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

In the light, however, of the imminent prorogation of Parliament, your Committee will be unable to consider the Bill before the end of the session, and recommends that it 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.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Report of the Technical Committee of Inquiry into the Group Areas Act, 1966, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, and Related Legislation, as follows:

S F KOTZÉ, Chairman.

House of Assembly

11 July 1984.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, as follows:

P J BADENHORST, Chairman.

Committee Rooms House of Assembly

12 July 1984.

Report and proceedings to be printed and I considered.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members;
3. (3) Mr Speaker may appoint and discharge members of Select Committees;
4. (4) Mr Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees;
5. (5) the reports, proceedings and evidence of Select Committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker; and
6. (6) Mr Speaker may on the recommendation of Ministers and with the concurrence of the Leaders of the Opposition parties refer matters to Select Committees for inquiry and report, the Committees to have powers as determined by Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill under discussion regulates financial transfers between the separate revenue accounts of the State Revenue Fund. This is one example of a number of different types of financial relationships in South and Southern Africa between authorities on the same—horizontal—level of authority as well as between authorities on separate—vertical-levels of authority.

There is an extensive literature on financial relationships, from which it is clear that no unique or ideal system of financial relationships exists. Naturally, it is logical that this should be the case since in most countries the pattern of financial relationships has I undergone a historical development in which financial as well as other, non-financial, factors played a role. Therefore it is normal for the whole debate on financial relationships to be characterized to a large extent by pragmatism in which solutions are sought to the diverse and unique problems experienced in regard to financial relationships in different countries and different circumstances. South Africa is no exception in this regard.

The fact that the South African population consists of a variety of peoples and groups has lead to the existence of a great number of diverse types of authorities which differ greatly as far as their financial resources and needs are concerned. This fact contributes to the complexity of the problems relating to financial relationships. Moreover, the system of financial relationships is not static either, but changing circumstances are continually making new demands on it, and this must of necessity give rise to adjustment and innovation.

The Revenue Accounts Financing Bill takes these facts into account in that it gives effect to the financial provisions in the Constitution Act in the Republic of South Africa, 1983, in order to make provision for changing circumstances in this manner. In doing this no pretence is being made that any finality has been reached in respect of the regulation of the financial relationships among the Houses, since clause 1 is merely an interim measure in order to leave scope for negotiations among all three Houses in this important element of the new constitutional dispensation.

However, before attending to the details of the measure, I want to refer briefly to the philosophy underlying the Bill and the Government’s premise in respect of the finances of the Houses.

†Section 84 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, provides for the transfer of funds from the State Revenue Account to other accounts of the State Revenue fund to finance the own affairs of the three Houses. This transfer is made through allocations and grants in the following ways: Statutory allocations to a fixed formula; additional grants; and conditional grants.

The statutory amount is deemed to be a minimum non-negotiable amount determined by a formula for the financing of the various own affairs. The use of a formula in the determination of the statutory amount implies that the Houses will have certainty as to the minimum guaranteed amounts they will receive.

Given the purpose of statutory allocations, namely to facilitate long term planning with regard to the provision of specific services, it is only reasonable to make sure that the statutory amount if appropriated by the Houses for the purposes for which it is intended according to the formula. For example, if education is one of the elements of the formula, the amount calculated in respect of education will have to be used for education, although the detailed appropriation of the education funds will be at the discretion of the Houses. The additional grant will supplement the statutory amount. The main determinants of the amount of this grant will be the general financial climate and the accompanying availability of funds. The grant will be subject to parliamentary approval in the annual Budget and the Houses will have full autonomy in respect of appropriation of the additional grants.

Conditional grants will also be subject to approval in the annual Budget, and, as the name indicates, will be subject to certain specific conditions. Through conditional grants provision will mainly be made for the financing of individual large projects, for example a technikon or hospital which cannot be accommodated within the statutory amounts.

The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, also provides that the statutory amount and grants be supplemented by levies on services rendered to members of the group concerned over and above payments for such services. The additional grants and levies, and, to a certain extent, the conditional grants also give recognition to the fact that the Houses may have varying priorities in respect of expenditures and in fact gives them the opportunity to reflect their specific priorities in their expenditure patterns.

How does this philosophy embody itself in the Bill before the house?

*Mr Speaker, clause 2(1) of the Bill may be compared to the statutory allocation. At the moment, however, it is an interim arrangement and applies only to the 1985-86 financial year. Therefore, it is being envisaged that during next year’s Parliamentary session this arrangement will be replaced by a comprehensive formula in which the philosophy I have discussed will be embodied more clearly.

The proposed interim financial arrangement is an unequivocal manifestation of the Government’s policy of co-responsibility in matters of common interest. This leaves scope for the relevant parties, as representatives of the three different Houses, to strive, by means of negotiation, to achieve a more permanent dispensation in regard to the distribution of the country’s limited funds as far as own affairs are concerned.

By taking the 1984-85 appropriations as a point of departure for the 1985-86 statutory allocations for own affairs, the Government further confirms its policy of preserving existing standards. The above-mentioned supplementary and provisional appropriations leave scope for the extension of services, the evolutionary raising of standards towards parity and the regulation of cost increases in respect of existing services, if necessary. Clause 3 authorizes the charging of levies by Houses to supplement the statutory allocations and appropriations.

Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a further step not only in the constitutional development of the country, but also in its financial development. On the one hand it gives expression to the endeavour to devolve power to the various communities and, on the other hand, it takes into consideration the need for blanket financial control for the sake of sound financial policy-making on the part of the State.

The interim nature of clause 1 confirms that this is the first step in an evolutionary process in respect of financial relationships in the country. It is inevitable that adjustments in the relationships will have to follow, but these adjustments will be the culmination of the process of seeking consensus. Only by means of consultation among all interested parties will we succeed in effecting a workable and acceptable system of financial relationships.

Mr Speaker, we in the official Opposition regret that we cannot support this legislation. Perhaps I should outline our reasons for not doing so immediately by moving the following amendment:

Section 2(l)(b) of the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Act, legislation we passed fairly recently, establishes separate revenue accounts for White, Coloured and Indian affairs as contemplated in section 82(l)(a) of the new Constitution. In the 1985 Budget and the appropriations that were passed by this House, there was no provision for appropriations to such accounts. However, by section 2(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, as amended by section 2 of the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Act which we passed this year, the Minister of Finance, after consultation with the own affairs finance Ministers, can make the appropriation for own affairs for the 1984-85 financial year. This Bill automatically credits the separate own affairs revenue accounts with the same amounts as were allocated for the 1985 financial year by the Minister; in other words, it is not an appropriation by Parliament but an allocation by a member of the executive, and this holds good for the following year. This means that the appropriation for 1985 will only cover a portion of the financial year because the Constitution only comes into operation in September 1984, and no own affairs Ministers can function for the full 1985 financial year. If an entire department referred to in the Bill is transferred, it could then be argued that the money was appropriated for the requirements of the State in connection with the administration of matters for which that revenue account had been established. That could then include, say, the whole amount for White education, but where in terms of Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act there have to be matters which are divided, as for example such matters as community development, agriculture, water supply and others, then that formula becomes quite meaningless. Let us take the best example of one of these, and that is the question of community development. It would be readily ascertainable which portion of community development related to Coloured housing, to White housing and to Indian housing, but in regard to the administration of the department an actual division, an allocation has to be made in order to effect that particular division. On that, a formula in itself as now contemplated, is in fact quite meaningless.

The deductions for the 1986 year, where only a portion of the service is carried out, are set out in the paragraph that follows. Then the levies, in particular, for expected revenue, other than the levies under clause 3 to the credit of the account for services rendered, are referred to in paragraph (b).

Therefore, what now appears is that there need be no Appropriation Act if the formula works and if it works adequately, but then the allowance which is made in these particular circumstances is in fact quite obviously inadequate because it is quite clear that there will have to be—there can be no question about it—not only a budget for general affairs, but also one for own affairs and there has to be a filling of the gap with additional estimates which will have to come later during this financial year. This means that what one is achieving here, is that one is allocating a certain portion of money, and one might almost say a certain minimum amount of money which somebody is arbitrarily determining for the year 1984-85 without the approval of Parliament, and then one is taking that same arbitrary division and allocating it to 1986, and in both cases it is done without appropriation by Parliament. Therefore it constitutes an encroachment upon the traditional rights of the legislature.

What is furthermore clear is that there is no allowance made in regard to this particular way of appropriation for inflation. Let me assume for one hypothetical moment that it is possible to have exactly the same amount of money spent next year as this year in respect of Government services—but then I must say that it would be a miracle because that has never actually happened to my knowledge in the 10 years that I have been in Parliament, and it has not happened in the 40 years before that in so far as anybody else can remember. Therefore, it is quite ridiculous to suggest that this amount could in fact solve the problem of an own affairs budget. All it can do is to say: Well, there is an amount here which is being allocated to own affairs, but we are still going to have a budget in order to allocate something else to you. Therefore there is not sense in it because one will have to do it in any case.

It is quite clear that there is no provision whatsoever for inflation in this particular type of formula; on the contrary, we have a situation which has become apparent, and that is that there will be a shortage of money for this financial year because we have no one less than the hon the Prime Minister saying that he cannot even afford to pay two months salary during this financial year and that next year there has to be this additional amount.

The whole concept therefore seems to be based on some fallacy that what one must do is to allocate an amount of money so that there is something there and then one has a budget, knowing full well that what one is doing is inadequate for running the own affairs of that particular population group.

In addition to that there is nothing, but not one cent, which is being allocated in order to remove any discriminatory gaps which occur. When the hon the Deputy Minister talks in his speech about having to make this allocation and about this being a basis for the future, then one has to ask oneself what in fact the intention is in regard to the removal of discrimination in respect of the preserving of services.

The hon the Deputy Minister stated the following:

I accept that you want to preserve the existing standards of the White population, but the way I see this it is necessary for the standards of the other sections of the population to be improved. This is the problem, Mr Speaker. However, he went on to say:

“If necessary”, Mr Speaker.

†The very words that he uses proves that one is actually achieving nothing by this because one is going to have a budget in any case. There is no question about it. If we think for one moment that we can have an illusion that we can come along here next year and if the budget is not passed there will at least be money with which this can be carried on, it is ludicrous because the amount is utterly inadequate to do anything with other than to have a temporary expedient which might be a sort of a part appropriation to keep something going for a while. However, both the Constitution and the Exchequer and Auditor Act contemplated that there will be part appropriation bills. It was never suggested that we were going to do without part appropriations in the future. The danger that one accordingly sees in this is that one is now developing a completely new philosophy in respect of budgeting. Fundamentally we have been trained and we believed the new Constitution would continue to accept a fundamental principle of our Parliamentary government. That fundamental principle is the following and here I quote from a book on The Constitutional Control of Public Finance in South Africa by Rogers and he states that that fundamental principle is:

It then goes on to explain what took place in England. This is what our tradition is and this is what we believe in, namely that the control of the Exchequer is vested in Parliament and not in the executive Government. This measure is, however, designed and calculated and has the effect of encroaching upon this fundamental right of Parliament and there is no question that it is so.

There is a further work on this subject for which I am indebted to a man from whom I think I learned quite a lot about public finance. He was a person for whom I had great respect and he died in very unfortunate circumstances. I referred to the late Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Pretorius. Mr Pretorius gave me a book The Politics of Financial Control which I would recommend that the new hon Minister should read. That particular book makes it very clear what the fundamentals are in respect of the control of the Exchequer. It refers to what is called “Campions’ four Rules of Financial Procedure”. Rule 3, which is perhaps the most fundamental rule, is “The Legislative Authorization and Appropriation of charges”. He states that this could be called the rule of law in finance. I quote:

That is the English bill of rights, which states:

I quote further from the book:

This House is the equivalent of the Commons. I quote further:

What is happening here today is that this struggle of the people in order to get control of the finances, to be sure that they have the element of control in respect of the power which the executive has, is being fundamentally eroded. What is happening here is that the executive is taking unto itself the traditional powers of the legislature. That can not be allowed to go by because this tradition, on which we base our own legislative system, has been founded by hundreds of years of history.

Let us see what is going to take place now. In terms of section 84 of the new Constitution there were to be paid from the State Revenue Fund into its relevant accounts three different items, of which the first is amounts calculated in accordance with the formula prescribed by any general law. Now we are told that it is not only a formula which is prescribed by a general law but that it is going to be a formula which is going to prescribe to the own affairs House how it is to use that money. The hon the Deputy Minister gave the game away when he said that if, for example, education was one of the elements of the formula the amount calculated in respect of education will have to be used for education. So much for self-determination. The reality is that if an own affairs House decides that its needs in respect of a particular matter of one affair are greater than that of another, surely it is self-determination to decide what should be done. Or, is it general affairs to decide for everybody how they should actually run their affairs? If that is done, then, with great respect, the Government should accept our concept of a federal parliament in which we sit together and make decisions and not have the pretence of having self-determination. That is the reality of it. What is actually the intention? Is it the intention that there will be a general law where there will be a formula, and where each particular item—not just education but everything—will be prescribed so that the discretion of the own affairs legislature will be limited? If the Government is doing that, then, with great respect, what it is doing is to say that a general law can be passed by means of the White legislature and the President’s Council, and that the Government is going to force people to do that. If that is done the superiority of the White Parliament will be entrenched not only in respect of matters of a general nature, but the others will actually also be told what to do in respect of so-called own affairs. I think this is something which, at the very least, re quires some explanation.

The second aspect is that this which we have at the present moment is no formula. It is merely a manner of dealing with this issue for the forthcoming year. The questions then arises. On what basis is the formula going to be determined under the new constitution? Here we agree that there should not be a formula now. That formula has to be the subject matter of negotiation and agreement, and it has to be a matter which also involves the other groups. It is no problem for us that this does not contain a formula. We want a proper budget next year and we want Parliament to make the appropriation for everything that has to take place. If there are to be formulas, those formulas must be subject to negotiation and must not merely be on the basis of what a White Parliament with a President’s Council decides; they have to be formulas that are based upon consensus, upon agreement between people that they are satisfied that their needs in respect of finance are going to be met and that over a reasonable period of time discrimination in respect of the services provided by the State are going to be eliminated. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister for a specific reply to this question, namely: Is it the intention of the Government to come forward with a formula in terms of which discrimination in the pro vision of services by the State will be eliminated, and will we have a programme for the elimination of that discrimination? If the formula does not provide for that, it is in fact meaningless and achieves nothing in these circumstances.

We say to the hon the Deputy Minister that in the circumstances that I have tried to outline here, we really cannot support this measure. It takes away the powers of Parliament and solves nothing that it is designed to solve. Here for the second time this year we have an erosion of the powers of Parliment not only for the 1984-85 year but also for the 1985-86 year. Furthermore it sets a precedent that goes against every concept of parliamentary practice and parliamentary tradition.

Mr Speaker, I am sure the hon member for Yeoville will pardon me if I do not react to his statements immediately, but I shall refer to them in the course of my speech.

I agree fully with the hon the Deputy Minister that a good government only remains good as long as it can perceive the changing conditions in the country, and plan and make provision for them, as we have made provision for them with the acceptance of the new Constitution in 1983. In it we have tried to introduce a joint say for the three groups on matters of common concern and an own say on own affairs. Our objective ought to be to realize these ideals without sacrificing the maintenance of good government of the country.

Sound financial management is the underlying basis of sound government of a country. The prerequisite for sound government—and the hon member for Yeoville has emphasized this in various debates this year—is that the unity of the Treasury should not be unpaired. Consequently there must not be fragmentation of the Treasury. In the debate on the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill the hon member drew a very interesting comparison. He said that the fragmentation of the Exchequer could lead to extremely detrimental consequences, and he then held up the respective national states in South Africa and South West Africa as examples of states in which fragmentation had caused problems. But he omitted to mention the example of Tanzania, where the Treasury is firmly united, and to furnish reasons for the chaos in that country. [Interjections.]

The achieving of our object of own decision-making on own affairs and joint decision-making on matters of common concern is being made possible by four laws. As I have mentioned, these are the constitution Amendment Bill, the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill, the State President’s Committee on National Priorities Bill—to which I want to return—and the Bill under discussion. In the discussion of all these Bills the hon member for Yeoville made certain allegations and raised certain objections which have not been fully replied to. Because these Bills form a unit, I want to return to them.

As far as the unity of the Treasury is concerned, the hon member for Yeoville stated that a prerequisite for sound financial management was that Parliament had to continue to exercise the authority of voting funds and controlling the administration of such funds.

Having said that, he criticized the clauses of the Bill under discussion. He alleged, for example, that this Bill deprived Parliament of the power to vote money. But this is not true. If the hon member studies the Bill, he will see that this will only be in operation for one year with regard to own affairs. In clause 2 provision is only made for the minimum appropriation for own affairs. It goes not further than that.

The hon the Deputy Minister was quite correct when he stated that there was now an opportunity for evolution so that the standards of the different interest groups could be improved.

The hon member for Yeoville also objected to clause 3, and the fact that certain levies could be imposed by the various Houses without the consent of Parliament. But through this legislation Parliament is granting its consent to the different Houses imposing levies in order to provide specific services. There is consequently no substance in this argument of the hon member for Yeoville either.

Mr Speaker, I shall not react to the hon member for Heilbron because I could not follow what he was saying.

This Bill is merely a manifestation of the transitional growing pains which are now surfacing. It seems to me that these growing pains may turn into growing cramps in the near future.

You will still eat your words.

The hon member can say that, but we are dealing here with an interim measure pure and simple, and I think that hon members will agree with that.

That is how I put it earlier on.

Yes, the hon member said so. Here we have the first sign—one could also deduce this from the speech of the hon member for Yeoville—of what we must expect in the practical and everyday occurrences under the new dispensation. Here we have an attempt to build a minature tower of Babel. [Interjections.]

And you want to demolish the tower.

I would demolish that tower with the greatest of pleasure if it was within my power to do so. [Interjections.] It is not our duty and I do not think it is expected of us to help to build that tower of Babel.

It is quite clear that in the dispensation we are now entering, the division of the financial cake between the three population groups is going to become the real storm centre in politics. We have already heard this from the hon member for Yeoville. I cannot disagree with him if it is his opinion that the demand is going to be made—and it will be made—that all forms of discrimination, in the financial sphere as well, must be eliminated.

That demand is already being made.

Of course that demand is being made now, but the difference is that the people now making the demands are also going to take the decisions in the future dispensation. That is the difference. It is a commendable ideal. The word “consensus” is being bandied about from morning till night. We are now entering the new dispensation, this “heaven of consensus”, but how this is going to work in practice only time will tell.

This is a temporary measure to make provision for the immediate future, but, as the hon member for Yeoville rightly pointed out, there is no indication at the moment of any possible formula which is going to be adopted in the new dispensation to make allocations in the respective Houses in order to despose of so-called own affairs. This we shall have to learn with time.

I want to be brief. We could have conducted a very interesting debate on this specific Bill if there had been time for it, but I suppose we want to finish up. We shall not vote for the hon member for Yeoville’s amendment, but we shall not vote for this measure either.

Mr Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon member for Barberton had to say speaking as a member of the CP, and also to what the hon member for Yeoville had to say speaking for the PFP. I do not think that we can ignore the fact that during the referendum campaign both these parties called upon the public of South Africa to reject the new Constitution. I should like to remind the House of what they said at that time. The PFP said that the new Constitution would entrench apartheid.

Quite right.

All right. I want to ask the CP whether the new Constitution entrenches apartheid.

No.

Yes.

They say no. The Official Opposition says it will and the future official Opposition says it will not.

What do you say?

I say it entrenches a movement towards consensus government so that we can remove the discrimination which the CP, when they sat in the NP, insisted should exist in South Africa.

What do you say now?

The hon member for Yeoville and his party also said that the new Constitution would entrench a dictatorship. I mention these things because one has to bear in mind the emotive rhetoric of the official Opposition and the CP when they speak in this House and when they try to influence the people outside. The speech of the official Opposition’s spokesman on finance today has been purely to try and discredit this Bill in the eyes of the public, and in the process became a total red herring because he said that it took no cognizance at all of the changes which are taking place. I shall explain to him why.

This Bill is a logical conclusion of the steps that have to be taken in order to implement the new Constitution.

First we had the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which was passed by this House and approved by a two-thirds majority of the White electorate of South Africa. Just yesterday we approved the State President’s Committee on National Priorities Bill. What was this Bill all about? Its purpose is to bring together the Indian, Coloured and White leaders in the Council of Ministers of the three Chambers in order for them to be able to get together and work on the distribution of available funds and resources of South Africa which will be appropriated by the three Houses of Parliament.

Do you trust the Nat leaders?

We are members of this House and when we see, as is the case with the next Bill to be debated, that the Government steps out of line, we will thump them. Just stick around until we discuss the Income Tax Bill. [Interjections.] Whenever a member from these benches hammers the PFP on their duplicity, their attitude towards the public, etc, all we get from them is a barrage of interjections. We are tired of being shouted down by those hon members because we know they are a party of the past. After the next general election they will no longer be the official Opposition. The CP will then be the official Opposition.

Earlier this session we passed amendments to the Exchequer and Audit Act as a next step in our constitutional changeover. That measure clearly laid down the new rules concerning the drawing up of budgets, the expenditure and revenue accounts and so on. These provisions have already been passed. This Bill has concerns the setting up of the revenue accounts for the three Chambers. Let us examine it.

Clause 1 refers to the Exchequer and Audit Act, which lays down that the Budget must be approved by Parliament and that accounts must be examined by the Select Committee on Public Accounts of Parliament. We have been through all this before and the hon member for Yeoville will recall what I said at the time.

Clause 2 clearly sets out that group revenue accounts must be established and must be credited with funds from the State Revenue Account as appropriated by Parliament. There are also certain other provisions which take cognizance of the fact that we are in an interim period of change. We have passed the Budget for the current financial year. We know that the Indian and Coloured leaders will be here in September and that they will have their members in the Cabinet shortly after that date. How, in heaven’s name, could those leaders have approved this Budget? Interim steps have to be taken, and this is why we had the amendments to the Exchequer and Audit Act and now we have this measure. We have another provision which says that in next year’s Budget as the new Cabinet starts working and certain services and administrative powers are handed down to the three Chambers, there will be some services which for practical reasons cannot all be handed over.

Clause 2(2) makes provision that during that period that State Revenue Account will be credited with funds which are not spent by the three Chambers on their own affairs but which will be provided by the present central administrative authority.

This Bill is purely a measure to ensure that the revenue accounts will be dealt with in a specified way until 31 March 1986, by which time we sincerely hope the whole change-over would have occurred It is as simple as that. For these reasons we reject the smoke-screen, the red herrings and all the wonderful emotive rhetoric of the hon member for Yeoville. He talks about the struggle of people to have control over finance. What a lot of poppycock! There is no Appropriation Bill which will not be passed by representatives elected by the voters to this Parliament. Next month the Coloureds and the Indians will be electing their representatives to their respective Houses. I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that he has forgotten about the whole dynamics of politics. Does he honestly believe that the Coloured and Indian members of Parliament are going to let this White House take them for a ride in future when they know that they can block a budget by not voting for it if their needs are not being satisfied? We are moving into a consensus form of government. In future the Cabinet is going to have to make sure that any legislation on General Affairs or any budget which is placed before the three chambers of this Parliament is going to be accepted by the majority parties in those three chambers. Therefore we reject both these amendments and take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is hardly surprising that the hon member for Amanzimtoti does not understand that this Bill refers to the year 1985-86 because it must certainly rank as one of the worst-drafted bills that has come before this House, certainly this session. Clause 2(1) provides for the crediting of a revenue account referred to in section 2(l)(b) of the principle Act with a sum equal to the amount earmarked in 1984 85 for matters for which such a revenue account was established. The revenue account will be credited with this amount in the State Revenue Account. The sum credited will be for use in the year ending March 1986. The calculation of the sum for the period 1984-85 will mean considering two periods, namely the period from April to September 1984, in which the amount involved is established by the Minister’s initiative, and the period subsequent to 1984-85. We must presume that this is the first step in establishing the formula prescribed by general law and referred to in section 84(a) of the Constitution Act. This calculation will presumably have to be done at the time when the revenue account is credited with the sum of money in the books of the State Revenue Account in terms of clause 2(1), ie sometime in the 1984-85 year. Clause 2(2) states, however, that:

This must already have been done. This amount will have been credited to the relevant revenue account and must consequently already have been calculated. If what is meant is that the Minister must calculate how much of the amount credited as contemplated in subsection (1) is to be allocated to Votes established for the purpose of an Appropriation Act, surely that also will have been carried out. After all, subsection (2)(a) goes on to refer to “the money in the State Revenue Fund”, ie the sum with which the revenue account is credited in terms of subsection (1) and which will be appropriated for the 1985-86 year. Incidentally, I do not believe that it is possible to calculate a given sum of money, in this case the amount appropriated as contemplated in subsection (1), “in connection with” matters for which a Vote has been established. It must be “for the purposes of” those matters.

As the clause stands, it could be argued that the Minister of Finance is given sole discretion to decide, firstly, for what matters Votes will be established for the purposes of an Appropriation Act; secondly, how much of the amount standing to the credit of the Revenue Account in the State Revenue Account will be apportioned in terms of clause 2(2)(a) for the year ending 31 March 1986; and, thirdly, how the money appropriated in terms of subsection (1)(b) will be allocated between Votes. The only onus placed on the Minister of Finance is in terms of subsection (2)(b) which calls upon him to furnish the member of the Ministers’ Council to whom the administration of the financial affairs has been assigned with such particulars as that gentleman may require. This seems to me to be a most paternalistic approach to “eie be skikking”.

Clause 2(3) has the effect of ensuring that no money in the State Revenue Fund shall be appropriated if any sum specified in respect of a Vote in the schedule to an Appropriation Act is less than it was in the 1984-85 year. One must remember that the Minister establishes these amounts. The Minister of Finance would also have discretion in respect of any amount appropriated in excess of the amount for that year. The question also arises whether it is within the power of the Minister of Finance to leave some matter out of an appropriation of funds standing to the credit of the revenue account, in other words, not to create a Vote for it.

Clause 3 entitles a member of a Ministers’ Council to whom administration of financial affairs has been assigned, to impose certain levies. These are, however, only in respect of certain services. To sum up, the purpose of the Bill is obviously to appropriate money for own affairs of the various Chambers, to ensure that essential funds are provided without discussion, and possibly to avoid embarrassing dispute.

Firstly a simple formula is used, which establishes these funds at the level used in the previous year. Secondly the Minister of Finance is given absolute authority to deal with the appropriation and allocation without even any consultation with members of the Ministers’ Council, to whom responsibility for the financial administration of both Chambers has been given. This is surely a ham-handed way in which to introduce a period of consensus. In this regard the only requirement is contained in clause 2(2)(b), which stipulates that he must furnish the member of the Ministers’ Council referred to in subsection (l)(b) with such particulars as that member may require in connection with that sum of money. From the terms of the Bill it seems that the financial year 1985-86 could be conducted in certain circumstances without any of the three Chambers of Parliament having a budget for own affairs.

Finally, this Bill has been drafted in so tortuous a manner that it is completely unclear and probably open to several interpretations. Therefore we will be supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon members for Amanzimtoti and Heilbron most sincerely for the support they have pledged for this Bill. In actual fact this is a very simple measure, provided one reads what appears in it and does not try to read into it what does not appear in it. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to a few matters which cropped up during the discussion. Partial transfers for the 1984-85 financial year are dealt with in accordance with the amendment we made to the Exchequer and Audit Act a few days ago, and in actual fact have nothing to do with the measure under discussion. Partial transfers have nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill deals with appropriations for the whole 1985-86 financial year.

The hon member said that it was being alleged that the allocation could now take place arbitrarily. That is not correct. After all, the measure specifically prescribes what the amount for the 1985-86 financial year shall be. It is an amount which shall be equivalent to that for the 1984-85 financial year. How can it therefore be arbitrary?

The hon member also argued that the amounts could not be equivalent because, he felt, inflation would play a role in this. As a matter of fact, the hon member for Yeoville himself indicated that I had said in my Second Reading speech that provision was being made for that additional expenditure by means of additional or special appropriations. The allegation was also made that we were doing away with control by Parliament here. What we are dealing with here is a statutory amount to see us through as an interim measure. That is also what I said in my Second Reading speech. In fact, the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Barberton accept it as such. It is a statutory amount which is being provided as an interim measure. As the Exchequer and Audit Act in fact provides, the statutory amount will be indicated in the general Budget for 1985-86. How can it consequently be alleged that Parliament’s authority is being done away with? Surely the authority of Parliament is not being done away with as far as the present statutory amounts are concerned. This will merely be an extra statutory amount, which will be indicated in the 1985-86 Budget.

The question was asked here: What becomes of self-determination if the own Houses can now be told: Here is a certain amount of money, but you may only use it for a certain purpose? In my introductory speech I tried to explain that this was the minimum amount with regard to certain services. I also said why we thought that it should be used for that specific purpose so that one does not have greater disparity between the different services in the different Houses. If we read section 84 of the Constitution Act, we find that additional or conditional appropriations may be made. The Schedule to the legislation also provides that levies may be imposed as far as own Houses are concerned. In all these ways one can accommodate one’s further element of self-determination. Consequently one has one’s foundation in the statutory amount, but one’s element of self-determination is built into the other three.

I say this is an interim measure to see us through for a period until we reach the stage where we shall have the opportunity to negotiate in full with one another on this issue. I am not suggesting that this is going to be an easy process. I have never suggested this and I do not think anyone on this side of the House has ever tried to suggest that it is going to be an easy process. We say it is going to be a difficult process. But what is going to make the future even more difficult is if we decide on a rigid formula now and tell the other groups later: Take it or leave it. In that way we shall make entry into the new dispensation and the future of our country so much more difficult.

Demands are being made and there is no getting away from that. As long as there are people in this country, demands will be made. It will not matter what government is in power. Those demands will still be made. But what I do want to say and what I have learned from experience is that it is easier to reach an agreement with people if one places the facts and realities before them and then negotiates instead of merely taking a rigid decision and confronting them with it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with the detail of the Bill and I also wish to state how we see this legislation. I would like to indicate, by way of contrast, how we approach it and the way in which the hon member for Amanzimtoti approaches it. As far as the hon member for Amanzimtoti is concerned, I think that when history comes is written it would be said that there was a struggle by the legislature to maintain the control of the finances to ensure that there was control as to how the executive spent the money of the people but he described that struggle and endeavour as poppycock. That is how he described it. [Interjections.] On the other hand I would like to use the word of Lord Kennet, who said the following:

That is a sacred principle and that is at stake in this piece of legislation. Whether it is an interim measure as the hon the Deputy Minister alleges or whether it is not, the reality is that it is the power of the people and the right of the people which is being encroached upon. Let it be said that it is not the first interim measure because we were told in the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill that it was necessary to have an interim measure in order to deal with 1985. However, now we have an interim measure in order to deal with 1986 and I wonder what will happen in respect of 1987 because interim measures are intended to be for short periods and not for periods which are now already in excess of 13 months. That is really the fundamental difference which we have with the Government. Here we have this remarkable phenomenon which we see all the time which comes from the NRP and its spokesman on finance. He makes a great to do by saying that we have here the PFP which is against apartheid—and we are proud of the fact that we against apartheid—and we have the CP which says that it is for apartheid. However, when he is asked what the attitude of his party is, he gives us a long story because he is neither for or against apartheid. In fact, he does not know where he is going anymore.

I also want to deal with the fundamentals which were referred to by the hon the Deputy Minister and what he relies on in respect of section 84 of the Constitution Act. Section 84 of the Constitution Act provides:

What is interesting is that when the appropriation is made by the provinces even there is, for example, a formula which is applied in respect of education in order to work out what should be given to a particular province. That is not included in the law when the appropriation takes place because the province is given the discretion as to how to spend that money. However, it now appears that the Houses dealing with their own affairs are to have less discretion than a province has at the present moment because if it is going to be said that we appropriate something to them, then the formula is going to make them spend it on that amount. I would have thought that that would fall under section 84 (c) where it is stated that in respect of every financial year there shall be paid from the State Revenue Fund into its relevant account any amount to be paid into that account subject to conditions determined by any general law. Now we are going to have not only the rigid formula but also another set of conditions in respect of a different payment of money. I would have thought that if one wanted to make a payment into an account for a particular own affairs matter and one wants it to be subject to a condition that it should be spent for that amount, that one would then say that it should be spent in terms section 84 (c) and that it is subject to a formula as to what amount of money should be appropriated to that particular legislative body. I think the hon the Deputy Minister owes us an answer in respect of that particular issue.

I want to turn now to the wording of the clause. Subsection (1) needs analysis in order to ascertain what we are really trying to achieve. It reads:

That is the Exchequer and Audit Act, and that means either a White, Coloured or Indian Revenue Account

That is the larger account:

That is the year that still lies ahead:

So far the only appropriation Act that we have passed is the Budget, and that does not make provision for own affairs at all. There is therefore no provision in that law at all. I quote further:

“Any other law” can only mean the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill, which is the Bill in terms of which, in clause 2(2), the Minister has the power to determine what amount should be transferred in respect of a revenue account in terms of clause 2(l)(b) of that law, namely the Own Affairs Revenue Account. Therefore the amount to be transferred cannot be under the general Appropriation Act because that amount deals with all the affairs of the State. The “other law” can only be the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill which we passed here it also refers to the financial year “which ended on 31 March 1985”. That means that whatever amount in terms of clause 2(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill has been allocated by the Minister of Finance to an account under clause 2(l)(b), an own affairs account, can then again be transferred in respect of the 1986 year. That is not for a full year. That is the dilemma of this particular piece of legislation.

I am told that somebody is going to interpret this to mean that one can actually take all the money in terms of the Appropriation Act and transfer it to own affairs. However, before one can do that somebody has to divide that between the three Houses. One can only do that division in terms of clause 2(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Bill. If that is done then only a portion of the year is available from the time the money is transferred to own affairs. Whichever way one looks at this—it does not matter how one interprets the Bill—one cannot escape the reality of having to have another Budget next year in order to appropriate money for own affairs. On my interpretation, the Government is going to appropriate for a portion of the year, or it is going to have to appropriate in order to cover inflation, or it is going to have to appropriate to cover whatever other services are required. On no basis whatsoever is it possible that there can be no Budget for own affairs for next year. If that is so, then why do we have this interim measure this year? There can be no reason for it, unless it is now designed to be a sort of part appropriation Bill, or unless there is something completely sinister in it, which I hope there is not, that this in fact is the preparation for the Government to govern in the future purely by laws relating to formulae. Then the taxation statutes run; the formulae run and one does not have to come back to Parliament at all because the formulae can actually make provision for escalation, for inflation and for all sorts of things, and can again include a clause that the Minister can do the appropriation. That is why this is so an unfortunate a precedent because I fear that this precedent may be quoted in the future and that, in fact, we are going to end up with the executive having the complete control of the finances which should be under the control of the legislature.

Mr Chairman, my suspicions were confirmed when the hon member said: “Unless there is something sinister in the legislation”. He is trying to read something sinister into it. But that is not necessary because the provisions of this Bill are in actual fact quite simple. It is merely being provided that own affairs for the 1985-86 financial year are being credited through the Budget, if they are statutory allocations, with the same amount that allocated to those matters during the 1984-85 financial year. That is after all not difficult to understand.

†Let me repeat it in English to the hon member. Own affairs for the 1985-86 financial year must be credited through the general Budget as a statutory amount with the same amount that was allocated to those matters in the 1984-85 financial year.

*If the hon member wants to complicate matters for himself, I cannot help it, but I think in all fairness that he is confusing the partial transfer for the 1984-85 financial year which we dealt with under the Exchequer and Audit Act, with an allocation for the entire 1985-86 financial year.

No, I am not confusing them at all.

I am sure the hon member is confusing them because why did he refer to a pro rata increase in his amendment? To increase the allocation for 1984-85 pro rata is not going to solve our problems. One cannot do this, because then one is going to arrive at an absolutely absurd result. After all, expenditure during the year is not regular. It may happen that by the last three months of the year 90% of the total appropriation has already been spent. One cannot then increase that small amount of money pro rata and transfer it. That would be wrong, because then one would in actual fact be stinting the Houses. That is why the legislation provides that those amounts allocated to specific affairs in the 1984-85 financial year will be transferred to the 1985-86 financial year.

The hon member also said that in his opinion this statutory amount should actually have been allocated under section 84(c). But this section merely deals with specific allocations for specific purposes and not for a continuous process of allocation to departments of own affairs. I explained in my speech that this had to do with cases where one had non-recurrent expenditure, for example in the case of a university of something like that. Then an allocation is made under section 84(c).

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment has not yet been moved.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to move the amendment and I will tell you why. I know that there is going to have to be another Budget next year and I know that we shall have to correct things next year. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the hon the Deputy Minister does not want to have a better piece of legislation, it is his problem, not mine. I want to give him a very simple example. The hon the Deputy-minister says the Bill says something which it does not. I now want to refer to a specific situation and the hon the Deputy Minister must tell me how he will deal with it. In Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act ther is an item “agriculture” an own affair. Let us assume that in October 1984, agriculture is transferred to the three different own affairs departments and that there is a portion for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Let us also presume that the Minister will need to exercise his powers under section 2(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act in order to apportion for the 1984-85 financial year. What does he then transfer to agriculture for own affairs to each of the individual departments for the 1985-86 year? To say that the whole amount will be transferred, does not make sense because although the whole amount is transferred it has in fact to be transferred to three different own affairs administrations. It must therefore be divided, and it is not possible to transfer funds for agriculture in these circumstances without having exercised the power of division. If that is so, the only power of division which exists is that in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act as there is no power of division in terms of this Bill. All it says, and I quote clause 2(1):

This does not exist because that is the whole amount. I quote further:

The other law is the Exchequer and Audit Act which enables one to provide. I quote further:

Although the hon the Deputy Minister said earlier that the same amount would be credited as was previously credited for this, he was apparently not reading from the Bill, because if it was stipulated in the Bill there would be no problem. He should specifically deal with the example of agriculture because we will then know what the ministry has in mind.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is increasingly confirming my suspicion that he is confusing the partial transfer, which may take place in the 1984-85 financial year, with the total appropriation for 1985-86 with which this Bill deals.

Funds transferred in 1984-85 in connection with agriculture—the hon member said let us assume that agriculture is transferred in October 1984, viz during the 1984-85 financial year—does not mean that an appropriation is transferred. The appropriation is for the entire year and the appropriation for 1984-85 is allocated on the basis of agricultural services that have still to be rendered for the period October 1984 to March 1985. But this is not done in terms of this Bill. The hon member is correct in saying that this is done in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act. What is being done in this Bill is to arrange the appropriation for the entire year with regard to transactions that have already been transferred and have to come into operation on 1 April 1985, thus for the entire year. If a department has to be transferred later in the year and not on 1 April like the others, then funds are again allocated in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act and not in terms of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to respond to the remarks made by the hon member for Yeoville as regards—as he claimed—the abrogation of the people’s right to determine how money should be spent.

I want to draw his attention to the fact that this Bill is laid before this House, the representatives of the people, to ask for certain powers which although of an interim nature are essential for the phasing in of the new constitution. That is what is being asked and we accept that.

He also said that his party stands against apartheid. The Conservative Party says that it stands for it. He made the accusation that we in the NRP never ever say what we stand for. If the type of apartheid that the PFP is against is the apartheid which the CP stands for we are totally opposed to it, as is in fact are the NP. However, what we stand for is a policy of pluralism. This clause is required in order to implement the policy of pluralism. I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville, as I said nearly two years ago, that despite what they and their Press say the NRP has won the philosophical debate in South Africa. This is NRP policy and it is going to be embodied in the Constitution of South Africa.

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

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, in terms of this particular provision the power is now given to a member of the Minister’s Council to impose levies by notice in the Gazette. The following wording is used:

The wording which is used in Schedule 1 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, is as follows:

I now want to put a pertinent question to the hon the Deputy Minister. If a levy is imposed for a service rendered then presumably that levy relates to and is to be compensatory for the service that is rendered, not so? Let us take an example. If a levy is imposed for a service rendered in a hospital, for example, then that levy is for the service rendered. If a levy is imposed in the case of an educational institution, that is understood. What, in fact, has the Government in mind with the wording “over and above payments … for services rendered”? In other words, is it intended that this is to be a levy which will raise taxation in addition to the payment to be made for the actual services rendered? If so, does the Government have in mind that there will be general levies on the public as a whole or that there will be levies on those members of the public who use the service?

Mr Chairman, the words mean exactly what they mean as they stand there. They mean that there are certain services for which fees are paid, such as in the case of hospital services to which the hon member also referred. Certain payments are made for those services. All this clause provides is that a levy may be imposed over and above payment for the services. The levy can be used to improve those services, or whatever the case may be, as one of the Houses may decide. That is all this means.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon the Deputy Minister has not answered the question. The issue is whether it is intended to impose a levy for the actual services rendered which will be paid by the people who receive the services, or whether it is intended to convey a power whereby a whole community will be levied for services, even though the individual himself may not use that service. Let me take the example I used before again. If you impose a levy for the purpose of meeting expenditure in regard to education and you impose it on parents whose children attend school, you are imposing a levy on people who receive the service, but if you impose a levy on a whole community irrespective of whether they have children or school-going children or not, you are imposing a levy for something over and above a service. What is intended to be conveyed by the wording of the clause? The clause reads inter alia “over and above payments (if any) for services rendered by or on the behalf of a department of State administered by a member of that Ministers’ council, on those services for the purpose of meeting expenditure connected with those services …” The question is whether you pay a levy if your child goes to school, or whether you pay as a member of a population group for the education of the whole population group.

Mr Chairman, it is simply being provided that a levy may be imposed on a service that is provided. How can a person who does not have a child at school pay the levy? After all, he is not benefiting from that service. One would then be introducing an additional tax, whereas the Schedule to the Constitution provides that separate Houses may not impose taxes. But a levy may be imposed on a service.

Mr Chairman, that is the answer I was hoping for. Because a levy is imposed not only as payment for services rendered but over and above payment for the services rendered, it will now happen that for example the parent of a school-going child is not only going to pay for its education, but for the expansion of education services as opposed to the community as a whole paying for the expansion of education services. This cannot be logical.

Mr Chairman, an own House for a population group may so decide. This falls within the authority and the direct interest of a specific House. For that reason we do not prescribe that a House shall do so but merely empower it to do something. For the rest it will depend on what a specific House itself decides.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we will persist in our Opposition to this measure. We regard it as an unfortunate piece of legislation. We regard it as solving nothing, because it will in any case require a Budget next year. Whatever money is allocated in terms of this measure will be insufficient for the rendering of the services required by the individual own affairs administrations. The Bill erodes fundamental rights which are holy to those of us who regard ourselves as true Parliamentarians, and therefore we cannot support it.

Mr Speaker, as in the Second Reading we will also be supporting the Third Reading of this measure, and we take pleasure in doing so because, as I have stated, this forms part of the necessary changes which are required in order to bring into being a pluralistic constitution for South Africa.

I should just like to say that we have heard a tremendous amount from the hon member for Yeoville in this debate and in others which concerned similar legislation regarding the implementation of the new Constitution. I should just like to ask him why it is that we hear so much from him now while we heard so little from him on these matters during the referendum campaign last year. He was singularly silent during the referendum campaign regarding the new Constitution and I think that that speaks for itself.

Mr Speaker, during the Second Reading debate the hon member for Barberton indicated that we were opposed to the principles contained in the Bill. Apparently, Sir, I did not understand the putting of the question properly. We thought that the amendment of the official Opposition was being put, and that was why we walked out. When we returned we found that the Second Reading had been voted on. Consequently I just want to say that we in the CP were opposed to the Second Reading on principle and also wanted to vote against it. We shall also vote against the Third Reading.

You are the “opposing” party.

Yes, we are very definitely opposed to integration. We are opposed to the selling out of the White man, we are opposed to taking away the sovereignty of the White man and we are opposed to taking away the self-determination of the White man.

While I was listening to the hon member for Amanzimtoti I began to understand how the NP took over his party’s policy. I should just like to know from the hon member whether he agrees with the type of apartheid advocated by the Government.

Differentiation.

The hon member must just tell us what is apartheid, what is differentiation and what is discrimination.

Mr Speaker, I consider it a great pity that the hon member for Yeoville did not give his support to the Third Reading of this measure.

Although he voted “yes” in the referendum.

Irrespective of how he voted in the referendum. He can keep that to himself—I do not hold that against him. The fact of the matter is that the hon member acknowledged that this was a good arrangement we were making by taking steps in the interim to ensure that there would be sufficient time for the parties concerned really to come to an agreement. That is, after all, the important aspect of this Bill, and the hon member admitted it. He also makes himself out to be a great protagonist of the principle of consensus. We are reaching consensus on an important point here. Nevertheless the hon member still rejects it.

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

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill has been drawn up to give effect to the budget proposals.

While for purely fiscal reasons it is considered necessary to increase company taxation, no increase in the tax payable by individuals is proposed.

As far as companies are concerned, I do not feel that the increases proposed raise the rates to unacceptable levels. The general company rate of 50% is not excessive by world standards.

Tax Expenditures

Complaints have been made in this House and in the Press that companies are being too favourably treated for income tax purposes compared with individuals.

For last year the company rate was 46,2% and yet many companies with very substantial profits have effectively been paying at somewhat lower rates and it has even been suggested that the average rate for industrial companies was as low as 24%. The Minister in fact referred to this in his budget speech and pointed out that this can happen legitimately.

A number of deductions from income are permitted under the Act such as the allowances given to stimulate exports or to encourage investment in industrial plant or hotels or to encourage employers to train employees so as to improve their skills. Allowances of this kind are granted in most Western countries for various reasons.

The allowances under our Act were by and large granted to stimulate productivity. In various countries they are called tax expenditures as the relief from tax is very similar to a cash payment out of revenue. Suffice it to say, quoting from one report, that—

I quote these words merely as an illustration and an indication that tax expenditures have been and will continue to be examined by my department to ascertain their real effectiveness in terms of results achieved.

The Budget proposals affected three of these incentive allowances and also a further allowance, the LIFO allowance, which although not listed, results in a deferral of tax and is therefore to be classed with the incentive allowances under the wider heading of Tax Expenditures.

The purpose of the new section 23A, introduced by clause 21 of the Bill, is to restrict the machinery initial and investment allowances and the other allowances granted in respect of industrial machinery or plant and aircraft to the extent that such allowances would result in an assessed loss in respect of the leasing of the items mentioned, thus preventing the set-off of such loss against other income. The portion of the allowances added back is to be carried forward to the succeeding tax year. The result is that the allowance are not denied to the taxpayer but the deduction thereof will to some extent be deferred to a future year.

The purpose of these amendments is the protection of the tax base. In the case of leased machinery and plant the new subsection (6) added to section 12 of the Act by clause 14(l)(b), applies to leased machinery or plant in respect of which an investment allowances may be granted to the lessor. The new subsection permits that allowance to be transferred to the lessee if both the lessor and the lessee desire this. This provision will assist the lessee-industrialist if he can utilize the allowance sooner than the lessor. This provision does not apply to the initial allowance.

Valuation of Trading Stock

The hon the Minister indicated in his Budget speech that the loss of revenue caused by the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method of trading stock valuation was excessive and he announced the proposed withdrawal of the concession with effect from tax years commencing on or after 1 April 1984.

In terms of the amendments the benefits enjoyed under the LIFO method in respect of earlier years will not be reversed unless the value of the trading stock at some future date decreases below a certain level. The method of dealing with this matter is, I think, generous.

Training allowance

The amendments introduced by clause 13 give effect to the Budget proposals in regard to the training allowance. Even after the reduction of the allowance the State’s contribution in metropolitan areas will in the case of a company be 75% of the training expenses and in economic development areas 87,5%. The allowance was originally introduced to encourage the training of persons who have little or not skill or educational background fitting them for remunerative employment. I may add that it is intended that the allowance be further reviewed to ascertain, inter alia, whether a tax allowance is the proper method of granting State assistance.

* Tax collection

As a result of the fact that a provisional taxpayer may estimate his taxable income for a year of assessment at the amount of his taxable income for the previous year, the payment of considerable amounts in tax has been deferred, since the tax which has been underpaid as a result of an unrealistic estimate is only payable on assessment. The ideal is that the final estimate should be 90% accurate, as the intention was in 1963, when the PAYE system was introduced.

It is felt that it is in fact possible for companies to make realistic estimates. Consequently it is being proposed that companies should make a third payment of provisional tax within six months after the end of the tax year, which must be 90% accurate, and that where there has been an underpayment of provisional tax, interest should automatically be charged at a prescribed rate on the amount which has been underpaid.

The interest payable on late tax payments is calculated at a rate of 10% a year at present. It is felt that this rate is too low, compared with prevailing interest rates, and that it could therefore have an adverse effect on tax collection. Consequently it is being proposed that the rate be increased to 15% as from 1 September 1984. In view of varying interest rates in future, a definition of “prescribed rate” is being proposed which will authorize the Minister to change the rate from time to time.

Anomalies

Amendments are being proposed to eliminate certain anomalies which have led to tax losses or the deferral of tax payments. In clause 1 1(1)(c), an amendment is being proposed in terms of which the wear and tear allowance in terms of section 11(e) of the Act must be calculated on the cash value of machinery, plant etc, and not on any finance charges which may become payable by the taxpayer. This amendment brings the provisions into line with the provisions of section 12 of the Act relating to the calculation of the machinery initial and investment allowances. The amendment is applicable to machinery, plant, etc, acquired on or after 15 March 1984.

Clause 1 1(1)(a) provides for a separate deduction in respect of the finance charges. Interest calculated in advance for lengthy future periods will be deemed to have been incurred from day to day so that its deduction will be spread over the full period.

In clause 11(1)(d) an amendment is proposed to the provisions of section 11(f) of the Act, which is aimed at combating abuses which have resulted from schemes in which exempted bodies such as municipalities are involved as lessors of property and in terms of which considerable rental premiums have been paid. These schemes are of a complicated nature, and the result has been that funds have been obtained by the bodies involved as a result of tax savings on the part of the lessees.

In clause 14(1)(b), an amendment is being proposed to section 12 of the Act, in order to ensure that an industrialist will be able to enjoy the benefit of the machinery initial allowance only once.

Close corporations

In his Budget speech, the hon the Minister of Finance indicated that the Standing Commission on Taxation would be requested to investigate the taxation of small close companies and their shareholders. The commission appointed a subcommittee to consider the technical aspects. Meanwhile, the Close Corporations Act, 1984, has been passed. The provisions of the Bill with regard to close corporations are, briefly, the following.

A close corporation is a company for tax purposes, and the corporation and its members will be treated like a company and its shareholders, except that (a) distributions to the members of the corporation which constitute dividends will not be taxable in the hands of the members; and (b) two-thirds of any income of the corporation in the form of dividends will be taxable in the hands of the corporation.

I really hope that this will satisfy the expectations expressed by my colleague the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism when he was piloting the legislation concerned through Parliament.

In terms of the Close Corporations Act, a close corporation may distribute amounts to its members provided that it is solvent. The exemption in respect of the distributions to members means that these are being dealt with in the same way as withdrawals from a business undertaking. In this way, a certain degree of neutrality is brought about between the various forms of enterprise.

When a corporation pays remuneration to its members, this will be deductible from its income, provided that it is not unreasonably high. The same rule applies in the case of remuneration paid by an ordinary company.

In terms of the Close Corporations Act, a company with up to 10 members who all qualify for membership of a corporation juristic persons do not qualify—may be converted into a close corporation. The tax position of a company which has undistributed profits or reserves, excluding capital profits, on being converted into a corporation, is dealt with in the new section 40A which is being inserted by clause 25. The company is deemed to have distributed the amount of the profits and reserves to the corporation and the corporation is taxed on this at a rate of 10%. The tax replaces the tax which the members would have paid if the company had distributed the profits and reserves by way of dividends.

A certain degree of relief is therefore being granted with regard to a potential tax liability—a concession which, I am sure, will be generally welcomed.

The proposed provision is intended not so much to afford tax relief as to facilitate the transition from the company form to the corporation form of enterprise.

The tax treatment of other companies which may be converted into close corporations, but which refrain from doing so for sound reasons, will receive further attention.

Certain aspects of the conversion of a company into a corporation or vice versa have implications which may affect the levying of donations tax, estate duty and stamp duty.

There is still some degree of uncertainty about the effect of several provisions of the Close Corporations Act on taxation, and research will be carried out to ascertain whether or not it will be necessary to introduce further amendments to the tax laws.

Tax on fringe benefits

I make bold to say that there cannot be any doubt about the desirability of taxing all forms of income, whether in cash or in kind, in an income tax act. The big problem, however lies in ascertaining the values of the benefits in kind that are to be taxed. I believe that the provisions of this Bill are a great step forward in this connection.

The proposed provisions are discussed at length in the Explanatory Memorandum, as well as in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Fringe Benefits.

On behalf of the Government and the department, I should like to express my sincere thanks for the work done by this commission under the chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, with Mr E L Conradie of the Department of Finance as secretary. Other members of the commission were the hon members for Amanzimtoti, Edenvale, Waterkloof, Yeoville, Smithfield, Gezina, the hon the Deputy Speaker—in other words, the hon member for Verwoerd burg—the hon member for Namaqualand and the hon member Mr Schutte. This commission did outstanding work, and tabled a unanimous report on a difficult and controversial subject.

I just want to mention a few changes here. The criterion for determining the value of an interest-free loan or a loan at a low interest rate is the “official rate of interest” as defined in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The interest rate originally recommended was 8%. This was fixed when the average building society interest rate was 11%. It is clear from the report of the commission that it will be necessary to adjust it from time to time.

In view of prevailing interest rates, it has become clear that 8% is totally unrealistic. It has consequently been decided to fix the official interest rate at 12% initially, and the definition has been amended accordingly.

The proposed provisions for the phasing in of the tax on fringe benefits are intended mainly to afford relief to those who already enjoy non-taxable benefits. Unfortunately, the report of the commission of inquiry was interpreted in some circles as allowing or even encouraging the creation of new fringe benefits. Schemes were devised to replace a part of ordinary income with fringe benefits, especially fringe benefits in respect of housing subsidies and interest-free loans and loans at a low rate of interest which qualify for phasing in over seven years. The hon the Minister warned the House on 25 June 1984 that new schemes for the creation of tax benefits could not be allowed.

Although paragraph 14 of the proposed Second Schedule gives the Commissioner the discretion to approve housing subsidy schemes for the purposes of the phasing in over seven years of the tax payable on the benefit involved, it is desirable that the paragraph be amended to limit the phasing in, as far as possible, to employees under existing schemes. I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage in terms of which the phasing-in will be limited to schemes which had already been in operation on 28 March 1984, the date of the Budget.

I had intended to move a further amendment concerning people who join existing schemes after 1 March 1985. Upon further consideration it became clear that it might cause disparity in existing schemes and that it might encourage people to buy houses injudiciously before the specified date. The commission did not make any specific recommendations with regard to the question of the application of the phasing-out provisions to new members of existing schemes.

The implications which this would have for the Treasury did not form part of the commission’s terms of reference. I feel that both these matters require further attention. The Government therefore intends recommending to the State President that a similar commission be appointed to investigate this very aspect and any further aspects which may arise, and to report back at the earliest possible date. I should like to warn that, depending on the recommendations made by this commission, I shall not hesitate to propose suitable statutory amendments with retrospective effect in order to combat possible abuses.

Hon members have been provided with a full explanatory memorandum, so I do not consider it necessary to say any more about the provisions of the Bill. The hon the Minister announced certain consessions in his Budget speech, and the provisions which are necessary to give effect to these will be found in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, may I start by at the outset expressing our thanks to the commissioner for Inland Revenue for the very detailed explanatory memorandum which was furnished to us and also to place on record our appreciation for the co-operation which we received from the department in regard to the queries and problems which we direct to them, not only in respect of this legislation, but also in respect of other matters concerning tax. The image of a harsh and cruel Commissioner for Inland Revenue as is so often painted is, to some extent, a false one. It is actually a co-operative image. If the public will play the game with it they will find it is in fact a very helpful and understanding image. I believe that is something which perhaps we all should do, namely convey to the public at large that the function of the fiscus is to see that taxes are fairly collected and that as long as people play the game with the fiscus, the fiscus will play the game with them.

Secondly, I should like to join the hon the Deputy Minister in paying tribute to Mr Conradie, who acted as secretary to the Fringe Benefits Commission, as well as to the chairman of the commission, the present hon Deputy Minister of Agriculture, for the way in which he handled proceedings. I also pay tribute to both Mr Schweppenhäuser, the present Commissioner, and Mr Van der Walt, the previous Commissioner, for the work which they did in that particular commission. I should also like to express my thanks for the manner in which hon colleagues who served on that commission acted towards each other and for the way in which the affairs were conducted.

The hon the Deputy Minister will pardon me if I point out to him that that actually is an example of how consensus can work. Consensus is a word which is bandied about in this House to a large extent. I should like to recommend to the hon the Deputy Minister and his colleagues that he should actually find out what the word means. Consensus does not mean that the Opposition must agree to everything that the Government wants. It means also that the Government has to find merit in what Opposition people feel, and try to find a modus operandi for dealing with problems. One of the criticisms that we have is that whenever we oppose something, as for example the new Constitution, it is said that we are being obstructionists. However, when one indicates that one wants to make something work better and therefore makes an alternative suggestion, one is accused of not wanting consensus, and one has some rather minor politicking arising from it.

Consensus is not agreement with the Government.

Correct. Consensus means that people find agreement with each other. I will come back to the question of the Fringe Benefits Commission. I do, however, move as an amendment:

1. (1) to cut back on Government expenditure, in particular by removing unnecessary duplication in the bureaucracy;
2. (2) to safeguard and preserve the purchasing power of the currency of the Republic;
3. (3) to deal timeously with the job creation needs of an expanding population; and
4. (4) to remedy the impact of fiscal drag on taxpayers.”.

There are a number of matters which we cover here, and there is one in particular which I should like to deal with immediately. It is a matter that has arisen only in the last few days, namely the issue as to whether the taxation which is being asked for from the public of South Africa is adequate in order to meet the needs of the Budget, whether the Budget can be regarded as having been accurate, and whether the country is in a serious financial plight. I raise this issue because it is a matter of considerable importance. We have had a statement by the hon the Prime Minister recently in dealing with the increases for teachers, in which he said the following:

Later in the statement, on the decision to postpone the payment to next year, he says:

These are very serious statements because they indicate to the public at large that the Government is in so serious a financial plight that it cannot find R112 million in order to pay teachers’ salaries this financial year. I find this remarkable. We were told when the Budget was presented that it was accurate. When we cast doubts upon its accuracy and credibility, we were told that we were wrong and all sorts of rather dramatic remarks were made about our comments. Within a short time after that there was an announcement increasing sales tax, which would, it was said, provide another R800 million. We were also told that that money was not really necessary to finance the expenditure of the State but that it was necessary in order to deal with an economic position, particularly the current account of the balance of payments, and also to deal with the position relating to inflation in South Africa. So here we have R800 million; the R441 million from the profits of the sale of the Sasol shares are in the Reserve Bank—and we have never had an explanation in regard to that either—and then, suddenly, we have the Prime Minister of South Africa saying to the world at large that this mighty and powerful nation with all the resources that are available to us, the powerful financial power in Southern Africa, cannot find R56 million extra for two months running to pay the teachers whom, he says, are entitled to get that money. This needs an explanation.

Quite clearly, if in fact we are in these dire financial straits, we must be told. The country must be taken in the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance’s confidence and we must be told that we have to deal with this serious situation. However, with all due respect to the hon the Prime Minister, I venture to suggest that that is not the situation. I do not believe that despite what has happened in respect of the gold price and in regard to the rand, this country is so down and out that it cannot find R112 million to pay the teachers this year. I do not accept it. I think the money is there. I think, we are doing this in respect of the teachers because we do not want the additional purchasing power inside the economy. We do not want that purchasing power to be there to help the teachers in the fight against inflation and in order to deal with the situation concerning the current account of the balance of payments. The hon the Minister should tell us if this is the fact of the matter. He must, however, not tell us that we cannot afford it because we do not have the money. This brings us as a country into a discredit that I do not believe South Africa deserves. I think that somebody on the Government side should get up in this House at the earliest opportunity and tell us that it is not correct that we are so hard-up that we cannot afford R112 million. If, on the other hand, we are that hard-up, the hon the Minister should ask for an increase in taxation in this Bill. However, I do not believe that he either will or can, or that it would be justified.

I find it a most remarkable situation that here we have an Income Tax Bill; we are dealing with the taxation that is required for the country, and 48 hours before it is preceded by a plea to the teachers to wait until next year for an increase in their salaries because we do not have the money at this stage.

I am worried about my gratuity.

I want to assure the hon member for Langlaagte that if he retires tomorrow, I will underwrite it to ensure that his gratuity is paid.

I think one needs to be fair here. I do not believe that the recessionary conditions in South Africa could have come at a worse time for us. We have in the past few days dealt with constitutional measures, and there is no doubt that these measures need to be accompanied by social and economic change if we are to maintain stability. However, for social and economic change we need money. There has been a tendency to increase those taxes that are the easiest ones to put up. Take for example the two that we are continually having disputes about, GST and ad valorem duty. It is very easy to increase them. All that is to be done is to announce it, publish it in the Government Gazette and then get Parliament to ratify it. On top of dealing with these taxes, there is talk of a whole new series of taxes. The Minister of Finance elect will probably have the distinction of introducing capital gains tax in South Africa. I am not sure that it will be a distinction, but be that as it may, he may have that task. Other taxes which are talked about are employment tax, turnover tax and investment tax, and this is talked about at a time when we should rather be taking a look at other things.

On the other hand, nothing is being done about fiscal drag and taxpayers are in fact moving into higher tax brackets as their salaries increase, although not necessarily in real terms, as their salaries merely keeps pace with inflation. We should not forget that with Coloured and Indian members of Parliament, the pressure for the removal of discrimination in respect of the expenditure on social services will increase, and we also must not forget that Black expectations must be fulfilled to a reasonable measure if stability is to be maintained.

Pertinent issues will arise in respect of services which will continue to be provided by the State and those which can be left to the private sector. Pressure for more State expenditure may escalate under the new Constitution. What needs to be remembered, is that somebody must earn money before the Government can spend. Taxation should be of such a nature that it does not kill incentives. The easy way of merely increasing tax without considering the longer term implications, must be resisted. The imposition of new forms of taxation which might inhibit job creation and in the end not produce the income which is anticipated, should also be resisted.

Yesterday we dealt with the question of priorities in South Africa, with what is the function of the private sector and what is the function of the public sector. Even although we do not agree on the method of how it should be achieved, the reality is that there is agreement that it should be done. I also plead with the Government not merely to produce short-term ad hoc solutions, as appears to be the case at the moment, but to do long-term planning. They should not only deal with what should be the priorities of South Africa, but should look at how revenue is to be raised in order to pay for that which South Africa needs.

I want to put it to the hon the deputy Minister—and the Government as such—that this cannot be done if it is assessed by the Government alone. It will have to be done in co-operation with the private sector, those people who actually have to make the money which the Government will spend in time to come. I want to appeal to the Government for the institution of such a body or entity where the private sector is fully represented by capital, labour and the consumers. Consumers should be represented in the correct form and not in the way the hon the Deputy Minister suggested yesterday. They should co-operate in this form with the public sector to work out how the money will be raised to pay for the services which we need.

When one looks at this legislation, there are some other things to which one should apply one’s mind. A whole series of measures have been introduced relating to allowances for machinery. I want to appeal, through the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, to the hon the Minister of Finance that they should apply their minds to incentives to create jobs. Incentives should be created per job and not for machinery which is bought because the number of people employed and the number of stomachs which will be filled, will determine the stability. The concept of incentives for jobs to be created in South Africa, is a major priority.

When we come to the division between what should be done by the public sector and what should be done by the private sector I believe that the Government should look again at the question of what incentives there can be for housing. The question of what reductions there can be where people provide their own housing, and the question of the interest reduction which arises need to be looked at. We need to look at the question of what role the private sector can play in education and we need to have greater incentives for people who see to and pay for their own education in the future, because the Government has taken a policy decision in respect of free education with which I do not agree, but somehow or other, if one does have that, one has to have educational incentives whereby people spend money and that is deductable from the point of view o: taxation because it is in the interest of South Africa as a whole that everybody seeks to educate his children to the greatest extenpossible. Exactly the same applies to pensions. My colleague, the hon member for Edenvale, has pointed out repeatedly the problems that South Africa is going to face in regard to an ageing population. I believe that we should give greater incentives and that we should apply our minds to a greater extent to ensure that people make provision for their own old age.

Then the issue of savings arises. Savings are at a historical low in South Africa and what is remarkable is that at a time when the public savings are at a historical low nothing is being done in order to encourage the private man to save. It is very nice to get up and give advice and say that people should save when inflation is high and other conditions are bad, factors which negate that advice. What should be done is to give incentives to people in order to save, like for example, index linked “granny” bonds, in which case elderly people can with a limited amount of money invest in bonds which are index linked. They can be limited in amount and in respect of age so that there is no abuse of that by the very rich in South Africa. Those are the sort of incentives one needs in order to save in South Africa. Those are things which one regrettably, does not see present in this piece of proposed legislation before us.

The other matter which one cannot let pass without saying something about it is the question of separate taxation for married people. Every year we talk about it. We are told that it is being investigated but it goes on and on and on. I think that we should have some statement of intent. Perhaps another thing the new Minister of Finance can do for us is to give us his statement of intent in regard to separate taxation.

Will you pay more if your wife pays less?

I will pay more if my wife pays less; sure. However, what I want to say to the hon the Minister is that the whole question of separate taxation needs to be looked at carefully. It must not be rushed into the way in which the exemption for foodstuffs was rushed into in respect of GST. It has to be planned properly and analysed in every respect. We do not suddenly want to get a sweetener so that we can say that we have got what we wanted to get but it is introduced in a manner which we do not find satisfactory. We expect it to be planned properly. I want to give the hon the Deputy Minister, the Minister to be, an example. In terms of the present tax laws in the United Kingdom it only pays one to have separate taxation—I am referring to the present tax law as it has just been amended—if the joint income of the parties is £23 793 or more—that is a lot of money—and if the wife’s income is at least £6 388. At any kind of rate of exchange that is a lot of money. One will therefore have to look at this situation from the point of view of who will benefit, how one will benefit people and how one will structure it in regard to earned income and in regard to investment income. There is no point in leaving all the investment income with the husband and leaving the wife with none of her own investment income. The whole thing has to be examined carefully and we make an appeal that this longstanding issue of separate taxation should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

I now want to turn to the question of fringe benefits. The provisions with regard to fringe benefits which we have before us were designed in order to bring about a system where there would be a clear definition of what could be regarded as a fringe benefit so that the uncertainty could be removed and the discrimination between the public and the private sector could eventually disappear and there would be equality of treatment in respect of the whole issue of fringe benefits. It must be borne in mind that whether you earn something by way of cash or whether you earn it in a material form such as a fringe benefit, there really is no reason why there should be discrimination against the man who gets paid in cash as opposed to the man who gets paid in kind. I think that is a principle people have to accept. The commission tried to follow a number of principles. Firstly, it did not want to have a dramatic disruption of a system which has been in existence for a long time. It wanted to have a gradual change and I think we have achieved that. Secondly, it wanted to have equal treatment between the public and the private sector. Thirdly, it wanted to apply in general the principle that the benefit which was obtained was the benefit the employee got, so that even though it applied the principle of the cost of a benefit to the employer where there was in fact a lesser benefit to the employee, there should be an adaption in that respect.

How much longer are you going to talk?

I am going to talk for a long time.

The commission also tried to deal with cost effectiveness so that you do not have a lot of petty things which cause a lot of administrative costs which could otherwise be avoided. In other words, it wanted to make sure that the cost of collecting money was not going to be greater than the amount of money collected. It also tried to introduce a phasing-in benefit.

I do not intend to go into the benefits and into the question of fringe benefits, because it is there for all to see, but the one thing which disturbs me and in respect of which I am in accord with the hon the Deputy Minister and what he has said, is that whereas we have tried to provide for an easy phasing-in period and have tried to create certainty, there are people who now think that they can abuse this to the maximum extent possible. If that is done, I forecast that the authorities will take far stricter measures and will stamp it down. I want to issue a word of caution to all the smart alecks in the country who think that they can start new and wonderful schemes now that if they do so they are actually going to ruin the whole concept for everybody and are going to create a situation where the revenue authorities will be forced to take more stringent measures.

Well done, Harry!

Already that has happened in regard to housing subsidies and that is why I welcome what the hon the Deputy Minister has said, namely that if it is going to be abused, it will not only be ruined for the people who do receive housing benefits at the moment, but also in respect of ordinary and legitimate housing schemes in the future. I therefore feel that I must issue a word of caution. If the private sector plays the game and acts in a proper fashion in this regard, I think the new system can be beneficial to all concerned. If they do not play the game everybody is unfortunately going to suffer in the end.

I would like to say a few more words about a couple of provisions. I do not believe one can leave the question of close corporations alone, because it is a major development that has taken place. In this respect I would like to make an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister. I believe there should be a different rate of taxation for corporations which have a small income. In the United Kingdom a corporation with an income of less than £100 000 pays a lower rate of taxation. Using this system of close corporations, I believe that we should look at the whole situation of close corporations and private companies whose income is below a certain level with a view to taxing them at a lower rate, particularly now that company tax has gone up. I think that that needs very urgent attention.

I have relatively little time available to me. I want to say that one welcomes the relief that was granted in respect of provisional tax, the relief of deferred payment. Without it there would have been a grave problem. I would point out, however, that the 15% penalty is in fact an after-tax payment. The payment of a penalty for a late payment of tax is not expenditure incurred in the production of income. Therefore, the actual cost to the people concerned is substantially more. The 15% penalty is therefore a very heavy one. Where relief can be granted and a discretion in this connection can be exercised, I believe that such relief should be granted in cases where there was no wilful disobedience or wilful disregard.

As regards training allowances, I think that in that respect there was an abuse which had to be dealt with. I think, however, that the Government have overreacted. I think we are going to have to look at that again. The abuse must be stamped out, but I beleive that the Government have overreacted here and that something should be done in this connection. I also believe that the question of retraining personnel, particularly skilled personnel, needs to be dealt with. We did away with the post-graduate allowance for doctors. I think that that was wrong. I think we should in fact allow for it not only for the medical profession but also for other professions in order to ensure that people are always well-equipped and up to date with world developments.

There are many things in this Bill of which we approve and there are many others, as we have indicated, of which we do not approve, but, as we have indicated in the amendment, we believe, too, that there are a number of things that need to be done. Fiscal drag does need attention. It cannot be left aside. As regards job creation, I have asked for incentives in that respect. The purchasing power of the rand is causing concern to every South African and it will affect every South African because of the implications of a low rand to the country as a whole. That does not only affect the overseas travellers, but it affects every South African by reason of its effect on inflation. Nobody can convince me that a strong currency is not a sign of a strong economy. The US has a strong economy, so it has a strong currency. Countries with weak economies have weak currencies. We have to build up our currency.

Lastly, we believe that there needs to be a campaign to cut back on Government expenditure and to go through the whole bureaucracy to see where we can save. If the new Constitution is going to mean more and more duplication, we will in fact be in a very difficult position. I believe that we need to review the whole of Government expenditure to try to see to it that we keep down the bureaucracy as far as possible and make it as efficient as possible.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the request by the hon member for Yeoville that every taxpayer contribute his full share to the Treasury. I think that the time is past for the taxpayer to design methods to escape paying his contribution to the Treasury. Later I shall dwell on the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

The hon member for Yeoville vented his spleen about the availability or otherwise of Treasury funds, and he also dragged in the deferred payment to the teachers.

The teachers have shown that they have a far better understanding of the problems of South Africa than the hon member for Yeoville has. [Interjections.] The hon member kicked up a song and dance here about the fact that the Government is not already making the additional payment to the teachers. However, the teachers are happy and content, and therefore we on this side of the House would like to think the teachers for the understanding they have displayed in these negotiations and for the fact that they are leaving here as a satisfied corps of teachers who will carry on with the good work that they are performing in education. I should like to know from the hon member for Yeoville whether the monetary or fiscal position in South Africa today is the same as when this year’s budget was prepared and introduced. Surely a change has occured in our financial position. The question is whether in the present economic climate, as it is manifesting itself at the moment in the weakening of the rand as against the dollar and the drop in the gold price, we were able to afford not to increase personal tax, for example. Nevertheless it is cause for gratitude that this was not done. The ordinary man—the salary and wage earner as well as the small businessman—are, I believe, now feeling the tremendous pressure of the high prices due to the depressing inflation which is continuing to plague us.

Let us, therefore, accept the fact that we have reached a phase in our economy in which we shall have to economize considerably. It is not only the State—as the hon member for Yeoville said—that must economize; nor is it only the public sector. The manufacturer, the trader and everyone else will now have to apply financial discipline. People will no longer be able to look to their neighbour or to someone else to economize and to cut down. Everyone will have to review their own affairs without delay to determine whether they and their families can themselves say without hesitation that, in the first place, they will save to the maximum extent and that, in the second place, they are productive to the maximum extent. Therefore people will have to determine whether they as individuals are capable of contributing towards our surmounting our present difficulties. We must concede that those difficulties are considerable. Fortunately, however, they are not insoluble. We are not, therefore, in a disastrous situation.

What I am calling for, therefore, is a team effort by everyone in South Africa to counter this situation and surmount the difficulties. Everyone in South Africa will have to do his duty and make his contribution; the hon member for Yeoville as well.

If everyone is prepared to make specific sacrifices in the short term, we shall eventually overcome the problems, and everyone who took part in the effort to overcome our difficulties will be able to look back with gratitude in the knowledge that a better and finer future lies ahead.

In the time still at my disposal I want to refer to that part of the Bill that deals with the taxability of future benefits. Another colleague of mine on this side of the House will deal with the other matters.

In the first place I want to express my thanks for the privilege that I personally enjoyed of serving on the committee. It was really a privilege and a pleasant experience to be a member of the commission. However, I also wish to convey my sincere congratulations and thanks on behalf of hon members of this side of the House and, I believe, on behalf of the commissioners who were hon members of this side of the House, to the hon the Minister of Agriculture, who acted as chairman of the commission. His patience, insight and ability to negotiate, as well as his willingness to listen to each of us, made him an outstanding chairman. It was a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the commission under his chairmanship and we on this side of the House would like to convey our cordial thanks to him on behalf of all the commissioners.

I also wish to thank, on behalf of all of us, the officials who assisted us in this regard. You will, I am sure, permit me to single out in this regard the name of Mr Outie Conradie who acted as secretary of the commission and who did outstanding and neat work.

I want to begin at once by saying that whether or not to tax fringe benefits was an issue that did not fall within the terms of reference of the commission. The principle that all benefits accruing to the employee must be taxed, has for long, indeed has always, been part of the tax structure. The commission’s terms of reference were to establish simple rules or provisions whereby to determine the values of fringe benefits; in other words, a specific value had to be attached to each benefit.

There is a second important principle which the commission considered, and that is that everyone must be assured of equal treatment. No exceptions are made in respect of groups or categories of people as regards the determining of values. I wish to repeat that everyone is treated equally.

For the sake of the record I just wish to mention briefly what may be regarded as fring benefits or are to be regarded as taxable benefits and have to be included to determine the gross income. In the First instance, there is the case of an employer giving his employee an asset at less than its true value. Here we have in mind, for example, supplies which a trader lets his employee have at a price lower than the price the trader paid for it. The second benefit that may accrue to an employee is the right of use of an asset of the employer which is given to the employee to use at will. However, I shall provisionally exclude accommodation and motor vehicles, because I shall be referring to them shortly. In this regard one could also consider the example of a television set made available by the employer to the employee for his own use.

What about a girl?

Mr Speaker, a girl is not an asset but a liability. [Interjections.] Particularly as far as the hon member for Stilfontein is concerned, in many instances a girl is a liability. [Interjections.]

Order! What clause is the hon member discussing now?

Mr Speaker, as far as the hon member for Stilfontein is concerned, she is a fringe benefit, but I contend that that is not so.

A third example is meals or refreshments. There has been the unfortunate phenomenon that an employee say, issues to his employees a meal coupon with a nominal value, and those coupons are always available and can be exchanged for cash. A further example is free or cheap services such as travel facilities to go on holiday—a wonderful overseas holiday whereby the employee enjoys a holiday at the expense of the employer, and this becomes part of his salary package. Then, too, there is the example of the credit card in the possession of the employee who can buy on it at will, while the account is paid by the employer.

As far as the use of cars is concerned, we have two categories in particular. In the first instance there is the employee who is given posession of a car belonging to the employer for use for his own personal and business purposes. For example there is the director of a company who gets a so-called company car which he can use at will. Here the commission proceeded on the assumption that such a person may travel 10 000 km per annum for own use, and according to that a scale was worked out which is calculated in accordance with the value of the motor vehicle. We find it in the second schedule on page 78 of the Bill.

The second possibility with regard to motor vehicles is the so-called scheme motor vehicle. Here the employee obtains an allowance by deducting 10 000 km from the actual number of kilometres travelled multiplied by an accepted tariff per kilometre. This amount is then deducted from the allowance and this then gives one the taxable value.

Let me point out, incidentally, that the hon members with larger constituencies will, of course, be allowed larger deductions in this regard. [Interjections.]

In now come to accommodation as a fringe benefit. I should like to dwell on this for a moment. We are grateful for having been able to negotiate on the commission—and here I should like to include the hon member for Verwoerdburg who, as a good Pretorian, was able to negotiate together with us—that a phasing-out period of seven years be accepted so that the employee is given time to adjust to the taxability of subsidies and loans.

Here we have in mind in particular the public servant as such. I share the concern of the hon the Deputy Minister that these provisions may be seen as a so-called loophole in the legislation and that the phasing-out period will be used as an opening by establishing a scheme all of a sudden and then making use of the phasing-out period of seven years.

Therefore we take pleasure in supporting the proposed amendment wherby provision is being made that new schemes do not spring up like mushrooms at this stage, and we also support the cut-off date of 28 March 1984.

As far as the existing schemes are concerned, I am truly grateful and I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for having seen his way clear to referring the principle of phasing-out back to a commission in order to investigate the whole matter. I think it is necessary to take another look at this, because a disparity could arise which we could not justify to ourselves. I greatly appreciate the patience that the hon the Deputy Minister displayed towards me in this regard, and I thank him.

As far as free houses are concerned, the formula of salary minus R20 000 multiplied by the 15%, 16% or 17%, depending on what kind of housing it is and after bringing it into line with the number of months in the year, comes into effect. As far as free accommodation is concerned, I want to say that this is definitely essential and it is chiefly working conditions that make it necessary for an employee to make use of such housing. That is the reason for the built-in R20 000 discount.

I believe that house ownership in South African is a high priority and must be encouraged. The person who does not possess a home of his own cannot be a winner. Therefore, my plea today is for sustained efforts on the part of the employer, but also on the part of the employee himself, to put everything into the struggle to obtain a house of his own.

There are a few more fringe benefits to which I could refer, for example the so called travel and subsistence cost in regard to which and amount of R100 per day, if the employer does not pay an allowance, and R50 per day if the employee receives an allowance or derives a benefit from it, may be claimed as a deduction. This matter is not set out in the second schedule, but is covered by clause 5(l)(c), which amends section 8 of the principal Act in this regard.

I do not wish to elaborate further on what may be regarded as fringe benefits. I think that the principle accepted here—that a value is now being placed on such compensation additional to a normal salary—is a very sound one. I sincerely hope that the employer will not negotiate other methods to exploit this whole situation and establish other schemes and stipulations in order to put his employee into a position different to giving him a normal cash salary. I think that if we could achieve that situation in South Africa, then this commission will have performed a considerable task. We therefore take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, in my speech I shall come back to the hon member for Gezina. However, I first wish to move as a further amendment:

1. (1) the revenue received for the 1984-85 financial year will not be used for any purposes other than those budgeted for and approved by Parliament;
2. (2) the teachers will not be taxed at a higher rate on the increased salaries for October and November 1984, which will only be paid out in April and May 1985, than that at which they would be taxed if the increases were paid out in October and November 1984; and
3. (3) taxation will not be further increased during the 1984-85 financial year.”.

The hon the Deputy Minister will concede that since he became Deputy Minister I have not been cattish with him. I do not wish to make apologies, but the hon the Deputy Minister is a gracious person and I think he is a competent man in his field. In the field of finance that he is at present engaged in, a difficult road lies ahead for him. However, he has developed a custom and a tradition of telling me on every occasion that I have not done my homework. The hon the Deputy Minister keeps saying that I must first go and take another look and do my homework before advancing any objections. Last night I promised the hon the Deputy Minister that we would discuss homework a little. The hon the Deputy Minister is sitting here and he has not done is homework. The hon the Deputy Minister deliberately tried to create the impression that he had in fact done so, but let us see what has happened in respect of these things.

Today it is 12 July. Never since 1910 have we sat so long in this Parliament. We know that it is customary towards the end of the sitting that the financial Bills come before this House.

I want to quote the hon the Deputy Minister so that he cannot say that he did not do so. On 28 June 1984 he said (Hansard, col 10093):

In a moment I shall show the hon the Deputy Minister how this economy has slumped. The hon the Deputy Minister did not produce the true facts.

The utilization of industrial capacity of 86% was an average, but the hon the Deputy Minister omitted to tell this House that this was the case after a large number of companies, factories, etc, had gone bankrupt and were no longer producing. The average utilization of industrial capacity of the remaining companies and factories was 86%. Surely that represents a slump in the economy.

I received the Income Tax Bill on 2 July. It comprises 140 foolscap pages. This is a bulky Bill and it is a major piece of work. On 4 July I received the explanatory memorandum and the roneoed document, a bulky document of 70 pages. I received this in my postbox at about 5.30 on the afternoon of 4 July. [Interjections.] Between 6.15 and 6.20 the same evening, the hon the Chief Whip of the NP asked me whether we could discuss the legislation the following morning. I am not criticizing the hon the Chief Whip. He is trying to get the legislation finalized, but he could not get the hon the Deputy Minister moving. He sits there and he does not do his homework. What happened then I said to the hon the Chief Whip that we could not do so, and fortunately he listened to reason. We were to have discussed the legislation the following day, 5 July. Of course we began sitting at 11 that morning. On that day on which we were to have discussed the Bill, hon members would have received the printed Bill for the first time. At twenty minutes past 12 on 7 July the printed Bill was placed on the benches of hon members in this House, and that after the hon the Chief Whip had initially thought that we could begin discussing the legislation earlier that morning. The hon the Deputy Minister is not interested in a good piece of legislation. They wanted to bulldoze the legislation through, like the Constitution. Whether or not hon members are acquainted with what is stated in the Bill makes no difference to the hon the Deputy Minister. He is not interested in that. He does not do his homework. At 9 minutes past 3, on 10 July, the explanatory memorandum was handed out in this House. That is the work of the hon the Deputy Minister who does not do his homework. [Interjections.] The officials did good work. They do outstanding work. However, they are unable to do their work properly if their political chief, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, does not do his homework. [Interjections.]

Before going further, I just wish to make a few other remarks. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance himself served on the commission of investigation into fringe benefits. The report was signed on 20 August 1983. Therefore, from that date onwards the hon the Deputy Minister had time, and decisions could have been taken and the department instructed to proceed to put this tax into operation. However, the hon the Deputy Minister does not do his homework.

The hon the Deputy Minister wanted us to rush this Bill through the House. The Income Tax Act is a bulky document.

Are you going to read it all?

At least I did not write to the women teachers to determine what their attitude is and to intimidate them, as the hon member for Rustenburg does. [Interjections.] After all, that hon member intimidates the women teachers instead of doing his homework.

The Income Tax Act was consolidated in 1962, Act No 58 of 1962. Since then there have been 25 amendments to the Act. Moreover, there are six other Acts which have not been repealed in their entirety and totally consolidated because certain sections have been retained. This is in fact logical. The Income Tax Act, as amended to date, comprises 154 pages. It is 45 cm thick … Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of National Education is sitting there smiling in his bench he should rather look after his teachers. He should rather spend less time suppressing Sabra and rather see to the maintenance of the culture of the Whites instead of trampling it underfoot.

To the left of me sits the hon member for Benoni. He is a member who is skilled in summaries, in abbreviating matters. Does the hon Deputy Minister not want to ask him to abbreviate this legislation as well?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member discussing the Bill or not?

But the hon member is asking for the legislation to be shortened. The hon member may therefore proceed, but he must not make references to so many hon members.

Sir, I think that the hon member for Benoni would like to tackle such a task. All he needs is to be instructed to do so by the hon the Deputy Minister. However, the hon the Deputy Minister is so concerned about other things that he will not be able to give the hon member for Benoni an instruction of that nature.

At this stage I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister the provisional payment that companies have to make. I regard this as a very important matter. At present all companies have to make two payments in the course of a financial year; one six months after the start of the financial year and the second at the end of a financial year. It is specified that when they make their final payment they must not be less than 90% out in comparison with the final assessment. On the other hand, if they make an overpayment, it may not be less than the assessment of the previous year. The Bill before us is now changing the situation and requires a third payment to be made six months after the end of the financial year. For example, if the financial year ends on 30 June they can make a third payment before 31 December. Here, too, the provision applies that the final estimate must be within 90% of the real taxable amount which will later be finalized. An additional provision is now being inserted to the effect that if the estimate is not within 90% of the final taxable income, 15% interest will be levied up to the date on which a final calculation is made. Say for example a company submits its return on 31 December 1984 and has made a mistake in one of its calculations, so that its estimate is only 80% of the final calculation. Say the department takes four to five years to assess this company. This may happen and problems may arise in this regard, either in the company or with regard to the department. We know that the department is having staff problems, but I need not elaborate on that. Those people work very hard. The matter may drag on and it could for example take four years, and that could mean that one would have to pay 15% interest for the entire period. That is wrong. The hon the Deputy Minister must investigate my proposal and amend these provisions.

Towards the end of a financial year companies can never finally calculate their tax returns. Usually an application is made to the Receiver of Revenue for postponement and this is granted. As companies do their audit and finalize accounts, the third payment is not made on 31 December of any year. The final cheque is attached to the IB 12 form together with finalized statements. When companies obtain postponement to 31 December it may happen that a company will allow everything to accumulate before a third payment is made. If the final payment can be made and the statements are submitted without that specific form being attached, a problem may arise. It is only in exceptional cases that the Receiver of Revenue permits further deferments. The general rule is that this is not granted for longer than 11 months. In other words, if the financial year ends on 30 June, the company has until 31 May the following year to submit the final return. If the returns may be submitted together with the third payment the State will receive far more money and the money will be obtained on a far more regular basis, because as companies’ accounts are audited and finalized, cheques will be sent. Many problems are encountered in finalizing the audits of companies. There are people in the department who prefer this system, and it will suit the State and all of us.

A company cannot make a final or good estimate on 30 June. As an example I want to refer to stock. A large company may have stock valued at millions of rand. The stock has to be valued, and the auditors perform random tests but they cannot check everything. Reference has been made to the “last in first out” method of valuation, but I am not so concerned about the valuation of stock. For example, if farmers select a system, they keep to it. It is only in the returns of the very first year that a difference may occur, because the closing stock of the one year is the opening stock of the next. In the first year stocks may have been undervalued and this may then be transferred. Therefore the taxability of such a person is carried over by a year and from then on it runs evenly and there will be no large difference. Therefore this will only happen in the first year.

When this system was introduced some years ago a “tax holiday” of eight months was introduced. This “holiday” must be provided so that the system can work smoothly.

The other major problem concerns the auditors. In point of fact, large auditing companies only do audits, and when they are only concerned with audits they can be finalised. However, there are not many large auditing firms in this country. The majority are medium-sized and smaller firms, and that is where the problem lies. They do not have a sufficient number of trained staff. Another problem encountered in all auditing firms is that clerks are called up for military service. I myself have encountered this problem. My firm was not a very large one, and three of my articled clerks had to perform military service. As a result some of the senior people had to perform the junior work, because the clerks could not be dismissed as they had to go and perform military service. The accounting profession is contributing its share, just as all other businessmen are doing. Now, let me tell you that the medium and smaller auditing firms are the people who have to do much of the writing-up of books for firms. In addition, it must be taken into account that the bottleneck is sometimes with them and not with the companies.

Therefore I want to request the hon the Deputy Minister to consider this matter with a view to distributing it across 11 months so that the cheques go with it. The hon the Deputy Minister would be amazed at the result he would achieve.

Mr Chairman, I now wish to turn to the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville. Interjections.] The disaster is that the hon the Deputy Minister is going to accept this amendment. [Interjections.] Let us consider State expenditure. I now come back to the hon member for Gezina. The hon member for Gezina said that the people must econ omize and so on, and I agree with that. However, how can one save in this country today when prices rise as they are doing? One can do as one likes, but the prices are skyrocketing. It is true that if one lacks the savings, capital cannot accumulate. It is the savings of the ordinary man with which capital is built up so that the country can grow. Mr Chairman, we cannot permit inflation to destroy everything. The reason for the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville is to show the hon the Deputy Minister what can be done to combat inflation. I think that all of us want to combat inflation. Now I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister: There is one method and that is for the authorities and the private sector to co-operate. In addition it is necessary to have the goodwill and co-operation of the public. However, what have the authorities done with the private sector? I could mention Assocom, FCI and AHI, for example. After all, there have been such discussions. There was the anti-inflation campaign, etcetera. Have the authorities taken the hand of the private sector and taken it with them, or have they left it in the lurch?

We took them along with us.

You say you took them along with you. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to spell out to us in the course of his reply—the private sector will know—what the authorities have done to help combat inflation. Another point is overexpenditure by the State. In the first quarter of this year the State spent 25% more than in the corresponding quarter of 1983, whereas it should have economized and cut down. Then the people always ask me: What expenditure must be pruned—expenditure on defence or the salaries of teachers? When the State wants to prune expenditure it must not cut down on one item alone, but must cut down across the whole spectrum so that everyone can make a contribution.

And how many job opportunities do you create in that way?

I shall get to that. [Interjections.] After all if everyone does his share one will combat inflation and break its neck, but the State must not permit runaway inflation to occur.

With reference to my own amendment I wish to discuss the teachers briefly. I have never before known the State to be able to tell the world that it is bankrupt. That is what this issue of the salaries of the teachers

Oh come on now, Oom Jan. That is merely a matter of good budgeting.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister says that that is good budgeting.

No, I say it is good practice first to budget before one hands it out.

You must budget well. From 1981 the teachers have been kept on a string and they have been “pumped”.

They have been given increases every year.

Yes, their normal salary increases, but not like the Public Servants, who received increases from 1 January. At the time the teachers were told that they would receive increases from 1 December. I shall come to the hon member for Stil fontein in a moment. There is a matter I should just like to clear up with him as well. I think I shall do so now. After all, the hon member for Stilfontein is a man who does not care how he uses the State’s telephones and wastes other people’s time. He is a man who in 1982 told us with pleasure about the competition he had with a man in Paris and how he sat waiting until half past twelve every night and then telephoned him.

Order! Is the hon member still dealing with the Bill?

The State pays money to enable a member of Parliament to telephone people at half-past twelve in the morning merely to irritate them. I do not think it is fitting for a member to do that, particularly not the hon member for Stilfontein.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon member falsely accuse me of wasting the State’s money by making telephone calls late at night, when in fact I used my private telephone and paid for it myself?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

The amendment I wish to move contains a request to the hon the Deputy Minister. When the teachers have to submit their tax returns on 28 February, they are provisional taxpayers. The salary adjustments have been announced and the extra money is due to them. Are teachers to be compelled to be accountable for tax on that up to 28 February, or will the situation be clearly stated in this regard? At present it is not at all clear what the situation is going to be, and I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to give us finality in this regard. Teachers ought not to pay tax on money which they are not going to receive before 28 February. If it is not going to be necessary for them to do that, then the hon the Minister must state it clearly so that the teachers and everyone in the country may know it. They will then know that they will only pay tax on it when they receive the money the following year.

There is a second aspect which is related to this. It can now be said that up to 28 February 1985 the teachers will not pay tax—call it provisional tax—on their adjustments, but that they will be taxable after 28 February 1985. As a result of the large cheque which teachers will receive then, it may happen that they will fall into a higher tax category and will have to pay a great deal more tax. Will the hon the Deputy Minister see to it that they are fairly treated?

That is a very good question.

I think that everyone is interested in this and I should be greatly obliged if the hon the Deputy Minister could clear this matter up for us in this debate.

I hope that income tax is not going to be increased again this year. On 9 April this year the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill was agreed to in this House. At the time the hon the Minister of Finance told us that this was a good budget and that the Minister of Finance designate would probably also agree with it. I now just hope that the future Minister of Finance is not going to introduce such budgets. We shall see what happens. About six weeks after that date, general sales tax was increased to 10%, and no one can tell me that during that period something happened that was so drastic that due provision could not have been made for it in the Budget. Why is the value of the rand dropping to such an extent? It is due to the lack of confidence in this Government. People do not have confidence in the Government. The by-election in Potgietersrus showed that people have no confidence in the Government.

Why are the yen and the German mark dropping?

The hon the Minister of Finance paid a visit overseas and on his return told us that he had had a good tour but had not wanted to negotiate loans because South Africa could obtain them later at better tariffs. What happened? Why did the hon the Minister of Finance have to go overseas again so suddenly to borrow £40 million? Was this a good loan that was negotiated? Did we negotiate a good interest rate? I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us that.

In the light of all the taxes that are being levied, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us whether the Government has already obtained all the loans that the Government had in mind. Or will it have to increase tax again? In this regard the Government will have to comply with the rules of the International Monetary Fund. Will the Government be able to confine itself to the limits laid down or not? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for the explanatory memorandum, which is very detailed indeed. I also want to thank him for ensuring that the finance speakers obtained typewritten copies well before the actual printed copies became available to ensure that they would have enough time to study both the Bill and the explanatory memorandum. We are very appreciative of that.

Much has already been said by all the speakers about the state of the economy. The position of the rand has also been referred to by some hon members. I was very pleased indeed to hear a number of hon members speak of the need for us to tighten our belts. The hon member for Gezina in fact dwelt on this at some length, saying that in order to overcome the financial problems facing us each individual must do his duty. I am sure that we all agree with him in that regard. He said we must tighten our belts. In fact, the outgoing Minister of Finance said exactly the same thing on television the other night. He promised that he was going to tighten his belt as well. We should indeed do that if one considers the state of the economy today and the position of the rand relative to other currencies.

In The Natal Mercury of 6 July, under the headline “World Currencies in headlong Retreat”, one finds that it is not only the rand that has been suffering but also the Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar. It showed that they had dropped quite considerably over the last few weeks.

What really interested me was that, when I compared the exchange rates of the South African rand, the Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar with the American dollar, I found to my surprise that, whereas a few years ago the South African rand was much higher in value than the Australian dollar and the Canadian dollar, today we are trailing a very bad third. I was in the United I States in 1980 and I can recall that we got about $1,20 for one rand. At that time I flew up to Canada and found that I also got a premium on the American dollar in Canada, which meant that, relative to the Canadian dollar, the South African rand had a far greater value. Similarly, some years ago, when I was in Australia, I found that the South African rand bought about $1,20 of Australian currency. However, I read in the paper to which I referred that the Australian dollar closed at 84,85 US cents, the Canadian dollar at 75,19 US cents and the South African rand at 69,32 US cents. I think that these are very significant figures because hon members on the Government side often point to our economy relative to that of other countries and say how well we are doing. The facts are, however, that the South African economy, relative to that of other countries, countries smaller than, let us say, the US and some of the big European countries …

And they do not have gold.

Yes, they do not have gold, as my colleague says. In any event, relative to those, we are getting poorer in South Africa. This is something we all have to take cognizance of. It is for this reason that I am pleased to hear the hon member for Gezina say that we have to tighten our belts and to hear the hon Minister Horwood say that he too is going to tighten his belt.

It is, however, not only the individuals who owe it to South African to tighten their belts. The State must also tighten its belt.

I have consistently, over the last two years, talked about the need to curb State expenditure. I did indeed do so during the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and also during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. I even suggested that each department should receive an instruction from the hon the Prime Minister or the hon the Minister of Finance to reduce their expenditure by 10%. During the debate we had on GST I also referred to certain aspects of this. I did ask the hon member for Springs to make sure that he is in the House today. He is, however, not present here. I spoke to him earlier today and he promised me he would be here. Nevertheless, I want to refer to a speech he delivered in the House on 28 June. Referring to me he said I had pointed out that the State was spending too much money on uneconomical things. He said I had made a similar statement in a previous debate, and he then went on to challenge me to tell the House specifically where the State should save that 10%.

Well, Mr Speaker, I have now risen to that challenge, and I stand here today to tell the hon member for Springs how the State can cut expenditure. I believe the first way in which the State can cut expenditure is exactly the same way in which the individual—to whom the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon member for Gezina have referred—should cut expenditure. That is namely by pulling in the belt. In order to achieve this one has to have the correct attitude and the correct frame of mind. If one is a farmer, a businessman or a housewife struggling with rising costs and a diminishing income, what does one do?

Tell us what you will do.

I am going to do just that. The hon member for Roodeplaat should just exercise some degree of patience. [Interjections.] The first thing one must have is the very thing the hon member for Roodeplaat does not have. That is the correct attitude. He says: I am OK. I am so self satisfied. I can do everything right. [Interjections.] The first thing, however, is that the hon member for Roodeplaat should change his attitude. [Interjections.] The question of course that I ask is whether he has tried to do so. I also put it to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance. Have hon Ministers of the Cabinet and have the Directors General—let us face it, Mr Speaker, they are some of the highest paid people in South Africa—really applied their minds to deciding to do exactly what every businessman, every farmer and every other individual in South Africa is doing today? There are many savings to be made. Everybody who has been involved in a situation such as this before and who has had to survive knows that a tight budget is important.

The reason why I address myself to the hon member for Roodeplaat is that it appears that he is going to follow me in this debate. I want to issue a challenge to him. By the way, I see the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs sitting here in the House. I am indeed very delighted to see him here. I want to know from both the hon member for Roodeplaat and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs whether it was indeed necessary to grant a contract for nearly R250 000 to publicize the opening of toll roads. Was that indeed necessary? R250 000 was spent…

On whom?

The hon member wants to know on whom. [Interjections.] Yes, Dr Jan Marais of Marais, Kirkpatrick and Associates, a firm of public relations people. When the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs talks about savings, I must concede that that hon Minister and the staff of the SATS have done a very good job. They did a very good job last year by cutting the expenditure of SATS. I should like to recommend that the hon member for Roodeplaat should talk to them in order to find out how they accomplished that. He may then be able to understand what I am actually getting at. Was it necessary, however, to spend R250 000 on publicizing the opening of toll roads? Was it necessary for the officials and their wives to spend R8 000 for an overnight stay at a hotel in Port Elizabeth? Was that necessary? [Interjections.]

You see, Mr Speaker, the first thing one has to do is keep a tight rein on one’s expenditure and find out what people are doing with money.

Let us look now at the State’s wages and salary bills. Some very, very interesting articles in connection with these have appeared in various publications in recent times. I have photocopies of some of them, which I should like to send to the hon the Deputy Minister. I had also intended to send some of these to the hon member for Springs. However, in The Sunday Times of 12 February this year there appeared an article in which the following was said:

Next to this article appeared a cartoon depicting an official all tied up in red tape, looking with a lot of self satisfaction—completely as the hon member for Roodeplaat does—at a little plaque on his desk saying: “subsidized housing, pension, job security, market related salary”. He is absolutely bound up in red tape. Read it to find out, Sir, that some of these Directors-General are earning close to R100 000 per annum with all their perks. As such, they should be some of the top administrators in South Africa, and they should be handling the biggest budget South Africa has ever had right now in such a way as to ensure that we survive the difficult economic times we are experiencing.

An article in The Sunday Times of 1 July states, inter alia: “Awesome tasks face Du Plessis”, the Minister of Finance-elect. He knows it. Here is a table showing the increase in spending by the State on the basis of Budget versus the actual figures. One finds here that this Cabinet has never stuck to its Budget since 1976-77. Every year they have overshot their Budget.

Do you think that is possible?

Yes. Those of us who are in business and the housewives who are combating the economic problems today have to stay within our budgets, and in order to do so we have to trim expenses where necessary. However, the interesting thing in this table is the percentage growth in total remuneration. As far as a comparison between the State and the private sector is concerned one finds that the annual increase in expenditure on remuneration by the State has consistently been several percentage points ahead of that of the private sector. When one is seeking to trim expenditure, one has to see where one can effect some savings. As I have said, I believe that this requires a certain attitude of mind. It is very easy to spend money but it is very difficult to save. That is the difference. As the hon the Minister of Education and Training said the other evening on television, when each of us goes home at the end of our day’s work, we have to ask ourselves whether we have earned our money. This was a very telling statement he made, and I sincerely hope that he takes that attitude into the Public Service and into the Cabinet.

Tell us about the Bill.

We are talking about taxation, my friend, and it is your party that keeps calling for more and more State spending just as your finance spokesman did today. I am discussing this Bill which is going to tax South Africans even more. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springs is not here but I have here with me some correspondence from a constituent of mine dealing with the subsidies paid by the State to State employees in respect of interest rates on housing. I have made a few inquiries in this regard to the extent that I have studied the State housing subsidy scheme. When we are looking to cut down State expenditure then I want to read what this person says because I intend taking the matter up with the Commission for Administration. In referring to an employee of a quasi-State organization, he says:

This matter bears investigating. Perhaps this man has his facts wrong but when one looks at the amount of money the State is paying in respect of subsidized housing and with a view to the fact that the SATS alone have spent an amount of R1 500 million in this respect, I believe we should take a good look at what this subsidy is costing the State and the tax-payer. These are all large items but there is an old saying to the effect that if one looks after the pennies then the pounds will take care of themselves.

We MPs get all sorts of bumf, as some people call it, through the mail. I received this large envelope here from the Airforce newspaper, mailed in Pinetown. As hon members can see, this is a pretty big envelope. However, inside was this small paper. I should like to know why in heaven’s name this small paper was put into this very large envelope. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we get reports from the Transvaal Education Department. We get 12 at a time in one envelope. I am from Natal, and why, in heaven’s name the Transvaal Provincial Administration sends me, an MP from Natal, 12 copies of their little book, I shall never know. There was a time when the old Department of Information sent out copies of Ministers’ speeches. Some of us may remember that we got 10 or 11 copies of any one of those speeches in one envelope. Why? Because perhaps the public official likes to tell his boss what a wonderful job he is doing because he has distributed so many items of these and therefore he puts 10 to 12 copies into one envelope. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon members for Springs and Roodeplaat that they are too self-satisfied. They should have a change of attitude and it is absolutely essential if we are to curb inflation.

It is not only South Africa which is battling under these problems. The economic chips are down throughout the world today. The United Kingdom has had a fight with it. They have reduced their inflation rate to 3,5%. The United States have reduced their inflation rate to something like 5%. Reading in Time of 5 March 1984, I found an article referring to the Congressional Budget Office, who investigated how the States could reduce their expenditure. They came up with 98 possibilities, one of which, viz, limiting cost of living adjustments for Social Security recipients and railroad retirees to two-thirds of the increase in the CPI instead of the present 100%, $43,6 billion off their budget. I have photostat copies of these to send to the hon members because I believe they should read some of these in order to realize what can be done.

Just to show what other nations are doing in trying to face up to the economic realities of their countries, I want to say in Time magazine of 23 January there appears a report concerning the Netherlands. It is headed “Ruud Shock” and it reads:

This was at a time when Margaret Thatcher was visiting him. It says:

It then goes on:

Facing the new Constitution, facing the rising aspirations of our people, I say that this Government has to change its attitudes. Therefore, seeing that the measure before us is going to extract still further taxes from the hard taxed South Africans, I move as a further amendment:

1. (1) lower rates of normal tax payable; and
2. (2) a significant lowering of the existing maximum rate of tax of 50 per cent,

thereby, inter alia—

1. (a) alleviating the ravages of inflation and fiscal drag on personal incomes;
2. (b) creating a disincentive for high income earners to search for still further tax loopholes and tax shelters in order to avoid paying the high rate of tax; and
3. (c) creating an incentive for South Africa’s work force to earn higher incomes through higher productivity.”.

What is my amendment all about? We welcome the clauses which remove the anomalies in the present legislation. Here I am referring to clauses 11 and 14. We welcome those clauses which remove some of the abuses which have taken place in respect of training allowances. Here I refer to clause 13. I also refer to clause 21 which deals with incentive allowances. There are also the clauses concerning trading stock allowances. We welcome those clauses which clearly identify the taxes on fringe benefits. But, Mr Speaker, because these clauses are going to result in a more equitable taxation system in South Africa it must also result in more money going into the coffers of the fiscus. We also believe that the hon the Minister should at the same time lower the rate of income tax for a number of reasons. For one thing, it would have alleviated the ravages of inflation and it would have removed the fiscal drag element that exists in our present tax table. However, more important still, it would have reduced the incentives for high income earners to search for further tax loop-holes. I believe that some years ago it was stated that if the USA could reduce its maximum level of taxation to 35%, they would, by doing that, remove the incentive to high income earners to look for tax shelters. When someone is paying tax at a very high rate he may be prepared to pay 50 cents in a dollar in order to save six cents on the dollar in tax.

Tell us something more about the 10%. You have only mentioned a quarter of a million so far.

Mr Speaker, as long as that hon member sits in that seat with that attitude, this Government will never get down to the basic economic facts of life. I refuse to talk to that hon member. At the present moment millions of rands are being spent by high income earners investing in things that they really do not want to invest in, for instance, employing attorneys and accountants like that hon member to try to find ways to save tax.

I would not employ him as an attorney.

I am an advocate.

Or as an advocate. I would not employ that hon member anyway. Mr Speaker, they employ these professional men to try to save paying tax and this is the message that I have put through to the hon the Deputy Minister: In order to have greater acceptance of the taxation of fringe benefits he should have lowered the rates on the taxation table and he should have brought the maximum amount below 50%. By doing this he would have created an incentive amongst our workers to work harder. Who wants to work harder when the taxman takes half of everything one earns?

Before I sit down, I want to talk about the new tax on fringe benefits. I sat on that commission and I want to compliment the chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, for his chairmanship and also Mr Conradie and Mr Schweppenhäuser who worked together with us on this commission. Mr Speaker, I said yesterday: Thank the Lord that we have introduced fringe benefit tax. However, I want a message to go out to the people of South Africa: This is a tax which will not tax the ordinary man. This is a tax to tax those people who have been abusing the tax laws. A certain colleague of mine was asked by a large company to look into the remuneration packages of his firm in order to attract people to come and work for them. They sought the advice of Senior Counsel on the tax laws and in the end what they gave these employees was holidays overseas with their wives, travelling first class plus all accommodation paid for the holiday period which was supposedly a business trip. They even imported Ferrari motorcars so that they could use these cars and after three years took over the car or they could sell it at a capital profit. I believe that these so-called perks, which to my mind constitute an extravagant waste of valuable money, will have to be reduced to the extent that they fit into the overall value system in South Africa. Subsidized housing loans have pushed up the price of houses in South Africa and it has caused them to sky-rocket purely because over the past few years, the State and the private sector have pumped in billions of rands into cheap housing loans.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 74.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the reasons hon members advanced to show why they wanted this Bill negatived. The hon member for Yeoville was opposed to the duplication of costs in the Public Service and the fact that too much money was being spent on the maintenance of a bureaucracy. We have a system which has its origin in history and which has been in use for many years. This is not a matter that one can eliminate with a stroke of the pen. This aspect, as well as the aspect of the new dispensation which is related to this, is, moreover, a matter that has been agreed to by the voters of this country. It is a system that must be implemented. I want to say to the hon member that whatever system is followed in this country, one will not be able to get away from that, because in terms of PFP policy there would be more duplication. In terms of the federal policy of the PFP, in accordance with which smaller rather than larger units would have to be established, there would be still more duplication.

The hon member referred to the dwindling buying power of the rand. The hon member for Sunnyside and the hon member for Amanzimtoti also referred to that. This does, of course, cause us concern. Nor is it impossible to take drastic steps to deal with it. Then, however, one must be prepared to bring one’s economy to a standstill by way of higher taxes, higher interest rates and artificial measures of control which, in turn, will exert pressure on other aspects of the economy.

Various hon members referred to the issue of the creation of employment. We all agree that this is an extremely important facet of our economy and an extremely important priority. The hon member for Yeoville and I discussed this yesterday and I asked him to mention an example of a comparable country in the world where the same was being done in regard to job creation as the Government of the Republic of South Africa is doing. He could not give me an example. I should like to give him the latest figures concerning a stabilization measure announced in November or December last year by the Government. Twenty-eight million rands of State money was spent, but 40 000 job opportunities were created. Apparently the hon member is not even aware of these measures. He does not know what the results were, but he comes along and moves an amendment like the one he has moved here today.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti asks that the Government should put an end to “bracket creep”, taxation by inflation. Surely it is true that the State’s expenditure, too, is subject to inflation.

Mr Speaker, did I understand the hon the Deputy Minister correctly that R28 million was spent in the creation of 40 000 job opportunities?

That is correct.

That works out at R700 per job opportunity.

That is correct.

Could the hon the Deputy Minister please give us further details about that?

It was in regard to these temporary measures, virtually emergency measures, that we created, that 40 000 job opportunities were created. This amounts to R700 per capita. The hon member might as well address further enquiries to the Department of Planning. That hon member does not want to hear anything good about this Government; that is his problem. He only sees the bad things, but in the meantime he has become a prosperous businessman in this country’s economy.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti simply made an unqualified request for lower taxes. Of course, all of us would like to have lower taxes, and the Government has succeeded in reducing the top tax rate from 72 cents to 50 cents in the rand, and we shall try to reduce it still further. But that is not something one can do out of hand. It is a complex process and involves many facets. The hon member also suggested, inter alia, that State revenue be cut by 10%, without further ado. This implies approximately R2 500 million, and simply to deduct that from the State’s revenue is surely far easier said than done. It is only a person who has no idea of what is going on who could make such a suggestion.

The hon member for Yeoville kicked off by making a plea for the teachers. He wanted to know why the increase in teachers’ salaries did not come into effect immediately. The hon member only became hot under the collar …

You do not understand anything of what I said.

I understand exactly what the hon member had in mind. He wanted to make some political capital out of the matter. The teachers are satisfied, but he is angry. The hon member is angry now because the teachers are not being well treated, but in the meantime they themselves are content. [Interjections.]

Show me one teacher who is content.

The hon member must surely have heard about financial discipline. Surely it is only a matter of sound financial discipline that one does not spend money on something unless one has budgeted for it. Money for the increase in teachers’ salaries will be budgeted in next year’s Budget.

The hon member also said that the Government had certain capital assets. How, then, can the Government be bankrupt? the hon member wanted to know. He said that there were certain capital assets derived from Sasol which we did not want to spend. However, the hon member wants to utilize capital to cover expenditure, and that is the worst economic principle imaginable. The hon member also made certain suggestions to encourage people to save. In effect, however, what he told us was that we had to index inflation. However, that is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

Now you are distorting it again. You are either stupid or wilfil.

The hon member admits that as far as separate tax assessments for men and women are concerned, one has to be very circumspect, and that is exactly what we are doing. I believe that the hon member is aware that the Tax Commission is at present carrying out intensive investigations in regard to this matter in co-operation with the HSRC. I am grateful that there are certain aspects about which the hon member for Yeoville and I agree, and one of these is the issue of fringe benefits. He expressed strong opposition to them, and I should like to thank him for doing so. As far as I am concerned, there should be fewer rather than more fringe benefits. If the number of fringe benefits does not drop, then the State will have to take other steps to enforce this.

I should also like to refer to the contribution to this debate by the hon member for Gezina. The hon member replied to several of the arguments advanced by the hon member for Yeoville and discussed tax on fringe benefits at some length. He is quite correct in saying that the phasing in of tax benefits is based on reasonableness and fairness. This was proposed by the commission and is embodied in this Bill. No one is dissatisfied with people receiving fringe benefits, but we have an obligation to deal with it in such a way that the tax basis is not further eroded.

The hon member for Sunnyside referred to the issue of the taxability of the increase that teachers will receive. Section 74 of the Income Tax Act deals with that. The increase may be taxed in the year in which it is due to them, viz the previous year. In other words, teachers will be entitled to be taxed on that income in the previous year.

The hon member also referred to the loans that have now been negotiated by the Minister of Finance. It is not a question of the Minister having to go overseas to see where he can find a little money. The hon member will recall that provision was made in the main Budget for certain loans to be negotiated and it is merely a question of giving effect to that.

I believe that I have now replied to the most important arguments.

Can you give us your view with regard to my proposal relating to the third payment of the provisional tax by companies?

I believe that what is embodied in this Bill is a very fair proposal, namely that companies have to send in an estimate that must be within 90% of the final calculation, six months after the conclusion of their financial year. I believe that this is a reasonable arrangement because hon members will recall that the statements of companies are drawn up by qualified auditors. Moreover, companies have sound bookkeeping systems, and in fact it ought not to be difficult for a company to comply with this provision. We thrashed out the matter with the Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board and they are quite satisfied that this is a reasonable arrangement.

The hon member also pointed out that they might make a mistake. I repeat that these statements are drawn up by auditors and that three estimates may be sent in. It would be difficult to make a mistake three times if one was a professional person worth one’s salt.

Order! Because the time for discussion of financial measures has expired, no further discussion of the Bill is permitted. Therefore I can only put the amendments to be moved by the hon the Deputy Minister. All other amendments fall away.

Clause 14:

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

1. 1. On page 33, in line 52, to omit “1 July” and to substitute “5 July”.
2. 2. On page 35, in line 44, to omit “1 July” and to substitute “5 July”.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as well as amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Yeoville, as follows:

1. 1. On page 89, in paragraph 14, to omit all the words preceding item (a) and to substitute:
   • (1) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (2), where an employee has under a home ownership or housing scheme approved by the Commissioner for the purposes of this paragraph, derived a taxable benefit in consequence of the granting of a loan or in respect of a subsidy on interest or capital repayments in respect of a loan, and in either case the loan was utilized for the purposes of acquiring, erecting, extending or improving his private residence, the cash equivalent of such benefit, as determined under paragraph 11 or 12, whichever is applicable, shall be reduced—
2. 2. On page 89, in paragraph 14, after subparagraph (1) to insert:
   • (2) The Commissioner shall not approve any home ownership or housing scheme for the purposes of subparagraph (1), unless he is satisfied that the scheme was in operation on 28 March 1984.
3. 3. On page 89, in paragraph 17(1), to omit “fourteen” and to substitute “30”.
4. 4. On page 89, in paragraph 17(3), to omit “fourteen” and to substitute “30”.
5. 5. On page 91, in paragraph 18(1), to omit “30 April” and to substitute “31 May”.

Amendments 1 to 5 agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

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

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

As indicated in the explanatory memorandum tabled at the First Reading of this Bill, the Bill replaces the Forest Act, 1968, as a further step in the programme of the rationalization of statutes being carried out by the Department of Environment Affairs. As is customary with departmental legislation of this nature, the Bill has also been referred to a select committee. Under the able chairmanship of the hon member for Nelspruit, the select committee achieved full agreement on the provisions of the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity to extend my cordial congratulations to him and to all the members of the select committee, and to thank them for the constructive spirit in which this legislation has been brought to this advanced stage.

As is the case with water, South Africa has not been richly blessed as far as indigenous trees and areas suitable for afforestation are concerned. Because the high rainfall areas of the country are the very areas that are suitable for afforestation, the select committee found itself in stormy waters as regards the demands of the agricultural and industrial sectors for water as against the equally valid claims of the forestry industry. Another problem area that the select committee was faced with was the issue of a balance between conservation of our nature as against the equally valid claims of economic development. Hon members may be sure that the task of the select committee set the members exceptional demands as regards the maintenance of a sound balance among competing priorities in regard to several aspects. It speaks volumes for the guidance of the chairman and the grasp of the problems encountered that was shown by all the members that consensus could in fact be achieved in this regard.

The provisions of the Bill are fully motivated in the explanatory memorandum, and therefore I do not deem it necessary to elaborate on them at length. The amendments recommended by the select committee are all acceptable to me, and it is in respect of a few of these proposals that I should like to put a few ideas to hon members.

†In the first place I want to deal with the conservational aspect of this Bill, and I refer hon members in particular to clauses 8, 11, 14 and 15 and to Part IX. In clause 8 provision is made for the protection of our natural water sources. The powers vested in me will require judicious exercising in an effort to find the ideal balance between the country’s demand for water for urban, industrial and irrigation purposes on the one hand and its requirements relating to timber on the other. Although control will be exercised by means of impersonal notices in the Government Gazette, which is not as widely read as one could perhaps wish, I want to give the assurance that publicity will be given to such notices as the department is interested in the results of the implementation of these controls and not simply in the statutory prohibitions created thereby.

Clause 15, dealing with the administration of nature reserves and wilderness areas, is another example of the fine balance which the committee has struck between the legitimate requirements of nature conservation on the one hand and economic necessity on the other. As regards the granting of temprary rights in respect of State forests, I want to emphasize that, on account of the diverse nature of the rights involved, it is impossible in practice to restrict the wide meaning of this term by attaching thereto a specific maximum duration. In practice, however, temporary rights are granted for periods of at most nine years and eleven months. Rights which are required for periods longer than this are dealt with as permanent rights which require the sanction of this House.

In the final instance I want to refer to Part IX of the Bill which provides a statutory home for the administration of national botanic gardens, and I want to limit my observations to a tribute to a voluntary organization which has over many years contributed substantially to the development of this important endeavour in nature conservation. I refer, Mr Speaker, to the Botanical Society of Southern Africa. The contribution by the Botanical Society is indeed exemplary and, where the Board of Trustees of the National Botanic Gardens has now launched a fund raising campaign, I sincerely hope that the private sector will be generous in its support. The funds raised in this manner will not accrue to the Exchequer; but will be used exclusively for the financing of specific projects in botanic gardens. It is trusted that the botanic gardens, as international show-pieces of our country’s unique floral heritage, will be enhanced greatly by these actions.

Another aspect that I would like to touch upon is the matter of control by the State over the forest and timber industries. Hon members will note that the committee has, in respect of clause 16, recommended that the State should be in a position to exercise control only over the quality of timber. The wider powers afforded to the State in section 10 of the Forest Act, 1968, were at the time adopted with a view to stabilizing a relatively young industry in times of emergency. In the light of the Government’s declared policy of restricting State interference in the private sector to a minimum, I support the committee’s amendment and trust that the timber industry, which has developed strongly since 1968, will have an appreciation for the responsibilities which are a necessary concomitant of our free enterprise system. As far as control over the export and import of timber and timber products is concerned, which has been regulated by section 10 of the Forest Act, 1968, and which is now being relinquished in this Bill, liaison between the Department of Environment Affairs and the Department of Industries and Commerce will, however, have to be maintained.

*Finally, Mr Speaker, I have a few remarks to make about the issue of the prevention of fires, fires which do a great deal of damage every year, not only to commercial crops, but also, and in particular, to our natural heritage. I am convinced that the principle of fire control areas being introduced in Part VI of the Bill will contribute a great deal towards combating the evil of fires, in that it is aimed at making local communities aware of the danger there and, by means of fire control committees for localized areas and regions, placing the responsibility for the prevention of fires where it belongs, viz squarely on the shoulders of local communities who, in the final analysis, are those who suffer most from fire damage, and who will therefore benefit most from effective fire prevention. I want to make an earnest appeal to all inhabitants of the country, but in particular those who will find themselves in fire control areas in future, to assist in a constructive way in developing these committees in the public interest, by becoming personally involved.

It is proposed that the procedures prescribed with regard to fire control areas should also apply to the State because the exclusion of State land could to a large extent frustrate the aims of the provisions of the Bill. I realize that this may create problems for bodies such as the SA Transport Services and roads administration. However, I wish to give the assurance that the problems of such bodies will be dealt with with understanding, and that wherever possible, exemption from the statutory provisions will be granted in terms of clause 23 of the Bill.

That, Mr Speaker, in broad outline, is what the measure before the House entails.

Mr Speaker, this is an agreed measure, and since this House is working under some degree of pressure, I will not be devoting as much time to this measure as I would otherwise have liked to do. I trust the hon the Minister will not interpret my attitude as one of indifference.

The Bill now before the House is, we believe, a very good piece of legislation. It reflects in large measure the happy relationship which existed between the department and all members of the select committee whose task it was to review this Bill and to hear evidence. That a happy and constructive relationship existed in the select committee is largely the consequence of the presence of a friendly and competent chairman. Therefore we in these benches should like to record our appreciation in respect of the hon member for Nelspruit for the manner in which he acquitted himself of his task. At the same time, however, if it were not for the constructive attitude of the Director General and the department and the willingness that they showed to reach consensus both with us and with the many individuals and organizations from whom evidence was taken, I am sure, the atmosphere today could have been very different indeed.

The Bill did contain certain contentious clauses but thanks to the spirit of co-operation and understanding which prevailed agreement could be reached among all parties in respect of these clauses. The Bill before us is therefore indeed a product of that co-operation. In the light of what I have just said, Mr Speaker, I hardly need say that we will be supporting this measure, and we do so with acclaim. For the sake of brevity, however, I shall not embellish on the hon the Minister’s motivation. However, I should like to record the appreciation of the official Opposition for this attempt to further the interests of the timber industry in this country. Our goal is self-sufficiency. At the present time we have still not succeeded in achieving that goal. We believe that this new Bill will help lay the foundation for a more viable and better administered industry, and we have every confidence that we will reach our goal before too many years have passed.

Then I would of course be failing in my duty if I did not comment briefly on a very important aspect of this Bill. That is namely the aspect of conservation. The management and utilization of our timber resources form a very small part indeed of what is contained in this Bill. The protection of our indigenous forests and mountain catchment areas, the conservation of the priceless fauna and flora to be found in those areas, and the provisions which are made to give the public access to our glorious forest areas, are all elements contained in this Bill, and these provisions are deserving of the highest praise. The hon the Minister can indeed be proud of this legislation which he is piloting through the House today, and we in these benches have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Albany for his kind words to me. I should also like to thank all the hon members who served on the committee. Several representations were received, and in addition, many people submitted evidence. Therefore I often had to rise very early in order to work hard. Moreover, in the process many divergent interests had to be reconciled. I also wish to mention the capable way in which the committee was assisted by the secretariat and all the officials. I shall, I am sure, be permitted to mention the names of Mr Otto, the Director-General, the chief Director: Administration, Mr Potgieter, the Deputy Director: Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, Mr Marais, and the Deputy Director: Law Administration, Mr Labuschagne. They really provided us with very valuable assistance.

The legislation makes a very valuable contribution to the ordering, stablization and promotion of the timber industry. Apart from forestry and the timber industry, it also covers the protection of biota and ecosystems, the protection of trees and private land, nature reserves and wilderness areas, prevention and combating of veld, forest and mountain fires, the national hiking way system and the national botanical gardens of which, apart from the very well-known Kirstenbosch, there are nine others, to make a total of 10 on a regional basis throughout our country.

In the ordering of these highly important assets the Department of Environment Affairs plays an extremely important role, and as we mentioned in the minutes, the department has a very good record, particularly as far as conservation is concerned. Because we were able to rely on the department, it was far easier for us to reach consensus on this legislation.

It was striking that the industry itself agreed that the best mechanism for settling disputes relating to the price of roundwood would be arbitration by the Director General of the department in terms of clause 17. This confidence was not misplaced, because the department has very good statistics and experience in this connection.

Another bodies that will assist in developing this industry is the forestry council, the aim of which is to promote and encourage the development of the forestry and timber industry. The board may carry out research development on its own—clause 50 authorizes this—and may promote and undertake timber technology, provide training and furnish the Minister with advice.

Fire control committees, regional fire control committees and fire combating plans among various regions give this legislation flexibility and adaptibility.

Through the National Hiking Way Board and the Board for National Botanical Gardens, the opportunity is being created for greater public participation in the control and management of these very important matters.

Instead of, as in the past, using the conditions of the forestry permit to ensure sound management practices as regards mountain catchment areas, clause 8 now authorizes the Minister to judge each area on its own merits. We are dealing here with conflicting interests of the foresters and the irrigators.

Hydrological research in this field is of recent origin, and since then this department is of course also concerned with water affairs, I wish to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to give this research priority. Although the forestry industry is very important, we cannot permit natural water resources to be endangered.

Finally, I should like to thank the hon the Minister for giving an undertaking that temporary rights as granted will not exceed nine years and eleven months, and that the mechanism for which provision is made in clause 23 will be used to accommodate transport services and road administrations and so on where the provisions of the fire control regulations may be too stringent. I therefore take great pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Speaker, we on our side also take great pleasure in supporting this Bill. For my part I also wish to congratulate the hon member for Nelspruit on his handling of the select committee as chairman. He is incidentally one of the three gentlemen, I am told, who was nominated by the NP to act as my guardian, but on the other hand it is also true that I in turn was, among others, nominated by my party, to act as guardian of the hon member for Nelspruit. However, this does not detract from the good relationship that existed between us, as is appropriate to guardians and wards.

I do not think that it would do justice to this fine Bill if we were to try to debate it at length this afternoon. It is very good legislation and I think that the select committee succeeded in effecting amendments that in accordance with the circumstances of the times. Various conflicting interests—I do not wish to mention them all—had to be weighed up against one another and I think that the select committee did succeed in trying to reconcile those conflicting interests in a sound measure.

It may be expected that further amendments to the legislation may be required in future, after the legislation has been implemented in practice, as must be the case in any society, but for the present we are satisfied with the new Bill.

Mr Speaker, I intend to follow very much the same line taken by previous speakers in making my speech brief and keeping as close to the point as possible. On behalf of hon members in these benches, I too wish to express our appreciation to the hon member for Nelspruit for the manner in which he presided over the deliberations of the committee. As has already been pointed out, he acted in a very efficient and pleasant manner which made it virtually impossible for any hon member of the select committee not to agree with what was taking place. We also wish to express our thanks to the officials concerned.

I happen to have been in the very fortunate position of having sat on two important select committees this year relating to matters falling under the control of the department of the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. I believe that his department can only benefit from the achievements of those two select committees namely the application of the Water Act and now the proposed amendments to the Forest Act.

There are various points I want to deal with in regard to the legislation itself. I think it is important to note that, included in this legislation, is the provision that permission to establish commercial plantations on land not previously used has to be obtained from the Minister, and that land left vacant for more than five years also requires the approval of the Minister before it can be re-afforested. There is also a right of appeal to the Minister should the Director-General not wish to comply with the wishes of the applicants.

We must obviously realize that, at this stage, there are certain trends within the industry which I think are somewhat disquieting. I am referring particularly to the fact that the long term re-afforestation that has been taking place appears to fall far short of the future requirements of this country.

I would also like to refer to this trend in the industry, in relation to applications that have been made for afforestation and those that have been rejected over recent years. I would like very briefly to deal with the reply to a question that I received recently from the hon the Minister. This was to the effect that for the period April 1981 to March 1982, 139 applications had been made of which only 14 had been rejected; from 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1983, there were 81 applications of which five were rejected; and from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1984 there were 108 applications of which only three were rejected. One appreciates the point made by the hon the Minister that a balance has, as it were, to be reached between the economic demands of the industry and the need for conservation measures. One realizes too that there will be a tug of war in this regard which the hon the Minister is going to have to take this into consideration from time to time. I want to deal briefly with clause 11, which deals with the limitations of the rights that may be granted in regard to State forests. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that when he is considering the granting of rights in this respect that he should do so with the utmost discretion. I would also like to raise a question here in regard to a situation which would appear to be rearing its ugly head in the area of the hon member for South Coast and that is the desecretation which has taken place in the Admiralty Reserve Area along the coastline as a result of development and constructive work. This is something that is of great concern, and I hope I can get clarification from the hon the Minister as to the attitude of his Department in this matter.

I would like to deal with one other aspect which is particularly pertinent to my constituency and that is the question of fire control and the steps that are now envisaged to prevent and combat veld and forest fires. It is important that the concept of fire control areas and fire control schemes for specific areas, as well as for regions, be implemented with as little delay as possible. Fire control committees have been operating in the past but these functioned purely on a voluntary basis with the result that the committees did not have teeth to enforce regulations. They have only been able to appeal to the communities to abide by the regulations that they have determined from time to time. In terms of this legislation, however, these committees will now be given the power to act but I am also pleased to note that provision is made for financial consideration to be made available with the hon the Minister’s approval, in respect of measures that might be taken to prevent and to combat the fire menace that threatens many parts of the country.

I am concerned about clause 26(3)(a) where unrestricted licence appears to be given to any person to arbitrary take any action he deems necessary to control a fire in a fire control area. Regulations which apply to fire control areas must always be taken into consideration when the action is taken. This is most important to prevent irresponsible action by inexperienced persons who may put in counter-control fires without any knowledge of what the implications might be. In this regard one must emphasize the fact that any such action should be carried out only by experienced people.

We very much support references in the Bill to the National Hiking Way System. Hiking is becoming more and more popular as a form of recreation. It involves entire families and is a type of outdoor recreation which can only be of benefit to the community.

With these few words I want to say that it has been a pleasure for me to work on the select committee and we will obviously be supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am fully aware of the limited time available to this House and hon members will pardon me if I do not react to each speech which was delivered here although they were all very constructive individually.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon member for Albany, the hon member for Nelspruit, the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Mooi River for a very constructive debate. Although short it was very constructive.

*I have made notes of various matters raised by hon members in respect of which they expressed concern about the implementation of the legislation. I undertake to investigate all these matters very thoroughly.

Sir, you will allow me to say in conclusion that the Forestry Directorate, which used to be an independent department in the past, was one of the first conservation organizations in our country. I should like to join all hon members in paying tribute to them for having succeeded over the years in preserving this fine conservation image which has been built up around the directorate, and around the department in the past. In fact, hon members could see from Press reports which have recently appeared, and which are actually still appearing, what the image is that the Forestry Directorate projects to the public outside. They have built up a fine image of themselves, and I take pleasure in paying tribute to them.

I also want to take this opportunity, the last one there will be, of conveying my very sincere thanks to the chairman, committees and members of the various environment affairs groups of the various parties. I want to thank the hon member for Constantia, the hon member for Ermelo, the hon member for Mooi River and the hon member for Meyerton for their wonderful co-operation. I think we have been very successful this year in highlighting the image of this department, which is actually a conservation image. I also thank the chairman and hon members of the select committee once again for the fact that they were able to reach consensus. We shall just have to admit to one another now that consensus politics will be the politics of the future in this country. [Interjections.] Consensus was reached here on very sensitive matters, and I thank hon members for that. Since the chairman of the select committee will not have another opportunity to speak, I should like to convey his thanks to those hon members who have expressed their thanks to him. I think he was a good choice as chairman. He saw to it that very good work was produced.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Once long ago the wise Ecclesiast said: “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh”. When I look at the depleted numbers and the tired expressions on the faces before me, it is very clear that the many books and the mountains of documents we had, as well as the continuous study, are taking their toll. It is very clear that hon members no longer have the sparkle they had months ago.

The amendment of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963, for which clause 1 makes provision, is being effected at the request of certain universities. This will dispel uncertainty about the degree to which an associated institution can introduce a group life assurance scheme for its staff.

The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, makes provision for the payment of benefits from the Compensation Fund to persons suffering from compensatable diseases contracted as a result of working in controlled mines and works. One-sum benefits payable in terms of this Act were last increased in 1981. On the other hand, pensions were increased by between 12% and 16% on 1 October 1983.

As in all other cases, continuous inflation is resulting in the decrease of the purchase value of both one-sum benefits and pensions. We were therefore compelled to consider increasing these benefits further. The mineworkers unions are also insisting on an increase. This Bill means that pensions will be increased by 10% from 1 October.

The Advisory Committee on Compensation Matters, on which representatives of employer as well as employee organisations serve, was consulted about the possible 10% increase in all one-sum benefits. The employee associations would have wanted bigger increases, but in the light of the present economic circumstances they accepted this increase.

Employers are still having considerable problems with this scheme, but these problems cannot be eliminated immediately. The department is at present designing a new scheme, and these problems are receiving attention. Employers object in particular to one-sum benefits on first degree certification being increased further, since people with these certificates usually continue working in mines and works. These employers are not opposing the increase of benefits on second degree certification, however. In the case of this type of certification, ie in respect of disability of 40% and more, the person may not continue to do risk work.

This Bill will mean that the one-sum benefits payable in the case of first degree certification will remain unchanged, but that the benefits paid in the case of second degree certification will be increased by 10%.

All the proposed amendments to the Military Pensions Act, 1976, aim at ensuring that the pension to which a widow of a deceased member is entitled is paid to her for the duration of her life. At present it falls away if she remarries.

Section 15 of the General Pensions Act, 1979, aims at facilitating the exchange of staff, particularly experts, between individual institutions in the public sector, and between the public sector and the private sector. At present there is only provision for the pension rights of such a member to be retained for him. Provision is now being made for him to choose to remain a full member of the pension fund of which he is a member.

Finally, clause 10 of the Bill makes provision for adjustments and amendments to the Pension Scheme for members of the President’s Council. This has become necessary as a result of section 13 of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1984, which was recently passed by this House.

Mr Speaker, it is difficult for me not to talk at length on pensions, but I shall do my best to be as short as possible. This is an omnibus Bill, and the deletion in clause 1 of section 3 of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act is actually going to make very little difference to the Act, and therefore we have no problems with that.

Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 9 deal with the pensions resulting from occupational diseases, and I should like to make one or two comments in this regard. Firstly, I am glad that the additional amount is going to be on the second payment, because when a person gets it on the first payment he is still able to work and that is not when he really needs the money. He needs the money when he can no longer continue to carry out his hazardous occupation or carry out work that is considered to be hazardous for him. I am therefore happy that the additional amount will go on the second payment and we have no problems with that.

In regard to the 10% increase, I must point out that in the present financial situation it is a battle to procure any increase for people, but I think this increase is well justified. I have tremendous sympathy for the people who actually derive their benefits under this system, because I think these are people who literally have given their lives to South Africa. The mining industry has in fact impaired their health, and anything we can do for them is in fact justified. If the hon the Deputy Minister had asked for a bigger increase, we would have supported him. We cannot move for an increase ourselves because of the rules of the House.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 relate to military pensions, and I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to look at a question which has almost become a matter, of principle for the PFP, possibly because we have the hon member for Houghton in our midst. Where benefits are given to widows, I think it should also be given to widowers if a case arises. One hears a lot about discrimination against women, but perhaps it is time one should start talking about discrimination against men. I do not intend to move an amendment, but I merely want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to look at this matter. It would influence very few people and there might not even be a single case which would benefit from this. However, for the sake of consistency—our own pension scheme provides for widows and widowers—we should move in this direction. This pension scheme is somewhat different because in the case of our pension scheme, a female member is actually making a physical contribution. She has paid in some money, and somebody should derive the benefit from that money.

Clause 8 is a particularly interesting clause. According to its provisions a person can actually move from one employer to another—within the ambit of the broad State sector—and still remain a member of his old pension scheme if his employer approves it and pays the contributions. This is very interesting because one of the problems we have in South Africa at the moment is in finding a means of preventing people from losing their pension benefits when they move from one employer to another. That which is now introduced on a limited scale, may serve as a signpost for the future.

Clause 10 deals with the President’s Council, and when we in these benches see the President’s Council being mentioned, there is a certain reluctance and an immediate awareness that one should look at the Bill very carefully. The hon the Deputy Minister will be happy to know that we have no particular problems with this clause. The hon member for Sea Point set out our principles and we believe that the members of the old President’s Council were very generously treated. We were against the fact that they are to be given seven-and-a-half years’ pensionable service. However, that principle is not involved in this Bill. The fact that paragraph 2 of Proclamation No 63 of 1981 will not apply, is a good provision, because it is to be compulsory for new members to be-long to the Members of Parliament and Political Office-bearers’ Pension Scheme and I am glad that the element of choice has been removed which existed before.

Clause 10(2) provides for a pension and I believe there is only one person who will benefit from it, namely a chairman of one of the committees.

As I have said, we were against the principle and we actually think it will be wrong to vote against this clause because we would be discriminating against an individual. Although we are against the principle of what was done, we will not vote against this particular clause, for the reason that we believe it is wrong to single out one person.

With these words we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I take great pleasure in speaking after the hon member. We have become relatively accustomed to the fact that when the hon member speaks on pensions, he speaks “sense”, as the English say. Today he really spoke sense again, and I can truly find no fault with any thing he said.

I found it very interesting that the hon the Deputy Minister referred to Ecclesiastes at the commencement of his speech. If my memory serves me correctly, it says at the end of Ecclesiastes …

Do not quote it.

Very well. The other preacher will quote it then. In that case I hall find myself another text. This is concerned with pensions and benefits. In Proverbs 11, verse 24, we read:

When it comes to these people, I do not think we should hold on too tightly. Verse 25 reads:

A final verse I should like to quote, viz Proverbs 11, verse 17, reads as follows:

With this Bill we are improving certain pensions and benefits. In Ecclesiastes 3 it says that there is a time for everything. I really think the time has come for us to effect these increases. The heading to Ecclesiastes 3 reads: “A time for everything.” The author of Ecclesiastes had not yet heard of the South African Parliament when he said that there is a time for everything, but it is possible that the author of Ecclesiastes was a politician, since although the first line of the first verse reads: “There is a time for everything”, the second line reads: “There is a time for everything that happens in this world". In other words, like a politician, and very diplomatically, the Ecclesiast softened this with the statement that there is a time for everything. I think it is time we increase these pensions, but I also think it is almost time for me to conclude my speech.

Hear, hear!

I want to point to two aspects. Certain aspects of this Bill, such as those contained in clauses 3 and 4, are closely related to the Nieuwenhuizen Report. For example, it it provided that the benefit in respect of the disease in the first degree cannot be increased, but it can be increased in certain cases in respect of a disease in the second degree Provision is made for exceptions in clause 9(l)(a). The exceptions are related to the Nieuwenhuizen Report. I just want to say—and I assume that some of the hon members who will speak after me will say this, too—that it is imperative that we debate the Nieuwenhuizen Report in full. There is no time for that today, however, and I am therefore not going to do so.

Another aspect of this Bill relates to the benefits granted to Whites and Coloureds. In the case of a White, for example, it is R6 000 plus 10%, and in the case of a Coloured it is R3 000 plus 10%. It is certainly a problem with which we have to contend. It is the policy of this party to phase it out.

We are not giving this attention today, since there is no time to do so at present, but the time for that will come, too. With these few words I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House will also be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, we shall support all the stages.

I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member Dr Vilonel, and I want to thank him most sincerely for not quoting my text when I asked him not to do so, because I wanted to preach on it myself.

Amendments to five laws dealing mainly with pensions and compensatable diseases are being effected in this Bill. When we speak about pensions, we are dealing with the fact of life that human life is only as long as the width of a hand. One eventually reaches the stage when one retires. Due to the improved living and medical conditions today, the following words in Psalms have come true, viz:

Consequently, since the period of pension has become longer, but the recipient is not spared trouble and sorrow, we believe that due to the high cost of living better provision should be made for these people so that they can live more easily in these difficult times. We therefore do not begrudge these people the increased pension benefits for which provision is made in the Bill. In particular, we do not begrudge them this because we believe that the period during which a person receives a pension should be made a happy one, free of trouble and sorrow before the silver cord of life snaps, and the golden bowl is broken, and the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the wheel is broken at the cistern and the dust returns to the earth as it was. We wish these people a happy retirement free of trouble and sorrow before the end comes.

I should like to point to two aspects. No provision is made for increases in the first compensation granted to sufferers from compensatable diseases. This is in fact the case in respect of the second phase. It is true that these people can still continue to work during the first phase, but it remains a fact that these people have already had a physical setback and that they are also affected psychologically by their condition. Being ill must be traumatic for such a person. I wonder whether one should not consider accommodating people in respect of the first phase as well at some stage. I think that it will probably be necessary to increase the 10% in respect of the second degree in the future, depending on the circumstances of the people concerned.

The final matter to which I want to refer is the question of extending the salary and allowance benefits of members of the President’s Council when that body’s activities come to an end at the end of August. This is something we have been opposed to from the outset. However, we can understand that this clause in the Bill is rectifying a deficiency, and we shall therefore support the clause despite the fundamental objection we have in this regard.

With these few words I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Order! I have got nothing against quotations from the Bible, but hon members must not become morbid about this at this stage already. We still have to continue until late this evening.

Mr Speaker, clauses 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the Bill are to be welcomed, of course on the assumption that the amounts of R6 000 and R3 000 will increase from time to time. I think the time is also appropriate for consideration to be given to bringing on par the payments to Whites and coloureds in this regard. Discrimination must be eradicated if the new constitution is to succeed and I think the majority of us in this House wish it to succeed. However, we as Whites must accept that we are in a position to give, and we will have to give in the new game of give and take. For too long we as Whites have had it all our own way and the moment of truth is rapidly approaching for us as Whites in our privileged positions. Demands are going to be made by the other Houses for all things to be equal, demands which in the majority of cases will be fully justified. Our attitude to these demands and our willingness to give, as well as our knowledge and acumen to negotiate are going to be tested in the extreme. We are going to have to get rid of a lot of our prejudices. I therefore see the onus resting on us, the moderate Whites, for a successful future for the new Republic coming into being in September. I sincerely hope that we, as politicians, will come up to the expectations required for a peaceful and prosperous future.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are long overdue and we whole heartedly support these provisions relating to the widows and depends of people who receive military pensions. As far as clause 10 is concerned, we have in an earlier debate made our feelings about the matter concerned very clear but we lost to the majority decision in regard to the principle. Be that as it may, we are still not happy about that decision, but that is democracy.

Lastly, we sincerely hope that now that the Department of Health and Welfare has taken over the administration in respect of diseases for which compensation can be claimed, the pensioners concerned are going to get a better deal than heretofore. The Government’s record in respect of these pensioners is not a very happy one. Hopefully this is going to change. We support the measure before the house.

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the hon members of all the parties for supporting this measure. The hon member for South Coast referred to the fact that there was a gap between the benefits accruing to Whites and non-Whites. That is so. Coloureds get 50% of the gratuity and pension the Whites receive. I think, however, that it would be more appropriate if he were to address his remarks to the employer organizations. We do not have the say over these things. We have to consult them. I want to explain to the hon member—and I mentioned it in my Second Reading speech too—that his is an ad hoc measure. The Nieuwenhuizen Report must be implemented and, when it is implemented, this whole scheme will be overhauled. Hopefully, the gap in the benefits will then also be closed.

I thank the hon member for Edenvale for his support. He thought that the increases should be even bigger. As I have explained, this is an ad hoc measure. This was negotiated with the employer organizations and they did not see their way clear, until the new scheme was implemented, to increase the benefits above 10%. The hon member also referred to the question of the benefits to widows of military pensioners and asked whether this could not be extended to widowers as well. I doubt whether there is that problem or whether it is a very large one if it does exist. I can, however, assure the hon member that we will have this matter investigated and establish whether there are such widowers who have been dependent on the military pensions of their wives. We may then come back to this at a later stage. The hon member lauded clause 8 and said that this was the beginning of the conservation of pensions for which he and others have been pleading so long. As a member of the select committee, he does of course have an opportunity to tell us how we can do that. Well, I sincerely trust that he will take his cue from this Bill.

*The the hon member Dr Vilonel displayed his Biblical knowledge, as against mine, and quoted far more texts from Ecclesiastes than I was able to do. Mr Speaker, you warned us not to get morbid as a result of all these quotations from the Bible, because the tough part was still to come. The hon member for Koedoespoort joined the hon member Dr Vilonel and quoted from Psalms about the trouble and sorrows of those people who were approaching 80. He then pointed out the problem of people who had been on pension for 15 to 20 years and who found that inflation had eroded their pensions over that period. Then he went back to the writer or poet of Ecclesiastes and spoke about the silver cord that would be loosed. Sir, you must allow me a final quotation from the Bible. In Ecclesiastes, one reads that he who sows sparingly will reap sparingly. This just makes me think that one should provide a very generous pension for oneself. The pension on which hon members retire these days appears to be enormous. But if we do not curb inflation within the next 10 years, that pension is going to be very meagre by that time.

I thank hon members for their support of the measure. Hon members of all the opposition parties have indicated in this House that they are opposed to the continued remuneration of some members of the President’s Council who are to retire and who will continue to be remunerated until the end of next year. Although they are opposed to this in principle, their sense of logic tells them that they cannot be opposed to clause 10 of this Bill.

†This is not a golden handshake. On the contrary, we are extracting money by way of pension contributions from those ex-members of the President’s Council. It cannot therefore be construed as a golden handshake.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The present Bill gives substance to the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon members are aware, the recommendations have already been unanimously accepted by this House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Chairman, we in the CP are opposed to this recommendation because the quota of 1936 is being exceeded. However, we want to say at the outset that we realize that the State of Qwaqwa does not have sufficient land to function as a state and ultimately become independent. We are in favour of meaningful consolidation, but we also believe that the completion of the recommendations of 1936 will end a certain phase, and that other methods should subsequently be pursued in order to bring about meaningful consolidation such as, for example, the exchange of land between states.

We can therefore not support this recommendation because it exceeds the quota of 1936, and also because we believe that this objective could have been achieved by implementing other methods which would have had the same result.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the argument of the hon member for Lichtenburg.

Firstly, I want to thank all hon members who served on the select committee most sincerly for the unanimity that prevailed. The fact of the matter is that the CP did not see fit to attend the meetings of the select committee at all.

Oh, you know we were in Potgietersrus, man.

No, not on Thursday. [Interjections.] Sir, I regret that we have to make politics out of this, but the fact remains that the hon members of the CP did not see fit to attend the meetings of the select committee on this very important subject, ie the consolidation of Qwaqwa, inter alia. Since other hon members did in fact attend meetings of the select committee because the matter of land is a very serious matter to them as Whites, to a large extent we agreed that we should take the necessary steps in this case with regard to the consolidation of Qwaqwa. [Interjections.]

Land is of vital importance to all of us, and I appreciate the fact that, if I understood him correctly, the hon member for Lichtenburg also said that more land should be made available in the future. It is in fact the policy of the NP to do so, since the hon the Prime Minister said on 2 February 1982 that the Government is not going to deviate from its plans for consolidation in respect of the national states. Under no circumstances will we deviate from our plans. The fact of the matter is that this year we have made provision that the quota can in fact be exceeded with the permission of the House of Assembly in terms of the legislation that was passed. The hon member for Lichtenburg is correct; the quota is going to be exceeded, and proper provision has been made for that in legislation.

Mr Chairman, I cannot help reacting to the unjustified insinuations the hon member for Pretoria West has just made. Firstly, the members of the CP, as is customary, were by no means consulted in determining the date on which that select committee was to sit. [Interjections.] We were not consulted at all. Moreover: I personally happened to be given notice that two select committees on which I serve would be sitting at the same time on the same day. This is how hon members of the Opposition are treated. Now this ridiculous allegation is being made and the hon member knows that we were engaged in an important by-election in Soutpansberg.

On that Thursday?

Of course it was important; we gave the NP a dreadful thrashing.

Not on the Thursday.

We were not able to be back in Cape Town by 09h00 on Thursday. I think the hon member is trying to make an absolutely ridiculous insinuation by trying to intimate that we in the CP are not interested in the proper consolidation of the Black states.

We said that we would do-operate with the Government to the best of our ability if they wanted to finalize the proper consolidation of South Africa’s Black states, but if we receive this kind of disdainful treatment from the chairman of that select committee, we will have no choice but to take the steps we find necessary.

Recommendation agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to express my gratitude to the chairman of the select committee for the friendly and most courteous way in which he controlled and conducted the business of the committee. I should like to express my appreciation to him for the way in which he allowed evidence to be given on an extremely wide front.

In their absence, I want to tell the lawyers on both sides of the fence, if one can put it that way, that we in the committee—I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us—were very impressed with the way in which they acquitted themselves of their task. They displayed a great deal of patience and a tremendous number of questions were asked. We in the select committee have the greatest appreciation for the way in which they did their work.

The select committee had to contend with certain issues about which decisions had to be taken and I just want to refer to some of them very briefly. Answers to certain questions had to be found. Firstly, we had to decide whether the personal and material interests of a few inhabitants of Paarl would weigh more heavily than the interests of the community as a whole. Secondly, the committee had to decide whether spoiling a national monument could be condoned and whether further violations would be encouraged by this Parliament and, on the other hand, whether disregard for monuments could be called to order. The committee had a difficult task, because it had to be decided in the third instance whether an agreement imposed on the town council of Paarl under pressure and manipulation by a group of people, to whom I shall refer as “land hungry”, would be given force of law, and that when lawyers of this Parliament had decided as far back as in 1970 that a contract that had been concluded could not be a Schedule to the legislation and that it could not be included in the Act. Fourthly, the eight commissioners had to decide whether a finding by Mr Justice Schoch, in which he found that the notorious agreement of 1969 could not be a valid contract of letting and hiring benefiting the adjoining famers, would be accepted, or whether it would have to be rejected due to evidence which was not at the disposal of the court. Fifthly, the committee either had to accept or reject representations from the town council of Paarl in favour of nature conservation and the preservation of monuments. In other words, the committee had to weigh this up. Sixthly, we had to decide whether the case of the divisional council of Paarl in favour of conservation carried any real weight. The unequivocal standpoint of the National Monuments Council to protect our national heritage was laid before the committee, and we as committee members had to decide whether we would accept or reject that evidence. The Drakensteinse Heemkring also gave evidence before the committee and informed us. The Paarl Chamber of Commerce also came and put their side of the case in favour of conservation. All these organizations came and aired their views in favour of conservation before the committee. I wondered where the hon the Minister was sitting, but now I see that he is hiding over there. He will have to hide today.

We listened to the evidence of all these organizations, and I am afraid that the majority of members decided to support the establishment on each of the questions laid before the committee, and to lose the mountain and with it, our national heritage. That is how I feel about it. We could discuss this problem at length …

Who is the establishment?

I shall tell the hon member who the establishment of Paarl is. They are those land-hungry people who, with the assistance of their friends, who are part of the ruling establishment, tried to obtain rights and benefits they would never ever have obtained. [Interjections.] These are the people to whom I refer as the establishment.

That is unfair.

If the hon the Minister had listened to the evidence, he would have seen that that is absolutely correct and he would have had no doubts about what I am going to say today.

I was involved in that for two years.

The hon the Minister was not on the select committee.

I was involved for two years, and I challenge the hon member to prove what he is saying now.

If the hon the Minister was involved, is it not a pity that he was not able really to see what was what. We shall come to that later.

You must substantiate your statements.

If clause 1, which we are debating now, should be approved, it would mean that this Committee is giving force of law to a manipulated contract. If clause 1 were to be approved, it would mean that the finding of Mr Justice Schoch is being rejected by this Parliament and we would be embarrassing the Supreme Court. We would be causing those who spoilt a national monument and the mountain, and who had to vacate the mountain in terms of a court order to be reinstated. If the clause were to be approved, it would mean that those who treated a national monument with disdain are being afforded protection. If this clause were to be approved, it will open the mountain to others to destroy a further 300 ha of Cape fynbos with bulldozers and trench ploughs, and that at a few rand per annum. [Interjections.] If this clause were to be approved, it would be possible to form terraces on the mountain and damage the face of the mountain forever without any interference from the town council, the Administrator or the NMC. At only 25 cents per hectare per annum it will be possible for a chosen few to reap species of protea and other fynbos, which they did not sow, in their thousands. What is worse—this is the irony of the matter, too—is that those who are going to reap are going to be placed in a position to be able to sell the same product they reap to the inhabitants of “the village of the Paarl” and to the “cornetcy behind the Paarl”, people who, until a few years ago, had more right to the mountain than those who spoilt it ever had.

It is on this basis that we have to decide today whether or not we are going to support this clause.

Mr Chairman, allow me to thank the hon member for Wynberg for his kind words to me. I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my hon colleagues, who spent long hours and many days on the tremendous task of this committee, most sincerely. My sincere gratitude also goes to Mr Douglas and his staff, our secretariat, who assisted us with so much dedication.

To give perspective to this important discussion on Paarl Mountain, one should probably start right at the beginning with the first relevant juristic act. What was the first relevant juristic act? It was the Crown grant which Sir Thomas Napier issued on 27 December 1838 to the chief magistrate of Paarl. This Crown grant firstly made provision for ownership to be granted to him or his successors in title in perpetuity and, secondly, that the inhabitants of the “Village of the Paarl and the Inhabitants of the field cornetcy of Agter Paarl or Behind Paarl” could use the commonage for their own benefit.

When one thinks of this historic document, one involuntarily wonders what happened to it. The answer to this is that the Crown grant with all its provisions simply disappeared. It disappeared because ownership free of commonage rights was transferred to the municipality of Paarl, and this happened without the transferor referring to any provision or agreement. No compensation was paid and the legal rules of prescription and of expropriation were not implemented either. The rights were transferred to the municipality of Paarl merely in terms of an Act of this Parliament.

Hon members may well ask how this happened, and my reply to that is that it happened because there was an error due to a deficiency which crept in to Act No 83 of 1970, with the result that obligations were performed in respect of only one party. In the preamble to that Act, it is stated that rights in favour of the adjoining farmers still exist, but today they have no rights. Then, again, the question arises as to how that error occurred. In reply to that I once again want to go back in history and explain briefly that in the early years it was the ideal of the municipality to obtain ownership of the entire Paarl Mountain, ie of 3 383 morgen, free of commonage rights, since as far back as that time they wanted to establish a nature reserve there.

It is also important to note that in the ’sixties representations were addressed to the then Minister, and he was prepared to assist the municipality. An Act was published in 1966 which made provision for the transfer of ownership to the municipality of Paarl free of commonage rights. Because this was dealt with in terms of a hybrid Bill, objectors could lodge objections with the House of Assembly, which the adjoining farmers and their representatives then did. Negotiations took place subsequently, and ultimately two concepts arose. Firstly, the municipality realized that the entire mountain was not suitable for a nature reserve. It was not economically viable to put a fence around the bottom of the entire mountain, and there would therefore be remnant of land. Newspaper reporters must please remember that remnant of land is a concept that arose. It really means land that is useless.

A second concept that must be borne in mind is that the then Minister told the municipality that if the municipality and the farmers could not resolve their dispute, he would not proceed with the legislation and that the status quo should simply be maintained. Ownership would therefore remain vested in the magistrate of Paarl, and the holders of commonage rights would retain their rights.

The select committee on this legislation eventually made recommendations and recommended, inter alia, that the municipality could obtain ownership, but subject to the grazing rights of the farmers. That did not suit the municipality either. Further negotiations then took place and eventually in 1969 the farmers on the one hand, and the municipality on the other, came to an agreement which was placed in writing on 27 March 1969.

It is important to ascertain what this agreement provided for. Firstly, the farmers and the municipality decided that it was desirable that the disposal of Paarl Mountain should take place by way of legislation. Secondly, the agreement should be embodied in a document, and that document should be made a Schedule to the Act. Thirdly, the municipality would realize its ideal by obtaining ownership of the mountain, subject to certain rights of the adjoining farmers. Amid great jubilation that document was sent to the Minister together with an accompanying letter. An agreement was then reached and submitted to the State law adviser. The State law adviser thought that the agreement was vague, however, and recommended that the agreement should not become a Schedule to the Act. That is where the error crept in. Years went by, and the municipality eventually took legal advice which stated that this agreement was null and void for one important reason, viz that it was not included as a Schedule to the Act. There was therefore a deficiency in the Act which arose as a result of an error which had crept in, and it was the task of the legislator to rectify that deficiency.

The select committee really had three choices. We could recommend that the Act should not be proceeded with, which would have meant that we would have negated the fact that the agreement of 1969 formed the basis of the 1970 Act, in terms of which the municipality obtained ownership. We would have negated the rights of all parties which would have arisen out of this. The municipality and the farmers were under the impression that the 1969 agreement was valid. Even more so were they under the impression that they were bound to the provisions of that agreement.

It is a pity that the hon member for Wynberg spoke about manipulation and other unsavoury things. The hon member had the opportunity to ascertain things like manipulation, etc, during the Second Reading of the Bill last year, as well as during sittings of the select committee, by way of cross-examination, or by questioning. However, he is now sucking things out of his thumb. I take it amiss of the hon member, with whom I cooperated very well, for coming up with such a ridiculous statement at this stage in the proceedings. I really should not even react to that.

Mr Chairman, I hasten to associate myself with previous speakers in expressing my gratitude and appreciation firstly, to the hon member for Newton Park for the way in which he handled this select committee. This select committee met for the first time in the middle of 1983.

There are special rules that apply in respect of hybrid Bills. Members have to be present throughout, and times have to be fixed so that everyone can be present. A member can only be absent if he has written permission, and more than one member may not be absent at a time. The hon member for Newton Park very patiently tried to get everyone together at all times, even late in the day and early in the morning. We greatly appreciate the fact that he was able to deal with the four different parties in this way so that we could discuss this matter in a very adult way.

I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is present this afternoon and I am also pleased that he said this afternoon that it is a good thing to reach consensus on nature conservation. Four White parties discussed nature conservation for more than a year and they were guided by expert witnesses from the entire spectrum in South Africa, people who have the highest qualifications. The cases were put by the most senior advocates in the Cape who agree that this constitutes spoiling one of the finest heritages of the people of South Africa.

Did you go and have a look?

Yes, we did go and have a look.

But this Bill is not concerned with nature conservation; it is concerned with a right.

It is concerned with that. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would listen throughout the debate, since he will then see to what extent it is concerned with nature conservation. It concerns a rare type of plant that is only found on this dolomite formation and which will probably never be restored. I shall come to that, however, since we are in fact discussing the clause now. [Interjections.] I also want to tell the hon the Minister something about political expediency, since very odd things have happened here. [Interjections.]

Order!

Firstly, the hon the Minister of Agriculture—I am pleased that the previous Minister of Agriculture is here, too—prevented this Bill from coming to this House for five years. He said that it should be fought out amongst the parties and in the courts. Suddenly the previous hon Minister of Land Affairs came forward in 1983 and took the part of the few farmers who are going to benefit from this. Secondly the Department of Nature Conservation of the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province objected formally to the Bill and the MEC Ordered the Director of the Province to withdraw his petition of objection to this Bill. Why did this happen, Mr Chairman? Thirdly, Dr Neethling, who is a senior officer in nature conservation in the Cape Province was not permitted to give evidence before the select committee, since the National Party MEC in the Cape Province prohibited him from giving evidence. [Interjections.] That is how the National Party works. Mr Chairman, do you know what? We had to come back to the House of Assembly to obtain permission, since the rules with regard to hybrid Bills provide that we cannot summons him to give evidence. We obtained leave from this House to get Dr Neethling to come and give evidence because his MEC—lord and master—prohibited him from giving evidence.

It was the members of the National Party who asked for that.

That is what the National Party did with regard to this matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

For five years that hon Minister who is sitting over there refused to intervene. He said: “Let the battle proceed. I am not going to permit Parliament to interfere in a private dispute between two parties.” After five years, and after the municipality of Paarl had won the court cases, the farmers had appealed, and the appeal had been dropped, something happened. What happened? We want to know what happened.

I now want to express our party’s heartfelt thanks to Mr Douglas and his officials, as well as the typists, who were extremely helpful and patient in regard to this very difficult matter. We also wish to express our gratitude to the advocates and the witnesses who gave their attention to this very difficult problem with so much thoroughness and competence. The sum total of this problem, however—they spoke about preponderance yesterday—is that the preponderance of evidence against the farmers was fatal.

From the point of view of conservation.

I shall come to the other aspect when I have another turn to speak. It is not only the point of view of conservation that is relevant here; but also the town council of Paarl, which represents the inhabitants of Paarl, which represents present public opinion. The hon the Deputy Minister is a reasonable person and I am extremely surprised that he is proceeding with this evil. I cannot imagine that the hon the Deputy Minister is allowing himself to be used to proceed with this Bill. It is incomprehensible. Apart from that, there is legal opinion which indicates that we are not really acting within our rights here. Clause 1 of the bill aims at abolishing section 2 of the Paarl Mountain Act, 1970, and to make the entire measure subject to the provisions of the proposed new section 2A, ie to the agreement—the hon the Deputy Minister must listen now—but then only to certain provisions of the agreement and leaves essential provisions of the agreement, viz clause 3 which reads that the section of the Paarl Mountain that does not fall within the boundaries of the proclaimed nature reserve will be leased to owners of adjoining farm properties for agricultural purposes, subject to permission from the Administrator, for a period of 50 years at a rental of 25 cents per annum. Clause 3 is now being omitted completely. The hon member for Newton Park spoke about the sanctity of the agreement, but this House is now omitting clause 3 to the detriment of the town council of Paarl and the entire community …

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Bryanston permitted to say that hon members on this side are all corrupt?

I said “It is corrupt”.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member can at least be honest and a gentleman. He told me to my face: “You are all corrupt”.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is guilty of a blatant untruth, as he so often is. I said that the matter was corrupt and used the words “It is corrupt”.

You are a liar.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “liar”.

Is it fair that I have to withdraw words when another hon member makes blatant allegations and then denies that he made them?

Order! In terms of the rules of this House the word “liar” is unparliamentary, and I ask the hon the Minister to withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Bryanston permitted to say that the hon the Minister is guilty of a blatant untruth? I maintain that it is implicit in the expression “blatant untruth” that the hon the Minister knew it was an untruth, That is unparliamentary, and in view of that, it is my submission that the hon member withdraw that.

Order! I ask the hon member for Bryanston to withdraw the word “blatant” in this context.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “blatant” and I say that it is a “complete” untruth.

Order! the hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he must take note that clause 3 … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I join with other members in expressing the thanks of this party to the chairman of the select committee, the hon member for Newton Park, for dealing with such a complex subject in the select committee in the way he did. Not only was it a select committee on a hybrid Bill in respect of which there are very few examples to follow … [Interjections.].

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town was the only hon member I called upon to speak.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare said I was a coward and the hon the Minister of Law and Order said I was a liar (“liegbek”). I ask you to rule that they withdraw their remarks.

Order! I ask the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare to withdraw the word “coward”.

Sir, may I address you on this matter? The other day the hon member for Bryanston was ordered to withdraw from the Chamber because he accused people of corruption. He is doing so again today …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order!

Sir, I am making a point of order.

You are making a speech. Sir, on a point of order …

Order!

Sir, I asked whether I could address you and you did not refuse my request. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Bryanston is treating the ruling given by the Chair on that occasion with absolute contempt. I think you should object seriously to that. In view of the fact that the hon member is denying what I said I am prepared to say that if he says that he gives his word and vouches for it himself I shall accept his word.

Order! In spite of what the hon the Minister said I ask him once again to withdraw the word “coward”. It may not be used in respect of another hon member.

Sir, because I respect the Chair I shall withdraw it.

Order! I ask the hon Minister to withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Law and Order also used words which he ought to withdraw.

What were the words?

He said “You are a bar (liegbek).”

Did the hon the Minister of Law and Order use those words?

Yes, Sir.

Order! I want no further discussion of this matter. I ask the hon the Minister to withdraw the words.

I withdraw them out of respect for you, Sir.

Mr Chair man, on a point of order: The hon member for De Kuilen said that both Ministers were right.

Did the hon member for De Kuilen use those words?

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to say, then, that I am sorry that both of them …

Order! All I am asking is that the hon member with draw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I again call on the hon member for King William’s Town to speak and I want to warn hon members that if the debate does not proceed in an orderly fashion, I shall prohibit all further interjections.

Thank you, Sir. I was saying that the chairman of the select committee carried out a difficult task very well and with great patience with the able assistance of the parliamentary staff who have had a gruelling session. The select committee sat for many months on a matter which really becomes more involved as longer stories are told about it. I do not intend covering again the background which the hon member for Newton Park has just explained to the House or the other points already made because that would simply cloud the issue.

What happened here is that during a certain phase in the transfer of rights certain farmers saw an opportunity to enrich themselves. There is no argument about the rights they previously had, which were purely grazing rights, and somewhat tenuous at that in terms of their use in the preceding years. Nevertheless, the rights were written into the original deed of grant. They were only grazing rights. These farmers saw the opportunity to use those rights to prevent the transfer of ownership to the Municipality of Paarl. Initially, the municipality with which they were dealing was strong and full of character and thus resisted their efforts to be given rights in excess of those to which they were entitled. However, finally there was a municipality—and this remains one of the unanswered questions—after many years that was a weak municipality. One wonders whether these people were not perhaps carefully placed in those positions so as to ensure that the municipality could be dragooned into doing the will of those farmers. Nevertheless, this weak municipality acceded to the requests, of those farmers which enabled them to receive something to which they were never entitled. The irony of the situation is, of course, that we have a municipality today that is seeking to put matters right and prevent the further destruction of what has long since been declared a national monument by this Parliament. They are seeking to rectify this matter, and this Parliament is in fact today going counter to that municipality and in effect changing an agreement to suit those farmers. In simple terms, that is the situation in which we find ourselves today. If this legislation goes through, Parliament will be changing the agreement to suit those farmers. We believe that it would be incorrect to do so and, in the light of the fact that we are sitting here in the dying hours of the last all-White Parliament in this country, I want to say that it is a disgrace that this measure should be before the House today. The only issue that hon members of the NP who sat on the committee seek to raise is the fact that they wish to honour an agreement that was made in 1969. They feel that it is their duty now, 15 or so years later, to ensure that that agreement is carried out to the letter. However, the fact remains that we are nor fulfilling that agreement because it is being changed by this amendment into another agreement. The original decision by the then Minister in 1970 when the Act was passed not to become involved in this dispute was the correct one. I say that it is a very sorry day for us today when one realizes that we are becoming involved in something which we should not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting, thus making it necessary for new negotiations to be entered into so as to arrive at a solution which will be more in keeping with the more enlightened attitude of people today towards the preservation of national monuments and of our natural environment. There is, of course, the main factor and that is that these people who seek to gain these rights are being given rights far in excess of what they were previously entitled to. That matter is not in dispute at all. Any member of the select committee including the Government members will agree with me that the farmers who are to receive these rights will be receiving rights far in excess of those to which they are entitled. How can it therefore be possible that hon members who acknowledge this fact are still in favour of this Parliament today granting those people those rights in excess of those to which they are entitled?

Do the farmers contribute money to the NP?

That is an interesting question. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town based his whole argument on the fact that the present legislation alters the original agreement in certain respects, and that consequently that is why the agreement is not being carried into effect. I do not want to elaborate very much on that now, except just to point out that the only aspect of that agreement that is being amended in terms of the measure before the House at present, is the removal of the loopholes in it which will make it possible once again to frustrate the intention of the legislator, as has been the case over the past 15 years. That is the only respect in which the agreement is being amended.

Nor do I want to elaborate on the arguments of the hon member for Brakpan, except to refer to his mention of the preponderance of evidence before the committee,, which was supposedly so overwhelmingly in the favour of the farmers.

Against the farmers.

Very well, against the farmers then. If by that the hon member for Brakpan meant that the objectors with their three advocates brought a great deal more evidence before the committee than was the case with the promoters, he is quite correct. In the words of his own leader during the past few days, that does not represent the preponderance of evidence. The members of the select committee had to assess the quality of the evidence.

However, I now want to come back to the introductory remarks of the hon member for Wynberg. Hon members must surely have noticed that something was amiss when we heard sentiments such as those expressed by the hon member for Wynberg—coming from that party. He said that those who spoilt our monuments and those who now want to harm our people’s heritage, are being reinstated here. If that is what the considerations of the PFP amount to, we have always judged them on appearances. During the course of his introductory remarks the hon member for Wynberg spoke about an agreement that was imposed on the town council of Paarl. That is not true, however. The hon member for Wynberg, knows that it is not true. When one listens to the hon member for Wynberg, one wonders who did in fact impose this on the town council of Paarl. The select committee? Parliament?

The real circumstances—and the hon member cannot get away from that—are that the municipality of Paarl has been trying since the ’twenties to obtain ownership of Paarl Mountain. A new component was added on the occasion of the Van Riebeeck Festival in 1952, a new urgency in this desire of the municipality of Paarl. Of course, we are not criticizing them for that. It was because they wanted to obtain ownership in order to establish a nature reserve there. All the attempts of the municipality to obtain ownership of Paarl Mountain simply failed, however, until the municipality eventually had to admit that there was only one way of accomplishing this, viz by way of legislation to carry this into effect.

Now it is also important to remember that when legislation was requested, certain farmers objected. From what the hon member for Newton Park said, we know that not everyone who had rights there objected. Certain farmers did, in fact, object, however.

About their grazing rights.

The agreement was entered into in 1969. The important thing to remember, however—in contrast with what the hon member for Wynberg said—is that that agreement was based on proposals which the municipality itself submitted to the Cape Provincial Administration in 1968. There was no question of imposing anything. If this agreement was imposed by anyone, it was by the municipality of Paarl, in 1968.

That particular municipality.

The hon member for King William’s Town says “that particular municipality”. Does he wish to intimate for one moment that the undertaking of a public body in 1968 was an undertaking that could not be relied on in the ensuing years. That is what he is intimating, not so?

It was declared null and void.

That is not true. If a town council, a provincial council, or even this Parliament, adopts a certain standpoint at a certain stage, it remains valid. The municipality of Paarl must therefore still accept responsibility for what it proposed as the basis for this agreement in 1968.

Then, as precursor to, and as a basis for, the Act of 1970, an agreement was entered into with certain farmers in 1969 regarding the proposals of the municipality of Paarl. The municipality achieved three things by way of that agreement. Firstly, it obtained its long-desired ownership. Secondly, it achieved a solution to a dispute with its own people, something which had gone on for many years. Thirdly, it achieved the retention of its own illegal dams on that mountain, the three dams the municipality had illegally on State-owned land.

The municipality of Paarl regarded the fulfilment of those three ideals as important enough to meet the demands of public interest. There was no objection by the municipality of Paarl to certain individuals benefiting. The municipality of Paarl was not concerned about those who did not object. The municipality of Paarl was not concerned about the rental of 25 cents that was imposed. The consideration then that certain people who held rights in 1838 were not represented in the other contracting party, was not important to the municipality of Paarl.

It has already been said that the agreement was omitted from the 1970 Act, but not through the instrumentality of the municipality of Paarl, but through an omission by the State itself. The municipality of Paarl, together with the contracting farmers, insisted on the inclusion of the agreement as part of that Act.

Later—it was a considerable time later, eight years later, to be precise, since that was in 1977—the municipality received legal opinion that the agreement was invalid. The reason why there had been a delay, is simply that there were protracted negotiations concerning the Taalmonument on Paarl Mountain, which, in the view of the hon member for Wynberg, would probably also constitute spoiling a national monument.

It then appeared from this legal opinion that that agreement which the municipality initiated in 1969 and which gave the municipality all the things it strove for, was really invalid. What did the municipality of Paarl do then? Any reasonable person, any right-thinking person, would expect that a town council that discovers that an agreement which it has entered into and which afforded it certain benefits, was invalid, would try to reopen negotiations with the other contracting party and that after it has renegotiated the agreement, it would come back to the legislator to convince the legislator to rectify his legislation.

After all, the town council of Paarl knew who the other party was. They knew who the farmers concerned were. They were there in their area; those farmers came and did their shopping in their town every day. There was nothing to prevent them from getting that conference of 1969 together again and saying: People, we have now reached a dead end; we are faced with an obstacle and the execution of this matter about which we and you have agreed …

But then the matter was before the court.

No, that was long before it came before the court, and the hon member knows that.

Did the town council then go to the other party in this agreement? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as one of the members of the select committee, I also want to express my gratitude to the chairman …

You Free Staters are really participating in the debate a great deal.

Does Paarl not have its own people …

If only the hon member for Bryanston would keep his mouth shut, we could perhaps discuss this matter. Mr Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman of the select committee for the extremely democratic way in which he dealt with the proceedings of that committee. We found ourselves in an absolute maze of legal opinion. I am not saying this to try and be funny. The only reason why I am saying this is because there are so many standpoints concerning a variety of matters of matters in respect of this issue. Of course there would be differences of opinion about that. Mr Chairman, what I found very interesting, was the easy way in which the Opposing parties reached consensus. That was the most interesting aspect of the whole matter. It was an extremely complicated matter about which we deliberated for 18 months and despite that, consensus between the opposing parties was reached very quickly. [Interjections] During the development of this whole matter one of course had to be very careful not to adopt a popular standpoint, but rather to be sure that one was adopting a responsible standpoint. I think that what is being submitted to this House today is a responsible standpoint. There are 65 farmers who live on land adjoining this mountain and who avail themselves of their rights and who have in fact demanded their rights. On the other hand, there are 30 000 other people in Paarl who are opposed to this legislation. If these 65 farmers follow the “establishment” to which the hon member for Wynberg referred because they are in the minority, I want to assure him that we, as a responsible Government in South Africa—and I am saying this to the hon member for Brakpan as well—also protect the rights of that small minority of people. It is the duty of all of us as public representatives to protect people’s rights even if they are a minority group. This also applies to the rest of the farmers in South Africa, since they, too, are in the minority in South Africa. That is true, since there are only 70 000 of them left. They are in the minority, but even their rights will be protected by this responsible Government.

The second important matter we as public representatives must consider, is our bounden duty with regard to nature conservation. The same also applies in respect of preserving historic monuments, of course. As a civilized group of people in a civilized society, we have a bounden duty in respect of nature conservation. What do we have here, Mr Chairman? We have here an island of granite in a geological system which creates an extremely unique ecological system which means that certain kinds of fynbos occur there that do not occur anywhere else in this region. There are only two places, viz Paarl Mountain and Perdeberg near Malmesbury where certain endangered species of fynbos still occur. We had evidence that an extremely rare kind of endangered dwarf vygie occurs here—and I think the scientific name is Conophytum turrigerum—and it only occurs in two places, viz on Paarl Mountain and on Perdeberg, near Malmesbury. Furthermore, we also had evidence that species of unique and endangered protea occur on Paarl Mountain. Today I want to tell hon members that if we has not reached this agreement and were not able to lay this legislation before the House today, this House would not be able to do its duty in respect of nature conservation. The 1969 agreement that has been spoken of forms the moral basis in terms of which the municipality of Paarl obtained ownership. It was agreed that a nature reserve would be established there and that the farmers would lose their rights in that nature reserve. If I could speak in the old terms, I could say that it constitutes 3 000 morgen, whilst there are an additional 300 morgen remnant of land which do not fall within this nature reserve

How much money do those farmers contribute to the National Party’s fund?

Order! I want to warn the hon member for Bryanston that he has made enough interjections now. In future the hon member must ask the hon member addressing the House whether he is prepared to reply to a question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question then?

I am prepared to reply to a question.

I want to ask the hon member whether those farmers make a financial contribution to the NP’s funds and, if so, to what extent? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The question the hon member for Bryanston is asking now contains a blatant insinuation that there are irregularities. I want to ask that he be ordered to withdraw that.

That is not a point of order. The hon member Dr Odendaal may proceed.

The hon member for Bryanston is interested to know how many of these farmers contribute to NP funds. I do not know, but I want to tell him that he is only interested in one thing, viz to suck venom from this matter. He does not care about nature conservation in the least. Sir, political expediency has been mentioned, but can you see how the slips are showing now? [Interjections.] That is the popular standpoint. It is also what this whole debate is about. If the farmers had retained their grazing rights on the mountain and the mountain had to be burnt to keep it fit for use by animals, we would not be able to succeed in preserving this exceptional area even with the best techniques known in nature conservation today. We now have those 2 700 ha at our disposal, where the Paarl municipality can practice nature conservation with the advice of the best experts at their disposal.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member indicate to the House whether in his opinion the agreement between the municipality and the farmers, which included their ploughing up of the ground, was a correct and good agreement in the interests of preservation, and whether it is possible for that ground to be repaired?

I shall reply to the hon member with pleasure. Basically, he is asking me whether I think it was a good agreement. I say it was a poor agreement. However, it is not for this House to judge whether it was good or a poor agreement. We have a given agreement which serves as a basis for further action, viz to grant the municipality of Paarl ownerships. We have an agreement which provides that there will be a remnant of land. We have an agreement which serves as a basis for establishing a nature reserve where the best ecological practices can be implemented. I say it is a poor agreement, but we in this House do not have another choice. It is the responsible standpoint, viz to proceed with that agreement as a basis so that the ultimate objectives, which we all ought to plead for and strive for, can be achieved.

Mr Chairman, I was asked why I said that this agreement had been enforced and why I said that there had been manipulation. I want to reply to that.

Firstly I think it is important to bring it to the attention of the House that Paarl Mountain, the commonage was declared a national monument, by way of proclamation, as far back as 1963. It is specifically stated in that proclamation that no large schemes involving afforestation or the removal of trees, shrubs, etc, or other plant material, and no construction of buildings, roads or pathways was to take place on the mountain without the written permission of the commission. That is the first point that must be borne in mind. Long before there was any question of an agreement the mountain had, therefore, been declared a national monument, with an explanation of the circumstances under which changes to the mountain could be brought about.

Secondly I must point out that in 1967 legislation was introduced in Parliament, but the legislation was referred back because no agreement could be reached about the question of the grazing rights that the farmers wanted. It is interesting to note that a previous Paarl MP, Wynand Malan, then suddenly appeared on the scene and made a few illuminating and interesting proposals. Unfortunately I cannot quote the entire document, but he said, amongst other things, that there were indeed 48 Paarl inhabitants who could lay claim to compensation. He also said that there were a large number of owners of commonage rights, and then asked whether the rights of those owners of the commonage could not be paid cash for their rights. The then National Party MP for Paarl therefore suggested that these people’s rights be bought out. Mr Malan went on to say:

Could the hon the Deputy Minister perhaps tell me since when the farmers or the inhabitants of Paarl were the owners of the land? In my opinion that was never the case. Those people merely had the right to exercise certain commonage rights on the mountain. The then MP for Paarl tried to give them the impression, however, that they could do with the mountain as they saw fit because they were supposedly the owners. I think we ought to take note of that.

Arising from this idea that they could do what they wanted to with the mountain the action committee, which was appointed at the time, asked whether, in exchange for relinquishing their rights, they could obtain rights of ownership to a certain portion of the mountain. The answer to the question that was put to me is very significant.

Order! The hon member must now please confine himself to the wording of clause 1. I have allowed previous speakers to cover the background and the history leading up to this matter more widely, but members must now confine themselves to the wording of the clause.

Mr Chairman, I abide by your ruling. Please allow me to round off the idea I was busy with.

The farmers asked to be allowed to obtain transfer of the land; not only a small portion of the mountain, but in the presence of the then Nationalist MP for Paarl they asked for almost 50% of the mountain. That would have meant some of those people obtaining pieces of land possibly three, four or five times larger than their own farms. Those are the events leading up to this, and that is why I said that those people were land hungry and used manipulation to obtain land much greater in extent than their farms. In their land-hungry efforts they eventually enforced a contract, and what coercive measures did they make use of? If the municipality would not agree to their proposal, they would not allow the land to be transferred to the Paarl municipality. In other words, a few farmers in Paarl manipulate the whole Paarl community by refusing to co-operate with a view to having that nature reserve established.

In the contract provision was also made—I now come to the point you want me to refer to, Sir—that a leasing agreement could only be concluded upon the adoption of a certain procedure. The hon the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Fisheries will agree with me. Firstly, there must be an advertisement; secondly, in terms of clause 1(c) the Administrator must give his approval for such a leasing agreement and, thirdly, the National Monuments Council must also give its permission because of its being a national monument.

What, however, are we dealing with today? Today we are in the process of doing away with the requirement stipulating that the Administrator should grant his approval. Those people are therefore being granted the absolute right to use the land. In the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper I am therefore moving that clause 1(c) be deleted. This would at least create a situation enabling the Administrator to ensure that justice is done, that the land is not misused and the mountain not unnecessarily defaced and also that the National Monuments Council be consulted when the final decision is taken. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon member for Wynberg’s amendment as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react briefly to the hon member for Wynberg’s concluding remarks. You have already given a ruling prohibiting speakers from discussing the merits of the Bill in as much detail as they have done thus far. I think that was a good and timely ruling. You must please permit me, however, to react to one statement the hon member for Wynberg made.

The hon member tried to creat the impression that there was so-called manipulation that gave rise to a specific agreement and that the MP for Paarl, a National Party member of the House of Assembly, was instrumental in having that manipulation take place. Please permit me, Sir, to put this matter straight for the record. The hon member for Wynberg is delving far into the past, but fails to mention everything that has happened since then. What he has failed to mention is that in 1968 a parliamentary select committee was appointed and that that select committee recommended that legislation be passed with due regard to the grazing rights of the farmers, which were not even all the rights to which the farmers could lay claim in terms of the 1838 land title deed. What he also failed to mention was the fact that both the farmers and the Government were prepared to accept that recommendation, but that the Paarl town council was not prepared to do so, and that as a result we found ourselves with the dilemma with which we are confronted here today.

I now want to come to the point the hon member raised about doing away with the requirement in the agreement that the Administrator grant his approval. In that connection I just want to point out to hon members that when the argreement was entered into in 1969 a specific ordinance, regulating the approval by the Administrator, was in force. In terms of that ordinance an advertisement had to be placed requesting people to record their objections. The ordinance has since been amended, and today it is no longer necessary for the Administrator to demand that an advertisement be placed asking for objections to be lodged. That was the case in terms of the 1974 ordinance.

I want to state here and now that at this stage it would be foolish to persist with the requirement that the Administrator should grant his approval, because in principle he has, in point of fact, already granted his approval.

On 30 January 1976 the Paarl town council, by way of the town clerk, wrote a letter to the Director of Nature Conservation of the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope in which he said the following:

That was the way in which he viewed the matter. He went on to say:

In other words, an Act was passed as a result of an agreement entered into between the parties. He then asked for the relative land, as designated in a map appended to the letter, to be proclaimed a nature reserve. He appended various plans. One of these was a plan indicating—and that was the standpoint of the town council in January 1976—what remnant of land, in terms of the council’s proposal, could be hired out to the adjoining land owners. On 23 December 1976 the provincial administration informed the municipality that its application had been approved. The communication went on to state that a further communication would follow in regard to the hiring out of the so-called remnant of land. I now want to refer to the important letter of 30 December 1976, which was sent to the Paarl town council by the Director of Local Government. I quote:

That is the letter to which I have just referred:

In other words, even at that stage the Administrator’s approval, in principle, had been obtained for the hiring out of the remnant of land. There were two conditions involved. The first was that the rental should be an economical rental. At a later stage in the debate I shall be coming back to that. That is one of the reasons why the majority of the members of the select committee decided to recommend an economical rental. The second condition was that the requirements dictating the form of the agreement should be subject to his approval. In speaking about the requirements dictating the form of the agreement, we must remember that at that stage the Administrator and the Executive Committee were in possession of the 1969 agreement and that they had, in essence, approved the form of that agreement. That is as far as I want to go with the question of the approval by the Administrator.

I am itching to reply to a few of the other arguments advanced here today, but I shall content myself with the ruling that we should not discuss matters in such detail and will therefore make use of a later opportunity for doing so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch pointed out that the ordinance has since been amended and that advertising is no longer necessary. Now we are looking, however, at the provision in that agreement that made it subject, at the time, to permission being granted by the Administrator. The hon member for Umlazi says that what has now been done has been to plug a loophole that the Paarl municipality had the benefit of. That is strange. Loopholes or resources available to the Paarl municipality are now being blocked, but not loopholes available to the farmers.

I should now like to go further with the argument I was advancing a short while ago. I then told the hon the Deputy Minister that in this clause provision was being made for a very important clause in the agreement to be omitted, a clause in terms of which it was necessary to make this agreement subject to permission being granted by the Administrator. The hon the Deputy Minister will also know that during that period it was necessary to advertise and that the National Monuments Council, or whatever it was called at the time, knew nothing at all of this agreement. The agreement had not been advertised at all. The only thing one knew anything about was the 1970 Act and the fact that a hybrid Bill was to be submitted to Parliament.

Whose fault was that?

We are not talking about it being anybody’s fault. It is a pity that the hon member for Sunday’s River is not here, because he, as a former MEC, concedes that the fact that the NMC was never consulted was an oversight. He also said we should not be concerned about the fact because we would be able to twist their arm. If it is that important for the agreement to be part of the Bill, the agreement must become part of the Bill. In this connection I should like to refer to what the hon member for Vasco, the hon member for Paarl and the hon the Deputy Minister’s predecessor said during the 1983 debate. This concerns the agreement referred to in clause 1. The hon member for Paarl who is sitting there so quietly—and this is happening in his constituency-said (Hansard, col 4948 of 18 April 1983):

In col 4956 the hon member for Vasco says:

The Deputy Minister, Mr Hennie van der Walt, said the following in col 4962:

What I now want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister is this: Do it then. Make the agreement part of the legislation, but do not selectively omit a fundamental paragraph in the agreement. It is unfair to the Paarl Municipality. If the Government members are such great champions of justice, fairness and decency, let them retain clause 3 of the agreement!

In this connection there is a further Parliamentary custom at issue. I should like to read what Erskine May says about this in the twentieth edition of Parliamentary Practice. I quote from page 558, as follows:

One can therefore change the rental and the period concerned, but one may not change the agreement. The hon the Deputy Minister is now asking this committee to amend an agreement, which should be appended as a whole, by omitting an important paragraph. I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister is entitled to do so. Nor is the Committee legally entitled to do so.

In this connection I want to refer to the argument of Adv Hofmeyr before the select committee. On page 58 he said:

We are not entitled to do so. On what grounds can this committee deviate from acknowledged and tried-and-tested parliamentary principles?

The agreement of 27 March 1969 was entered into between adjoining owners as of that date. They contended that they had lost commonage rights to which they had a claim. As quid pro quo these owners obtained a letting right in terms of the 1969 agreement. Now this clause, read in conjunction with clause 2(a), seeks to give these same benefits to people, irrespective of whether they were parties to the agreement or not and irrespective of whether they are people who can claim to have exercised commonage rights or to have intended to exercise them. The only fact is that they are now adjoining owners. Farmers who are now adjoining owners are obtaining rights which were negotiated in the 1969 agreement and which perhaps did not even exist when the 1969 agreement was entered into. They are now being benefitted in terms of this clause. The astounding position that now arises is that people who never had commonage rights are now obtaining a benefit, whilst other who previously had commonage rights are obtaining no compensation whatsoever. What is therefore happening is that the clause is seeking to amend the 1969 agreement and grant rights to people with whom the municipality had not entered into any agreement whatsoever.

Thirdly it is now unwise to enforce an agreement which is not legally enforceable and which does not confer any rights on any party. We must remember that the farmers did not negotiate in regard to an asset that was their property. They merely entered into negotiations about public commonage, though they were not the only people who had rights in regard to that land.

It also emerged very clearly in the select committee that that agreement was vague and that there was a dispute about why the agreement had not been appended in the first place. There is a possibility that it was not appended because it was vague and obscure and because, amongst other things, one could not determine, by way of that agreement, whether there were conflicting claims to the land if one carried the line through—under the next clause we shall again be referring to that. Apart from that, evidence was heard and arguments advanced about the agreement being vague and obscure and about it therefore not being desirable to append it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like at the outset to thank the hon member Dr Odendaal for his very honest answer to my question because one can understand the agonizing that went on in his case in regard to the select committee. I think it is also true to say that the same agonizing went on as far as the agreement was concerned, which is what this clause is all about, on the part of all the hon members of the Government who were members of the select committee. I do not think there is a single hon member who considers the agreement to be anything but a shabby, weak and very unfortunate agreement. However, we are not talking about the agreement now. We are talking about the rights that are being reinstated as a result of a contract entered into by the parties concerned. However, this is Parliament, and if the hon members of the select committee agree that what they are seeking to enforce by legislation is weak, shabby and incorrect, then I should like to know on what basis the decision can be made in the interests of the community as a whole and the retention of that national monument and the particular area protected by it that those farmers should receive something to which they are not entitled…

As far as the provision in clause 1 deleting the necessity for obtaining the Administrator’s approval is concerned, the second paragraph of the preamble to the memorandum of agreement which forms the Schedule to this Bill states that the town council and the owners are unanimous that Paarl Mountain be transferred in ownership to the Municipality of Paarl subject to certain conditions. If the Schedule is changed by the omission of the word “Administrator” which was part of the original agreement, then surely there can no longer be any unanimity. What was previously agreed upon unanimously is being destroyed by this amendment, and the situation now therefore bears no relation to the undertaking, good or bad, entered into between the two parties at the time.

I should also like to mention a further point in regard to this agreement. The hon member for Newton Park who was chairman of the select committee, indicated that the proposed amendment of the hon member for Wynberg was a little off-beat in suggesting that there was anything in the nature of pressure or any coercion as far as the town council was concerned. That is not so. In evidence it was repeatedly stated that pressure was brought to bear upon the town council, and the question was asked repeatedly what pressure had been brought to bear upon the town council. The hon member for Wynberg was not simply sucking something out of his thumb because this matter was discussed. The question I want to ask is whether the hon the Minister who is sitting over there very quietly absorbing all these facts has personally had the opportunity to go through all the evidence and to follow the case step by step. Quite obviously he has not been able to do that. He has been advised by the select committee and by some of his departmental officials who in my opinion are equally embrassed by the situation. Certainly I do not believe that if the hon the Minister were to read the evidence he could come to any other conclusion but that arrived at by the members of the opposition parties in regard to this legislation. This clause now seeks to remove part of an agreement which is referred to in the schedule as having been unanimous, and therefore renders that agreement no longer unanimous. Therefore, we are legislating a lie.

Order! I want to point out to hon member for King William’s Town that I ruled the proposed amendment of the hon member for Wynberg out of order because it was in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. In view of this fact, the hon member will be attempting to circumvent my ruling if he continues to argue this point.

Mr Chairman, I am not discussing the proposed amendment of the hon member for Wynberg. I am referring to the amendment printed in the original Bill to delete subsection (7). This appeared in the original Bill which was before this House in 1983 and which sought to omit reference to the Administrator. The hon member for Wynberg moved an amendment seeking for the re-insertion of “the administrator”. I am therefore not addressing myself to the question of retaining “the administrator”. I am actually discussing the clause as printed, which includes the removal of “the administrator”.

Order! I should like to point out that when the Bill was agreed to at Second Reading, the principle involved in the deletion of subsection (10) was accepted. Therefore it cannot again be raised in the Committee Stage.

Mr Chairman, allow me to address you on the question of the principle. As I understand it, a hybrid bill does not by definition contain a principle. Therefore, provided one is dealing with the subject matter, I do not believe one can indeed accept a principle in a hybrid bill. A hybrid bill is referred to a select committee without necessarily tying down the select committee by a commitment to the principle. A hybrid bill, because of its curious nature, precisely has no principle.

Order! I should point out that in terms of this Bill a substantive right is being given. It would therefore be in conflict with the Bill to make a substantive right subject to certain conditions. In the acceptance of the Bill at Second Reading the proposed deletion of subsection (7) implies the acceptance of a substantive right, and that is a principle that has already been accepted. The hon member for King William’s Town may continue.

Mr Chairman, I find it rather difficult now to proceed in the light of the ruling you have just given. I do, however, intend to abide by your ruling. In the long title of the Bill one reads:

In view of this it is rather difficult to pursue the matter any further without referring to the removal of “the administrator” in terms of clause 1, which, as you have ruled, affects the principle of this measure. However, that being the case, I should need a little more time in order to consider approaching the matter from a different angle.

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with the substitution for “Community Development” by the word “Agriculture”. The hon the Deputy Minister who is in charge of this Bill is actually here to fulfil his duty as Deputy Minister of the Department of Community Development. As you mentioned earlier, Mr Chairman, the question here is one of substantive rights. In bringing the Minister of Community Development into the provisions of this Bill instead of, as it used to be, the Minister of Agriculture, it is clear that he now has the responsibility for the execution of an important piece of legislation, which deals with substantive rights in terms of the Expropriation Act. The hon the Minister of Community Development, who has a real interest in the provisions of this Bill, it seems, has never been shy to use the Expropriation Act in the national interest by why of invalidating or expropriating rights of people; peoples real rights in respect of property. In that respect this clause deals with the rights of people, whether it be grazing rights or water rights, or any other rights in terms of the Act itself.

It seems to me that the hon the Minister of Community Development, if he is really so concerned, ought to take the Expropriation Act and use that as an instrument to resolve this problem. If one reads the Preamble to the Paarl Mountain Act, 1970, it becomes apparent that certain rights are already expropriated in terms of that Act. I believe that that is the line which the hon the Minister of Community Development should follow. If this Bill is approved by this House we will have, I believe, committed a grave injustice to people. The hon the Minister of Community Development, who is now taking over the responsibility for the execution of this legislation, will have that injustice resting on his conscience, and I am sure he will not sleep at night. Therefore it seems to me that the solution to this problem lies in the hon the Minister of Community Development simply using these rights in terms of the Expropriation Act in order to invalidate whatever other rights people might have and to transfer those rights to this Bill because otherwise a gross injustice is going to be done.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the very outset, in my reply to the discussion, to express a word of thanks to all the hon members who served on the select committee and devoted their efforts to many hours of argument, as has been said previously. In this regard I want to extend a special word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, the hon member for Newton Park. I am aware of the fact that he devoted a great deal of time and effort to this matter, and also to consulting all the people involved in this on the select committee. That is why I am extending a special word of thanks to him. My thanks, too, to the officials and all other outside parties who furnished evidence, thereby giving us a clearer picture of what was going on.

A second point I want to make is that for me as a Transvaler, new as I am to this post, it was an experience to be involved in such a contentious piece of legislation. We are dealing here with a matter that has developed over many years. Some of the oldest hon members, on arriving here as new members, found that this matter had already been tabled. In these circumstances I find myself in a very difficult but also unique position. I can understand the situation and am very aware of it.

Thirdly I want to say that I think that the Government’s point of departure has always been to place a very high priority on nature conservation, to spend a great deal on it and to ensure that it comes into its own. [Interjections.] I therefore do not think that this question should be placed in any doubt.

Just the other day I took the trouble to drive to Paarl Mountain. I drove right up to the Taalmonument. [Interjections.] I said that I had taken the trouble to drive down there, but it was a pleasure for me to be there. [Interjections.] I stood at the Taalmonument and looked at Paarl Mountain, but I also turned my eyes to Table Mountain, which is also a national monument. I think that Table Mountain means a great deal to South Africa as a whole.

Then my eyes also travelled across the Cape Flats, with all the development taking place there. In those circumstances there was one thing I became conscious of, and that was that in any country recognition must be granted to its natural heritage, which must be developed. At the same time a balance should also be maintained with regard to the development that must take place. No government that is without that balance would have brought about any development merely by virtue of an awareness of nature conservation. Then there would have been no development of the Cape Flats where the wild birds lived in the marshes of those bygone days. We established the Port Jacksons on the Cape Flats for development purposes, even though that is not the natural habitat of those trees.

The first point I want to make is that one must maintain a balance between development and one’s natural resources, and the second point I want to bring very strongly to the fore in connection with this specific matter is that one must live in accordance with one’s beliefs. I personally am very conscious of nature conservation, but I think that the person for whom I have the greatest esteem in that connection is someone called Danie Yssel who lives in my constituency. He does not allow any tree on his farm or premises which is not an indigenous tree. Nor does he allow any plant to grow in his garden unless it is an indigenous plant. I think that anyone who does that, is practising what he preaches. It is on that basis that I should like to deal with the overall concept of a nature reserve. When, on that day, I stood at the monument that means so much to us, the Taalmonument, I remarked that all the parking space there and the development that had taken place for the erection of the Taalmonument meant the defacement of certain of the natural plants growing there. On the other hand, however, it was essential.

When the legislation came before Parliament for the first time, the hon the Minister was the one responsible for piloting it through the House. Certain people who had rights, however, were given prior notice, and in referring to rights, I am not referring to proprietary rights. When it had to be ascertained what people’s objections were to the transfer of Paarl Mountain to the Paarl Municipality, it was found that commonage rights were being exercised by a number of people. Not all of them could be traced, but 57 of those people lodged objections to Paarl Mountain, as a whole, being transferred to the Paarl Municipality, thus losing them their rights. As a result of this controversy, the Paarl farmers and the Paarl Municipality reached an agreement. At the time the Government accepted this agreement, with the concurrence of the opposition parties, on the understanding that the major portion of the 3 000 morgen would be transferred to the Paarl Municipality so that it could establish a nature reserve there. There would also be a remnant of land, comprising approximately 300 morgen, on which the farmers would have the right, for a period of 50 years, to carry out agricultural activities. One asks oneself to what extent the agreement, which was not incorporated in the legislation, led to the court judgment in connection with which these people—and specifically the hon member for Wynberg—stated that this side of the House ignores a court judgment. As far as this is concerned, the intention is that the implementation of the agreement—which the hon member for Brakpan rated so highly a short while ago—should form part of this and that those rights should also be acknowledged. One now asks oneself to what extent the permission of the Administrator, which is now being omitted, should, as part of the agreement …

Do you not think it is a shoddy agreement?

Mr Chairman, the hon member should give me a chance to finish speaking. One paragraph of that agreement is now being ignored because section 2(7) is being omitted from the legislation. The agreement provides that the municipality can hire out the land with the permission of the Administrator.

That is what the old Act provided.

Yes, that is what I am talking about. I am talking about the old Act. The old Act provides for the municipality to hire out the land, but then it must obtain permission. The new legislation provides, as a result of the problem that arose and the court judgment, that the municipality shall hire it out. Since the municipality shall hire it out, there is no reason why the Administrator should grant permission, because he is under an obligation to hire it out. That is what the legislation provides. Those are the grounds on which this aspect is being omitted. Merely from a juridical point of view, it is correct. There are no ulterior motives in saying that.

It is a great pity that an attempt was made at the beginning of the debate to create the impression of jobs for pals. I think that making such allegations without proof is one of the most reprehensible forms of conduct, casting suspicion on someone, without proof to back up any allegations, is the most reprehensible form of conduct imaginable. This House has only the highest regard for the integrity and probity of the previous hon member for Paarl, Mr Wynand Malan, as far as the matter as a whole is concerned. With regard to the previous hon member for. Paarl’s integrity and incurruptibility, let me say that there is no proof to indicate that whilst he was in the House, or at any stage in his entire career, he ever succumbed as far as this matter was concerned. I think it is necessary to say that in the House.

Sir, I now want to refer to a previous ruling of yours about an interjection or a question not being out of order. I am referring to the question about whether some of those farmers were NP supporters and contributed to NP funds, the insinuation very clearly being that those contributions from the farmers influence the Government of the country to adopt a certain standpoint, thus benefiting the farmers. Sir, if such a remark is not out of order here, it is the most reprehensible form of interjection or question that could possibly be made or asked here. I think every hon member of the House should treat it with contempt and reject it, unless the contrary can be proved. I think that we should judge this matter in sober terms, a matter which has two very emotional sides.

In conclusion I want to say that the Government of the country will do everything in its power—here I am including myself and all hon members who are involved in this—to extend and develop those things that are important and good as far as we as a people or nation in this country are concerned, but that we shall not deface nature and that development will continue to take place in a balanced manner.

Mr Chairman, I just want to react to one or two remarks of the hon the Deputy Minister. In the first instance he spoke of the day he made a difficult journey up the mountain and of the pleasure with which he then looked across the Boland, from Table Mountain on the one side to Paarl Mountain, and on the other side up to Malmesbury and past Paardeberg. He said that owing to progress certain parts of the landscape that he saw were disappointing. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the planting of Port Jackson trees, but I would not say that the reason for planting those trees had anything to do with progress. It took place, to a large extent, as a result of the materialistic approach of South African society, and I blame the hon the Deputy Minister for that. I do, however, take due note of the point he made about there having to be a balance between progress and nature conservation. On that very point a vast amount of evidence was furnished in the committee. The situation is, in point of fact, that in the wine and table grape industry in Paarl there is not the slightest necessity for cultivating vines on any additional land. On several occasions this year we have spoken, in this House, about the necessity of trying to save the wine industry from overproduction, and also about it being more important to produce quality grapes.

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

Mr Chairman, I bow to your ruling, but you will probably agree that I was merely replying to a cardinal point in the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Wynberg that the hon the Deputy Minister did, of necessity, have to reply to the wide-ranging discussion that I initially permitted. Thereafter, however, I appealed to hon members to confine themselves to the clause. To allow any response to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply now would be out of order.

Mr Chairman, I bow to your ruling.

Mr Chairman, I intend to speak about matters revolving around clause 1. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister said clause 3 of the agreement would not be applicable now because the Paarl town council had been compelled, in terms of legislation, to conclude an agreement with the farmers. That, however, is actually the whole basis of our appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister, and that is to abandon this Bill altogether. By accepting clause 1, clause 3 is being removed from the agreement, thus frustrating the agreement between the parties. On that question, however, the hon the Deputy Minister did not furnish adequate answers.

Order! When the hon member for King William’s Town was speaking, I pointed out that that was a principle that had already been decided upon at Second Reading. It is therefore not at issue now.

Mr Chairman, may I point out to you that this proposal was also made by a learned advocate in the select committee, and the chairman permitted him to elaborate on the issue, because that is the gist of the whole matter. Being unable to discuss matters involving clause 1, read in conjunction with clause 3, confounds all debating. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not know who all are chairmen of the Committee, but I am now in the process of addressing you, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

Nor did the hon the Deputy Minister reply to a further legal argument that I advanced. It is very important, because in terms of this clause people who were never part of the agreement, and were probably not even born yet when that agreement was concluded, are being benefited. If the hon the Deputy Minister could give a satisfactory answer on this aspect, we could possibly make some progress.

Nor has the hon the Deputy Minister yet replied to the problem of the vagueness and the illegality of the agreement. By omitting paragraph 3 and making the agreement part of the law of the land still means that what we have is an agreement which is vague and which cannot be enforced. The hon the Deputy Minister has not given an adequate reply to these two issues.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The agreement relates to clause 3 of the Bill. The hon member will be given enough time to speak about that. He cannot refer to that now, in the discussion of clause 1.

Order! Clause 1 provides: “Subject to … section 2A …” The hon member may proceed.

It is my right, the right of the Opposition, to expect the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to arguments put to him.

I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the House that this Bill is an abomination. We could return home if, for South Africa’s sake, this Bill were dispensed with.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan alleged that I had not replied to all his arguments, and I concede that I did not reply to one of his points, and that was the question about who had rights to that land.

The hon member alleges that in terms of the Bill people who had land adjoining that land were obtaining rights they never had previously. I do, however, want to refer to section 2(7) of the Principal Act, and I quote:

That is what I referred the hon member to on a previous occasion. I quote further:

It is therefore clear that the municipality lets it to owners of land adjoining the commonage.

That was in 1970. It is now 1984.

Yes, but the hon member will concede me the point that that right was then given to those people for 50 years. In those 50 years a great deal of changes in ownership could have taken place. Reference is now being made to persons owning adjoining property, which is not any different. The hon member now alleges that we did not know who the owners were. In the evidence heard by the select committee reference was made to the field-cornetcy of Agter-Paarl and the concomitant rights. So as far back as 1968 it was clear that there was some uncertainty about who the owners were who had rights on the commonage.

The hon member now makes the point that rights are being granted to people who never had rights. In 1977, however, there was some uncertainty about who had rights, and not one hon member can tell me what people have those commonage rights.

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

I shall reply to a question from the hon member in a moment. He is now playing with words when it comes to rights, ie a rights of ownership. If those farmers had commonage rights for grazing on the land, juridically speaking they did, after all, have rights they could exercise, rights they could enjoy the benefit of.

It was only commonage rights that they had.

If they only had commonage rights, they did have rights. Very well, the people had rights, but to what did their rights apply? I am now coming to the emotional argument advanced by hon members. Those people had grazing rights on the entire mountain that they could exercise. The 1970 Act provided that they would be deprived of their right to the largest portion of that mountain, and the farmers agreed.

The second relative point is that a remnant of land comprising 300 hectares or 10% is involved. 300 hectares of arable agricultural land is possibly implicated, but we know that this 300 hectares of land includes crags and rocks that are not arable. That is point number one. Point number two—and this the hon member for Wynberg said—is that this is now going to be developed for the cultivation of vines for producing wine and that this could have a detrimental affect on the whole face of things and the objectives. The hon member is a wine farmer. Let me ask him whether, under these circumstances, he could plant wine grapes and obtain a quota. I shall be replying to that. There sits the chairman of the KWV. Are they going to allocate quotas if they plant wine grapes there?

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister.

No I am still talking. [Interjections.] The impression is being created, at an emotional level that that mountain is now to be developed and is thereby going to be destroyed, thus being lost to South Africa. What farmers are going to spend R7 500 in capital development to plant wine grapes there? Let me now ask another question. Could a farmer plant table grapes there? Is there enough water to irrigate the 300 hectares? All the evidence before the select committee indicated that it would not be possible. There is not the necessary water for irrigation on that 300 hectare remnant of land, according to the evidence that was furnished. The point I want to make is that the image that is being created about this land being developed is an incorrect one, but that their rights on the mountain have decreased from 1970 until now, and will also subsequently be decreasing. The next point I want to make is that these rights exist for a period of 32 years and that after that no farmer will have any rights—with their permission.

Then it is all over. Then the die is cast.

No, it is very easy to say that the die is cast. We do not give up that easily.

The last point I want to make before I give the hon member for Wynberg an opportunity to put a question to me is that the present…

Why do you people not remove the big rock because then there would surely be many more farmers who could farm there?

Since he is so clever, let me put the following question to the hon member for Greytown: To what points do the present farm boundaries of the farmers on the mountain extend? [Interjections.] But then he must keep his mouth shut or speak about a subject he knows something about. The present farm boundaries of some of the farmers extend virtually to the summit of the mountain. By virtue of their right of ownership those farmers have the right to develop the entire area, because of all the bodies concerned, the farmers of South Africa are the people who do most for development and nature conservation. In the debate today, however, hon members are trying to prejudice the cause of the farmers by saying they are the people who would destroy it. [Interjections.] Surely it is the farmers who are involved here. What hon members are wanting to say, after all, is that the farmers are destroying everything. [Interjections.]

Order!

The farmers are the ones who, in point of fact, apply nature conservation. I now have pleasure in giving the hon member for Wynberg an opportunity to put his question.

Firstly I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is aware of the fact that even at this stage, with or without KWV quotas, there are approximately 46 ha under cultivation on that mountain. Secondly I want to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that people who under produce or overproduce on certain land can, by way of negotiations with the KWV’s board of directors, obtain permission to plant vineyards on new land if they remove their old vineyards. Thirdly I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, who, comes from the north, whether he is aware of the fact that some of the best wine grapes in the Western Cape are cultivated in dry vine-growing land where one therefore does not need irrigation. Fourthly I want to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that in Paarl there are a large number of export grape farmers who pump water up from the river to irrigate vines against the slopes of Paarl Mountain. In the sixth place … [Interjections.] He is so clever and knows all the answers. So let me put a few questions to him. Is he aware of the fact that in the Kirsten Dam there is enough water to irrigate the vineyards already planted by the farmers?

It is a pleasure for me to answer the hon member’s questions, and if I do not reply to each and every one, he must remind me of those I have forgotten about. His first question had to do with the amount of land already cultivated. Blocks A, B, C and D comprise 43 ha, according to the evidence presented to this select committee. With the inclusion of the surrounding land that has also been ploughed, this area increases to 46 ha and even to 54 ha, as was apparent from the cross examination of witnesses.

Approximately 46 ha has been planted.

Very well. I just want to show the hon member that I know the story. As far as the question of the dam is concerned, the evidence before the select committee indicated that if the dam is full, there is enough water to irrigate the 43 ha. It was also said, however that since the building of the dam in the ’twenties of ’thirties it has only been full on two occasions. As a practising fanner the hon member will appreciate the fact that under normal circumstances there is insufficient water for the irrigation of the 43 ha. The hon member also spoke of the possibility of pumping irrigation water from the river to the top of the mountain. That is possible, and in this connection I cannot give the hon member a satisfactory answer. As a practising farmer, however, let me tell him …

You are not a practising farmer in the Boland.

The hon member knows as well as I do that at this stage there is optimal usage of available water. Normally there is more available land than the quantity of water available for that land. In the Boland that is also the case. The water rights for the pumping of water from the river to the top of the mountain are therefore limited. From a cost point of view it is more expensive to pump water from the river below to the mountain top than it is to irrigate the land at the foot of the mountain.

The hon member’s last question concerned whether I was aware of the fact that the best wine grapes were cultivated on dry land. I do not want to argue with the hon member, but I want to ask him whether those people have a quota to plant a further 100 ha. They do not. As far as my knowledge goes, the last quotas were issued in 1975—I speak under correction. Nor does the KWV make it known in advance when it is again going to issue quotas, and this is done so as to prevent people from knowing in advance what is going on.

The farmers can also employ the land for other purposes. If they cannot plant wine grapes, they can plant export grapes.

Order!

I am now dealing with this one argument at a time. I am not certain whether I heard correctly, but I think that one of the points the hon member made was that farmers would use those vines to supplement their other quotas. I do not know what the situation is, but I do want to say that I think that that it would be a dangerous situation that would then develop. A vineyard quota is granted per vine. Is the hon member therefore trying to say that farmers would freely be able to exchange the other vines for a quota of vines on this side?

I said in negotiation with the KWV Board.

Order!

Sir, there sits the chairman of the KWV and he says it is impossible.

If I have neglected to reply to any questions, I should like to do so now, but none of the hon member’s few questions that I dealt with have any merit.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to make a final point in regard to the attitude of the Government members that, as regards this agreement and the proposed change, there is a contract and they are honour bound in their new-found righteousness to see that that contract is made part…

What do you mean by “new found righteousness”?

Exactly what I say.

That is not very nice, you know.

It is correct and I will tell the hon member why. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to justify what I am saying. The question of whether a contract can be broken or not was debated in this House only a few days ago when we were discussing legislation which was introduced by the hon the minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon member for Umbilo at the time put it to the hon the Minister that the Remuneration of Town Clerks Bill would result in existing contracts being broken. The hon the Minister replied that that did not matter because there was a provision in the Bill to deal with aggrieved cases. In other words, the principle of breaking the contract and then dealing with those who felt aggrieved by that was upheld by that hon Minister and that party. As regards the contract we are dealing with today, however, there is no way that the NP can think of breaking the contract despite the fact that they agree that it is a bad one. It just does not make sense.

It is a question of different principles for different situations.

Yes, it is a question of different principles for different situations when it suits them. That is why I spoke of new-found righteousness. Yesterday it was correct but today it is not correct. It is ridiculous. It is rather like the African way of doing things where the chap who makes the laws and carries them out changes them to suit himself, passes sentence and carries out the execution. His approach changes from case to case depending on whether he likes a guy or not and on whether he is given a goat or a bottle of brandy. That is what is happening here. It is a question of a principle being made to suit the circumstances.

I would like to quote very succinct words presented in evidence concerning this point. They are contained in page 48 in the final summing up for the Municipality of Paarl and relate to “die Administrateur se goedkeuring en regstelling van die 1969-ooreenkoms”.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I want to object once again. I believe the hon member is still discussing clause 1(c). It has been ruled out of order repeatedly but I think you should do it once again, otherwise we shall never finish. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to appeal to hon members strictly to limit themselves to the terms of this clause.

Mr Chairman, I am trying to do just that. It is very difficult, however, when one has to abide by two different rulings. I am not quite certain whether the hon member for Newton Park, who was the chairman of the select committee, is not perhaps trying to issue an overriding ruling here. However, the point I have just made is one of principle. That is the gravamen of the whole argument advanced by hon members on the Government side. I make this point in order to indicate that when it suits the Government it does indeed break the contracts provided there are measures available to them in terms of which they can deal with any aggrieved cases. That is the question that was also put forward by the Paarl Town Council when it made an offer to the people there to reconsider the possibility of a new agreement.

You are cornered, Percy.

Nobody is cornered. Not even the people of Paarl were ever cornered. The only people who are cornered are hon members on the Government side. Because the Government have been cornered their reaction is now to approve one principle for one man and another principle for the next man.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to dwell for any length of time on the arguments the hon member for King William’s Town has just advanced. He does, however, lose sight of one thing, and that is that we are dealing here with an agreement entered into between two private parties; an agreement on the basis of which legislation was passed by this Parliament; moreover at their request. They specifically asked the Government to give effect to the provisions of the agreement that were decided upon. All we are now doing is giving effect to that. We therefore now want to see the aim, cherished by the Government even as far back as 1970, realized.

Now I also just want to dwell briefly on the question from the hon member for Brakpan, including the arguments he raised in connection with—as he put it—the situation that has now arisen in which people have obtained rights in terms of this clause that they would not otherwise have had. I must add, of course, that the hon member for Brakpan did not motivate his case very fully. For those who were not part of the whole process of the select committee, I think it is difficult to understand what the hon member for Brakpan is aiming at with his argument. I do, however, think I understand what he means. I therefore just want to put it to the hon member for Brakpan that agreement was reached between the municipality of Paarl and the owners of the land adjoining Erf No 1. The legislation now makes provision for the fact that agreements must be entered into with the owners of land who have a common boundary with the remnant of land. The legislation is therefore making provision for the fact that those who, in 1969-70, owned land adjoining the so-called remnant of land, can now obtain rights, or otherwise that their successors in title can obtain those rights.

I also want to state that this relevant agreement very clearly also sought, in terms of the agreement, to have rights granted to the successors of the contracting parties. In that connection let met refer hon members specifically to clause 7 of the agreement, which reads:

So provision is made not only for the 1970 owners of the land, but also for their successors. I therefore think that the hon member for Brakpan has perhaps overlooked this aspect, or perhaps he did not give it due attention. I do not, however, think that his argument in this connection holds water.

I also feel that I should reply to the hon member’s statement about Parliament allegedly having acted illegally in this case, or at least having contravened the existing convention.

That is correct.

I cannot neglect to reply to that. The hon member for King William’s Town says it is correct. The world at large is therefore being told that this Parliament is passing a measure that it is not entitled to pass.

That is correct.

What, now, are the facts? Firstly, we are dealing here with a convention of the British Parliament. It is a convention of the British Parliament that need not necessarily apply here too. The British Parliament, as sovereign legislative authority in that country, moreover has the right to change that convention as it sees fit. Even if the convention were to have been applicable as far as we were concerned, this sovereign Parliament would also have had the right to change it. The hon member quoted from an argument advanced by the municipality’s advocate before the select committee, and he did so in support of his standpoint. He neglected to state, however, that the municipality’s advocate was not aware of the fact that there was a 20th edition of Erskine May, because that advocate based his whole argument on the 19th edition of Erskine May. [Interjections.] The hon member said he knew that there was a later issue. I know he knows it, because I told him. He quoted from the issue he obtained from the library. How he arrived at that standpoint of his, however, he alone would know, because here it is stated quite clearly that if there is agreement by way of legislation, the relevant schedule may not in itself be changed. Surely that is logical. Only the parties to the agreement can bring about a change, either by way of an addendum or by way of a change in the contract which then has to be signed or initialled. It is also stated very clearly here, however, that the legislator does have the right to modify or qualify that schedule by way of a provision in the relevant legislation itself. I felt I should reply to this argument.

The hon member for Wynberg also raised certain arguments, about which I just want to make this one point. Those hon members set so much store by scoring emotional political points here that they have no interest whatsoever in reality or in the facts, because he asked the hon the Deputy Minister whether he was aware of the fact that the so-called Kirsten Dam on the mountain contained enough water, as he put it, to irrigate 50 morgen, whilst in point of fact the figure is 43. But what does the evidence indicate?

Order! That aspect has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr Chairman, I accept that.

Mr Chairman, we are now dealing with clause 2 which deals particularly with the division of the remnant of land, the basis of the leases and the amounts that have to be paid. It is interesting that when one goes into the history of this matter one finds that as early as 1967 the group of farmers who endeavoured to obtain approximately half of the mountain with title rights decided among themselves “how they would divide the soil among themselves”. It is interesting to note that when they were asked by the chairman of that 1967 committee how they would divide the land, the reply was that the action committee knew which land would accrue to the individual owners. Three years before an agreement was drawn up they already knew who would get the land.

It is also interesting to note that of the group of men who decided how to allocate the land and who in theory represented the adjoining farmers of Paarl, only a few were border farmers. It is interesting to note that when they were asked whom they were supposed to be representing, they really could not say exactly who the farmers were on behalf of whom they were speaking. That was why they were also quite satisfied to enter into an agreement with a section of the municipality that was so vague that eventually a few of them would be able to obtain virtually all the land. When one looks at the historic course of events and one looks at who is still trying to obtain the land in 1984 in terms of thel969 agreement, one finds it is the few rich, land-hungry people to whom I referred earlier. But when we consider the amount in rands and cents that the majority on the select committee recommended should be paid per hectare for the land, one sees to what extent they are trying to benefit those people. I want to ask the hon the Minister where today—in 1984—in Paarl and on the crest of Paarl Mountain one can obtain prime, vine-growing land which one can lease for a period of 32 years—which is more or less the lifetime of a vineyard—at a price of R100 per hectare, a price which will increase slightly year by year. The hon the Minister must tell me and this House—he must tell us so that the general public can hear—where anyone in this House can obtain prime vine-growing land to give to farmers and then only to a very limited number of farmers. The hon the Minister referred to Stellenbosch, but he did not check his facts correctly. It is true that there is land in the vicinity of Stellenbosch that is available for limited periods. But as far as the background to the leasing of that land is concerned, I can mention to the hon the Minister that this has stemmed from the fact that the University of Stellenbosch has grown increasingly larger and that the buildings of that university are not taxable. The State then transferred land to the municipality so that the municipality could lease that land on very reasonable terms until such time as it could use the land itself, and that is where this amount comes from. [Interjections.] We are now dealing with Paarl and I am discussing the amount the municipality of Paarl is going to pay for that land. Where in Paarl—possibly the hon member for Paarl can explain this to us—can anyone obtain prime vine-growing land for such an amount? Where in Paarl can one find mountain land covered with proteas and fynbos at 25 cents per hectare? All those farmers who are going to obtain that land at 25 cents per hectare need do is to go up the mountain and pick proteas and fynbos. Then they can return to town and they can sell those flowers they picked for nothing to the residents of the “Village of Paarl” and they can make tremendously large profits. The amount proposed by the hon members on the select committee is totally out of proportion to the advantage those farmers are receiving.

Phillip, if you had a farm there you would not be moaning now.

Precisely. That is how those hon members think. If one has a farm there then one would not moan. That hon Deputy Minister is therefore reasoning: I’m all right Jack; I’ll take what I can get and to blazes with the rest! [Interjections.] That is the argument. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the argument of the vast majority of hon members on that side of the House. [Interjections.] That is the point of departure of the vast majority of hon members of the NP sitting in Parliament this evening who in theory are here to look after the interests of the people outside. While I am discussing this I want to single out one man. I hope he will forgive me. When the previous Minister of Agriculture was asked to try to circumvent this matter he wrote to the attorneys of the farmers who were trying to get into Parliament by the backdoor—or perhaps it was to the town council, I am not certain—that the case should be settled in court and that Parliament should not become involved in it. I do not want to pressurize the hon the Minister now because I do not want to embarrass him. [Interjections.] But his letter is on record. Consequently I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister who made that interjection that not all on that side are fat cats. Some of them still have a moral outlook when it comes to representing the interests of the community. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I rise to move amendments 1, 2 and 3, printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, after line 18, to insert:
   1. (i) “adjoining owner” means a natural person who was, on 27 March 1969, the registered owner of land bordering on the outer boundary of Erf No 1, Paarl, known as Paarl Mountain, as defined in Crown Grant (Stellenbosch Freehold 3—7), dated 27 December 1838.
2. 2. On page 5, from line 45, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
   • (2) Adjoining owners are entitled to hire remnants of land from the Municipality in terms of the provisions of the agreement.
3. 3. On page 7, after line 6, to insert:
   1. Provided that neither the terms of any such lease nor the use to which any remnant of land is put thereunder shall conflict with the provisions of the War Graves and National Monuments Act, No 28 of 1969, nor with the bylaws made thereunder and applicable to the commonage.

The reason for my first amendment is in the first place that the position must be brought into line with the agreement of which the hon the Deputy Minister is now making so much. The adjoining owners as at 27 March 1969 are those persons who negotiated an advantage to themselves owing to the fact that they had ostensibly given up their rights. In this connection I want to tell the hon member for Stellenbosch that the agreement entered into on 27 March 1969 was concluded by a certain group of people with the town council of Paarl, and they and their successors in title have that right in terms of section 7, which the hon member pointed out. However it is now being arranged legislatively that the adjoining owners and their successors in title will have that right for 32 years.

The next point the hon member for Stellenbosch made was that a convention could be changed by Parliament, which is sovereign. We agree with that. Sir, can you, however, envisage that in regard to hybrid legislation dealing with the private interests of two groups of people, Parliament would be prepared to abandon a convention? In respect of hybrid legislation, the National Government is prepared to abandon a convention, a convention which took shape over the years. The words “modify” or “qualify” surely do not mean that certain clauses may be removed from the agreement. One can change the lease and the period of the lease. This is what to modify and to qualify means. But by deleting clauses left, right and centre for the sake of a quarrel between two organizations, namely the farmers on the one hand and the town council of Paarl on the other, the NP is prepared to abandon a convention.

In my first amendment I ask that an adjoining owner be a person who was an adjoining owner on 27 March 1969 and, in the second place, he must be a natural person. It is quite clear that the 1838 allocation was made to the residents of Paarl and the field-cornetcy of Agter-Paarl. A company, a foundation or anything else could consequently not have been a beneficiary in terms of that allocation.

I want to motivate my second amendment by contending in the first place that adjoining owners were clearly described and defined in the agreement, and my amendment is aimed at restoring all those provisions to the Bill.

My third amendment is of particular importance because prior to 1968 the National Monuments Council was never recognized in the process. The hon member for Sundays River said this was an oversight.

Order! I should just like to point out to the hon member that amendment 3 is also out of order for the same reason as amendment 1 of the hon member for Wynberg on clause 1.

Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling in this regard. All I want to do then is to broach the whole question of the circumstances of the National Monuments Council under clause 2. This important body was established by an Act of Parliament to identify the monuments of South Africa and to ensure that they are protected. It is consequently important for us to take cognizance of the fact that this council was never recognized in the entire process. The first time the council was given an opportunity to have a say was when this Bill was referred to the select committee and the council petitioned and gave evidence.

The hon member for Umlazi tried to denigrate my argument by saying that the large volume of evidence could be ascribed to the number of people who gave evidence. He is quite wrong in this regard, and I think hon members on his side of the House will agree that it was not a question of the number of witnesses in this case but the fact that no evidence was given to challenge the scientific correctness of the witnesses for the National Monuments Council. There were simply no witnesses who could refute the evidence of these people. That is the crux of the matter.

The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the balance which must be maintained between the development of agriculture and nature conservation. In this case that possibility exists. The hon member for Wynberg also referred to the fact that scarce flora is found on top of a mountain while the ecology is harmed by the development of agriculture. Insecticides will be used and other methods of fire-fighting will be applied with regard to fynbos, which differ from those used in areas where grazing rights have been allocated. Fertilizers have a different effect on that rare flora. These experts have comprehensive evidence in this regard, and no one was able to contradict them with regard to this very important matter. This evidence, which played a very important role in die discussions of the select committee, is now simply being forgotten because clause 2 is being agreed to. No cognizance is being taken of it and no interest is being shown in it, and that cannot be allowed to happen. The hon member Dr Odendaal stated that we must act responsibly and that we must not try to be popular. Is it acting responsibly under circumstances such as these to discard and negate the important and comprehensive evidence of those experts? It is extremely important, but they are not being given a say … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall get back to one or two thoughts of the hon member for Brakpan in a moment.

The hon member for Wynberg would seem to have thought that he was strengthening his argument by referring to a few rich, “money-hungry people” among the farmers involved. I found myself on this select committee as a representative of a Durban constituency, and I did not know any of the people involved. I did not know them before the select committee began sitting, and to this day I still do not know them. I do not know whether they are rich or poor and I do not know them as well as the hon member for Wynberg does, to know whether they are money-hungry or not. [Interjections.] Whether he thought that he could strengthen his argument under the protection of this House by libelling people, is something I cannot pass judgment on. As an outsider who had to listen to these witnesses, all I know is that there was a publication in 1969, and that of all the holders of rights who obtained rights under the 1838 deed, a certain number insisted on their rights. The others, whether they were 50 or 5 000, did not do so. But as far as I am concerned, that does not make the rights of those persons who insisted on their rights of less value than those of the others. If other holders of rights forfeited those rights in that they did not insist upon them, that does not mean that the few rich, “money-hungry people” to whom the hon member for Wynberg referred have been advantaged vis-à-vis those people.

The hon member for Brakpan and other opposition members repeatedly implied during the sittings of the select committee that the value of the benefits the farmers negotiated was out of all proportion to the rights they had to forfeit. The agreement we are discussing which formed the basis of the 1970 legislation had absolutely nothing to do with and was not based on the rights certain parties had to forfeit. The agreement simply determined certain benefits, and as it determined certain benefits for the one party, the farmers, so it also determined certain benefits for the other party, the municipality. As far as the municipality was concerned, there was absolutely no suggestion of its forfeiting anything in exchange for the rights it received. The benefits which the two parties negotiated for each other were therefore negotiated ex contractu. They did not serve as a quid pro quo for rights that had to be forfeited.

This argument is linked to the argument in connection with the public interest. The circumstances that applied with regard to this agreement in 1969 are exactly the same circumstances that apply today. I should like to suggest that if the public interest in 1969 was not of sufficient worth to the Paarl Municipality for it not to be able to negotiate this agreement, this is most certainly not the case today either. As a matter of fact, I want to state that it is in the public interest that the rights of citizens of this country be protected.

In conclusion I want to come back to the word “few” which the hon member for Wynberg used. The fact that certain rights are enjoyed and that we must recognize certain rights, does not become more important if more people enjoy those rights. A right does not become more important because there are more people enjoying it. The hon members of the Opposition want to make this Parliament party to doing certain people a gross injustice, and we on this side of the House cannot agree to that.

Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11 printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:

I just want to explain my amendment. It is merely owing to an editorial error that the Bill has two numbers, viz W 26-83 and W 108-84. Because we believe that this Bill will be agreed to this year, its number will be a 1984 number.

Mr Chairman, I move amendments 4, 5 and 6, printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 4. On page 7, in line 7, to omit “the owner of adjoining land” and to substitute “an adjoining owner”.
2. 5. On page 7, from line 24, to omit “as applied by this section,”.
3. 6. On page 7, from line 31, to omit “the owner of adjoining land” and to substitute “an adjoining owner”.

I also move amendment 7, printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Kuruman, as follows:

1. 7. On page 5, in line 48, after the second “to” to insert:
   • section 124 of Ordinance No 20 of 1974(C) and

The purpose of amendments 5 and 6 is yet again to bring the wording into line with the agreement entered into. The purpose of amendment 7 is once again to make the agreement subject to section 124 of Ordinance 20 of 1984 of the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope, an amendment which again introduces the provision in connection with the Administrator’s consent and which then reflects the actual intention between the parties.

I want to say just one or two things about what the hon member for Umlazi has just said. He said that the Opposition parties persisted in saying that these people were receiving a greater right than they had prior to the 1969 agreement. But the hon member must bear in mind, and so must the hon the Deputy Minister, that since 1882 the town council of Paarl has exercised all the rights which were allocated to the magistrate.

They did not have title right.

De facto they had everything.

They had it de jure.

I shall come to that. That is the difference. They did not receive a wonderful financial advantage from it. The force of law was simply given to the powers they exercised in any case in connection with the mountain. Consequently they did not achieve anything in particular. It was merely to bring it into line with the fact that they exercised control over the mountain.

You really should know better.

Well, answer me then. The position is that as the owner it can develop that natural garden. But the fact remains that since 1882 the town council of Paarl has controlled the entire mountain. All that is happening here is the legalizing of a de facto position to enable the town council to continue with its natural garden for the benefit of the residents of Paarl and the field-cornetcy of Agter-Paarl, including the farmers. It is not as if the farmers owning adjoining property will have lost everything owing to the fact that this legislation was adopted. They still have all the rights the residents of Paarl and of Agter-Paarl had prior to 1969 and since 1838. They could take walks there and enjoy the benefit of that land at all times. That is why I move the amendments printed in my name.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer again to the amount which has to be paid. After all, it is a fact that the amount which has to be paid for the lease of the land must be in conformity with something connected to it, for example, the value of the rights the adjoining owners had at an earlier stage. Evidence very clearly brought to light the fact that the value of the use of the commonage, apart from the value of the water rights, was virtually nil. Evidence was given that the number of animals on the mountain during the past 30 to 40 years was so small that there was even doubt as to whether anyone had made use of that right except on one or two occasions. That is why I suggest in my amendment that the rent must be so high on the one hand and so low on the other that those people will in actual fact have to get off the mountain as was the case when they used the mountain as a commonage.

I also have an amendment on the Order Paper which boils down to the fact that the National Monuments Council must be allowed to make the final decision as to whether or not a lease be approved. The evidence indicates that on several occasions the National Monuments Council instructed the Municipality of Paarl to ensure that the people damaging the mountain, that national monument, should leave the mountain. Not only did the National Monuments Council issue that instruction to the town council but on 4 September 1967 they also wrote a letter…

Can’t you speak a little faster?

The hon member must listen because he may not be able to understand that quickly. The National Monuments Council wrote a letter to Messrs J F and J D Kirsten in which it said that those people were damaging a national monument and that they should leave the mountain. The municipality then tried to carry out that instruction—it was not a request. That is why I feel that the NMC should be given the right in the legislation to decide in the final instance whether or not a lease should be approved.

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

1. 8. On page 5, in line 60, to omit “32 years” and to substitute “one year”.
2. 9. On page 5, in line 62, to omit all the words after “of” up to and including “R100” in line 63 and to substitute “R1 000”.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that his amendment 10 is out of order for the same reason as in the previous case.

Mr Chairman, I think there are a few arguments which we should correct just for the sake of the record. One argument that was advanced and concerning which we also heard a great deal of evidence was that the farmers had not used the mountain in any event and that, as the hon member for Brakpan said, the municipality already had de facto ownership of the mountain, although not de jure. The fact of the matter is that evidence was in fact given to the effect that there had been livestock on the mountain as far back as 30 years ago—at least, as far as I was able to ascertain from the evidence—even though it was only at certain times of the year. The fact is that there were farmers who made use of those rights. At that stage, the fire-fighting measures and the fire-fighting committees came into operation and changed public opinion to such an extent that there was very little burning on the mountain. In fact, the only fires which still occurred seem to have been accidental fires.

I also want to reply to the statement made by the hon member for Brakpan, ie that we do not care a damn about the evidence given by the HSRC and the scientific evidence that was given and that we do not take this into consideration. The fact of the matter is that if one implements a fire regime in respect of this kind of grazing land which is aimed at enabling one to utilize the optimum grazing potential of that veld, there will be longer intervals between fires and fires will be organized in such a way that the possibility of soil erosion will be avoided. The natural resources will therefore be preserved. However, I think the hon member for Brakpan will concede that according to the evidence, that kind of fire regime which is implemented in these fynbos area could possibly be dangerous to the endangered and rare species which we mentioned. If we want to give back to the farmers the rights which they used to have, therefore—and one of the rights they had was of course the grazing right—a different kind of fire regime would have to be followed there. In the interests of nature conservation, however, I believe it is essential that we should have 2 700 ha—90% of Erf No 1 on Paarl Mountain—made available as a monument, to have it managed according to ecological principles by Paarl municipality, in accordance with the best modern scientific knowledge available to us, and having regard to the advice of experts from the University of Stellenbosch and elsewhere, in order to ensure that the rare plant species which occur there will in fact survive and will be preserved for posterity. As far as I am concerned, this was the most important inference I was able to draw from the evidence which was given before the select committee; ie that we should pass this legislation in this House, using the agreement as basis.

Then there is another small matter, Mr Chairman. I should just like to make a few remarks about the allegation that that the entire mountain is now going to be ploughed up. The allegation has in fact been made that the entire mountain, which is actually a national monument, is now going to be ploughed up. The fact of the matter is that 46 ha of land had already been ploughed. Terraces have been formed and vineyards have been planted, while certain parts of these have already been removed in terms of a court order. The fact of the matter is that none of us sitting in this House tonight can do anything about that 46 ha of land. It is already in this condition. Terraces have already been built there, and no matter what legislation we may pass in this House, that 46 ha of land cannot be changed. That land is already under cultivation.

Why then make it worse?

Now the hon member for King William’s Town asks why we are making it worse. He was with us on the mountain. Other hon members were there too. Although I cannot make a scientific pronouncement on the matter now, because I did not survey that mountain, because I did not study an aerial photograph of it, because I did not ask a surveyor to survey the land either, I can nevertheless state with certainty—and I do not wish to mention any figures now, because that could be dangerous—that there is no more land available there for agricultural purposes. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is the institution which in terms …

Mr Chairman, if the hon member dr Odendaal could be convinced that additional land could in fact be available, land which could be dug up and on which vineyards could be planted—let us suppose it would be an additional 46 ha of land—would the hon member then vote against this legislation?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wynberg is now trying to corner me by expecting me to make a statement concerning a certain amount of land which could still be available. After all, one of the reasons why we visited the mountain was to give attention to this important aspect. The hon member knows that, after all. Where are the boundaries of Erf No 1? We climbed over the rocks and saw the most beautiful vegetation there. The scenic beauty of that area is breath-taking. We went to see where the borders of Erf No 1 were. The impression we got there was that the land which could be cultivated had already been cultivated. That is the impression we got while we were on the mountain. I believe, therefore, that even if there were to be another few hectares of land which could be cultivated, it still would not cause me to change my mind with regard to the fact that this agreement should serve as a basis; that this Parliament, as the responsible institution, should use that agreement in order to ensure that that 3 000 morgen of valuable fynbos can be managed in the best possible way in the interests of our country.

However, since the hon member has mentioned this, suppose there were a few extra hectares of land available for cultivation. The procedure would then be that the farmers who applied for this would apply to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for permission to cultivate new agricultural land; land which has not yet been cultivated. They lay down their criteria. The soil must have the necessary depth, for example, it must not exceed a certain gradient, etc. Whatever criteria there may be, suppose that land was allocated to them for further cultivation under the Natural Resources Conservation Act—the old Soil Conservation Act as we know it. Allow me to say to those few farmers who farm along the boundaries of the mountain—and the same applies to all the other farmers in South Africa—that farmers in South Africa are usually branded as barbarians, vulgarians and people intent on enriching themselves. We heard this from all three Opposition parties today. I say that the farmers in South Africa are usually accused of not caring a damn about nature conservation. These are the very arguments that have been advanced here tonight. I now ask those farmers who farm around Paarl Mountain, as well as all farmers in South Africa, to show these Opposition parties that they are not barbarians and destroyers, and that they will be as considerate as possible in the use of that mountain, which is a national monument.

Mr Chairman, I do not think anybody in this Committee doubts the hon member Dr Odendaal’s bona fides as far as nature conservation is concerned, or his real concern about this matter as far as the Bill before us is concerned. However, the point that he raised about there being no more arable land available on Paarl Mountain is very pertinent. It means that all the arable land has already been grabbed by certain people.

Who said that?

If the hon member says that there is no more arable land available, then by implication all the available arable land has already been grabbed by certain people. We know from the evidence given before the select committee that the boundaries of farms can be extended until they meet the boundary of the intended reserve, and that in such a way the “uitvalgrond” in respect of that particular farm can be established. Hon members who were members of the select committee also know that the logical extension of the boundaries of neighbouring farms to meet the intended boundary of the reserve will result in conflicting claims in regard to the same piece of land. They all know that. The fact is, however, that certain people are not going to receive the so-called rights which hon members of the Government are so concerned that they should in fact receive.

There is provision for arbitration.

If they go to arbitration then somebody is going to lose. Those who have already ploughed the land will have the advantage. Those are the people who are being protected and those are the people who are being advantaged by the fact that the Government is altering the agreement in such a way that it is possible for them to carry on.

A further point is that as a result of the decision of the court in regard to the Paarl Mountain, certain farmers complied with the decision of the court by lifting their vineyards and removing themselves from the mountain. However, others have not done so which further complicates the position. This legislation, therefore, still favours the person who is least lawful, least inclined to obey authority and least inclined to consider the rights and wrongs of the matter. The more one goes into it the more one realizes that this legislation favours the person who is least responsible in terms of the public interest in respect of conservation. The hon member Dr Odendaal knows very well that in regard to the area we visited some of those slopes and terraces are definitely very, very vulnerable, and that it will take generations to restore them.

Never.

The hon members says “never”. This brings us to a further question. At the end of the period of the proposed 32 years, if there are pockets of eroded or badly worked land around Paarl Mountain, who is going to foot the bill for the restoration process that is going to be a long, expensive, on-going and extremely difficult operation? In fact, in the words of the hon member Dr Odendaal, it will never be restored, but it is still going to involve a very, very long and expensive process. No provision has been made in this regard. Our contention is that the alteration of this agreement will be entirely detrimental to the whole concept of the conservation of that area.

As far as the national monument is concerned, the Chairman has ruled the amendment of the hon member for Wynberg out of order, but a very interesting point arises here. In the original Bill which served before the select committee there was a provision that Parliament would inform interested parties by arrangement through the State Attorney and the attorney for the farmers. Parliament undertook to let the interested parties know, but the National Monuments Council was not informed about the intentions behind this clause. The National Monuments Council did not have the opportunity to present its case, but had it done so, a great deal of this would not have continued in the manner in which it has. I believe that it is entirely wrong for Parliament today to ignore them in view of the fact that they were previously not informed about the matter and were unable to take proper action.

We are establishing a precedent here in respect of national monuments which we are going to rue for many a day because we are really undermining their power completely in respect of any action in regard to conservation when it comes to any normal monument in terms of nature. Their powers will be overridden by local authorities and/or private interested persons as a result of the precedent created because of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to react very briefly to certain remarks made by the hon member for Wynberg in respect of the rental.

The hon member intimated that the rental was absurdly low and that we were trying to benefit the farmers. As far as I am concerned, the hon member himself moved a totally unfounded amendment in respect of the rental. The select committee sat for a year. We have 966 typewritten pages of evidence before us. Surely we cannot advance totally unfounded arguments about the rental and the value of land in this debate. Surely we must make use of that record of the evidence.

What does that record say? The record says that a certain Mr Kotzé appeared before the committee. He is an expert. He has a B Sc Hon in agricultural economics and he has been practising in the immediate vicinity for 13 years as an agricultural management consultant. In reply to a question by the hon member for Wynberg about what the land involved was worth, the witness said that the land was worth R7 500 per ha. The hon member for Wynberg did not dispute this, but accepted it. In fact, he virtually dropped his interrogation like a hot potato and left it to the chairman to ask the next question. The chairman then wanted to know from the witness whether the land was worth R7 500 per ha as arid land which did not have any water supply from irrigation. The witness then said that the R7 500 per ha was for arable land with adequate irrigation water. So there we have the value of R7 500.

On the basis of this value, the majority of the select committee then determined a rental. The rental was determined on the basis of rentals which had been determined in contracts between the Stellenbosch municipality and farmers in respect of commonage belonging to the Stellenbosch municipality, as negotiated with the farmers over many years, as brought about with the aid of agricultural economists and as agreed upon with the Administrator of the province.

However, the hon members says that Stellenbosch cannot be taken as an example, because Stellenbosch received the land virtually as a gift because there were so many students in the town. That is absolute nonsense, Mr Chairman. That hon member had better not talk about Stellenbosch. I know much more about Stellenbosch than he does. I was involved in the negotiations for many years, and for ten years I was a member of the Stellenbosch town council and I was responsible for these rentals. This land was acquired by the municipality as far back as 1880. At that time there was no university yet, and in fact there was virtually no town. Where are the students supposed to have come from? The hon member must please get his facts straight. One could also question the value of R7 500 which Mr Kotzé mentioned to us, for what is the value of such land if the farmer cannot use it for planting the traditional crops which are planted in this area? This witness unequivocally stated that he would never run the risk of cultivating table grapes unless there was enough irrigation water available. He said he would not do this, and he is an expert in this field. The question then arose whether there was enough irrigation water, and then the statement was made by the witness that the Kirsten Dam, which was situated on the so-called remnant of land, would hold just enough water, when it was full, to irrigate the existing vineyards. However, there was also undisputed evidence before the select committee that this Kirsten Dam had been fill on only two occasions during the past 50 years. During an argument on the previous clause, that hon member asked the hon the Minister whether he knew that the Kirsten Dam had enough water. The hon member knows that this is not true. In fact, the hon member was there himself and he saw the Kirsten Dam.

Order! The hon member is now discussing an aspect which is not relevant under this clause.

Mr Chairman, the final point I want to make is that the rental which has been determined is a realistic one, and to come along now and to say that the rental is too low and that it is out of touch with reality will convince no one. I should have liked to pursue this argument, but I am sure that we are all tired of the whole Paarl Mountain situation. I would appreciate it if we could now arrive at some decision in this connection and if we could vote on the clause to conclude the matter.

Mr Chairman, I just want to react to one or two points raised by the hon member for Stellenbosch. I must say that listening to the hon member, I should say that it will not be long before Papegaaisberg has also been ploughed up and planted with vines or tobacco or something of that kind.

If one had to go back to see what value should be placed on the land, it would not be wrong to go back to the original Deed of Grant, for there it says:

Then a fine is laid down for contraventions of this provision. So it has been the intention all along that those who could obtain the use of that land would be natural persons. Furthermore, it is also a fact that not only landowners had this right, but inhabitants as well. However, I want to leave it at that for the moment. If we were then to look at the amount which is allegedly so reasonable, we could suppose, for the sake of argument, that the land was worth R7 500 per ha. Then I ask you, Mr Chairman: What would the interest be on land worth R7 500? I should say that one would expect to get at least 7%, 8%, 9% or even 10% interest on such an investment, if that is the value of the investment. That hon member should then go and calculate what percentage R100 constitutes at a value of R7 500, and then he should decide whether this is a reasonable amount. What is interesting is that if it is true that people are getting land at such a reasonable rental in Stellenbosch, then it may be time Stellenbosch took a look at its own affairs. Furthermore, it may indicate that that hon member, when he was in control of the town council…

Order! Stellenbosch has nothing to do with this legislation.

I am replying to what the hon member said.

That aspect has nothing to do with this clause.

Sir, I accept your ruling, but then you should rule the hon member for Stellenbosch out of order when he talks about it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I come back to the amount which has to be paid and to the principle that the land may be used by those persons in their personal capacities. I now want to address my remarks specifically to the hon the Deputy Minister. Let us suppose that the farmer who has been forced by the court to remove the vines he planted has left the community, but in terms of this legislation he still has an interest. Would the hon the Deputy Minister approve if such a farmer—I am merely using this as an example—were to sell the right which he could perhaps obtain if this legislation were passed, if he were to sell it to other farmers who would then also have a right to this land? Moreover, it is also being said—and I accept it as correct that the right which one of the farmers would have if the legislation were passed tonight has already been sold to his neighbour for R15 000. If this is the case, is the hon the Deputy Minister still satisfied to let that land at R100 per ha? [Interjections.] I should very much like the hon the Deputy Minister to give me an indication of what his reaction would be to such a situation. [Interjections.] It seems that the hon the Deputy Minister is not prepared to reply.

He cannot reply to you.

Yes, he cannot reply to me. If it is true that these rights which are going to accrue to these people at R100 per ha for cultivated land have already been sold for such a large amount, then the decision which this Parliament is taking tonight is very wrong.

You look after Wynberg; I shall look after Paarl.

With all due respect, if I had to leave Paarl to the hon member, he would cause the same kind of mess which has made it necessary for us to fight about this legislation tonight. What I want to say now I would not have said if the hon member had not entered the debate himself by way of interejection. There was a time when he should have made his voice heard, but he sat back and hoped that others would pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him. So much so that the Paarl community is asking where he was when they needed him. They are asking why he was not prepared, as NP for Paarl, to stand up and be counted, as an MP is expected to do in his community. When the debate was going on in Paarl about this land, about the destruction of the fynbos and about the disfiguring of the monument, there were certain individuals who were very quiet and who steered clear of all these matters. That was the time when he should have spoken, not now. Sir, I also find it interesting that the hon member for Paarl has not participated in the debate. [Interjections.]

On which clause are you speaking now?

It does not matter which clause I am speaking on. I am talking to the hon member for Paarl, and it is none of that hon member’s business. In any event, the Chairman is allowing me to do so.

I want to come back to the clause and the question of the price. If this Bill is passed, I very kindly request the hon the Deputy Minister at least to ensure that they will pay a reasonable, economic tariff for that land. While he cannot undo the mess, the hon the Deputy Minister will then at least have the satisfaction of having been able to correct that aspect of the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon member for Wynberg that the hon member for Paarl has not been so tongue-tied in the past. It is only today that he has had nothing to say for himself. He was chairman of the advisory committee on the Paarl Mountain nature reserve, and that committee recommended on two occasions that the whole of Erf 1, Paarl, should be excluded from the nature reserve. On 9 March 1979, the hon member for Paarl was the chairman of the advisory committe of the Paarl Mountain nature reserve. I do not know where he is going to vote tonight, but if we are going to vote on the Third Reading, I hope he will come and vote with us on this side. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan correctly pointed out that this matter could be discussed at the Third Reading and not in the Committee Stage.

The hon the Deputy Minister has not yet replied, but I hope he will reply, because then we shall be able to discuss the matter further.

I agree with the hon member for Stellenbosch that that land is worth R7 500 per hectare. If one let it at R100 per hectare, therefore, one would be getting 1,33% of the value of that land. [Interjections.]

What are they paying for maize producing land in the Transvaal?

The hon the Minister is not quite with us at the moment, but what price would he put on maize-producing land in Delmas or in the Western Transvaal?

I now want to come back to clause 4 of the agreement. This clause concerns the question of arbitration, and I put it to the hon the Deputy Minister that it will not be possible to give effect to clause 4. Clause 4 provides:

It was demonstrated to us on the select committee the if one followed this method, there would be a clear overlapping of areas. There could therefore be conflicting claims to those pieces of land. If there are conflicting claims, these will be subject to arbitration in terms of the agreement, but then we have this provision:

Then the principles are repeated in terms of which the division should take place. The poor arbitrators will have to decide about conflicting claims, therefore.

That is their own affair.

No, it cannot be their own affair. Who made that stupid remark?

It has nothing to do with this legislation.

It has a great deal to do with this legislation, because it is provided in clause 2(4) that it will be subject to arbitration in terms of section 4 of the agreement. Has the hon member read it?

Yes, but it means that they will do it, not you or the legislation.

No, but it is very interesting that the hon member for Stilfontein should allege that they have already decided, because one of the owners was left out of the agreement altogether.

No, that is not correct.

It is recorded in the evidence and in the argument of one of the advocates and the hon member should read it. They did not come to a final arrangement among themselves. [Interjections.]

In terms of the principles of the interpretations of statutes, an arbitrator must follow a method in terms of which he must arbitrate in respect of conflicting claims. This agreement, which is now being incorporated into the laws of the Republic of South Africa, does not lay down the methods according to which the arbitrator must act, but merely refers back to the agreement between the parties. How can we allow a vague agreement such as this one to be put into effect? It is contrary to all laws of fairness, decency and reason. It cannot be done, and I should be glad if the hon the Deputy Minister would reply to this.

Mr Chairman …

There you have a clever man.

I am glad the hon member admits it.

A great deal has been said about this Bill, but it deals with only one matter, namely 55 ha of land. I want to motivate that. The whole of Paarl Mountain comprises 3 380 morgen.

On which clause are you speaking now?

I am referring to the agreement.

Of those 3 380 morgen, just under 300 morgen will be sublet as remnants of land. Of the land which is sublet, a maximum of about 90 to 100 morgen is arable land. This is a very small portion which is being sacrificed in order to have more than 3 000 morgen conserved as a nature reserve for ever.

What has not been mentioned by one hon member on that side of the House today is the fact that both the HSRC—which they rate so highly—and Paarl Municipality were prepared to come to an agreement to allow farmers to let that land and to allow sheep, cattle, goats, etc to graze there. They could also plant and burn grass there. However, the hon members do not refer to this. Nor do they refer to the fact that the HSRC was prepared to refrain from objection to such an agreement and that they would have allowed it if only the farmers did not cultivate any of that land. That was the only condition they laid down. Hon members know that if farmers had not been allowed to cultivate the just over 300 morgen for agricultural purposes in terms of the 1969 agreement, Paarl Municipality would never have obtained ownership. [Interjections.] They would never have obtained it, for only as a result of this agreement did the legislature place the 1970 Act on the Statute Book.

Mr Chairman, several amendments have been moved to this clause, and I shall try to reply briefly to all of them. Most of the matters have already been argued during the debate on the previous clause.

The amendment of the hon member for Wynberg has a bearing on the term as well as the amount involved. Before this debate began, the hon member put his problem concerning the amount to me, ie that it is too small. I did not want to ask what the actual situation was. I examined the evidence given before the select committee once again. It is interesting to note that hon members on that side of the House, who had a great deal to say about the cheapness of this land, did not refer to the evidence given before them by one Mr Coetzee and did not quote it to prove their point. In his evidence, he described in detail what, in his opinion—he is an agricultural economist who assists the farmers in the wine-producing area, especially at Stellenbosch, with regard to cost calculation and financial advice—the cost was for trellised vines, wine grapes, table grapes, the water that will be required and so on. At the end of this exposition, they asked him what he would be prepared to pay if the land was offered to him on lease and for wine production. There were three bases. I think they were 25 cents, R2,50 and R25 per ha. When this question was put to him he told them that if he was given the opportunity, he would require a month to consider the matter and to calculate whether it was worth his while. This is the evidence given before this committee by an economic expert in this field, but not one of these hon members mentioned it.

I also went to some trouble, in response to the agrument advanced by the hon member for Wynberg, to see whether anyone was being favoured here financially because the rent was too low. I had a question in this regard in my own mind. I went to the trouble of asking the KWV to give me their calculation of what, in their opinion, would be the correct amount here, in the Paarl vicinity, and specifically with regard to Paarl Mountain. They gave me a long submission in respect of this matter. I specifically asked them about the amount of R100 and the term of 32 years involved, because these are relevant matters. In response to this they eventually said that if one charged R100 per ha—this is what the KWV said—the tenant would have to maintain a relatively high level of efficiency. In order to pay this rental, his level of efficiency will have to be higher than the average for the Paarl area, this will be in order to earn 10% in interest in respect of capital expenditure calculated over a period of 25 years and 32 years. To this must be added capital costs and production costs, which are divided into two main items, namely direct expenditure and overhead expenditure. On the basis of this, they calculated that one would have to maintain a higher level of efficiency. I am convinced that in the light of this, the rent calculation is not disproportionate, as has been alleged. I think the direct calculation which is being made here, ie to put one’s development cost at R7 500, to which R100 is added, and then to base the profit potential on that ratio, is arithmetically wrong. These are not the only factors; there are far more factors involved.

The hon member for Brakpan said that Paarl Mountain had de facto been controlled by Paarl since 1882. The hon member said that we only had to correct the de jure position , because this was the de facto position. Is the hon member’s standpoint in respect of this principle applicable to all facets? Does the hon member wish to tell me, therefore, that if an individual farmer has had a de facto right of use for a long period, one can rectify the de jure position without anything else being involved? Surely that is a specious argument. In respect of this particular matter, the position is that the Paarl Municipality controlled Paarl Mountain at that stage, but had no right of ownership. It is also true that the Paarl Municipality was prepared in 1970 to enter into that agreement and to determine the ownership for them voluntarily in co-operation with the other people. In order to fence in their natural garden, they said that there were certain pieces of remnant land which they were prepared to let the farmers have. According to the information I have here, that was the reason.

I should now like to come to the amendments of the hon member for Brakpan. He wants to change the definition of “adjoining owner” so that it will not be possible to adhere to the 1969 agreement, because it will have been changed. This actually affects the essence of the matter, so I cannot accept those amendments. I was also asked what my position would be if a man had already sold his land or his right for R15 000. However, I am not prepared to conduct a debate on the basis of fictitious examples. I am prepared to tell the hon member, though, what the principle is with which we are concerned. If a person were to buy the farm adjoining Erf No 1 today, he would also have the right with regard to the land which is involved here. If he sold his land in the interim, that right would pass to the next owner. It is a principle that when a person sells his land adjoining the commonage, the amount involved may include right which the new owner will have to the mountain. I cannot express any opinion on the amount which may be involved in this connection, but the principle is in fact embodied here, and I regard it as a sound principle.

For how long?

For 32 years.

As regards the amendment of the hon member for Newton Park, which in fact is only a consequential amendment to correct an error, I am prepared to accept that. However, I do not accept any of the other amendments moved by hon members.

The hon the Deputy Minister quoted figures supplied by the KWV and I believe it is important that we should be quite clear about this. Is he saying that the average yield in the case of wine grape production in the Paarl district makes it possible for the average farmer to pay no more than R100 per ha in interest for the land which he is using for that production?

I said, in view of the circumstances, that a rental of R100 in terms of the total capital outlay …

Are these wine grapes or table grapes?

These are average grapes.

They are either wine grapes or table grapes.

After all, we know very well that any development depends on individual enterprise. However, the KWV figure was calculated on the basis of a few alternatives. They took the average production at 14,2 tons per ha at R220 per ton. My information is that R220 a ton is an average price, because one gets more for certain kinds of grapes than for others. Therefore it is an average price per ton for wine grapes. Further, they worked on an average production of 10,56 tons per ha, and on the basis of that figure and of the total capital outlay, they calculated what the profit figure was. The cost was then deducted from this, and it was then calculated what the income would be if they got 10% on their total investment over this period. They then said that R100 must by very close to the correct figure. It may be a little lower or a little higher, depending on the production potential of the land and the level of efficiency of the farmers.

Amendments 1, 2 and 4 negatived (Conservative party dissenting).

Amendment 5 negatived.

Amendment 6 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 7 negatived.

Amendments 8 and 9 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition, Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we have now got close to the end of the passage of this Bill through Parliament and, seeing that this is probably the last Bill which will be processed by Parliament this session, I want to record my disappointment at having seen the NP in government reach what is to me possibly one of the lowest ebbs it has ever reached since I came to the House. We have seen today a party pass legislation through this Parliament which seeks to create an advantageous position for a very small number of people to the disadvantage of the larger community. We see this House pass a Bill which is in conflict with the desires of the local government responsible for that community, viz the Town Council of Paarl, to whom I should personally want to pay homage for the way in which they have sought to protect the interests of their community over the last few years. Not only have they tried to protect the interests of their own community but also the interests of South Africa at large. They have fought resolutely to protect what they consider to be—and I could not agree with them more—one of the most important national monuments in South Africa. They have fought resolutely to protect a mountain, which save for Table Mountain, is perhaps the most important mountain in South Africa. Moreover they have done so at great expense, financially, as well as in terms of time and effort, and therefore we hope that at some future stage we all will realize just how difficult a fight that public spirited body has put in order to accomplish what they consider to be necessary for their community.

Having said that, Sir, I should also like to refer to the Paarl Divisional Council and all the other bodies that have helped them and supported them in their struggle. If there was any way in which I could assist that body in raising the necessary funds to pay for the expense to which they have gone, I would happily do so. Unfortunately that is of course beyond my control.

In view of what I have just said, Mr Speaker, I should also like to devote some of my time addressing the hon member for Paarl. Now that this Bill has virtually gone through all its stages—and of course the hon member and I had something to say to each other earlier in the debate—I want to express the sincere hope that he will from now on make use of his position and of the good office which he holds in order to make real and meaningful conservation possible in the town which is of importance to all of us. During the last few days it has been reported that the hon member for Paarl is really interested in …

He could have bluffed me.

No I know he is indeed interested in conservation. The problem is that the actually mustered sufficient courage to devote himself to the task of conservation when it was already too late. It is never too late, however, and therefore I should like to appeal to that hon member to assist the Town Council of Paarl to accomplish what they are striving for. Furthermore I should also like the hon member for Paarl to approach the farmers, the land owners who have been involved in this dispute because in spite of everything that has been said I still believe that if he approaches them in the correct fashion those people too will come to realize that the conservation of our national heritage is far more important in the long run than having a lucrative, and obviously very well planned and extremely productive vineyard, which indeed does no real credit to that precious national monument. Once that national monument has been destroyed it will never, never be possible to restore that land to what it should have been. If further land is ploughed up, I believe that we will all live to regret it. I want to appeal to the hon member to assist his own council to try to create something better for the future.

Having said that, I believe we must also place on record how the situation came about. In earlier debate, when I said that the town council had been manipulated and that pressure had been brought to bear upon them, many hon members took exception to it. However, when one looks at the record, as we did, of the negotiations between the Paarl Town Council and those who believed that they had rights, it becomes very clear that they were prepared to go virtually to any lengths to obtain land. I do not wish to go through the documents individually but hon members will recall how under Dr Hofmeyer the town council resisted making that land available. Notwithstanding that, the prospective land occupiers sought at one stage to obtain as much as half of the mountain, not on a lease basis but on a full freehold title basis. [Interjections.]

Did they get it?

No, they did not achieve that because the town council resisted them. Another reason why they did not achieve it was because Minister Uys at the time also resisted exchanging land for rights, and quite correctly so. However, Sir, you will recall that after 1978 there came a time when the whole situation changed almost overnight, when a new mayor and a new negotiator took over as chairman of the group. Within no time at all, an arrangement had been reached.

It is important to know why the town council wanted ownership of the land. It was in order to establish a nature garden and it was not because the town council at any stage of the negotiations stood to benefit materially by acquiring ownership of the land. In fact, Sir, it must be pointed out that all they would achieve would be to incur obligations. However, they were prepared to assume those responsibilities because they wanted to establish something worth while for posterity. On the other hand, there were the few who had one object in mind, namely to have access to more land than they owned and, in some cases access to land which in itself exceeded the extent of the property they owned by more than 50%. In fact, in some cases the extent of their land may even have been doubled. That was why I said earlier on that the town council had been placed under tremendous pressure and had been manipulated at a time when there had been a change of mayor. The record shows that the person who was in charge of the town council when that agreement was concluded also had a personal advantage to gain. I do not want to say more about that.

What happened thereafter? The Bill came to Parliament, and this Parliament and the legal advisers to this House were not prepared to incorporate the contractual arrangement as part of the Bill. There were good reasons for that. Evidence which was led before the committee said: “Die kontrak was te vaag”.

*The contract was certainly very difficult to carry out. I do not say that that was the evidence but it is my own interpretation.

†The legal advisers to this House and to the hon the Minister at that time decided not to incorporate the contract as a schedule to the Bill.

Then time went by. Did that stop those people ploughing up the mountain and planting their vineyards? No. Did the fact that this was a national monument stop the people going on to the mountain and doing what they wanted? No, they simply ignored the fact. Even when the stage was reached where the National Monuments Council instructed the Paarl municipality to have those people removed from the mountain, some of those people persisted and did not move.

This led to court cases, and we have the Schock verdict. The verdict was very clear that the contract of 1960 was, in my own words, ultra vires. The Paarl town council at that stage was not the owner of the mountain and therefore they had no right to bind themselves and the land owners to such a contract.

In the final analysis, who had the say? Surely the National Monuments Council, because I believe that even prior to 1963 the Paarl Mountain was already a national monument. In South Africa and in particular in areas such as Stellenbosch and Paarl—in other words, in the Boland—all of us are very much aware of national monuments and the meaning thereof, and therefore they must clearly have known that they were infringing upon land which was not theirs and that in doing so, they were breaking the law.

That is why I said earlier today that should this Bill be enacted, what this Parliament would in fact be doing would be to give a legal basis to those people who in the years gone by partly destroyed our national monuments and our national heritage. As I said earlier, if this Bill goes through, it means that a small number of people will be enriched at the cost of the community at large. There are a number of other reasons why we oppose this Bill.

I listened to the hon the Deputy Minister—I should like him to listen to me—who this evening said that the hon members who came here a long time ago had been struggling with this problem since the time they were young men. We now have the opportunity to put right what is wrong. This Bill is the opportunity to put right what is wrong. I am extremely disappointed to say to the hon the Deputy Minister for whom I personally have very high regard, that at this stage his courage has failed him. Is it not amazing, Mr Speaker, that on that side of the House there is not one young man who is prepared to stand up and say: “I disagree with the majority. It is not a political matter. I disagree with my colleagues and I want to see justice done tonight.” There could not be a better time for such a gesture than the last meeting of this House in 1984.

Kobus Meiring will do that.

I am appealing directly to the hon the Minister and the hon member for Paarl to do that. To them I say: “Come along and show your courage. Do something worthwhile.” With that, Mr Speaker, I want to say that we have to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to compliment the hon the Deputy Minister in this respect that he has made a thorough study of this matter. He participated in the debate in a very responsible and intelligent way. I want to pay him that compliment as well.

At the same time, however, I find it very sad because it proves that the hon the Minister read through the evidence, the submissions made by the advocates and all the other documents very thoroughly. That is why it makes me very sad that the hon the Deputy Minister, in spite of that, is nevertheless proceeding with the Bill. It saddens me to think that, in the dying moments, not only of this session, but in the dying moments of the last White Parliament of South Africa, we should be dealing with this situation where a dispute between only two parties has to be settled by this Parliament, after one of those parties, over a period of five years, lost all the court cases that were-held. This House is now intervening in a dispute of this nature, and even the conventions are being thrust aside in order to do this. What is more, this is being done while, at this stage, there are scarcely 20 members of the NP present to listen to the debate. [Interjections.] I am not saying it is a tragic day. It was a tragic day when we passed the new dispensation. But it is nevertheless sad that the NP should be intervening in this way in a private dispute between two parties. What a precedent did the NP not present to South Africa today? What a terrible precedent this is!

The last piece of legislation of the last White Parliament is a disgrace.

We put it to the Select Committee that we should not proceed with this Bill, in the first place because a natural monument is being spoiled and secondly …

Mr Speaker, is it permissible for the hon member for Bryanston to say that the last piece of legislation of the last White Parliament is a disgrace?

Order! I heard that, but I thought the hon member used the words “the last day”.

Mr Speaker, I said that the last piece of legislation in the last White Parliament was a disgrace.

Order! If the hon member said that, he must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

We had it placed on record that we had requested that this Bill be not proceeded with because in the first place it spoiled a natural monument. Secondly, the land will be used for agricultural purposes and it will never be possible to restore it to its natural state. One of the hon members on the opposite side who served on the Select Committee said that on the committee. After we had gone to inspect the terraces there, he said that it would never be possible to restore that land. That is what an hon member on that side said, and it has been placed on record. I shall not mention his name because I do not want to embarrass him. The hon member for Swellendam will simply have to put that in his pipe and smoke it. Some of his own hon members will confirm what I have just said.

I have given up smoking.

Then he can put it in his glass of wine and drink it. The point is, it was said. I also want to quote the following reasons:

1. 3. Because only a few persons will obtain benefits completely out of proportion to what they are entitled to.
2. 4. Because certain persons obtaining these benefits were never entitled to any commonage rights in terms of the Crown Grant of 1928 and some of the beneficiaries are even private companies.
3. 5. Because the essential provisions laid down by the agreement have been omitted from the Bill.
4. 6. Because, if the bill is proceeded with, it will be in conflict with public opinion.
5. 7. Because, as a result of political expediency, it intervenes in a private matter upon which the Supreme Court of South Africa has already given judgment and is in the process of adjudicating upon.
6. 8. Because it will result in all adjoining farmers making conflicting claims to the commonage which will lead to a national monument being further damaged without the National Monuments Council being able to exercise its powers or the public being consulted.
7. 9. Because the proposed rental is totally unrealistic and will ensure unjustified favouring of a few individuals.

All these things we said here still apply today. Not one argument raised by the hon the Deputy Minister or by other hon members on that side has changed the standpoint of the CP one iota.

I should now like to illustrate a few of these points. In the first place I want to refer to the argument of political expediency. Since 1882 Paarl Mountain has been under the control of the Paarl municipality. The fact that these persons objected to the transfer of Paarl Mountain from one State body to another was given completely disproportionate emphasis in the process. The only reason why the Paarl municipality was unable to exercise all the powers that it wanted to exercise on behalf of the beneficiaries was the fact that it did not have ownership. All the municipality wanted was lawful de jure ownership. The hon the Deputy Minister said that the same argument could have been used in respect of the farmers, but that is not the point at issue here. The point is that here one has a local statutory body which is trying, in a highly commendable way, to preserve the beauty of Paarl Mountain for posterity, not only the future generations of Paarl, but of the whole of South Africa, and that is should be made possible for them to do so. This is also to the benefit of the farmers, because they all had certain rights in terms of the Crown Grant of 1838, which they have retained since 1882, and which they would also have had now. All those people still have those privileges in regard to the mountain, but the farmers also have additional privileges.

In addition is it historically wrong to say that the transfer of ownership to the Paarl municipality is a quid pro quo for those rights they gave the farmers. It has already been stated here—and this is also on record that the 1970 select committee recommended that the ownership would be transferred to the Paarl municipality and that only the grazing rights would be excluded. That was therefore the quid pro quo. The grazing rights would be retained. From that position further negotiations then resulted. In practical terms the Paarl municipality received nothing more than it already had.

I have already made the point that certain farmers are now receiving benefits and valuable land which they can lease, while they were not even a party to the agreement. It is unlikely at this stage that more than five of the original signatories are involved in this whole matter. There are only a few farmers left, some of whom have been trespassing illegally on the mountain since 1966, and who are now receiving the legal right to lease land without the Administrator or the Council for National Monuments being consulted. What is more, the rental is unrealistic, and this is for some of the best land in the Western Province.

[Inaudible.]

With the exception perhaps of Swellendam. I shall make that concession to the hon member. The hon member for Swellendam should really go and take a look at the land which has been set aside for vineyards. It is soft, red, loamy soil.

The steps being taken here are opposed by the National Monuments Council and it is quite interesting to read what Mr W A de Klerk has to say about the question of morality. He is the chairman of the Drakensteinse Heemkring in the Paarl, and he wrote inter alia as follows:

Mr W A de Klerk is a very well known person and an expert on nature conservation. He went on to ask:

He represents the Upper Berg River branch of the Simon Van der Stel Foundation.

Other objectors are the Drakensteinse Heemkring and the Association for the protection of the Environment. The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is not here at the moment. Today he spoke about how splendid it was that we agreed to such a large extent on the importance of protecting the environment. The Habitat Council, the Botanical Society of South Africa, the Paarl municipality, the Paarl Divisional Council, the Nature Conservation Division of the Cape Provincial Administration all objected to this legislation, and I have already referred to the fact that the hon member for Paarl himself, in his capacity as chairman of the advisory committee on the Paarl Mountain Nature Reserve wants the entire erf to become part of the nature reserve.

I want that very much.

Then the hon member must come and sit here where we are.

Apart from these objections, court cases were conducted on this matter and a final decision was given in the Supreme Court of Cape Town in favour of the municipality. On 24 September 1979 the Minister of Agriculture refused to change the Act so that the municipality could be compelled to lease the remnant of land. But what has happened in the meantime? Earlier on the hon the Deputy Minister took it amiss of the hon member for Wynberg for having alleged that political pressure was being exerted on the Government to proceed with this Bill. I want to repeat this, and I want to spell out to him once again what elements were involved in the political pressure that was exerted.

On 25 August 1978 the then Minister of Agriculture tried to persuade the then Minister of National Education, Mr Cruywagen, to influence the NMC to give up their opposition to this matter. The Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation of the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope, which in reality controls the nature reserve on Erf 1 in Paarl, lodged an objection to the Bill. However, the MEC forced that official to withdraw his petition, in other words, an arm of the State that objected to this Bill was instructed to withdraw its objection. That is not all that was done. He also refused to allow the Director to give evidence before the Select Committee. A decision had to be taken by the House of Assembly to summon him to come and give evidence, although he was willing to do so.

Would the hon member for Brakpan concede that the person who was summoned by the House of Assembly to come and give evidence here, namely Dr Neethling, was summoned at the insistence of National Party members on the select committee? Would he concede further that if we had not consented to that being done, that person would not have appeared before the committee? [Interjections.]

In the first place, one of the advocates explained to the select committee that he could not bring Dr Neethling before the select committee because he had been prohibited from doing so, although he was willing to do so. The chairman then requested that an effort should be made to get Dr Neethling to give evidence without the matter having to be referred to the House of Assembly. At the request of the advocate, however, the House of Assembly was asked to issue an order for that person to be subpoenaed.

Did we then vote on this matter?

Yes, there was a vote and the National Party was of course in the majority. Can the hon member imagine what other arguments we would have been able to use against the National Party if they had voted against this? The Nationalists on the select committee were driven into a corner to such an extent that they could not refuse the request.

From 6 March 1978 until September 1979 the farmers, through their attorney, exerted constant pressure on the then Minister of Agriculture. He reacted very clearly by saying that he refused to intervene. Over the years matters took their course and the courts returned their verdicts. An appeal was lodged and the Paarl municipality won all those cases. Before the select committee commenced its business, the Paarl Municipality, the Paarl divisional council and the National Monuments Council had to make use of attorneys and advocates, whom they had to pay, and I wonder how many thousands of rands that cost.

What about the farmers?

It did not cost the farmers a cent to appear before the select committee because the State paid for the advocates of the beneficiaries.

What about the court cases?

They lost the court cases.

It cost them money.

Yes, that is correct, but how long did the select committee sit? The select committee sat for more than year, and the advocates for the objectors had to be paid by the petitioners. The farmers who are being favoured today in these dying moments of the White Parliament, did not pay a cent.

Why do you hate the farmers so much?

That is a terribly nonsensical question to ask. Are hon members aware that the neighbours of the farmers who are being favoured here are up in arms against these few farmers being favoured? If that hon member says I hate farmers, then the farmers themselves hate farmers. Why should certain people be favoured at the expense of other farmers and the community? Mr Speaker, this is a blot on the record of the National Party, one of the blackest ever on the record of the National Party. [Interjections.] What happened, after the Government and the Cabinet refused for five years to intervene, that they should now suddenly have come forward with this Bill to find a solution to a dispute between two contrasting parties? Big Brother has come along now—I wonder who Big Brother is—and has placed his imprimatur on an unjust and unfair measure to which the local community is opposed and which flies in the face of the evidence of every interested organization—and does so in favour of farmers whose hands, in the first and final instance, are not even clean. Mr Speaker, it is incomprehensible.

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

Yes, certainly.

Is the hon member making the statements he has now made with reference to the evidence before the Select Committee or on the basis of evidence which he himself acquired and did not submit to the Select Committee?

No, what I am saying here all stems from the Select Committee, and ordinary common sense. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a few aspects which are put forward in the documents of the National Monuments Council. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, a remarkable aspect of this matter is the fact that the promoters of the Bill placed no evidence whatsoever before this committee indicating that what this proclamation of the National Monuments Council was trying to protect was not worthy of protecting. The hon member for Sundays River himself said—it is a pity he is not here, because he would probably have voted for us—that Paarl Mountain has far more value than merely the natural conservation aspect, and has far greater significance. If there is one historical monument in the Cape, it is Paarl Mountain.

You must straighten yourself out, it is getting late.

We are prepared to fight. The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs says we are prepared to fight for a good cause. He can go to bed if he likes, but we will remain here until this matter has been thrashed out. We hope the voters of Oudtshoorn and the voters of Paarl will take cognizance of the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs’ superficial attitude in regard to this matter.

Waterberg, Soutpansberg, and Paarlberg.

When the hon member for Sundays River was still MEC, he thought he would be able to twist the NMC around his little finger and easily get their consent to the contract concluded between the farmers and the municipality. He now concedes that it was a total misconception he had. He now admits that members of the NMC are people of stature for whom he has great respect. He accepts that the NMC opposition to the legislation is genuine, and not simulated.

Mr W A de Klerk testified about the first discovery of Paarl Mountain by Gabbemma in 1657 and about the Huguenot farms on the southern side of the mountain as far as Vredenhof. He also testified about the cradle of the Afrikaans language and the establishment of Di Patriot in Paarl in 1872. He testified that there was no similar area in the entire country to the Drakenstein and the Upper Berg River valley of so much historical significance and so much influence on the history of the rest of South Africa.

Mrs Colley of the South African Botanical Society expressed her astonishment at a national monument being degraded, since she considered it to be something which ought to be sacrosanct. She added that if this kind of conduct was permitted, no national monument would ever be safe. The National Monuments Council said that they may as well close up shop as result of what was now happening. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs did not want to intervene at that time. Even at that early stage he saw that this disgrace was going to take place in South Africa today, and that is why he did not become involved in the matter. It is a pity he could not stop it.

I want to refer, in addition, to the expert evidence given by Mr Burgers. He is a nature conservationist and scientist at the Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation of the Cape Provincial Administration. He has a B.Sc. (Honours) degree, with nature conservation as main subject, and he grew up in Paarl. He said it was rare to find fynbos growing on eroded granite as it did on Paarl Mountain. Secondly, he said that only 15% of the original surface area covered with fynbos remained, and only approximately 7% of the original surface area was renosterveld.

Jan, what does fynbos look like?

The hon the Deputy Minister is still being frivolous about this matter. Has the hon the Deputy Minister ever been on that mountain?

Yes, many times. I was born near to it.

Have you seen what has happened there?

I have seen everything.

Thirdly, there are many threatened species of indigenous flora in the Western Cape. Fourthly, there are two varieties of protea which are unique to Paarl Mountain and Paardeberg.

In spite of all these things, the Government is proceeding with this Bill. What is happening here is what one of the advocates who testified before the select committee once said. He quoted what Langenhoven had once said, when he said that if a thing was bad to begin with, whether it was a piece of equipment, a watch, a dog, a horse or a human being, then you could be sure that it would remain bad to the end. That is the situation we have here. Apart from a few farmers who have exerted a great influence over the Government, it is unique in the history of South Africa that this can be accomplished, that the Government should proceed with such legislation despite opposition from the bodies responsible for nature conservation matters and other experts.

In addition, the argument is being advanced that a precedent is being created here which can be followed throughout the country. Then there is the fact that when the original Act was passed in 1970, proper notice in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 23, 24 and 25 was not even given to the various interested parties involved in this matter. The agreement as such was never published to the benefit of the interested parties and the NMC never had an opportunity anywhere to object to this legislation.

In conclusion, I want to refer to the offer the Paarl municipality made to the farmers just before this matter was finalized. It stated that Erf 1, Paarl, that had been transferred to the municipality in terms of and subject to the provisions of section 1 of the Act, would with retrospective effect up to 13 October 1970 be subject to the commonage rights created in terms of the Crown Grant, dated 27 December 1838. The Paarl municipality was prepared, in spite of the long struggle that had been waged in this regard, to continue to apply the contents of the 1838 award in order to put an end to this long conflict. When this offer was submitted and read out, however, no one stood up to react to the offer. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, after this debate has been in progress now for 4½ hours, after this matter was debated for the past 18 months on the Select Committee, and during the Second Reading debate here, and after this matter was a bone of contention in Paarl for the past 18 years, I should like at this late stage to make my contribution as well. Now it so happens that during the Second Reading debate last year, the hon member for Brakpan spoke immediately after me. On that occasion he expressed appreciation for my having tried to state both sides of the matter. I want to say that I have very great appreciation for the way in which the hon member for Newton Park and all the other hon members served on that committee. I went there frequently to listen. After the select committee had held its sittings, though, my view of the matter was precisely the same as it was last year during the Second Reading debate. I should like to elaborate on this a little.

The crux of the matter—and the hon members who participated in this debate today demonstrated this—is that it is an extremely complex situation, that it is a very unfortunate chapter in the history of my constituency, but that under the circumstances one must make the best of it. With reference to certain allegations which were made on the opposite side, I want to say that over the years—I could quote many examples—many attempts were made to bring the two conflicting parties, namely the municipality and the farmers, together in an effort to find a solution. During the period of office of the hon the Leader of the House as Minister of Agriculture, an attempt was made to arrive at such settlements. Naturally this long struggle has cost a great deal of money. I find it ironic that with this amending Bill now before this House, precisely the same is being achieved as the efforts made at the time under the present Leader of the House sought to achieve.

I do not want to hurl any recriminations now at either the Paarl Municipality or the farmers. All of us inherited that situation; myself included. When hon members on the opposite side therefore talk about political expediency and about the need for courage, I want to make it clear that if I had wanted to make a selfish choice, I would of course immediately have chosen the side of the majority. After all, that is the easiest thing to do. [Interjections.] One must look at this matter fundamentally. The problem in regard to this whole unfortunate conflict lies in the fact that the issue has been debated to death. In fact, I sat here this afternoon listening attentively to this debate. We have become so entangled in this process, which has extended over so many years—this applies to all of us; both parties, as well as members of the select committee—and also in the details and the objections in this connection that we have simply overlooked the original objective and the basis of this whole matter. In this respect I need only refer to the contents of the minority report. Consequently I can only say that all the attention now focused on the Paarl mountain and on Paarl worries me a great deal because it is harming the image of a wonderful town and a wonderful constituency. I can only hope that all this attention amounts to good publicity

Let us take one final look at what the real basis of this whole matter is. What is this whole issue all about? Honestly, when one approaches this whole situation in a fundamental way, it is not necessary to become entangled in all this detail. Mr Speaker, allow me to explain the issue briefly, in my own layman’s terms, to this House.

The State controls the mountain. Then, too, there is the municipality that wants to do certain things with that mountain. To be able to do so, however, they wanted ownership transferred to them. This we did in the past by way of a hybrid Act. But there are also a group of farmers around that mountain who also have certain rights. They are therefore objecting, and in accordance with the rules of this House the matter was referred to a select committee. The select committee came to a decision, and unfortunately that decision was not a practical one. Thereupon the State intimated that it was not interested in relinquishing control of its mountain. It instructed the conflicting groups to reach a compromise first. After a long struggle the parties got together and arrived at an agreement. That was in 1969. On the basis of that agreement—that consensus—the State transferred its ownership of that mountain to the municipality, on condition that they would lease the remnant of land—that 12,5% of the mountain—to the farmers for 50 years for agricultural purposes at 25 cents per year. That is how simple this matter is.

I do not want to go into it any further now; a great deal has already been said about it. What has followed now is a whole lot of details, complexities and problems. But that does not change the basis of the whole agreement at all.

But now there is the other side of the matter as well. That agreement and that Act of 1970, which was passed on the grounds of that agreement, and in terms of which the ownership was transferred, prescribed certain procedures. According to the Act the municipality had to survey the mountain, and the farmers had to agree among themselves on who received what portion. The Act also provided that the farmers had to enter into an individual contract with the municipality because the original agreement was not a lease agreement. In correspondence which is at present being conducted in the newspapers this agreement is referred to as lease agreement. It is purely an enabling agreement. That is all it is, and that is also all it was intended to be at the time. Because it is a vague agreement as a result, it was not inserted in the Act.

As I have said, however, the 1970 Act prescribed certain procedures. The fact of the matter is that to this day those procedures have not yet been complied with, owing to a number of reasons.

Now I find myself in the awkward situation that for years I have believed that the municipality of my town—and they are my friends; in fact they are sitting here this evening—are wrong when they argue that that agreement is invalid. The agreement cannot be invalid because the 1970 Act was passed on the basis of that agreement—regardless of whether it is a good or a bad agreement. If the agreement is null and void, then the 1970 Act must be withdrawn by this House. Then the nature reserve would fall away. Then the farmers, with their vineyards and all, must get off the mountain, and then everyone, with their cows and sheep, can all go back to the mountain.

They were never there.

They had those rights. The interesting part of it is that as a town-dweller I also have those rights, but in March 1969 the municipality, when it signed that agreement, signed away my right and the right of the other 10 000 town-dwellers.

That is why I say that the municipality, and I am saying this in all fondness to them, cannot now deny that a valid agreement was reached, but in exactly the same way the farmers cannot say today that they complied with the procedure measures as prescribed by the 1970 Act. The mere fact that those rules of procedure were not complied with does does not make the agreement invalid, however, and does not make the original Act invalid.

We have now arrived at an impasse, and honestly I have personally tried to find a way out of that impasse during the past five or six years. To my mind the solution as it is prescribed in this Bill is an excellent solution and it is as follows: The municipality is committed to an agreement. The farmers originally had grazing rights which they could retain for a certain time. That agreement makes specific provision for agricultural purposes, but if a person wished to cultivate any land, he had to be prepared to pay an economical rental.

To my mind, now, the matter is as simple as this: In 1969 we reached a consensus, we arrived at a compromise on the basis of which a law was passed and on the basis of which ownership was transferred. Now to my mind it is only logical that with the given situation one has today, a practical solution has to be found, and it is this: If one allows those adjoining farmers to remain there for the unexpired part of the 50 years which began to run in 1966—that is to say for a further 32 years—and if they wanted to cultivate that land, one must afford them an opportunity to do so at an economic rental, and then, after 32 years from today, the whole thing will be over and done with.

I now wish to associate myself with the remark made by one of the hon members opposite. I want to make it very clear—I said this at the time when I was chairman of the Paarl Mountain Advisory Council—that the ideal situation is that Paarl Mountain will ultimately be a nature reserve, and here I am referring to the whole of Erf No 1. Tonight I want to tell hon members opposite in particular that conservation is an never ending task. My goodness me, surely Paarl Mountain has not been there since yesterday; it has been there since the time of Gabbemma. I wonder what Abraham Gabbemma would have said if he had known about this terrible debate.

Who is Gabbemma?

Gabbemma is the person who discovered the mountain and gave Paarl its name, and in 1987 all the hon members can come to Paarl for our festival to celebrate our three hundredth anniversary.

Paarl Mountain has been there since the time of Christ, since the time of the creation. Honestly, to resolve this impasse and to allow a group of farmers to remain there for 32 years and to ultimately have a mountain which can be a nature reserve in its totality, appears to me to be only fair.

I conclude by saying this: Let us at least see this matter in its correct perspective. One cannot always choose to side with the majority; one must at least acknowledge the rights of minorities as well. That mountain covers an area of 2 700 ha, of which the remnant of land is 270 or 300 ha—approximately one tenth. The nature reserve part of Erf No 1 is approximately 2 300 or 3 400 ha, but of that 300 ha remnant of land—the hon member for Stilfontein referred to it—not more than a fifth is cultivatable. To make such a fuss about a matter like this is really not worth while. In fact, I want to apologize because this matter, which could have been solved around a conference table years ago, has taken up so much of the time of this House.

May I please ask a question? In view of the good spirit which is now prevailing, would the hon member for Paarl not support me in the appeal I have made to farmers to come off the mountain as well? Would he support me in that appeal?

Mr Speaker, I have omitted to mention this but the fact remains that farmers are limited to 32 years. The hon member must remember that most of those farmers are farmers who are not interested in cultivating the mountain. In fact, they cannot do so because it is steep land. However, it is extremely important to them to maintain that buffer zone between a nature reserve, to which many people have access and their own vineyards. It is very important to them to control the position as far as their water supplies and all the other matters are concerned. Does the hon member for Wynberg realize that those farmers are making a final sacrifice now, for after 32 years they have to withdraw from the mountain completely? That is my reply to the hon member’s question.

Mr Speaker, the reply of the hon member for Paarl to that question was rather plausible and smooth. There were, however, other alternatives that he did not mention. There is no reason why the question of agricultural purposes should not have been eliminated entirely. The fact remains too that Parliament is not making an agreement. The agreement that will come into force as a result of this amendment is not being concluded between either the present Paarl municipality or the municipality of 1969. It is also not being made between Parliament and the farmers or between Parliament and the municipality. Therefore, there is none of the unanimity that is referred to in the Schedule to the Bill. The Bill states something which in fact does not exist.

Before I continue to discuss this matter, I just want to raise two points. These points concern the rules dealing with hybrid Bills. In regard to the process that we went through with four well paid advocates and the time spent in calling and examining witnesses, I feel that the whole hybrid Bill procedure is a waste of time. It is a waste of time primarily because the Bill is referred to a select committee after the principle has been agreed to at Second Reading. The same point was made by the hon member for Brakpan during the Second Reading debate. We supported the motion—as did the PFP—that the Bill be referred to a select committee before the principle had been agreed to at Second Reading. Had that been done, I feel that far more consensus could have been achieved and that a better arrangement than this could certainly have been made.

The second point I want to mention is that when one reads the evidence one notices that unless evidence is taken under oath, it sometimes takes a great deal of time and money to get people to tell a simple truth. What they say initially and what is eventually extracted from them are two different things entirely. As I say, if one takes the trouble to read through the evidence, one will see that many of the points of view adopted by people giving evidence initially become completely the opposite by the time cross-examination has taken place.

I would like to refer once again to a point that I made earlier but which Mr Chairman found to be in conflict with the principle accepted at Second Reading. At the Third Reading today, may I just mention that the advocate for the promoters in his initial argument said the following:

The point here is the following, and I quote:

That is the cardinal point and that is why we feel so strongly about this matter. Had this committee sat before the principle had been established and had evidence been taken under oath, I feel a very different result would have been forthcoming. We have put this forward as a suggestion to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and requested them to consider this aspect because the committee certainly did not fit the circumstances of that particular situation.

However, I want to return to what we are talking about and that is the effect of this Bill and whether or not it is good legislation. We in these benches have already expressed the disappointment which we feel on this last sitting of Parliament in having to pass legislation of this nature which can only be described as a shabby ending to a very historic sitting. I think it is important to note that people outside—perhaps the NP is not aware of it—many of whom are their own supporters, feel the same and are equally disappointed. I would like to express to hon members the feelings of the Town Council of Paarl in this regard:

1. 1. Die beweerde ooreenkoms waarna verwys word, is reeds deur die Hooggeregshof as ongeldig verklaar, en as gevolg van hierdie uitspraak was mnr W G le Roux verplig om sy onregmatige besetting van ’n gedeelte van die berg te beëindig en moes hy sy wingerd verwyder.
2. 2. Oorspronklik is teen hierdie uitspraak geappelleer, maar as gevolg van vertoë tot die Volksraad in die verlede is ’n wetswysiging voorgestel waarteen die stadsraad, die Paarlse Afdelingsraad, die Raad vir Nasionale Gedenk-waardighede en verskeie bewarings-instansies beswaar gemaak het. Na aanleiding van hierdie besware is die saak na ’n Gekose Komitee verwys maar nadat die Gekose Komitee aangewys is, het die verweerder sy appèl terug getrek.
3. 3. Sedert die betreding van die berg plaasgevind het en die stadsraad aansoek gedoen het vir die nodige uitsettingsbevel, is ernstige vertoë tot die gewese Adjunk-minister, mnr H J D van der Walt, en die plaaslike LV gerig om die beoogde wetswysiging agterweë te laat tot tyd en wyl die Hooggeregshof ’n uitspraak gelewer het ten einde die partye se regte te bepaal. Die stadsraad het onderneem om by die hof se uitspraak te berus. Hierdie standpunt is by geleentheid deur ’n vorige Minister van Landbou ook gehuldig. Die stadsraad is magteloos teenoor enige besluit van die Volksraad maar moet beklemtoon dat die Paarlberg ’n verklaarde nasionale gedenkwaardigheid is, en die voorstelle van die gekose komitee sal tot gevolg hê dat ’n nasionale gedenkwaardigheid geskend word. Daar kan nie saamgestem word met die stelling van mnr Meiring dat die voorstelle van die gekose komitee die ideaal om die hele Paarlberg as ’n natuurreservaat te bedryf, ’n werklikheid kan maak nie. Dit is teleurstellend dat die openbare belang skynbaar ondergeskik gestel word aan die bevoorregting van enkelinge wat regte verkry wat hulle nooit gehad het nie.

The letter was signed by the mayor Mr Terblanche.

I think it is important that that goes into Hansard to record the reaction of the duly elected local authority for Paarl in respect of the action taken by this Government to settle a dispute about which the hon member for Paarl says we should try to make the best of it. We in these benches, and I am quite certain also everybody else outside this House, believe that the Government has made the worst of it.

They have made a mess of it.

The Government has made a total mess of it. I suggest that the bon the Deputy Minister during his spare time, when he gets back to Transvaal, read the evidence and the final arguments. He will be a very unhappy man about what has happened here today.

Mr Speaker, at this late hour of the night, when it is virtually time for the adjournment of the House, I should like to convey a special word of thanks to the person who, during the past 18 months, has made the most inputs but who has participated least in the debate, namely the hon member for Newton Park. In the process, however, it was he who did the most.

I also want to thank the hon member for Stellenbosch for his contribution to the debate and for his elucidation. I have come to know him over the years as a person who always makes a thorough study of a matter.

I also want to address a special word of thanks to the hon member Dr Odendaal for his contribution on the select committee and also during this debate. I also thank the hon member for Stilfontein and the hon member for Umlazi for their contributions. I also thank all other hon members who made a contribution on the select committee.

In conclusion I want to say that the attacks made on the hon member for Paarl at the beginning of the debate were very unfair. He was not a member of the select committee and because only hon members who served on the select committee spoke during the Committee Stage, the hon member for Paarl did not speak at that stage. I think it is very unfair to take him to task about this matter at that stage. [Interjections.] Since the hon member has now spoken during the Third Reading, I want to thank him very sincerely for the way in which he participated, and for the standpoints which he stated. I think he played a well balanced part in this matter. [Interjections.]

I do not want to reply to all the statements hon members made, but I do want to refer to the hon member for Brakpan, who quoted W A de Klerk here. On the basis of his person, and the position he occupies, W A de Klerk is able to make a special impression among the public, and I do want to say he was selectively quoted. In reply to a question on the select committee he also said the following:

I am mentioning this to restore a measure of equilibrium to the discussion.

He said that in a completely different context.

He was referring to the vineyards on the mountain.

Since we have now come to the end of the debate, I do not wish to argue matters in detail again. [Interjections.] That hon member was not often present here during the discussion. During this entire debate, I never once acted emotionally and made interjections. I am therefore asking the hon member to give me a chance to make my speech.

I appreciate the observations made by the hon member for Brakpan, and I thank him for them.

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

No, Mr Speaker. In any case, I am almost finished. [Interjections.]

Since we have now come to the end of this debate, I want to point out that 32 years lie ahead in which a problem has to be solved which cost the municipality thousands of rands. The Taalmonument on Paarl Mountain will in future be a great asset to the country as a whole, and 32 years in the life of a people, and in nature, is in my opinion nothing.

And in the life of a person?

One is privileged to be able to look after and manage the assets one has.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me leave to make this statement.

At approximately 17hl2 this afternoon a car bomb explosion occurred in Bluff Road, Jacobs, Durban. As far as is known, four Blacks were killed, 14 Blacks and five Whites were seriously injured and an unknown number of Asians were injured, some of them seriously. Most of the injured persons have already been admitted to hospitals. The SA Police immediately cordoned off the area and all available experts on the force have already commenced the necessary investigation. It is not possible at this stage to identify the final number of persons killed or injured.

It is with sorrow that I convey the Government’s sympathy to the next-of-kin of the survivors and to all injured persons. The circumstances of the explosion were identical to previous actions of the ANC and the SA Communist Party and are consistent with a recent statement by the leader of the ANC, Oliver Tambo, that they were planning to intensify their activities and that larger numbers of civilians would unavoidably be killed or injured.

Everything possible will be done to bring the guilty parties in this case to justice.

Mr Speaker, I just want to express my personal, and my party’s, condemnation of this senseless act of violence. I also want to point out to you that it can only contribute to a rising spiral of violence and acts of violence in our country. I also want to associate myself with the hon the Minister’s words of condolence to those who suffered, and express the hope that those who were injured will have a speedy recovery.

Mr Speaker, this side of the House would like to associate itself with the words of the hon the Minister and the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I also express our earnest and deep aversion to such an act of meaningless violence and we should also, in this way, like to convey our sympathy to the next-of-kin of those who died, as well as to those who were injured.

Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the sympathy expressed to the families of those who were killed and those who were injured. I want to say that this mindless slaughter of innocent members of the public destroys any sympathy that anyone should have for the so-called organizations aimed at “liberating the oppressed”. This sort of action is an action which reveals their own subhuman mentality and I believe they should be hunted out until they are eliminated from the society which they despoil.

Mr Speaker, I gave an undertaking that we would not sit through the night, and I want to keep to it. Now, some hon members have approached me with the request that if at 22h30 when we have to adjourn, we realize that we only need a little more time, we should go on for a while and decide when we should adjourn. Therefore, I wish to move without notice:

Mr Speaker, I regret to say that I would have liked to have been consulted before that announcement was made. I regret to say that yesterday we received a notice from the hon Leader of the House in respect of the sitting hours of this House, hours which were set down as being from l0h00 in the morning until 22h30 tonight. I believe that that is 12 hours continuous sitting, which is enough for any human being to stand. I would like to hear a little more detail from the hon Leader of the House as to exactly what he means by a reasonable time, as we have been hearing so much about reasonableness. We have been listening to reasonableness for five hours, and reasonableness in the hon Leader of the House’s mind can sometimes stretch to an other five hours. I am afraid we cannot associate ourselves with that motion.

Mr Speaker, I think the point of view of this side of the House regarding sitting hours is well known as we have made our standpoint clear time and time again. As far as the motion of the hon Leader of the House is concerned I want to say that we shall support it. We shall support it for the reason that we are ready to handle the legislation as we have had time to prepare it. We are therefore in a position to deal with it. It seems quite senseless to involve all the members of Parliament in another day’s sitting if it is not necessary, and if sitting just for an extra half an hour tonight will enable us to conclude the proceedings, we will be happy to go along with the motion.

Mr Speaker, I just want to record the fact that as Whip of the CP I take strong exception to our not having been consulted before this announcement was made. [Interjections.] Let those silly hon members try to laugh the time away. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that we agreed yesterday that we would sit this evening until 22h30. [Interjections.] The hon Chief Whip of the NP neglected to discuss this matter with me and the other Whips, and now does not even want us to have our say. He is the one who broke the agreement. We agreed to sit until 22h30 and if the parties then found that within half an hour … [Interjections.]

Order! Any hon member who makes one single further interjection while the hon member for Kuruman is speaking will have to leave the Chamber immediately.

We agreed that we would sit until 22h30 and that if the parties then found that they would be able to complete their business within half an hour, we could agree to sit half an hour longer. We are still prepared to keep our agreement of yesterday. If at 22h30 tonight we find that we can finish within half an hour, we can sit longer. However, we also agreed that if it appeared that considerably more time would be required, we would continue with business tomorrow morning at 09h00.

Therefore we cannot support this motion of the hon the Leader of the House. We are close to the end of the session of the last White Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. The next Order of the Day is the consideration of the new Standing Rules and Orders of the new Parliament. Up to the present we have co-operated well with the hon the Leader of the House, and that is why I want to ask him to keep to the agreement we reached yesterday morning, and then to see what happens at 22h30. I want to ask that he does not rush us in having the proposed Standing Rules and Orders passed and also that the Government must not steamroller us as far as this matter is concerned. We do not wish to be steamrollered any further.

Mr Speaker, that is what I have suggested. I have been informed that in terms of the rules of the House, if a specific time for the adjournment is indicated on the Order Paper, we cannot but adjourn unless, before we start with this Order of the Day, I move that the House adjourn on its own resolution. I stated emphatically that if we found that we only had half an hour’s work remaining, as the hon member said we had agreed, we would continue for a further half an hour. I said that I did not want us to have sit through the night. The hon member says he does not want to be steamrollered. However, we have just devoted four and a half hours discussion to 300 ha of land. There is therefore no question of steamrollering. Nobody is being rushed, and if hon members want to sit tomorrow to discuss the Standing Rules and Orders, then we will sit tomorrow. However, if we find that we can finish at 23h00 tonight, why should we meet tomorrow for half an hour? The Chief Whip and I will chat to the Whips of the parties at 22h30 in order to reach consensus on this matter. I ask that we do not divide on this motion and that we continue with the work. I understand the problem of hon members.

Question agreed to.

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

1. 1. To add at the end of the paragraph:
   • Taking into consideration the early stages of planning, and notwithstanding the agreement in principle referred to, it is recommended that a committee consisting of members of Parliament from all parties as well as members of the Parliamentary Secretariat be appointed to consider plans and make recommendations for the overall planning of Parliament and its precincts to ensure that there is adequate accommodation for Parliament and its attendant services in buildings and an environment that are appropriate to the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

I move this amendment not because I am critical of the Department of Community Development for taking an initiative, nor in the least because I am critical of those professional teams which are working within the parameters of the mandate and the brief given to them by that Department, but for two specific reasons. First of all, I believe that when it comes to the re modelling of the buildings of the Parliament of South Africa, it should be beyond all doubt that Parliament is in charge and not the Department of Community Development or anybody else. Parliament should not only be in command but Parliament should also take the initiatives. I believe that in the present circumstances, Parliament is responding to the initiatives being taken by another department. We are being asked either to approve or to disapprove, but Parliament as such is not taking initiatives of its own. The first point I Want to emphasize is that I believe that Parliament must assert its authority and must take its initiatives in respect of its own building.

The second point I want to make is that we have what is perhaps a unique opportunity, perhaps an opportunity which we will not have again for another century, to take this existing architectural and historical heritage and to expand and adjust it in a way which will meet the needs of Parliament and which will not only upgrade the building, but will also upgrade the environment so that these buildings will not only be adequate for the needs of Parliament today and in the future but so that they will also blend with the historical and important cultural city of Cape Town. I do not believe that we are doing sufficient in this regard, and the history of what has taken place over the last few months will indicate this.

We cannot adopt the paragraph before us because in fact the Committee on Internal Arrangements has already agreed to plans which are not reflected in here. In other words, even since this report was printed, ad hoc decisions have been taken by another committee which have nullified some of the decisions and recommendations of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The hon the Leader of the House will be aware of this. What happened earlier this session is that not Mr Speaker but the hon the Minister of Community Development announced where the three Houses were going to sit in September. We said that it was monstrous to suggest that the Coloured House should sit on the Foreshore. Instead of the other hon members of the House supporting us, they all said there is no alternative but that the Coloured House must go to the President’s Council Chamber on the Foreshore. In the course of time we were proved right. It is impossible to accommodate them there. So that procedure has now been changed. Then we were told that the only way in which the additional accommodation could be provided was by building a new building, which was the equivalent of seven ordinary storeys, between this Parliamentary building and the Tuynhuys, bordering hard on Government Avenue and the gardens of Tuynhuys.

Once again we said that to put a seven storey building on a site which, culturally, historically and from an environmental point of view, is perhaps the most sensitive site in the whole of the city of Cape Town would be offensive from the point of view of the culture, the history and the architecture of that area. We said do not put these two basements, an Indian House, a joint sitting House, a Coloured House, and White, Coloured and Indian MPs offices all together. We said that these functions should be separated. Once again we were told that there was no alternative. However, only this week, the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements has received a further design, and the Coloured House is not going to be within those precincts. Therefore, we have chopped and changed again. The Coloured House is going to be in the Senate Chamber temporarily but I suspect it will be there permanently. I do not mind if it is there because I think that the Senate Chamber is a perfectly good solution. However, when we raised the point previously, we were told that there was only one solution namely the seven storey building. Within three months we have reversed that decision, and I am in favour of it. Now we are wondering where to put the Indian House. Is it going to be above the joint House or sandwiched between the joint House and the White Minister’s offices, or is it going to be across the road temporarily? I say that if the Government insists that the three Houses be under one roof then there is a very simple solution. I say that the existing parliamentary dining room could quite easily become the Indian House. There is no practical problem in this regard. In fact, it may even perhaps be a good thing for our dining facilities to be removed from these precincts and situated in Mark’s Building. After all, must we have food vans standing outside and kitchen staff pouring into the building? Must we have all the attendant problems relating to dining facilities here in what should be the debating chambers of Parliament? The point I want to make is that I do not believe that there is any overall planning.

Why did the hon member not suggest that on the committee?

All I am saying is that there is no proposal at the moment. It is suggested that the temporary accommodation be across the road. All kinds of people are putting forward all kinds of ideas, and we are going to end up with this House looking like a “lappieskombers”. It is going to be a hodgepodge of additions and alterations instead of our looking at the total requirements of Parliament and its attendant services. Perhaps the secretariat and the architect have a complete schedule of proposed alterations, but I do not believe that the hon the Leader of the House has a complete schedule of all the accommodation that is required. What we are saying is: We need a new House, let us put it over there. We need a new Chamber, let us put it over here. Our argument is that in the most sensitive area of the Mother City of South Africa there should be a comprehensive plan to accommodate this Parliament, its Houses and its various committee rooms, as well as the executive attendant upon it. We do not believe that this can best be done by the PWD or the Department of Community Development or the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements or Committee on Standing Rules and Orders coming forward with various ideas. We believe that this House should appoint its own committee to mastermind a comprehensive plan in co-operation with other departments so as to find a solution to the accommodation problems of this Parliament.

I believe that even in the present circumstances, apart from this Chamber, parliamentary accommodation is shocking. We need think only of the way in which our officials have to work. They have to move from one part of the parliamentary building to another, and some of them are even accommodated above this Chamber in dovecotes along the top. I think too of the rabbit warren of accommodation afforded the Press and the media. I think too of the inadequacy of the facilities generally. When I think of all these things then I believe that we have to have a completely new look at the whole question of Parliament and its facilities. I do not believe that this can be done in isolation because I feel it has to be done against the background of the city in which it exists. I feel that there has to be a master plan for this part of Cape Town starting from the bottom of the Avenue right through to the top end of Tuynhuys. I feel that there must be an overall plan starting with the total requirements of Parliament and then marrying that to the requirements of the executive. There must also be a flowchart in relation to the movements of people around the complex, and a plan of how the whole complex will relate to its general environment.

I cannot but make the urgent plea that we should not build a hodge-podge of buildings one upon the other or next to each other. We must have a comprehensive plan, not designed by the Department of Community Development but designed by Parliament it self using the Department of Community Development as its agent. I think the roles have to be reversed and Parliament must assert itself in this role. I believe that Parliament must ensure that the building and its precincts that are produced will be credit not only to Parliament, its sovereignty and its status but also a credit to what I believe is the most sensitive area in the Mother City of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, as far as using the Parliamentary dining-room as an assembly chamber for the Indian House is concerned, I think the hon member for Sea Point moved his motion at the wrong stage. From the point of view of both the PFP as well as the NP of course it is a very good motion. [Interjections.] That is precisely why I am saying that the hon member for Sea Point should really have moved this motion of his while the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was present; and of course the hon the Minister of Community Development.

Where are they?

Of course that is a very good question. Last night I told them that if we had to toil through this whole Order Paper today, the Hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would no doubt fail to turn up here again. [Interjections.] But in any case I want to put it to the hon member for Sea Point that if the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had been present here this evening, that motion of his would have fallen on very fruitful soil. [Interjections.]

When we consider the report tabled by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, we observe that it is aimed at implementing the policy of the Government of bringing a new Parliament—a tricameral Parliament— into existence; under one roof of course. Hon members opposite told us that the Indians could sit in Natal, the Coloureds in Bellville South and the Whites here. They said that they would laugh at us when these things became a reality. Then, a little while later, they said that the Coloured House would be situated in Roggebaai, while the Indians would sit somewhere else.

After that we began to discuss the machinery of this new Parliament on the Commitee on Standing Rules and Orders. Then the governing party began to realize the hon Ministers would not be able to run down to Roggebaai quickly enough, and that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs would have to introduce a bus service to convey the hon Ministers to the Coloured and Indian Houses. [Interjections.] It was then that they began to ponder the ideas raised by the hon member for Sea Point. That was why a tentative attempt was first made to establish whether the Senate Chamber could not perhaps be used by the Coloured House on a temporary basis. The CP was the only party that voted against that. [Interjections.] What happened then? The day before yesterday it was decided that the Senate Chamber would accommodate the Coloured House permanently. The Whites that are there will have to move out to make room for the Coloured House. The Senate Chamber, which formed part of the White Parliament, and in which the NP at one stage enlarged the Senate by appointing additional Senators in order to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll, is now becoming the assembly chamber of the new Coloured House of the tricameral Parliament. It was in that very same Senate Chamber in which the resolution was confirmed in 1969—under the Prime Ministership of the late Mr John Vorster—that the representation of Coloureds in both the House of Assembly as well as the Senate by Whites would be terminated. In 1969 the Bill in terms of which representation of Coloureds by Whites in the Senate and the House of Assembly was terminated was ratified by the Senate. When I came to Parliament in 1970, it was my privilege to sit in the first purely White Parliament in the country; the same Parliament as it still exists today. At the juncture we were establishing a similar Parliament for the Coloured people in Bellville South, in which they could work creatively on their own future. The same applied to the Indians in Natal. The Senate gave finality on these matters. The Senate became part of the historical possession of White politics in South Africa. Now, however, the Government party … [Interjections.] Of course I must say that I knew on 24 February 1982 already that this was going to happen. [Interjections.] I knew as long ago as 1982 that the hon member for Tygervallei was in favour of Coloureds sitting in the Senate Chamber.

That is why I say the CP wishes to express its strongest disapproval of the resolution of the Government to give up the Senate Chamber, that was the sanctum of White politics over the past few decades, to their partners, the Coloureds, in the new Government.

According to the plans for the new Parliament, this new multiracial tricameral Parliament under one roof, a large chamber is being built a short distance from here with seating for 352 members. It is a large chamber, once again equipped with galleries—and architecturally it is a beautiful piece of work—for thousands of people. Today I want to say that Parliament, as constituted in terms of the present Constitution Act, has 308 members. When I asked whether the large Chamber would also be provided with benches such as these for the convenience of members, I was told that that large Chamber would have the same kind of benches. There is seating accommodation for 352 members, and now I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether those extra 44 seats are perhaps for the Black representatives? [Interjections.] Are those 44 seats for the Black people who are coming here, or does he not know about that yet? I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not here, because he knows more about the things that are going to happen. This large Chamber has been designed in this way, with those 44 extra seats.

First the three Houses would only meet on ceremonial occasions, but when we looked at the machinery, at the working of Parliament, the Committee saw that it was not possible for the Minister concerned to make a Second Reading speech in three Assembly Chambers, to attend three debates in three different Assembly Chambers and reply to each of them. Then, too, there is the Committee Stage and the Third Reading which would have had to be dealt with in the same way. They then said: No, wait a minute, the next little step must be that there must be a Chamber available in which all Second Reading speeches on general Bills can be held. I these Standing Rules and Orders it is stated at the moment that the debates will be held separately. The hon Chief Whip of the Government knows that they are going to have many practical problems which will entail that matters will have to be changed, and eventually the debates at First, Second and Third Reading of all general Bills are going to be held in this new Assembly Chamber.

Are you a prophet?

One need not be a prophet to know that; one need only look at this matter in a practical way. I want to tell the hon Chief Whip that if they want this neo-PFP policy of theirs to work, this will have to be done. That large Chamber will eventually became the Assembly Chamber in which all Bills of general concern are taken through all their stages. I want to ask the hon Chief Whip of the Government, if he has the courage, to stand up and tell me that this will never happen. [Interjections.] I ask the hon the Leader of the House to stand up and tell met that this will never happen.

What does Driesie Partisie say?

I have very great respect for the hon the Leader of the House, and I expect him to tell me. The frivolous hon member for Rustenburg is here on borrowed time, and I challenge him to tell me that it will not happen that all Bills on matters of common concern will be taken through all their stages in that Assembly Chamber.

I asked what Driesie Partisie has to say.

But I want to know what the hon member for Rustenburg has to say. However, the hon member does not have the courage of his convictions to stand up and to say what is going to happen.

The CP has from the start opposed this multiracial tricameral Parliament which will make provision for these multiracial standing committees. The principle of joint sittings, joint debates and joint decision-making in terms of certain formulae are already embodied in this measure. That principle is now being established. I do not think the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development will still be here in a few years time, for then Primrose will have a CP MP, but if he is still here, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will say to hi You have already accepted the principle in respect of standing committees, all we have to do now is carry it through to Second Readings. These changes, which are being effected at a cost of millions of rands, are simply there to give expression to the policy of integration of the Government party.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon member for Kuruman has spoken in the way he has. I want to say to him in all kindness that two wrongs never make a right. Just because there are certain people in this House who do not want to adhere to the conventions and niceties that we hoped they would, does not mean to say that he should resort to the same sort of thing. The information he was divulging here, was information that he gleaned from the subcommittee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That is information that has not yet gone before the Committee on Standing Rules and orders of this House. It has not yet been presented to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. This is a subcommittee that was set up by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders to investigate and to make recommendations to the full committee. Yesterday it had its first meeting at which it examined the proposed plans which we were told explicitly were not final plans; there could be modifications to these plans. It was told that the final plans would be drawn within the parameters of those initial plans. My submission is that until such time as the full Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has received the recommendations of the subcommittee we in this House should not debate the matter, because by doing so we will be starting all sorts of hares running around. There are gentlemen of the press who are pricking up their ears and saying: Now, what is all this about? And these are proposals that have not yet been presented to the full committee which will ultimately make this decision. One does not mind if one has this sort of thing from the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, because this is the result of many months of subcommittee work. Nothing was revealed about the subcommittee’s deliberations until after we had come forward with the full committee’s report and the proposed Standing Rules and Orders. With all due respect to the hon member for Kuruman, I am sorry that he has raised this matter.

As far as the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point is concerned, I should like to say that we cannot support it for the simple reason that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has now established the very subcommittee that I am speaking of. It was agreed that that subcommittee would be established and people were appointed to serve on it. It has only just started its work. I quite honestly believe that that subcommittee will do a good job of work. It has the benefit of all the support it could possibly hope to have from experts in the field who are at our disposal. I believe that ultimately we shall have a parliamentary building complex that will be the pride if the whole of the Republic of South Africa. I think we will achieve this. As we go along we shall certainly make mistakes. We are bound to make mistakes. About that there is no doubt. However, when building something one can never cater for everybody’s taste. I do appreciate that it can be terribly individualistic. People do tend to want to put their personal stamp on things. I think this is something that will be tremendously difficult. I think it is a daunting task that lies ahead of us, but I for one certainly look forward to the work that we shall be doing. As I say, please let us not fly kites and let us not start rumours, but let us do the best we can with tools we have at our disposal.

Mr Chairman, I find it quite astounding that the hon member for Umhlanga should want to take me to task here about decisions which are being taken. This Committee ought to know what is going to happen to this Parliament before decisions in that regard are taken. If I remember correctly, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders authorized this subcommittee to take binding decisions on its behalf. [Interjections.] Why should we conceal from hon members what is awaiting them? I know the hon member for Umhlanga will support the hon member for Sea Point and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as regards the idea of converting the dining-room into a council chamber. The hon member for Umhlanga and the PFP are grateful because basically, part of their policy is being included here.

Order! I allowed the hon member to spell out his fundamental objections in one full ten-minute speech. We are now discussing alterations to the parliamentary buildings. I do not want the hon member to discuss the policies of the various parties now. Then we are no longer discussing the matter of alterations to the parliamentary buildings. I want to give the hon member every opportunity to have his fundamental objections placed on record, but he must help me by not discussing all kinds of other matters now, but only this specific point. The hon member may proceed.

The buildings must meet the requirements of the political parties that are going to function in them. The PFP will support the Government party in the idea of converting the dining-room into a council chamber instead of building a new council chamber. This will cut down on expenses.

It is a jolly good idea.

From the point of view of the NRP, the PFP and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning it is a good idea, but from the point of view of the CP, which says that each of the peoples should have its own Parliament where it can reach its own decisions on all facets affecting its life, the idea of three chambers under one roof in the new parliamentary building leads to integration, and we are not prepared to move in that direction.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point said this was a unique opportunity to upgrade the environment. He spoke as a quantity surveyor or architect with wide knowledge. I agree. If we had the time and the money we could spend millions and upgrade the whole area, but we do not have the time nor the money. The hon member for Sea Point sat on this committee and he never proposed that we use the present dining-room as a Chamber for the Indians.

I am proposing it now.

Now he is proposing it. He knew that if he proposed it in the comittee he would not have been able to get a seconder.

What did you say?

Fair enough, the hon the leader of the Opposition might have seconded him. In any event, the hon member never thought of that then. Now he expects me to decide on the matter. How can he expect me to decide now that it is a good idea, thereby changing the whole situation?

The Committee should examine it.

We cannot examine it. It is not a practical idea. [Interjections.]

The hon member talks about a sevenstorey building, but he was present when we looked at the new plans. We are saving more than R3 million. We all agreed that in the present circumstances it would be best to house the Coloured in the old Senate Chamber. Except for the hon member for Kuruman, we all agreed on that. He was the only one who was not in favour of that. Sir, I cannot accept the amendment.

*I do not want to discuss each paragraph at length, and for that reason I am saying to the hon member for Kuruman: Let us agree to differ, however much I regret to have to disagree with him. He points out that there are 44 extra seats and now he expects me to undertake that Blacks will not fill those seats.

Mr Chairman, I just want to know from the hon the Minister whether he could give us the assurance that the session will not eventually take place in that House.

The hon member asked why there were 44 extra seats. I am telling him now that the policy of my party is that Blacks will not sit in the House.

For how long? Until when?

We have spelt it out: Blacks will not come to this House. [Interjections.]

For whom are those extra 44 seats?

When this Chamber was built, there were also too many seats. So let the hon member for Kuruman and myself agree to differ on this matter and that we will not be able to re solve the issue tonight.

†I want to thank the hon member for Umhlanga, who in reply to the hon member for Sea Point said that a subcommittee will go into this matter. The hon member for Sea Point must remember that the subcommittee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders acts for Parliament and represents its interests.

*We served together on that Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and therefore the hon member must be reasonable now. Everything which the hon member proposes tonight will appear in Hansard, and in four to five years time, he will be able to point out to me that he had predicted certain things. However, I stand by this decision and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

Paragraph 2 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Paragraph 3:

Mr Chairman, the last sentence of paragraph 3 reads:

Apart from the fact that the CP are opposed to these multiracial standing committees in principle, I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the House that he will agree with me that we have sometimes had difficulty finding one day in a week on which the sub committee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders could meet. The various parties have their groups that have to hold meetings, and the various caucuses have also to hold meetings. In the new dispensation there will be select committees of each of the three Houses as well as joint standing committees for every portfolio of general inter est. I am objecting because we are a small party. If there are 20 standing committees and our party has to be represented on all of those committees, and if standing commit tees are to sit during the sittings of the House, it will create an impossible situation for us smaller parties. Of course, we will not stay small for very long. The NP must think of the day when they will have shrunk to the present size of the NRP. The party of the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs has a “you want it, we have it” policy.

Order! What para graph is the hon member dealing with now?

I am referring now to the position of the smaller parties vis-à-vis standing committees, Sir, and I want to lodge the strongest objection against the provision that standing committees may sit during the sittings of Parliament.

We had a subcommittee meeting in Mr Speaker’s Chambers yesterday afternoon. However, you will agree with me that we could not hold our meeting in a peaceful atmosphere because we were interested in the debate that was taking place here. I want to ask the Leader of the House to delete this sentence, at least for the sake of order.

Mr Chairman, at this stage not one of us knows how the new Standing Rules and Orders are going to operate. [Interjections.] Nowhere in Africa has anything of this nature ever been experimented with. These are not permanent rules. The standing orders will have to be implemented for at least two years but if problems are experienced during that time, changes will be made to make them more practical.

Paragraph 3 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Paragraph 4 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Paragraph 5:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

The sentence to which we object in paragraph 5 is the following:

I want to put our point of view clearly now so that I do not have to repeat it under other paragraphs to which we also move amendments. In my opinion we have reached the point here where the whole idea of consensus politics will eventually suffer shipwreck.

That will happen if we accept your amendment.

The Chief Whip of the NP must give me an opportunity to put my point of view. He can also put his point of view. I am not trying to score a point here at anybody ’s expense.

The idea is that, as an hon member opposite put it last year, the standing committees are actually the engineroom of the new dispensation. What he meant by that was that efforts would be made to reach consensus on the standing committees. One can study all the literature on consensus politics as against other forms of decision-making, and it will be found that nowhere is it accepted that consensus can be reached by building a majority principle into a decision-making process. In fact, the whole idea of consensus is that one has to move away from forcing minority parties to accept a majority decision.

When one looks at the provisions of paragraph 5, one will see that a resolution of a standing committee is adopted when the majority parties of the dominant elements on that standing committee come to a decision. This boils down to the fact that if the majority party in the White House, the majority party in the Coloured House and the majority party in the Indian House decide that a Bill is acceptable, this is taken to be consensus. I want to contend that this measure will eventually contradict the possibility of consensus. I should like to illustrate this. Firstly, it is a false consensus because it is not a consensus of the political attitudes on that standing committee but a consensus between the majority parties of racially classified Chambers of the new Parliament. In other words, the dominant parties in those racially classified Chambers agree on a measure but, the moment they do so, they exclude all the minority parties in the White House, the Coloured House and the Indian House from that resolution. [Interjections.] That has been the position over the years but that is precisely the problem. We have not had consensus over the years. It is now being said that we are seeking consensus and that we are moving away from domination and from majority decision-making, but we are building that domination element into the standing committee. The first point I want to make, therefore, is that what is being created here is a false consensus.

The second point I want to make is that it is a consensus that is deliberately aimed at ignoring the attitude of minority parties, and precisely there on the standing committee where we are seeking consensus. What is the consequence of this? The consequence of it is that one is forcing conflict into that standing committee. That is why the parties, particularly the minority parties, have to compete with each other de novo and be in conflict with one another. That is unavoidable. Why? It is unavoidable because those minority parties have no other choice but to adopt the points of view on the standing committee itself which they want to carry through finally through all the stages of the legislation. I note that it is late and that we are not actually terribly interested in this sort of thing but I say it to record the fact that this measure is going to haunt us in the new Parliament, and precisely because the idea of the new Parliament is consensus. We have already heard so much about consensus here. We have listened to all the great and wonderful philosophies of the NRP and the Government in regard to consensus. However, this will eventually be determined by the steps that we take on standing committees and in the new tricameral Parliament. I believe that this measure is going to weaken that possibility of consensus.

The next point that I want to make in this connection is one which hon members will in my opinion understand very well. As we operate now, we know that a member of a party who is going to serve on a standing committee during a session of Parliament remains in close contact with his party. He discusses the measures with his caucus and, as the Americans would say, he even asks for a little time out so that he can discuss the measure to see how he can negotiate in regard to any new possibility and so forth. One seeks consensus in this way so that one can say that one has discussed it with the members of one’s party and that one thinks that something can be done in a certain direction or not.

Simply in terms of the practical operation of this new measure we know that the standing committees will have to sit outside of the ordinary sittings of Parliament. This means that a tremendous responsibility is going to be placed upon the members of the parties on those standing committees. However, an even greater responsibility is going to be placed upon the members of the smaller parties. If that man or woman feels that he or she is at liberty to bargain and so forth, that will increase the possibility of consensus on that standing committee. However, if we allow those people to understand from the start that if they say yes or no on that standing committee they will be binding their caucus, we will lose the possibility of consensus and the possibility that a discussion can take place because they cannot negotiate at short notice. One of the reasons why such a person cannot do so is because he knows that he is going to be forced from the start to accept the majority decision of the dominant parties in the various Houses on that standing committee. It was for that reason I moved the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. What does that amendment provide? The amendment provides that the standing committee must decide—and it can decide as it pleases according to the members present—negotiate and talk. It provides that the majority of the people on that standing committee must decide on the matter they are negotiating. If the dominant parties are not satisfied with that they will in any case block it in the various Houses. That veto is built into the new Constitution. It is not as though that sort of thing would become law but it does reflect the measure of consensus that is possible within the restrictions of the new system. Let them negotiate with one another and let them see whether agreement cannot be reached among the CP, the PFP, the NRP and the NP. Let us decide directly on that standing committee how we feel. If one loses on that standing committee then one loses. It then goes back to the various Houses, and in the White House the NP which is the dominant party can say that it does not like the resolution of the standing committee and that it wants to do something else. They are going to do it in any case so why should they not do it there? If they are serious about consensus then this is the one sphere that they have created in this new dispensation in regard to which we can say that we can see whether we cannot reach consensus. If we have reached consensus, that consensus can in fact be destroyed by the dominant parties in the Indian, Coloured and White Houses because there is a built in veto. There is nothing that demonstrates the complete farcicality of the idea of consensus better that the fact that it is on the standing committee precisely where they are trying to destroy the possibility of consensus by forcing majority decision-making upon the various parties.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to take part in the discussion but I cannot let the hon the Leader of the Opposition get away with this argument of his.

The whole structure of the new Parliament will be three Chambers. When we are seeking consensus in standing committees representing those three Chambers the hon the Leader of the Opposition wants a majority decision irrespective of the Chambers.

No!

In other words, what he is looking for, is majority decision and majority rule in the standing committees. [Interjections.] If you want consensus, you want consensus in each of the Houses so that that decision will go back and enjoy the support of all three Houses. Then you will have consensus government. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member the opportunity to make his speech.

I can understand their behaviour, Mr Chairman. They do not like being caught out. What they want is to be able to obtain a majority irrespective of whether it represents the view of the Houses. That is conflict politics, because it takes conflict back to the Houses. Surely the seeking of consensus must be consensus between each of the Houses, because if you do not get consensus between the Houses you get conflict which eventually goes to the President’s Council for resolution. What you are trying to achieve with consensus is to avoid that conflict. The hon the Leader of the Opposition wants a majority decision not related to the Houses so that he can say that there is a ganging up of minority parties which in fact represents a minority view and will go back to the three Houses while it possibly represents only the view of one of them, whereas if you have to achieve consensus you must give and take until you have all three Houses agreed. The only way you can do that is if you get the majority of each of the Houses finding each other. What has slipped out here is a reflection of a philosophic difference between the unitary concept of the majority deciding as against the pluralism concept of finding consensus between groups. The hon the Leader of the Opposition is thinking in terms of majority rule instead of pluralism.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? In view of his attitude towards the standing committees, could he explain what relevance the presence of representatives from minority parties could possibly have except to decorate the standing committees? What will their relevance be if the consensus is to take place only between the majority parties in the three chambers?

You see, Sir, here we have that basic philosophical blind spot of the PFP. They think in terms of voting, the majority deciding and the minority not counting. In this new style of politics a small minority can influence matters and play a major part in achieving agreement.

Let me give an example. I take it from the creation of this new Constitution. It was this party, the smallest party in the House, which secured Opposition representation on the President’s Council. The official Opposition wanted proportional representation right through and was opposed to the basic philosophy behind the President’s Council. The smallest party negotiated, argued and pleaded and eventually succeeded. So I could mention example after example. In the new style of politics it will not be the numbers that count, but it will be the ability to persuade people to reach agreement that will count. The PFP is not going to persuade people by wanting majority decisions and majority rule instead of accepting that this is a plural Parliament representing three groups and that one must seek consensus between the majorities in each group because otherwise one heads for conflict.

Mr Speaker, I want to say that the hon the Leader of the Opposition has given a brilliant explanation of why these consensus-seeking bodies, the standing and joint committees, are going to fail. I want to tell him that I fully agree with what he said. However, I also want to tell him that I am not going to vote for his amendment.

Precisely. You cannot vote for it.

I do not want to vote for it because then this consensus story is going to work, and we in the CP … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the deputy Minister of Finance is doubled up with laughter. However, I want to tell him that if he wants his consensus politics to work he will have to vote for the amendment of the hon the Leader of the Opposition this evening. If those flighty hon members who are laughing so much want consensus politics to work, they will have to vote for the amendment of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. The CP wants the thing to fail so that we can come into power and make this Parliament the Parliament of the White man once again, and so that we can once again give the Coloureds and the Indians self-determination in their own parliaments in their own spheres.

I want to tell hon members that the CP are going to be present on those standing committees. They say that they want to bring about harmony and peace there. However, I want to say that if the interests of the Whites and Coloureds clash on those standing committees, the CP will step into the breech in the interests of the Whites. We will not sacrifice the interests of the Whites on the altar of consensus. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry but no interests of any group are relevant now. The question of decision-making in standing committees is what is at issue here. The hon member cannot address me now in regard to whose interests are what. I appeal to the hon member in this connection.

If decisions have to be taken on those standing committees which result in a conflict of interests as far as the Coloureds, Indians and the Whites are concerned, I want to say with conviction now that that conflict is going to occur. I want hon members opposite to listen well to this. After all, they want these things to work. If for example, the followers of the Rev Hendrickse are sitting on a standing committee and their interests are affected, they will take a stand in favour of the interests of their own people. That is why there will be a clash of interests—therefore conflict—occurring on those standing committees. For that reason, I want to say even at this stage that this thing is not going to work. [Interjections.]

Order!

It will therefore not be consensus politics but conflict politics that will be dealt with there. That is also the reason why the CP rejects it. I want to urge hon members opposite to give further thought to this matter. Consensus may well be reached on a standing committee of this nature where the governing party persuades the majority parties in the Coloured and Indian Houses to adopt a consensus point of view. We must remember that only one or two of them will be sitting on that standing committee. They are now persuaded. Consensus has now been reached and the message is conveyed that consensus has been achieved. Now, however, that Bill on which consensus has been reached comes before the caucus of each of those parties. The caucus in its turn expresses its regret at the mistake made by its members on the standing committee, and intimates that it does not agree with their decision. Therefore, the caucus rejects the consensus resolution that has been adopted on the Standing Committee. We have already had examples in this regard. For example, the hon member for Berea at one time arrived at consensus on a Select Committee in regard to the question of toll Roads. Of course, he had not had the opportunity of consulting his caucus in advance in this connection. Afterwards his caucus said—and they had every right to do so—that they did not agree with the consensus that had been achieved on that Select Committee.

In the new dispensation the Government is therefore going to seek consensus on standing committees. They may reach consensus there, but when the matter is submitted to the caucus of each individual party, that consensus of theirs is going to be rejected. That is why I believe that this whole new system is a failure. It is not going to work. If the government still wants to try to make it work they must support the amendment moved by the hon the Leader of the Opposition this evening. However, the CP are going to vote against it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I honestly do not want to keep this Committee going indefinitely but I have to respond to some of the points raised by the hon member for Durban Point. I want to do this with great respect to the hon member because I am not trying to score political points at his expense or anything like that. I genuinely believe, however, that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what consensus is all about. Merely for the purposes of the record I believe it is important to state those differences of opinion unequivocally.

Nowhere—and I challenge the hon member for Durban Point to prove the opposite—is the idea of consensus constitutionally entrenched in any country in the world. I challenge the hon member for Durban Point to prove me wrong. Secondly, nowhere is the idea of consensus in political decision making associated with majority decision making. The principle everywhere is that the majority can decide. The idea of consensus, however, is a matter of convention; a matter of negotiation. My amendment does not in fact seek to entrench the right of the majority. My amendment simply states that I accept the reality within the structure of the new Constitution, namely that there are different parties from the different Houses, that there are different racial connotations and that there are different political philosophies. I do indeed want them to enjoy as much freedom as possible to negotiate with one another and ultimately to take a decision based on a pure and simple majority of the members representing those different parties. Never once have I advocated the principle of an entrenched majority. This subparagraph specifically states that it has to be the majority party in each of the different Houses. That is what I regard as a contradiction of consensus.

Mr Chairman, I challenge the hon member for Durban Point to show me any political system anywhere, where consensus is being taken seriously, where what he suggests and what this report suggests is the practice. Let us take Switzerland as an example. In the executive of the Swiss government we have what they call the magic formula of a minority veto. Another case in point is Nigeria. Before their latest constitution crumbled it contained this whole idea of minorities negotiating in order to reach consensus. In Lebanon until 1976 the same idea applied, as it also applies in Cyprus. What I am saying is that in all those situations one allows a free play of political forces in different arenas of negotiation so that they can reach consensus. What is happening here is that what the hon member for Durban Point wants is being contradicted by the recommendations of the subcommittee. It is being contradicted simply because one is entrenching a form of majority decision-making which in fact—and I find this quite extraordinary—excludes that party and my own party from any relevance on standing committees. Not only does it exclude us from any relevance on a standing committee but also any relevance in the subsequent phases of the legislation which I will address later on.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Opposition amazes me. He spoke about minorities. He said that if consensus could not be achieved, the NP or the majority party could impose a veto on it. The hon the leader of the Opposition wants people to argue the matter out among themselves, but surely someone must ultimately take a decision on the matter. [Interjections.]

Correct.

Surely, then, that is domination by the majority of the minority. [Interjections.] But the majority is going to use that veto, after all.

I also wish to refer to the point made by the hon member for Durban Point. One has to do with small parties. There may be a small group of Indians or a small group of Coloureds who are also divided into parties. One will never give one group of them any chance at all if one does not apply the idea of joint decision-making. What happened in the President’s Council? There were Coloureds and Indians there who initially had divergent opinions a regards a matter I like the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

But that was not in the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

They did not vote about the matter, but they did achieve consensus. [Interjections.] As far as the issue of group areas is concerned, they reached a decision after consultation and deliberation with one another. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman states that he is afraid consensus is going to work. I want to ask the hon member why he is afraid consensus is going to work. [Interjections.]

I could argue this matter at length but we have 170 paragraphs here and we have now disposed of five in three quarters of an hour. At this rate we shall have to be sitting until 12 o’clock on Sunday to finalize the report.

However much I may like the hon the Leader of the Opposition, I am unable to accept his amendment.

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

Mr Chairman, I am not going to make a big fuss about the amendment. I think that amendment 2 should not be moved in any case because, in consequence of the fact that we have just dealt with paragraph 5, amendment 2 is no longer valid. But amendment 3 is concerned with the fact that joint debates must take place in the new Parliament. I am not going to elaborate on this, because all I want to say is that I find it totally ridiculous that we can hold joint sittings, but not joint debates. We can listen to a Minister making a Second Reading speech on a Bill, but we cannot discuss it together, and this after we have served for hours and even weeks on a joint committee where we have thrashed out the matter thoroughly, maligned each other or not maligned each other, and disagreed or agreed, but now we come and sit at the taxpayer’s expense and listen to a Minister making his second Reading speech and then we go to the separate Houses to conduct the same debate to which the same Minister must go and listen in three separate Chambers. I find this absolutely ridiculous, but I think it is going to change. I think we are wasting time and I know that the Government can not feel honest about this measure. There is no rational explanation for why this is necessary, and that is why I am moving the amendment as it stands. But I think it is ridiculous that the Government does not have the courage to tell the CP that if they can sit together they can also debate together because we do so in any case on the standing committees.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment printed on the Order Paper in my name, namely:

Let me say right from the outset that I support the proposals put forward by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, but here I want to deal specifically with the question of a budget. There is a certain tradition and a certain convention which is followed and that is that when a budget speech has been delivered then there is an immediate reaction to that budget speech from people who are not of the governing party. In these particular circumstances we now have the following: We sit together in a joint sitting in order to listen to a budget speech. When we have listened to that budget speech we must all go away. We must not utter a word about the budget but we must come back a week later, and only then will we be allowed to speak about the budget on a standing committee. In the meantime the budget has been debated by the whole of the public, the newspapers have been full of it and there has been discussion everywhere. However, as far as the people who are involved with finance are concerned who are on the standing committee, bearing in mind the concept which relates to standing committees, silence is required from us. This is utterly impractical. It is impractical, it is illogical and it does not make sense. If a Minister makes a statement, there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents someone else also making a statement. What I would suggest to the House in these circumstances is that when the budget has been presented, at least one person from each House should be allowed to make a statement. I use the word “statement” deliberately in order to make people happy that we are not starting a debate. In other words, all that is taking place is that once the budget has been presented, one person from each House may make a statement. This is a face-saving device so that one need not admit that one is having a debate. When one has therefore heard the statements from the representatives of the three Houses, one can adjourn the Joint sitting and attend the standing committee. However, at least some other view on the budget could then have been expressed by a Parliamentarian. That is why we ask that this convention which is of such long standing should be allowed to persist.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. We as a party agreed with what he said. I also agree with what the hon member for Kuruman said earlier and that is that we are one day going to sit—so I believe—in “die Groot Saal” and we will be having debates there. In fact, I think that is inevitable as the night follows the day. Having said that, I want to add that we, as a party, enjoyed a lot of support in that 66⅔% majority that voted for the new Constitution last year. Written into this new Constitution one finds the provision—whether one likes it or not—for debate as set out in the Standing Rules and Orders. I know that the hon the Leader of the Opposition gets very impatient with that argument, but it was incumbent upon us to write a set of rules within the scope of Act 110 of 1983. That we had to do. The hon the Leader of the Opposition must not get irritated. I am not at all irritated with him. The PFP voted against the implementation of this Constitution and we voted for its implementation. [Interjections.] We are now in the process of adopting a set of rules in order to put this Constitution into effect on 3 September and in order to have the opening of the new Houses on 18 September. There is no way that we will ever achieve that if we start to argue in terms of joint sittings. I want to say quite clearly that we know that inevitably it is going to come about. We will be working towards that. We will work our hardest in order to achieve that, but we are going to do that within the framework of the new Constitution. We are going to start to move towards that with determination once we are sitting here after 18 September, whether it be in January next year or whenever. I give notice that we will then certainly agitate for a change in these rules. We will ask that there be joint debate, but to do it now, with all sincerity towards the hon the Leader of the Opposition, is impractical. I regret for that reason we cannot support his amendment.

Mr Chairman, when we consider the amendment of the hon the Leader of the Opposition we must not only look at the rules, but we must also consider it against the background of the new Constitution Act. Section 67(5) of the new Constitution Act provides that no decision is taken at such a joint sitting. I concede the point to the hon the Leader of the Opposition that the Constitution Act does not exclude debate, but surely he will concede that it is totally inconsistent to be able to conduct a debate and not take a decision.

That is nonsense. If people sit together, why can they not talk together?

Sir, I very politely gave the hon the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to put his case and I expect the same from him. Debating without decision-making, about which he became so exicited, is surely impossible.

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

No. The hon member should rather make his own speech. It would even be impossible to move the adjournment of a debate, because that would also require a decision. During such a joint debate it may also happen that a member has to be named, which would also require a decision. The same applies to a motion for closure of the debate. Consequently we are not only dealing with a practical procedural problem here but also with a matter of principle, as sanctioned in the Constitution Act.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make one remark, because I do not think that the truth and plain common sense can be violated in this way. In the case of joint committees there are joint sittings, joint debates and decisions. [Interjections.] They decide separately. [Interjections.] If it can be done there, why can it not be done in Parliament as well? What is the difference whether they sit in a room somewhere in the parliamentary building where they debate together and decide together, or whether it happens here in this House? Surely that argument is absurd.

Mr Chairman, I want to make one very brief point. To my mind the thing is becoming ludicrous. When a Budget is presented no member will be allowed to say anything; one cannot interject, nor can one speak to one’s neighbour. I cannot say anything across the floor to the hon Leader of the House and I have to be very careful whom I greet in the House. I think this is becoming utterly ludicrous. To suggest that there is a difference between a concept where one says that one cannot make a decision as opposed to not being able to say anything in a House, the hon the Leader of the House is reducing this to an utter absurdity if he rejects these amendments.

Mr Chairman, I fully appreciate the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I remember very well that when we fought about the “yes” or “no” last year in the referendum, the CP predicted that eventually we would have a unicameral Parliament for all three population groups. [Interjections.] Then we and the general public were told that the three separate groups would only sit together on certain symbolic occasions. We pointed out repeatedly that this was simply a salami strategy with which they were gradually conditioning the people in favour of a specifc standpoint. Here, merely in our discussion of the Standing Rules and Orders, the NP has already made a tremendous shift towards the left, towards the PFP. We now have the situation that in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders, Second Readings have to be made in joint sittings. I predict that it will only be a short time before the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Opposition prevails and we also have joint debates. The third step will be our eventually having only one House for all three population groups, and we are opposed to that. [Interjections.] One should not walk in the middle of the road and not expect to be run over. One must either incline to the right or to the left like the PFP. The hon the Leader of the Opposition is consistent and also correct.

As always.

That depends on what one’s principle is. Based on his principle of “one nation, one people, one Parliament, one country”, I think there is sense in what he says. But the people who are going to bear the consequences in the long run are going to be those hundreds of thousands of dyed-in-the-wool National Party supporters who voted “yes ’ because they thought they were voting for separate sittings. [Interjections.]

Order! I should very, much like all hon members who are still here this evening to remain until the last sitting of the White Parliament comes to an end. But if hon members continue in this way, I can assure them that we shall not all be remaining here to the end. Hon members must now give the hon member for Rissik an opportunity to put his case.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I once told the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in a friendly conversation: “Chris, if a bus were to knock you down or something else were to happen to you, I do not know if there would be anyone left in Parliament who understood the new constitution.” [Interjections.] I must say that at the moment I miss the new leader of the NP in the Cape. [Interjections.]

In my opinion the hon the Leader of the Opposition is consistent and quite realistic in his approach. [Interjections.] One will battle for hours to reach consensus, and the key to the constitution is consensus, and to reach consensus people must at least be able to talk to each other. Here we come along and the three groups very theatrically take their seats; the Minister makes his Second Reading speech—I wonder whether interjections will be allowed—and then everyone must calmly disperse and each group must go and argue separately.

Second Reading speeches are merely symbolic.

The intelligent hon member for Bryanston says Second Reading speeches are merely symbolic. Today is a tragic day, tragic because we have reached the end of an era. With its television, newspapers and propaganda machine, the National Party persuaded credulous people last year to vote “yes” for a certain proposal, but eventually introduced something else.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to make a referendum speech at this time of night.

I come right now to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. His finger pointing to his head, he said one should use one’s common sense. I now want to appeal to him, by way of that common sense of his, to reread section 67(5) of the Constitution, which provides that no decision shall be taken at a joint sitting. No decision means no joint decision; consequently it also means no separate decision by the three components of a joint sitting. My argument is therefore that there is no sense in debating without decisions and this is linked to what is stated in the Constitution. The hon the Leader of the Opposition would seem to be unable to understand this.

Sir, section 67 of the Constitution provides for a joint sitting to take place. Any ordinary person reading the intent of that will ask why there is a provision in the Constitution for a sitting if there is to be no debate in that sitting? This paragraph actually restricts the constitution; it is more restrictive than the Constitution itself. It makes nonsense of the provision for a joint sitting.

If a Minister introduces a Second Reading, that forms part of the debate on the Bill. The Minister’s introductory speech is as much a part of the debate as the Opposition’s reply to it. Will the Opposition have to stay “tjoepstil”? Can they interject? Can they take a point of order. Can they ask a question? This proposal makes a farce of parliamentary proceedings. The hon member for Tygervallei said that no decisions can be taken there, but how can decisions be taken if there has been no debate? How is it possible to reach consensus, which the Government says is its objective, if we are not going to meet to discuss the issue on which consensus is to be reached? We believe that a joint debate is the occasion on which one seeks consensus, where one debates and irons out difficulties. However, the hon member said that we need consensus and to take a decision but that we cannot sit together and reach consensus by way of debate.

We want to put it to members on that side of the House that they are running away from the implications of their own constitution, and in doing so they will make a farce of parliamentary proceedings.

Mr Chairman, last year, when discussing the Constitution, we debated section 67. [Interjections.] It was stated there that the three House would have separate debates and could talk to their hearts content about a vote, for example. We do not want to meet in a joint sitting and have any confrontation there. It will no longer be the Westminster system.

I want to repeat that if it is found that the rules do not work in practice, changes will be made.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

The question the hon member wants to put to me is how people can be expected to deliberate if they may not talk.

No, that is not what I wanted to ask. Would it, for example, be possible for me, when the Minister of Finance makes his Budget speech and says something unparliamentary, to raise a point of order and request that he withdraw it.

I think that would be possible. If, in applying this system, we see that it does not work in practice, we can adjust it, but I cannot agree to this amendment now because the Constitution expressly provides that no decision shall be taken at a joint sitting.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Chairman, this paragraph sets the guidelines for questions in the House. It provides that there shall be only one question day per week in each House and, given the practicalities of the matter, we can understand that that is essential, although we feel that it has quite a number of disadvantages from the point of view of the relevancy of political debates and the political activities of each House. It also makes provision that 30 minutes per week will be allocated to questions on general affairs and 30 minutes per week to questions on own affairs. As hon members will know, questions play an important role in this Parliament. They play an even more important role in other Parliaments such as the House of Commons, and they are a long tradition of this House. During question time it is most appropriate for Ministers to give information on current issues and it gives the Opposition an opportunity to call Ministers into account and to obtain facts while they are still relevant. The new constitution is supposed to extend democracy in this country rather than restrict it, and I believe very strongly that in our Parliament questions are a very important part of the procedures and the democratic role of all members and particularly of Opposition member.

The amendment in my name on the Order Paper is to omit the section which divides the question time between questions on general affairs and those on own affairs giving them 30 minutes each, and to substitute that there will be 60 minutes per week allocated to questions. In terms of my amendment the total time available for questions in a House will not change from what is proposed at the moment and will in fact not change from what it is at present in our current situation. What this amendment and also subsequent amendments will do, will be to increase the flexibility of that question time. It is my belief that general affairs are going to require more time than own affairs for individual Houses. Indications are, although there have been no formal announcements even if decisions have been taken, that there will be something like twice as many Ministers on general affairs as there will be on own affairs. Therefore, in the first instance, to divide the time equally between general affairs and own affairs is not going to meet the needs of the members of this House, nor, I believe, of the members of the other Houses. Therefore I am requesting that we introduce this flexibility in respect of questions. There will still only be 60 minutes spent on question time, but if members want to spend 50 minutes on general affairs and 10 on own affairs, they will be able to do so and that will not be prescribed in terms of this regulation.

The hon the Leader of the House may feel that certain complications or difficulties will arise in this regard. He may feel that this amendment and subsequent amendments do not fit into the proposed structure as nicely as one would like. If he does not like the procedure I have suggested here—I would certainly hope that the intention is not to try to stop people from being able to ask a fair number of questions on general affairs—I would suggest as a simple alternative to allow 45 minutes per week on general affairs and 30 minutes per week on own affairs. The hon the Leader of the House will know that even in this Parliament, in which a lot of questions are dealt with, question time usually does not even take up the full 30 minutes. Allowing 45 minutes as the maximum for questions on general affairs and 30 minutes on own affairs will therefore not necessarily mean that on every question day that full time will be taken up. If the questions are not there, the time used will be shorter, just as on most of our question days the full half hour is not usually taken up. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

If the hon the Leader of the House feels that it would be an easier and neater solution rather to change the 30 minutes for general affairs to 45 minutes per week for general affairs and if that would be acceptable to him, I would be happy to move that as an alternative amendment. I would then with the leave of the Committee withdraw the amendment I have moved and propose—the-alternative one.

Mr Chairman, the Committee was unanimous on this and the idea is not to have own affairs crowd out general affairs. There will still be 30 minutes for general affairs just as there is in the present Parliament. We felt that the position should remain unaltered. If in practice we find that it should be altered, we can always alter it. However, it was a unanimous decision of the Committee not to alter it. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Paragraph agreed to.

New Paragraph to follow paragraph 9:

I move that the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph 9:

On page xiii of the report there is a resolution under the heading “Untranslated Hansard” which suggests—

My amendment recommends that Hansard be published separately in English and in Afrikaans on a weekly basis. I believe it is a fundamental constitutional right of both language groups in this country to have all official documents in both official languages. Section 89(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act—Act No 110, 1983—reads as follows:

Subsection (2) reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, Hansard is used by many, many people outside of Parliament and even outside of South Africa, and it is of no use to many of those people to receive it in a piebald form, in which some of it is in English and some of it in Afrikaans because not everybody who wants to use Hansard is able to understand both languages.

There is of course the problem of workload here will also be extra work involved. I believe, however, that we ought to get this aspect into perspective. We used to have a Senate in this Parliament, and their Hansard was published in the normal way. We will now have three Houses but the number of members will indeed be only 73% more than what we have at present. For 66,6% of the session in terms of the proposed rules, the House of Assembly will be sitting for 6,5 hours less every week than is the case at present. That is something like 28% less per week. Furthermore I believe this is a matter of great importance. If more people are required on the Secretariat of Parliament, as they will be, more people should be employed. We cannot expect to have the luxury and the expense of three Chambers without proceeding to render the service. We can also not afford to lower the standards. I believe it is totally unacceptable unless the amendment that I have now moved is accepted. It is also contrary to the spirit of the Constitution if that is not done.

Mr Chairman, we would like to support the amendment moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I do think, however, that a point that should be heeded in this regard is that we will be electing a House of Delegates, and I venture to suggest that 90% if not more of the members of that House of Delegates will not be able to understand the Afrikaans language; far less will they be able to read or even to understand the written word when printed.

They will have to learn quickly.

You know, Mr Chairman, that is an appalling statement. The hon member for Turffontein says “hulle sal vinnig moet leer”. [Tussenwerpsels.] We have two official languages in South Africa. Since 1910 we have respected each other’s language as a right. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I am not going to allow the language issue to be debated here once again.

I do agree with what the hon member for Bryanston has just said. The hon member for Turffontein is a reversed Hennie Smit, if ever I have seen one.

And you are a jingo.

I am not a jingo. [Interjections.]

Order!

All right, if that hon member wants to talk we can now talk. There is one thing, Mr Chairman, that I am not. I am not a jingo. I respect the Afrikaans language. I speak the Afrikaans language. I understand the Afrikaans language. I read the Afrikaans language. Not all my countrymen do, however, and not all my countrymen understand, read and speak the English language. For those who do not understand, read or speak the English language, I believe, these things should be printed in Afrikaans. I will protect the rights of the Afrikaans language with as much gusto as I will protect the rights of the English language.

You are a real HNP, André. [Interjections.]

Contrary to what the hon member for Turffontein says, I am definitely not a jingo. Since 1910 we have had Hansard in this House printed in both official languages. [Interjections.]

Order! There are so many interjections that the hon member is having difficulty making himself heard. I ask hon members for their co-operation.

Mr Chairman, I do not mind how much noise hon members make. I do not know how long we are going to be here. According to an understanding we have, we are only going to be here till 23h00, but we shall probably see that get blown out of the window as well. I do not mind Sir. I can talk on every paragraph in this report. [Interjections.] Let them carry on as much as they like. It does not worry me.

I feel that this is something that must be given very serious consideration. If we have managed to do it in the past then there is no reason why we should not be able to manage to do it in the future. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon member for Cape Town Gardens said namely that if need be we shall just have to obtain the additional staff and the additional facilities to do it.

I want to conclude by stressing very, very clearly that I am not just protecting the rights of the language that I speak. I am also protecting the rights of the language spoken by my fellow Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. I treat with contempt the hon member for Turffontein and his interjections.

Mr Chairman, it is not just a question of English or Afrikaans. One does not simply pick up a telephone in South Africa—or, for that matter, in any country in the world—and say: I want a translator and I want a Hansard writer. One does not manufacture these people as though one were manufacturing bricks. We do not have the necessary staff at the moment. We decided that no distinction would be drawn between English and Afrikaans. The speeches would appear in the language in which they had been delivered. However, I have been informed by the Secretariate that they will endeavour to obtain and train the necessary staff as soon as possible so as to continue the position as it is at the moment. However, in the initial stages, where we do not have the necessary trained staff and the accommodation to house them, we will have to make other arrangements. I wish I could accept this amendment.

You should. It is against the Constitution otherwise. [Interjections.]

It will appear in the language in which it is made.

If a member speaks in English his speech will appear in English, and a speech made in Afrikaans will appear in Afrikaans. However, the translation is the problem. It is all a question of staff.

But then you find the staff. [Interjections.]

I can accept this amendment, but then in practice we will find that we do not have the necessary staff and all the rest of it. [Interjections.] The principle is that a man should have the speech translated into the language in which he wants it. However, at the moment that is not possible. [Interjections.]

*I could accept the proposal but in practice it will not work. We do not have the necessary staff at present. [Interjections.] Very well, I can accept it, with the proviso that if we experience problems, we must first be afforded the opportunity to solve those problems.

Either you accept it or you do not accept it. I say accept it.

The hon member for Umhlanga is being difficult. Why is he now trying to take it out on me?

*When the bull kicks you, do not hit the calf. [Interjections.] At the moment we cannot accept it. [Interjections.] OK, we shall see whether we can obtain the necessary staff before January.

Mr Chairman, this evening we are faced with the situation that the Government wants to introduce a new dispensation. The Government wants to establish an entirely new Parliament and, in the person of the hon the Leader of the House, a Minister second in seniority only to the hon the Prime Minister, is telling South Africa that it cannot even provide the elementary service of having Hansard debates in South Africa translated in the new dispensation. It cannot, in the new dispensation, even provide the most elementary of the elementary services of this Parliament since 1910. I feel sorry for the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] I feel extremely sorry for him because I think that the debate this evening has been an absolute shock to him. I think he has realized this evening how, step by step he has been led into the mire by the liberalists on that side. [Interjections.] Now his nose is no longer jutting out. He is not listening to me now, but I feel sorry for him. He must go and read in Afrikaans, if he can, what I am telling him this evening. He was led into it by them. From Bellville and Strand he was led into it by them. He was also led into it by them in this House, until now we have them under one roof in this building. Now it is no longer he who is laughing at us; it is we who are laughing at him. I really feel sorry for him, to the very depths of my being, because I think the moment of truth has dawned for him. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are going to support the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, because we believe that the two official languages of South Africa must receive absolutely equal treatment in the Parliament of South Africa.

The other dilemma of the hon the Leader of the House lies in the fact that he says he would like to accept the hon member’s amendment but cannot. Why can he not do so? Because the most important members of his select committee are not here this evening to advise him and to assist him in this connection, because on the hunting grounds of South Africa they are taking wild shots at game without hitting anything. That is why they are not here.

Order! I would be glad if the hon member would return to the paragraph now before the Committee.

Mr Chairman, I just briefly want to put my standpoint in connection with the unsavoury remark made by the hon member for Turf fontein. We want it placed on record that it is that side of the House which accused the hon the leader of the CP of forcing Afrikaans down people’s throats but I want to say that we cannot agree with the interjection made by the hon member for Turffontein this evening regarding members of the new people that the Government has created.

Order! I am now asking for co-operation. At the moment the hon member is making a speech about something which has nothing to do with the paragraph. I am making a friendly appeal to hon members to co-operate with me.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on your ruling?

Order! I did not give a ruling. I asked for the co-operation of hon members; I did not give a ruling against an hon member. The hon member need therefore not address me.

Sir, if I may take this opportunity …

Order! I do have a choice of saying whether or not I want to be addressed.

Sir, I should like to address you.

Order! Then I shall give the hon member an opportunity to do so.

I do not think we can allow an hon member of the NP, namely the hon member for Turffontein, to tell an hon member of the NRP under such circumstances: “You must learn that language.” [Interjections.] … or to tell Indians or whomever that they must learn Afrikaans.

Is did not say he must learn Afrikaans; I referred to both languages. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, he said …

Order!

That is an intolerant hon member …

Order! The hon member is no longer addressing me. The hon member is speaking to the hon member for Turffontein, whereas I gave him an opportunity to address me.

Sir, but you said you had not given a ruling.

Order! The hon member asked me whether he might address me. I replied that he might address me. Now, however, he is saying that that hon member is an intolerant hon member. Therefore he is no longer addressing the Chair.

Normally, when one makes a speech, one addresses the presiding officer.

Order! Then the hon member must address me so that I can hear what he wants to say.

I am referring to that hon member, but I am addressing you. Surely I am entitled to do that.

Order! Then the hon member must proceed with a discussion of the paragraph now before the Committee.

Sir, I am discussing the paragraph in connection with the languages in which Hansard must appear. In the process that hon member made a very unsavoury and intolerant remark.

But you said he was an HNP.

No. [Interjections.] Allow me to elaborate on that. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Ermelo took it amiss of me for having criticized the hon the Prime Minister who at Nkomati… [Interjections.]

Order! I am sure there are hon members here who will not be witnessing the end of this session later this evening if they go on in this way. Let me assure the hon member for Brakpan that how the hon the Prime Minister conducted himself at Nkomati has nothing to do with the paragraph we are dealing with now. The hon member must now please co-operate with me.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens moved that Hansard be published in Afrikaans and English.

The hon member may discuss that.

The hon member for Turffontein made an unsavoury remark about that and his colleagues said that we, as conservatives, wanted English banned from South Africa and wanted Afrikaans to be the official language of South Africa. His colleagues said that.

I did not say that.

Order!

We now want it placed on record that the intolerant people in this country are the members of the NP—the tamed Nationalists. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think it is extremely unfortunate that we have to find ourselves in an irreconcilable language conflict which I do not think anyone is very worried about and which no one feels like at this time of night.

The arrangement being advocated here is not intended in the least to disregard the rights of any language group in South Africa, because I think that if we are trying to score political points off one another as far as this matter is concerned, then this debate has reached an unfortunate stage. The present arrangement as regards our Standing Committees on Votes in the Senate is that during the session, when insufficient staff is available, the Hansard appears in the language in which the hon member made his speech. During the recess that Hansard is translated and is made available in both languages. Precisely the same thing will happen in connection with the three Houses except that whereas these translations were limited to the recess in the past, the secretariat of Parliament will try to have them done on a continuous basis, in other words, so that the English and Afrikaans Hansard can be made available as soon as possible.

But there is something we cannot undertake to do at this stage, and I am telling hon members this so that we cannot eventually be accused of breaking our word. We cannot give the undertaking that it will be possible the initial stages to make all the translated Hansards available from the outset. As I have said, if we are eventually unable to succeed in doing this, it will not be possible to accuse us of breaking our word.

I have no quarrel with the hon member for Gardens about his amendment, because each of us does after all have great respect for our own language. This measure is certainly not an attempt to prejudice anyone’s language. It is merely a practical arrangement in the initial stages in case the secretariat cannot succeed in making the Hansard available. Expierence will probably show us that it may be possible. I cannot understand why, at this late hour of the night, we must conduct this unsavoury debate and why one member must demonstrate that he is a greater champion of his language than another member is of his.

Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect to the hon Leader of the House I do not believe that there is such a word as “cannot” as far as the staff is concerned, at least not at the present stage when we are moving into a new phase of our constitutional development.

We accept that in the new Constitution there are two official languages, therefore both offical languages have the same rights. I think it is unfortunate, Mr Chairman, that the hon member for Turffontein made the remarks he did.

Please go and have a look at Hansard.

Not only did he made the remark that if they do not know Afrikaans they will have to learn it very quickly, but he also called the hon member for Umhlanga a jingo. I made a short speech earlier today about the attitude of people in regard to the new Constitution. Sir, I want to ask the hon member for Turffontein for the good grace, if he has the good grace—which I doubt—to consider withdrawing those remarks and take the heat out of this debate. If he does not withdraw those remarks this debate is going to go on and on. Sir, I again ask him in the interests of good relations between English and Afrikaans to show good grace and to withdraw the remarks he made. If he does not withdraw those remarks it will be typical of the unfortunate attitude that that party has.

Order! Perhaps the hon member should give me an opportunity to give a ruling on the matter, as we may perhaps be able to take the heat out of the debate in that way. The hon member for Turffontein must withdraw the word “jingo”.

I withdraw it.

The hon member for South Coast may proceed.

Sir, I should like to thank the hon member. I have no more to say.

Mr Chairman, the hon Chief Whip on this side has indicated that we have been following a similar procedure in recent years with regard to the Hansard of standing committees in the Senate Chamber. A standing committee adopted a unanimous resolution on the matter and there was no dispute about the question of Afrikaans and English.

†We do not want to discriminate between the two languages. I cannot see the reason why we should cross swords on this issue. We have to do it this way, for practical reasons, in the light of the present staff situation. We undertake to implement the position hon members have asked for as soon as possible, maybe within three or four months after the resumption of the session on 3 September.

That is Hansard in English and Afrikaans?

Yes.

Mr Chairman, I am very sorry, we know the Government; we have gone through many laws here with them in respect of which they gave solemn undertakings, as regards a specific statement and wording in an Act, that that Act would be applied in one way and not in another way, but once it had been piloted through Parliament they applied it in the way it was feared they would apply it. That party and that Government has that history, and what is not written is not written. One cannot count on that, no matter who gives a solemn undertaking in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon the Leader of the House in respect of the standing committees in the Senate Chamber If one takes the combined volumes of the Hansard of the standing committees in the Senate Chamber they hardly make up two weekly volumes of the Hansard in this House. I know he wants to try to do something, but I am afraid I must agree with the hon member for Soutpansberg that once it is written this way it will stay that way. Then everybody will be able to fall back on it and say that that is the way it is written and that is the way it is. With the utmost respect to my very good friend the hon Chief Whip of the Government, he knows as well as I do that there is no such word as “cannot” or “can’t”, as the hon member for South Coast has said. In all sincerity, I submit that we can apply our minds to it and we definitely can find the wherewithal to continue with the good traditin that we have in this House, namely of presenting to each and every member copies of the Hansard in the language of their preference. I say again that particularly as far as our Indian delegates are concerned—they will be the members of the House of Delegates—one is going to have a tremendous problem. We have had appeals from those people to ensure that Hansard will be available as they have been traditionally.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umhlanga served on this committee and I too was present. There were no arguments; we were unanimous.

Do you mean to say that I did not say anything?

The hon member can refer to the minutes. I agree with the hon member, but I cannot give an undertaking. He heard what the hon member for Soutpansberg said. After three months he will come back and ask “Where is it?” I shall tell him that we do not have the facilities at the moment and will ask him to give us another two weeks. I undertake that we will try to do it.

*It does not matter whether it is Afrikaans or English.

Quickly phone Chris Heunis.

I now want to ask the hon members to do me a favour. They have referred in this House to people who have gone hunting. However, the hon the Prime Minister is in the operational area.

And Chris Heunis?

The allegation has been made here tonight that the hon the Prime Minister has gone game-hunting. [Interjections.] At this late hour of the day we are discussing rules in this debate which will be amended later on if they do not work in practice. Why do we have to quarrel with one another about this?

This is the most important debate of this session.

It is not the most important debate.

These are the rules of the game which we are discussing.

Yes, but one can change the rules of the game. We no longer play rugby according to the rules which applied in 1910. Transvaal is even playing against 16 people these days. [Interjections.] Therefore I request hon members to be understanding in their approach to this problem. I should like to accept the amendment, but I cannot.

New Paragraph negatived (Official Opposition, Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Paragraph 11:

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

[Interjections.]

Order! There have been enough by way of interjections and loud conversations from the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon member Mr Vermeulen for this sitting day. The hon member for Yeoville may proceed.

I want to say at the outset that religion and prayer are personal matters. This is not a party matter from our point of view. It is an open matter, and I have move the amendment in my own name. It is not a caucus decision and everyone may take the view that he or she chooses. I also want to treat it with care and delicacy and I would not want this to develop into a debate such as we had a few months ago. I think it would be disastrous if that happened.

I accept the fact that everybody in this House respects everybody else’s religion, and expects everybody else to do the same as far as their religion is concerned. There are, however, a number of issues that arise. Firstly, as far as South Africa is concerned, there is a division between the State and the church and religion. There is no question of the two being together. Secondly, there is in the Preamble to our Constitution a specific reference to the protection of the freedom of faith and of worship; and thirdly, there is also a provision in the preamble that refers to the values of the Christian religion. However, there are changed situations that have developed as a result of the changed composition of Parliament. There are going to be separate sittings of the three individual Houses and there are also going to be joint sittings. There will be people of different faiths to a far greater extent perhaps than we have ever had before in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I therefore believe—I do not want to carry the matter any further—that this matter be the subject of reasonable discussion between all those concerned with the matter in the new Parliament. As indicated by the rules, the very rule which applies to the House of Assembly and provides for the prayer to be read at the beginning of every sitting, also applies to the joint sittings and the House of Delegates as well as the House of Representative. Under those circumstances and taking all those facts into account, I believe this whole matter should be discussed between all the parties concerned and that it be left to be decided under the new Constitution by all the members of the new Parliament in a standing committee.

I appreciate the hon member for Yeoville’s concern for the delicacy of this matter, but what would he envisage us doing until such time as there was agreement in respect of a prayer to be approved by a standing committee?

Mr Chairman, I do have thoughts on the matter, but I do believe that this matter could be dealt with by Mr Speaker. I do not believe that this matter should be debated at this time in a way that could arouse feelings. I have tried from the beginning not to do this because I believe this matter should be handled with respect as regards everybody who sits in this House.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to argue further about this aspect. I agree that it is a very delicate matter.

Earlier this evening we conducted a debate on the issue of the adjournment of the House. We are now discussing a very delicate situation, viz the Standing Orders of the new Parliament. It is now 23h08 and in these cicumstances I move:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can an ordinary member propose the adjournment of the House?

Order! The hon member for Brakpan cannot move the adjournment of the House.

Mr Chairman, I moved the adjournment of the debate.

The hon member may not move that either. What the hon member can do, is move that I report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I then move:

Mr Chairman, I have a problem now, because we agreed that we should carry on for a time. The official Opposition gave me to understand that their amendments would not give rise to long discussions and that we should be able to make rapid progress. If it is the feeling that we should now adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine o’clock, then that is what must happen.

No!

Mr Chairman, from our point of view, we would like to continue. We do not believe that the debate will take very long as hon members are trying to confine themselves specifically to the discussion at hand. Instead of inconveniencing all members of Parliament by sitting again tomorrow, we can move very rapidly with the debate. By co-operation and understanding, points can be made and amendments can be put and we can debate this fairly rapidly.

Order! The motion of the hon member for Brakpan is that I report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I raised a point of order. I asked whether an ordinary member is permitted to move that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again during the Committee Stage. I believe it is only the person in charge of the debate who can do this.

Order! That only applies to financial debates. In an ordinary debate an hon member can move that.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to request your ruling. Earlier this evening the hon the Leader of the House proposed that this House adjourn upon its own resolution, and our side of the House objected. The hon the Leader of the House reacted by saying that he was moving it merely as a matter of formality and that he gave the solemn undertaking that we would not sit until later than 11 o’clock, unless there was absolute agreement in this regard. Those were the words of the the hon the Leader of the House. It was a gentleman’s agreement and a solemn undertaking among all the parties. Therefore the hon the Leader of the House has committed himself to his undertaking not to have this Committee sit later than 11 o’clock.

Order! This evening, when the hon the Leader of the House moved the motion that this House adjourn upon its own resolution, the House accepted that resolution. The Committee has just divided on a motion that the debate be adjourned, and resolved that it wants to proceed with the discussion. Therefore we must proceed.

Mr Speaker, on appoint of personal explanation: With all respect to you I should like to say that there was an agreement among the Whips in connection with this matter. The CP considers that we are dealing here with a very important matter, because the rules of the game are now being discussed. The arrangement entered into with us has not been complied with, and in the circumstances the CP will withdraw from further discussion of this report.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon member that I understand his standpoint but that I am unfortunately unable to take cognizance of arrangements entered into mutually among the Whips. I can only carry out the resolution of the Committee.

Goodnight!

Order!

I just want to say that we have great appreciation for the way in which the hon member for Yeoville has put his amendment and his point of view. We, too, believe that this is a matter for each individual’s conscience. That is the attitude we will adopt. For my part, I support his amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville correctly said that this a a very sensitive matter. We took a decision that in joint sessions the prayer we are using at the moment will be read. I feel, however, that the various Houses can decide on this matter for themselves. The committee felt unanimously that the prayer we use at the moment should be retained. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon member for Yeoville’s amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Messrs K M Andrew, R M Burrows, P C Cronjé. C W Eglin, B B Goodall, R W Hardingham, prof N J J Olivier, messrs B W B Page, H H Schwarz, Maj R Sive, dr F van Z Slabbert, mnr P G Soal, mev H Suzman, messrs R A F Swart, M A Tarr, S S van der Merwe, H E J van Rensburg and A B Widman dissenting).

Paragraph agreed to.

Recommendations of Report agreed to.

Annexure A Joint Rule 6:

Mr Chairman, I should just like to request your ruling in this instance. If I understand this correctly, the principle has already been agreed to in the report and therefore I am unable to move my amendment. However, I just wish to intimate that we in the official Opposition place on record our objection to this Joint Rule.

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 12:

Mr Chairman, as in the case of Joint Rule 6, I believe we have the same problem here, viz that the principle has already been accepted in the report. Therefore we shall once again place on record our objection to this Joint Rule, as we did in the case of Joint Rule 6.

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 17:

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

The purpose of this amendment is indeed aimed at the stipulation in respect of the sitting of standing committees on the days on which Parliament is actually sitting. It has been the practice that a select committee, for instance, does not sit while the House is sitting unless the members of the select committee unanimously agree. In these circumstances, if we are going to have standing committees sitting while the House sits, and members of such standing committees are required in the house it could create an impossible situation. That is the sole purpose of my amendment.

Mr Chairman, the work to be done in committee under the new constitutional dispensation is of utmost importance, and standing committees will be functioning irrespective of whether Parliament is in session or not. If this amendment is accepted the whole system will become unworkable. I do regret therefore that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule agreed to.

Joint Rule 22:

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

1. 1. At the end of subparagraph (l)(b), to insert:
   • : Provided that, when Parliament is not in session, such copy of a bill and the memorandum thereon shall be forwarded to members at least seven days before the date appointed for a meeting of the standing committee which will consider the bill
2. 2. At the end of subparagraph (3)(a)(ii), to add:
   • : Provided that such publication shall, in respect of each bill, be at least seven days before the date appointed for a meeting of the standing committee which will consider the bill

I just want to point out to hon members that both amendments will have the same effect and that the final decision as to which of the two would best achieve their object will depend on the legal draftsmen.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Greytown need not motivate his amendment at length. Both of the amendments are acceptable to me. I promise him that I shall accept both of his amendments. [Interjections.]

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Joint Rule, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Joint Rule 24:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment to this Rule, namely:

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Joint Rule, as amended, agreed to.

Joint Rule 25:

Mr Chairman, unfortunately we cannot support this Rule either. Therefore I shall confine myself to saying that we shall vote against this Joint rule.

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 30:

Mr Chairman, if I am not mistaken, this principle has not yet been discussed and therefore I just wish to say that we are going to vote against this clause.

I do not wish to advance a lengthy argument in this regard. There will not be a Committee Stage in the case of legislation in respect of which so-called consensus has been achieved in a Standing Committee. You will recall, Sir, that consensus in a Standing Committee is determined by the voting procedure to which, if I remember correctly, I recorded our objection in the discussion of paragraph 5 of the report. I specifically attempted to point out there what the consequences of that type of decision would be. Those consequences in turn have an effect on the Committee Stage, which is now being abolished as regards legislation on which there is so-called consensus.

If we abolish the Committee Stage, then the conflict which arose during that standing committee because minority parties are excluded, is passed on to the House, and then one must to some extent conduct a Committee Stage debate in a Second Reading debate. Therefore this does not give the parties in the House the opportunity to place on public record their objections to specific clauses. In a certain sense, therefore, this forces the conflict back into the standing committee, specifically because there is no opportunity to debate matters in the Committee Stage in the House.

Despite the Government’s obsession with and apparent concern about the possibility of consensus, we are here once again increasing the possibility of conflict rather than the possibility of consensus. Therefore we cannot consider the abolition of the Committee Stage of so-called consensus Bills in isolation from the decision-making procedure in the standing committees, and we shall record our strongest objection to this measure.

Mr Chairman, if we were to negative this Joint Rule as proposed by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, this would amount to continuance of the old procedure in terms of which Bills are referred to the Committee of the whole House after Second Reading.

Absolutely correct.

That is just the problem. Since standing committees will deal with Bills before Second Reading under the new dispensation, there is no further need to have further stages of a Bill, except where further amendments are considered. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is just the point I made to the hon the Leader of the House. That consensus achieved in the standing committee is only achieved among the majority parties of the three Houses. All I am trying to say is that ordinarily, when the normal procedure of Second Reading and Committee Stages is followed, it is just this that affords minority parties the opportunity to say that they do not like a specific clause. They do not wish to vote against the Second Reading of the legislation because there are certain principles of the legislation that they do accept. There may be only one clause that they ant to vote against. They are now being deprived of that opportunity. If there is true consensus, then the need for a Committee Stage will not arise. As always happens here, the question arises as to whether the Bill should or should not be referred to the Committee of the whole House. However, we are now depriving minority parties of the opportunity to place on record their opposition to the provisions.

If there is consensus, that is unnecessary.

Hendrik, read Chris’s notes.

Sir, I object in the strongest possible terms. There are no such notes here. [Interjections.]

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

The amendment will only really apply if the hon Leader of the Opposition’s amendment is either not agreed to or is not in order. However, the simple argument that I put is that if one has a debate for 30 minutes as to wheter a Bill should be committed or otherwise while ten minutes of speeches are referred to here, it follows that if one has four parties in this House, one cannot even allow one member of each party to make a speech. It is really quite ridiculous to have 30 minutes for this purpose. I do not want to belabour the point but I think it is quite clearly an inadequate period. I think this may well be the case where the hon Leader of the House may make a concession in the interests of reasonable debating.

Mr Chairman, the committee felt that an half-hour is adequate for people to say whether they are for or against any measure. If one sets aside an hour and a half for this purpose arguments will be repeated over and over again. We consider a half-hour to be sufficient.

Yes, but you must give all parties a chance to make a speech.

Yes, but hon members must only say whether they are for or against it. There is no discussion on this matter. The committee was unanimous that 30 minutes was enough. Therefore I feel I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member. The point is to save time.

Mr Chairman, I take it that my amendments are not in order, but I should like to move those amendments that are in order.

You may move amendment 2.

I therefore move amendment 2 as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, for the same reason I am unable to accept this amendment either.

Amendments 1 and 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule agreed to.

Joint Rule 40:

Mr Chairman, I would really like to hear the Leader of the House refuse this amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, and which I now move, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon member.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Joint Rule, as amended, agreed to.

Joint Rule 41:

Mr Chairman, if the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper is in order, I will move it but if it is not in order, I will not move it. It reads as follows:

Order! The amendment is unfortunately not in order and therefore I cannot put it.

Then I will not bother to move it, Sir.

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 43:

This paragraph has to do with the times available for part appropriation debates. There are only part appropriation debates on general affairs, and not on own affairs. In Parliament it is obviously one of the important general debates. It gives members, who possibly have not had an opportunity to do so in the no-confidence debate or other debates, an opportunity to air matters of concern. The proposals as they stand will, in the case of the House of Assembly, halve the current 12 hours to six in the case of the Second Reading and, in the case of the Third Reading, the time will be reduced from three hours to one hour. The House of Delegates gets a total of one-and-a-half hours for the Second Reading on the Cart appropriation, which is a general debate, and for the Third Reading they get 30 minutes. Sir, if one thinks how many of the 45 members of that House will get the opportunity to participate in a debate lasting one-and-a-half hours in the Second Reading and 30 minutes in the Third Reading, it shows the rather ridiculously little time available. I do not believe that there is any good reason to reduce the time for these debates. I think it is a severe infringement on the opportunity of Opposition parties in all Houses to call the Government to account. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (a) In the House of Assembly:
   1. (i) 12 hours for the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) 3 hours for the Third Reading.
2. (b) In the House of Representatives:
   1. (i) 6 hours of the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) l½ hours for the Third Reading.
3. (c) In the House of Delegates:
   1. (i) 3 hours for the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) 1 hour for the Third Reading.

Mr Chairman, the subcommittee consisting of all the Whips from all the parties spent a long time on discussing this and they came to a unanimous decision. As much as I want to accept the hon member’s amendment, I cannot do it because all the Whips agreed that this time was enough. Unfortunately I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr Chairman, as one of the guilty parties referred to in regard to the establishing of these times, I should like to tell the hon member for Cape Town Gardens that he is quite right when he asks how one divides 45 members into 30 minutes. I agree with him, but in our present set-up how do we divide 178 members into 120 minutes? We have this situation. He should take note of the fact that this was given a lot of consideration by the Whips of all parties, and as the hon the Leader of the House has indicated it was agreed to by all the Whips.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule agreed to.

Joint Rule 44:

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

1. 1. In subparagraph (l)(a)(iii), to omit “2” and to substitute “4”.
2. 2. In subparagraph (l)(b)(iii) “30 minutes” and to substitute “1 hour”.
3. 3. In subparagraph (l)(c)(iii), to omit “30 minutes” and to substitute “1 hour”.

We have just witnessed the example today as to how one cannot debate a taxation Bill within two hours, because what happens is that one cannot even get in a second speaker and one cannot have a Committee Stage. On what is probably the most important legislation that anybody has to deal with, namely the imposition of taxation, one can never get to a Committee Stage in this House. In my 10 years here I can remember only one instance where we reached the Committee Stage. Then we were not able to complete the Committee Stage. That is in two hours. It is bad enough that one says to the House of Assembly that it has to be done in two hours, but one is now asking the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates to deal with a Bill of this nature in 30 minutes. With great respect, I do not know who agreed to it, if anybody, but if did they know nothing about taxation or how to deal with a tax Bill. The Bill we discussed earlier today had 51 clauses and two schedules which, in one case, had more clauses than the Bill itself. How can one expect a House, a legislature, to deal with that in 30 minutes? That is utterly ridiculous. Even if the hon the Minister says that he does not want to increase the two hours referred to in the first amendment, which is inadequate for us, then he should at least give some extra time to the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, because 30 minutes is utterly unreasonable. Therefore, if I cannot make a plea for us in this House, let me at least make a plea that the hon the Minister should accept amendments 2 and 3, because 30 minutes for a taxation measure is utterly ridiculous in anybody’s eyes.

Mr Chairman, in the case of the House of Assembly at the moment it is so. The time allotted for the other Houses are considered reasonable because they have fewer members than the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I repeat: What is the use of having a committee consisting of the Whips of all parties reaching a unanimous decision and then afterwards accepting an amendment to rescind that? Those Whips are the people who know the rules of the game. I can however assure the hon member for Yeoville that, should we find that this arrangement is not practical, we can consider increasing the time later on, but the individual Houses can also decide to change it. We are sitting for six months. Let us therefore give the time allotted at the moment a chance. After all, the hon member’s Chief Whip and all the other Whips agreed on this measure, and I do not now want to be a spoil-sport.

Mr Chairman, regardless of whatever the Whips agreed to, we are now debating the formal report of a select committee. We are now dealing with the select committee and not with informal arrangements between the Whips. I am not saying that the Whips did not agree to that, but that is not the point at this stage. I must point out to the hon the Minister that on a time basis it takes exactly the same time for the first speakers of four parties to put their case, whether they are in a House of 168, a House of 83 or a House of 45 members. The first time round, it takes so much time. When it comes to the remaining speakers, the position may be different. In those circumstances, just to allow each party to state its case once requires approximately the same time irrespective of the size of the House. I really think that the plea made by the hon member for Yeoville is entirely reasonable.

Mr Chairman, the respective Houses can take their own decisions in this connection.

They cannot.

It can be referred back to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

This is a general affair.

Then the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders must decide on the matter.

No, it is a general affair.

But the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders drafted these rules. [Interjections.] Very well, give each of them three hours, but what is a House with 45 members going to do with all that time? I am now trying to ’ help the hon member for Yeoville. We can accept the amendment, but I must point out that once we have allowed more time, it is difficult to reduce it again if it is not utilized. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether we can not reach some consensus and a compromise? I will abandon the increase for the House of Assembly if he will give the other two Houses an hour instead of 30 minutes.

Very well.

It is a deal. With the leave of the Committee I withdraw my first amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Joint Rule, as amended, agreed to.

Joint Rule 45:

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

1. (a) In the House of Assembly:
   1. (i) 20 hours for the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) 105 hours for the committee stage;
   3. (iii) 12 hours for the Third Reading.
2. (b) In the House of Representatives:
   1. (i) 10 hours for the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) 50 hours for the committee stage;
   3. (iii) 6 hours for the Third Reading.
3. (c) In the House of Delegates:
   1. (i) 5 hours for the Second Reading;
   2. (ii) 35 hours for the committee stage;
   3. (iii) 3 hours for the Third Reading.

I merely want to point out that what has happened here is that there has actually been a reduction in the hours. The reason for this presumably has been that we are dealing here with general affairs. Presumably there is intended to be another debate on appropriations in respect of own affairs. With greater respect, however, the period that is presently available to the House of Assembly for the Second Reading of this type of appropriation Bill is not too much. On the contrary, we complained that it is too little, and with a multiplicity of parties things become very difficult. I would therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to give favourable consideration to this amendment as well.

Mr Chairman, an appropriation Bill on general affairs will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance where it is allowed a maximum of seven consecutive days in which parliamentary business is disposed of before being returned to the House for consideration.

The hon member for Yeoville wants the same period to be allotted as those in the present Standing Orders in spite of the fact that the Houses will have separate debates on appropriations for own affairs as well. The Chief Whip will explain that this is one of the main points on which there was agreement.

*Why should I do my own barking when I keep a dog? Agreement has already been reached on these matters. [Interjections.] When I was a Deputy Minister I had to do all the work for Minister Uys. He was the one who always said that he did not keep a dog and do his own barking as well. The Whips agreed to this unanimously and informed me accordingly. Now the hon member for Hillbrow sits over there …

He was not there.

But the Chief Whip of the official Opposition was.

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Leader of the House said, we discussed this matter in great depth in the Committee of Whips. The reduction in the time of the House of Assembly is very little. This was done in view of the fact that there will also be own budgets in the various Houses, with the result that it was decided to reduce the time for the general budget accordingly. I do not believe that there was any doubt in our minds that this rule will in fact be adequate.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 47:

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

1. 1. In paragraph (1), to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”.
2. 2. To omit subparagraphs (l)(b)(ii) and (iii).

This rule states that when the Second Reading has been agreed to the Bill may …” There are then a number of alternatives, and it is quite clear that one of these alternatives have to be accepted. I believe the word “may” should be omitted and substituted by “shall”. Does the hon the Leader of the House accept my amendment?

Yes, your first amendment is acceptable.

As regards my second amendment, we feel very strongly that when it comes to a Budget debate, the Votes should be debated in the House. There should be an open debate because that is the opportunity where a Minister can be tested and where his policy is subject to review. This is something which should take place in public in a House. I cannot envisage a Budget debate without the Votes being debated one at a time in Parliament. That is why they should go to the Committee of the whole House and not to standing committees or other committees. They must be debated in open house because that is where one can review a Minister’s policy.

It is impossible to have a situation where Budget Votes will never be discussed in public and where a Minister’s policy can never be tested. What would democracy be if one cannot do that and where would the principle of the accountability of a Minister be? I can give a dozen examples of how important it is that a Vote of a Minister must be discussed in public in Committee of the whole House. That is why I move my second amendment.

Mr Chairman, why the hon member wants to limit the options of each House for the consideration of money Bills in Committee is not clear. I believe that the new dispensation can function efficiently only if the procedure allows flexibility.

*“Appropriation Committee” is the new designation for the present standing committee which has been working well for years. The system was introduced in 1978 in response to a report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and was adopted by the House of Assembly in 1978.

For those reasons I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon member’s second amendment.

Mr Chairman, it is most remarkable that the hon the Minister gets up and says that the reasons I have advanced are not clear. Apparently he decided beforehand that what I was going to say was not clear. But let me try now to explain it to him again. With great respect, it says very clearly that this can be referred to an appropriate joint or standing committee. I now ask the hon the Minister to tell me whether in fact a joint or standing committee is going to sit in public, whether the Press is going to be present and whether the Press can report that takes place.

In the Joint Committee.

Yes.

No.

In other words, if I want to challenge the Vote of the Minister of Transport Affairs, he can use his majority in the House in order to get it referred back to a standing committee so that I can never challenge his policy and get people to ask him about the parties in Tsitsikamma and all these other things because it can never be disclosed. He will then be able to cover it up and nobody will ever know about it. That is why this is a fundamental matter of principle. Is that clear now?

It is clear, yes, but I cannot accept it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

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

1. 1. In subparagraph (l)(a), to omit “third” and to substitute “second”.
2. 2. In subparagraph (l)(b), to omit ‘five” and to substitute “two”.

I believe that in the Afrikaans version of Joint Rule No 56 in my second amendment the word “vyf” has been omitted, in case some hon members cannot follow what the amendment is trying to achieve. The paragraph in question has to do with the notice period required for questions. First of all, in paragraph (l)(a) we are requesting that a question handed in appear on the second and not the third sitting day after having been handed in.

I accept the first amendment.

Thank you. The effect of the second amendment affects the time available for a reply. The current position is that depending on which day you hand the question in, it need only be on the Order Paper for two sitting days before it is replied to on the following day. Paragraph (l)(b) provides that a question shall be placed on the Order Paper for reply on a day at least five sitting days after the day on which it appears for the first time. I cannot do all the mental arithmetic and adjust the figures now, but the position is that what the hon the Leader of the House is now suggesting is that the minimum time that a question can come up for oral reply is going to be 11 days compared with three days at present. The maximum time, depending on which day of the week you hand it in, is going to be 17 days compared with seven at present. So in one case it will, as a minimum, take more than three times as long before one can get a question replied to and in terms of the longer period it can take more than double the time. Questions, as I have mentioned before, must not go stale. They play an important role in this House. We are only going to have them once a week. I do not believe that the Secretariat cannot handle them on the basis on which they are handled at present, given the number of members and the fact that we will only have one question day per week. I would therefore ask the hon the Leader of the House to accept my second amendment as well. I think it is an important issue.

Mr Chairman, in the past few years the number of questions have increased tremendously. Hon members can see it for themselves if they look at the Question Paper. The number of questions has more than doubled. Now there will be three sets of questions. The Commission for Administration has also said that the time allowed for replying to questions is too short. One finds that more and more Ministers are requesting that questions stand over. Hon members must also consider the type of questions that are asked. In the case of questions concerning Police matters, officials sometimes have to telephone police stations throughout South Africa to get specific information. Look at the response one gets from the Opposition when a Minister gets up and requests that a question stand over. It is at present practically impossible in some cases to obtain the information in the required time. As I have indicated, the time at the moment is too short. In addition, there will now be three sets of questions. In view, too, of the request of the Commission for Administration, I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 57:

Mr Chairman, I would imagine that the amendments standing in my name are probably out of order.

That is correct. They are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee and I shall have to rule accordingly if the hon member moves them.

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule 58:

Mr Chairman, this has to do with the period of time that has to elapse before a question can be transferred from one for written reply to one for oral reply. In many cases questions are submitted for written reply merely because of the number of figures involved. If more than two figures are involved, it becomes a question for written reply…

There is no reason why the period of time provided for should be doubled from the current five sitting days to ten sitting days. Five sitting days, as at present, give the department a minimum of 14 to 20 days within which to prepare the reply. If in exceptional circumstances they need to ask that the question stand over, that gives them an additional seven days. The object of questions is to get correct and current information. I therefore believe that these delays are not justified. Consequently, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, for the same reasons I advanced in reply to a previous amendment and because there will be three sets of questions, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Joint Rule agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Annexure A, as amended, agreed to.

Annexure B

Standing Order 37:

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

1. 1. In subsection (l)(a), to omit “third and to substitute “second”.
2. 2. In subsection (l)(b), to omit “five” and to substitute “two”.

These two amendments are the equivalent to those moved in respect of Joint Rule 56 of Annexure A. I do nope the hon the Leader of the House is going to accept the first one.

In so far as my second amendment is concerned, the hon the Leader of the House made mention of a recommendation to the Commission for Administration. What he seems to forget, however, is that under the new dispensation these questions—for example the ones on own affairs, with which we are dealing now—will have to be handled by a whole series of new departments. There will therefore be more people who will be able to handle the answers to those questions. I believe there is no need at all for greater delays than those occurring at present. We are going to have three different Houses, and three separate administrations to handle those own affairs questions.

Mr Chairman, for the same reasons that applied in the case of Joint Rule 56 I can unfortunately not accept the second amendment moved by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. I do, however, accept his first amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order 38 agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order 39:

Mr Chairman, this proposed Standing Order again doubles the time in which a question in respect of own affairs will remain on the Question Paper before it can be transposed from a written to an oral question. I am not convinced that this matter cannot be improved. Therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr Chairman, for the same reason as the one which applies in the case of Joint Rule 58 I can unfortunately not accept this amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order 54:

Mr Chairman, this Standing Order has to do with own affairs Bills which are not of a financial nature. It has a bearing on the time-limit in respect of Second Reading debates. Second Reading debates in this house have a maximum time-limit of 12 hours, which can be extended under certain circumstances. The limit is, however, 12 hours. The proposal in these’ Standing Orders is that 12 hours be reduced to eight hours. There is no good reason for this. First of all, unlike some of the debates we were discussing under general affairs, they are not repeated from one house to another. Therefore, there is not the same Minister having to debate the same Bill in three different Houses repeating the same arguments all the time. This deals with own affairs and so each house will have one debate on an own affairs Bill, and there will be no duplication. Many Second Reading Bills are highly controversial and complex, and the Opposition parties often need and want all the time they can get to debate those Bills. I think the hon the Leader of the House will agree that whether it be eight or 12 hours, this provision has not been abused in the past. I do not think we had one Second Reading debate in the course of this whole session that lasted for 12 hours. However, that possibility does exist, and I do not think this opportunity should be taken away. The only objective of this proposed change can be to steamroller legislation through and to prevent Opposition parties raising objections to legislation that they oppose or reduce their opportunities for doing so. I believe we should revert to the status quo and, if in two years’ time we are experiencing problems, then the hon the Leader of the House can come forward with proposals to reduce the time to eight hours.

I would like Second Reading debates to continue for a period of 12 hours as at present. Consequently I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, in the past, experience has shown that eight hours is sufficient. It is very seldom that we find that eight hours is not sufficient. However, the Standing Orders do provide that the Leader of the house can indicate for what further period the debate may be continued. Therefore, provision is made for this eventuality. I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Standing Order 69:

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

1. 1. In subsection (l)(a), to omit “5” and to substitute “12”.
2. 2. In subsection (l)(b), to omit “25” and to substitute “35”.

This paragraph deals with the time limit in respect of the Appropriation Bill on the Revenue Account for Whites. I believe that the times that I have suggested are what one requires to do justice to these Bills. Large sums of money are going to be involved as well as a considerable number of departments. In due course in these debates we will in many respects be debating the budgets that are currently managed by the four provincial councils when all the own affairs are transferred. Of course, within their rules, the House of Delegates and House of Representatives will be doing so right from the start. A period of five hours for a Second Reading stage in a budget debate means that an Opposition of our size will have between one and one and a half hours’ time to debate these matters. This means that only between three and six members in the official Opposition will have an opportunity to participate in the Second Reading stage of a budget on the White Revenue Account. When one looks at Schedule 1 of the Constitution, one finds that there are about 13 matters which are designated own affairs. If hon members have read the Constitution they will know that these matters cover a wide range of subjects such as social welfare, education, health and so forth. In those circumstances to expect the official Opposition to be able to debate those sorts of things as well as general policy matters concerning the Ministers’ Council, I think is ludicrous.

Mr Chairman, I want to make two points in respect of this and in support of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. Firstly, if the times set out here were to be applied to the smaller parties in the House, they could make one short speech and that is all they would be able to do in the Budget. Surely, that cannot be adequate for a small political party in a Budget debate. It is quite wrong to have merely five hours. I am quite serious when I say that the hon the Leader of the House should reconsider these periods.

The second point—I trust the hon the Leader of the House will forgive me for making it—is that here in the case of own affairs, a Minister can be called to account in a Committee Stage whereas in the case of general affairs, a provision was voted down in terms of which he could be called to account in a Committee Stage, but it can be referred to a standing committee. If it is correct, in terms of what we are doing here, that in own affairs a Minister can be called to account in open Parliament, then it would been even more correct to have done it in the other case.

Perhaps the hon the Leader of the House might wish to revert to that provision because it is so illogical to provide that when one wants a Minister to account for, say, agriculture, the Minister will have to account in public, but when one wants a Minister to account for foreign affairs, it can be decided to treat it as a closed matter. If a Minister is asked to account for transport, then it can be closed up to exclude the public from hearing what is going on. I say this is illogical and that is why I appeal to the hon the Leader of the House to move that we revert to that provision so that we can correct it because it is quite obvious that we made a very, very serious mistake.

There is a further point I wish to make. If, when it comes to the Committee Stage, one divides 25 hours among the various items which are in Schedule 8, one finds that in many cases one is going to end up with a situation that while an Opposition party may wish to debate a particular Vote, it may not get any time at all. In other cases one may get five minutes in order to discuss a major matter with which a member of the Ministers’ Council is dealing.

I do not believe that the hon Leader of the House is serious in wanting us to conduct the finances of South Africa in such a manner. I do not believe it and I do not think people have applied their minds to this. Therefore, with great respect, I ask the hon the Leader of the House to reconsider this situation because this is not a satisfactory arrangement at all for any form of Budget debate.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Cape Town Gardens and Yeoville have put their case, and I am bound to agree with them especially since the hon member for Yeoville has all the experience in budgeting and so on. I must point out, however, that this matter was referred to a select committee and the select committee decided that five hours would be sufficient. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens has moved that it should be 12 hours, but why not seven or eight hours? I cannot understand it. I could have argued with the members of the select committee telling them that while they decided upon five hours after an amendment had been moved to increase it to seven hours, now there is an amendment to increase it even to 12 hours.

I may point out that the debate on an Appropriation Bill in respect of the Revenue Account of a specific group will be confined to the own affairs involved. The increase proposed by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens is unacceptable. He had said seven or eight hours, it might have been a different proposition but he asks for an increase from 5 hours to 12 hours in one respect and for an increase from 25 hours to 35 hours in another. I have to take into account the recommendations of the select committee on all these matters which were discussed in detail.

Will you accept seven or eight hours?

What about nine hours?

No, wait, this is not an auction. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the House prepared to increase the periods?

Sir, in view of the co-operation I have received from those hon members, I am prepared to accept seven hours.

Seven I have, who is going to say more?

I shall settle for seven.

Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Committee I wish to withdraw amendments 1 and 2 which I have moved.

Amendments 1 and 2, with leave, withdrawn.

I move the following amendment in lieu of amendment 1:

In order to halve the difference with the hon the Minister I move the following amendment in lieu of amendment 2:

That is only an increase of 30%.

Sir, because the hon member was so co-operative I will accept his amendments.

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed to.

Standing Order, as amended, agreed to.

Annexure B, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we have conducted an indepth discussion of the recommendations of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and accordingly I do not wish to deal once again with all the arguments we have heard m this connection. However, I do think that we should just place the matter in perspective to some extent. The rules we have just been discussing represent an effort to create order in the Constitution which the Government submitted to the White electorate of South Africa by way of a referendum. The attitude to that Constitution adopted by the official Opposition is not secret. We advanced our objections, the reservations we had and the problems that we foresaw in that regard. Mr Speaker, we also ran political risks, of course, as a result of the standpoint we adopted. That is well-known. After the outcome was made known, we were faced with the choice of participation or otherwise in the Constitution and we decided that we would indeed participate. We stated clearly that as we saw it, there was a difference between approval of the Constitution as good enough for the situation in South Africa, and participation in it. Having taken that decision we decided that we would take part in this Constitution as constructively as possible. Therefore it would be illogical and totally inconsistent for us to decide to participate in the new dispensation while not being prepared to accept that there have to be rules and regulations in terms of which we must participate in that Constitution. Therefore in the committee we tried to make as constructive proposals as possible, and even to submit, in this Committee of the House, amendments whereby to allow that Constitution to operate as smoothly as possible in accordance with our view. Even with regard to the rules and regulations we tried to give consistent effect to the objections in principle that we had with regard to this new Constitution. We stated them in committee, motivated them and divided on them in this House so that there could be no doubt about the problems we foresaw on the road ahead. Having done so in committee I wish to state clearly that we cannot be opposed to the acceptance of the resolutions to have the rules and regulations for the new Constitution accepted. This morning I wondered whether we were conscious—I am struck by this now and again—of the constitutional landslide that is taking place in South Africa in view of the acceptance of the new Constitution. It is difficult for us in this House, when dealing with legislation and the proceedings of the House, to stand back a little and consider the situation. It is difficult for me, and I believe for other hon members as well. Now and again, however, it suddenly strikes me that we shall never again—I emphasize that—convene in this House in the same way as we have done since 1910. It is a totally new situation.

Contemplating this, I am reminded of earlier days on the platteland. I am sure that many other hon members who also grew up on the platteland and went to school at a farm school will share my thoughts. We had an old school bus on which we travelled to school every morning on the farm road. We knew every turn in the road, every pothole and every corrugation. Indeed, one could see the passengers on the bus bracing themselves in anticipation of each pothole, corner and problem. That is how this Parliament has operated for a good 70 to 75 years. The people who sat here, people of stature in our history, were all on the same bus. They spoke to one another about the road of South Africa, perceived the potholes and braced themselves in time. Moreover we had the same traffic rules, namely the old Standing and Rules and Orders. Now we are still on the bus, the same bus of Parliament. However there are going to be new passengers and the bus is going to be somewhat fuller. We are also getting new traffic rules, viz what we have just discussed. However, we are also going to be on the new road. The only problem is that on that new road we still have the old potholes. They are still there. The dilemma is that we are not quite sure where the corners and the potholes are. Now the question is: Who has a map of this new road with the old potholes that we are going to be travelling in a new bus.

Looking at the debates of the past session it seems to me as if the Government no longer has the old map. The CP has that old map, and every now and again they bellow out the directions that the Government used to take in the old days. Now, however, the Government states that it is on a new road with the old bus and new passengers, and that we must see whether we cannot find new ways of avoiding the old potholes. We have an idea what those potholes are. We have no doubt in our minds as to what the map should be. We shall have to see how the traffic rules are going to help us when we enter the new dispensation. However, I want to leave no doubt in the minds of hon members on the other side of the House, and also all other hon members of this House, that the potholes we are acquainted with on this road of South Africa are going to cause us severe problems at certain critical places as regards these traffic rules that we have created here.

Mr Speaker, I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition has drawn a delightful picture for us here this evening. Sir, it is strange that you and I earlier this evening were discussing the years gone by in your own constituency where I grew up. We were talking about roads that we both know so well. The thing about this road ahead is that we will want it to be a good and a new road, to have a good tar macadam surface and not be one of the old potholed roads which I remember in the Aliwal constituency as a boy when I matriculated some 40 years ago in Maclear.

Having said that, I want to say that in formulating these new Standing Rules and Orders, in the subcommittee I at all times presented the case for the smallest party in this House. I was always conscious of the fact that very often one could find that the minority parties are going to be in a difficult position when it came to looking for the few minutes in which to put their case, as was also highlighted many times during the debate this evening. But, Sir, I felt that to have stood up during the discussion of every clause in order to put the case which I represented in that subcommittee not much would have been achieved because we did have a tremendous exchange of opinion in the subcommittee, and later also in the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I do not intend to say it would have been an exercise in futility because I am sure I would have been heard. You know all this of course, Mr Speaker, because you were chairman of both the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and the subcommittee.

We have now reached a stage in which we do have the new set of rules. It now remains for us to go into the new constitutional dispensation and to apply this new set of rules. I do, however, want to remind all hon members of this House that these rules are not inflexible. As the hon the Leader of the Opposition has said, this puts us on the road. We are obviously going to sit in the bus with him as it were and we are also going to be wincing at potholes while looking for the next turn in the road. We are, however, going to be able to amend these rules. I do therefore believe that we must go into this new dispensation in a flexible frame of mind. We must go into this with the knowledge that as we come across these pitfalls so we must adapt and not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. It is in that spirit, I believe, that we should approach these rules. We should look at the new chapter which is going to unfold in the history of our country.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for the privilege I have had to sit on this committee. I have found it extremely interesting, and at times the work has been very exciting too. Therefore I can only say that we in this small party wish this basic set of rules Godspeed. We trust they will stand the Houses, and indeed the whole of the new Parliament, in good stead.

Mr Speaker, with your approval I should like to convey a few messages of thanks. In the first place I want to thank hon members for their co-operation during the past session. This applies to every hon member of this House. Moreoever, I also want to wish the hon the Prime Minister, my Cabinet colleagues and hon Deputy Ministers for their friendly cooperation. Of course, I also wish to convey my personal thanks to you, Mr Speaker. You are an outstanding Speaker.

Hear, hear!

I believe that all of us have learned to respect and love you, particularly because you can act very firmly, but you never act in an unreasonable or unfair way. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the other presiding officers for their co-operation and for their contributions. They know who they are. Therefore I need not mention them by name. I am very grateful to them.

I believe that hon members of the official Opposition acted in a very commendable way here this evening. They provided their co-operation in the drawing up of the new Rules with which we are to enter the new dispensation. I also wish to thank the hon the Leader of the Opposition for his friendly words this evening. Then, too, I want to thank the hon the leader of the NRP and all the hon members of his party for their accommodating approach and their co-operation.

Mr Speaker, I do of course profoundly regret the fact that the CP disappointed us this evening. I also thank the Chief Whips of all the parties. I must say that the meeting of the Whips every Wednesday was a pleasant experience for me. I am also grateful to all hon members of this House. They made matters pleasant for me. In particular I want to refer in this regard to the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who acted on my behalf when I was unable to be present here in person as Leader of the House.

I also thank the staff of Parliament, Mr Victor and all his people, who performed an enormous task. I believe, too, that it will be with real compassion that we think again of Mr Pieter Venter. We are aware that he is going through a very difficult time. I also wish to thank the heads and officials of all the Government departments, and particularly the State law advisers. And then, of course I could not omit to thank the SA Transport Services for the catering service they provide here.

Hear, hear!

One man who is probably never thanked, is the chef himself. Therefore I wish to convey my thanks to him in particular. I believe that we have really eaten well throughout this session. We must be very grateful for that. Our thanks go to Mr Esterhuizen and his staff, and to those who perform the bookings and, of course, the service officers. They are the people who bring us our drinking water, deal with our messages and keep our offices in order. To all the service officers who do their work unobtrusively and never try to “catch a shine”, we are very, very grateful. Then there are the members of the South African Police. Security in Parliament has been stepped up, and the police are also responsible for the control of traffic in front of Parliament. I also wish to thank the officials of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications who work in the post office and the exchange. I also wish to thank the Department of Health for the nurses in the first aid room. And what is a House of Assembly without a Press? It has sometimes occurred to me that if there were no Press, the House of Assembly would only sit for a month because every member speaks to see whether he can make the Press. I want to thank the SABC as well. The programme “Gister in the Parliament” is one that we like to listen to. These people have done their work extremely well, although the SABC made a mistake by allowing my colleagues to appear on television more than I have. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that we were entering a new era That is true, but we are all optimistic and full of confidence. Not one of us knows how the new dispensation is going to work and no one can contend that it will or will not be an unqualified success. However, if we give our wholehearted support, as we did in this debate this evening, then we can enter the new era with confidence. We do not wish to trample minorities underfoot, but prefer to draw minority groups closer to us. The new road we shall be taking has a toll-gate, and there will be potholes and new things.

However, with the co-operation of the Opposition, as we experienced tonight, I feel confident and look forward to the next session under totally new circumstances. I am optimistic that we will succeed. I want to thank all members and may they all travel safely to their homes.

Mr Speaker, it would be taken amiss of me, and rightly so, if I did not whole-heartedly associate myself and my party with the words of thanks conveyed by the hon the Leader of the House to you, the staff and all the other persons to whom he referred. I do so with pleasure, and I want to assure you that we are sincerely grateful to you and to the persons mentioned for the unselfish service rendered to us, the friendliness, the courtesy and the fact that you have kept us on the right road. May this continue to be the case in future.

Mr Speaker, I would like to associate the NRP with the words of thanks to all those referred to by the hon the Leader of the House. We share his sentiments. I want to put it to the Leader of the Opposition how impressed and glad I was to hear his earlier speech. It bodes well for the future.

I do not want to delay the House, but as the second longest serving member present tonight, I feel this is a particular occasion. One looks back with some emotion at nearly 30 years of sitting in this chamber. As we adjourn tonight at the end of one era, I move forward with confidence, faith and hope to the new era which will start in September.

I therefore associate this party with the words expressed by the hon the Leader of the House in the belief that it can and will be made to work, provided we work together at the task.

Resolutions adopted.

Mr Speaker, I move:

I just wish to add that this House really had a tip-top leader, too. [Interjections.]

I believe that we are all in agreement on that score.

Question agreed to.