announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 11 March, at 14h15, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make the following two statements. In the first place I wish to make a statement concerning an inquiry which the Government, with the cooperation of other parties, has directed to be instituted.

The new constitutional dispensation has given rise to a new and revised parliamentary system and associated responsibilities and functions of the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of Parliament and members of the President’s Council.

Moreover the new system of standing committees, which will also function during parliamentary recesses, entails that members of Parliament will be charged with parliamentary functions throughout the year, which will necessitate their having to be absent from their electoral divisions more frequently. In view of this the Government has decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to make an objective evaluation of the structure of the remuneration and conditions of service of the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Members of Parliament and Members of the President’s Council, with due regard to their responsibilities, duties and tasks. In order to comply with the requirements of an objective evaluation, it was furthermore decided to appoint as members of the committee people who are not involved in politics. The members of the committee will be as follows:

The secretariat of the committee will be provided by the Office of the State President.

†The terms of reference of the committee will be as follows: To investigate and report, in the light of the revised parliamentary system and associated responsibilities and duties of the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and of Members of Parliament and the President’s Council, on the following aspects:

1. (i) A reconcilable structure of remuneration and conditions of service for the aforesaid office-bearers, with due allowance for their new responsibilities and duties; and
2. (ii) The need for facilities—administrative and secretarial—by members of Parliament to enable them to perform their task efficiently.

The appointment of respected ex-politicians as members of the committee was made specifically because of their knowledge of the circumstances of members of Parliament and the activities of Parliament, They can therefore make a meaningful contribution towards the investigation of the committee.

I want to emphasize that the investigation by the committee is not aimed at a salary adjustment for the office-bearers concerned but, in the light of their new responsibilities, at making an objective evaluation of the structure of their remuneration and conditions of service. Should the committee, however, make any recommendation which implies an improvement of the remuneration package and conditions of service of the persons involved, the implementation thereof will be postponed until such time as it can be justified with a view to the economic climate.

I trust that this investigation will do justice to all concerned and that it will have the support and co-operation of the three Chambers, and also of the various political parties in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, what I am now going to say is in a certain sense stale news. Nevertheless I also wish to express my regrets in this regard.

The present economic situation in our country entails that a combination of unique circumstances and a situation which is very fluid are going to make exceptional demands on the coming Budget. Under these circumstances the State has to work very circumspectly with the financial resources of the country, including Government spending and the way this spending is financed. The Republic of South Africa is a developing country, and it is characteristic of developing countries that large sums of money have to be invested in terms of capital costs for the creation of infrastructure. Consequently the curtailment of Government spending cannot be brought about by a large-scale saving on capital costs, but must be primarily aimed at current expenditure.

Owing to the fact that the State’s largest outlay, as in the case of so many organizations, consists of wages, the State therefore has an important responsibility to effect a saving on this component. Consequently the Government has decided—with the concurrence of all the parties in the three Houses of Parliament—that the State President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and other political office-bearers, including members of the President’s Council, must effect a saving of 3% on their basic salary. In this connection discussions have also been held with the provincial authorities and the Governments of the national states, in order to try to effect a similar saving.

I want to emphasize that the reduction in the salaries of the abovementioned office-bearers should be regarded as a positive gesture and an honest endeavour on the part of the State, with a view to the introduction of a balanced Budget under the present difficult circumstances.

In conjunction with the foregoing the Government is at present also engaged in the finalization of further decisions and measures which will affect the Budget. In this connection I intend making an announcement later this week on increased productivity and effecting a saving on staff expenditure in the Government sector.

Furthermore, I should like to make an appeal to the private sector to emulate this example which is being set by the public sector. In this way the contribution which wages and salaries constitute to the rising cost of goods and services can be curtailed in terms of the total cost pattern. These steps, by reducing the cost-push component, ought to make a material contribution to lowering the inflation rate.

The House met at 15h58.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Amendment Bill [No 85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Transport Affairs).
2. (2) Universities and Technikons Advisory Council Amendment Bill [No 85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Home Affairs and National Education).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

announced that Mr Speaker had reported to him that the proceedings at a joint sitting on certain bills had been concluded and that he had placed these bills on the Order Paper for the Second Reading debate.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Co-operation, Development and Education, relative to the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill [No 42—85 (GA)], as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Defence, relative to the National Key Points Amendment Bill [No 40—85 (GA)], as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry relative to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill [No 44—85 (GA)], as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

It is my privilege to introduce this Bill today. Provision is made therein for the promotion of local government in general, through the provision of suitably trained human material to undertake all the diverse functions of local government.

The Bill satisfies a longfelt need, which has been identified by various bodies as a very real one. Through these measures great advantages can be achieved for all race groups in our country and for all local authorities too.

The Bill concerns the recruiting and training of personnel for local authorities. Furthermore it provides for the supplying of guidance to the elected representatives of local authorities. The need for the training of officials for and in the local government sector and the supplying of guidance to councillors were already identified by the Browne Committee in 1980. I gladly quote the recommendation of the Browne Committee in this regard. Paragraph 9.8.1 of the recommendation by the committee reads as follows:

Some of the larger local authorities in particular have, on the basis of this recommendation, taken the required steps to promote the training of their staff. Laudable action has in many cases led to a marked improvement in the productivity on the third tier of government, and a noticeable improvement in the quality of services rendered to communities. Thus far, for various reasons, training could not be undertaken by all local authorities.

Firstly, training is relatively expensive and smaller local authorities can hardly afford it. Secondly, some of the work areas covered are highly specialized and experts are required to act as instructors. Because of the limited number of available instructors, all local authorities cannot equally be satisfied. Thirdly, sophisticated apparatus and training facilities are often required, which are not at the disposal of all local authorities, particularly the smaller ones.

In this regard it must be borne in mind that there are approximately 537 White local authorities in South Africa. Besides, there are also approximately 180 Coloured management committees and approximately 77 Indian management and local affairs committees, as well as more than 30 Black local authorities and numerous community councils. Except for the 6 well-known metropolitan areas and the 8 towns and cities with more than 50 000 inhabitants, most towns have a relatively small number of inhabitants. For instance 15 towns have between 30 000 and 50 000 inhabitants; 17 between 15 000 and 30 000; 23 between 10 000 and 15 000; 32 between 5 000 and 10 000; 146 towns between 500 and 1 000 inhabitants; and 161 towns or villages with less than 500 inhabitants.

Of the existing towns for Coloureds and Indians which already have management or local affairs committees, the population is as follows: Less than 500 inhabitants in approximately 80 committee areas; 500 to 1 000 inhabitants in approximately 73 committee areas; 1 001 to 10 000 inhabitants in approximately 86 committee areas; and more than 10 000 inhabitants in approximately 18 committee areas.

From the abovementioned facts it can be deduced that a need for a comprehensive strategy for training exists countrywide. Training is not only imperative within the existing and established local authorities. Management and local affairs committees are also often responsible for a variety of functions.

It is therefore just as imperative for them to have suitably trained personnel available to be able to execute these activities effectively. It is also not only the established local authorities that have councillors who have to be prepared for their important governing functions. The management, local affairs and health committees have similar needs for representatives who are aware of the responsibilities resting on their shoulders and the structures within which they have to take decisions to improve their own capabilities to serve their communities.

Even in those instances where local authorities do offer training, it often takes place in accordance with divergent training courses with standards that vary from good to poor. The result is that training is often presented on an ad hoc basis. When savings have to be effected, it is often training that is the first to be curtailed in terms of expenditure. Priorities, furthermore, often change and all the training subjects concerned do not constantly receive attention. For this reason the necessity for an overall strategy for continuous training on an acceptable standard is quite clear.

It can be stated that suitably trained personnel are an indispensable component and a prerequisite for the effective rendering of services. It is therefore imperative that personnel be trained to perform all the municipal functions, from the maintenance of roads, the driving of buses, the receipt of revenue and other income right up to the highest administrative post—that of town clerk.

Trained personnel are not only necessary to perform the duties of a local authority. The appointed personnel are also the main advisers of the elected councillors. If the advisers do not have the required expertise, then the council will also be in an unfavourable position to take balanced decisions. In other words, also for the sake of effective decisionmaking, personnel should be suitably trained.

It is, however, not only the officials who have to be properly prepared for their work. The elected representatives also require guidance to prepare them properly for the tasks involved in the performing of their own functions. This does not mean that councillors must now be subjected to compulsory formal training courses. It must, however, be borne in mind that elected representatives are required to interpret the needs of those whom they represent. Yet, newly elected councillors are not always aware of all the requirements that a representative must meet, for example, the requirements of the various ordinances that govern their work, the relationship that exists between a councillor and the officials, and the authority an individual councillor has. It is, therefore, equally important that councillors who, on a voluntary basis wish to improve their capabilities and to increase their knowledge of local government, be enabled to keep abreast of the factors affecting their actions.

*The Browne Committee in paragraph 9.5.11, made the following recommendation on the supplying of guidance to councillors:

In this respect as well, various steps have already been taken to eliminate the existing deficiencies. Various provinces have already compiled manuals and/or rules and regulations for councillors. These manuals are to a large extent, however, merely elementary guidelines, and do not comply in all respects with all the requirements for providing a representative with guidance. For that reason, as in the case of the employees of a local authority, a comprehensive strategy should also be drawn up for providing councillors with guidance by means of seminars, discussions and publications, for example.

I am in no way trying to imply that the respective training institutions such as the universities, technikons, the respective professional municipal institutes and municipal associations have failed to discharge their obligations in this connection. Each one of these bodies has to a greater or lesser extent made contributions to the training of officials and the guidance of councillors.

Once again, however, it is a case of courses and seminars that are offered on a ad hoc basis, do not involve all the employees, and do not reach all the local authorities throughout the country.

In the report on Local and Regional Management Systems in the Republic of South Africa, the President’s Council also expressed an unequivocal opinion on the necessity of training:

The Committee went on to recommend as follows:

The Government took the above standpoints into consideration and accepted that the central government was under an obligation to take the lead in regard to training on the local government level. For that reason municipal staff matters were identified as one one of the first areas to which the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs would have to give attention after its establishment in January 1984.

The Committee of Inquiry into Staff for Local Authorities, under the chairmanship of Minister D M G Curry, completed its inquiry in April 1984. The Committee consisted of representatives of: The United Municipal Executive, the Institute of Town Clerks, the Institute of Municipal Treasures and Accountants and the National ad hoc Committee of the Association of Coloured and Indian Management and Local Affairs Committees, the South African Indian Council, the Commission for Administration, the Department of Manpower and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

On 10 May 1984 the recommendations of the Committee were unanimously accepted by the Co-ordinating Council. In general outline the recommendations made provision for the following: Firstly, a training council to cause the country-wide training of staff and the guidance of councillors to function on a co-ordinated, orderly and continuous basis; and secondly, a training fund administered by the Training Council, to which the State and local authorities would contribute on a 50:50 basis.

The recommendations of the Co-ordinating Council were accepted by the Government and my Department, as the general department which inter alia also has to co-ordinate local government matters, was directed to incorporate the proposals in legislation. The Bill which is now under consideration incorporates the recommendations of the committee of inquiry under the direction of Minister Curry.

The Co-ordinating Council considered the Bill on 26 October 1984 and proposed specific technical amendments, which have been incorporated in the Bill. I do not wish to go into the Bill in detail now. Nevertheless I do in general wish to draw attention to the main principles on which the measure is based: Firstly, the overall objective is the initiation and the co-ordination of the training of staff and the guidance of councillors of local government bodies; secondly, the establishment of a training fund to which the State and local government bodies will contribute as equal partners; thirdly the establishment of a Training Board for Local Government Bodies, made up of an equal number of representatives of the central and local government institutions; and fourthly, mechanisms for the approval of training courses offered on behalf of or by local authorities.

Apart from the legislation which establishes the training structure, the Co-ordinating Council agreed, on 26 October 1984, that a training committee of the Co-ordinating Council should be created to furnish advise on the training requirements. The committee consists of representatives of all interested parties. It is expected that the names of the representatives will be submitted to the next meeting of the Co-ordinating Council, to be held in Cape Town on 26 March 1985.

The reason why these particular structures for training were decided upon, was to involve as many as possible experts in the training. I want to emphasize that existing facilities will be used as far as possible and training will be brought as close as possible to the towns and areas where such training is needed.

Provision will be made for regional and subregional differences, as well as unique requirements. Training will be offered in such a way that it is as cost effective as possible.

Finally I want to mention that the structure for which provision is being made in the Bill conforms to the proposals drawn up by the United Municipal Executive. The greatest single problem experienced by the UME was the shortage of money with which to initiate this training. This is being partially resolved now with the decision of the Government to make a contribution to the training effort.

Consequently I should like to announce that the Government has decided to vote R250 000 during the 1985-86 financial year to initiate the training fund. This amount will in due course be further augmented from amounts voted from time to time by Parliament and from amounts which will be collective from local authorities throughout the country.

I trust that this elucidation will enable hon members to evaluate this constructive measure according to its merits. I want to emphasize again that the measure is aimed at the promotion of local government in general because this must therefore be to the benefit of the inhabitants of our country.

Mr Chairman, we are sorry but we on this side of the House cannot support this measure. I want to state very clearly that this measure is not without merit. Obviously we all realize how essential it is for officials to be trained and on so. But our problem is that we are faced by a choice of weighing these specific aspects against one another. In weighing those aspects up against one another one eventually has to decide whether this measure contains more advantages than disadvantages. It is in this spirit specifically, therefore, that I am stating our standpoint; in other words, our approach is not merely destructive or negative. After careful consideration of the matter we have decided to oppose the Bill, for three basic reasons in particular. It is stated very clearly in the report of the committee of the co-ordinating council, to which the hon the Minister referred in his speech, that one of the primary aims of the Bill is to make provision for the training of officials with a view to the introduction of separate local authorities on a racial basis, particularly in regard to Coloureds and Indians. This is also made clear in the initial explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill. It was with appreciation that I noticed that the hon the Minister did not use this as an argument in his introductory speech this afternoon. One appreciates that. But we are confronted by the real problem that when we considered the Bill in the Standing Committee we had available to us, amongst other things, Mr Curry’s report as well as the explanatory memorandum on the bill on which we had to base an opinion. It is stated very clearly in the latter that this Bill is to be viewed within the framework of the Government’s policy of creating separate local authorities. As the hon the Minister will realize, this places us in an impossible situation where, if we supported this Bill, we would by implication have to support the idea of creating separate local authorities. In this regard the standpoint adopted by us is very clear, viz we cannot support that policy, particularly as far as the Coloured and Indian groups in South Africa are concerned. In fact, I want to put it to the hon the Minister that if we look at the various management committees which exist for the various communities, and at the number of people who have to serve under those committees, it seems very clear to us that it is in many respects completely unnecessary and undesirable to create separate management committees or separate bodies for local government purposes. Basically, our point of departure is still that these communities should be integrated into the existing structures.

The second reason why we oppose this Bill is that in our opinion, it creates unnecessary duplication. Judging from the hon the Minister’s speech, a large number of local authorities are already providing training. We are of the opinion—and nothing the hon the Minister has said has convinced us of the contrary—that those bodies are capable of providing the training required without its being necessary to establish this highly centralized Government training body for which the Bill makes provision. In the light of that we feel the creation of a centralized system of training is indeed unnecessary, unwise and uncalled-for.

The same problem also applies in regard to the degree of duplication which would occur. We have the co-ordinating council. The co-ordinating council has a training committee. Besides the training committee, a training board is now being created. We have been told that the training committee—because it is not a statutory body—could in fact not carry out the work that has been entrusted to the training board.

It is a statutory body.

Yes, but it creates problems in terms of control of funds because it is a committee of the co-ordinating council. Is that correct?

Yes, but it is statutory.

We feel very strongly that having two bodies—one a training body for the co-ordinating council, namely the training committee, as well as, on the other hand, a statutory body like the training board, which has to control the funds—is an unnecessary duplication. If investigate the personnel of the two bodies we find that there is almost 80% duplication in the training committee and the training board. In other words, if it is proposed that the training committee of the Co-ordinating Council should take over the functions of the Training board, one could at least say that that duplication would be eliminated. However, we are dealing here with the sober fact that a tremendous amount of duplication, which we deem unnecessary, would be taking place. Moreover it is unnecessarily expensive, and would create additional bureaucratic machinery.

Another reason for our opposition to this is that it would empower the hon the Minister to impose levies arbitrarily on local authorities; to put it differently, it is really a form of additional taxation of the ordinary tax payer. The hon the Minister was saying that the Government had decided to deposit a quarter of a million Rand into this fund during the first year. This means that a quarter of a million Rand would have to be collected on a 50:50 basis from local authorities throughout the whole country. Next year this could be half a million to a million Rand. This is a problem the possible proportions of which we are unable to estimate. The hon the Minister might say that these limits would be defined by the need for training, and that the size of the fund would also be determined according to the requirements for training.

However we are opposed in principle to the hon the Minister having the right to impose levies on local authorities. This is our approach, and it is a matter of principle. We think it is wrong. We do not think the Minister should have that power at all. Other than that, there would be no control over how that fund would grow; in other words, what future demands are going to be made of local management, by means of these levies. In view of these circumstances I move the following amendment:

1. (1) its primary purpose is stated to be to provide for training with a view to the creation of racially separate local authorities;
2. (2) it creates unnecessary duplication and undesirable centralization; and
3. (3) it gives the Minister the right to impose levies on local Government bodies.”.

Mr Chairman, when one takes note of the multitude of duties a local authority has to perform as well as the multitude of services it has to provide—all of which have to be administered as well—one realizes that these services could only be provided by a thoroughly trained labour force. In a situation in which the demands of the public are increasing by the day, demands for more and better services, the demands made on the personnel are also increasing by the day. This of course requires a trained labour force.

It did not surprise me that the PFP is opposing this measure. This, of course, is due to the simple reason that the standpoint adopted by the PFP in regard to third-tier government, is one of one man, one vote. I should like to see whether there is any response from that party when I say this. This view was, in fact, expressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Provincial Council of the Cape on 6 August 1981, when this whole issue of how third-tier government should be composed, was being debated there. In reply to a question I had asked—my question was whether the system he suggested amounted to one man, one vote— the Leader of the Official Opposition replied that they did in fact supported such a system. He gave the following reply:

While we have repeatedly heard in this House that the PFP is not in favour of a system of one man, one vote, in regard to third-tier government we have an admission from the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Provincial Council of the Cape that this party is, in fact, in favour of a system of one man, one vote. That is why I am not surprised that the PFP is opposing this measure. It is as simple as that.

I think we could put it plainly that, with the population structure and distribution as we know it, there would only be a few local authorities, if any, in which any group other than the White group would be the dominant group.

When we go on to discuss the training of employees of local authorities, we must bear in mind that the present position of local authorities is such that it cannot satisfy the demand for trained labour forces. If it were indeed the aim of our policy to establish separate local authorities—and this is in fact our policy it would be irresponsible of us to create new local authorities while we do not have the labour force to man them. That is why the legislation under discussion is essential for the purpose of providing those labour force requirements.

But the Government’s policy goes even further. We advocate a policy of devolution of power. This then means that devolution has to be taken further, up to the third tier of government. This will naturally place greater responsibility on, and make greater demands of, the staff and the workers on the third tier of government who would have to cope with those greater responsibilities. Greater expertise is required and that is why it would be irresponsible of us to extend devolution to the level of local authorities which do not have the required labour force to deal with those powers which would be conferred upon them by devolution. And so training is essential and of the utmost importance.

Since we are talking about the way in which this should be done, I want to refer once again to the hon member Prof Olivier. I do not think we understand each other quite correctly. This is a co-ordinating council. The training which is going to take place will not necessarily be in a concentrated and centralized form. That would, in fact, be impossible because a major component of this training of workers at the third tier of government would essentially have to consist of in-service training. And so it would create a ridiculous situation if people were concentrated in one or two local authorities with a view to attempting to train them there. It would simply not work. What the hon the Minister is therefore trying to achieve, is simply to co-ordinate those training facilities, which are at the moment fragmented and uncoordinated, on a satisfactory basis throughout the country. This holds certain advantages for us, Mr Chairman.

The first advantage is that of greater effectiveness in training. Courses can be better planned. We can train people in a more specialized way. Furthermore, it would also present certain economic advantages, namely that the duplication of training could be eliminated, and that the staff who possess the expertise, and have to carry out that training, can be utilized more effectively. The condition is that we shall have to be able to co-ordinate properly. We must not regard training as something which is simply made available to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks; on the contrary, it also creates the opportunity for Whites to prepare for the more important task of third-tier government which awaits them.

I want to refer to clause 7 and clause 10 in which reference is made to the establishment of the fund, and I want to add that money spent on training is money well spent, for trained people make better managers. The fact that there would be better managers would in turn have a beneficial effect on the economy, for this could lead to increased productivity and other positive consequences for the taxpayer.

I want to refer next to clause 8 of this Bill. I am very grateful that provision is being made in this clause for the allocation of funds to local authorities which undertake in-service training. It is a fact that a very great responsibility will be placed on White local authorities in future to provide in-service training to people of colour in this country. The White local authorities will have to do this. They will have to be co-operative in this matter. In-service training costs money, however, and one can expect a measure of reluctance from the local authorities to employ people, particularly when they know that the people they are training will not be remaining in their service but will be going to another local authority. The only way in which they can be encouraged in this regard, is to reimburse them for the costs involved in the particular in-service training. And so I want to thank the hon the Minister that this clause has been included in the Bill.

I want to conclude by quoting what Aristotle said many centuries ago in connection with training, and I quote:

Let us give our people knowledge. Then the destiny of our country will be in safe hands.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow referred to the PFP in this House today and said that they championed a system of one man, one vote in the provincial council. However I want to say to that hon member that the party that brought him to this Parliament, that says that South Africa is one country and has one nation consisting of White, Brown and Indian, with one Parliament—this institution we have now—was constituted by his party on the basis of one man, one vote. I want to say to that hon member that it was constituted on a basis of one man, one vote, although on separate voters’ rolls. [Interjections.] In this way the NP brought 85 Coloureds and 45 Indians to this Parliament. On the basis of those voters’ rolls the hon Rev Hendrickse and the hon member Mr Rajbansi are sitting in the Cabinet today. Also on the basis of those separate voters’ rolls there is a multiracial standing committee consisting of 11 Whites, 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians which also had to consider this Bill. It was done on a basis of one man, one vote, and now I want to point out to that hon member who says that he came here on the basis of a separate voters’ roll that he can confirm the matter with the hon member for Randfontein, Dr Boy Geldenhuys, but according to the PFP’s policy of one man, one vote there will be fewer Coloureds in Parliament than in terms of the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] The PFP, through the hon member, Prof Olivier, reject this Bill on three grounds. They reject it, firstly, because the Bill supposedly contemplates the establishment of own local authorities. The hon member states that they are afraid to support own local authorities. I want to tell the hon member that the Coloureds and the Indians supported this Bill, and that is why they reached consensus, because the Coloureds and the Indians realize that the board which is to be established is a multiracial one that is to regulate this training. The Coloureds and the Indians were satisfied that this board which is to be established is a multiracial one and that they are obtaining a say in the training of the officials of local authorities in South Africa.

The second point on which I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier is his statement that no evidence was submitted indicating that the establishments providing training do not succeed in their purpose. I shall refer to that, too, in the course of my speech. As far as that is concerned I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier.

The Bill further vests in the Minister the right to impose levies on local authorities. Contributions to the fund will be on a 50:50 basis. I should very much like to know who is going to determine what that 50% will be contributed to. Will the board determine how much is necessary, after which the State will have to be content to deposit 50%, while the other part has to be levied, or will the Minister determine what amount is required for training and what amount must be contributed by local authorities, and therefore what amount the taxpayers themselves will have to contribute? The CP opposes this Bill in principle and I therefore move as a further amendment:

The path followed by this Bill is undoubtedly one of the finest examples of the capitulation of the NP, one of the finest examples of how that party changes its policy by the week, one of the finest examples of how that party, in its endeavour to achieve consensus with Coloureds and Indians, is making concessions. Before the new constitutional dispensation came into effect the CP said that if one wanted to obtain consensus on, say, a matter such as that covered by this Bill, the NP—the Government—would have to make concessions, in order to accommodate the demands of Coloureds and Indians.

The Coloured and Indian leaders who are Cabinet colleagues of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have publicly demanded that Black people also be involved in local authorities—that is to say, third-tier government. They made such a demand. They demanded that, and what was the result? The State President, the President of concessions, said in his opening speech to Parliament (Hansard: Assembly, 1985, col 7):

That’s it!

Then come the following important words:

The hon member for De Kuilen indicates that that is correct. I think that that hon member, who was a leader of the old United Party, will be happy about this matter. I think he will be satisfied, but strangely enough …

Daan will probably also be satisfied.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is again making jokes about my hon colleague, but this hon colleague of mine has been a Nationalist ever since he was entitled to vote, and he has remained so. He has stuck to the same course. He has not, like that hon member and the hon the Minister, changed his course and his policy.

In the CP of today there are outstanding former United Party supporters, the conservative former members of the United Party who still believe in separate development, whereas the NP is bidding separate development farewell and taking leave of it.

I repeat what the State President said:

Concessions have been made in response to the demand of Coloured and Indian leaders that Black people should also be included in regional services councils. [Interjections.] The PFP, too, can rejoice. When the Regional Services Councils Bill was discussed last year they asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee with the request that Black people be introduced in regional services councils. The PFP can rejoice; their demand, too, has been acceded to. This Bill is the first to embody these concessions.

When this Bill at present under discussion was submitted to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning in January, provision had only been made in the Bill for the training of staff of the local authorities of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The most important amendment effected by this standing committee comprising 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians to the Bill submitted to them was the introduction of Black local authorities as, per definition, a local government body for the training of whose staff provision is also made in this Bill. This is the most important amendment effected by this multiracial standing committee.

In clause 1(1)(x)(c) and (d) of the Bill, community councils established under the Community Councils Act. 1977, and a Black local authority as defined in the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, have been brought in by the standing committee as local government bodies the training of the personnel of which is now also being provided for in this Bill. The introduction of Black local authorities is the most important amendment effected by this multiracial standing committee. The most important amendment by this multiracial standing committee was accordingly also a concession to the Coloured, Indian and PFP members of the standing committee, by including Black local authorities in the ambit of the Bill.

Now I wish to ask the hon member for Sea Point whether it is correct that he is in favour of Blacks being included. I ask the hon member that.

It is an unnecessary question.

Yes, it goes without saying. It goes without saying that the NP has here acceded to the demands of the hon members of the PFP.

The State President announced the concession in his opening speech. The NP members of the standing committee, in consensus with Coloureds and Indians, extended these concessions to this Bill. Accordingly this is the first concrete expression of this concession made by the State President and the NP in regard to the participation of Black people. In principle, 10 million Black people are now being involved at the third level of government. This is a far-reaching decision relating to principle that has been incorporated in the Bill. This is particularly clear when one considers the new content of regional services councils which, by definition of this Bill, constitute a local government body the personnel training of which is also provided for in this Bill. This Bill makes provision in principle for the training of the personnel of own White, Coloured, Indian and Black local government bodies. As far as this is concerned—this is what the hon member Prof Olivier was afraid of—the CP is satisfied that provision is being made for own authorities. In clause 1(1)(iv)(e) of the Bill a regional services council is defined as a local government body, as a third-tier government.

When the Regional Services Councils Bill came before the last White Parliament last year and its Second Reading was discussed, these Regional Services Councils were to have consisted of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Regional services councils were presented in the Bill as being a very important facet of the Government’s implementation of the new constitutional dispensation. The hon the Minister referred to this again today. It was to have been a very important institution of third tier government. It was to be multiracial and in that body decisions could be taken concerning matters of common concern at the third level.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that he was afraid of the separate boards that had been introduced. However, provision is also made in this Bill for the training of a multiracial third level government body, viz a regional services council. It is a council on which approximately 10 million Black people obtain a say at the third level of government and are involved by way of the Bill. During the previous Parliament the Regional Services Councils Bill did not get further than the Second Reading. In a dictatorial and arrogant fashion, the Minister and the Government, with the sanction of the standing committee, incorporated regional services councils as a local government body. The hon the Minister is now writing.

Must I not attend to what you are saying?

I am pleased he is writing, because I should like him to give me an answer. Regional services councils are being incorporated in this Bill in a dictatorial fashion. However, there is no such thing as a regional services council in terms of an Act of Parliament. I now ask the hon the Minister the pertinent question: Do regional services councils exist in terms of an Act of Parliament? The hon the Minister has just interrupted me and I should now like to ask him, in all courtesy: Do regional services councils exist in terms of an Act of Parliament? Now that talkative Minister is silent as the grave. No such thing as a regional services council exists in terms of an Act of this Parliament. However, he incorporates it in this Bill, and that group of NP members parrot his words, ie that regional services councils are local government bodies. The hon the Minister and his party have so much contempt for Parliament that they are already incorporating regional services councils in this Bill as local government bodies. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Health Services and Welfare laughs about this. He and the deputy leader of the NP in the Cape are so contemptuous of Parliament that they incorporate regional services councils in the Bill when such bodies have not been declared local government bodies in terms of an Act of Parliament. However, I do not think that the hon the Deputy Minister knows what is going on. The State President has such contempt for Parliament that he announces that Black people will be involved in regional services councils before these councils are legalized by Parliament as third level government bodies. I take it that late in the session, when that Bill is submitted to Parliament as the hon the Minister envisages, NP members will parrot their acquiescence in such multiracial third level government…

Order! Is the hon member insinuating that hon members behave like parrots?

I say that they will parrot the hon the Minister’s statement that that is right.

I do not think the hon member can say that. He must withdraw it.

Then I withdraw it. The resistance of the hon imitators, the members of the NP, has crumbled as far as resisting multiracialism and integration is concerned. They have given up. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member for Ladybrand who is making such a noise, that they lack resistance to enable them to adopt a standpoint opposed to integration. By means of their local authorities, ten million Blacks are obtaining a say in community councils at the third level of government. By recognizing regional services councils as local government bodies in this Bill, approval is by implication being granted to the principle that Whites, Coloureds and Indians should acquire joint third-tier government giving a say to three and a half million Whites, two and a half million Coloureds, one million Asiatics and ten million Blacks. The fact that regional services councils are being incorporated in the Bill and that their officials must be trained, grants approval by implication to three and a half million Whites, two and a half million Coloureds, one million Asiatics and ten million Blacks obtaining a say at the third-tier of government. These regional services councils will have to ensure large-scale water supply, large-scale electricity supply, health services and many other services. The Bill, which intimately affects every person in the employ of a local authority, is the result of a multiracial committee of investigation under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives. This Bill provides for the establishment of a multiracial training board for local government bodies. Training of personnel is being made subject to the decisions and actions of this multiracial training board. Over the years the CP has always rejected the principle of power-sharing and multiracialism and we therefore find this principle totally unacceptable. The CP has no fault to find with the definition of training as defined in the Bill. The CP is in favour of people being well trained and well qualified for every task they have to perform, and that goes for the local government level as well. The CP states that it is essential that White officials be very well trained in order to render the very best service to the White local authorities, and that Coloured officials in the employ of Coloured local authorities must be very well trained to render service in their own Coloured local authorities. Indian officials of Indian local authorities, too, must be well trained for the task they must perform in the interests of their own people. The CP believes that local authorities must be dealt with as the own affairs of Whites, Coloureds and Indians respectively. The training of staff for the respective local authorities must be regarded as an own affair.

On page 5 of the Curry report the following appears:

For every important post or office in local authorities there is today a degree or diploma course offered at the various universities, technikons and technical colleges. The city engineer has the opportunity to qualify as an engineer at almost all the universities, in whatever direction. For the city treasurer there is an opportunity to study at a university and obtain a degree. The officer of health or health inspector can qualify at a technical college. For the town planner there are courses at universities and technikons. I want to make the request today that in cases where own universities or technikons do not offer such courses, they be introduced without delay. I want to make an appeal today to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to offer these courses at own universities. It is essential that training courses in every essential post in Coloured local authorities be established at the University of the Western Cape and at the various technikons and technical colleges for Coloureds. That is important. It is equally essential that provision be made at universities, technikons and technical colleges for Indians for the training of officials for Indian government bodies.

The new constitutional dispensation provides for an own Minister of Local Government for each of the three houses. It seems to me as if the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, by way of this Bill, wants to deprive the own Ministers of Local Government of even the small amount of work allocated to them in terms of the new constitutional dispensation. It is quite clear that this legislation renders the portfolios of this own Minister, irrelevant. The CP states that if such a thing as self-determination for the various groups still remains, this Bill ought to be withdrawn and the motion of the CP that the Bill be read this day six months, be adopted. The training of officials of local authorities ought then to be placed under the jurisdiction of the relevant Ministers of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Then we should have self-determination at the level of local government. By way of this legislation self-determination is being withdrawn and placed under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

In terms of this measure the Ministers to whom local authorities are entrusted have no say in the training of officials for local authorities. It is true that their officials have a seat on the board, but those Ministers do not have a seat anywhere. As far as I can see they do not have a say in any respect except through the officials, as far as this legislation is concerned. This assails the right of self-determination of the three groups represented in this Parliament.

The CP cannot support this Bill. We reject it in principle and that is why we move that it be read this day six months.

Mr Chairman, the House will now be able to judge for itself in consequence of the points of view adopted by the two main speakers of two Opposition Parties. The hon member Prof Olivier objects to the Bill because it provides for the possibility of separate local government institutions. The hon member for Kuruman objects to the Bill because it provides for the possibility of joint local government institutions.

Which one have you decided on?

I should like to know which of the two is right.

You tell us.

The fact is—this is for the information of the hon member for Rissik—that this Bill makes no provision whatsoever for separate local authorities or for joint authorities. This Bill provides for two things: It provides for the establishment of a fund and it provides for the establishment of a board. Those are the basic things provided for in the Bill. That fund and the board are being established to provide training for local government officials.

Before I get to the actual contents of the Bill, I should like, as chairman of the standing committee which worked on the preparation of this Bill, to comment on a few aspects. In the first instance I should like to express my appreciation to all 23 members of the standing committee. The activities in the standing committee, which extended over quite a number of sittings, clearly indicated the value of the possibility of informal discussion in committee. We listened to a considerable number of points of view there. We also heard political standpoints such as those expressed by the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Kuruman. They and other members put forward political standpoints. It was obvious that objections against this Bill were not directed at the contents but at the politics they respectively read into it, each according to his own need or political leaning. That is why it is so valuable for members to be able to participate in informal discussions in a standing committee to thrash these matters out and deal with them in depth.

At one stage it was possible to obtain the support of the representatives of the Opposition in one of the components of the standing committee while those members comprised the majority of that component at that time. Those representatives had indicated previously that they would oppose this Bill. As we were able to participate in informal discussions, however, it was possible to reach a settlement when it was pointed out that not the politics but the contents of this Bill were relevant here, namely to provide for the establishment of training facilities where the need for them existed.

When we get to the need for training, it is clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the need for training of separate local authorities or for joint local authorities. From 1973 to 1975, when there was no suggestion whatsoever of the further facilities envisaged here, the then United Municipal Executive said an urgent need for training existed. They instructed the Institute of Town Clerks to make recommendations. At the request of the United Municipal Executive the Institute of Town Clerks then went into the matter and they said at that time— 1973 to 1975—there was an urgent need for co-ordinated training.

When we get to the need for co-ordinated training, we are forced to accept that the existence of local government institutions on a separate basis is a fact which cannot be argued away. In addition we have to accept that there is a need for proper training. If the councils were amalgamated—as the hon member Prof Olivier said he would like them to be—a need for training would nevertheless remain. There would also be a need for co-ordinated training, however, so the objection he raised was merely the exhibition of a political standpoint. He is trying to make the newspapers; he wishes to imply that he raised objections here on principle against a matter which is not involved in this Bill at all.

Oh no, that is ridiculous.

It is obvious that motivation of his objection is chiefly political and that it was not prompted by the contents of this Bill.

I repeat, the need for training exists. In addition, it is clearly stated in the report of the Browne Committee which went into the needs of local authorities. In the Browne Report it is very clearly stated that there is a need for co-ordinated training. A number of years ago the President’s Council identified this matter—co-ordinated training—as an urgent need. There are existing local authorities which do have training programmes. I know, for example, that there are reasonably good training facilities in Durban. Durban has therefore done its duty in respect of the training of local government officials. None the less the question arises: If a need exists among neighbouring local government institutions—I am thinking of smaller local authorities, White local authorities and also local authorities for Indians and others of colour—Durban has the facilities to provide the training. Quite rightly, however, they have put the question: Who is to pay for it?

If a training course has to be held for a few individuals on a purely ad hoc basis, it is obvious that those training facilities will be more expensive than when furnished on a co-ordinated basis and on a broader level. That is why the co-ordinated training possibilities established by this Bill are advantageous: They are more cost-effective and they save, for example, the municipality of Durban the trouble of running these courses on a smaller scale. Clause 8 of this Bill provides for the implementation of co-ordination which may take place by way of grants-in-aid, donations or loans to any person, institution, association or body, including a local government body, which provides training or will provide training. That means that allowances may be paid to technikons, to Unisa and other universities and also to the Durban municipality which offers such a course. They may be paid allowances to broaden the scope of the training facilities they make available to people requiring that training.

Clause 8 provides that bursaries, bursary loans and financial contributions may be allocated to persons who have to undergo training. In other words, provision is made here for a properly co-ordinated financing of the training.

The establishment of the Training Board comprising 16 members is not unnecessary duplication or bureaucracy. The purpose is to have a smaller board which, on the one hand, will be representative of the Public Service, namely of the departments directly involved in the training of local government officials. In terms of the Bill eight representatives may be designated who hold office in the Public Service and who are specifically involved in this training. On the other hand there will also be eight representatives of local government institutions. Provision is also made for possible representation of all local government institutions on the Training Board.

In the standing committee provision was made to extend the number of representatives of local government institutions from seven to eight to effect parity between the representatives of officialdom and those of the local authorities.

The Bill also provides that at least half of the representatives of local government institutions should approve or support a recommendation in respect of certain aspects to be submitted to the Minister. Adequate precautions have therefore been taken against local authorities merely being dominated by Government officials on this board. Provision has been made for fair involvement of the representatives of local government institutions and it is therefore an improvement on the previous position in all respects.

The hon the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech that at present there are in excess of 500 White local authorities and a considerable number of these represent areas of fewer than 5 000 residents. There are therefore quite a number of smaller local authorities and it often happens that these authorities—White local authorities included—employ people who are not properly trained and do not have the background knowledge of all the legal implications involved in this work. This Bill now provides for the financing and co-ordination of training of local government officials. A great need is therefore being fulfilled.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question please? [Interjections.]

I regret I am not prepared to reply to questions now.

Here come the parrots.

Order! I have ruled the word “parrots” to be impermissible, therefore the hon member for Kuruman must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

In the standing committee it was possible for us to call further evidence in the person of Minister Curry, the chairman of the Co-ordinating Council, who made recommendations giving rise to the introduction of this Bill. We were also able to make use of the expert advice of Mr Olaus van Zyl, the then president of the Transvaal Municipal Association who contributed considerably to the formulation of certain aspects of the Bill. We could therefore call upon knowledgeable people in the field of the training of local government officials to furnish us with good advice in the informal discussion. Another need for which there has also been provided is the furnishing of guidance to members of local government bodies. It happens not only in the case of smaller local authorities but also larger ones, especially where politics play a greater role than usual, that persons make themselves available for election to local government bodies without possessing the complete background information required of representatives in local government. In this Bill, with the fund which is now being established, provision is made for elected representatives also to be offered the opportunity of receiving guidance.

The term we originally used in the Bill was the possible “orientation” of representatives but there were objections to the word “orientation”. Certain people said it could possibly be regarded as indoctrination. This was not the crux of the matter, however. The crux of the matter was the provision of basic information to elected representatives to enable them to carry out their work as elected representatives effectively according to the regulations and by-laws of local authorities. In this way they would be better prepared.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that provision had been made in the Bill for the better and more cost-effective application of funds and the idea is that local authorities will subsequently be in a better position to provide good services on a more cost-effective basis. We hope that this need will be fulfilled and that it will lead to improved representation at local government level. By this I intend no criticism of the representation at local government level up to the present, but the hon member for Umbilo will know how often it has already been necessary for the Natal Provincial Administration to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into certain practices in local authorities, even in larger White local authorities.

We hope that the passing of this Bill will place both the representatives and personnel of local authorities in a better position to carry out their duties responsibly.

Mr Chairman, I listened with keen interest to the impassioned speech of the hon member for Klip River in support of this Bill, and in spite of my great regard and affection for him, I am sorry but I am afraid I cannot support him.

The object of this Bill is in my view quite obviously to provide staff for a proliferation of local authorities anticipated to come into being shortly. If we are going to have this anticipated proliferation of local authorities, I would suggest that a training system of some sort is going to be necessary. I feel, however, that one has to look a little deeper into this than merely to accept that which has been handed to us on a little plate. This Bill has been couched in non-racial terms, which I think was deliberately done, and is desirous. I believe it has been couched in non-racial terms to avoid being seen as a discriminatory Bill. However, I would say this: I do not believe that the existing White local authorities have ever really seriously needed a co-ordinated national training system. I think there are 537 White local authorities, who have their certain little problems from time to time. There are differences between the provinces because the ordinances in the various provinces differ from one another to some degree. However, generally, local government has been able to accommodate its needs so far as staff is concerned without having a co-ordinated central training scheme. On two occasions I have found it necessary to undertake trips to different parts of the world to study systems of local government. It seems strange to me that we should need this training system but that they do not appear to need it anywhere else. I do not know of any other country that has a national co-ordinated local government training scheme and I have studied local government in America. Canada, Britain, France, and a few other countries as well.

What about Mongolia?

I have not been to Outer Mongolia. That may be where the hon member should be going. [Interjections.]

However, I do not believe that we need it for White local authorities. Therefore, the intention is clearly for the proliferation of Black local authorities. As I stated earlier, I believe that the theory may be reasonable and sound, but I do not believe that there will be this proliferation of local authorities that we are talking about. I think it will happen as far as Black local authorities are concerned; they are being created in the existing areas. They will be evolved from the Black administration boards. Therefore there will be Black local authorities coming into existence in fairly large numbers.

However, if one envisages a large number of Coloured and Indian local authorities coming into existence, the situation is quite different. What may have worked in 1978 when the Coloured and Indian people had virtually no political representation, will not work in 1985 when they have members sitting in this very Parliament with exactly the same status as ourselves. They can see perfectly well that they only have to play their cards right and wait. With the direction things are going, they are going to be part of the existing local authorities as a result of this constitutional programme. Does the hon the Minister really believe that, to use Durban as an example for the moment, Phoenix is going to accept excision from Durban to be made a separate local authority? Does he honestly believe that Chatsworth is going to do it? With all the—I will not call it bribery and corruption—that we tried to impose upon them way back in 1978, we had very great difficulty in persuading them of the desirability of doing this. However, they accepted it eventually. They did not have members of Parliament at that stage, however. They had very few privileges, or rights even, as local affairs committee or management committee members at that stage.

However, their situation has changed dramatically. Why should they therefore accept excision? I do not believe that the hon the Minister is going to persuade these people to accept the situation willingly. This is another part of a piecemeal situation that I find very difficult to follow, because we have to create the local authorities for this to be of use. We do not genuinely have any idea of how these local authorities are really going to be funded. We know that some peculiar ideas have been put forward. We know that the new taxes for business people are going to be part of it. I do not think it is going to be sufficient for the system which the hon the Minister has in mind. As I say, however, the situation in 1978 for a proliferation of Indian and Coloured local authorities may have been in order. I do not believe, however, it is going to work now, and this, I think, is a problem that the hon the Minister is going to have to face. How is he, in a city like Durban for example, going to solve the situation of the Coloured people having a Coloured local authority in that city? How is he going to cope with that problem? We have Wentworth over on one side, and Spark’s Estate just behind the Berea, and then there is also Greenwood Park, as well as three or four other areas.

I know that, in terms of proposals the hon the Minister has received, non-contiguous parts can become a local authority. This was a very advanced piece of thinking on the part of the hon the Minister some time ago. However, we already had that very same system in operation in Natal about 20 years earlier. This I am only mentioning in passing, however. How is the hon the Minister going to bring about a viable local authority in that way? He cannot do it. We looked at it. We tried jolly hard to obtain a practical proposition in this regard, and it simply would not work.

Sir, I believe that the necessity for this large number of people to be trained in various categories is suspect right from the beginning. I am not dealing now with the political side of the picture. Other hon members have jumped in on the political side. I am dealing purely with the Bill, with the practicality of it, and I am doing so in terms of the little experience I have had in this field in order to see whether it is in fact a practicable proposition. I do not believe it is going to work.

I say it will not work because the new local authorities will not come into being. The hon the Minister has said time and time again that there will be no compulsion to accept excision from the existing local authorities. He has stated this time and time again, and I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would concede that that is indeed so. He has stated there will be no compulsion in this matter. As I said earlier, there has been a change in the political situation, with Indians and Coloureds now also being members of Parliament.

The third point that has to be borne in mind is a very important one. That is that this proliferation of local authorities is going to increase the costs of running local government enormously. Not only are we going to have a large number of individual local authorities who are going to want their whole range of officials but we are also going to have a metropolitan authority of some sort, as well as some regional authorities etc.

And we are bankrupt already!

Yes, and this is going to increase the costs of running local government enormously. Furthermore, even if the hon the Minister were to be successful in creating all these separate local authorities—Coloured, Indian, Black and White— it would. I believe, to a very large extent defeat the hon the Minister’s primary objective, ie to please our lords and masters in the USA, because they would see this for exactly what it is—an extension of apartheid. This is indeed the situation.

I do realize of course that the hon members of the CP should indeed, for that very reason, be supporting this measure. We do not believe, however, that we can afford to do that at this stage in our history. I feel that the need for this Bill is suspect right from the very beginning because I do not believe we are going to get the masses of people for training and need those masses of people. I do not believe we are going to get voluntary local authorities coming into being, except for, as I have said, Black local authorities. I mention that, however, as a separate entity because I believe that when it comes to training schemes for Black local authorities we need an entirely different set-up from that which we would require in the case of Whites. Coloureds and Indians.

I also believe that in these Black local authorities, we are going to have to take into account to a large degree tribal customs and the way Black people would prefer to do things, which may not necessarily be the same as other people’s ways of doing things. A co-ordinated scheme will in my opinion be self-defeating in this regard. Therefore, I reiterate that the Whites do not need it, the Coloured and Indian people to a very large extent will not have the need to use it because they are not going to go for separate local authorities, and internationally it will be accepted as an anachronism and an extension of apartheid.

I should now like to get to the Bill which is before us. In all sincerity I must say that so far as I am concerned it is rubbish from beginning to end. I know those are hard words but to me that is what this Bill is. It indicates a lack of practical experience on the part of somebody who has produced this.

It was the co-ordinating council.

I do not care who it is. They are lacking in practical experience, as well as in the day-to-day running of local authorities and an appreciation of what the public purse can bear.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member is correct in saying what he has just said, will he not say that if 60 members of that co-ordinating council recommended this legislation, they need some training?

Mr Chairman, there is an old saying that 60 million Frenchmen cannot be wrong, but it was found that they were wrong when they lost the First and Second World Wars. The problem is that if 60, 600 or 6 000 people say a thing is right, it is not necessarily so. That is the point. I have sat in at meetings with this hon Minister and I must confess that he is a very persuasive man to have as a chairman. He is very persuasive, and if anybody disagrees with him he lets them say their piece—give him the credit there—but in the end he still insists that they do what he wants. I can talk from experience because I have sat on committees with that hon Minister and therefore I can say that those 60 committee members were probably influenced by him.

However, assuming that it is necessary to have a properly co-ordinated scheme for the training of local authority personnel, then I can hardly think of a worse, more wasteful or impractical way of doing it than is proposed in this Bill. It really is impractical and wasteful. Frankly, I do not concede that it is necessary for a centralized or co-ordinated training system to come into being. In fact, I believe that such a scheme would be a bad thing, as it would be almost impossible to build into it the flexibility which is necessary in local government in different parts of the country, particularly in a heterogenous society such as we have here in South Africa.

It seems to me that this proposal requires a board, and a committee on a national basis. That is what is proposed in this Bill. Apart from these committees, it also requires regional committees. According to the schematic diagram that I have here, regional committees will represent the four provinces. However, as I understand the proposals of the hon the Minister, there will in fact be eight regions—three in the Transvaal, three in the Cape Province, one in the OFS and one in Natal. The system may thus start off with four regional committees but to be logical, if we are going to have eight regions there will ultimately have to be eight regional authorities and therefore eight regional training committees. Each of these will have subcommittees and, again according to this schematic diagram, while there are only four regions, there are at this stage 14 proposed subcommittees. So, the Lord alone knows how many there will be ultimately. Judging from what I can count on my schematic plan—it is a little difficult to assess what is a committee, what is a board and what are the specific functions—there will be throughout South Africa at least 20 odd boards or committees in relation to the training of local government personnel. This to me does seem to be excessive, to put it mildly. When one has all these committees and boards, I think the hon the Minister will go down in history as the man who has created the most and biggest boards and committees in history. I think his ambition is that every South African must be a member of a board. [Interjections.] He has travelled quite some way towards achieving that ambition.

The boarding hon the Minister.

Yes. I really do think that the hon the Minister has some ambition in that direction. Nonetheless I think that this will make him greatly remembered.

Each of these committees is going to require remuneration of some sort or another. This is going to cost money. They are also going to require some sort of staff. They are going to require premises. They are also going to require a general budget. Everywhere I go, when I look around, when I read the papers, when I listen to the hon the Minister, and when I am told that we are going to have a cut in our parliamentary salaries, I realize that we are so broke, that we are in such a parlous situation that we cannot afford the basics, and yet we are creating this monster of a scheme.

What is it all for? One has these committees, and I say these are just a start; anybody who knows how this sort of thing works, has heard of the gentleman by the name of Northcote Parkinson. It starts off as this relatively modest structure with only about 20 odd committees. With say an average of 15 members on each there will be only about 300 people on those committees, but in no time flat, staff, additional committees, and what have you will be created and one will not see the end of it.

What is this massive structure intended to do? Remember that the hon the Minister spoke about 537 existing White local authorities. He gave an indication of 30 odd Black local authorities and more coming into being. There will possibly also be a few more Coloured and Indian local authorities. What is this massive structure for? It is to train people for local government, something which is largely being done already.

Fortunately, we have a list of the type of people who are to be trained. I am really quite amused at this. This is what the training scheme is for: Artisans, electricians, motor mechanics, craftsmen, labourers—brother, that is something!—functional personnel, health inspectors, drivers and operators, library personnel, horticulturists, pipe layers—there is something special about laying pipes in municipalities; one does it especially slowly there—concrete workers, tar-patchers, apprentices in various trades, firemen, traffic officers, ambulance personnel, security personnel, technicians and handymen and of course town clerks.

What about the tea-makers? One has to have one’s tea on the job.

Yes, indeed.

In addition to that they are proposing, I suppose, that people should be trained to do the engineering works of a municipality. There are also financial and health matters which will require trained people. All of these people in the upper echelons of local government are trained professional people through the universities. They do not need training in their jobs; they need orientation which is a different thing altogether.

Similarly some of the occupations I have read out are trades for which we have artisans. A mechanic is a mechanic whether he is a municipal mechanic or working in any other workshop. A bricklayer is the same in the one as in the other. What sort of training are we therefore talking about? Is one teaching them how to fry sausages on a shovel? Is that part of the special municipal training? I do not know. I have been involved in local government for 25 years and I still cannot understand what we are talking about in regard to special training for these people.

I can see that in the town clerk’s department certain specialized training may be required, but does one have to set up a scheme like this for town clerks only? Incidentally, they also have an institute of town clerks.

As I see it, this Bill is absolute nonsense. I know that the hon the Minister is going to ram it through this House and ram it down our throats; I have no illusions about that. I want it put on record that we—certainly in this party and it seems in the other opposition parties as well—look upon this as a most nonsensical sort of Bill.

In respect of the training we were talking about, I would like to mention that there are a limited number of occupations that do require training. That is in the town clerk’s department, certain aspects of treasury work etc. However, most of the occupations that require specialized training already have facilities. I refer specifically to health inspectors, firemen, traffic officers, etc. There are specific training facilities for these people. At least I assume that the NP controlled provinces are not more backward in this respect than the NRP controlled province of Natal. In Natal we have certainly had training schemes for these people for many, many years.

We come now to the question of the raising of the money. I am sorry to see that I am running out of time. For this peculiar training scheme—I can again only refer to it as peculiar—local authorities are to be levied at the Minister’s discretion. This is what it will really amount to. The businessmen are furthermore also going to be hammered for this particular money. I quote from the hon the Minister’s explanatory memorandum, where it says at the end of paragraph 3:

Remember that this is the taking of money from the businessmen on turnover tax and on staff levies. This may of course not be passed on to the customers. Yesterday I heard on radio and television that the businessman is going to have this taken away from him and he is not allowed to recover it from his customers. I cannot remember the name of the official who made this statement to the SABC, but it was said on the SABC yesterday. I was really quite surprised to hear it. The Government is of course going to make a contribution as well.

I believe that this scheme has really been dreamt up by somebody with probably good intentions—I cannot say anything worse than that—but also with delusions of grandeur, to say the least of it. He is trying to create a really big empire of people who will be responsible to him. [Interjections.] As far as I can see the public cannot afford this kind of scheme. This is only one of dozens of these grandiose schemes that the gentlemen on that side of the House continue to impose on the public of South Africa. We are broke. We are in a desperate financial position. These crackpot schemes cost a fortune and we cannot afford them.

Finally, to be a little on the constructive side instead of destructive, if we wish to have a training programme—and I suggest there is some merit in it so far as officials are concerned—we should make money available to the provincial or regional authorities and these bodies should be brought into being as and when they are needed. It does not matter about it being coordinated throughout the whole country. It is an obsession with hon gentlemen on the other side that everything has to be coordinated, uniform etc. This Teutonic approach does not satisfy the needs of this level of government. Incidentally, so far as the impertinence implied here is concerned of having a training scheme for councillors—it can only of course apply to the non-Whites—I want to say that I believe that all that is necessary is to create a code of principles and municipal practice which is given to every person who goes into local government as a councillor.

Mr Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the hon member for Umbilo but, after listening to his speech this afternoon, I know one of the reasons why that party’s numbers have declined by 37,5% in this House over the past few months. The hon member said that he had amassed 25 years’ knowledge but I should like to say to him that, when the Training Board is established, he is one of the very first people who should enrol for a little training. With all the knowledge at his disposal he was unable to influence even the largest local government bodies in Natal. A city like Durban, for example, is controlled by the PFP. He could not accomplish this with all the knowledge he had acquired in Natal. I should like to express my disapproval of the hon member for Umbilo for using this debate to make a personal attack on the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the officials who assist him in that department.

Local government has a very important role to play in our country and if the hon member tells me today that White local government does not want a training board or co-ordinated training and that the same applies to Indians, Coloureds and Blacks, it is a gross untruth. Sixty people with expertise as regards local government identified this need as a necessity, but the hon member has come here to get rid of a great deal of hot air about it. I resent his doing this.

This afternoon the PFP and the CP both took a stand on this. The PFP is of the opinion that we wish to establish separate local government bodies for each group and objects to that as a matter of principle. The CP, again, is convinced we are combining all colours in one institution. I wish to indicate briefly the course followed by the NP over the years when the CP was still sitting on this side of the House. I can recall the early fifties when I was elected a young member of Parliament. At the time I was the chairman of the then Location Advisory Board in which we sat round one table with those people. There were the Coloured management committees and the …

Order! Too much simultaneous debating is taking place at the moment.

The Government trained those communities to be able to accept responsibility for their own local governments. I welcome the measure before the House this afternoon.

I should like to lay just one thought before hon members as regards the designation of local government in our country. If one looks at the Constitution of 1910, one sees reference to “municipal councils” and section 93 refers to “local authority”. Section 84(f)(1) of the Constitution of the RSA, Act 32 of 1961, refers to “municipal institutions”, while section 92 refers to “local authority”. The constitution of the RSA, Act 110 of 1983, refers to “local government” in Schedule 1(6). Documents circulated in reference to the measure before the House refer to “local government bodies” and also “local government institutions”. I find the names unsuited to an elected council which in fact fulfils a governing function. It is my humble opinion that a city council does not manage but that it governs. I think that “plaaslike regering” would be a better name, as in the case of the English term “local government”. The name “management committee” under a local management system should be changed to “executive committee”. Executive power is also delegated to that committee.

The people who administer the activities of a city council are officials. The measure before the House arises from an investigation into a recommendation of a committee of the Co-ordinating Council. As the hon the Minister, in another Second Reading debate to be continued later, himself also referred to the work accomplished by the Co-ordinating Council in a period of 11 months, I should like to make use of this opportunity to express my exceptional appreciation to every member of that council.

The measure before the House is also historical. If I am correct, it is the first time that the recommendation of a committee under the chairmanship of a Minister of colour has been placed before this House. This is proof to me that the system we are implementing works in spite of allegations made by our hon friends of the CP, the PFP and the NRP. If these hon members are not prepared to help us in this country, I just want to ask them not to obstruct us. That is all I ask of the parties. I think it is the first time in the history of our country that we have come with a measure such as this under which a co-ordinated examination will be made of the training of local government officials. Provision will also be made for councillors to receive the necessary guidance.

In the light of the process of constitutional development, greater responsibility will be transferred to local government. This can happen only when one has people with the necessary expertise at their disposal. In view of the increase in urbanization, increasing demands will be made not only of city councils but also of officials. Surveys have shown and according to a forecast for the year 2000 95% of the White, 91% of the Coloured, 93% of the Asian and 75% of the Black population will be living in cities and towns. These people will find themselves in cities and towns because that is where they will have to live to obtain job opportunities. I do not want us in this House to refer lightly to the training of personnel. Over the past months we have amended various Acts to transfer responsibility to Black, Coloured and Asian local authorities. We also have a responsibility towards those people, however, in training personnel.

Two principles are involved in this measure. The one is the establishment of a training board and the other is making funds available for that purpose. Serious objections have been raised here this afternoon against the fact that the Minister will now have the right to impose levies on local government bodies to obtain their contributions. I wish to say that every employer in South Africa will have to note very carefully that he has a responsibility to train personnel. He cannot merely go to the market-place to purchase his labour if he is not prepared to furnish his input as well. In this way local government will continue in a co-ordinated manner on behalf of our people in our towns and cities—regardless of what the Opposition Parties in this House say.

The composition of the Training Board as well as of the National Co-ordinating Training Committee, as it will be known, represents the Government and local government of all groups in this country. Then it will not be necessary for the hon member for Umbilo to act here as the mouthpiece of the Indians of Natal. They have their own Minister of Local Government. I should like to say that, as I know the Minister of Local Government of the House of Delegates to be, with his knowledge of local government in South Africa, he will resent it bitterly if the hon member for Umbilo attempts not only on behalf of himself but also on behalf of his party to act as the spokesman in Parliament for those people.

The most knowledgeable people in our country have been involved in one board and one committee to deal with a serious problem we have to cope with, namely training. A shortage of properly trained municipal officials has contributed to serious irregularities. I speak from personal experience in the past. City councils sometimes competed in the labour market in an irresponsible way and in many cases the taxpayers had to pay the price. Some city councils trained personnel on an ad hoc basis. This afternoon I should like to express my exceptional appreciation to those city councils which do, in fact, undertake training. The hon member Prof Olivier omitted this afternoon to give the House an indication of the percentage of the large number of local government bodies in South Africa which really make an effort to train personnel. I should like to express my exceptional appreciation to city councils which do make such an effort. I call upon the councils to work together very closely. Considering the large numbers of people living in our country and the important function local government in South Africa has to fulfil to ensure that communities will live as neighbours in peace and harmony, I wish to call upon every member of every local government body in South Africa this afternoon to work together very closely to make it possible not only for our people to live in our cities and towns in peace and harmony, but to live there at all. I wish to say that the success we achieve with the new dispensation will depend on that. We know that today there are huge numbers of people in our cities and towns who are experiencing great hardship and that some of them are taxed to such an extent by some local government bodies that they have to sacrifice their properties. If this measure can contribute to training people to assist those in local government bodies and city councils, it is to be welcomed. The people elected to local government bodies or city councils are, with respect, not always people who have the necessary expertise at their disposal. When such people are elected or re-elected, they lean heavily on the officialdom of the local government bodies. My sincere appreciation to local government officials in South Africa for that as well. The hon the Minister has my best wishes for the way in which he is proceeding to bring about constitutional development in this country. I wish him and also the personnel of that department every success. Those officials work long hours in spite of criticism of them expressed on all sides.

Mr Chairman, if today’s debate was a private member’s motion on whether or not it was desirable to have more trained municipal officials, I think this House would be unanimous in its decision. We have no problems in deciding whether there should be more trained municipal officials. However, that is not what the Bill is all about. The Bill provides for a particular procedure for training these people in order to achieve a particular political objective. That is what the Bill is about; and it is in that context that we must see it.

The hon member for Klip River seems to draw a distinction between NP politics and other politics. When the NP does things for political reasons, it is as pure as the driven snow. However, when other political parties oppose something because they see in it the NP’s political motive, their opposition is regarded as a mean, dirty, political trick.

I think it correct that, in terms of local government today—the hon the Minister knows this, and I think he is sensitive about it—we are moving into an extremely sensitive era in which we have to try to get political structures off the ground. In doing so, we will have to consider not only the need for trained personnel but also the political environment in which we are trying to get these structures off the ground. We saw this in respect of Black local authorities. We had all the goodwill in the world, but because of some indiscreet statements and because the cart was put before the horse in respect of financing, we experienced difficulty in getting Black local authorities off the ground. It is not so much a question of the lack of trained personnel as the political environment surrounding them. In exactly the same way Government policy towards Coloured, Indian and White local authorities—laws have been passed in terms of which these authorities have to be separate, even though they do not want to be separate—leads to the creation of a political environment in which it will be even more difficult to get these structures off the ground.

The argument that this Bill, or any other measure, provides for the training of people for local government, is therefore a mother-love statement. Rather, we should ask: Is this the appropriate kind of measure? Is this the appropriate machinery? Is it desirable that this particular machinery should be introduced to achieve this purpose?

We have a number of objections in principle. These were stated very eloquently by the hon member Prof Olivier and they were also stated—perhaps less eloquently but even more forcefully—by the hon member for Umbilo. Though they both regarded this matter from their own perspectives, their two speeches should be read as one. To us, the concept of local government is tremendously important. It involves two things, as anyone will recognize if he believes in local government as local government and not just as an agency of “big brother”.

First of all, there must be decentralization of authority. However, when I look at this Bill, I see in it the converse of decentralization of authority. It is the centralization of authority for training municipal personnel in the hon the Minister and in the training board. Even in respect of the existing training facilities the board has the right to superimpose a national grid, a national attitude and national norms on the training of local government personnel. So while local government, philosophically speaking, involves the decentralization of authority, in respect of training, this Bill involves direct centralization of the whole training process.

Secondly, if local government is to have any value in South Africa, I believe it has to reflect the diversity of communities—whatever the basis of that diversity may be. The diversity should be reflected, as it is in South Africa even among Whites. There is a diversity in the character of the respective local governments, for instance, between Natal and the Orange Free State, between the Cape and the Transvaal. This is healthy because if local government is to contribute to a solution of the problems of South Africa, it must actually reflect the diversity of South Africa within the unity of the South African community. Once again this Bill takes away the concept of diversity from the training aspect. One of the cardinal points emphasized is that there must be a single standard pattern of training. There must be national norms. There must be national decisions taken by a board which has to impose its will on local government throughout South Africa when it comes to the training of local government personnel.

Apart from other aspects of politics, to the extent that this cuts right across the two fundamental philosophies of local government, of the decentralization of power and the expression of a natural diversity of communities, this Bill in fact centralizes power. Furthermore, it imposes a uniformity right throughout South Africa when it comes to the training and the norms that must apply for local government personnel. We just do not want to see local government in South Africa emerging from a kind of sausage machine. We do not want to see regional or local government being a carbon copy, or should I say a photostat of what is going on in the hon the Minister’s mind. That is not what local government should be. It should reflect the rich diversity of that which is South African.

One has only to look at the explanatory memorandum and read what is said about the training board. It may, inter alia, take “binding resolutions” in regard to training at national level, moreover:

We read further that:

The whole concept is therefore a countrywide, singular statement of norms that have to be superimposed on local authorities as a whole.

The hon the Minister hinges much of his argument on the recommendations which came from the committee under the chairmanship of Minister Curry and which sat as part of an advisory committee to the co-ordinating council during 1983 and 1984. We read those recommendations very carefully. First of all, after discussion both in committee and with members of the board, that report was made within the context of Government policy; in other words, it was not a committee which was told: You have a free hand to determine what kind of training there should be for local government officials. The committee was told: Given the parameters of Government policy, how would you put it into effect? That certainly is not an objective analysis of what should be the correct system. This is merely putting flesh on the system which the hon the Minister has already prescribed for them.

If there is a shortage of local government officials in South Africa today—and let us accept that there is—then I would say that one of the most lunatic things to do is to create an artificial proliferation of local government bodies. Yet that is what lies at the root of the introduction of this Bill.

While I think the hon the Minister has learnt from what has been taking place in the past month or so and is now playing down the question of the apartheid which is going to be imposed in local government, that is not how he started his introduction to the Bill when it originally came to this House. We read in the memorandum that accompanied the Bill at the time—

Is that not also part of the diversity of South Africa that the hon member thinks should be reflected?

Is the hon the Minister trying to say—against the will of local communities—that this is the pattern of NP thinking? He is saying: Whether you like it or not, there cannot be local governments that spread across the colour line; they all have to be put in separate compartments. However, it is not only that. If one looks at the report of the advisory committee, one reads the following:

It then goes on to argue that because there will be apartheid it is necessary to have a special programme for the training of personnel. On page 5 we read that—

If one looks on page 13 of that report, one sees:

If one looks through the report, one sees that it is based on the fact that the Government has said: There is going to be apartheid in local government; now let us find a training system that will help us to make it work. One sees that time and time again. This is the distressing thing, because I think the hon the Minister realizes, or should realize, that if we are going to insist on making apartheid in local government the pattern of local government in South Africa, it is not going to get off the ground. We will have the same problems that we have had with Black local authorities because of other factors which have caused difficulties.

We want to appeal to the hon the Minister: Now is the time for him to move in a dramatic way as he did when he spoke in the no-confidence debate. Let him lend the same character to the speech he makes in this House and let him indicate quite clearly that the kind of local authorities we are going to have will depend on the wishes and the will of the local communities and will not be on the basis of the racial policies of the NP.

To the extent that this Bill is there to try to create the machinery for giving effect to apartheid, we are opposed to it. Secondly, even if one leaves out the apartheid aspect, we think it is lunacy to have a proliferation of local government bodies as the hon member for Umbilo put it, when it is not necessary to create them, and then to have to create the special machinery to provide the trained personnel in order to make this unnecessary system of local government work in South Africa. So, we oppose it for that reason in the first place.

Sir, is this the kind of training body for local government that we want in South Africa? Do we want to train local government people by means of a national training programme? I cannot understand why we need this. When there is a shortage of personnel in the private sector, and a vast new industry is established, the people concerned do not run to the Government and say: Will you pass a law so that we can have a national body which will impose their will on people so that they can be trained? They get on with the job and train them. They use the various agencies such as technikons and universities, in-house training and the various apprenticeship and other training facilities. But suddenly, when it comes to local government, we have to elevate it and create a special training board for local government. When we got ordinary government off the ground, we did not have a national training board for government at other levels. Why do we suddenly do this? I can only see this as part of a whole empire-building process which is taking place in South Africa. I know the hon the Minister works hard—he is almost a workaholic—but he must stop trying to build empires. Let this be done as far as possible through the private sector. Let it be done through the various agencies which are there. Let the hon the Minister lean, if he want to, on people who are not co-operating in the process of training personnel. Why we have to create a whole new infrastructure, a whole new hierarchy, to train these officials just boggles the mind.

Let us come to the question of uniformity. We believe that White local authorities, for example, where the problem of a shortage of staff may not be so severe, would have suffered if every White local authority official had gone through the Government’s training programme. We think that some of the strength of our local authorities is that there is a difference in attitude between one local authority and another on the question of training, that there is a different input. The whole question of education, apart from training for local government, requires the realization on the part of the Government that the greater the diversity of input into the training process, the richer education as a whole becomes. We should aim at more diversity of input into education and less regimentation.

What also concerns us is the question of coercion. If one looks at the powers and rights of these bodies, one finds that they have the power to coerce. They can take away from local authorities training programmes which are working quite effectively. It is not just a question of augmenting, but of superimposing and of coercing. All local governments are being forced to toe the line as laid down by the training board, even where they have effective training programmes.

It is unfortunate that a Bill like this should go off the rails when we are looking for trained personnel. The hon the Minister has at the back of his mind, and at behind all the explanatory memoranda one finds, that the real need for this is to make apartheid work in local government. He also wants to create a new hierarchy for education. We believe that there should be a greater diversity. There should be greater use of regional, local and provincial formations. We do not believe that the correct way of doing it is by concentrating more power than there is already in the hands of this Minister, or of his training board.

Mr Chairman, at the commencement of his speech the hon member for Sea Point said that in this instance it was rather a case of the Government’s political system being introduced by way of this Bill. I disagree with him when he says that apartheid is specifically being introduced in this Bill. The contrary is true. With the implementation of this Bill, and all the other Bills relating to local authorities, we specifically have a step in the direction of total political integration.

I just want to refer briefly to the very good speech the hon member for Umbilo made here. I think that if there is one person in this House who quite obviously has a sound knowledge of local government administration, it is the hon member for Umbilo, as one could deduce from his speech. I think this House should specifically pay great heed to his objections to the implementation of this legislation. Since the hon member for Witbank—I see he is unfortunately not in the House—attacked the hon member for Umbilo, saying that he had uttered gross untruths and was talking nonsense, I think one need only look at the content of his speech. He comes along with clichés, such as “harmony” and “peace” which supposedly reflect the spirit in which this Bill should operate. I think that what a colleague of mine has pointed out, is true, and that is that the hon member for Witbank is apparently waiting to be appointed Deputy Minister of Burials. [Interjections.] In South Africa the course he advocates would, in fact, be tantamount to burying White self-determination. [Interjections.]

This Bill is the result of the functions of one of the subcommittees of the co-ordinating council, which investigated the training of municipal staff under the direction of the hon the Minister, Mr David Curry. No one would have any objections to the principle of training as such, of equipping people for the proper and effective performance of their tasks in every sector of society. We do, however, object to the way it is being implemented here.

Firstly a statutory board consisting of sixteen members if being proposed, eight of whom, ie the people appointed in terms of clause 2(2)(g) and (h) must not be in the full-time employ of the State. Provision is nevertheless being made for their remuneration by the State. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister himself has said that the biggest single problem encountered by the UME was the shortage of funds to initiate the training. The problem is now being solved, in part, by the Government’s decision to make a contribution to the training effort. Hence the Government’s announcement that no less than R¼ million is being allocated in the 1985-86 financial year to get this training fund off the ground. If that fair, in times of serious economic crises such as these in which this country finds itself, with an enormous R10 billion annually being spent on State employees and with the State President’s plea this afternoon for restraint and his announcement that the salaries of members of this House and the other Houses would be reduced by 3%? We also know that officials have already unofficially been notified of a pending announcement about their bonuses being reduced by one-third. In these circumstances a statutory board is being established, a subsidiary body which must partly be funded by the State. Instead of the rationalization of the Public Service, this is a typical example of the proliferation of the State mechanism, because one statutory board after another is being established. The hon member for Umbilo pointed out that already there are approximately 20 committees and boards that are to deal with local authorities. Who must, however, pay for this? In this instance it will be paid for by money voted by Parliament, but in terms of clause 10 the costs will have to be payed on a 50:50 basis by local authorities themselves. In both cases it is therefore the taxpayers of this country who will have to bear the burden.

It is also the result of the new constitutional dispensation which has already placed an intolerable burden on the poor taxpayers of this country. I should like to point out that the new constitutional dispensation has already placed an enormous burden on the poor taxpayers’ shoulders. Last week the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works, in response to a question in this connection, mentioned that the physical changes to the Marks Building cost an amount of R4,3 million; the provision of the facilities for the President’s Council R3,7 million; the accommodation for the members of the House of Representatives R2,9 million and accommodation for members of the House of Delegates R4,6 million; accommodation for the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates an amount of R1,3 million; improvements to Stalplein R10,3 million and those to Tuynhuys R3,3 million, whilst present improvements to the Parliamentary building will cost R23 million. This means a sum total of R53,6 million. All of this is the result of the new dispensation. The changes to the Union Buildings, which are also related to this, come to a further R11 million. So the sum total of what this has already cost the taxpayers is R64,6 million. The further expenditure is also going to form part of that. This is a burden which is inevitably carried by the White taxpayers.

The hon member for Umbilo rightly said that this additional training that had to be given, and for which this board is going to be established, is chiefly aimed at people of colour. Last year, for example, we asked the hon the Minister of Finance what contributions the various population groups made to the Exchequer. We were given the staggering reply that in the 1982-83 tax year the White taxpayers paid the enormous sum of R3 152 million, Coloured taxpayers R77 million and Indian taxpayers R74 million. Arising out of this legislation, this further burden is to be placed on the shoulders of the White taxpayers. This is expenditure which this country simply cannot afford, certainly not the taxpayers who are represented here in the House of Assembly.

Throughout the years, since the inception of local authorities—many years ago now— local authority in-service training has been carried out efficiently, as the hon member for Umbilo has also said. In addition courses of study have been introduced at the universities, at the technikons, at other institutes and by the local authorities themselves, for example courses like Public Administration, and this has contributed to the establishment of a competent and efficient body of officials. I again want to refer to what the hon member for Umbilo said about never having been able to find, anywhere in the world, that this kind of training was necessary at this level of government. The question is therefore: Why must such a large, circumspect and cumbersome measure, which is going to be a major cost-factor, now be brought before this House? I can understand the need for rapidly trained officials, chiefly for the other population groups in local authority administrations. One can very well understand that.

In his introductory speech the hon the Minister said it was not only officials, but even councillors too, who had to be trained. The hon the Minister said in his speech:

My question now is: If it is necessary for local government to train elected members as well, what about the central Government? Here we have 130 new members without any prior experience of central Government. Is it not far more necessary to establish such a training board here to show these people the ropes?

I therefore strongly object to the great financial burden that is being placed squarely on the shoulders of our voters. I want to make a serious appeal by saying that if the Government is serious about actually doing something about the economic crisis in which the country finds itself, it should not take this legislation any further, because hundreds of thousands of rands are involved in this.

If looking at the utilization of the moneys, over and above the costs of the training itself, we see in clause 8 what it is that the moneys are going to be utilized for. It will even be used for bursaries, there are moneys that could accure to certain individuals, etc. It is an enormous amount that is involved here. If we add it all up, it could result in a substantial cost structure. I wonder what public officials will say, particularly after the State President’s announcement this afternoon, if they were to learn of this additional expenditure which the Government is now prepared to impose on them.

Apart from the serious economic problem, I also want to focus, secondly, on the ideological problem. The declared integration policy of this coalition Government is taken a step further with the inclusion of Black local authority representation on the training board and in terms of the next Bill involving the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. This means that although the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated categorically in this House, as recently as 9 July 1984, that he had no mandate to include Black people within the same body, he is now making a complete volte face and is accommodating Black people in this very same body. On that occasion the hon the Minister said he had no mandate to involve Black people.

Give me the source from which you are quoting me.

I shall furnish the quote. On 9 July …

Give it to me now.

I do not have it with me, but I undertake to quote verbatim from the hon the Minister’s speech in the discussion of the next Bill, where this is also relevant. [Interjections.]

Order! I have only given the hon member for Pietersburg the floor. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, you will recall that two years ago we on this side of the House issued the warning that the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, which is responsible for this legislation, showed a strong similarity to the President’s Council. In fact, we said that in actual fact this council was a miniature President’s Council at local government level. Initially it was only to be advisory in nature. Just like the President’s Council, which became part and parcel of the Governmental process in the sense of having the final say about legislation, in this legislation the Coordinating Council is intervening directly in the affairs of local authorities by imposing an obligation on them in regard to the training fund for local government officials. The Coordinating Council is therefore, in point of fact, becoming part of the administrative structure of local authorities, just as the President’s Council is now part of the central legislative structure of this dispensation. This is further confirmation of our argument that democracy is progressively being replaced by a type of elite government. It is government by appointment from the top, with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in full control at the very top. If we look, for example, at the composition of the council, we see on page 4, clause 2(2)(g), that apart from the officials, there is the chairman of the training committee of the Co-ordinating Council, and in paragraph (h) an additional six persons who are either outsiders or persons in the employ of local government bodies and appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Co-ordinating Council—of which he himself is the Chairman—because of their special knowledge of training. In other words, the hon the Minister remains the induna who beats the drum in this case. He pulls the strings for the puppets to dance at local government level.

We therefore oppose this legislation, firstly because it is going to entail unjustified costs to the inhabitants of our cities and towns and to taxpayers in general. Secondly it forms part of the overall integration plan the State President announced at the opening of Parliament. Here Black people are becoming an integral part at local government level. This is the principle which the coalition government is going to carry through to the very highest level. I want to ask hon members to do themselves a favour and have a look at the proposal the hon the Leader of the CP made a week ago when he asked for the implementation of the policy of separate development. At the time those hon members voted for an amendment permitting everyone to participate in the Government of South Africa up to the very highest level. That embodies the downfall of the White electorate of South Africa.

For these reasons we therefore cannot support the legislation, and I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon member for Kuruman.

Mr Chairman, it is actually a great disappointment to have to listen to the hon member who has just spoken. Nowhere did he refer to the merits of the Bill. His argument focussed on two matters. He said firstly that it would involve Whites and White city councils in great costs. Secondly he advanced their argument of so-called integration, the coalition idea.

As far as his first argument is concerned, the hon member has never objected, in terms of any system of taxation, to the rich subsidizing the poor. He has never complained about our tax structure. If we look at personal tax, for example, we see that on the basis of the ability to pay, personal taxation is represented by a rising curve. That hon member has always been prepared to help the poor, but as soon as the poor are Black, it is no longer a question of rich and poor, it no longer depends on a person’s ability to pay. Then those hon members’ point of view is: We do not begrudge them anything they want, but they must pay for it themselves. That is the morality of those hon members. They do not give a damn for the other people. They argue …

Order! The hon member must withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it; I shall have to think of another word. [Interjections.] They do not give a fig for the poor if the poor are Black. If the poor are White, however, they are the ones who supposedly intercede for them—for the pensioners, for farmers who are in difficulties …

We like the Whites.

Of course. We also like them, but we do not like them merely because they are White. We like people and we help people because they need help. That is our point of view.

So when the hon member complains about the burden which this places on White local government, he is actually saying: We want to remain safely ensconced in our privileged position. All the money we have in our pockets, we do so want to keep in our pockets. Those Black people, Coloureds and Asians who are poor and who have poor municipalities must fend for themselves. Hon members must think what they are saying when they speak about that.

That hon member’s second argument involves the fact that here we are proceeding with the coalition and integration process. Let me tell that hon member that when the State President, in his introductory address, said that every individual and every group should have a say in the decision-making that affected their interests, he meant it on behalf of all of us, and we do not apologize for that fact. Not only are we prepared to accept that statement in toto, but also to promote it and give it substance.

I now want to ask the hon member: There are Black local communities. These hon members shared in the establishment of Black local authorities, but they never spelled out for us what their policy actually was. Where must Black local authorities fit into a system? How must they be dealt with? Who must deal with them?

If I understand the hon member correctly, he interprets the State President’s statement as signifying full participation, by urban Black people too, in matters affecting them, and also joint decision-making in matters affecting everyone, up to the very highest level, in one Governmental institution?

It was very clearly spelled out in the speech that all individuals and all communities at all levels, up to the very highest level, must be able to exercise the right to self-determination in regard to own affairs and must be able to accept co-responsibility for matters of common concern.

Blacks too?

Yes, Black people too, of course; the speech was about Black people. [Interjections.] I do not know what the hon member is making a noise about. The question is not whether people should have a say or not; the question is how that should be structured. [Interjections.] That is what the speech was about.

It is no use talking to those hon members any further about this, but I do want to get back to the hon member for Kuruman. That hon member built up his entire argument on the fact that we should actually do all the administration and all the decision-making by way of separate systems. For that reason the respective population groups should also be given separate training, as the need arises. The hon member said that we should actually place training under the control of three Ministers of Local Government and that they could then assume responsibility for their own people. Let us examine these local government institutions the hon member spoke about. He comes from Kuruman. Surely Kuruman also has a municipality which has, in its employ, certain people who, at any municipal level—I think we all accept this—need training. How are those municipal employee groups structured, however? Does that hon member wish to allege that there are only White employees? Or are there also Black people and Coloureds, in the employ of that municipality, who need training? Come on, the hon member must tell me now; surely they are there.

I shall reply at third reading. [Interjections.]

It is very difficult to understand the logic of those hon members. The hon member must just realize one thing, and that is that Orangia has never existed anywhere in this country. Until the day Orangia comes into existence, it will be impossible to implement those hon members’ ideas.

You want Black majority government.

Let me tell the hon member Mr Theunissen that it is no use shouting out things like that. What I want, and what at least everyone on this side of the House wants …

Is Black majority government.

… is that everyone should have an effective say in the making of decisions that affect them. If we do bring about that possibility, if we do not create satisfaction in the compliance with reasonable aspirations, including the preservation, to a reasonable extent, of what people have, we shall not have any peace in this country. I am going to leave hon members at that, however, and focus my attention on the hon member for Umbilo.

I notice that the hon member is not in the House at the moment, but it is interesting that his approach does, to a very large extent, link up with that of hon members of the CP. The hon member speaks from personal experience in the Durban City Council and in the Natal Executive Committee. He is saying he knows everything and has all the necessary experience, but that sixty other people from throughout the country, who are also from this sector, do not know what is going on at all, because they made the unanimous recommendations being embodied in this Bill. If one listened closely to what the hon member said, one would have seen that he was jockeying for a privileged position for Durban, which is in a position to train people. The hon member is also concerned about, and expresses vehement opposition to, any form of levies, and then again any division in accordance with needs.

What the hon member does not understand, however, is that this legislation is not primarily involved with any scheme for training. That is not the gist of this Bill. The gist of this Bill is the financing of training. The hon member based his entire speech on the fact that there was no need for training. He does not know of any such need existing anywhere. According to him this Bill is merely attempting to establish a blueprint for that “grandiose scheme”. If we accept, however, that there is a need for training— and I think everyone in the House, with the possible exception of the hon member for Umbilo, accepts this—there is also a need for the financing of such training. It is easy to say that Durban can do its own financing, Johannesburg can do its own financing, Randburg can do its own financing, but there are hundreds of smaller local authorities that cannot do so.

How?

There may be various ways of doing this, but the fact of the matter is that the funding must be done. At no stage did the hon member present any alternative recommendation …

Let the major local authorities pay for themselves and the Government for the little ones.

Sir, what the hon member is saying there is surely precisely what is happening. In terms of the Bill the central government makes a contribution to the funds for training, the chief object being to provide that training which certain local authorities cannot afford. There is nothing prohibiting the larger municipalities from continuing with their training. In fact, it is not even stipulated that the courses for which they budget from their own funds need be approved by the training board. The hon member merely has to look at clause 8. They may proceed with their programme, but as soon as they are partly or wholly funded, the training board not only has the right, but is also obliged, to ensure that the money which is spent on this and is taxpayers’ money, is employed in such a way as to serve the general interest. There is a great deal we can still say about that. The hon member also spoke about the rigidity of the system, but at the same time he referred to the various committees been established, from the regional level virtually to the local level, as he spelled out the proliferation process here. His having said that is surely a specific indication of some flexibility. Nowhere in this Bill is it stated that firemen, or whatever facet of local government employees, have to take a specific, rigidly structured course.

According to the accompanying reports we read, that is provided for.

No, Sir, in those reports it is, in fact, stated that the essential training that is needed country-wide can be given, but nowhere is it stated that it is confined to that.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member would just give me a chance to tell him what the situation really is, we could discuss this again at a later stage.

Nowhere in this Bill is it stated that a local authority cannot submit a course to the training board for approval. Even if it is solely for its own municipal authority and its officials, it can still submit the course for consideration and approval. This Board is empowered to consider it and reach a decision. They do not have to work out certain courses beforehand, courses with which all municipal authorities must link up. Where is that stated in the Bill? In other words they still have this unfettered opportunity.

I must say that when I was listening to this hon member, I almost understood why the British Empire came to an end. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman on a point of order: Is the hon member within his rights in accusing me of being responsible for the destruction of the British Empire. [Interjections.]

I do not feel myself competent to judge upon that; it might be true, and then again it might not. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Sea Point recorded his objection to the fact that in the public sector there would now be a training board which had to undertake training in the public sector. Apart from the fact that the board is there primarily to deal with financing and to administer the fund, it is clear that the hon member is not taking into account the fact that a distinction is, in any event, drawn in other spheres, which highlights the second falsehood in the hon member’s argument. We have the Manpower Training Board that has to do training in the private sector. That board already exists. In several fields there is a distinction. The hon member says, however, that there should be a diversity of contributions and that this should contribute towards the overall enrichment of society and management systems. In that respect we all agree with him. In the case of this Bill, the idea is not to introduce any cold uniformity. The idea is to satisfy the already existing need for training—which the hon member conceded on everyone’s behalf, even on behalf of the hon member for Umbilo. The hon member stood up here and said there were other ways of doing this if that was what was needed. The hon member will conceed, however, that at no stage did he or Prof Olivier tell us, here or in the standing committee, what their preferences would be or how they would deal with this training and the financing of this training. It is very easy to say that he does not agree with that. Prof Olivier, however, came along and spelled out their objections very clearly and concisely. He said that it was primarily a question of the apartheid idea. According to him this Bill seeks to establish separate local authorities for the various population groups, to keep them going and to develop them. If that is his view, let me ask him: If we had had another system of local government, but the need for training existed, would this Bill have satisfied him if he could, for one moment, have conceived of our not drawing any racial distinction whatsoever in our entire local government system. Would this Bill then have satisfied him.