Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP have consistently objected to this way of deviating from the Standing Rules in relation to the sitting hours of the House. We believe that the arguments which we have advanced so far all hold true.

If this House is to be relevant in South Africa we have to debate relevant issues here. This side of the House is not without sympathy for the problems experienced by this new tricameral Parliament and the organizational difficulties involved in launching it. To forgo debating time, however, when that time could be well devoted to debating important, significant and relevant issues, seems to me unwise.

To give but two examples of important matters that could fruitfully be debated in this House, I refer to the conditions of unrest in the Eastern Cape and in other parts of South Africa, which, I believe, ought to concern every single hon member of this House, and than also the effect on our media of television advertising, the general future of a free Press and the dissemination of information in a democratic society. If these issues do not concern us, what does? What more useful time do we have for debates than those 2½ hours on a Wednesday evening? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we are most unhappy with this steamrollering of the Rules of this House, and we believe that the time could be usefully devoted to serving South Africa, which is after all why we were elected to this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want any further time to be unnecessarily wasted by us. The PFP is certainly not convincing anyone that they want to work themselves to a standstill. There is no question at all of any violation of the freedom of the Press and all that other so-called “jazz” to which the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred. [Interjections.]

It will avail us nothing to conduct a debate on the situation in the Eastern Cape here. We are establishing a new parliamentary system, and we have enough time at our disposal. I do not think it is necessary to waste any further time whatsoever. I adhere to my motion.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

Mr Chairman, in motivating my motion, there are two aspects in particular which I want to emphasize. The one is that in the debate on the merits of the Bill, it appeared that there was considerable difference of opinion among the members of this House. One of the points at issue was the discretion of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, ie to what extent he should consider himself bound by recommendations which he receives from the bodies concerned. Two amendments have been placed on the Order Paper in this connection, and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to motivate my amendment, or the other amendment which has appeared, at this stage. Broadly speaking, however, it concerns the question—arising from the discussion initiated in this House by the hon member for Randburg—of whether the Minister’s powers in this connection are arbitrary or not. I believe that this basically means that the co-ordinating council must be recognized, also with regard to this important function which the Minister will have in terms of the legislation, concerning the levies which will be imposed on local authorities. On a subsequent occasion, during the Committee Stage, I hope, we shall then be able to examine this aspect further.

My second reason for moving this motion was the nature of the Second Reading debate itself. The situation is briefly that the Second Reading debate on a Bill comes to an end when an hon Minister replies. If the Bill has been accepted by the three Houses, this is the end of the entire process, in terms of the new Standing Orders. The Bill then goes to the State President to be signed. In other words, there is no opportunity for an hon member of this House to react to the speech made by an hon Minister by way of reply at the end of the Second Reading debate. Nor does an hon member have any opportunity to reply to certain statements which may have been made in the course of the Second Reading debate. This contrasts sharply with the old system, in terms of which hon members did at least have the right and the opportunity, during the Committee Stage, to react to the statements, standpoints or observations put forward by the hon the Minister and by other hon members of the House. In other words, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading afforded everyone an opportunity to react to what had been said. In terms of the new Standing Orders, this is no longer possible.

†The reason why I am making use of this procedure is because in the present system there is no way in which a person can react to what the hon the Minister said at the end of the Second Reading in his reply, or even to react to points, statements or accusations made by other hon members of the House in the course of the Second Reading debate.

In the debate on this particular Bill there were a few incidents which I believe call for rebuttal and for the right of hon members to be given the opportunity to react. For example the hon member for Klip River accused me of only being interested in opposing the measure for the sake of publicity.

Oh, really!

That was what he said, and I had no opportunity to react to that. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made the accusation that I was merely interested “om politieke gif te suig” out of the Curry Report. [Interjections.] I am quoting from the unrevised version of his speech where he accused me that my intention was primarily “om politieke gif te suig” out of this matter.

The hon the Minister also launched a very strong attack on the hon member for Sea Point when he said:

This was a completely irrelevant statement to be made in this type of debate because it had nothing to do with the Bill.

He then went on to deal with the whole question of the correspondence between that city council and the management committee.

I want to come back to the motivation for moving this motion. Leaving aside the attack upon myself and the hon member for Sea Point, I want to say that the attack by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning upon the hon member for Umbilo was most reprehensible, unwarranted and uncalled for. The attack was of such a nature that it had nothing to do with the Bill under consideration.

What I am asking for is that the Committee of this House should be given the opportunity to reconsider the Bill so that hon members of this House will at least be afforded the opportunity and the right to react to or rebut what was said.

This is a point of vital importance, because if we want to make a success of the new constitutional dispensation and the new Standing Rules and Orders, this cannot be tolerated. It is impossible to conceive of a situation where nobody has the right to react to or rebut a statement made by an hon Minister or other hon members. The present situation gives the lie to the principles of democracy and to the very principles which lie at the foundations of the traditions of our parliamentary system.

Under these circumstances I must say that unless we change the Rules and Orders to make this possible, we shall have to introduce a totally new style of debate. The question then arises whether we ought not to change the Standing Rules and Orders to the effect that an hon Minister, instead of replying to a debate at the end thereof, may enter into the debate in the course thereof.

Sir, I appreciate the opportunity which you have afforded me to state these objections. I regard this as a fundamental point which affects the whole future of this Chamber and the future of the Standing Rules and Orders under which this House has to operate.

Mr Chairman, in this case we on this side of the House also want to protest sharply at the present procedures for passing Bills in this House. An amendment printed in my name appeared on the Order Paper and we would very much have liked to debate that amendment.

We viewed this as a very important amendment in the sense that we raised the point that an additional cost structure for the tax-payer of South Africa was being created here. Having recently experienced the tremendous cost increases at every other level of society, our argument was, as we intended to move by means of that particular amendment, that in clause 10, line 8 of page 10, “after consultation with the Minister of Finance” be changed to “in consultation with the Minister of Finance”.

If this were to be done, we would not find the hon Minister, who already has control over local government affairs and possesses absolute and total power in regard to the Co-ordinating Council and other local government matters, also obtaining the sole right to tax local authorities and to impose Training Board levies on them.

We want to raise the following as a further argument. The hon member for Brakpan, for example, argued that in the Department of Manpower legislation measures already existed in terms of which provision has been made for in-service training and that the in service training of local government officials would as easily be able to take place in terms of that legislation. The hon member for Brakpan did not receive a reply at all. The hon the Minister did not want to reply to questions at all and concluded the debate by referring to what the hon member for Brakpan had had to say. I really do not think that is a sound way of debating an issue when a Bill of this kind, which is of great importance on the local government affairs level, is left hanging in the air throughout the entire second reading debate and is then passed. This does not accord with the best interest of the inhabitants of South Africa.

A further consideration I want to put to hon members—and here I want to associate myself with what the hon member Prof Olivier has said—is that in his reply to the second reading debate the hon Minister made all kinds of accusations which then were left unanswered. I want to refer to one example of this.

The hon the Minister gave me a reply in that debate, and I quote from the unedited version of Hansard: Assembly of 7 March 1985: page 2Y1. He was referring to me when he said:

I went and looked at what I had said. The figures I quoted were the same as those the hon Minister of Public Works gave in his written reply to question 137. In my speech I specifically stated that the R23 million was being used for the present extensions to the parliamentary building, taking place where the large hole is, on the side of the parliamentary building closest to the mountain.

The hon the Minister also said in his speech (p 2Y2):

This date is factually incorrect because it was not 29 June, but 9 July. The hon Minister went on to say:

He was referring to me:

I want to adopt the hon the Minister’s own turn of phrase this afternoon and ask him why he has such a reckless regard for the truth. That is one of his stock phrases, is it not? Why has he such a reckless regard for the truth? Surely he knows that it is the standpoint of the CP that there is no question at all of Black people being under the same roof and in the same Parliament. In fact, neither did we want the Coloureds and the Indians included in the same dispensation. Here the hon the Minister now categorically says that we who are members of the CP want to bring Black people under the same roof.

The hon the Minister goes further and says (p 2Y2):

In this legislation, however, the hon the Minister does in fact make provision for Black people within the same third-tier government institution.

We should have liked to reply to these matters had we had the chance to let the legislation follow its normal course. This will not be happening now and many matters are going to fall away. I think the people who will be subject to this legislation will eventually have to bear the brunt of it. I think in the future the coalition government will still pay dearly at the polls for this kind of legislation which is being implemented by force from above without the representatives of the people being given a decent opportunity to debate and to criticize it.

Mr Chairman, I propose to support the motion before the House for the good and simple reasons that have been advanced by other hon members. The hon the Minister chose not to reply to the specific points I raised in the Second Reading debate. He chose merely to castigate me and to try to browbeat me and make me shut up. As far as I am concerned, he was not very successful. I think that you will agree with that, Sir. The point is that there is such a thing as legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, and repaying at leisure, because this is in fact what is involved in this type of legislation.

But it is the taxpayer who is going to pay.

Yes, it is the taxpayer who is going to pay, but we are taxpayers as well.

The position is that in the Second Reading debate various members from different parties raised specific points of objection to this Bill. Other members have put amendments on the Order Paper and I would also have done so had the Bill not required such massive surgery that I did not quite know what to do about it. Sir, if the Bill is referred to the Committee of the whole House, I will attempt to provide appropriate surgery, and in that case the hon the Minister will be lucky if the head and the toe will be left as far as I am concerned.

The real point at issue is that the questions and points raised by hon members were not answered in the Minister’s reply. All he succeeded in doing was to give the impression that all except himself were a bunch of idiots. Therefore, I believe the Bill should be referred to the Committee of the whole House so that we will have an opportunity to put our own points of view on the various clauses.

Mr Chairman, this debate on the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier has really taken quite an interesting turn now. Basically the debate has not centred around the issue of whether the need really exists to consider the legislation in the Committee Stage, but around an argument as to whether the rules made provision for further participation …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must give me a chance now. I did, after all, listen to him. The debate was basically about whether it was necessary that provision be made in the rules for further response to be made to the replies of Ministers to second reading debates. Surely that is fair; I am dealing with the argument that was put forward, am I not?

I want to say that we are fully entitled to enter into debate on this matter. There is a suitable institution, however, where we can take part in such a discussion, namely the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The turn of events here is extremely interesting. The impression I gain from the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Pietersburg is that they do not, in fact, seek thorough discussion of the amendments on the Order Paper, when that basically should have been the motivation behind their request that this House go into Committee. However, there is another motive for us having to go into Committee. The fact remains that hon members will have innumerable opportunities to raise objections in future debates.

First of all let us take a look at the motivation of the hon member Prof Olivier. His chief motivation is that as a result of procedure he was not afforded the opportunity to respond to what the hon member for Klip River said or to my reply to what he allegedly said and the conclusions I drew from that. He also argued that he had not been given the opportunity to respond to the standpoints I adopted in regard to the hon members for Sea Point and Umbilo. The purport of his argument this afternoon does not concern the broadening of the ambit of the Bill or the amendments printed on the Order Paper in his name and in the name of the hon member for Pietersburg; it has to do with a completely different aspect. I assert that the amendments which both the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member Prof Olivier placed on the Order Paper are meant to give an indication of what they want to discuss once the Bill has been referred to the Committee of the whole House.

That is correct.

Now if that is correct it implies that we have to argue the merits of the content of his amendments before we can decide whether or not to refer the Bill to the Committee.

The hon member launched a three pronged attack on the legislation, that is, that in the first place, the legislation had an ideological basis; that in the second place, it vested arbitrary powers in the Minister; and thirdly, that it implied a duplication of activities. That, in fact, was the amendment he now wants us to pass. This means nothing less than that we will have to extend the administrative red tape even further to a second body which would have to be consulted.

The fact remains, however, that whereas he wants to introduce the co-ordinating council as another institution which would serve a consultative function, the co-ordinating council itself rejected a benefit of a similar nature at its meeting on 26 October 1984. If the legislation were to be accepted, the coordinating council would be a body made up of 50 or more people. It would be a body that would be consulted on levies of a specific nature which would extend the scope of administrative action. Now we must not speak about the costs to be borne by the taxpayers because then we would have to convene that council as well. The fact is that the co-ordinating council itself which the hon member wants to introduce as another advisory institution, asked that this should be scrapped from the original draft legislation which they prepared.

The hon member for Pietersburg advanced one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard in my life. In the first instance the objection of the hon member to the legislation which we considered was that we were dealing with a mixed council in this case. In the debate he argued that we were giving a mixed council decision-making power. I now ask him: Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon member says it is correct; that was the gist of his argument. However, what does he seek to achieve by his amendment? He wants the word “after” to be scrapped and to be replaced by “in”. Do the hon members know what that means? It means that he wants to take the right to decide which a White Minister has at present and put it in the hands of a mixed council. Honestly, only CP logic could work like that! [Interjections.]

There is another point, however, which is important. It is that the amendment of the hon member for Pietersburg first appeared on the Order Paper on 13 March, if I remember correctly. By then the hon member Prof Olivier’s amendment was already on the Order Paper. In other words, there was something else the hon member for Pietersburg knew, viz that if the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier were to be accepted we would have required not only the agreement of this training board—which as you know he has not made provision for— but also that of the co-ordinating council, which is also a mixed council. How on earth a person with any logic could follow the argument of the hon member for Pietersburg in regard to the philosophical standpoints adopted by his party, is quite beyond me. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member would like another opportunity to reply to this.

The position is, however, that if the House were to accept the amendment in Committee it would in reality place the decision-making power in the hands of a mixed council in the final instance as well. The hon member knows that I am speaking the truth.

In other words, on the one hand the hon member does not want to support the legislation. He is not in favour of the legislation. He says this legislation clashes with the philosophical approach of his party. He says the stance of his party is that there must be no mixed councils, either of an advisory or of a decision-making kind. This hon member knows that if one were to amend the legislation to state that it should be “in consultation” then it would also mean “with the approval of”. In other words, that mixed council, which they do not want, would now have the final decision as to whether the Minister could take a particular decision or not.

Now I say, with all due respect, the hon member for Pietersburg should really decide what he wants.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I am sorry, but I only have ten minutes available to me.

What did the hon member Prof Olivier do? He said that I had launched an unbridled attack on the hon member for Umbilo which was entirely irrelevant to the debate. What does that imply? The implication is that the presiding officer at this debate allowed a discussion which was not relevant to the legislation being debated.

In conclusion I want to say that if hon members want to have the rules of the House changed there would perhaps be merit in such an argument. Perhaps there is merit in seeing whether another opportunity for discussion should be created even after legislation has been approved without amendment. I do not want to discuss the matter now but I want to ask him that we discuss this in the relevant forum which has been created for that. We shall then be able to conduct a more meaningful debate about it.

Question put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill before us represents a further step in the constitutional development of South Africa.

The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs came into existence on 1 January 1984 in terms of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983 (Act No 91 of 1983). The principles underlying the principal Act as well as the principles underlying this Bill were cleared with all parties concerned who signified their approval thereof.

In the relatively short period of its existence the co-ordinating council established itself as the most important forum on issues affecting local government affairs and on advising the Government concerning the establishment of alternative structures in the future development of local government. The full council met three times during 1984. The Action Committee of the council has already met seven times.

During 1984 seven investigating committees of the council investigated several aspects of local government and administration and submitted reports on various issues. Some of these reports have already led to legislation being accepted by Parliament. The Action Committee of the co-ordinating council acts as management committee and as executive committee of the council. The advantage of the Action Committee is that it can meet at short notice and is representative of the various interests represented on the full council. Experience has taught that it is sometimes necessary that non-members attend meetings of the Action Committee and take part in the discussions. The Bill makes provision for this.

Mr Speaker, the main object of the Bill under discussion is to extend the representation on the co-ordinating council and on the Action Committee of the co-ordinating council. In terms of the proposed amendment official representation will be given to the three Ministers of Local Government in the Ministers’ Councils and to their Directors General. Representation will also be extended to the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education, the Director General: Co-operation and Development, and the organized municipal associations representing the local government institutions of Black communities.

In the address of the State President on the occasion of the opening of Parliament on 25 January 1985 he referred to local government level and said:

Mr Speaker, to illustrate the important role of the co-ordinating council and to indicate on which aspects inputs are being made in respect of the role of local authorities in the new dispensation, I must briefly refer to the investigations which have already been undertaken by the co-ordinating council and to what is presently still being investigated.

The nature of the subjects being discussed by the co-ordinating council will also bear evidence of the necessity to give representation to the three administrations of the Ministers’ Councils and to Black local authorities.

*Mr Speaker, I therefore want to refer in general to the activities of the council.

The report of the co-ordinating council’s investigating committee under the chairmanship of the hon J C G Botha, formerly Administrator of Natal and at present Minister of Education and Culture, gave rise to the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, Act No 117 of 1984. In that Act the qualification requirements in respect of municipal voters are standardized throughout the country.

Related recommendations of the Botha committee referred to the qualifications of municipal candidates, a five-year term of office for councillors and norms for the delimitation of wards. The recommendations may possibly lead to further legislation during the present session.

The co-ordinating council’s investigating committee under the chairmanship of Mr O A W van Zyl, former president of the Transvaal Municipal Association and at present member of the President’s Council, recommended that two related delimitation actions should be reconciled under a delimitation board.

The possibility of combining the delimitation of group areas and the delimitation of municipal areas of jurisdiction has been referred to the President’s Council for further investigation.

Administrator W A Cruywagen was in charge of the co-ordinating council’s inquiry into guidelines, norms and standards for viable local authorities. Because the Government wants to ensure that only viable local authorities are created, section 17A was inserted in the principal Act last year, which requires the co-ordinating council to advise the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the norms before they are promulgated by way of regulation in the Gazette. The co-ordinating council’s investigating committee has almost completed its task of preparing draft guidelines in this connection. The guidelines will probably be promulgated later this year.

Mr Speaker, one of the most important investigations of the co-ordinating council, under the leadership of Administrator Louw of the Cape Province, dealt with the joint provision of services.

The Regional Services Councils Bill, which resulted from the investigation and which makes provision for the establishment of regional services councils, will be presented for consideration to Parliament during the present session.

The co-ordinating council’s investigation into additional sources of revenue for local authorities, under the chairmanship of Mr G P Croeser of the Department of Finance, gave rise to the Government’s acceptance in principle of two new sources of revenue for local authorities. Since the regional services councils will be the instruments for levying and distributing these sources, the Regional Services Councils Bill will also make provision for these new sources, namely a regional service levy and a regional establishment levy.

Mr Speaker, the co-ordinating council’s investigation into the training of staff for local governments, under the direction of the hon the Minister D M J Curry, gave rise to the Local Government Training Bill, which also appears on the Order Paper for today.

The Government’s declared policy is to transfer more functions to local authorities, together with a system of control which is more meaningful than the present one. Under the leadership of Administrator Botha of the OFS, an investigating committee of the co-ordinating council made certain recommendations in this connection. Decisions in this regard can only be taken after further investigations and consultations on adjustments to the provincial system have been completed. I trust that we will reach finality on this issue soon.

It is a characteristic of this Government that it does not discuss other people but that it holds discussions with those people on matters affecting their lives. I have indicated which issues are being discussed among the members of the co-ordinating council. These issues do not affect one group only, but are of importance to all of us.

The Government’s general constitutional goal is, while maintaining security, stability and self-determination for each group, to give everyone a say in the decision-making processes that affect their interests. This goal applies to all the population communities of South Africa.

By accepting this amending Bill, through which the basis of representation on the coordinating council is broadened, we shall move closer to achieving this goal.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I think that with this amending Bill we are going to sail through calmer waters with the hon the Minister, because we on this side of the House are going to support this Bill.

The amending Bill gives effect to the pleas made from this side of the House when the original legislation in connection with the establishment of the co-ordinating council was passed by this House. At that stage we advocated that Black local authorities should also be given membership of that council. At that stage the proposals we made were not acceptable, and naturally one is pleased that the political climate has now changed to such an extent that it is possible for the Government today to accept the proposals we made at the time and to incorporate them into the Bill.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that development boards will now be represented on the co-ordinating council, and Black local authorities and community boards are also being included in the definition of “local authority” now. Consequently they, too, will now receive representation on the co-ordinating council. In addition the three Ministers of Local Government, Housing and Works of the three Houses are also receiving representation on the co-ordinating council. In this way, representation on the Action Committee of the Co-ordinating Council is therefore being expanded. In general we therefore welcome the fact that more specifically the Blacks, but also the administrations for local government of the three Houses, are in this way being incorporated into the co-ordinating council as well as the action committee.

Having said all that, the hon the Minister will probably not take it amiss of me if I comment on his actual speech. I am referring here to his introductory speech to the Second Reading of this Bill. On that occasion the hon the Minister spoke about quite a number of matters, and I should like to react to them. If the hon the Minister is at liberty to go beyond the scope of a Bill then I assume that we are probably at liberty to do the same. Consequently I now want to make a few comments of my own.

The hon the Minister made a few statements which I think we should take a little further by way of certain questions we wish to put to him. In his introductory speech the hon the Minister said inter alia the following:

†In this respect the hon the Minister also referred to the Address by the State President on the occasion of the opening of Parliament.

I think that the time has now arrived for this House to inquire from the hon the Minister what steps are being taken by him and the Special Cabinet Committee to which he referred, in connection with particularly the political future of all the communities and, in this respect, particularly the Black community in South Africa. If it is the policy of the Government as stated by the State President and the hon the Minister, that the purpose is to give all people a say in decision-making, I think it is essential that some information should be given as to how this is going to be implemented. I am reacting again to what the hon the Minister said in his speech on this Bill.

In this context, I really want to say that, although the State President said—and the hon the Minister repeated it—that at local government level the intention is to give all communities the maximum degree of say in their own affairs, I do wish to point out that it is not enough merely to say that giving them rights at local Government level will satisfy the political aspirations of the people in this country. I think the hon the Minister realizes that.

In the second place I wish to state categorically that according to our impressions— and I refer in particular here to the Coloured and Indian communities—they have in effect rejected the concept of separate local authorities. This was made very clear to us on the standing committee. It is in that respect that I am very sorry that we do not have the time to return to some of the other statements that the hon the Minister made. However, the fact is that they have rejected without qualification the concept of separate local authorities as far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned. I am quite positive that if the constitutional dispensation were otherwise, our Black communities would also reject the concept of separate local authorities, unless it is done—and this goes for all communities—in such a way that such local authorities could be established on a completely viable basis as separate local authorities.

*Mr Chairman, allow me to return to a few of the other statements about the co-ordinating council which the hon the Minister made in his speech. We all took cognizance with great interest of the establishment and activities of the council. In the meantime the first annual report of the council has also been made available to us. But if we inquire into what the hon the Minister says this council is doing, I must admit that I have really begun to develop reservations concerning the council, because it seems to me that the activities of the council are beginning to involve ideological elements. The hon the Minister should listen calmly for a change, instead of frowning at me like that.

I am listening.

Right. In the first place the hon the Minister referred in his speech to the inquiry into the norms for viable local authorities. Certainly we cannot have any objection to that in principle. I think it is a justified activity of the co-ordinating council. But the hon the Minister also said—this is the impression I got—that it was in fact the co-ordinating council that was primarily responsible for the Act that was passed last year on the franchise for local authorities. That was the impression I got from the speech made by the hon the Minister. I find it extremely difficult to reconcile these two things, for on the one hand the hon the Minister and the State President spoke about political rights for all, but last year we passed a Bill here excluding certain individuals and communities from participation in local government in terms of the definition of franchise for which that legislation made provision.

We debated that point when we discussed the Bill.

We debated it, but I am now coming back to the hon the Minister’s reference in his speech to this having been one of the activities of this co-ordinating council. One will therefore have to ask serious questions if the co-ordinating council is the primary instrument by means of which we create situations in which people, permanently resident in our society, are excluded from participation in the local government of the society concerned. As I said at the beginning, one then begins to develop reservations concerning the activities of an institution of this nature.

The hon the Minister went on to refer in his speech to an inquiry on which the co-ordinating council was engaged to bring wards in local government areas into line with group areas. Mr Chairman, you as well as the hon the Minister know what the attitude of this side of the House is to the Group Areas Act. To link the establishment of wards in local government areas to the Group Areas Act makes it difficult for us once again to give the co-ordinating council our full-fledged and unqualified support. In essence we saw this council as a non-political body with an important function to fulfil, a body which would not involve itself in what is essentially party political matters in regard to which very strong differences of opinion exist in this country and among politicians.

In this regard, too, I do want to suggest that serious consideration be given to the outlining and definition of the functions and the tasks which the co-ordinating council should undertake. What I should not like to see is that, owing to an over-emphatic ideological involvement of the co-ordinating council in politics in particular, it becomes impossible for us on this side of the House to support the council and that we become suspicious of their activities.

I should like to put a few more questions to the hon the Minister. In his speech he referred inter alia to the inquiry into the provincial council system, to the system of control and also to additional sources of revenue for local authorities and regional services councils. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister could perhaps, at this stage, tell us what progress has been made with this inquiry and what we can expect in this connection.

Does the hon member mean provincial systems?

Yes. In his speech the hon the Minister said:

We shall support the second reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member Prof Olivier for his party’s support of the Bill at present before the House. I shall return a little later to a few of the points he raised.

In the first place I want to examine the role the co-ordinating council is expected to play, especially in its new composition. One naturally has to look at the nature of the problems this council is supposed to deal with. We have a diversity of local authorities from all population groups basically located within one area; that is an incontrovertible fact. In consequence those local authorities have specific affairs in common. Our purpose with this co-ordinating council is to create a forum where these local authorities can meet to consider affairs of common concern and to enter into dialogue with the Government about them. It does not matter whether this co-ordinating council comprises only Whites, Indians and Coloureds or Blacks as well. From the angle of decisionmaking it really does not matter. Its great advantage is that it enables the various local authorities to put forward problems they have in common. It does not alter the singular character of each of the individual local authorities because the control of each such authority is still vested in the people of its own community. Nevertheless it enables various local authorities to discuss the nature of local government and attendant problems with one another and with the Government. That is why the fundamental principle of this statutory amendment has my unqualified support. I think it will leave us better equipped to confront problems at the third tier of Government and to deal with them.

I wish to return to one point from the hon member Prof Olivier’s speech and that is his warning against ideological involvement by the co-ordinating council. He said that if the co-ordinating council were to become more ideologically involved it would become difficult for him and his party to continue supporting it. One should bear in mind, however, that the co-ordinating council is equipped only with advisory powers which means that it cannot take and implement decisions independently and is therefore dependent upon the Government to put its decisions into operation. Consequently it has to act basically within the parameters of the policy of the Government of the day. It is right that it should be so and it could be no other way. If the co-ordinating council, for example, were to adopt an ideological standpoint in conflict with that of the Government, it would clash perpetually with the Government which would mean that few if any of its recommendations would ever be acceptable to the Government. If a body such as this were put in such a relationship with the Government which has to take decisions, unfortunately many advantages would be lost to local authorities. The point I wish to put to the hon member Prof Olivier, however, is merely that if the co-ordinating council were not to take note of the basic ideological standpoint of the Government of the day, it would lose some of its usefulness. I do not know whether I entirely caught the hon member Prof Olivier’s point, because he does not appear to be altogether with me. [Interjections.]

None the less I should like to accord this Bill and the principle it embraces my wholehearted support.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier said that this Bill was giving effect to pleas made by the PFP when the Local Government Affairs Bill was discussed here in the House last year. The hon member Prof Olivier went on to say that the climate had changed so much that these pleas they had made were now being implemented in practice by the governing party. As far as I am concerned it is no wonder that the hon member Prof Olivier said these things. The PFP are now getting the things they asked for here last year. I have here in my hand a cutting from the Weekend Argus of 9 March 1985. It contains an extremely enlightening article written by Mr Leon Marshall. He writes, and I am quoting:

He goes on to write:

This article was only published last week. [Interjections.]

Yes, and just a while ago your party still voted with the Progs! [Interjections.]

Sir, and now that hon Minister is so ridiculous as to say that just a while ago the CP still voted with the PFP. [Interjections.] The Conservative Party did agree with the Progs that we would like to reply to accusations which that hon Minister made against us in an earlier debate, and to which we were not afforded an opportunity to reply.

Yes, but Chris covers up everything! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we agreed with the PFP in respect of a matter of procedure. But that hon Minister agrees with the PFP in principle—and the hon member for Helderkruin has just confirmed this. [Interjections.] That is precisely what they are doing. What is the difference between the Conservative Party and the National Party? We in the Conservative Party disagree in principle with the National Party and also with their friends in the PFP, and that applies to the Bill under discussion too. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear! And thank you very much too! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, Mr Leon Marshall went on to write, and I am quoting him again:

I now want to put it to hon members of the PFP that there is a well-known proverb which states that people sometimes rule from the grave. I want to warn hon members of the PFP that in the near future they may find that their party is ruling from the grave. The National Party is systematically swallowing the policy of the PFP whole—yes, the entire justification for the PFP’s existence.

In the same way that you swallowed the policy of the HNP! [Interjections.]

But when the PFP no longer exists, when the National Party has finished swallowing it, the National Party will implement the policy of the PFP completely.

I hope you are correct, Jan. It will be South Africa’s salvation! [Interjections.]

Precisely for this specific reason we in the Conservative Party cannot support the piece of legislation under discussion at all. Consequently I move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said that the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs had already established itself as an advisory body for the Government regarding local government affairs. He also held up certain examples to the House in this connection. One of the examples he referred to was the inquiry undertaken by the hon Minister Curry. This was a certain inquiry undertaken by a multiracial committee of inquiry. The result of this inquiry was that the Local Government Training Bill was promulgated. The result of that Bill, as contained in the Bill under discussion, will be a multiracial training board which would initially—when the Bill served before the standing committee of Parliament—have consisted of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In that standing committee—that multiracial standing committee—consisting of 11 Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians, consensus was eventually reached—of course with the Conservative Party dissenting—regarding the matter that Blacks would also be included here.

Under one roof, Jan?

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Vilonel is an extremely nervous hon member of the National Party. Of course, I can quite understand why he is so nervous. [Interjections.] The only change the standing committee made to that legislation—after the inquiry by Mr Curry—was that Black people would also be brought in at that level of government. This is an example of what the hon the Minister described as the success of the co-ordinating council for the promotion of local government affairs. This is supposed to be an example of its success. The results of the work of that standing committee were the promotion of multiracialism in South Africa, the promotion of power sharing and of integration. This is what he used as an example of success. This was the example! [Interjections.]

You cannot be serious!

The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs should rather go and take a look at Escom. That hon Minister should rather see to the millions of rand Escom is wasting before he comes here and interferes in things he knows nothing about. [Interjections.] The objective of the Bill is the extension of representation on the co-ordinating council, and on the action committee of the co-ordinating council. In terms of this Bill three Minister entrusted with local government in the Ministers’ Councils, as well as their Directors-General are obtaining representation on this committee. The Minister of Co-operation and Development and of Education and his Director-General are obtaining representation on this co-ordinating council. Thirdly, the organized institutions of Black local authorities are also obtaining representation on this co-ordinating council. Consequently provision is also being made here in respect of advising the Government for the inclusion of Blacks at the third level of government. In this important advisory committee provision is consequently also being made by means of representation for approximately 10 million Blacks to have a say. This Bill is making provision for approximately 10 million Blacks outside the homelands to have a say in advising the hon the Minister in respect of local government affairs as well.

Provision is also being made in this Bill for the announcement by the State President, when he said in his speech during the opening of Parliament:

This Bill gives effect to the State President’s promise to give Black people a say in local government affairs and in regional services councils. The hon member for Helderkruin spoke here about own local authorities, which according to him will retain their character, and which will still advise the Minister. But the regional services council is a multiracial council—this is merely for the information of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs who is going to serve on the same council—on which people of all races will serve together, debate together and take decisions together. I want to add to this that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has swallowed the policy of the Progs whole.

What are Wonderboom’s voters going to say?

Danie Steyn is serving his notice!

That hon Minister knows that his time in this House is limited to the next general election. I want to ask the hon the Minister—and those hon members who are making such a noise as well— whether they told the voters during the referendum campaign that the Black people were going to be included in the new constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] Did the hon the Minister tell the voters that? I want to ask the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs again whether he told the voters that Black people were going to be included in the new constitutional dispensation?

He never visits his constituency any more.

I could not hear what the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs replied, but after all I did say that he did not know what was going on in this House; on the contrary he does not know what is going on in the country and he does not even know what is going on in the Government. In his second reading speech this hon Minister said, and I quote:

I want to point out that the only amendment in this Bill is that Blacks are being included at local government level. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs must still reply to my question. During the referendum campaign did he tell the voters of South Africa that Black people were going to be included in the new constitutional dispensation.

In the constitutional dispensation, yes.

Now he says yes, he did say so.

I want to ask them whether they told the people during the referendum that they were going to introduce power-sharing with Blacks at the third tier of government. I am asking the hon the Minister of Home Affairs whether he told the people that he was going to introduce power-sharing with Black people at the third tier of government in South Africa.

We told the voters that Black constitutional development was receiving attention. [Interjections.]

Perhaps I should tell this little anecdote. A secretary of one of the NP branches in Kuruman, whom I met at the show, told me: “Jan, I always thought—the NP people told me so—that you were angry with P W Botha and that is why you left the NP. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who held a meeting there, said that you and the CP were lying to us and cheating us.” [Interjections.] Now hon members must listen to what she went on to say. “Jan,” she said, “now I see how things are working out in practice; you told the truth and my people lied to me and cheated me.”

What about the meat inspectors?

I also know what the hon member for Swellendam told his people.

Order! The hon member must discuss the Bill more specifically. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Sir, here we now have power-sharing at the third tier of government, but the NP did not tell the voters before the referendum that it intended to introduce power-sharing with Black people.

Five of the hon members opposite adopted the same standpoint as us in the caucus when the Government said that it accepted healthy power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians. Later they did an about face and went back. I should like to know from them whether they now accept power-sharing with Blacks because this is built into this Bill. Without the voters being consulted on this, Black people are being included in the constitutional development of South Africa. The hon the Minister said so in his introductory speech.

If this Bill is passed, five Ministers will have representation on the advisory council. Where in the world has one ever seen an advisory council which must advise the Government on which five Ministers of the State are serving? [Interjections.] I want to know whether Ministers of the State do not have enough work to keep them busy. This multiracial government system has resulted in Ministers now also having to serve on advisory councils.

In the bill, by definition, a new meaning is being given to the concept “local authority”. In this Bill the regional services council is being defined as a local authority. When the hon members of the NP visit the rural areas they tell the people that they are in favour of own local authorities.

They are telling the people in Harrismith that.

Yes, that is what they are telling the people in Harrismith. They are also telling the people that they are in favour of self-determination, but by definition a regional services council is being established here …

But when are you going to get to the Bill?

But in this Bill the regional services council is considered to be a local government body. This is, after all, provided expressly in the Bill, and we know that a regional services council is a multiracial body consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and if the hon the Minister introduces the relevant legislation later, it will also consist of Blacks. He also said this in his introductory speech.

At this stage no such thing as a regional services council exists in terms of any Act of Parliament. I repeat—as I said in the second reading debate on the Local Government Training Bill—by definition the hon the Minister considers regional services councils to be a local authority in this Bill. This hon Minister will only come and tell Parliament later: “Here is the Regional Services Councils Bill. Pass it, because you are a lot of rubber stamps and you simply must pass it.” Those yes-men will simply say “yes” and pass it. [Interjections.]

A moment ago we asked that the previous Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House so that we could reply to certain allegations made by the hon the Minister. We were not afforded an opportunity to do so and the request was turned down. The principle of this Bill and the previous one is the same: There are going to be multiracial boards and councils.

Last week in his reply to my speech on multiracial boards and councils the hon the Minister attacked me personally with regard to the role I played as chairman of the Council for the Environment. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, if you are not going to allow me to state my standpoint, the hon the Minister is going to use this example again.

Are you afraid of that?

No, I am not afraid of that. Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is going to use it again and I hope you are going to afford me the opportunity to state my standpoint on this too.

I want to ask the hon the Minister what the difference is. When the Select Committee on Environmental Conservation, which I was privileged to be the chairman of, submitted its report in 1981, its recommendation was that a council should be appointed. [Interjections.]

I have a problem here if the hon members on the hon member’s own side provoke each other. I would appreciate it if everyone would give the hon member a chance.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

In 1981 we had a pure White Parliament and a pure White Cabinet. A White Minister of a White Parliament would have appointed a Council for the Environment to advise him. The decisions which would have been conveyed to him by this advisory council would have been considered and decided on by a sovereign White Parliament.

What is the position today with this Bill? Here is now a multiracial advisory council which is advising a multiracial Cabinet and its bills must be submitted to a multiracial Parliament and its multiracial standing committees. That is the difference. [Interjections.]

And you are racially pure.

I want to tell that hon member with his racial purity that he will find no trace of renegades, defeatists or joiners in my past, or in that of my forbears. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister quoted from that report and it was stated in that report that members of all population groups could be considered for appointed to the council, and this greatly delighted the frivolous hon members sitting on that side of the House with the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister did not quote the Environment Conservation Act, because it states:

1. (2) The Minister shall appoint—
   1. (a) four persons each of whom has been nominated for this purpose by a different Administrator;
   2. (b) not more than 16 persons who in the opinion of the Minister are experts on any aspect of the environment or who in his opinion are able to make a substantial contribution towards the conservation of the environment.

There is not a single provision in that Act that it must be a multiracial council or that people of colour must be appointed to it. As a matter of fact, after the Act was passed, the then Minister of Environment Affairs appointed a council which consisted of Whites only.

And he was a member of a mixed Cabinet.

No, the hon the Minister is being too hasty. Then it was still a White Parliament and Cabinet. After all, the mixed Cabinet only came into being at the end of last year. The then Minister of Environment Affairs appointed a pure White Council for the Environment.

Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had his way. I must say I take my hat off to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He realized his ideal. He made the things which he had supported all the years in the NP acceptable to the Minister of Home Affairs. He made them acceptable to every member of the NP although some of them were far more conservative than I was when I was a member of the NP. This Minister succeeded in doing this. Then last year or the year before that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs: “We are now working in the direction of healthy power-sharing, or power-sharing. Consequently, you must enlarge the council a little because we must also get a few people of colour appointed to the council.” At that stage the members in these benches were no longer in the NP and we opposed that enlarging of the council in this House. The CP said that it was an advisory council which we had recommended at that stage and which had to advise a pure White Cabinet and a White Parliament. The decisions of that advisory council would have been considered by a pure White Parliament which would have decided on them.

The advisory council which is now to be established the multiracial advisory council, will advise a multiracial Cabinet and a multiracial Parliament and the CP cannot associate itself with this. For that reason the CP is asking that this Bill be read this day six months.

Mr Chairman, it is frustrating to respond to the hon members of the CP time and time again because they seldom confine themselves to the Bill under discussion. Over the past three years they have been harping on the same theme in one debate after the other, as if we were busy with a no-confidence debate. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman said quite a number of things which I should like to discuss with him personally. He said that in the standing committee we had to decide on one thing only, namely the inclusion of Blacks in a training board which consisted of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Where did the hon member get that from? He is not prepared to pay attention now. Then I merely want to say to the others in the House that he apparently does not even know what was discussed in the standing committee. Incidentally, he was not present when the final decision was taken on this matter. He simply excused himself and was not there.

The hon member furthermore said that the only task of the standing committee was the promotion of multiracialism in South Africa. Those were his words, if my memory serves me correctly. That is the task of the standing committee as he sees it. Did I understand him correctly? The hon member also does not want to react to that either. I suppose he need not. If he is of the opinion that the standing committee’s only task is to promote multiracialism in South Africa, I merely want to ask him why he has participated in the activities of that standing committee. If that is the standing committee’s task, and the hon member participates, then he himself is promoting what he maintains to be the task of the standing committee.

The hon member kicked up a fuss about the fact that, as he put it, 10 million Blacks …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member is prepared to speak now that I am speaking. Then I cannot hear him. However, when I ask him to react, he remains silent.

That is a stupid argument. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Randburg has the floor. He may proceed.

The hon member says that 10 million Blacks are now being given a say, at local government level, in matters concerning their interests. He is very upset about that.

However, these hon members have never told us—that is now since the split, or rather, since we approved the Black Local Authorities Act in 1982—where they stand with regard to Black local government.

We said it on that occasion.

At that stage the hon members opposed the Bill. Are they thereby implying that if they were to come into power, if they were able to, they would deprive Blacks of their powers in Black local government? [Interjections.] They are not prepared to react to that. These hon members vote against everything, but they are not prepared to say what they advocate.

The hon member also said that we were doing it in accordance with the dictates of the State President. Before saying that, however, he said we were busy implementing PFP policy. Now he must choose: Are we implementing what we ourselves believe in? Or are we adopting another party’s policy? Both cannot be true at one and the same time. [Interjections.] He also told the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he had realized his ideals. Ideals have not been realized yet. We still have a long way to go in order to achieve the actual ideals, ie those spelt out by the State President.

What is the ideal?

The hon member for Rissik is welcome to read that speech again and can simply ask his benchmate to tell him what the general constitutional objective of the Government is. His benchmate did, after all, quote it in his speech. Those are the ideals, and this is merely a short step towards implementing them. It is merely a small step, but it is an important one because it enables people at the third tier of Government to have a say in matters which concern them. It prevents them from merely being over-governed, without being consulted, ensuring their participation in the decision-making process.

The hon member also asked if we had told people, during the referendum, that we were going to accommodate Blacks at local government level in the new dispensation. I want to remind him, however, that the legislation was already on the Statute Book when the referendum was held. It already was a fact that Blacks would form part of the constitutional pattern. Surely the hon member cannot use that kind of argument now. The development of co-responsibility is a viewpoint we have consistently put forward. It is nothing new. Even when we debated the legislation on regional service councils and the principal Act relating to this amending Bill under discussion, the viewpoint was consistently put—by all the hon members on this side of the House including the hon the Minister—that we would find methods to accommodate Blacks within the framework of the principle.

Blacks have only been included now.

I wish that hon member would speak to me when I stop speaking for a moment. It is no use having him speak when I am speaking. In that regard, Mr Chairman, I should appreciate it if you could just afford me the opportunity of hearing myself speak. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman—before he was attacked—defended his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Environmental Conservation. He has admitted that in his recommendations he said that people of all population groups could be considered for inclusion in that board. However, he continued by saying that we should bear in mind that that was when this Parliament was a sovereign White Parliament. In other words, he is not concerned about the principle of advice being given to decision-makers; he is actually quarrelling with Parliament. He is not arguing against the principle of advice being given because he has accepted that principle himself, namely that people from all groups can come together in order to advise a decision-makers on what, in their opinion, are the best decisions to take. He accepted that. In other words, his anger is not directed at that principle. That is, after all, the very principle which applies here. His anger however, is directed at the fact that Parliament has a different composition to what it had in 1981. That is what he is angry about. The hon member must therefore not, when it comes to this legislation, quarrel about the principles.

Hon members, in particular the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Helderkruin, pointed out the contents of this Bill in broad terms. I do not want to repeat what was said in this regard, except to point out that with the Bill under discussion, we are achieving the ideals we set ourselves, namely to extend democracy and afford people an opportunity for effective participation in all decision-making processes which in any way concern them. This is a step for which we do not apologize and which all of us gratefully support.

Mr Chairman, this is a relatively simple Bill. It appears to me that it is necessary as a consequence of the establishment of the Ministries for Home Affairs in the different Houses that this committee accommodate the appropriate Ministers and their various acolytes. I say that with reserve because it does have the effect of putting another fourteen people on this committee. The present committee is a very substantial committee of roughly 43 or 44 people, I am not quite sure how many. I get these figures partly from the Act itself and partly from the document that was circulated quite recently. It is a very large committee indeed. Apart from any other consideration, it has a most interesting composition. It will now have on it five Ministers, four Administrators, four MEC’s and five directors-general. I would say that this must be the most high-powered committee or board anywhere in South Africa. In fact, I would hardly call it a committee; I would call it a mini-Cabinet.

It is logical to put the people on the committee as proposed in this Bill because they are the people who are going to deal with local government, but I wonder whether it would not be wise on the part of the hon the Minister to have a serious look at this committee with a view to reducing its overall membership. I have had a lot to do with committees, as all of us here have had, and I do not know how one can really get a committee to work with 57 to 60 people. I really cannot see it as a practical proposition. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he drastically reduce the number from 60 to a more manageable and practical number of perhaps somewhere around 20 or 25. From my own experience, if members of a committee of 60 manage to address that meeting for two or three minutes, they are lucky indeed. To bring all these people from all over South Africa to these meetings …

It is bigger than the House of Delegates.

Yes. To hold a meeting, is a very expensive proposition. I tried to estimate what it would in fact cost the country, one way or another, to bring all these people together, assuming that two thirds of them have to travel from somewhere or another to either Cape Town, Pretoria or Durban. Bearing in mind that they are all pretty senior people and that their time is valuable, the cost of airfare, subsistence etc, a meeting of this committee could cost about R30 000. It may be very necessary to have a large committee—I have some reservations about that and have indicated this before—but I do not believe that one can get any more work out of a huge committee such as this than one can out of a committee a third of its size. I believe that one would probably get more objectivity and I would therefore recommend to the hon the Minister to give consideration to this.

I find it quite interesting that this same committee, when it consisted of 44 members, made strong recommendations to the hon the Minister for a local government franchise. We passed a Bill last year on local government franchise. I was amazed to find that an enormous number of the recommendations of this extremely high-powered commission were apparently of no consequence and were thrown out. For instance, in their recommendations they rejected the granting of franchise to “legals”—I checked and found that “legals” also means juristic persons—but it has been put into the Bill. When it comes to multiple franchise and the question of ownership and occupation being a criterion, they rejected those things; yet they form part of the Bill. Seeing that we had such a very high-powered commission accommodating so many very, very important people, I wonder who it was who said the recommendations they were making were nonsense and changed them? I do not know who it was. If we are paying such a large sum of money for the services of these people—I realize that it is not a direct payment; I would not insult them to that extent—if it is costing us so much to get the benefit of the expertise of 44 of them, now to be increased to 57, then surely it would seem that their recommendations should not be treated in such a cavalier fashion? [Interjections.] This is why I feel a little bit perturbed. I have expressed my anxiety on matters relating to local government on other occasions. Although I am fairly sure that these people themselves have a pretty broad knowledge of what is good in local government, what assurance do we have that in fact all this expertise is not going to go by the board, and that an individual, be it a director-general of a department or the Minister himself, will not say that he does not like a recommendation and then propose to change it? This is where I feel the system has, to say the least of it, a serious defect.

I am aware of the fact that there have been other recommendations. There was a recommendation in respect of all municipal elections being held in 1988, and as a consequence all municipal elections until 1988, I understand, will be embargoed, by elections being exceptions, of course. This was their recommendation and an edict was issued to all local authorities to the effect that there will be no elections until 1988. I am not quite sure under which Act that falls, but I assume that it must be correct.

May I just correct that? This matter is regulated by provincial ordinances.

Yes, but there has not been a provincial ordinance passed on this.

That is correct.

This is the point I am going to make. I know that there has been considerable objection, not only in Natal—I know that I am prone to push the issue of Natal—but also in some of the other provinces in this regard. Although the committee implied this in the statement that there should be an election in 1988, I assume it was the Minister who issued the directive that he wanted the provinces to do away with elections until 1988. Surely, this was a decision that this committee could have defined rather more clearly.

I also understand that the question of the taxes emanating from Mr Croeser came through this committee. I believe that those taxes will have to be reviewed and reconsidered, in spite of all. This is an additional burden which I do not believe can be placed on local government.

I also found a couple of other interesting points in this document. The proliferation of non-essential local government should be avoided, and yet we have just passed a Bill of which the whole intent is to proliferate local government. I find that very interesting. I might say that this is one of the most useful documents on the future of local government that has come to hand recently, and I very much appreciate having had it in sufficient time for this particular debate. I accept that it is necessary to have the Ministers of Local Government and their directors-general, etc on this committee, because they are the people who are going to run local government. We will be supporting this Bill.

I would just like to add one further little point. The NP have been running this country for 37 years and they have touched on almost every aspect of life in South Africa. They have made their laws and over the years they have had their fun and they have won on political issues, etc. However, now they find that they have to change almost everything and go back to where they started. The one thing that they did not touch was local government. That was running quite smoothly. Let us hope that they do not now, repeat their mistakes and make a complete mess of local government. Then we will have to go through all the rigmarole of changing it all again in a short while.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo spent about 80%, I would say, of his time dealing with subjects that are not part of this Bill at all. I can appreciate that he read from other documents that he had available. He made interesting comments and raised various other debating points which really have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.

The one point that he raised that has to do with this Bill, is his objection to the size, or the increase in size, of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs. His objection is that it becomes unwieldy and expensive. This council is a co-ordinating council that must give an opportunity to the various interest groups that participate in local government affairs, to make their contribution to the co-ordination of matters concerning local government affairs. Consequently there must be wide representation in a co-ordinating council. Now the hon member for Umbilo says its membership is being increased from 44 to 57. Be that as it may, in 1984 the full council met on two occasions. Apart from the full council, which must be given an opportunity to discuss matters of general concern and general interest in local government affairs, there is an action committee. This action committee consists of about 12 to 15 members and this action committee met last year, in 1984, on seven occasions. Obviously an action committee of about 12 to 15 members is not unwieldy, and is not all that expensive. That is the group that gives effect to the general discussions that take place in the co-ordinating council, consisting of a total of 57 members in terms of this Bill. Consequently, the argument raised by the hon member for Umbilo that the body is being made too unwieldy and too expensive has no substance. [Interjections.] It is not the number that is important. What is important is the fact that it must give representation to the respective interest groups in order to give them an opportunity to make an effective input in the co-ordinating council. That is the important thing. Give people an opportunity to make a contribution. Give them an opportunity to voice their opinions. Give them an opportunity to be able to say: I have participated in the discussions. A great deal of tension is defused by giving them an opportunity to participate in the consultations. [Interjections.] The one important function of a co-ordinating council is to give members an opportunity to participate in consultation.

What is Parliament here for?

That remark made by the hon member for Umhlanga is somewhat futile. [Interjections.]

*Once again the hon member for Kuruman made a contribution which, to a very large extent, was not concerned with the actual contents of this Bill. His basic objection was a political one and was based on a completely erroneous supposition. He said that the Bill now wanted to make power-sharing a permanent part of third tier government.

Is that not true?

It is not true.

Are you sure?

It is simply not true.

Are you quite sure?

I should now like to enter into a discussion with hon members of the CP on the use, or shall I say the abuse, of the word “power-sharing”.

Please!

I do so gladly. The word “power-sharing” is being bandied about very, very unnecessarily and erroneously. What exactly does power-sharing mean? [Interjections.] Power-sharing means that power is shared in one policy-making structure in which final authoritative decisions are taken. In a co-ordinating council— after all this Bill deals with a co-ordinating council, basically an advisory council—there is joint consultation. There is consultation on matters affecting all the local authority bodies.

What is healthy power-sharing?

Order! I am not going to allow a running commentary on every word that is spoken here. The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

A co-ordinating council which is basically an advisory council is a council on which members of the various interest groups, for example the Black, Indian, Coloured and White local authorities, have common interests including water and electricity supply, the building of roads and the co-ordination of local authority services. If there are such joint services on which there has to be joint consultation, it does not mean that there is power-sharing in that joint consultation.

In this connection I want to mention an example that has nothing to do with the South African situation. It is being realized to an increasing extent on the international level that there must be greater co-ordination of certain arrangements among international interest groups. NATO deliberates and takes joint decisions on defence matters. The EEC takes joint decisions on the economic interests of Europe. However, there is no power-sharing in the strict sense of the word. The European Parliament consists of ten participating bodies sitting jointly. They are directly elected by the populations of the ten countries concerned. They elect a Parliament which takes decisions, which must then be transmitted for final approval to the executive committees of the participating countries. Not one of the ten participating countries in the European Parliament, namely Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and so on, have sacrificed their sovereign authority. It is, however, increasingly necessary to co-ordinate matters of common interest and since we are dealing here with local government bodies representing Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites which function in the Southern African context, surely it is logical that it must be a coordinating council. There is a customs agreement between South Africa and its neighbouring states, and surely co-ordination and consultation has to take place on those customs aspects. There is the Ministers’ Council, on which the Ministers of the Southern African states that have already attained sovereign independence are represented, and consultation takes place there without any power-sharing—the term which the CP is touting around—taking place.

The fact that a co-ordinating council is being established to co-ordinate consultation with the Black local authorities and on which they will also have representation, is no deviation from the policy that stability is being maintained in the political structure of South Africa. The hon member for Kuruman has objections to the right of Blacks to advise the Minister. I do not know why he has objections to that. He speaks erroneously of ten million Blacks; it is not ten million, because there are probably a good five million Blacks in the rural areas for whom there are no local authorities. They live in rural farming areas. Surely the Blacks living on the hon member’s farm do not have a say in any local authority structure.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the Government is also excluding Blacks living on farms, who also use the roads, water and electricity, from the decision-making processes that affect their lives?

This Bill makes provision for specific local authorities, which are defined. After all, the hon member referred to the definition having been amplified by making provision for regional services councils which do not even exist yet. Surely the hon member knows what is stated in the definition of Black local authorities. Surely he knows that the Blacks working on his farm, as well as that of the hon member for De Aar and those of the other members of the CP, have no say in any local authority. The Blacks in the rural areas of South Africa probably number approximately five million. But the hon member is now touting the idea around, in an effort to frighten the voters, that ten million Blacks are now being given a say and there is going to be power-sharing in third tier government. Surely the hon member knows that that is not true. Is he underestimating the intelligence of the people? Is he now trying to imply that people are really so stupid that they should take fright at a figure of ten million Blacks who are going to be involved in power-sharing on the third tier? Surely this is misleading politics, whether it is meant to be or not. Surely it is not fair, and the hon member for Kuruman ought to know it. He is touting a politic idea about which is not true. He ought to know that at least.

He also alleged that the NP had swallowed the PFP whole. Yet he also knows very well that that is not the case. The PFP’s policy is not a policy of separate representation in separate councils, like that of the NP. He knows that for certain. But if we create coordinating bodies for consultation, in which the other groups are involved in decision-making processes through being consulted, surely they are not being brought into one joint elected council as the PFP would like to see being done. Surely the hon member knows that. He is simply touting these things about from one political platform to another, but the things he is proclaiming are and remain political deceit.

Now he is asking whether we told the voters that the Blacks would be involved in power-sharing on the third tier of government. Once again that is a misrepresentation. Besides, it is probably a wilful misrepresentation, which is meant to be untrue. But the voters are not to know that it is untrue. It is such a pity that hon members of this Parliament, people who are supposed to conduct a debate on a dignified level, descend to this level of politics, a level on which that conduct is simply not dignified any more, where it ceases to be dignified because what they are saying is simply not true.

You are talking absolute nonsense now!

That is why I must express my disappointment at this kind of undignified politicking.

What you are saying is absolute nonsense!

The Bill under discussion makes provision for the expansion of a co-ordinating council. It makes provision for involving more people who are concerned with local authority structures in the process of deliberation on matters affecting them and their interests. Naturally we in Southern Africa do not consist of a single population group. We are a multiplicity of population groups, each with its own interests. To be able, therefore, to maintain proper stability in this country, increasing consultation is necessary.

During the past six months I have deliberated on at least six occasions with members of the elected Black council and the Council of Black Chiefs in the vicinity of my constituency. That consultation which takes place, reduces friction. It builds bridges of understanding but it does not constitute power-sharing. It builds bridges of understanding, and that is what we need, what we in South Africa need to an increasing extent.

I want to express my dissatisfaction at the fact that the Conservative Party is continuing to disparage every effort the Government is making to build up a better spirit of understanding between the separate population groups in South Africa, and trying to create the impression that all this amounts to is a surrender to the kind of politics which is being applied in the rest of Africa.

But surely it is!

That is not true. It is not true at all, and the hon members of the Conservative Party know it. However, they want to carry on doing so in a deliberate effort to deceive the voters.

You are a “hensopper” (defeatist), Tino!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klip River spent the better part of his speech explaining to this House that power-sharing is not really power-sharing. [Interjections.] Telling us that it is deliberation within the same body simply does not hold water. I now want to know from the hon member what the case would be with joint decision-making. He will recall very well that the State President told the PFP that the National Party would never ever accept power-sharing.

Well, it has!

That was the National Party’s standpoint! The hon member also knows very well that the standpoint of the National Party was that power-sharing was Prog policy, but that the division of power into separate bodies was indeed the approach, the standpoint, on the strength of which the National Party went to the polls a number of times.

Tino believes that is still separate development.

Yes, all the hon members of the NP believe that is still separate development. [Interjections.] In fact, in Harrismith they are still telling people that the policy of the National Party is still one of separate development.

Yes, they actually do. Besides, old Tino still believes it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall prove that the National Party has radically deviated from its earlier policy of separate development. If indeed there is one field in which that coalition government has given the White voters of South Africa the impression that this is the sphere of own affairs, then it is specifically that of local government. They referred people to Schedule 1(5)(2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act— Act No 110, 1983, which reads as follows and I quote—

1. (2) development of the community in any area declared by or under any general law as an area for the use of the population group in question, including the establishment, development and renovation of towns and the control over and disposal of land (whether by alienation or otherwise) acquired or made available for that purpose; …

Each population group will therefore be in full control of its own town councils, its own municipalities, etc. That is nothing if not own affairs. It has the closest possible effect on community life and is therefore full self-determination; there should be no doubt whatsoever about that. That is separate development. In fact, in the rural areas separate development is still National Party policy. They cannot get away from it. They are again advocating in Harrismith at the moment.

When the hon the Minister brought the original legislation before the House in 1983, the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs was a totally multiracial council excluding Blacks. Only now will Blacks be included in terms of this amendment. On that occasion the hon the Minister categorically stated in his second reading speech that it was Government policy to create full-fledged and equal local government councils for Indians and Coloureds respectively. I am not sucking this out of my thumb; let me quote the hon the Minister (Hansard, Vol 107, col 8297):

I shall return to that shortly. [Interjections.] This statement by the hon the Minister caused great dissatisfaction at the time amongst Indian and Coloured community leaders. I want to remind the hon the Minister of the newspaper reports that were published after this statement was made. In Die Transvaler of 7 June 1983 the following report appeared:

Hon members must listen carefully now, because I am going to quote further:

Die Transvaler then quotes Mr Curry as follows:

After the discussion with the hon the Minister everybody was quite satisfied. Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister what assurance he gave those leaders. He now says, across the floor of this House, that he still holds the view that Coloureds and Indians must have their own local authorities. After they had discussed it at the time, however, they were quite satisfied that there would no longer be independent local authorities, because on 23 June 1983, in Die Transvaler, there was this report:

But surely you know that they are not created in terms of that Act!

Subsequently the hon the Minister amended the legislation in the Committee Stage and sub-section (1) of clause 18 was simply deleted. I now want to ask the hon the Minister categorically if independent separate local authorities for Whites, Coloureds and Indians still is the policy of his party, and now—in this extension of the dispensation of the coalition government—for Blacks as well.

He will never answer you!

In December 1984 the hon the Minister went on to announce that the Government had also decided to include Blacks outside the national states in the third tier of government. It was said that they should be represented on regional service councils—and the hon the Minister is now frowning at me, but I shall quote to him from a report which appeared in Beeld of 22 December 1984:

Now the hon the Minister can say: “Yes, but it is only an advisory council.” However, I want to quote a second aspect from this report:

Sir, that is not an advisory body. A regional service council is a decision-making body at the third tier of government in which Blacks have now been included.

Now it is interesting to note that the first demand for their inclusion came, in fact, from the PFP, as the hon member Prof Olivier rightly indicated, and on that occasion by way of the hon member for Sea Point. The hon member for Sea Point said inter alia in his speech (Hansard, 1983, col 8306):

I want to know from the hon the Minister what has happened to that “race ideology” of the NP. Has it now been thrown overboard?

Were they correct then?

The hon the Minister has now done as they suggested. The hon the Minister has followed their advice.

Were they correct?

According to the hon the Minister they were correct; we do not agree with that. The hon the Minister has followed their advice by including Blacks.

With regard to the third tier of government, the principle that Blacks should not receive decision-making powers at any level of government therefore bit the dust somewhere, probably in the Cabinet, between 9 July 1984 and December 1984. Let me refresh the hon the Minister’s memory.

He will recall that in July last year, during the discussions on the amending Bill of this specific Act, I pointed out how, step by step, the Government was proceeding along the road of political integration. On that occasion I said that at first there would be separate parliaments. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs still said that we were unnecessarily concerned because the three parliaments would be so far from each other, that we would not even be aware of them. It was also said that the White Parliament would retain its sovereignty. It would be a sovereign Parliament retaining all its powers and only granting some powers to the others.

I went on to say that it had then progressed to one Parliament with three Chambers. I also said that two Chambers were already sitting under the same roof. I furthermore pointed out that the Chambers even met in the same Chamber for Second Reading speeches by Ministers. I now notice in the Press that there are strong demands for joint debates to take place during the Second Reading stage as well.

What was the hon the Minister’s reaction to this? I am going to quote his reaction. Let me quote from Hansard, 1984, col 10934, where I quoted what the hon the Minister had said in the course of the debate.

Just quote me correctly.

I shall quote the hon the Minister verbatim. I said:

On the grounds of that statement by the hon the Minister I continued and submitted this argument:

The hon the Minister’s reaction to this in the same debate was as follows (col 10942):

Surely we were then discussing the parliamentary institution.

It is interesting that the hon the Minister says it was the parliamentary institution. I want to ask him what the State President said about deliberation at the highest level. Is that not going to take place in one institution too, or are there going to be two separate institutions? The hon the Minister himself said there could not be more than one government in one geographical area. It is therefore only logical, is it not, that there should be mixed government, including urban Blacks, up to the highest level. I have now quoted to the hon the Minister his admission in which he said that the Government did not have a mandate to include Blacks in one government institution.

We now see the Coloureds, in particular, claiming from many platforms that they exerted pressure on the Government to include Blacks at local government level as well.

Order! Hon members should converse more quietly if they have to talk at all.

This legislation now certainly includes them in the same government institutions. What amazes me is that the right wing of the NP accepts this. [Interjections.] After all, there are many of them. I do not want to embarrass them by mentioning their names because in the future we shall certainly be getting together. I could name the hon members, one by one, who would tell me that they would never accept Blacks in the same parliamentary or governmental institution in South Africa. [Interjections.] Those hon members must surely know that the State President announced that it was going to happen.

In this amending Bill the Act is being amended so that it will, in fact, take place at the third tier of government. Now our friends, who were as right-wing as we were when we were still members of the NP, accept it with resignation. That I cannot understand. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the Government that it has no mandate to include Blacks in this government institution. If they want to do their duty as a Government, they should have a referendum on this matter. They cannot continue to do things for which they do not have a mandate and which had not been decided by way of a ballot in the referendum in 1983. [Interjections.]

The inclusion of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and now Blacks as well, within the scope of this legislation embodies a further alarming implication. There is the inability of the Government to establish separate local governments for the Coloureds and the Indians, and it is very clear that they are not going to succeed in doing so. There is the opening of the central business districts to all races, and remember that this falls within the jurisdiction of White town councils. There is the granting of full proprietary rights to Blacks who qualify for 99-year leasehold. It may fall within the jurisdiction of a White local government, but it definitely falls within the jurisdiction of a White central government. All these matters increase the urgency of the demand for joint decision-making powers at all levels of government, with the increasing danger that they may have to be granted.

In his opening address the State President said (Hansard, 1985, col 13):

That may be so, but the acquisition of political rights is, in fact, linked to property rights by a subcommittee of the co-ordinating council, and this is now being processed in the report of that co-ordinating council which is now before us. The Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, as embodied in the Bill passed here last year, links property rights to franchise. On that occasion the hon member for Brakpan pointed out that in terms of that Act it was possible for a wealthy family to gain more voting rights on the grounds of the property they owned.

Political rights for all, White, Coloured and Black, as prescribed by the USA, is on the way, as sure as the sun is shining, and this Bill is the irrefutable proof of that. A very important amendment being moved here is that this co-ordinating council, which comprises 44 members, with the Minister as chairman, be further extended to include four more Ministers—the hon member for Umbilo also pointed this out—and directors-general, namely the Ministers of Local Government in the three Houses and the Minister for Co-operation, Development and Education and his director-general. Then the organized associations of Black local communities will also be represented on the council. It is therefore another grandiose council which is being formed in the constitutional empire being built up by that hon Minister. Five Ministers will serve on this council.

Now I want to put a question to the hon the Minister. The four Administrators and their MECs responsible for local government affairs, as well as the four Ministers, including the Ministers responsible for local government affairs and the directors-general, are now going to serve on this council. Who is now actually going to take care of which affairs in this council, or—I put it to the hon the Minister—is it possibly an interim measure while the functions of the Provincial Councils are gradually transferred to the Ministers’ Councils of the three Houses? The general impression is that this is the case. I should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say in this regard, because last year he strongly denied that certain functions of the Provincial Councils were to be transferred to the third tier of government while on other functions are transferred to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, with himself as the undisputed ruler at the very top.

Soon after the Rosettenville election last year, during the discussion of the previous amendment of the same Act, I said with regard to that coalition party’s candidate in that election (Hansard 6 July 1984, col 10785):

There was fierce protest at that stage. The hon member for Turffontein amongst others said it was not the truth. Let us look at what the MPC for Rosettenville said. She said— and I quote from Rapport of 1 July 1984:

Does the hon Minister of Home Affairs agree with that? He did not repudiate this MPC. He said nothing. To this very day that leader has not repudiated her. In fact there was no repudiation of her from that side either. In fact that Prog-minded coalition partner of the Government was right on target, because now the policy she propounded is being implemented. What she said then has now become the policy of that coalition government.

An integration measure such as this is in conflict with every principle of the CP which aims at ensuring White self-determination and true freedom, and therefore we shall fight, with everything at our disposal, against every measure endangering that self-determination and freedom. I should therefore like to support the amendment moved by the hon member for Kuruman.

Mr Chairman, I should have liked to reply to the hon member for Pietersburg’s speech and especially to his statements concerning the composition and extension of the co-ordinating council but I think for the sake of meaningful debating on this important measure before the House we should first examine the principal Act to establish the functions of this co-ordinating council. On looking at the functions of this council, we see that arguments of which the drift is that this co-ordinating council represents power-sharing are devoid of all truth.

Are you certain?

I shall illustrate it if the hon member will only give me an opportunity.

A further argument which is very important and is being put forward with a view to the by-election in Harrismith is the allegation that this council would actually curtail the rule of law and territorial sovereignty of local authorities—especially White local authorities. Was this not the argument that hon member was putting forward? That is how I understood it.

Let us examine the Act: In terms of section 4 of the principal Act, in the first place this co-ordinating council is an advisory body desirous of advising the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on such activities of local authorities as are of general interest to them as well as on those matters concerning local authorities which should be co-ordinated in the national interest.

Let us limit this argument to the participation of Blacks in this co-ordinating council. Now the hon members of the CP must tell me: Are they opposed to the extension of the co-ordinating council to include Black people, that is the representatives of Black local authorities—yes or no? Are the hon CP members in favour of that? [Interjections.] All right, let us reverse the argument: The Black people amalgamated under Black local authorities are not permitted representation in this co-ordinating council. Now the hon CP members must tell us where they propose accommodating these people. [Interjections.] Let me put it as follows: Do those hon members think it is at all in the interest of the White man to talk to the Black man? [Interjections.] Do they think it is at all in the interests of the White man to deliberate with the Black man? [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon the hon member for Bellville not to provoke hon members of the CP to contravene the rules of the House.

All right, Mr Chairman.

Now I wish to enter into debate with the hon member for Pietersburg whom I am following. When we used to take the straight and narrow path together, the party policy was for Black people to order their own affairs in local government and even find expression in decision-making in institutions on levels above those of local authorities. That was the standpoint of the then Prime Minister, Adv Vorster. Does the hon member for Pietersburg still support that?

Does the NP still support the linking-up policy for urban Blacks?

If the hon member counters my question with another, I shall not reply to him.

You are unable to!

I can answer that question but the hon member for Pietersburg first has to tell us whether they still accept local authorities for Blacks.

Reply to my question first.

Mr Chairman, it is no use arguing with them. [Interjections.]

Order! I called upon the hon member for Bellville not to provoke hon members of the CP but now hon members of the CP are not to contravene the rules of the House without provocation.

It is clear the CP opposition to the legislation is merely for the sake of opposing it. It has no positive contribution to make on the place and position of the Black man in South Africa. The CP takes the stand of not accommodating Black local authorities in the co-ordinating council and the greater the distance between Black and White the safer for the White. That is an illusion. The reality of South Africa forces all population groups—White, Brown and Black—to bargain and negotiate on matters of mutual interest. That is precisely what is envisaged with this legislation and why I support it.

I think the hon member for De Aar is to follow me. He should tell the House in which cases decision-making of White local authorities on cemeteries, taxes and all own affairs is handicapped by the extension of the functions of the co-ordinating council to include Blacks. It cannot be said that the own affairs of White local authorities are hampered because Blacks have been involved in the co-ordinating council.

The Bill regulates local communities in South Africa and gives expression to a characteristic of South Africa from which we cannot escape, namely that there are matters of common concern—from the highest to the lowest level—among White, Black, Coloured and Indian. That is why I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bellville wishes to know why we are going to vote against the Bill. In the course of my speech I shall constantly indicate to him why we propose doing this.

To the hon member for Bellville I wish to say this: In the first place the Bill is just a further step in the Government’s planning to have a racially mixed body in overall charge making decisions on White local authorities as well and for this reason we are opposed to it. The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs is one deciding on general affairs at the moment affecting Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This Bill now also provides for Black people to be represented on this council. The hon member initially believed in the linking-up policy for Black local authorities but now they are being included on a co-ordinating council where, in conjunction with the other peoples of South Africa, they will make decisions and also have a say in the hon member’s local government in Bellville.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is the chairman of the co-ordinating council. With the new additions to the council, either a White or a Coloured or an Indian Minister may take the chair in his absence. I foresee the day dawning—if the NP is to govern any longer— when a Black may become the chairman of the council as well. In addition all forms of local authorities are now being accommodated here. I wish to reiterate that government institutions of the Black peoples are also being included here now because the Government no longer believes in the linking-up policy. Regional services on which we touched briefly last year and which are to be introduced later this year according to the Minister, are now becoming local authorities. All these people have representation on the management committee or so-called action committee. In other words, they all have the greatest say in this co-ordinating council.

This Bill follows the typical pattern by which people are conditioned. The Government first puts forward Bills providing only for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and subsequently Blacks are also included. Initially one council was created for Whites, Brown people and Indians and now provision is also being made for the inclusion of Black people on this council. First there is joint decision-making which is ultimately succeeded by joint and co-government. The hon member for Klip River pointed out and emphasized that this council was only an advisory body. The hon member for Bellville also said it was merely such a body. Nevertheless we should not lose sight of the fact that the advice given and decisions taken by committees of enquiry are constantly embodied in legislation. The Minister therefore tailors legislation to the advice received from them. Let us examine a few examples in this regard. Inquiries conducted by committees of this council have been embodied in Acts. For instance the committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of the present the hon the Minister of Education and Culture which made recommendations giving rise to the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act of 1984.

But that is contrary to the recommendation.

I say the advice of this council’s committee of inquiry is ultimately embodied in an Act. That is the point I wish to make. This Act also applies to White local authorities—that is my argument. [Interjections.]

The Regional Services Councils Bill arose from the inquiry of the co-ordinating council. I also refer to the council’s inquiry into additional sources of income. For instance a regional services levy and a regional establishment levy for regional councils are envisaged—all emanating from this council. I also wish to refer to the committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Minister D M G Curry. Its inquiry in turn gave rise to the Local Government Training Bill which we have just debated here this afternoon. Surely this Bill also applies to White local authorities. Do the hon members for Bellville, Klip River and Randburg wish to deny this?

We are dealing here with a racially mixed council making decisions at local government level on Bills concerning White local authorities. That is the reason I wish to give the hon member for Bellville for our opposition to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to react at once to the speech made by the hon member for De Aar. While one was listening to his speech, one thing was clearly apparent, viz that the hon member had never made a study of the entire course of development of local government systems and the co-ordinating council itself. Let us examine the hon member’s argument. He said his party opposed the legislation inter alia because the advice of the co-ordinating council had led to legislation in this House. [Interjections.] What else did the hon member expect the co-ordinating council to do? If the hon member had referred to section 4 of the principal Act, as he obviously did not do, he would have known that the responsibilities and functions, as well as the subjects on which the co-ordinating council has to provide us with advice, are very clearly specified in that section. The hon member’s charge against the co-ordinating council was that its advice had led to legislation, but I am of the opinion that there can be no charge if that is the case. Instead it would underline the success and effectiveness of the co-ordinating council if their advice was of such a standard, and so relevant, that it was accepted for the purposes of structuring and ensuring the proper functioning of local authorities. In other words, the argument which the hon member used as motivation for not accepting the legislation is in fact the reason why the House should in fact accept the legislation.

Let us examine the hon member’s arguments further. He said that council’s inquiry into voting rights for local government, and its report on the matter, led to legislation.

†At the same time the complaint of the hon member for Umbilo—and I do not take him to task on that—is that in regard to the voting rights for local government, we have not accepted the recommendation of the subcommittee that investigated that particular issue.

*It is extremely difficult to participate in this kind of debate. One has the same set of circumstances, but two different parties arrive at two different conclusions.

The hon member for De Aar went even further and said that the additional sources of revenue were a direct consequence of the advice of the co-ordinating council. Surely that is not true. What, then, is the factual position? The additional sources are the product of an inquiry into sources for local authorities as a whole by the Browne Committee, which was followed by an investigating team under the direction of Mr Croeser. The hon member, however, said that the Bill was the direct consequence of the co-ordinating council. With all due respect to this House, I want to know how it is possible that we avail ourselves of arguments which are so far removed from the facts. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon member has made his speech. He went even further and referred to the question of the Local Government Training Bill. He said that this measure was a direct consequence of the Curry Report. Surely the hon member knows, because we have debated this matter before, that the Browne Committee made a recommendation in its report, not only on new sources, but also on the need for training. That would be conducive to saving costs, because if the standard of training were high, the cost efficiency would also be greater.

I said the Curry Report dealt with the training of authorities.

I am still discussing the matter. Let us consider the facts. That council did in fact furnish advice on training …

You said it yourself in your speech. Are you denying it?

I do not know why the hon member is so excited.

You are putting words in my mouth that I never used.

That is not possible. [Interjections.]

You are like a clown in a circus, Chris!

And you are one! [Interjections.]

Let me repeat it. The committee’s report on training related to the need for training of officials of all local authorities, whether they were local authorities for Whites, Coloureds or Asiatics. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

I now want to turn to the hon member for De Aar. Let us see how the De Aar municipal establishment is made up. There are 61 Whites, 55 Blacks, 214 Coloureds in the employ of that municipality. In fact, not one of the White municipalities of the hon members of the CP have a majority of Whites in their employ. Therefore, when we undertake training activities in respect of the officials of White authorities, these apply to all local authorities. This brings me to a point which I want to take further.

†I should like to start with the hon member Prof Olivier. Let me point out immediately that the whole issue of consultation between the various communities is as old as this country.

*I want to state unequivocally today that every political party represented in this House has as its object that all communities in the country shall share in the decision-making affecting their lives. All the hon members represented in this House agree that the essential question is how we may achieve that objective. [Interjections.] The fact remains that the reply to the essential question of how we are going to succeed in affording all the communities an opportunity to participate in the decision-making affecting their lives, depends on that particular political party’s view of society and its view of the population structure. Hon members are not likely to disagree with me on this point.

There are three views which typify our respective standpoints in this country. I am not going to deal with them, however, except merely to refer to them. These views can be summed up into three main types. Strangely enough, they also represent the views of the hon members who participated in the debate.

There is a view—in the final instance the hon member Prof Olivier is an exponent of this view—that the population consists of approximately 28 million individuals. The fact that they are members of specific population groups or communities is either ignored or is not taken sufficiently into account constitutionally. [Interjections.] That is important.

[Inaudible.]

I am now replying to the debate. The hon member did not participate in the debate. He must please give me a chance now. In the view of the population held by the hon member Prof Olivier, the emphasis is on the individual. The hon member knows that that is correct, and I am not reproaching him for having this view, but as a result of such a view he arrives at an answer to the constitutional problem which in my opinion is oversimplified. In spite of their ties to specific groups, individuals have to be accommodated constitutionally according to a typical Western model. I maintain that this is inapposite, but I shall come to this again. The hon member cannot deny, however, that it is his standpoint that we should accept the Unitarian state concept as a constitutional model for South Africa.

What do you mean by that?

I shall come to that again, but first I am now dealing with the types.

The second view on the other hand—and this can be deduced from the remarks made by hon members of the CP, in particular the hon member for Pietersburg and the hon member for Kuruman—is that of the group bases in South African society forming absolutely separate compartments with no formal points of contact or overlapping of interests. This simplistic view causes disregard for overlapping interests and leads to an unobtainable ideal of partition as the only possible solution to our problems.

Then there is a third view. It is the view of this Government. It is that the reality of the population structure of this country is recognized, namely that individuals are all members of specific population groups in our country. It is our policy to grant rights to individuals, on whatever level, which can only happen if the group basis of society is accepted. In other words—and we can argue with one another on this score—the group is the basis of the rights of the individual in South Africa. Within the group—and this is confirmed by the legislation under discussion—the individual acquires his rights concerning matters affecting his group. This we debated with one another long ago, when we were discussing sections 14 to 18 of the Constitution and the related schedules. With the group as power basis there is consultation and decision-making with other groups concerning matters which affect all the groups.

†I want to take this further and refer to the State President’s statement in this regard. I should just like to quote one paragraph:

And that presupposes all the Black communities of South Africa as well.

In one State?

I am coming to that. I quote further:

What is in fact the purport of this statement? What does it really contain? Strangely enough, it coincides with the expression of their point of view by all those people who are prepared to face and to handle the realities of South Africa. What are those realities? One of those realities is the fact that there are indeed 10 million representatives of the Black communities within the boundaries of this country. That is a fact which cannot be disputed. In terms of the laws of this country—laws to which every hon member of this House has subscribed at some stage or other—almost 5,5 million of them have the right of permanent residence in South Africa.

A further consequence is that successive Governments have indeed accepted that for Black communities outside of the homelands and outside of the national states provision has to be made for participation in the decision-making processes that affect their own lives.

At all levels.

I am coming to that. I can deal with that right now if the hon member so wishes. In this regard the previous Prime Minister of this country expounded a philosophy in terms of which the Black communities were entitled to participate in institutions which had a direct bearing on their lives, and to do so at a far higher level than merely that of local government.

At a national level.

I am coming to that too. I am still trying to reply to what the hon member said a little earlier by way of an interjection. There was no limit placed on them as to the level at which they would be allowed to participate. Every hon member of the Conservative Party in fact subscribed to that same policy while they were still members of the National Party. [Interjections.]

*Consequently the fact of the matter is that the participation of Black people in the decision-making institutions within South Africa and outside the independent national states were at specific stages accepted in terms of the policy of every party now represented in this House. I concede immediately that we differ with certain parties as to how this should happen. At present, however, I am arguing about the principle of participation.

In the second place—and we will simply have to debate this matter to a conclusion today; perhaps even tomorrow, if necessary—hon members of the CP, when they were confronted by this reality while they had to help administer the governmental functions of the country, themselves found that it was not possible for the Black communities outside the independent national states to realize their political aspirations to the full within their respective states. The fact of the matter is that in this specific connection the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member for Lichtenburg—as was their responsibility, and I am not reproaching them for this—instituted inquiries into the lack of liaison between these communities and their respective states. The aforesaid two hon members even came forward with proposals as to how that specific defect could be obviated. The hon members who are now sitting in the benches of the Conservative Party were therefore responsible, when they were confronted by the decision-making and organizational responsibility towards the country, responsible enough to face up to the reality with which they had to work.

Now that the mantle of decision-making has fallen from their shoulders, however, they can sit down, close their eyes, and say that the facts of South Africa are simply not true. [Interjections.] They believe that this is simply not true.

You will still mean thousands of votes for the CP! [Interjections.]

That brings me to the hon member for Kuruman, Sir. It will not help the hon member for Kuruman to use a far-fetched argument in respect of his recommendation now. Or what is he saying? He says, no, he recommended at the time that there was nothing wrong with a multiracial advisory council, as long as the advice was intended for a White Cabinet only, as long as the advice was intended for a White Parliament only. Let us now consider the validity of his argument. That hon member was in the National Party of the Cape; in this specific connection he was a member of the Cape Organization. In 1977 that hon member, with great enthusiasm, advocated a mixed cabinet council. [Interjections.]

That is not true. There was never such a thing as a cabinet council. [Interjections.]

No, let us get the technical part straight now. I repeat that the hon member, with great enthusiasm, propagated a Council of Cabinets—if the hon members wants to be technical. [Interjections.] That Council of Cabinets was, in terms of its definition, as interpreted by the hon the leader of the CP—even after he had left the NP— still valid as far as the activities of his party were concerned. In fact, that is the way in which he continued to present it. By definition it was—also in accordance with the interpretation attached to it by the CP—a council which would take decisions on matters of common concern.

That is not true! It was not able to take decisions.

Those are simply facts. On 12 April 1978 the hon the leader of the National Party said that in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to remind hon members—I am certain they know it—that the right of free speech exists in this House, and that an hon member can say precisely what he likes, provided it falls within the rules of this House. I shall have to discourage the hon members who violate that right. I think that would no less than right under the laws of this country. I am asking hon members to cooperate. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I just want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that when he appears to be so innocent, he reminds of Pilate, who washed his hands to prove his innocence. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman made a recommendation which, in principle, has nothing to do with what is stated in this legislation, in respect of an institution which for the purposes of debating this legislation had no other function than the one which he recommended under his own signature. The hon member has every right to say: I no longer adhere to a standpoint which I previously adopted. I say, however, that it is wrong to argue as though that standpoint and his standpoint of today are reconcilable. That is wrong. [Interjections.]

If I understood the hon member for Pietersburg correctly, he argued in this specific connection that I had said that I believed in full-fledged, self-governing local authorities. To support his argument he quoted what I had said in 1983. However, surely that was not all I said. Why did the hon member quote only a certain section? Here it is stated very clearly (Hansard, 1983, col 8297):

Is that still the policy?

Yes. That is not all I said. I also said:

[Interjections.] This is a particular debating pattern of the hon member for Pietersburg. He asks me whether I support this, but he knows that the components of the regional services council which we debated last year are the primary local authorities of the groups. Surely the hon member knows this, and he also knows that just as he and I advocated that there should be institutions for participating in decision-making on own affairs on the highest level, this would also devolve to the local level. Surely he knows that.

The hon member Prof Olivier asked me whether I could lift the veil a little on the negotiations of the Cabinet Committee. [Interjections.]

Sir, I should really like to know whether you have given the hon member for Jeppe the floor.

In this connection the hon member Prof Olivier will understand two things. The negotiations between the special Cabinet Committee and those with whom it is negotiating, are a very sensitive matter. In my opinion it would be fatal to the negotiating process if any publicity is given to the contents of the discussions and to the people participating. The hon member will know that. He will also know that those who are participating within the local government set-up for Black people under the 1982 Act, which he and I supported, are the targets of the groups which do not want us to succeed with evolutionary constitutional development.

Incidentally, what I find so tragic is that we have Black people in our country who are vulnerable because they are negotiating with us, who are vulnerable because they wish to function within the system. Now we are hearing from the CP that we should not afford these people an opportunity to participate in the giving of advice on how we can order and structure our country for the sake of peace, development and stability.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

I shall give the hon member an opportunity later to put a question to me; I first want to complete this argument.

The announcements which the State President made in his speech—the hon member Prof Olivier referred to them—and which are regarded in all quarters as being important, whether one differs with them or not, are the direct consequence of a process of negotiation over a period of almost two years with various leaders in the community. I also want to say this: We would not have met in a new Parliament if we had not kept the negotiations confidential until such time as announcements in that regard were made, and the same applies in this case. I concede that it is difficult.

I want to emphasize the basic premises which I and my colleagues on this committee must also obey. I think we should also put this on record for once. It is that the diversity must be taken into account institutionally as far as the Black communities are concerned too. And furthermore, that domination of one population group by another is unacceptable. This does not apply only in regard to Blacks, Coloureds or Whites, but also to the inherent groupings in the ranks of the Blacks themselves. It is also that the situation of non-domination, if it can be achieved, can only be achieved if every group has self-determination over what is its own, and joint determination over matters of common concern.

The question is what is “own” and what is “joint”.

I can understand why the hon member for Rissik cannot subscribe to NP policy, because he has never been able to discover for himself what is uniquely his own and that of the community to which he belongs.

I know, but do you?

The general objective is the maintenance of security, stability and self-determination for every group and to give everyone a say in the decision-making affecting their lives. I shall now reiterate that this includes the Black communities.

Because of the diversity of the population it is neither desirable nor practicable to accommodate all communities in the same way. This guideline to which I am now referring does not mean that the right of Black people to take part in the democratic process is not recognized, nor that the structures to be set up for them will be inferior or less effective.

What is important here is that structures must be created for this community as a specific element in the solution and that those institutions must be an effective part of the decision-making process.

Hon members must please go along with me for a while, even though they differ with me. We have accepted partition on various levels and in various ways as a part of the solution to our political problem. This is best demonstrated by the existence of independent Black states. When those states became independent, we did not follow the course adopted by European decolonization processes. We did not cut those people off from the financial and economic resources of South Africa.

Although geographic partition in respect of those states represents an element of the solution, they existed and we existed and our joint interdependence led to the search for structures for co-operation and decision-making on matters of common concern. Surely that hon member knows this. In fact, if I remember correctly, the hon member is also advocating a confederal concept for cooperation among the independent states, not so?

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

Please, I want to complete this argument. I shall reply to the question later, but at the moment I should first like to take my point further.

What happened to the concept of partition for the creation of territories for statehood? After independence had been attained, it was immediately necessary to search for institutions and techniques for co-operation between those states and our state. On that basis a council of Ministers among five independent states came into existence. What is the purpose of this body? To have an instrument or an institution within which people can take decisions affecting the lives of all the peoples and communities.

Now I state categorically: I wish we can convince the world that it is possible that people with divergent traditions, cultures and so on can co-operate with other people in the pride of their independence. Since that council was established it has never once been necessary to take a decision by way of a vote. We accepted—and the hon members know this—that the existence of national states is also part of the answer on the basis of the partition of land. Just as in the case of the independent states, the same need existed for co-operation among the self-governing states and the Republic of South Africa on matters of common interest.

If it is true that this need exists on that level, how on earth is it possible to deny that matters of common interest also exist on the local level? Where communities live side by side within the borders of our own country and we are developing institutions for certain communities so that they can participate on local level in the decision-making affecting their lives, how can we say in a hidebound way that we are ignoring the matters of common concern in respect of services such as the provision of electricity and water, transportation systems and fire-fighting services? How can we say we are ignoring the reality of the need for co-operation with the local government institutions for Black people? On the basis of what practical considerations or ideological considerations can we argue in that way?

I want to say with emphasis today—and I want to do so in all earnest—that it is not becoming any easier to negotiate for peace in this country. The forces which do not want us to succeed are intensifying. I want to make a plea to my hon colleagues in this House: Regardless of the parties to which we belong, we must not, in our statements, play into the hands of the radical elements outside.

That is an old story.

It may be an old story, but it remains true. The Bible is also old.

It is an old scare-mongering story.

No, it is not a scare-mongering story. Do you know who the people are who are afraid, Sir? The people who are afraid are the people who think that contact with other people will destroy their identity. Those are the people who are afraid. They are the people who think there is only one way in which one can preserve one’s identify, and that is by isolating oneself in a dark corner. It reminds one of children who have not yet found themselves during puberty and who need isolation in the dark in order to do so. [Interjections.]

Whether we want to or not, reality dictates that we should create institutions by means of which we can communicate with the Black communities and their institutions on a local level as well. I want to emphasize that these Houses have the responsibility of adopting a standpoint in favour of those Black leaders who, in the face of threats and attacks on their person and property, are still prepared to negotiate for an evolutionary development within the systems which are being created. I maintain that all of us owe it to South Africa. At some time or another the voice of recognition will have to be heard in this House for what those people wish to do to help us to bring solutions.

The legislation before us has no object other than to create an establishment for providing people who have to take decisions on matters of common concern among local government institutions with advice. Surely that is true. Now it is a fact that when we were debating the matter in 1983 …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he thinks it is fair for Black people to serve on this advisory council and advise the Minister, while they will not be present in the parliamentary process when their advice is being converted into legislation?