo American was published recently which highlights this. In it he looks at the next 16 years. Agriculture and mining together will contribute 15% of the GDP in the year 2000. Manufacturing will have to provide 33% as against the current 24%. If domestic demand is to provide 75% of the growth in GDP which is necessary, what we will have to get from the exports of manufactured goods is an extra R18 billion unless extremely favourable developments take place in the gold and base metal industries. Furthermore export earnings will have to grow from 19% in 1982 to 40% by the year 2000, which is an annual growth rate of 8% to 9%.

This brings me to my sixth point. We are further behind in the race today than we were five years ago. During the last five years our export of manufactured merchandize measured in volume terms has dropped by almost half. As the newly appointed hon Minister of Finance pointed out we also have a productivity problem where measured on a list of 27 countries on the basis of improvement in productivity we come second last.

South Africa is a production unit in a world of competitive trading nations. In principle it is no different from a company trading against other companies. It cannot live by taking in its own washing. It has to get out and compete, and to do so successfully it must look at itself as “South Africa incorporated”, an economic entity whose shareholders are the people of this country and whose board of directors are the Cabinet. Their fortunes will wane and wax according to how well the Cabinet Ministers operate the economy. There has not been much sign up to now. I regret to say, to indicate that they understand the operation of that economy very well. The Government has no coherent economic policy for South Africa. It is attacked on a bits and pieces basis. It has no clear cut and stated economic objectives. It has very little conception of how wealth is generated, yet it spends that wealth like a drunken sailor. Its most prominent members have expressly stated that ideological considerations will override economic considerations when these matters are put face to face. The Government puts its belief into practice through decentralization, enforced immobility of labour, uneconomic Black States and in many other ways that we all know.

If the new State President’s priorities committee meant that the Government was beginning to realize the enormity of the mismanagement of the economy I would be delighted, but, I am afraid, it is another ineffective nibble at the problem

Let us consider for a moment what this new committee looks like. Other hon members have already referred to it, and there is no need for me to do it again. It is, however, entirely a political committee from the chairman downwards, that is from the State President downwards. They are all politicians. They have set up an elaborate mechanism, established by law to give it additional clout, to advise themselves. They sit in one room and come to a conclusion on priorities, and then move into the next room and advise themselves, now wearing different hats, on those priorities. This is like gamblers who have been unsuccessful for a number of years who sit down and decide that their punting is so disastrous that they must now have financial advice. They therefore set up a committee consisting of themselves to advise themselves.

Even if they have no economic policy for South Africa, a priorities committee might exert a beneficial influence if it were broadened so that there was some type of cross fertilization between the Government and the private sector, as set out by the hon member for Yeoville. There should surely be an input from industry, commerce, finance and from the academic field. Such a priorities committee would get our support. Consider for a moment what has happened because of the inability to set such priorities. Ambitious Ministers have exerted presure to raise their own finance down the line from the Treasury. The result is that SATS, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and others now raise their own loans, to the extent that today’s deficit before borrowing is not comparable with the figure of five year ago. In other words, measured relative to revenue our expenditure is even worse than it appears at first sight.

There is no better example of the Government’s failure to establish priorities than the decision to go in for toll financing of roads. This resulted entirely from two departments not being able to reconcile their differences. The hon member for Ermelo will remember the discussions in the select committee. The Treasury said that it could not supply the funds through the Budget, while the National Transport Commission desperately needed the money, and so it devised a plan. It hit upon the idea of taking the matter out of the Treasury’s hands by getting power to raise its own loans and then service those loans from the funds raised by collecting tolls on certain roads. The fact that it perhaps cost 30% more to raise money in this way is of no concern as long as the inter-departemental wrangle was sorted out.

It is worth looking again at the recommendations of the Select Committee on Toll Roads. Paragraph 3 of the report refers to the high collection costs in comparison with existing methods of financing roads. In paragraph 8(d) the committee calls for an investigation into methods of providing funds and advocates that the National Road Fund receive a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales rather than a fixed amount. Finally, in Hansard of May 3, the hon member for Kempton Park, who was the chairman of that committee, said the following:

What has happened now? The scheme that was designed to meet a particular situation until an administrative problem had been sorted out is now a permanent fact of life.

If this committee on national priorities is to be of any use at all, it should be telling the Government what it does not want to hear, not what it does want to hear. It should be doing so in committee, so that people can adjust their thinking without any loss of face. Only in this way can the insupportable folly of independent Black states be brought home to the Government.

The clashpotential in South Africa is between ideology and economics. At this stage in our history, ideology, the Government’s creation, gets precedence all the time. This is the reason for the failure of the former Minister of Finance and will undoubtedly be the cause of the failure of the new one, and that I regret. Who on the new State President’s Priorities Committee will point to the impossibility of achieving economic growth and competitiveness on account of this? Because that is what it is all about; competitiveness, and not only on overseas markets; but competitiveness also against overseas products on our local markets. Who will point out that we have an annual expenditure of R100 million on labour and residential regulations; of R400 million on development of Black areas to self-determination; R800 million on assistance to Governments of self governing national States, and then the extra amounts in terms of national States’ construction account amounting to R200 million, a total of R2 487 million eventually?

In the State President’s Priorities Committee as constituted here, nobody will point these things out. That is the tragedy of the situation, and that is why we must support the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance designate I would, at the outset, like to express my thanks to the hon member for Ermelo, the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Amanzimtoti for the very good wishes they extended to him. I am convinced of the fact that he really does look forward to positive and profitable co-operation with those hon members.

I can agree with quite a bit of what the hon member for Yeoville said. I can, but I cannot understand why the hon member for Yeoville cannot see the true significance of this effort. In this Bill and in the proposed State President’s Committee it is, of course, a question of the co-ordination of expertise. That is quite right. There are many bodies doing research and building up skills, and here it is a question of their co-ordination and evaluation. How must this be done? The answer is indisputably to involve the elected leaders who are responsible for decision-making in this country. In this connection the hon member made the wild allegation that the things this committee would envisage doing could be done without legislation. Then surely the necessity for the hon member’s amendments falls away.

The hon member says that one of the top priorities in this country is the provision of jobs, and that is not something I want to disagree with the hon member about. It is, however, also an irrefutable fact that this Government has a record, in regard to the provision of jobs, second to that of no other government in any comparable country in the world. There is surely nothing strange in the unemployment figure increasing in a recessionary period, and the hon member knows it. That is the case in developed countries. So why would it not be the case in this country which has an 80% Third World component? Why does the hon member find that strange? He merely has to think carefully about the problem for a moment. Just because he is used to prosperity in this country, he must not imagine he is living in any part of the world other than Africa. He is in Africa, and I am not telling him anything he does not know if I say that there is going to be unemployment in Africa for a very long time yet. It is also true, however, that countries to the north of us are eager to send their people to South Africa. Why is that? They do so because here we have prosperity, food and work. There is not work for everyone, but does the hon member want to tell me that he foresees a period in which we shall be able to give work to everyone? We are attempting to give jobs to the largest possible percentage of people, and in this connection the Government does not, with its record, have to take second place to anyone in the world. We have helped people develop, and here again we do not stand back for anyone anywhere in the world. The hon member could, after all, have given me an example. He is a well-informed individual. Give me a comparable country where people have a higher level of development than they do here. It is right for the hon member to shake his head, because he cannot do so, Why does he not want to give credit where credit is due? He should; or otherwise he does not have a fair basis for his argument.

It is true that one can, to the degree that this is merited, have prosperity in this country. That is an irrefutable fact.

The important point is that the Bill before us grants statutory rights to people who do not serve by invitation or on a voluntary basis, but who participate in the decision-making process in an advisory capacity because they are part of the Cabinet and the Ministers’ Council where the decision-making takes place.

The hon member asked how one determined priorities. He said that this Bill did not meet with his expectations because it did not state how one should determine priorities. Surely that is a foolish question to ask. Priorities are determined, are they not, on the basis of the circumstances in which one finds oneself. Circumstances dictate which matters should have precedence. This also relates to the composition of the population and the system of marketing that one pursues—as hon members know, we strive for a relatively free market in South Africa. One must bear all those elements in mind when one determines these priorities and the circumstances at a given point in time. Only then can one decide, and no law can prescribe how one should determine this, because no law can foresee the circumstances one is going to have to come up against at a specific stage.

The hon member introduced an amendment, saying this Bill should be rejected because the private sector was not being involved. He does, in fact, have an amendment to clause 4 on the Order Paper, an amendment in which he proposes that the following bodies be represented: the Reserve Bank, die Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Mines, the Agricultural Union and each of the four largest registered trade-union organizations. He says all those people should be represented on this committee. I do not know whether the hon member has counted them. There are ten of them. Those are ten people from the private sector whom the hon member proposes should be members of this committee. He says that if they were to be represented on the committee, he would give this his support. Firstly let me ask him whether he cannot think of more bodies that should be represented. [Interjections.] Just give me a chance.

How big is the Economic Advisory Council?

All these people serve on the Economic Advisory Council and therefore already make a contribution. Let me ask the hon member, however, if he could not think of others, too, when he drew up this list. For example, I miss one very important body. The hon member has intimated that he is their champion. I am referring to the SA Consumer Council. You see, Sir, when he can make politics of it, he is very quick to latch onto the consumer. He said that this was the year of consumer wrath. Now, however, he has forgotten about them. [Interjections.] Let me just tell the hon member that is not what it is all about. [Interjections.]

Order! I have only given the hon the Deputy Minister the floor. All those audible interruptions must stop. Hon members must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Sir, I just wish the hon member would make a good interjection, one to which a person can react. He simply does not stop prattling at me.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can tell us who it is who does, in fact, appoint the members of the Consumer Council and whether they are representative of the actual consumers? Do the consumers elect those people? Let him tell us that. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Consumer Council looks after the interests of the consumer in this country. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon member for Yeoville, however, has completely forgotten about the consumer. He does not keep the consumer in mind at all. [Interjections.]

Order! When I asked hon members to give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to reply to their speeches, I was including the hon member for Yeoville in that request. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Yeoville should publicly tell the Consumer Council—if he wants to, of course—that it does not look after the interests of the consumer. If he thinks that is the case, he must come out into the open and say so. Does he really think so?

[Inaudible.]

No, it is nothing like that at all. It is a question of who looks after the interests of the consumer.

I want to know who appoints the members of the Consumer Council.

That is unimportant. If the Consumer Council looks after the interests of the consumer, it does not matter who appoints the members of that council. [Interjections.]

Let us now investigate the logic of the hon member for Yeoville’s proposal that 10 people from the private sector should be appointed to this committee. This committee does, in any event, only consist of six people. The committee can only consist of six people.

Plus Harry. [Interjections.]

Now we must not forget that those six people are the lawfully elected members, elected by the voters of South Africa to shoulder that responsibility. The hon member for Yeoville, however, in his magnanimity, proposes that 10 people from the private sector should be added to the six people on that committee. Does the hon member really want the six elected members of the people to be outvoted by the 10 people he wants to bring in from the private sector, people who are in no way answerable to the voters. Is that really what the hon member is asking for? [Interjections.] I must say, in all truth, that I am really amazed at someone like the hon member for Yeoville having such a short-sighted approach to this matter. [Interjections.]

I should also like to thank the hon member for Ermelo for the perspective he brought to this debate. He referred to a matter that I should like to comment on.

No, that is not necessary, Eli. You can reply to him on Sunday at home. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on Sundays I spend my time more profitably than that. [Interjections.] I do just want to refer to what the hon member for Ermelo said about the question of the representation of labour on this committee. As I have already said during the Second Reading debate, the idea is not to appoint Ministers dealing with a direct expenditure function to that committee because we actually want the determination of priorities to be looked after in an impartial and unprejudiced manner. That does not, however, exclude anything of that nature, as is clearly apparent from clause 4(f). It is therefore also possible for a Cabinet Minister to be brought onto the committee owing to specific objectives and for specific purposes.

This, then, brings me to the hon member for Sunnyside. I do not want to be insulting but I must say that the hon member clearly has no idea of what this is all about. [Interjections.] He wanted to know what the position of the President’s Council was. He must simply go and make a study of the Constitution. In this regard the President’s Council can surely make a contribution too. By way of the research it undertakes, the President’s Council can also make a contribution on this front. This is a statutory committee, in regard to which it is provided by law that own affairs also play a part in this.

I also want to thank the hon member for Hercules for his contribution. He has apologized for his absence. Unfortunately he cannot be present here at the moment.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti pointed out the objectives of the Bill. He also referred to the important objects of the committee as contained in clause 3, and he also rightly stated that this was to be a committee of politicians. It is indeed a committee of politicians because politicians will have to bear the responsibility and also because they are after all the elected leaders of the people.

*The hon member for Walmer referred to quite a few aspects of this measure, aspects about which I do not want to be at loggerheads with him. Thereby he specifically proved, however, that a committee for priorities is indeed very necessary. The hon member, however, was again very negative in his approach, almost peevish, which was unnecessary, because I do not think he is that kind of person. He referred to the Government’s complete mismanagement and ignorance as far as the economy of the country is concerned. Those are merely derogatory terms that he used, because he did not motivate them in any way. I just want to tell the hon member that he would do well to have a look at Zimbabwe, where the policy of his party is being applied.

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

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr H H Schwarz dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question then put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr J J B van Zyl dropped (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 5, after “sources” to insert “, natural resources”.
2. 2. On page 5, after line 9, to insert:
   • as well as the activities in connection with such financing sources, natural resources and manpower which may be carried on by the public sector or the private sector.

The first amendment seeks to ensure that the priorities apply not only to financing sources of manpower but to natural resources as well.

The second amendment seeks to deal with the question of deciding which of these activities in fact fall to be carried out by the public sector and which the private sector. It is not really possible to apportion available resources between the public and private sector until we know what the priorities in each of those two sectors are.

Mr Chairman, the amendments of the hon member for Yeoville are in accordance with the aims of the legislation. To tell the truth, they are practically implicit in this legislation. I therefore have no objection to them, and I accept them with pleasure.

Mr Chairman, I have a great deal of time at my disposal, and I am saying in advance that I shall take great pleasure in reacting to all interjections. I note that the hon the Minister of Education and Training is here, and when I spoke earlier, and in the heat of the moment, I neglected to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Finance. I wish him good luck, and I think he will need it on the road ahead.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to me a moment ago, and when we discuss the Income Tax Bill, I shall come to him in more detail. He said that the Ministers who are being appointed are lawfully elected and are the leaders of South Africa, but I say that that is not quite true, since such a person—this appears in the Constitution I have here with me—can serve in the Ministers’ Council for 12 months without being elected. Moreover: There are the nominated members, and there are quite a number of them in this House of Assembly at present. They can be nominated just as the hon the Minister of Finance was nominated. He was Minister of Finance for 10 years after having been appointed to the Senate. [Interjections.] The evening has just begun, and I still have a great deal of time left to speak.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the Ministers who will be assembled there. He said that experts would be gathered there. Two of the objects defined in this clause concern financing sources and manpower. Since this is concerned with manpower, I think the hon the Deputy Minister should have considered involving the private sector as well. I ask the hon the Minister to tell us what he is going to do to include the private sector. It is said that the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister and the President’s Council could make inputs, but how and where are they going to make those inputs?

Mr Chairman, the hon member did not read the Bill very well. He did not read it carefully. He simply read it superficially. I think it is a pity that this Chief Whip, the hon member for Kuruman, has not been here the entire evening, since if he were here, he could have read it to the hon member for Sunnyside. The hon member could just have waited until we got to the text clause, and then I would have told him where those inputs could be made.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

I want to say here and now that I am a little amazed at the attitude which has been adopted by the hon the Deputy Minister in his reply this evening. He treats everything as if it is either a joke, a debating point or a question of trying to score something off someone else. When one is actually trying to conduct a reasonable debate in respect of a matter which is of consequence of the country, then he starts with his petty politicking and with playing games which I think are unbecoming to anybody who has anything to do with the Department of Finance. I want to say that I utterly amazed with it. There is for instance his remark: Well, why do you not go and compare it with Zimbabwe where your party’s policies are being implemented? Sir, that is a lie, and he knows it is a lie because in Zimbabwe there is a socialist government which wants a one-party state and which in fact applies policies which have nothing whatsoever to do with this party. I think this is a smear of the lowest degree.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon member for Yeoville have the right to say, with reference to the hon the Deputy Minister that: “It is a lie, and he knows it is a lie”?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw those words. I say that anybody who says that our policies are the same as the policies of the Government of Zimbabwe is a liar. Anybody who says that is a liar, and I shall explain it. Nobody involved in politics in South Africa can be so stupid as not to know that our policy is not that of a one-party socialist state. If there are people who are so stupid, I forgive them, but it is a lie. I am not saying that the hon member is telling a lie, but that anybody who says that is a liar.

When we try to conduct this debate on a reasonable level in regard to important matters, the hon the Deputy Minister can do nothing but try to drag it into the mud. I believe the time has come to make it quite clear that we will not tolerate it. [Interjections.] We have chosen to have a debate on a high level, but if hon members prefer to come down to the gutter, we will deal with them there too without getting into the gutter ourselves. [Interjections.]

One should deal with the merits of what the hon the Deputy Minister said. He tried to score a tu’penny-ha’penny point by saying that I could have included other people in my amendment, for example the Consumer Council. When I asked him how the Consumer Council is constituted he, a Deputy Minister in the Government, did not even know it. [Interjections.] He has no idea and uses words without knowing their meaning. He slings words around the House and drags the debate to this level. If he wants to conduct the affairs of finance in that manner, he is not setting a good example to the new Minister of Finance. I doubt, however, whether the new Minister of Finance will conduct matters in the same way in which the hon the Deputy Minister has conducted them tonight.

Mr Chairman, we have just had an amazing display by the hon member for Yeoville. Firstly, he accused the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance quite wrongly. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the policy of the Rhodesian Front Party which has resulted in what we see in Zimbabwe today, and the hon member for Yeoville knows that. If the hon member thinks he can threaten us by saying “We won tolerate it”, I want to put it to him that he should be the last person to speak about debates being dragged through the mud.

The hon the Deputy Minister asked the hon member for Yeoville a question to which he did not reply. The clause makes provision for a committee of six members, whilst the PFP want 10 members of the private sector on the committee. What is the reason for this? The hon member for Yeoville still has to reply to that.

Mr Chairman, I think the time has come to look at this clause and its provisions. I really did not expect the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to the hon member for Sunnyside in the way in which he did this evening.

You are now trying to outdo Harry.

I am quite certain that I will always be able to outdo the hon member for Vryheid.

It is unnecessary to reply to a sound contribution by a front-bencher with a sidelong slap. The hon the Deputy Minister claimed that we were 80% Third World …

Order! The hon member must confine himself to the clause.

Very well, Sir. However, I am merely referring to matters the hon the Deputy Minister raised when he spoke on this clause. He said that we should take cognizance of the fact that we are part of the Third World. What does this clause entail?

Which clause?

Clause 4, Aap. There is absolutely nothing to stop a Cabinet passing legislation without a priority committee.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Langlaagte permitted to call another hon member an ape (“aap”) when he himself is one?

Order! Did the hon member call someone an ape?

Sir, there is someone by the name of “Aap” in this House. [Interjections.]

The hon member is well aware of the custom of having to refer to the constituencies of hon members.

I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon member to raise a point of order by asking whether it is parliamentary to refer to another hon member as “ ’n aap as hy self een is”? [Interjections.]

The hon member Dr Vilonel must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

I take no notice of that. After all, we know the hon member Dr Vilonel.

This legislation gives substance to a priority committee. It does nothing else. It is not a financial measure. It is a control measure. Apart from his role as Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Minister also wants to fulfil the role of Minister of Finance in terms of this clause and control the three chambers as well. Their chairmen should be involved, too. It comes to the fore very clearly in this clause that the Government has no confidence in the officials of the Department of Finance, which has brought it through difficult times over the years. I want to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister that I had a question on the Question Paper earlier in which I asked what South Africa’s debt was at present.

The hon member must confine himself to the clause.

That is correct. [Interjections.] Priority number one is to know what debt the country has. This priority committee must go into that. I should also like to know what the details are of the Ioans the hon the Minister of Finance negotiated recently.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that this clause does not deal with the functions of the committee. It deals with the constitution of the committee.

I accept that. The State President will serve on that committee. One must bear in mind that the State President has an enormous amount of work. I am therefore of the opinion that he should not serve on this committee. He will be involved in widely divergent matters such as local crèches, school functions, etc. The Minister of Finance will also serve on the committee. I thought that we were going to give the new young hon Minister of Finance a chance to make his mark on finance matters, but the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is already breathing down his neck, is going to serve on that committee, too. Furthermore, the chairmen of each of the Ministers’ Councils are also going to serve on the committee. Why? What about the super-Cabinet up there? [Interjections.] Why do they not rather constitute a priority committee? Why should this be done by way of legislation? Is this a way of compelling people who do not want to reach consensus in a chamber to do so? [Interjections.] That is the case. This is not a financial measure. It is nothing but a control measure being incorporated in legislation to boycott the Minister of Finance and the departments.

I want to charge the Government—I protest because I am a Protestant … [Interjections.] The main problem is that anyone who adopts a certain standpoint is supposedly boycotting. With this legislation the Government has once again shown that it does not tolerate anyone advising it—then the Government still speaks of free enterprise—and that it does not tolerate an Opposition either. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance is quite correct when he says that South Africa is 80% Third World. Everything the Government does—negotiating loans overseas, too—indicates that we have a Third World Government.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister explained the objects of the legislation, and I tried to ascertain what the other objects were, but the: the hon the Minister became insulting When the hon the Deputy Minister cannot furnish an answer, I am told that I have not done my homework. However, tomorrow we will ascertain whether he has done his homework when we discuss the clauses.

Order! I must point out to the hon member that the aspect of homework has nothing to do with this clause. This clause is only concerned with the constitution of the committee.

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon the Minister that we will be speaking on every clause tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated why I cannot accept the amendment to this clause and consequently, I shall not elaborate on that any further.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out a couple of very simple facts. I think the hon member for Ermelo said that nobody had answered why this number of people was being suggested should serve on the committee while there were only six people on it from the Government side. Unfortunately, the hon member for Sunnyside was accused of not reading the Bill, but I do not think hon members on that side have read it either. The truth is that the minimum number is six while in fact there is no maximum. On the contrary, it looks as if there are going to be at least nine people on this committee because the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils will not necessarily be the people in charge of finance. I do not think therefore, that this argument has any substance. In fact, the State President can in terms of paragraph (f) appoint as many other people to the committee as he wishes, so the membership could well be in excess of ten. Therefore, with great respect, when one throws a stone one must be careful that one does not live in a glass house. One should really read the Bill first.

We had no intention of starting a fight over this legislation. We wanted to conduct this debate in a reasonable fashion. If legislation is drawn up in this fashion, we will discuss it in the same way. However, let us I keep to reason and to logic and let us not make unreasonable allegations that have to be answered.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we have clearly stated what our objections are to this measure and I do not think we need to repeat them. We therefore maintain the view that we have expressed in the Second Reading and the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.