as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 14 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 14 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 14 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 14 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, when my speech on this subject was interrupted a week ago I was expanding on the question of the Australian Historic Shipwrecks Act. Having had the interruption, I think it is necessary for me to recapitulate a little on the Bill itself which contains provisions for a register of properties, the protection of conservation areas, the protection of cultural treasures in this country and the protection of shipwrecks.

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

Certainly.

Is the hon member not going to congratulate the hon member for Sea Point on having been elected unanimously as the leader of that party? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, as a member of the caucus and, as such, having already congratulated the hon member for Sea Point on his election, I am very pleased that the hon the Minister joins the PFP caucus in congratulating our leader. [Interjections.]

As I pointed out last Monday, we accept the subject-matter of this Bill as an interim measure because we believe that there are certain elements within conservation strategy and legislation in this country dealing with shipwrecks that require urgent attention. I pointed out that the Historic Shipwrecks Act of 1976 of Australia is a model piece of legislation. The hon the Minister is aware of this, as is his department, and we hope that in the very near future when the legislation dealing with conservation and shipwrecks is reviewed for the purpose of the preparation of new legislation, they will use the Australian legislation as their model for our South African legislation.

I think it is also necessary for me—and I hope the hon the Minister will do so as well—to refer to an article that appeared in the Financial Mail of 14 February under the heading “Historic buildings—time to preserve”. This article indicated that there were very great fears in the private sector in regard to the protection that Government might thrust upon them thus removing rights that they may have had in regard to the development of property. If the hon the Minister would like to see this article before he replies, I shall be happy to send it across to him.

I think it is also necessary to say that the private sector should also have concern for the fact that irrespective of political changes in this country the historical heritage of this country needs to be preserved and defended. In this regard it is necessary for us to refer to the work of the National Monuments Council in the past and also to the belief that we in this party have that the protection offered under this Bill in regard to movable property in the form of cultural treasures, in respect of immovable property through the ability to create a register that will enjoy legal protection, and lastly, by the protection of major conservation areas within which the natural environment can be protected, gives teeth to the National Monuments Council that it did not have in the past.

I say therefore that we in this party are happy to support this measure as, as I have said, an interim measure. We want to express the earnest hope that the hon the Minister will give due attention as a matter of urgency to the drawing up of longstanding legislation for conservation and marine archaeology in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I wish to refer to the unfortunate absence this afternoon of the hon member for Johannesburg West, who was chairman of the standing committee and who would therefore have been the main speaker on this measure on this side of the House. We are sorry that the hon member was unable to be here today, but we hope there will be another opportunity for the hon member to make a contribution in this connection.

In his absence I should like to place on record my appreciation for the exceptionally competent way in which the hon member for Johannesburg West directed this enquiry. I think we can also say with justification that he did so with great distinction. It is clear that there was great appreciation for his guidance among all the other hon members of the standing committee—this also includes members of the two other Houses. I think the hon member for Johannesburg West succeeded very well in gaining the confidence and co-operation of all the members of the standing committee. I think that even his handling of witnesses before the committee compelled general admiration. Furthermore I think that one can describe him as a very gifted negotiator, which made him an ideal chairman of such a committee.

The hon member for Pinetown made a completely positive contribution, both on the standing committee as well as in this debate. He takes an intense interest in the matters being dealt with here. He also has the knowledge and ability to do research. In that way he was able to make a very good contribution to the proceedings of the standing committee, as well as to the discussion of this Bill here in this House. Unfortunately, though, the hon member for Pinetown gave in to the temptation to try to make a little political gain from a debate dealing with such a purely cultural matter. I think one should show a little understanding for the state of mind he and his party is in at this stage, particularly if one thinks of all the disasters and mishaps which had struck them shortly before he rose to speak here last Monday. Consequently it is quite understandable, and I think one should show a little sympathy and not take it too amiss of him.

One can quite understand the hon member trying to disguise his and his party’s predicament somewhat with a little smokescreen.

To return now to the measure before this House, I just wish to point out that one important key to this debate is probably the recommendation of the standing committee as printed on page 8 of the Minutes of Monday, 3 February 1986. The recommendation concerned reads as follows, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, that recommendation is definitely just as important as the Bill itself because without it we would, I think—and I am certain that all the other members of the standing committee will agree—have had a debate here which would have required and justified a far wider discussion of the matter than is the case at present. In view of the said recommendation, and also on the supposition that the hon the Minister and the Cabinet will accept it and act accordingly, one can accept—and on this point I must also agree with the hon member for Pine-town—that this measure can for the most part be regarded as being of an interim nature.

The fact of the matter is, Mr Speaker, that although we welcome this measure and congratulate the National Monuments Council on the initiative it has displayed in this regard, it still does not, upon thorough examination—bearing in mind the problems we are trying to deal with—appear to be satisfactory in all respects. There are definitely still questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. Nevertheless I want to point out immediately that the principles and objectives of this measure leave no doubt at all that it meets with general support. The question still arises, though, whether the provisions of the Bill under discussion will succeed in all respects in promoting those specific objectives satisfactorily and effectively.

This therefore explains the feeling which arose on the standing committee that further consideration should be given to this matter—and also to the way in which the accepted principles and objectives could be promoted in a practical and effective way. Personally I found it very satisfactory that the standing committee made this recommendation, because it so happened that I advocated the same course of action here last year, during the National Education Vote. On that occasion I also asked for a full enquiry. The objective I then had in mind was the consolidation of the existing legislation on national monuments. I said it should be based on a general revision of all of the existing legislation and the consolidation thereof on the basis of current thinking on this matter, and also on the basis of current knowledge and expertise in regard to conservation.

The members of the National Monuments Council, too, strongly support the idea of consolidation and the view that such legislation will have to be preceded by a thorough investigation. In this connection therefore I expressly stated that it was not satisfactory to think only of a departmental enquiry or even of an interdepartmental enquiry, because the need which existed really justified a probing enquiry, preferably by a presidential commission of enquiry.

As the hon member for Pinetown did, I also want to dwell briefly on a few of the most important provisions of the Bill under discussion. In the process I also wish to indicate to what extent I think deficiencies still exist—deficiencies which I hope will be identified by means of a full-scale investigation and rectified by the subsequent legislation.

The first aspect I wish to refer to—and the hon member for Pinetown did not refer to this—is the provision contained in clause 4, which makes provision for a new section 5A(1). This is concerned with financial assistance to persons and bodies restoring and preserving monuments. I think that this amendment has a great deal of merit and can be supported without any reservation.

It differs from the existing position in that provision is also being made now for a grant-in-aid for defraying administrative expenditure. At present provision exists only for expenditure actually incurred in connection with restoration or preservation of a monument, or a property worthy of conservation. I must also add that experience in the past has shown that that provision was interpreted rather restrictively so that a real problem arose.

The department’s motivation for this new provision is also important, ie that such a body incurs considerable administrative costs in carrying out its functions properly. Specific reference is made for example to office staff, office rentals and other current recurring administrative expenditure.

The modus operandi will be that the NMC will make a recommendation to the Minister in respect of every application, and that the Minister will then decide in every instance, and will also decide the extent of financial assistance.

I should like to make the point that this provision can be seen as a well-deserved gesture to the people in the private sector who have over many years make a very important and essential contribution to the important cause of conservation. This is a recognition we owe to so many persons and bodies. I can almost say it is a national debt of honour which one can try to repay in this way. One thinks of bodies who have, over all these years, done a tremendous amount, voluntarily and with their own funds, for the conservation of our heritage.

One shudders to think what would have remained of our heritage if they had not been there. One thinks in this connection of the company Historic Houses and various historical associations which have arisen everywhere in several towns. One also thinks of the Simon van der Stel Foundation, as well as individual owners of houses, of properties in town and on farms, who made great sacrifices and did a great deal to help preserve our national heritage. We are very grateful—I wish to give the hon member for Pinetown credit for this too—for the idea of assistance to a person by means of this amendment.

It is not necessary for me to go into the question of shipwreck. The committee is unanimous on its recommendations in this connection, and the hon member for Pine-town has already referred to this matter. The ideas which he put forward on the standing committee have also embodied in the proposals which are now before this House.

I want to refer to two other important provisions, the two provisions in clause 4(b) and (d). The first is concerned with the so-called national register or, as it is by now generally known, listing. The second provision is concerned with conservation areas.

It has already been said that we are all in agreement on the principles and the objectives. We all accept that it is essential that these provisions be introduced to ensure that justice is done to the importing task of conservation. There are still certain reservations as to whether these clauses, as they have been included in the Bill, are the best way of promoting the accepted principles or of actively attaining the objectives. Quite a number of query marks are still hanging over some of the aspects affecting these provisions. There is uncertainty as to precisely how they are going to be applied in practice.

Moreover it is also a fact that even the principles of the proposed measures are still highly contentious in certain circles. I need only refer to the question of conservation areas. Our experience on the committee was that there is a great lack of uniformity among planning authorities on the need for such a measure, and also on the matter of its application. I think it is a very good thing that we should at this stage accept the provisions exactly as they are, faults and all, but in the expectation that the proposed comprehensive enquiry will within the foreseeable future provide more satisfactory answers in respect of any justifiable reservations or uncertainty which still exist.

With reference to the proposed National Monuments Council register of immoveable property worthy of conservation, I want to say that it is regarded as a foregone conclusion that such a register of buildings that are worthy of conservation is a sine qua non for the meaningful and effective conservation of our built-up areas. We must realise that an enormous amount has already been done in this regard. Various towns and cities have in fact already done a great deal, but the major problem was that all the efforts had to be coordinated. In this connection we are grateful that the NMC—which is the appropriate body for this purpose—has taken the initiative in respect of this matter of co-ordination. We are grateful that that role of the NMC is going to be confirmed in terms of this legislation. I think it is necessary for us to place on record our recognition of the contribution made by the NMC, as well as our gratitude for the results.

There are those who argue that the NMC is putting the cart before the horse now. The argument is that the criteria for scheduling, according to which buildings are assessed and selected for inclusion in the register, should first have been drawn up, particularly in order to ensure that there is uniformity which could be applied on a country-wide basis. Very strong emphasis is also being placed on the enforceability of the catalogues. If we have to reply in this regard, I think we can definitely assume that this Bill is certainly not the final or the perfect answer to the question. It does not afford the full answer to the ideal we are striving to attain. Particularly in view of the long-cherished ideal of a register in this connection, we must nevertheless welcome this provision as at least being a good start. The deficiencies and shortcomings which still exist can receive attention in due course and be rectified.

I think we can resolve the matter in this way: This measure, however imperfect it may still be, will at least assure something in the nature of a moratorium to counteract possible further harm to or destruction of our environment. We can most certainly assume that the damage which is still in fact going to occur, will be of a lesser extent than it would have been without this measure.

The NMC regards this register as being something in the nature of a first line of defence for the protection of elements worthy of conservation in the built-up environment. In their evidence before the committee they stated the matter as follows:

Incidentally it is also interesting to note that whereas this legislation now refers to a register there is somewhat of an anomaly since the legislation now makes provision for two registers. Consequently we shall have to indicate on each occasion to which of the two registers reference is being made. The NMC refers in their documentation to a catalogue, and it is quite likely that finality will be reached on such aspects as well during the comprehensive enquiry to which I have already referred.

I do not think it is necessary today to go into the questions—there are many of them—which still cause us concern in this connection. I do not think it is necessary to discuss them fully today.

Finally, I just want to refer briefly to the conservation areas. The NMC considers the power to proclaim conservation areas to be extremely important, and in fact sees it as essential for the effective execution of its statutory task, as conferred upon it by the National Monuments Amendment Act. Among certain planning authorities, however, it is still a highly contentious matter. It is being asked whether it is the right thing to do to establish another planning authority. It is being said that there will be duplication, and that a very heavy onus will rest on local authorities in particular.

We must probably concede that we still do not have satisfactory answers to all these questions. I think we shall simply have to wait for the answers to all the matters that are not clear until after the comprehensive enquiry has been finalised. In the meantime the measure as proposed could well serve a purpose. As I have already said, I agree with the hon member for Pinetown that the best course is to regard this legislation as an interim measure, and to wait for the result of the enquiry which may give us the answers to the outstanding questions. These can subsequently be embodied in legislation, which will then, it is to be hoped, meet all our requirements.

Mr Speaker, I just want to say that the hon member for Sunday’s River, who was a member of the standing committee on which we listened very carefully to the evidence pertaining to this legislation, made an interesting contribution. I think he made use of his right as member of the House to make the informative speech he has just made.

Allow me, in a few short sentences, since what we are dealing with here is the War Graves and National Monuments Amendment Bill, to congratulate the new leader of the PFP, as designated by the members of the party, on his leadership of the party. I have come to know him as a formidable opponent, a very good debater and a man who can make a good contribution on standing and other committees. If one thinks back to the previous leader of the PFP, one wonders whether one should classify him in one’s thoughts under the heading “war graves” or “national monuments”. In any event, time will tell where all of us, as politicians, are going to end up one day.

If this Bill had been introduced under a constitution reflecting the view which the CP has of South Africa, we would more or less have had no problem in supporting it. The CP, owing to its nature, its views of history and its ideals for this country, is a party which is pro-conservation and conservation-conscious. We say it is fit and proper that not only the material cultural possessions of a people should be preserved, protected and honoured, but also its spiritual cultural possessions. We are not only conservation conscious as far as the cultures of peoples are concerned, but also in respect of the country, the oceans and the air without which man cannot survive. We adopt this standpoint—as Pres Paul Kruger told us—that we must take what is good from the past and preserve it, and in the good sense build the future on it.

Therefore, if this legislation had been introduced within a different constitutional dispensation, we would have been very glad to support it. There are interesting aspects to this amending Bill. The words “cultural treasures” are for example, being inserted in section 2 of the principal Act. I think “culture” is a very wide-ranging concept, which defines a great deal. In fact it covers the entire living pattern of a people. In that respect we consider this to be a very good insertion.

Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 make a very good contribution in respect of archaeological research. As far as mankind was able to delve into his history by means of archaeological observations, it has become apparent that there were very frequently items of inestimable value concerning the history of mankind of millennia ago to be found under the surface of the earth. I am grateful that this amending Bill makes very good provision for that as well.

There is another very valuable aspect of this remarkable amending Bill, and on this aspect the hon member for Pinetown made a very good contribution. [Interjections.] It was his contribution on the salvage of shipwrecks.

It is a whited sepulcher.

Mr Speaker, I heard that remark about whited sepulchers, but those were not my words.

I think we can also draw on these resources to discover what happened in other parts of the world. It is not only the earth and its surface which reveals very interesting information on mankind and his history, but the oceans also contain many things which not only tell us about marine life as such, but also about the things made by people that have lain submerged there for centuries.

I think that the modern techniques that have been devised by mankind have ensured that really very good research has been done, particularly during the past few decades. I trust that all who have an interest in conservation and everyone who might happen upon items which ought to be preserved will do their work in the spirit of conservation. It frequently happens that something is discovered on a farm, on tilled land, or in a place where a businessman wishes to erect a building. Sometimes it is then a great nuisance for the man who has to make a living, and who has invested money in a specific project, as well as for those people who undertake conservation and research, to recover man’s cultural treasures from those places. Consequently this amending Bill is a good one. The people who drafted it and who worked on it, did good work.

In his introductory remarks—the first time he discussed this amending Bill—the hon member for Pinetown made a number of statements which indicate what a substantial difference there is between this side of the House and hon members of the PFP. I think that at a later stage, when the normal division in politics in this country occurs—that is, between the conservative and liberal stream—we will be able to debate these matters more fully, not only outside, but also inside Parliament.

It is a fact that the hon member—he is an intellectual and an intelligent member—simply has a political blind spot when what we are concerned with is the diversity of mankind in regard to peoples and races. There is an absolutely blind spot in liberal thinking as far as this matter is concerned. That hon member said that when he visited certain museums he found it interesting to see that one of the museums contained the cultural-material artefacts of a diversity of peoples in the world, and that he could see in that a unity of the people here in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon member that conservation and the establishment of museums, whatever the facets may be, does not mean that a person collects only what is the derived from one’s own national history or the heritage of one’s own people. The books on the shelves of our library are not only Afrikaans books, or books dealing only with the specific subject of the culture of South Africa, but there is a variety of books. So, too, one will find, in the museum, a diversity of the material cultural artefacts of a diversity of peoples in the world.

As an own affair.

The hon member must just give me a chance. I shall come to the question of own affairs.

In the great museums in the world, visitors can see how other peoples in the rest of the world are living. This is a very good thing and I have no problems with that. Nor does the CP say that it is wrong that one should have such a specific museum. However, the hon member’s political standpoint destroys the conservation strategy we want in South Africa.

I cannot understand how mankind—this includes many intellectual liberals in the world—would very much like to preserve things, but when it comes to the Whites and particularly the Afrikaners in this southern land, no one cares about the survival of this people that has brought certain things into existence here. No one cares about the other diversity of peoples either, the Zulus or the Vendas or whoever it may be. [Interjections.]

Never mind, Daan, I shall preserve you. Do not worry!

In parentheses I want to say that that hon member for Bryanston was my first opponent in politics and that he has never recovered from the beating I gave him at the time! [Interjections.]

It is our standpoint that there is a diversity of peoples in South Africa. The continued existence of this diversity goes hand in hand with the conservation of war graves or national monuments, which have a specific meaning in the life of a people. One cannot therefore simply say that everything is common property. There are certain things which are more important to the Zulu, or which are important only to the Zulu and not to the Afrikaner …

And the Coloureds?

The Coloureds as well.

They were at Blood River.

I want to tell that hon member that some of my people were probably in the Second World War, but that does not mean that France is mine. The reasoning of the so-called intellectual liberals is too superficial. They reason correctly up to a point, but they go off the rails when it comes to the question of diversity. But I want to leave my hon colleague at that. It is sufficient to say that as long as the PFP does not recognise the diversity of South Africa and does not make the continued existence of this diversity possible, all the talk of strategies for the conservations of many things, which were brought to South Africa by various nations, means nothing at all.

I want to return to the hon the Minister. It is very clear that there are two schools of thought in the NP, but I want to talk to the hon the Minister who is now saying that in his opinion there is no prospect of a Black President in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon the Minister is going to be singing a different tune in a year’s time, but if one listens to the speeches which he and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture are making in the rural areas, the only topic is own affairs. Again this weekend I was at a place where the hon the Minister of Education and Culture made a speech.

A year or so ago, however, it so happened that this Government, which has such a lot to say about own affairs, said that a national monument—such as the Voortrekker Monument, which is far more than a national monument—was not an own affair, but fell under the central general Cabinet, where the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi exercised control over it. Certain things which are truly national monuments—for the Afrikaner in particular and also in a broader sense for the Whites of South Africa—are being included in so-called general affairs. The Afrikaner and the Whites are therefore losing their say over those things closest to them. I want to tell the hon the Minister that he would do well to go and read what the late Dr Malan said at the opening of the Voortrekker Monument. He should go and re-read that moving speech which he made. The hon the Minister can then come and tell me as Afrikaner and as a White person that he and the Government are not engaged in ultimately handing over things, to which I attach a deep value, and which are beacons on the road of the history of my people, to a group of people who are in fact bent on the destruction of those things.

That is why I say, although we accept the broader details of this legislation, and find it fit and proper, we are surely more intent than the Government is upon the preservation of our own cultural treasures, as well as the preservation of other cultural treasures, including those of the non-White world.

We are living in a world in which non-Whites usually refer to Whites as the oppressors, but if it were not for the White travellers and scientists, many of the cultural treasures of the non-White peoples would have been lost. That is why I think there ought to be great appreciation, particularly on the part of the non-White world, for what the Caucasians or the Whites have done in the interests of this conservation.

I want to conclude by telling the hon the Minister that we will not help him in this by supporting this Bill. We have no confidence in the Government and in the NP as far as those monuments are concerned, which have been established by Afrikaner nationalism. We have no confidence that they will preserve our cultural treasure, and for that reason we are voting against this measure. For that reason we shall ensure that we in the right-wing groups—I think my hon colleague from Sasolburg will agree with me—will in our cultural organisations in future not only keep an eye on the Government, we shall also not allow our national monuments to be transferred to a multiracial government.

Mr Speaker, it happened again today that, with a Bill such as this, which is in many respects merely a technical measure, the hon member for Rissik found a reason to indulge in a little politics. I think one must simply allow him to do so. Personally I would prefer not to venture into that sphere. He will simply have to pardon me; I would prefer to confine myself to the Bill.

I am grateful, though, that he also found it possible to emphasise quite a few positive aspects of the legislation. One appreciates that. Although it is possible to indicate certain deficiencies in this Bill, as the hon members for Pinetown and Sundays River did, it is generally speaking a step forward in the conservation of the cultural heritages of our country. From my point of view the most important provision of this Bill is the provision which is being made for a register of immovable property worthy of conservation. This, together with the provision for conservation areas, indicates a shift in emphasis in the philosophy of conservation.

Our heritage is not located solely in a few, separate historical buildings, or whatever, of which a clear historical account can be given. It covers a far wider field than that. Entire streets, building complexes, natural areas and cultural areas form part of our wider heritage. If these are not preserved in their entirety, the few buildings which are ultimately preserved will be rarities, rather than embodiments of our heritage.

In this connection I can refer to the Koopmans de Wet House here in Cape Town. It stands there, sandwiched between the high modern buildings in the central city area of Cape Town, while the atmosphere of the times from which it dates has been irreparably lost. It is a pity. With this legislation we are now moving in the direction of “preservation of the whole”, in respect of which the Western World is far ahead of us. The Dutch legislation has for a long time made provision for the proclamation of “dorps-en stadsgezichten”. Under this legislation an entire street, in co-operation with the local authorities and local community, may be proclaimed worthy of preservation.

To come back to the register of immovable property worthy of preservation, I maintain that the particular advantages I see in this are the following. Firstly it will serve as a catalogue or inventory with the help of which priorities for conservation will be easier to determine. Secondly the owners of such properties will be warned in time that they may not demolish or destroy without consultation. In the past conservation-conscious persons and bodies frequently had to fling themselves in front of a bulldozer, figuratively speaking, in order to save a building. Even then it was sometimes in vain. Thirdly, planning authorities will be compelled to take the existence of such properties and areas into consideration in all their planning. This legislation will strengthen the position of the NMC considerably. It will enable this body to do its work better, in the interests of South Africa.

It must be borne in mind, though, that the cause of conservation can be best served only with the full co-operation of those who are the owners of assets worthy of conservation, as well as of the local authorities within whose areas of jurisdiction such assets are situated. I have every confidence that the NMC, as we have grown accustomed to it doing, will do everything in its power in future to obtain and promote that co-operation.

The public and the local authorities, however, must play their part and remember that the heritage we received from our fathers really cannot become individual property. It is a pledge which they are preserving on behalf of all of us and our descendants. Our heritage is a demonstration to all of us in South Africa that we have established something permanent in this country. It is the title-deed to our right to live here. I hope that this measure will be used as an additional instrument to verify that title.

Mr Speaker, it has fallen to me to add our congratulations from these benches to the hon member for Sea Point on his election to the position of Leader of the Official Opposition in this House. Like so many leaders in difficult situations, he has inherited a tough task. From the other appointments in that party it would appear that it is going to be made tougher by the up-and-coming younger members who are breathing down his neck.

Are you talking about war graves?

I am congratulating that hon member’s party on their new leader. Just give me a chance. During the coming years that leader will meet with the usual experience of people speculating about the personalities and the existence of various wings in his party.

You know; you have the experience!

Yes, lots of it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this amending Bill. The hon member for Stellenbosch made some very positive remarks about the whole question and I agree with him completely. Two aspects, namely the designation of conservation areas and the compilation and maintenance of a register by local authorities of buildings and other immovable property worthy of conservation, hold tremendous promise for participation by local authorities with the assistance of the personnel of the National Monuments Council, as well as members of historical societies etc. If it is done in the right spirit and if one could mobilise all that participation on a national basis, we could go a long way to stopping the erosion and loss of a great many very precious cultural history treasures which, unfortunately, we do lose each year owing to our having an inadequate infrastructure to cope with the situation at this stage.

I should like to say one or two words about the portion of this legislation dealing with wrecks. I am not referring to the PFP as they have just run aground temporarily. We shall see what they are like once they have been refloated.

As has already been said, this provision is very much in the nature of a stopgap. In the documentation given us by the Department of National Education during the sittings of the standing committee, one or two very interesting statements are made. The one is found on page 132 of the document given to us. It is made clear that there was a very strong feeling among the parties who received the draft amending Bill on 5 June 1985, according to the comments received from them. The parties approached for comment included mainly various departments, second-tier government bodies, one or two foundations and, of course, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. These parties made it clear that they felt strongly that it was not enough for the council to claim up to 50% of the articles and objects found in wrecks for preservation, as is now done. The argument was that the council should claim all the finds and then compensate the organisation that undertook the salvage. This proposal was rejected because of a lack of funds.

It was also suggested that the amending Bill make provision for a permit to salvage wrecks to state expressly that all salvage work must be done under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist who is acceptable to the council. As has already been mentioned by the hon member for Pinetown the lack of marine archaeologists makes that impossible. Those two questions in tandem are really the crux of the question of wrecks. We would in fact like to claim all the wrecks along our coast and then make available what we do not want from the salvage, to the public. We would like to police the salvaging of wrecks with properly trained and qualified professional people but we are simply not able to do that. The nub of the matter is that the country is not in the position to do what should be done. The hon the Minister may, by becoming very friendly with the hon the Minister of Finance, find some funds to support the concept of a marine archaeological chair or institute in a way which would certainly put us in a position to manage these problems. Even if we do introduce legislation which tries to close all the gaps, the manner of salvage will greatly determine how many of the precious artefacts are properly recovered. If one is not going to police it there is no way that one is going to prevent some very precious artefacts becoming damaged or from leaving this country either surreptitiously or otherwise. People who are involved in this kind of work are very much aware of what is precious and what is not. It would appear therefore that we really need both those measures that we cannot put into this legislation at this stage. That is to claim the entire wreck and then have complete control over the actual operation. There will still be sufficient incentive to make the salvage worthwhile for the salvors.

The hon member for Bryanston had some useful ideas which he put to the standing committee and I am sure that he will expand on these during his speaking turn. So I am not going to steal his thunder by also discussing the matter. I am quite certain that the ideas put forward by him are more in line with mine as far as a more authoritarian measure as regards wrecks around our coasts are concerned. This obviously has international repercussions and it is going to take a great deal of research and negotiation with the countries concerned. However, if we are going to make a worthwhile effort of this we are going to have to go a great deal further than this legislation does at present.

With those few words we have pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for King William’s Town was as balanced in his address, as he was on the committee that discussed this legislation. I am grateful for that and I also want to thank him for his support of this legislation.

First of all I want to address a sincere word of thanks to the hon member for Sundays River. He made a special contribution not only on the committee, but also through the work of the National Monuments Council. He has made it his life’s work to serve the interests of the communities he represents, which is clear, too, from this legislation which crowns his work. He led the National Monuments Council in their thinking which led to this legislation and he himself also made a contribution towards the legislation as formulated by the hon the Minister and tabled here today. We want to tell the hon member that we are grateful to each person that has made it his life’s work not simply to stand and talk about a people’s culture but also to make an positive contribution towards that culture and its development.

If there were anything that stood out in this legislation, it would be that the hon the Minister with his department as a cultural arm, together with the National Monuments Council, could achieve precious little if there were no local activity to do the necessary spadework and background study to bring a monument that ought to be preserved for the people to the attention of the authorities.

If I may explain this—round about Christmas time I stood next to the old farm school where I had had the privilege of beginning my career in education. Today there are sacks of fertiliser lying in the building, the windows have been halfway bricked up, a door has been broken through where the teacher’s table used to stand, the ceiling has been removed and where there used to be old floorboards, there is now concrete. One stands and wonders how many of these things have already been lost at places where great opportunities for people were created, to find not only their culture but also their whole way of life.

It is a pity that the lane of quince trees at that school has already been uprooted because this lane of quince trees made a special contribution towards the culture of those hon members who have to talk about this today.

Hear, hear!

The old earth dam, another cultural treasure from that particular world, is still there. This was the place where the children had to go and play while their parents discussed their reports with their teachers, so as to acquire first-hand knowledge of precisely what was contained in the report on the past term’s work.

The kind of buildings I am talking about will continue to be neglected and to become dilapidated unless the teaching community institutes investigations to determine whether the buildings are indeed worth preserving or not, and then submits its findings or recommendations. If they do not do this, the Minister and his department will never be made aware of something worth preserving. Only then does one realise what a tremendous contribution the private sector and the community are making in the place where these items worth preserving are situated before such findings reach the department, and before the department can really take action to preserve them.

I want to propose, too, that we do not simply talk about this matter, but also do something positive about it. I am thinking now of the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke who blazed the trail himself last year with the cultural organisation of his part of the world, obtained the particulars himself and identified, researched and prepared the old Boer graves from the Second War of Independence himself. He then involved the department in the reburial of those heroes. That was a positive contribution! That is the action that comes from the heart of a community and it is only after such action that the department and the Minister can effectively intervene in preservation. Provision is being made in this legislation particularly for action of this kind. I agree with this legislation. The legislation has not been finalised; it is simply the spadework for greater legislation still to come. I think we have brought a very serious matter to the fore: Great treasures are being lost which the Minister and his department cannot save unless communities become involved in rescue attempts such as these.

In conclusion I thank the hon the Minister for this legislation and I wish him luck with it. I hope that with this we shall be in a position to do even greater things in the future.

Mr Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that the hon the Minister of National Education should assume responsibility for legislation regarding wrecks, considering what he has done to the State President’s initiative of 31 January. [Interjections.]

There are two lessons which the hon the Minister and his department can learn from this legislation. As has already been mentioned on a previous occasion during this debate, this legislation is very much interim legislation. As we analysed, debated and discussed it in the Standing Committee on National Education, we soon realised that it was inadequate to serve the purpose it had to, that it had not been properly researched and investigated before it was prepared, and that it did not meet the requirements of the various organisations and interests which have to be served by its provisions.

I think, therefore, that the first lesson one learns in dealing with legislation of this nature—legislation which is as complex and intricate as this legislation has proved to be—with which a large number of interest groups are directly involved, is that it is essential for the investigation which precedes the drafting of the legislation to be thorough and to take into consideration all the factors that are part and parcel of the purpose of the legislation.

That brings me to lesson No 2, which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. We are now in the process of introducing a new constitutional procedure in the production of legislation. The application of the standing committee system in reviewing legislation is in its infancy. We are finding our way through that process. One of the interesting aspects to come to light is that the standing committee only sees the legislation halfway through the process of its creation. The legislators who serve on the standing committee are not part and parcel of the process of producing that legislation from the ground up. What happens is that the bureaucracy produce the legislation, based on their investigations and representations which they receive, and the legislators come into the picture halfway through the process when the legislation has been drafted and all the groundwork done. It is then the legislators’ responsibility to reexamine that legislation. In fact, a great deal of ground has to be covered again and there is a great deal of duplication. A wastage of time, energy and effort results from this procedure. I believe therefore that lesson No 2, if I may so put it to the hon the Minister and the Government, is that we should move to a position in which the legislators—who are, after all, responsible for producing legislation in the interests of the country and on behalf of the people they represent—become part of that process from the very beginning. We should be present during the initial drafting of legislation and should in fact, do the drafting ourselves. We should do much of the investigation and be present when witnesses are heard and submissions studied. I believe that to be the intention of democracy, particularly as it is applied to the function of producing legislation. It is, in fact, done this way in the USA. Legislation there is largely initiated, not by the bureaucracy or outside forces, but by the representatives of the people who are part and parcel of that process right from the beginning.

The Chief Whip should give you lessons in constitutional law.

I would like the hon the Minister not to become so nervous, but to be kind enough to listen to what I have to say and give it some consideration.

I am not nervous. I just think you should become an engineer again.

I think it is important to point out that the hon the Minister’s department is, in fact, the most appropriate to be responsible for legislation of this nature. The conservation of our cultural treasures and all aspects of this country’s cultural history correctly belongs, scientifically and in every other way, under the auspices of that department.

I have a few suggestions for the hon the Minister’s consideration, particularly since this Bill will now become the subject of further study with a view to the production of substantially amended legislation in the future. The first addition I wish to suggest concerns the recovery and salvage of wrecks. I am one of those who believe that wrecks and the treasures they contain are the property of the nation and should not be exploited by private persons. None of the cultural treasures recovered should be lost to South Africa except by a decision of the cultural authorities concerned that such treasure may be sold or exchanged.

I would therefore like to recommend that the salvaging of all wrecks should become the responsibility of the SA Navy. To motivate that argument I would like to advance a few reasons. Firstly, the SA Navy has the best expertise available in South Africa for the salvaging of wrecks. They have the greatest technological knowledge and experience in that field, far more so than any private salvors would possibly have. It is part and parcel of their business to be able to dive to great depths and to recover material from the sea-bed.

Secondly, no organisation has more advanced equipment than the SA Navy or is in the position to acquire the equipment which is required for the undertaking of such diving operations. Thirdly, I believe that the SA Navy would welcome an opportunity to take responsibility for the recovery of wrecks. The first reason for this is that it would give them a very meaningful, important and exciting responsibility. Furthermore I believe that the people who undergo diving training would find a new dimension to the work they do. It would serve as a very useful diversion from the rather dull normal practice procedures which they have to go through. The third and most important reason is that the security surrounding the recovery of wrecks and wreck material would be as high as it possibly could be and the possibility of the loss of such material to the country would be reduced to a minimum.

I feel too that the question of the ownership of wrecks and wreck material should be dealt with once and for all. For instance, I feel that it is totally unacceptable that England should claim ownership of the wreck material of the Birkenhead which was stranded on our coastline a very long time ago. If England wanted to claim ownership of that wreck material we should recover parking fees from England for the period that that wreck was parked off our coast in order to persuade them that it really is our material. Any wreck off our coasts—if not recovered by the owners within a reasonable period of time—must become the property of South Africa. It is certainly part of the cultural heritage of South Africa and we should have the right to whatever treasures are recovered from such wrecks.

I feel it is the responsibility of the hon the Minister to appoint legal persons to study the matter and, if necessary, to produce legislation which will put it beyond doubt that all such wreck material is the property of South Africa.

When it comes to the conservation of the built environment—this includes buildings, monuments etc—it would have been expected of me as a supporter of the free enterprise system to take the line that the conservation of these things should not interfere with the free enterprise system, with economic growth and with other economic considerations. However, I feel extremely strongly that the preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage must take precedence over economic considerations.

Because of the significance of these cultural treasures and the fact that they are non-renewable resources, the policy must be accepted and made known that as far as the preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage is concerned this must have priority when it comes to economic development and growth in our country.

This is not necessarily counter-productive in terms of economic considerations. It has been proved in many parts of the world that the preservation and the conservation of the built environment can become economically viable. It can add to the attractiveness of a country in the field for example of tourism. In America there are literally hundreds of aspects of the built environment which have been preserved and which are today economically very viable indeed. Think, for instance, Sir, of the Atlanta underground, the Orlando Old Station, the Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, and so forth. Therefore, I believe, a very valuable and effective partnership can be established between those authorities who preserve and conserve the environment and the private sector, if the private sector are prepared to abide by the provisions of conservation on the one hand and are prepared to devote their talents and their initiative to making these conserved areas, buildings and so on economically viable to the benefit of the whole country.

The next point I should like to mention, Sir, is the concept of building into our town-planning legislation very firm and established policies with regard to the conservation of the environment. South Africa’s town-planning policies are largely based on the town-planning policies which emanated from Great Britain. In South Africa, however, these have become very commercially oriented. If one looks at the modem town-planning schemes—the provision of master plans and of regional development plans—I believe that it is essential that built into those plans there should be very specific and very firm provisions stipulating that where it is essential to preserve any aspect of the built environment that should be given priority throughout the process of planning—irrespective of whether it is at local government level or at the second or first level of government.

The final point I should like to draw to the attention of the hon the Minister is …

Give an example, please.

Well, Sir, there are very many examples indeed. In Cape Town, for instance, the hon member for Stellenbosch, I think it was, mentioned the Koopmans De Wet Museum as an example of a building which, if at the time there had been a sound policy in relation to town planning, would have had its environment preserved in such a way that it would not have suffered from what has happened in its immediate vicinity since—and also of course all over the country. Another good example is that of the Pretoria Church Square debacle of some years ago. That would never have arisen if there had been a soundly established town-planning policy in Pretoria providing that a square of that nature should be preserved and that its preservation should be a matter of the highest priority. It was indeed only as a result of tremendous pressures which were brought to bear by many community based organisations that we were ultimately successful in persuading the Government and the Transvaal provincial authorities, and also the Pretoria City Council, that Church Square should be preserved. That square was very, very nearly lost to posterity. It was indeed only saved at the very last minute.

Most of old Cape Town has already been lost.

Yes, most of old Cape Town has already been lost. It could, however, have been preserved had there only been firm and sound policies built into legislation at the time in order to prevent that catastrophe from happening.

The point I want to make, Sir, is that many people believe that it would not have been economically viable to preserve all those historic buildings which we have lost through the years. I submit that it would indeed have been economically viable if they had been preserved and if the private sector had in fact applied their talents and their initiative in order to create in the centre of Cape Town a very attractive tourist area. When one thinks in terms of, for instance, the French Quarter of New Orleans, one sees that the French Quarter of New Orleans has been preserved in toto, and the regulations which apply there are extremely strict. One cannot paint a door without permission, and it is provided that one should use exactly the right colours. One cannot replace a window pane without conforming to the design of the original building. By doing that, Sir, that particular area of New Orleans has become a money-spinner because tourists bring in a fortune in the form of foreign exchange. Today in fact the most expensive real estate in the whole of New Orleans is to be found in the French Quarter. Although the area is very old and the buildings do not exceed two storeys, land in that area is the most expensive real estate in that entire city—in fact in the whole of that part of the world.

The next suggestion I should like to make to the hon the Minister is the following. An organisation called the Pennsylvania Avenue Redevelopment Association, based in Washington DC, was established to redevelop Pennsylvania Avenue because it was felt that this being the avenue which connected the White House to Congress it should be something of which the American people could be proud.

A problem one often finds is that if there is an attempt to preserve a particular street or a particular area, or if there is an attempt to rebuild such an area, one or more property developer by refusing to co-operate can in fact undermine the whole scheme and destroy it. This also happens in many other places where for cultural or other reasons it is important either to improve, redevelop or upgrade a particular area. In such cases, individual property owners—very often for extremely selfish personal profit motives—can cause the shipwreck of such a scheme. In America which is the country where free enterprise and capitalism are practised in their purest form it is interesting to note that an organisation of this nature was established inasmuch as it entails direct and effective intervention in respect of private enterprise. What happened was that Pennsylvania Avenue which connects the White House with Congress became very delapidated and unattractive. It became an eyesore. Some 100 to 200 years ago, probably because of the supply and demand nature of the American economy, with the President and his staff on the one hand and all the congressmen and senators on the other, the businesses that flourished most in Pennsylvania Avenue was in fact the brothels. It was decided, therefore, that something would have to be done to clean up the area. The Pennsylvania Avenue Redevelopment Association was then established which now has the power to expropriate any property in that area, and not simply for cultural or historical reasons. It can plan and develop the area in harmony and in accordance with the specifications laid down for the area. It can develop property along those lines and also resell it. This means that an organisation established for cultural and historical reasons has the power to expropriate any property, to develop it and to apply normal commercial processes. It can thus develop, hire, operate or sell property in such an area.

When I consider the problems we face in South Africa in regard to the very, very few areas that have as yet not been destroyed as a result of economic development, areas which it is absolutely vital be retained, conserved and preserved, I think that we need legislation to make it possible to establish bodies such as the development association, and to give such a body the muscle that it needs to apply expropriation procedures and, if necessary, apply normal commercial practices in order, firstly, to ensure the preservation of such an area and, secondly, to ensure economic viability so that such area is not downgraded in any way.

Therefore, we are going to have another look at this legislation, and I think that a much better job should be done the second time around. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to bring the Standing Committee on National Education into the project at a much earlier stage.

Mr Speaker, allow me firstly, on behalf of the party I represent here, to congratulate the hon member for Sea Point on his election as leader of the PFP. Although we are lightyears apart as regards standpoints and policy, we respect him as a person. We have even, on occasion, shared a platform with the PFP and the NP and if, under his leadership it can manage to arrange more such occasions in the future, my party, too, will profit from the fact that he has been elected leader of the PFP. We wish him the best of luck and success.

I also want to associate myself with what has already been said this afternoon. I do not want to go into details but I do want to point out that there are various aspects of this Bill that my party can support. We are particularly pleased with the provisions surrounding the issue of shipwreck and we congratulate the hon the Minister on this.

We do, however, regret certain things that have fallen away. The first is that the words “war graves” no longer appear in the short title. We think this is a mistake. Although the preservation of war graves is not the most extensive part of the work of the National Monuments Council, it is still such an important part that we feel, particularly also with a view to the history and the fact that the two war graves committees have to a large extent become absorbed into the council, that for the sake of its own memorableness, that word ought to be retained in the short title. At this late stage we want to appeal to the hon the Minister to bear this in mind. If there is anything he can do about this, we shall support him sincerely.

We regret, too, the bit of uncertainty—we came to hear of this from official bodies—surrounding the question of whether all military memorials deemed worthy of conservation could fall under the provision concerning immovable property. There is a measure of uncertainty, particularly regarding the issue of military memorials erected after 1914. There is also a possibility that these memorials could be preserved in future in terms of other clauses. We suggest that the hon the Minister give attention to these matters. If anything can be done about this, we should like to see that there is no doubt that it will be possible in future for memorials from after 1914 to be classified into the category “worthy of conservation”.

We nevertheless have to vote against this Bill because it is wrong in principle in the respect that the National Monuments Council is already a multiracial body with Coloureds and Indians as members and, if one thinks of and looks at the policy the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is advocating, Blacks will also be able to serve on the council in the future.

It is our argument that it is a great mistake to allow different racial groups and different peoples and population groups to make decisions regarding one another’s shrines and to exercise control together over them. I say this because I have already been to the Kramat, the Moslem Shrine near Firgrove three times in my life. This Shrine was and is, as far as I know, controlled entirely by the Malay community. If one goes there, certain demands are made of one, which must be fulfilled if one wants to visit that Shrine. For example, one must remove one’s shoes. I have always been perfectly happy to do this out of respect and esteem for their view of how their monuments ought to be dealt with.

In contrast to this, it is atrocious, something that causes the Afrikaner great pain, to see how other peoples play around inside the Voortrekker Monument on the days that they visit there. It is an absolute disgrace. I have seen with my own eyes how, on a Saturday afternoon, the Cultural History Museum here in front of the Parliament Building is made into a picnic spot. It is a disgrace.

Before we try to control and manage one another’s cultural possessions, we first have to learn to respect them. I am sorry to say this but in South Africa at present, there is a tremendous lack of mutual respect for one another’s cultural possessions. We still have a long way to go along that road. However far we are along that road, a people and only that people, can ultimately really preserve its cultural property as it ought to be preserved. Ultimately, only the Malay community of Cape Town can really ensure that the Kramat is preserved as it ought to be preserved, and as only the Afrikaner people can ultimately preserve the concentration camp cemetries. No one else can do this if the Afrikaner people do not and do not continue to do so. This is why we are opposed to this principle of a multiracial, multiethnic, multicoloured management and control over everyone’s cultural property as if it all simply belonged in one basket. This is the mistake that is being made here in principle.

Why do we preserve something? We preserve because history is the memory of a people. A people that does not know its history, that does not maintain or appreciate it, cannot know where it comes from. If it does not know where it comes from, it will not be able to determine its road ahead with certainty.

Therefore, each of the individual peoples in South Africa preserves its own monuments, because preservation is in this respect nothing less than popular education. It is the continuous, uninterrupted education of a people in respect of its origins and it is, in the best sense of the words, adult education. This is why we are so in favour of this matter.

If one therefore has separate schools because one wants to ensure that one’s children bear the stamp of one’s people, it is just as important for one to preserve one’s monuments as one thinks they ought to be, for the sake of those who are already 40, 50, 60 and 70 years old and do not know where they come from. There are many people like that sitting over there in the NP ranks.

We therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister of National Education because he, relatively speaking, represents the more conservative part of the NP, to leave this Bill in abeyance until he has brought the whole concept of preservation and the whole way in which the National Monuments Council is going to function in future into line with his own thinking regarding schools. [Interjections.] We are asking him to apply his basic thinking and concepts in respect of schools, in this connection, too. He can then be assured that we shall be able to vote for such a measure.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sasolburg has again attempted to make petty politics of this debate. He has also tried to drag politics in its naked form into this debate.

I want to tell that hon member that surely every group in South Africa has the right to claim the conservation of property close to its heart. Surely it is one right of which we do not want to deprive any group in South Africa? This measure also makes it possible for every group to claim orderly conservation of what is important to it.

During the discussion of this measure I want to focus on the provision that nature conservation areas are essential. It is necessary for immovable property worthy of conservation to be recorded and for a register in this connection to be kept. It is, however, also necessary for specific nature conservation areas to be identified.

In order to conserve properly, it is necessary for all bodies involved in the conservation project in a particular area to take prior cognisance of and to know what ought to be conserved and where it ought to be conserved. This prior knowledge of the strategy is therefore necessary so that a proper and co-ordinated conservation programme can be put into operation. The identification of a specific area or areas ought therefore to be regarded as a prerequisite for good planning.

A concept of crucial importance in this connection is that progress and conservation are sometimes regarded as conflicting concepts. The need for conservation can sometimes appear to be an obstacle in the path of progress and development. There is therefore a possibility that conflict could develop between the two parties.

A few years ago we had such a situation in Pretoria—the hon member for Bryanston referred to this—in respect of Church Square. I believe, however, that progress need not be the enemy and the opponent of conservation. The two can be reconciled with each other. Conservation does not necessarily stand in the path of progress; on the contrary, I believe that healthy and judicious conservation can in fact promote progress. We are therefore pleased to support this measure.

Mr Speaker, the work being done in South Africa by the NMC is most praiseworthy. [Interjections.] During my time as a member of the Transvaal Museum Board I was directly involved with certain of the functions this board performs. Therefore, what is being built into this legislation in respect of the improvement of the definition of the functions of this board, is to be welcomed.

I also want to stress in particular the register that is being introduced with reference to immovable property worthy of conservation, but also in another way with reference to conservation areas. I want to stress especially the issue of the conservation area which has to be demarcated, because there are such areas in South Africa of which the historical value ought not to be underestimated. For example, there was for many years a place in the Northern Transvaal—this was the first old Voortrekker town, Schoemansdal—which almost ceased to exist and which only today is becoming the focus of, for example, the Transvaal Museum Board and Services.

I do not know exactly what the situation will be like when the provincial councils cease to function. I do not know whether something like the Schoemansdal project is then going to fall under the NMC or under another body, but it is important that we identify and demarcate such areas in advance so as to prevent the destruction of those monuments, and the historic items that have been, as it were, buried there over the decades, and to prevent the possibility of their falling into the hands of grasping people who try simply to collect things but who do not know how to conserve them.

In my opinion it is also important—I believe the circumstances of the day are forcing us into this—to give attention to the question of wreck. This legislation is important, not only in respect of what lies under the sea, but will also become important in the future in order to institute an investigation into the wreck of the NP whose ship is in the process of sinking. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister of National Education a specific question. We are dealing with property worthy of conservation belonging to specific population groups and this afternoon emphasis has already been placed on particular things that belong to the Afrikaner people or, seen in a broader perspective, to the White people. After all, there is a so-called own department for educational and cultural affairs. I now want to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon to remove what is peculiar to the Afrikaner—the historical treasures that are his—from the control of that board, which is a racially mixed board, and which cannot take care of property that is in fact ours. I want to ask him to charge the own cultural department with this. Give it to them to deal with. Take the Boer war graves away from here and give them to the own cultural department and allow it to preserve them, so that they do not remain under this general department where people of other colours also have a say regarding my property.

The hon the Minister is jealous of own affairs; he is the man that repudiated his own colleague on this matter. Therefore, because he is jealous of own affairs, I appeal to him to remove what belongs to me and my people from under general affairs and to give it to own affairs so that own affairs can deal with it. If necessary, create an own board in that department to take care of what belongs to my own people, the White people.

We in the Republic of South Africa, under the mania of the integration policy the Government is at present applying and under the mania of its power-sharing, must stop going ahead and making everything that belongs to the Whites, and to the Afrikaner in particular, common property and giving all people a say regarding it. Allow us to have a say regarding our own affairs and our own historic monuments, allow us to look after them ourselves, to identify them ourselves and to preserve them ourselves by means of that department, which has been created within the power-sharing project and which will ostensibly look after the Whites’ own affairs as well as the Whites’ own cultural affairs.

If the hon the Minister regards these matters as culture, I beg him to give them to the cultural group to which they belong; do not make them common property. If the hon the Minister had been prepared to do this, he would have had the support of the CP in this matter today. We would then have been prepared to support this legislation because it is important, but it must then not be common property. We must be able to conserve our own property and have a say regarding it because it is only in that way that one can carry out conservation. Only you really love what is yours; only you really care about what is yours; for your own history.

Just as there are liberal people today that want to rewrite the history of our people because it no longer fits into this power-sharing pattern, and for this reason are going to dilute the history, so we are going to find that our history, our monuments, will suffer in the future because they have been made common property. I therefore request the hon the Minister very seriously to make these things ours and then we shall support him, but we cannot support him in this.

Mr Speaker, we have had a reasonably long and interesting debate on a matter that is justifiably of deep concern to hon members. So it ought to be to all well-meaning South Africans because we are dealing here with the conservation of something from the past that is already precious to us and that we know, in the future of South Africa and also for future generations, will be precious memories of the cultural assets and the history of this beautiful country of ours.

I want to thank the hon members for Sundays River, Stellenbosch, Brentwood and Gezina, who spoke from this side, for their support. They each supported the legislation in a reasonable way and also, with an eye to the future, underlined the necessity of further refinement after further consultation and study.

I want to associate myself with the cordial words directed at the hon member for Sundays River. He is someone who freely sacrifices a lot of time and who has already made great contributions in respect of the subject we are dealing with, and it was good to hear this particular hon member participate in this debate and to hear him accept co-responsibility for legislation that he will, in respect of its implementation, have to help apply and to which he will have to help give substance in future.

In the short time before I move that the debate be adjourned in order to leave sufficient time for the motion that has to be discussed this afternoon, I am not going to attempt to reply to all the speakers fully; I shall do this at the resumption of the debate.

I want to remove one misunderstanding created by the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg at once. Before I do this, however, I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that he really ought to be careful of what confessions he makes in the House. What would Mr Jaap Marais say about his activities that are alien to his people? To visit the Moslem shrine without shoes, and on more than one occasion! He will come under party discipline from the HNP because that kind of behaviour is not acceptable in their ranks. [Interjections.] There is much aggression and a lack of tolerance in that party, unlike the attitude displayed by the hon member this afternoon. He displayed tolerance towards the cultural assets of others, but that hon member’s party is intolerant in this matter. All the same, if one closes one’s eyes it does make an amusing picture—the hon member with his shoes in his hand! [Interjections.]

The hon members really did the debate a disservice—I believe they meant well—by confusing two things: Firstly, the declaration of something as a national monument and secondly, the control, care and management thereof. As far as the Voortrekker Monument is concerned—it appears that the hon member for Rissik has carried out a study of it but if so, he used the wrong sources—the hon member apparently came to the conclusion that it does not fall under the overall control of my hon colleague the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. He made a statement but it is not true. This is not what really happens at all.

Are you repudiating me now the way you repudiated Pik?

I am not repudiating the hon member; I am proving him wrong. To all intents and purposes, the controlling body of the Voortrekker Monument falls under the direct control of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly.

Then why is the hon the Minister dealing with these matters?

This legislation provides the mechanism to assure all national monuments of statutory protection in respect of the treatment of such a property or site. In terms of that mechanism, the control and management of the Voortrekker Monument falls, for example, under a body that in turn falls directly under White own affairs and thus under the hon the Minister of White Education and Culture. [Interjections.] There is adequate space under own affairs to allow complete control and management to be exercised over the cultural assets of a particular population group.

Will this be the case with the Coloureds, too?

That hon member heard recently what the hon member for Sasolburg said regarding what already exists for the Coloureds.

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

No, the hon member can ask me a question next time. I have exactly one minute left and I want to finish this point. A false impression was created here this afternoon, as if cultural property precious to the Afrikaner or to other peoples or groups in this country were now being sacrificed, and regarded as general affairs. [interjections.] Cognisance is not being taken of the Constitution in this connection. What does the Constitution say? It reads:

Are own affairs—

There is therefore no question about the fact that institutions such as the Voortrekker Monument are an own affair in respect of control and management.

But that is not true!

I have in my possession a draft regulation that is at present under consideration.

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

No. I want to quote from the draft regulation. It reads:

[Interjections.] The hon member created a false impression here because he did not carry out his research properly. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately another debate has to commence now. I therefore move:

Agreed to.

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

As far as local government level is concerned, we are on the eve of a very exciting event. That is namely the implementation of regional services councils. It is exciting because it will be the first time in our history that Whites, Coloureds, Asiatics and Blacks reflect and decide together on communal affairs within a government level structure. It is as important that joint responsibility must be taken by these population groups for decisions taken, because the right to decide entails the obligation of responsibility. The pleasurable days of merely criticising have passed.

I said the establishment of regional services councils is an exciting event. This also holds good for this side of the House because it is a milestone in reform on the constitutional level because the Government’s policy of justice is given additional substance by the establishment of these councils. In establishing regional services councils, we are getting rid of the indefensible position of deciding alone about all other population groups’ affairs. It is precisely this decisionmaking for other population groups and the paternalistic system of delegation, which have caused the problem with the management committee system. Because of the failure of this system, a responsible government has no choice but to find an alternative.

We on this side believe the time in which one group designed systems for another has passed. We believe that reform must take place through consultation and negotiation. To achieve this a campaign was launched, as far as local management is concerned, to negotiate and to consult. First there was an informal phase, viz the National Interim Liaison Committee, and eventually the coordinating council. It is interesting that there was one aspect on which all population groups taking part in the deliberations agreed. That is that no matter what the structures that have to be given substance may look like, the realities of local authority must be taken into consideration. A series of investigations was launched by the co-ordinating council to concretise these realities.

I had the privilege of being part of this council. I had the privilege of serving in that council together with some of the most knowledgeable people on the level of local government in this country. A few new things appeared from these investigations with their many facets, but old concepts were also reaffirmed. I want to refer to a few of these.

The first is that local authority is a much more important tier of government than we want to admit. Just imagine what would happen if one was to get up in the morning and there was no water, electricity, sewerage, garbage removal, etc. These are the things close to us. We have also learned that higher authorities have too many control measures over local authority. We are convinced that local authority has the necessary knowledge and responsibility to be able to take decisions on a proper level. As a result of this centralisation, an unfortunate tendency has developed in local authorities over the years which has resulted in the correct decisions not always being taken. The popular decision was always taken because they were aware that there was a higher level of government which would give attention to the correct making of decisions. We also learnt that too much centralisation is taking place, with the result that the leadership position of local decision-makers is weakened.

The answer to this is simple. We must delegate the responsibility to bring government closer to our people. Enquiries have also shown that if we want to establish new local authorities, criteria must be laid down so that viable local authorities can be brought about. We have enough local authorities in this country that are not viable, and if we want to do this country a disfavour, we must establish additional non-viable local authorities. We have learnt that orderly local government requires geographic areas of jurisdiction, electoral qualifications and the training of staff. As far as finance is concerned, we have learnt that one cannot implement a system without its being properly financed. If one institutes a system without finance, that system loses its credibility with the people.

What emerged clearly is the interesting phenomenon that we are playing a dangerous game in this country if we give a colour connotation to our tax revenue from local authorities. We cannot speak of White money and Coloured money and Asiatic money and Black money. [Interjections.] If we do so, we must speak of English, Afrikaans, Jewish and Xhosa money. What we must do is to return to the basis of taxation. That is that the rich pay more than the poor in order to make finance available for use in the interest of the whole community for the elevation of the socio-economic standards of the underprivileged.

Is that not separate communities?

Of course it is separate communities. The problem, however, is that we give the communities a colour connotation and then speak of White money. It is my opinion that if we want to elevate people, we must elevate those people who need it, regardless of their colour.

Vote for the NP and pay.

Vote CP and one will never have to pay because one will not live. [Interjections.]

In my opinion the term “redistribution of wealth” is not quite correct. I think we should rather speak in this connection of the correct utilisation of tax revenue for the socio-economic elevation of the underprivileged groups in our society.

We also have an intensive report on joint rendering of services. People who are in practice asked, interestingly enough, for the rationalisation of services. We have also realised that the regional services councils can be utilised to use tax revenue properly. I do not want to speak about regional services councils for too long, however, because other members will speak on the subject.

A very interesting aspect of this process of negotiation is that where people reflect together and decide together, conflict is defused. Attitudes change as we get to know one another.

Perhaps the most important thing we could draw from these investigations was that we had the opportunity to test, according to these results, the three main philosophic trends of thought as far as constitutional development in our country is concerned. It was very interesting. The more this liaison took place, the more I became convinced that individuals seek their freedom within group context. This includes the safety of collective action, safety from domination, safety from discrimination and the safety of identification. In my opinion the PFP’s policy fails for the very reason that they do not admit that individuals seek their freedom within group context.

It is common knowledge that the PFP’s policy in respect of third tier government is a policy of one man, one vote. They have admitted that. By recognising only the individual, however, they are failing to appreciate the existence of the group. I concede fully to the PFP today that a protest is in progress in other population groups against the recognition of the group and that they want it replaced by the protection of the rights of the individual. [Interjections.] We must understand, however, why this is so. It is the case because in the past people were discriminated against as a group. The demand for an own identity was associated with discrimination. No one can escape from what he is or from his identity. The solution of escaping from discrimination against groups does not he in the breaking down, denigration or disparagement of the group. It lies in the equal treatment for all groups in this country. That is what we must strive for and what we must accomplish so that the individual can develop a pride in the group he belongs to.

In a multinational country such as South Africa, there is no chance of success in creating structures which look only at individual rights, for a government on the third or any other tier. Individuals act within group context.

It was also interesting to test the policy of the CP and HNP according to the results of these investigations. Their policy of total separation fails utterly in practice. Their policy is that there should be heartlands and after the settlement of the heartlands, all people of colour who live outside the heartlands will be entitled to practice local government within group context. It is very interesting that this will have to take place by means of either delegation or rendering of services by the independent heartlands or homelands. I ask the hon members of these two parties with all due respect how four different systems can be implemented in Beaufort West for example? After all, there is such a thing as communal interests. Anyone who has lived with local government knows that. That is why the hon the Leader of the CPs MPC left. He realised how absurd the CP’s policy is in respect of local authority.

Oh, what nonsense!

If the hon member says it is nonsense, they must explain to us why their MPC left.

I came under the impression once again that there is such a thing as a group, that that group must decide for itself, and that we need own structures for this. This side of the House is grateful for the progress being made on the level of local authority. I therefore should like to express our thanks towards the Government, especially towards the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for his contribution.

We on this side of the House request, however, that we be tested, that every structure existing in third tier government be tested according to the principle of justice. [Interjections.] We must be tested according to the principle of justice. If we fail the test, we on this side of the House still say: Reform! Reform! Reform!

Mr Chairman, we are grateful to the hon member for Parow for introducing this motion and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of third-tier government and the Government’s plans for reform. We know the hon member is experienced in local government affairs and we share some of the sentiments he has expressed here today, in particular his reference to the importance of consultation and negotiation, matters about which we feel very strongly.

We also share his view that too much legislation strangles local authorities and that local authorities are not sufficiently viable. We differ, however, as regards the approach he and his Government have adopted in establishing the regional services councils because they are doing so on a basis with which we fundamentally disagree, namely the basis of group identity. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the pamphlet just issued by the department. The pamphlet differentiates very clearly between own affairs in local government and general affairs in local government. This entrenches the separation of the two.

We had a full discussion in this House, but the Bill still became an Act. It was promulgated as Act 109 of 1985, and was signed by the State President on 10 July 1985. Since that date, however, not one regional services council has been established. Our attitude was made clear at the Second Reading. We accepted that it was beneficial to have additional sources of revenue for local authorities, and that regional services councils could become beneficial on a regional basis. We said, however, that the Bill—now an Act—did not fulfil those needs. We went further. We said it would actually undermine Government at local level and entrench too much authority in the hands of the Government itself.

What are you referring to? The regional services councils?

The Regional Services Councils Act.

Lastly, we argued at the time that the Bill introduced two new forms of taxation, the very subject that was being discussed by the Margo Commission.

In view of those circumstances, we cannot accept the motion as it stands. I therefore move the following amendment:

1. (1) to extend decision-making at all levels of government to all the population groups in South Africa on a non-racial basis;
2. (2) to provide sufficient funds for third-tier government structured on a non-racial basis; and
3. (3) to reconsider and review the present proposals for financing regional services councils.”.

It is true, Mr Chairman, that the motion does contain one positive aspect, namely that members of all the various race groups will sit around one table in order to arrive at the decisions they are obliged to take. We have, however, to ask ourselves what credibility those persons elected from Coloured, Indian and Black local parties have at regional services council level. We have to take into consideration the low polls by which they were recently elected and the number of Black councils which are not fully functioning today. Moreover, in answer to a question we were told that up to the end of last year 45 Black councillors had resigned and 12 had, unfortunately been murdered.

The regional services councils system entails an elaborate and costly exercise. Firstly, taxation is required. At one stage, a figure of R1 300 million was suggested to cover eight regions. Secondly, there will be the devolution of power and services from local authorities. Lastly, as far as hearings by the demarcation boards are concerned, there could and would be difficulties with regard to consensus in the demarcation of the areas.

Surely these difficulties could have been obviated by any one of several approaches. One could have examined the present provincial council system which deals with the control of local authorities and some of the 22 services mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Act, namely road services, ambulance and fire brigade services, hospital services, libraries, museums and recreational facilities; all these are presently controlled by provincial councils. One can find an element of this in the tricameral system with which we do not agree because it is founded on the principle of own affairs.

As for credibility, this must start from the top, not the bottom. The State President recently said:

That is what we are looking for and cannot find in this establishment. When Blacks have direct representation at State level, then only will they gain credibility at a lower level, not the other way round. This structure is built on apartheid, a concept which I thought the Government had outgrown.

Some years ago, we on the provincial council discussed management committees and consultative committees for Coloureds. A very prominent Coloured person, a headmaster, said he would much rather have a vote in the ordinary local authority than himself be voted onto a management committee. That represents the feeling among the Coloured, Indian and Black populations. They do not want their own thing; they want to join the rest of us. Parliament should seriously consider passing a law that anyone who practises apartheid is committing a criminal offence. Then we could hope to get somewhere in this country.

An alternative approach the hon the Minister may consider is that the regional services councils could be elected by means of an open franchise. In other words, every person in a specified region, irrespective of colour, should have the right to vote for representatives on that council. We would then have a more democratic system.

England is currently experiencing problems with its regional councils. I understand that the Midlands County Council, for example, embraces Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton. Mrs Thatcher is experiencing the problem that these regional councils are taking too much control out of the hands of the local authorities. We can expect similar discontent on the part of our own local authorities.

The Act has already created difficulties for the demarcation boards. I understand that as recently as last week, at a meeting of such a board in Johannesburg, no consensus could be reached. The Government seems to be proposing large areas but there are differences of opinion. On the Witwatersrand, for example, the East Rand and the West Rand would each like a separate council, while Germiston seems to be on its own. Johannesburg would like to include the entire area from Randfontein to Nigel. No consensus can be reached. This being so, whose will is going to be imposed upon the local authorities?

The hon the Minister’s, of course!

The danger exists that there will not be sufficient negotiation.

Cape Town is talking about two cities, 33 municipalities, 36 Coloured and Indian management committees and 4 Black community councils. Is this really a viable proposition?

Difficulties will be experienced in dealing with the 22 different services listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. Which part of a defined region will want, for example, a dumping site, or the cemetery, or the sewage disposal scheme? These are things which will have to be imposed upon them.

What about compensation to the local authorities for the loss of revenue? Section 12 of the Act only provides that the regional services council can impose the two taxations to which I refer. There is therefore no direct benefit for the local authorities.

I would like to deal with the source of revenue which forms the subject of the third leg of the amendment before us. As we all know there are two sources—a regional establishment levy known as the turnover tax and the regional service levy known as a payroll tax. I understand that financial regulations are presently being drafted in terms of the Act to implement how these finances are to be regulated and collected. I understand that 0,25% has been suggested for the payroll tax and 0,1% for the turnover tax.

Local authorities have been struggling for years for additional sources of finance. The hon member for Parow would be the first to agree with me. However, nothing has really happened. We have had various commissions such as the Borckenhagen, Driessen, Niemand, Browne and Croeser. Local authorities still have no additional sources of revenue.

Let us consider the payroll levy which is based on employment. This will lead to a very serious degree of unemployment because a company will have to pay tax on the number of people it employs. Labour intensive industries will therefore suffer as opposed to capital intensive industries which will not suffer. Labour intensive industries such as the clothing and the shoe trades will be the ones that will pay high taxes whereas the capital intensive industries will get away with a great deal.

All this will lead to more unemployment and, in South Africa’s situation today, this means that one will create more unrest and instability. The country cannot afford that at this stage.

As far as the turnover tax is concerned, it is paid by the seller and not the purchaser as in GST. It is not a consumption tax and it is unrelated to profits. A business could be running at a loss or even be insolvent but the turnover tax will still have to be paid. I would like to give an example of this.

If a business is running at a profit the employer will have to pay 0,25% tax on his payroll. If that employer is a vendor—this could be applicable in many instances—he will have to pay 0,1% on his turnover in addition to the 0,25%. If it is a company that is making a profit it will have to pay up to 50% or whatever percentage the hon the Minister of Finance lays down.

How are these people going to survive? I ask this particularly in this day and age when liquidations and insolvencies are up 700%. Business is the worst it has ever been since 1933 if not worse than at that time. The inflation rate is running at something like 18,4% and according to certain experts perhaps even higher. The rand at 47 American cents is—even though it has improved over the past three months—still very much below normal.

The two taxes to which I have referred also introduce a new principle. They are neither consumption taxes nor accrual taxes based on profits. Assocom and the FCI have objected strongly. These taxes come at a time when the Margo Commission is considering the whole structure of taxation in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Finance is on record as saying: “The whole affair is to be reviewed by the Margo Commission in any case.”

What happens if. Bloemfontein obtains a regional service council on 1 June? What happens if the financial regulations become operative? What happens if the Margo Commission then rejects both these forms of taxation? How will that egg be unscrambled? How will the matter be put right? How will local authorities then be financed?

What we really need as a priority is to make local authorities more viable. When one looks at the Black community councils of Lenasia, Soweto, Daveyton and others, one finds that there is no proper infrastructure or viability. The hon member for Parow referred to this today. The land does not belong to individuals so there can be no assessment rates on the land or the improvements. Some local authorities cannot even afford adequately to develop and maintain their structures.

The local authorities will not benefit directly from the turnover and the payroll taxes. They will benefit indirectly because they will be relieved of certain services which are operating at a loss, for example the bus service in Johannesburg which is running at a loss of R14 million per annum. Such services will be transferred to the regional service councils.

On the other hand, that local authority will have to pay both the payroll tax and the turnover tax, which will without doubt diminish whatever profit they make. Where then, Sir, is the alleged improvement of viability? Let us, by way of example, take the question of electricity. Electricity has to be paid for at the point of sale. That means that Escom will have to pay the tax to the local authority, while the consumer will also be paying tax to the local authority. That means that tax is being paid twice.

No, Sir, taking into account all the relevant circumstances I submit in conclusion that the basic problem in relation to regional services councils is that they were not initially created to further or benefit the financing procedures of local authorities but in order to establish a forum where all the population groups in the country—Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians—could sit together in one chamber. To this we obviously object most strongly. We believe it would have been better if this had been done in the absence of the entrenched principles of apartheid and on a voluntary, negotiated basis.

Mr Chairman, in the referendum of 1983 the National Party gained a yes majority for its constitutional reforms and for the plan it submitted to the voters with regard to the political future of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Now the hon member for Parow moves here today that this House notes with appreciation the constitutional reforms taking place on the third tier of government in that provision is being made for the participation of all population groups in the decision-making process.

As far as the practical implementation of this is concerned I feel that no appreciation can be expressed because as yet there is not a single regional services council in operation in practice which can be praised as a model. As a matter of fact there is a great flurry, much that is unclear and great confusion about the working, and particularly about the financing of regional services councils. In my opinion the only appreciation which the hon member for Parow is expressing in this motion—and can of course express—is for the fact that the participation has been extended to include Black people.

Mr Chairman, I never thought I would see the day when an NP member of Parliament from the Western Cape would express his appreciation because the Government was also allowing Black people to participate in a joint local government. Mr Chairman, this is the first private member’s motion being discussed in the House of Assembly this year. This is the motion the National Party in the House of Assembly is giving precedence to. It is a motion which in their opinion is more important than the motion in connection with training and the creation of employment opportunities, which the hon member for Roodeplaat gave notice of. The appreciation which the hon member for Parow wants placed on record here today is appreciation for the implementation of political integration.

Yes, of course!

Yes, for political integration at local government level—also appreciation for power-sharing with Blacks at provincial government level. Sir, this appreciation comes from Parow, in the Western Cape.

Now I want to know from the hon member for Tygervallei whether this appreciation being expressed by the hon member for Parow with regard to the participation of Black people in local government also has his blessing. Does the hon member for Tygervallei also approve of this appreciation? Over the years—within the National Party—the hon member for Tygervallei has expressed his strongest opposition to the influx of Black people to the Western Cape—not to mention their participation at local government level. I am asking him whether this motion has his blessing.

Make your own speech! [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member says I must make my own speech. I am not asking him to make a speech in order to reply to my question. He need only say whether it has his blessing. But if he is a man he will rise to his feet and make a speech and state his standpoint. He is not even prepared to say here in this House what his standpoint is. [Interjections.]

Now I want to know from the hon member for False Bay whether this motion meets with his approval.

How are you going to do that? [Interjections.]

I am asking whether this motion meets with the approval of the hon member for False Bay. [Interjections.] Do the members from the Western Cape, who over the years have opposed the influx of Blacks but who have now given up, accept the appreciation being expressed in this motion. They have given up so that the Western Cape can now be inundated with Xhosas from the Transkei!

Tell them, Jan!

Sir, they all run away from questions I put directly to them!

The Eiselen line no longer exists, not so?

The Conservative Party cannot identify itself with this motion at all. The CP is opposed in principle to power-sharing and a multiracial government at every level of government. The CP believes in the separation of power. The CP believes that real freedom, self-determination, fairness and justice, about which the NP has so much to say, and the elimination of discrimination can only be realised by means of a policy of territorial separation, a policy of partition.

I ask the House to listen to President Matanzima.

†I refer to the late news on TV 1 on 15 February 1986:

*I call upon President Matanzima himself to speak on the strength of this TV 1 broadcast:

In his farewell message to his people Pres Matanzima said that the real freedom and development of the Xhosa people was achieved through a policy of geographic separation, through a policy of partition. We say to Pres Matanzima, who is on the point of retiring: We greet you, great leader of the Xhosa people; you led your people on the road to real freedom. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is laughing about this. That hon Minister is laughing at the pronouncement of Pres Matanzima because the hon the Minister is the man who signed away the freedom of the Whites of South Africa in this new Constitution.

I am laughing at you.

In this multiracial tricameral Parliament the White man lost his freedom in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is also laughing about this. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Parow that if he had moved today that large development projects should be undertaken in the Transkei in order to settle the Xhosas of Crossroads, Khayelitsha, Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu in their own fatherland and create employment opportunities for them there, the CP would have given him its unqualified support. For that reason I move as an amendment:

1. (1) it destroys White self-determination and replaces it by multiracial local government;
2. (2) it will lead to conflict as clashing group interests are built into a single multiracial local government; and
3. (3) the Government has failed to indicate precisely how and by whom the funds of regional services councils will be provided.”.

I should like to quote the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself. I am quoting from a NP newsletter of November 1982 distributed in the constituency of Vryburg:

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon the Minister. He was as right as rain when he said that. [Interjections.]

After the referendum, only after the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi joined the Cabinet, the hon the Minister and his party suddenly decided that Black people must also participate in regional services councils. I want to ask him whether the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi convinced him that Black people must also be admitted to regional services councils. The hon the Minister must reply to this, but he is sitting there reading now. He must tell us whether they convinced him that this should be done. Was this perhaps something that the PFP persuaded him to accept?

But they voted against it.

In 1984 when the Bill was discussed in terms of which regional services councils were to be established, the PFP asked that Black people should be admitted. At that stage the hon the Minister refused. Did the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi convince or threaten him and the Cabinet to accept Black people here? Or did the hon member for Parow who praised this integration policy here today, convince the hon the Minister of this? After all, that hon Minister said that if Black people were included South Africa would be destroyed. [Interjections.]

I want to read out to the hon the Minister what he said to the PFP in 1984 when they asked that Black people be included in the regional services councils. He said the following in Hansard (Wednesday, 11 July 1984, col 11240):

The hon the Minister also said (Hansard, col 11238):

This is what the hon the Minister said to the PFP when he refused to include the Black people. [Interjections.]

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: Who persuaded him to include the Black people after the referendum?

Pik Botha! [Interjections.]

Who persuaded him? This was the standpoint of the hon the Minister after the referendum. Now I want to tell the hon the Minister that it does not matter whether it was the Rev Hendrickse or the PFP or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon member for Innesdal who convinced him to include Blacks in these multiracial local authorities. It does not matter at all.

But we want to tell the hon the Minister that he does not have a mandate from the White voters in South Africa to include Black people in these local authorities. [Interjections.] The NP has taken leave of its earlier policy and has now also accepted power-sharing with Blacks. White, Coloured, Black and Asian can now sit together in the same chamber. They can now discuss matters with each other and take decisions together, as the hon member for Parow has said.

In his expensive letter which appeared in all the newspapers and for which the taxpayers must pay, the State President also said the following:

These are the words of the State President. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

This motion gives expression to the State President’s announcement and that is why that hon member is saying “hear, hear!”. [Interjections.] It is giving expression to that and to its implementation and specifically on the third tier of government. [Interjections.]

This motion is expressing the policy which the State President wrote down there. After all the State President also wrote:

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: Can a Black man also be appointed chairman of a regional services council?

Ask Pik! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister must please give me an answer. [Interjections.] He must first go and ask the State President whether he can tell us. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister who is so fond of making interjections! I am now asking the hon the Minister across the floor of this House whether according to the principle of fairness adopted by his party a Black man can also be the chairman of a regional services council? [Interjections.] Now that talkative Minister is as silent as the grave. [Interjections.] Now he is as silent as the grave! This evening he will not appear on television for half an hour to give South Africa the answer, nor will he tell us in his reply today whether a Black man can be chairman of a regional services council. [Interjections.] He does not have the courage to do that. [Interjections.]

If that hon Minister does not do so, I want to ask him: Where is his so-called commitment to equal rights? If he can appoint a White as chairman of a regional services council, must the Black man then not have an equal right to be appointed chairman too? [Interjections.] I am now asking the hon Chief Whip of the NP whether he can tell me this. No, he does not understand what we are saying in any case. [Interjections.] It is a pity that the hon member for Randburg and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not here now, because they may have been able to tell us unequivocally. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs whether he would approve of a Black man being appointed chairman of a regional services council. [Interjections.] Sir, the trains are making such a noise in the hon the Minister’s ears that he cannot hear what I am asking him. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned the fact that this hon Minister cannot answer me is the clearest proof that the State President’s words were empty, hollow words to bluff the Black people, the Coloureds and the liberals in his party.

If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not tell us today whether a Black man can in fact be the chairman, he is misleading the people, and the words which the State President wrote are nothing but hollow words. [Interjections.] If one invites a Black man to serve with one on the same regional services council, on which he can talk and take decisions with one, but one reminds him that he may not aspire to be the chairman of that council—because the hon the Minister of National Education says that he may not be chairman—that would be the worst insult one could level at the leader of any Black people. [Interjections.] It would not only be a gross insult to a Black man; it would be blatant discrimination against him.

Within these multiracial local government set-ups there would be the greatest conflicts of interest and group conflicts one could imagine. Since the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act it is possible for Black, White, Coloured and Indian representatives of the UDF to serve on a regional services council of the Cape Peninsula, for example. Members of the left and right wings of the NP can serve on it, as can members of the CP and the HNP. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is suggesting that the CP cannot get in there. He is saying to the people of the Western Cape in advance: “Capitulate; accept this multiracial government.” [Interjections.] The people of the Western Cape—particularly the people of Oudtshoorn—will not capitulate; they will get rid of that hon Deputy Minister instead! [Interjections.]

There will not only be racial conflicts and conflicts between the respective population groups, not only conflicts between the haves and the have-nots, but also conflicts of interest between the people who believe that group interests must be protected and those who support all manner of methods—methods which include violence—to bring about a Black, Marxist majority government in South Africa.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to spell out clearly to us today how the regional services councils are going to acquire their money, and in what way it is going to be collected. We want to know who the people are who will have to pay. We are dealing here with a multiracial local government set-up, and there is great uncertainty, which even borders on confusion, regarding the financing of regional services councils. I was informed that at a meeting of the West Coast Regional Development Association which was held in Darling on 13 February senior officials of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning could not spell out clearly how money was going to be acquired for the regional services councils. I was informed that they were at a loss when they were questioned about the financing of the workings of regional services councils. Not one of the hon members—including that hon member who introduced the motion—made suggestions here today on how this could be done. [Interjections.]

The Regional Services Councils Bill was passed by Parliament last year. The hon the Minister announced that the Act would come into effect on 1 January 1986. I think the time has now come for the hon the Minister to spell out to us precisely how regional services councils are going to acquire their funds, because it is essential that there be clarity on this matter. Every now and then local authorities are invited to conferences which deal with the so-called wonderful new system of local government, which is being lauded in this motion of the hon member for Parow. But when the people who attend the conference return home after the meeting they are more confused than before they went.

Two possibilities have been mentioned regarding how money could possibly be collected. Reference has been made, for example, to turnover tax, which involves a levy of a certain percentage which an employer must pay on his turnover. Another possibility is a levy which the employer will have to pay on wages and salaries. Perhaps the hon the Minister could throw more light on these two possibilities for us today.

Now something about turnover tax. One business undertaking has a turnover of R1 million per year and works with a profit margin of 25%. Its profit is R250 000 per year. Another business undertaking has a turnover of R1 million and works with a profit margin of 50% per year. Its profit is R500 000. Another undertaker also works with a turnover of R1 million per year—and here I am thinking of the farmers. As a result of the drought conditions and as a result of this bad Government, which does not look after the farmers, they work at a loss of 20%. [Interjections.] My question therefore is: If one is going to levy this turnover tax on these three undertakings, is the tax on the one with a profit of R500 000, the one with a profit of R250 000, the one suffering a loss of R20 000, going to be the same? Are these three undertakings going to pay the same levy on their turnover? Is it fair and just for all three to have to pay the same levy?

Let us consider what happens to a loaf of bread and the levies which have to be paid on it before it reaches the consumer. The farmer pays a levy on the turnover of his wheat which he sells to the co-operative. The co-operative pays a levy for the wheat which it sells to the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board pays a levy on the turnover of its wheat which it sells to the miller. The miller pays a levy on the turnover of flour which it sells to the wholesaler. The wholesaler pays a turnover levy on the flour which he sells to the baker. The baker pays a turnover levy on the bread which he sells to the café. The café pays a turnover levy on the bread which it sells to the consumer. From the wheatfield to the loaf of bread on the consumer’s table, a turnover levy will be paid on it seven times. Who must eventually pay for integration on the third tier of government. Who must pay for the introduction of the expensive plans for power-sharing? The consumer of South Africa is going to be the one who suffers. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman was starting to deal with the motion as if it concerned only regional services councils. That was how he continued his speech. Of course the motion is not that one-sided, but I know why the hon member did that. It gave him the opportunity to beat the old black drum again, as we have so often heard it being beaten in this House. [Interjections.] There was nothing at all positive and constructive for me to respond to in the hon member’s speech.

I should also like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Hillbrow. The hon member for Hillbrow put up a lot of straw dolls and shot them down himself. He made one important remark, however. That is that he and his party differ from the Government’s approach in respect of regional services councils. They differ mainly because the councils are established on the basis of group identity. I intend to deal with this fully during the course of my speech.

Unlike the hon members on the opposite side, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of the hon member for Parow. In the face of enormous resistance, the Government has made great progress in realistically broadening the basis of the democracy in South Africa—also in this area. While the public focus was on the first tier of government in particular, intensive consultation was quietly taking place in respect of the third tier. The understanding and the attitudes that were established during this process of consultation, show great promise for the future for all of us.

The immediate course ahead is not going to be easy, however. There are two main reasons for this. In the first place, reform on the third tier is of a very sensitive nature because it is experienced so directly in the daily lives of nearly all the people of our country. The second reason for the difficulty that lies ahead is perhaps still the most important. It is that the fundamental points of departure of the political parties of our country are now being put before their final and decisive test. This also applies in particular to the constitutional philosophies of the governing party and of the Official Opposition. That is why the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, expressed himself so strongly recently on the to be created regional services councils. In the magazine Leadership (no 4 of 1985) he says:

We know that Dr Slabbert likes using strong words, but these words were particularly strong. He said regional services councils are abominations. He felt so strongly about this that in his last speech in this House, on 7 February, he referred to this again. He began by running down this Parliament, in which we are debating today, as a hopelessly defective and failed constitutional experiment. He blamed the fundamental points of departure of the Government’s reform policy for this. He also said:

These remarks from the former Leader of the Official Opposition are distressing because they are so unconditionally negative. They are not unexpected, however, because if the regional services councils succeed, it will be such a victory for realism in this country that all opposition parties will have to reconsider their position.

The objectives of regional services councils are general knowledge, but for the sake of my argument I should like to repeat them briefly. They are threefold: Firstly, cost effectiveness and efficiency; secondly, maximum self-determination for local government bodies and thirdly, meaningful co-responsibility for matters of general interest among all population groups. As I understand it, the PFP has no problems with any of the objectives I have enumerated now, unless the self-determination of the local government bodies goes hand in hand with the self-determination of population groups. The new hon Leader of the Official Opposition spoke on Monday, 17 June last year in this House on what he called, “the Government’s overall plan for the future constitutional development of South Africa.” Hansard, col 7759 records that he said:

That is put unequivocally and their approach is very clear. The PFP does not like the idea of self-determination for Whites. They also do not like the idea of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks of our country deciding on their own affairs. That is the fundamental difference between the Government and the Official Opposition.

It is strange, however, that that is the PFP’s approach, because they do have a good comprehension of the South African reality that confronts all of us. If one looks at their policy document—I look at it often—they deal on page 9 with the problem of a possible way of changing the political system in what they call a relatively peaceful way. They say the following:

This is where the PFP’s dilemma lies. They can give the Whites no guarantee because they do not want to recognise and accept the Whites as a group in a future constitutional model. For the same reason they can give no security to any other minority group in this country.

If I understand the PFP’s present approach correctly, one cannot even negotiate a new constitutional model for South Africa before all the structures in which most Whites feel safe have been removed. This includes measures such as the Population Registration Act, as well as everything on which own communities have been built for the Whites. That is what I understood when Dr Slabbert said here in his last speech:

I want to tell you now the Whites cannot be reassured in this way—neither can any of the other groups. They cannot be reassured by the vague prospect of possibly having a minority veto one day. That is what the policy of this party provides for. A minority veto in a fragmented society such as ours is a dangerous instrument. It will create so much frustration that in the long term it will simply not be acceptable. Because the PFP does not want to accept reality, they are playing with absurdities such as minority veto. That is why they are rejected by the majority of Whites. That is why their leaders are fleeing to the arena outside Parliament where they are going to muster people against the will of the majority of Whites who reject them.

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

No, Sir, my time is too limited. Reform, such as that the Government is busy with, must take place very cautiously while taking reality into account. One cannot achieve the impossible with reform. Reform in South Africa, in its present form, is not possible unless the existence of groups and communities is recognised and unless this is accepted as a point of departure for change, indeed as the foundation for change.

One can argue this point academically as much as one likes. One can resist it. One can scold the Government about it. This fundamental fact is unchangeable, however. Because the Government recognises this basic reality, it is making progress on the road to a new South Africa for which we want to express thanks today by way of this motion.

Because the PFP—which is also a reform party after all—fails to appreciate this, even their leaders are overwhelmed by frustration. The Government is often accused that its reform takes place onesidedly and therefore lacks credibility. It is said that it lacks legitimacy. Nothing can crush that kind of approach better than the development of regional services councils. The idea originated with the Borckenhagen Committee. This committee investigated the financial relationships between the central Government, the provinces and local authorities. Even in 1964 they identified the need for joint rendering of services and regional services. The Browne committee of inquiry into the finances of local authorities recommended this again in 1980. On 17 January 1980 the UMB gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission on the Constitution in favour of urban and rural regional councils. The President’s Council recommended it in 1982. In April 1984 the co-ordinating council—which is a representative body—made the recommendation which served as basis for the Regional Services Councils Act which has now been promulgated. These councils are the result of a long development process, during which multiple inputs were made by people and bodies of all population groups who are intimately involved in local government. The first of these councils—which was described by the former leader of the Official Opposition as abominable—will come into being soon.

This will extend political participation to the local authority level to include all communities. No reasonable person will regard that as a backward step. Those councils will deliberate together on communal affairs. Everyone can decide together as equal partners on the division of the available money and the determination of priorities within the region. This brings me to what I regard as the most important result of regional services councils. That is namely the effective redivision of the resources in a region.

A prerequisite for successful reform which in my opinion is stressed far too little—and which the Government realises thoroughly—is that it must be a extensive process. Political reform must go hand in hand with education and training, economic elevation and community development. If this process is distorted, it gives rise to disappointed expectations with the resulting frustration, unhappiness, tension and unrest. Regional services councils are aimed specifically at the development of our neglected areas. It is in this sense that it is a balanced instrument of reform. As an extension of the local authorities, however, they will only be happy cooperative structures if the areas of jurisdiction of the composite authorities are demarcated in such a way that they are indeed visibly viable. They must also be capable of developing and flourishing. I hope this will be the case.

Democratic reform is an extremely delicate process. Expectations, some of which are unrealistic and will have to be scaled down by persuasion during consultation, are inevitably created. Care must be taken to ensure that reasonable expectations within reasonable limits are fulfilled. I believe that is the Government’s endeavour. That is why the reform initiatives will succeed in practice, even in the face of opposition. Successful reform on the third tier can create a spirit in South Africa which can give rise to peaceful coexistence for many years in the future.

If one can taste the fruits of peaceful cooperation in one’s own community, within one’s immediate environment, it can have a far-reaching, positive effect. That is why all reasonable people will extend their best wishes those who are taking part in this process, as I do now.

Mr Chairman, if it were not so sad, it would be rather amusing to listen to the eulogistic way the hon members of the NP speak about the improvements in the situation concerning local government. However, I shall talk about that in a moment.

The hon member for Kuruman moved an amendment which I am afraid we will not be able to accept, because they reject the policy of power-sharing among Whites, Coloureds and Indians. We have no quarrel with the concept of power-sharing on a consociational basis, providing there are adequate protections. Of course, we cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Hillbrow because he will not accept the concept of regional services councils, which we of course do accept.

Will you allow a Black man to become chairman of a regional services council?

Of course, constitutionally, there should be no reason why a Black man should not be chairman of such a council. In actual fact, however, a Black man would probably not be nominated as chairman because the government of the day nominates the chairman. As it is a paid job, I rather suspect that position will go to a friend of the governing party.

The hon members of the NP do not seem to be able to differentiate between high ideals—which I believe they have—and fact. They are certainly confusing their wishes with action. As is quite obvious to anybody who has followed developments in local government, apart from the creation of Black community councils fairly recently, there has been no real change in local government. I know perfectly well that certain Bills have been passed, but the passing of Bills per se does not make for change in local government.

There is the Local Government Affairs Amendment Act, and there is the Local Government Bodies Franchise Act which, I think, was passed largely to accommodate businessmen who were going to be fleeced out of a considerable sum of money to pay for the regional services councils. There was also the legislation concerning town clerks which would virtually bring them under the direct control of the Minister concerned. That is not the way it is worded, but that is the effect of that legislation, and of course it antagonised almost every town clerk in the country.

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes; that was the effect of that legislation.

But they asked for it!

They do not like it though, believe you me! I have had discussions with a number of them.

This legislation as well as the extraordinary Regional Services Councils Act has been passed. As I have indicated, we have no objection to the concept of regional services councils, but if a more complex and idiotic way could have been thought up, I do not quite know how it could have been done, because the way the regional services councils are going to be run will probably make them the most expensive arm of Government anybody ever thought up. No attempts have been made to save costs.

I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has seen the document I have here. It was paid for jointly by the Durban City Council and the regional authorities there, and the Provincial Council of Natal. They investigated the question of regional services councils and the financing of these councils. This was a method which was devised and it works out that to provide services up to a reasonable standard—the reasonable standards that are necessary to cover all of the main services and not the idealistic standards that the Government invariably seems to try to maintain and then falls flat on its face—will cost almost no additional money. It will be a rationalisation of services, spread over the various local authorities and over a much wider range so that there will be a better use of existing services. Certain prices of the trading undertakings will also be increased merely to bring all areas onto the same level so that there will be very little real difference in the costs. However, the regional services concept that the Government has is going to cost many millions of rand which the businessman today does not have.

To put this into effect one is going to have to persuade the Indian and Coloured communities to set up separate local authorities. I do not know what the situation is in the rest of the country but in Natal the Indians have said categorically that they are not going to accept a separate local authority. I know that it is going to be possible to use the local affairs committees as the Indian component of the regional services council. Although they are going to be a component of the regional services council they will not have the responsibility for collecting the money and therefore they are not going to be treated as full members, no matter what they may be in terms of name on that council.

I would like to mention for the sake of hon members who are unaware of it that this very point was addressed by the Natal Provincial Council in 1978. Their object was to put the Indians in a position where they could have a franchise and where they could participate in local government and also in a regional authority or regional services council on a fair and equitable basis. I would like to show hon members the signed agreement we had in 1978. It was also signed by two Indian members of the House of Delegates who are presently Ministers in the tricameral system. In 1979 we passed an ordinance—here is a copy of the draft oridinance that we put through the provincial council. Can hon members guess what happened to the ordinance? It was rejected by the State President! The problem was to persuade the Government to agree with us. The Indians could have separate local authorities but the only difference between us was that we thought that if it was not practicable to have separate local authorities in some instances they could serve on a White council and be elected to a White council. That was rejected by the Government because it did not fit in with their total apartheid schemes.

We cannot agree with this motion before us when it says that we thank, with appreciation virtually, the hon the Minister for the reform taking place. There is no reform taking place such as one normally envisages with local authority affairs. The reform that we are talking about is a reform on paper only. When it comes to trying to apply this in practice it will not work. The hon member for Parow was an MEC who, I believe, was responsible for local government. He should know therefore how local government works. As the hon the Minister is aware I had many years as an MEC, and for many years during that period I was handling local authorities. I have had 20 years of experience in the provincial council and 10 years in local government before that. From all that experience and establishing a metropolitan consultative body which was a partial attempt towards a regional services council it is so obvious that it will not work. When it comes to the end of the story where we will have to try to get the money out of the businessmen we are going to drive more businessmen to the wall because they will not be able to afford to pay this tax that the Government is thinking of imposing on them. It is going to have to be paid whether the businessmen make profit or whether they do not. The whole concept is therefore ridiculous and to ask us to thank the Government for the improvements in the system is a joke.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Umbilo probably misunderstood my colleague the hon member for Hillbrow who certainly did not suggest that the PFP is against the concept of regional services councils. The PFP has very often stated that it has nothing against the concept of metropolitan government. We have made it clear on many occasions, however, that this particular Bill is unacceptable to us for a number of reasons inter alia, for the reason that it is enforced without proper negotiation with those involved. Moreover, it is based on forced group membership, and the methods of finance which are provided for are unacceptable, particularly if one takes into account that there are commissions still working on it. The PFP is certainly not opposed to the concept of metropolitan government.

*The hon member for Parow spoke of an exciting event. He feels the regional services councils are a milestone of reform and says the Government’s policy of justice is taking shape. It sounds lyrical. What is the reality?

†What is happening in practice as far as third-tier government in South Africa is concerned? What is the reality? If ever there was a time when third-tier government, particularly in the Black sector, has collapsed or is about to collapse, that time is right now.

The unrest that took place last year was clearly the result of a variety of factors. One of those factors was the failure of Black local government in the unrest-ridden areas. Since the passing of the 1982 Act, some 75 African local councillors have been the victims of attacks on their persons and on their homes, and at least five have died. Only five of the 38 newly created African town councils are functioning properly. Until June last year 240 councillors and officials, including 27 mayors, had resigned. That is the reality of Black local government. Yet that is supposed to be one of the key elements of the regional services councils, namely that Black local governments are supposed to be brought into them. That is the reality!

Even before the 1985 unrest situation arose there were very clear indicators that Black local government was failing. There was the one-man commission of inquiry of Prof Tjaart van der Walt to look into the Vaal Triangle disturbances. His findings were that the youth problems and education were not the major causes of the unrest.

Rather, the new local authority system, maladministration, probable corruption at local level, and a few other factors were found to be the major causes. Even before 1985, therefore, there was an indication that the Black local authority system was failing and was contributing towards the unrest in the unrest-ridden areas. [Interjections.]

The argument which the hon member for Stellenbosch advanced in regard to the PFP’s stance towards a change in local government, needs some comment. He apparently believes that the PFP ignores the issue of Whites’ fears. Fortunately he quoted from the PFP policy document in which it is clearly evident that this issue has indeed been taken into account. One can have no better example of how these fears can be accommodated without confrontation than to look at what has happened in Natal. The difference between the approach of the hon member for Stellenbosch and the Government and the approach we adopt is that this Government simply decides and then imposes its system. The Government imposes its system, while we believe it ought to be negotiated from third-tier government upwards and by those concerned. The Buthelezi Commission was an example of this approach, although it did not deal specifically with metropolitan government. It shows how one can find solutions to the problems of metropolitan government involving the reality of various population groups and standards, problems which will not be solved by imposition.

May I ask the hon the Minister to what extent there was negotiation with kwaZulu about their involvement in the regional services council? As I understand it, they have not yet indicated whether they will be prepared to participate in it. Without the participation and co-operation of the kwaZulu government, the failure of this system in the Natal region can be guaranteed. Two million of the approximately three million inhabitants of the greater Durban area are Black, of whom between 1,3 and 1,5 million live in informal settlements. The Regional Services Councils Act does not, as I understand it, make provision for the representation of these settlements. How is the Act going to cater for these people? The hon the Minister knows that negotiations have been taking place between kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Executive. I understand from the Press that a draft Bill has been forwarded to the hon the Minister dealing with a system by which kwaZulu and the Natal Provincial Administration will administer the province jointly. Proceeding with the implementation of the Regional Services Councils Act before negotiations have been finalised and the Government has reacted would be the surest way of sabotaging the Natal-kwaZulu initiative. It would destroy any possibility of resolving the question of metropolitan government in the greater Durban area and elsewhere in Natal. It is the surest way of sabotaging any attempt to arrive, through negotiation, at a Natal-kwaZulu joint administration. I would like to find out from the hon the Minister if, despite these negotiations, he still intends to proceed with the implementation of this Act in the Natal area. I would be interested to hear if he is prepared to give an indication of his response to the draft Bill which we have read about in the Press as emanating from that joint committee. As far as Natal is concerned, it would be disastrous if the hon the Minister insisted on introducing that system this year or before negotiations have been concluded.

We cannot support the motion because it is removed from reality. One gains the impression that the hon member for Parow is trying to pump a little courage into himself and the Government by using nice, positive words. They know it is a failure; their own people in the Western Cape have told them so. White municipalities, local authorities and businessmen have told them that it is not going to work. Perhaps this nice, inflated terminology makes one feel better in the short term. One may be better able to face the consequences if one sustains the deluded, misplaced idea that, after all, one tried one’s best. That is not good enough.

The amendment moved by the hon member for Hillbrow indicates why we cannot support this motion, and I therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central will excuse me if I do not respond to his representations about regional services councils, as I want to touch on one or two other aspects in the limited time at my disposal. To begin with I merely want to say that it was very interesting this afternoon that the hon member for Kuruman, and not the hon member for Pietersburg, was the CP’s speaker on this motion. [Interjections.]

Do you want to become our Whip? You do not understand much of the parliamentary system yet. [Interjections.]

One can see immediately it was a shot in the dark that went home. [Interjections.]

Rather stick to your speech, because you are going completely off the point.

Order!

If the hon member for Kuruman were in the House now—he is probably having some of his “oeloeoeloe” meetings elsewhere—I should like to know whether he agrees with what the hon member for Pietersburg said in this House in the Third Reading of the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Bill. As the hon member for Kuruman is not here, however, I should like to know from the hon member for Rissik or the hon member for Barberton who has so much to say, whether they agree with what the hon member for Pietersburg said at that stage. The hon member for Pietersburg said inter alia: “Soos ek gister uitgewys het dat kommunikasie gelykgestel word aan inspraak.” In addition he said: “Inspraak is mede-verantwoordelikheid en mede-verantwoordelikheid is besluitneming, en dit is magsdeling.”

Does the hon member for Barberton agree with the hon member for Pietersburg? [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton says he agrees. The hon member for Rissik does not.

Is that so?

I am asking the hon member whether or not he agrees. [Interjections.] This is a problem for the hon members, because if they agree with this definition of power-sharing, they have already accepted power-sharing with the acceptance of co-responsibility in 1981. [Interjections.]

No!

There is another matter that I want to broach very briefly. The hon member for Pietersburg had a great deal to say that day about an argument I expressed on the dilemma in which the CP was at the time and still is, viz the practical execution of their policy on local authority matters. I want to quote what the hon member for Pietersburg said at that time (Hansard, 24 June 1983, col 10188):

Let us see what I said then. I referred, inter alia, to Mr Fanie Ferreira (Hansard, 21 June 1983, col 9870):

Who knew what was going on? It appears to me that the CP did not know at the time of the dilemma in which they already were. The deathly silence on this side of the House demonstrates that. They did not know what was going on. [Interjections.] This merely affirms that once again.

I want to go further and refer to Mr Fanie Ferreira’s statement after his resignation. I quote:

This affirms the dilemma of the CP as far as their policy is concerned.

Do you support Pik or FW?

The hon member wants to know whether I support the hon the Minister of National Education or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Let us just hear first whether they support their prophet, Prof Carel Boshoff.

Let us see what the professor said recently in a letter to a newspaper in connection with the results of the by-elections:

He continued:

Whatever next? It is an affirmation of the fact that one should take into consideration that the members of this party do not have a practicable policy. [Interjections.] Yes, if I had sufficient time, I should have liked to address the hon member for Sasolburg. I think, however, that will have to wait until a later occasion. I just want to refer in passing to the official newspaper of his party, Die Afrikaner, in which an article appeared on 5 February this year under the heading “Streekdiensterade is veelrassige nuwe plaaslike regering”. The particular article is interspersed with untruths, half-truths and disinformation, and when the hon member for Sasolburg and I get a chance to speak at some future time, I should like to know from him whether he will be prepared to rectify in The Afrikaner the untruths that appeared in that report.

Name those untruths! [Interjections.]

I am going to point out only one of those untruths, Sir.

Is that The Afrikaner of 5 February?

Yes, 5 February 1986. I am going to point out only one of the untruths. That is, and I quote:

That is an infamous lie! [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg can deal with the matter further in his party’s newspaper, Sir. [Interjections.]

But how do you know it is not going to happen? [Interjections.]

Sir, please allow me to say just in passing to the hon member for Sasolburg that the Government’s specific objective with authorities is that political structures and processes as well as a new representative culture are created on that level of society in order to stimulate development and rendering of services in local authorities. This evolutionary process gained substance in 1983 with the promulgation of the Local Government Affairs Act. The mentioned Act ensures that all population communities have participation in formulating the recommendation to the Government on affairs concerning local authorities. The Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs was instituted by the Act, and the council had its first meeting on 30 January 1984. The objective of the council is to advise the Government on the establishment of structures for decision-making on the level of local authorities, as well as the establishment of a system of local authorities and administration so that essential municipal services can be rendered to all inhabitants of South Africa.

The council therefore provides a forum for the discussion by the representatives of all population groups, of all affairs of a communal nature concerning local government. Recognition is given, for example, to the Urban Councils Association of South Africa as the official mouthpiece of Black local authorities in South Africa. In the same way the United Municipal Executive is recognised as the mouthpiece of White local authorities and the national ad hoc committee of the society of Coloured and Indian consultative, local affairs and management committees as the mouthpiece for Indian and Coloured local authorities. The recognition on the one hand and the associated responsibility on the other, stress the importance of the representation. Representatives do realise now that privileges also entail responsibilities—an aspect also stressed by the hon member for Parow.

In the short existence of the co-ordinating council, comprehensive enquiries have been undertaken and the council has done great work in giving substance to the constitutional reform taking place on the third tier of government by means of its recommendations. The following laws and regulations are a direct result of proposals handed in to the co-ordinating council: The Local Government Bodies Franchise Act, the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act, measures for the improvement of communication between local Coloured and Indian consultative, local affairs and management committees, the Promotion of Local Government Affairs Amendment Act, the Local Government Training Act and the Regional Services Councils Act. In many cases the co-ordinating council achieved consensus on complex and sensitive matters. In some cases mechanisms were also created for further co-ordination and communication.

The Delimitation Board for Local Authority Areas is such a mechanism which was created for further co-ordination. The board, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice A P Myburgh, fulfils an important role in enquiring into and hearing evidence on proposed borders of areas for regional services councils as well as in the delimitation and re-delimitation of local government areas. With a judge as a chairman, the objectivity and independence of the board are assured beyond all doubt.

A further example is found in the Local Authorities Training Act. This legislation makes provision for the promotion and organisation and training of staff for local government bodies and makes provision inter alia for a training board. This training board was established on 27 November 1985 under the chairmanship of the Director General, Dr A van Wyk. At its first meeting the board laid down certain policy guidelines to launch a co-ordinated strategy for training. Once again we find a good example here of the co-ordination of the functions between local authorities and first tier government.

There can be no doubt that the board is succeeding in its main objective of effecting direct contact between the various disciplines and representatives of the various population groups. The better relations between population groups as a result of the board’s consultation opportunities cannot be underestimated. There is a direct line of communication on two dimensions now, viz vertically between the Government levels—central, provincial and local—and horizontally between the White, Coloured, Indian and Black population groups.

One of the most important announcements made by the State President in his opening speech in Parliament on 31 January, was the proposed national statutory council. Under his chairmanship the council will consist of members from the South African Government as well as representatives from the governments of self-governing national states and leaders of Black communities. Pending the creation of constitutional structures about which joint decisions have to be taken, the council will consider matters of general interest and give advice—including advice on legislation—on such matters.

It seems that on the first tier of government the envisaged statutory council is, to a great extent going to strive towards the same objectives as the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Authority Affairs has on the third tier of government. If the successes of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can be used as a criterion for the national statutory council, there can be no doubt that solutions to our multicultural community will be found on the highest government level as well.

It is of cardinal importance and cannot be over-emphasised that constitutional reform in South Africa will only succeed if provision is made for participation by all population groups in the decision-making process on all government levels and if there is a healthy relationship between the groups. In this connection the constitutional reform which takes place on the third tier of government through the provision made for the participation of all population groups, can serve as an example which the other tiers of government can strive for. It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to support the motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow, the hon member for Stellenbosch, and my colleague, the hon member for Hillbrow, are people who have an intimate knowledge of local government affairs. That is why it is a good thing that one should listen attentively to them.

What I found interesting about hon members on the Government side, and in particular the hon member for Parow and the hon member for Stellenbosch, was that instead of confining themselves to local authorities, they preferred to launch a general political debate on the whole issue of groups and group representation.

I cannot understand how those hon members can accuse us of wanting to deny the existence of groups in South Africa. After all, we know that groups exist. Those hon members have never once told me or any other hon members of this party why the fact that those groups exist means that they should participate in the political process as groups. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the recognition of the existence of groups and the principle that those groups should participate in the political process as groups.

There is, after all a whole series of group ties in every society. Language can be one tie which binds people together into one group. In this connection the Afrikaners form a linguistic group, while English-speaking South Africans form another linguistic group. There are other language groups in South Africa as well. Language therefore forms one group tie.

Religion can form another group tie. There are people who are members of the Dutch Reformed Church; there are people who subscribe to the Jewish religion; there are people who subscribe to the Mohammedan and to the Hindu faith. They, too, form groups.

Yet who in this House has ever said that people should participate in the political process within the context of their linguistic or religious affiliations? Not one hon member has advocated that this should be done, because when they talk about groups, they simply and solely mean race or colour groups. That is all! That is why they must not talk to me about groups, the existence of which must be recognised!

We shall return to this debate during the present session, but I now wish to put a simple question to those hon members. If they are really concerned about group ties, and not about race or colour, why does Afrikaner participation in the political process not different from that of English-speaking South Africans? Why do we not then draw a distinction, within the tricameral structure, between for example the Mahommedans, ie the Muslims, and the Hindus in the Indian House? [Interjections.] If the issue is not race or colour why do we classify the Coloureds, who speak your language and mine, and who are members of your church and mine, as a separate group for these purposes?

We must please not sow confusion here through our conduct. We cannot talk about groups, and then simply mean race or colour groups. Furthermore the so-called logical deduction cannot simply be made that because groups exist, people should participate in politics in their group context. That logical context has never been spelt out in this House. There is no inevitable connection between the existence of groups and their participation within a group context in the political process. Neither the hon member for Parow, nor the hon member for Stellenbosch, nor the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development, has ever told us where such an inevitable connection between those two concepts lies.

I want to say at once that if they are talking about the protection of groups, whether language, church or other groups, we agree that we should create a society in which there is no domination. It makes no difference what the group ties are. That is why our policy is geared to ensuring that there is equal treatment in each of those areas, and not domination of one group by another. The inference which the hon member for Stellenbosch made, however, of saying that we wished to imply in that way that a person should participate in the political process within a group context, is simply not correct or logical. I want to come back to this at a later stage, and we shall take this debate further later this session.

I just want to tell the hon member for Kuruman—I honestly do not want to take up the time of this House by reacting to his speech in detail—that if the CP is in earnest with their policy of partition there is only one way in which that partition can take place. In theory—merely in theory—partition could be a possible liberal solution, whether the hon member likes it or not. Be that as it may, partition can only be applied with the consent of all the people. If the CP is not at present in a position to obtain that consent, then it is the duty of that party to say: “Look, this is how we are going to divide up the country”, and then to say to the other groups: “You choose first.” [Interjections.]

The day must come when the CP puts forward a partition plan and says that it is prepared to say to the other groups—the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks—now you can choose which part of the plan you want, because after all we, the CP, drew it up. Surely one cannot draw up a plan and choose. [Interjections.] That partition plan means nothing; they are playing with words. In all honesty we cannot make a contribution to this debate on that basis.

Let me come back to the question of this motion. I associate myself with the amendment moved by the hon member for Hill-brow. The hon member for Stellenbosch discussed the consultation process and how necessary it was. In what capacity, however, were the Blacks consulted in connection with these regional services councils?

They did after all …

Let us come back to this; the hon the Minister must calm down a little.

One thing which is very clear is that the local bodies created for Blacks are not accepted by the Black communities themselves. If we want to deny that fact, there is an unreality in our entire approach which I find shocking.

Similarly, if we assume, as the hon member for Umbilo also indicated, that the management committees and the other bodies for Indians are accepted by those communities, we are making a fundamental mistake. The hon members of the Coloured and the Indian Houses have said time and again that they refused to accept separate local authorities because the basic principle of these urban local authorities is once again located in the existence of separateness.

If the hon member for Stellenbosch now talks about consultation, it does not mean that one sits down and discusses the matter with people, but that in the final instance one is imposing one’s will on them. That is not consultation. Consultation is when one goes back and assimilates the inputs which they have made into the solution and into the approach which you yourself advocate. That is the problem.

If that is the point of departure there is no way in which we can convince the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Indians—the majority of them—to accept these separate local authorities. Let us forget about that. If only we would accept that fact, and then go back to the drawing board, we can get somewhere, but this will not happen as long as we are living under this delusion.

The hon member for Stellenbosch spoke about legitimacy, but he knows as well, and better, than I do that those bodies—the Black local authorities, the management committees for the Coloureds, the Indian bodies—have no legitimacy. Now, how the hell, how on earth … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Sir. How on earth can those hon members then talk about legitimacy as a prerequisite for the existence of a successful local government institution. The hon member for Stellenbosch will be compelled by his own logic, if he really believes what he said about legitimacy, to realise that we cannot continue with that system. It is not without merit, but we will not then be able to continue with this system of regional services councils.

Let me come back to a few aspects which the hon member for Parow touched upon here. He made one important statement and said that as people discuss matters with one another, as there was an opportunity to talk to one another, attitudes changed. Correct; we know that. We know that this is a fundamental premise. When people are in a position to discuss matters with one another beyond their differences and to get to know one another, attitudes change. We know that.

Why are we sitting here in three separate Houses? Why cannot we deliberate jointly with one another here, so that we can get to understand one another’s standpoints here? Why then have separate group areas? Why do we then eliminate those opportunities for people to make contact with one another in a normal way and not in an artificial way? Why have we over the years prohibited, by means of legislation, all opportunities for normal contact between people in every possible sphere? Why are we still maintaining this attitude?

One of the non-negotiables of this Government’s policy—we shall come back to this at a later stage during the session—is that children may not sit together on the same school benches. I want to say at once that I am not advocating compulsory integration; I am simply advocating a freedom of choice for people to make contact with one another if they so wish. I want to ask the hon member for Parow again how he can justify this statement he made if he takes all these compulsory apartheid structures into consideration to which he and I and all other South Africans are subjected?

The hon member for Parow spoke about the security of the Whites. He and the hon member for Stellenbosch, in this connection, used the term “self-determination”. But the Government itself, with reference to the CP’s objections, said that the concept of political self-determination could not be used in a country in which people lived together on a mixed basis. It was not attainable and could not be done.

That is why I repeat that to speak about self-determination in a country such as ours is simply not possible. It would, however, be a completely different matter if the Afrikaners—we shall come back to this later because there is a private member’s motion which we are going to discuss later—were to say: I want the right of self-determination over my own language. Who is stopping him? What right does he have, however, to ask for self-determination over matters in which every other group has an interest? Who defined those own affairs? Was it the other groups? No, it was not; the NP defined them. We must therefore not talk about self-determination as a concept if we know that it is our own definition which determines the right of self-determination of each group.

Since the hon member for Parow spoke about security, I want to ask him—and let us be honest about this—who in this House is so stupid today as to say that this constitutional system guarantees the security of anyone in South Africa, particularly in view of what we have recently been experiencing and are still experiencing? Security cannot be sought in the application of measures which other people consider to be hurtful and unacceptable, because it is in essence a denial of their legitimate place in the political system of South Africa.

I want to associate myself with what my colleague, the hon member for Durban Central said: Until such time as we give the Blacks a proper say on the central level, we are not going to achieve anything. If we approach the Blacks on the matter of the State President’s statutory council and we tell them that a condition for their participation in the political structure is the acceptance of own affairs as we have defined it, I am afraid—and I do not find this easy to say—that that statutory council, as a council which has to devise a new constitution for us, is not going to get very far. The time of laying down prescriptions is over.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon member for Parow very sincerely for having given us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I think that hon members’ participation in the debate in any event underlined the importance of the subject we are dealing with.

At the outset I want to say that the process of reform in the country is by its very nature a difficult process. If we listen to the differing standpoints and divergent ideas within that group which we in this House represent, and if we were to add to that the divergent standpoints held by other groups in South Africa, the sum total of the diversity of standpoints would give us an indication of how complex the reform process really is. It is easy for us to theorise on possibilities in terms of specific philosophies. However, it is very difficult to realise them in practice. That is why I wish to say right at the outset that the reform steps taken by this Government on the respective levels and spheres of life are in no way perfect. Similarly I am not arguing that they are final. Such an approach would in fact imply that we have come to the end of the road of reform in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I did not interrupt any hon member. I would be very pleased if I could be allowed to reply to the hon members.

The process of reform in respect of the central level, to the extent to which it has made progress, took shape in 1983 with the acceptance of the Constitution itself. Every hon member who listened to the debates will endorse one specific point, which is that no one suggested that it was final. If the hon member Prof Olivier would just concede one point to me, I will come back to him if I have the time. He asked a question. He asked who defined own affairs. He could have formulated the question more generally. He could have asked who formulated the Constitution in its entirety. In my opinion that would have been a fair question. That hon member will also understand, however, that in the final instance it is being demonstrated today that there is only one instrument which could approve of constitutional changes. Therefore he will have to concede that even if we were able to negotiate on another dispensation in respect of South Africa, in order to be constitutionally valid in law, it would have to be approved by this House, as it is now composed.

By Parliament?

By Parliament, yes. I am talking about Parliament now. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, yes. What is the hon member saying now? I am referring to that, with all due respect. We can debate it with one another again at a later stage. However, I should like to confine my attention to this subject. Is the hon member not aware that in respect of the composition of Parliament as it is at present, long processes of negotiation took place with at least the leaders of communities who are represented in this Parliament? When I say this, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting in that way that the formulations of the Constitution were acceptable to everyone. Of course they were not. They were not even acceptable to everyone in this House. I am suggesting in this way, though, that negotiations succeeded to such an extent that the leaders of other groups were prepared to participate in this system. If we wish to assess the value of this, we must at least assess it against one factor, which is that for the first time in the history of the Republic of South Africa people of colour are sitting in the Parliament of South Africa—as inadequate as it is in terms of the definition of the hon member Prof Olivier. This has never happened before.

In terms of that legislation all hon members in this House are sitting on standing committees. No one can deny that their joint presence on standing committees has introduced a new style into our Parliamentary procedure. Any person who wishes to deny or underestimate the truth of that, does not understand the complexity of the society or of the instruments that have to serve it.

It is true that a debate about the local government level does not normally receive the same publicity as a debate about central government matters. It is not as sensational in terms of media interest or even voter interest. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Parow and the hon member for Stellenbosch in this connection, however, and point out that local government is quite likely to be the most sensitive institution in any state structure because it is in direct contact with the citizen it has to serve. Without anticipating the final answers to the political problems of South Africa I want to point out that for any democratic dispensation in South Africa to succeed, regardless of its form or model, local government will have to be an important component. Not only will local government have to be an important component, but the concept of regional government will also have to be an important component. If we want to we can indulge in theoretical debates on federations or unitary systems, on consociation, etc, but I maintain that this system is going to be a very important component of the South Africa in which we are going to live, and other people with us.

I should just like to state the comprehensive constitutional objectives of the Government in general terms. The Government envisages the negotiation and establishment of a stable democratic society, within which the human dignity—and I am using the following words calculatedly—the basic equal rights of every South African, regardless of his colour or descent, will have to be recognised and protected, on an individual basis as well as in a defined group context, so that everyone in this country can make a prosperous livelihood and live a peaceful life. If we were to try, however, to propagate and formulate this generally defined objective, which I believe all of us subscribe to, without taking into consideration the realities of South Africa, our debate remains an academic exercise with no relevance for the society we wish to serve.

It is true that constitutional reform on the local government level must keep pace with what is happening on the central level, but it is equally important that it must keep pace with the socioeconomic conditions under which people are living, and that it must take into account what is happening in social spheres, because these authorities, in my opinion, ensure primary points of contact between the individuals, or the citizens, if hon members so prefer, and the political system and that it represents a confluence of all aspects of reform.

I want to repeat today that this does not mean that local government and local government institutions need be precise mirror images of what is taking place on the central level. I do regard it to be extremely important, however, that the premises and the objectives we wish to achieve on central government level must also find practical expression on the local level. We must not underassess the striving—I am saying this in all earnest to the hon member Prof Olivier—for self-determination. If we were to do that, we would not succeed in South Africa in maintaining joint decision-making. I am telling this to him as a practical political truth. Given the principles in accordance with which the Government is engaging in the reform process—I should like to refer to this further at a later stage—it is essential that self-determination and power-sharing without domination should also find expression on the local government level.

The hon members of this House will not take it amiss of me if I say that I listened to the opposition parties and that I could see that no new concepts, thinking or arguments had emerged. This is the case since we in this House have grown accustomed to the left-wing and right-wing political poles adopting diametrically opposed standpoints from their respective radical corners in respect of precisely the same argument and institution.

Isn’t that natural?

I shall reply to all the questions if the hon members would only give me a chance.

Surely it is a fact that it is completely impossible that the two sets of contradictory criticism from the hon opposition members can simultaneously be true. Let us debate the criticism which has been levelled.

Which one is true?

I know that the antiquated concepts of the hon member for Sasolburg are no longer practically true, whether he has shoes in his hand or not.

It is a fact that both standpoints absolutise specific aspects of the reality of South Africa. Consequently it is not possible for either of the two standpoints to take into account the full reality of South Africa in any way.

Let us return to the party of the hon member Prof Olivier. It is a fact that the PFP absolutises the concept of collectiveness and disregards the concept of community-relatedness (gemeenskapsgebondenheid). [Interjections.] Yes, what I am saying is true. While I was listening to the debate it was very interesting to see how the Official Opposition underwent a fundamental shift from their standpoint in this regard.

The former leader of the PFP, Dr Slabbert, recognised the reality of the existence of groups in South Africa on a racial, ethnic and cultural basis as a given reality which has to be taken into account in every constitutional dispensation.

Naturally.

If the hon members would give me a chance we can see whether it is all that “naturally”.

The former leader of the PFP—I am not referring to the hon member for Bryanston now because his standpoints are not necessarily in accordance with those of the party in which he nourishes himself—said that the existence of various groups on an ethnic, cultural and racial basis was a point of departure for a future dispensation. He is not here today, but let me say that I have conducted many debates with him. I think we have appreciation for one another’s standpoints and our search for solutions, even though we formulated divergent standpoints of policy. I am quoting Dr Slabbert (Hansard: House of Assembly, 6 May 1985, col 4912):

Correct.

Wait, the hon member must give me a chance now, please. He defined his groups, Sir. He went on to say—

The former Leader of the Official Opposition went further and said we differed with one another on how these groups should be defined. The issue in the debate was whether these groups should be statutorily defined, or whether they should be defined by way of voluntary association.

It has always been like that.

The hon member must please give me a chance.

You are being given a chance; you are being given 35 minutes.

Yes, but it is not the hon member who gives me those 35 minutes; the Rules of the House give them to me.

Sure.

All right, now the hon member can stop his arrogance. [Interjections.]

*Sir, the former Leader of the Official Opposition and I were fundamentally agreed that those groups, as defined by him, existed as per definition; that they were a decisive source of in-built tension in South African society and, as such, had to be dealt with constitutionally. We were therefore agreed that any new dispensation in the constitutional sphere of the country was compelled, rationally, to accept those realities as point of departure.

Now, however, there is a new definition of these groups, namely that which the hon member propagated this afternoon. The hon leader is now asking: “Is the Government prepared to restore the freedom of choice on a non-racial, non-ethnic basis for all South Africans?”

†That is a valid question. In other words, we are now dealing with a different concept of a group—the groups should not be identified on an ethnic, racial or cultural basis. The group is now a political group. [Interjections.]

*The veto of minorities for which hon members previously stood in regard to the existence of groups, has now been changed by placing the veto in the hands of a political association or party. [Interjections.]

This has terribly important implications, if we wish to take this debate further. It implies that a small political party, as small as can be, not only has a veto power; but can also block the action of government of the country.

No, that is not true.

No, that is not true.

With all due respect, Sir, I want to ask hon members to go and read that speech. Once again it boils down to a denial of the group basis on which Parliament as such functions.

What is happening here, is interesting. This is not the only shift that has an effect on this debate. I shall deal with the following matters with them.

†I now turn to the hon member for Hill-brow. What did he say in his opposition to this motion? He purportedly accepts the concept of regional services councils, but objects to their being imposed. He does not discuss the question of what that imposition entails. He does not explain to the House that before that regional services council can in fact be demarcated, there is a process of negotiation that has to take place. He ignores the fact that in terms of the Act all the functions regarding local government in respect of the various Houses are in fact operative.

I dealt with demarcation. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I am talking about the concept of imposition propagated by the hon member. He then goes further, and enunciates three reasons why he opposes this system. He complains that it is structured on a group basis, refers to financial resources and asks for sufficient funds from the central Government. I think I have summed him up correctly.

Let us take this further and see what the standpoints of the hon members’ leaders elsewhere are.

I should like to refer him to a statement made in the Johannesburg City Council by Mr Sam Moss MPC who, I believe, is a member of the PFP. He made a speech there as to how he viewed the regional services councils. He said: “Peace in urban areas depends on the success of RSCs” as constituted—my parenthesis—in terms of this Act.

Is that what he said?

Yes. The hon member never listens to what I say. [Interjections.] I want to take this further. The hon member for Hillbrow disputes the validity of groups being used as the basis for the constitution of regional services councils. In 1982, however, all parties then represented in Parliament supported the concept of Black local authorities. The hon members who served on the Standing Committee on the Constitution will recall …

Don’t stretch it too far.

I am not stretching anything too far. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should not overreach himself. He is on dangerous ground as there are no telephones in this House. [Interjections.]

The point is that we all accepted that concept. The hon member knows that the Urban Foundation gave evidence.

It has flopped now.

The hon members also know that Inkatha wanted to give evidence, but finally did not because they associated themselves with the evidence of the urban councils. I want to know what has happened since 1982. Why the change of philosophy? Why is what was valid in 1982 no longer valid?

I shall now deal with the arguments of other hon members.

*I should now like to react to the hon member for Kuruman, because I want to deal with his party. I want to mention a few examples to him of how spokesmen of his party on local government level differ with their colleagues in the House of Assembly. The hon member will give me an opportunity to enlighten him on this matter. Let us begin with the Latsky Report on Local Government. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon member, because his leader is not here, what became of this report? Would the hon member, who is so keen to ask questions, ask his hon leader to table the Latsky Report on Local Government, so that we can debate it with one another?

I am just as silent now as you were a minute ago.

It does not sound like it, judging from the noise the hon member is making. [Interjections.] I want to ask him why that report never saw the light of day. Why is it being debated behind locked doors only? Would the CP leadership—and the hon member is the provincial leader, even though he only leads himself—insist that this report be debated, so that it may be contrasted with the debate being conducted by the hon members for Stellenbosch, Parow and Newcastle? The Government’s proposals on local government have been tabled; its merits or weak points can be discussed.

I am now asking the hon member for Kuruman—and this is very interesting—whether he is going to defend local government for Black people in the Western Cape?

A multiracial government?

No, the hon member said “local government”; I am using his words.

Multiracial government on local level.

Very well, thank you. The hon member says that he said “multiracial local government”. The hon member therefore accepts Black local government outside the national states and inside the independent states.

We reject multiracial local government of the kind now being discussed.

No, we are now discussing local government as a component of the other one. The hon member must now indicate whether he accepts local government for Black people within the national states. [Interjections.] He will have to get a move on, because his hon deputy leader accepts it. In any event the hon member has accepted the concept of power-sharing, because his party is participating in the President’s Council. He must therefore not argue about power-sharing, because he has representation on that body.

But we have representation here as well.

We also have representation on your standing committees.

Yes, that is correct. [Interjections.] Let us go further now and consider the town council of Rustenburg. Dr Van Zyl, the CP leader in the Rustenburg town council and member of the executive committee of the Transvaal Municipal Association, has on several occasions said there is merit in the RSC system, multiracial as it is, and that a great deal can be accomplished if there is positive co-operation within that system.

He rejected the principle of multiracialism.

No, we are coming to that. We are coming to the rejection of multiracialism.

Let us consider another leader of the CP, Dr Connie Mulder. Three days ago, on 14 February, in his capacity as chairman of the executive committee of Randfontein and at a meeting in Johannesburg at which the establishment of regional services councils on the Witwatersrand was being discussed, he advocated the establishment of a regional services council on a multiracial basis for the West Rand. [Interjections.]

I could refer to further examples of this nature, but I want to use this example par excellence. It is that of Mr Fanie Ferreira, whose final break with the CP is the tangible symptom … [Interjections.]

Quote the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs instead; that would be better.

Order! There are hon members who have already made speeches and who should now give the hon the Minister a chance to make his.

Mr Chairman, thank you for your protection, but perhaps it is a good thing if the hon member could make a second speech, for then it could at least be a good one. [Interjections.]

There were profound differences in approach between the MPs of the CP and the local government members of the CP. I think Mr Ferreira is still loyal to the person of the hon member for Waterberg, yet his conscience could not allow him to remain a member of the CP in which his colleagues had to criticise practical solutions on the ground of dogmatic forced arguments. [Interjections.]

I maintain that there is a widening rift between the hon CP members in this House and the CP members in city councils. Although the CP is kicking up a dust storm about this matter here in Parliament, it is clear that even CP-controlled city councils are going to participate in the regional services councils.

The CP representatives on local level—I want to compliment them on this—realise that the theory of the CP policy is not applicable in practice and that structures for co-operation are necessary and will be necessary even if the CP has to implement its own policy.

There is one more matter I wish to refer to. The Pietersburg town council, on which the supporters of hon members of the CP are in the majority—the hon member for Pietersburg is aware of this—asked for business areas to be thrown open in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act. This was of course done, to the disappointment of the hon member for Pietersburg. However, I should like to reply to a valid question asked by the hon member for Kuruman. He argued that it could only be fair and just, that the State President’s words when he said that all people should acquire equal opportunities, could only be true if a Black person could also become chairman of a regional services council. The hon member moralised, at length and in earnest, on the concept of the need for this to happen. Did the hon member not read the Regional Services Councils Act? Surely it is clearly defined in this Act who the chairman of a regional services council may be.

I have the Act here in front of me.

That is very interesting, Sir. The hon member has the Act in front of him. Now I want to know from him why he asked such a foolish question.

Because you people always furnish conflicting answers.

No, wait a minute now! The Act makes it very clear that any person who is a member of a regional services council may become chairman of a regional services council. [Interjections.]

Sir, there I hear the hon member for Kuruman thanking me. Why is he thanking me now? Is it because he expects me to read out the Act to him? [Interjections.] No, wait a minute now! The hon member put a question to me. Surely he has the answer to it now. [Interjections.] I do want to say one thing to that hon member, Sir. The hon member for Kuruman must sit down quietly one day—I am being very serious now—and put one question clearly to himself. Perhaps there are even two questions he should put to himself. He must find an answer to the question of whether a White heathen is closer to him than a Black Christian.

Oh, come on, Chris! [Interjections.]

No, wait a minute! [Interjections.] Never mind, it is no use laughing about it now. I want to know from the hon member for Kuruman …

Join the Progs, Chris!

Is Rajbansi closer to you than I am, Chris?

Cas, I did not know you were a White heathen! [Interjections.]

There are many White heathens who govern countries; who are heads of state. Russia is only a single example.

Is Rajbansi closer to you than I am? Come on, answer me! [Interjections.]

Sir, I come now to another question put by the hon member for Kuruman. The hon member asked me whether the PFP had persuaded me to include Black people in the regional services councils. But surely, Sir, the hon member was present in this House when that legislation was discussed here! Surely he knows that the PFP opposed that legislation here. After all, it was only last year! If the hon member now objects so vehemently to a Black man also being able to become chairman of a regional services council, why did he and his party not adopt the parliamentary method and at least have their protest recorded by moving an amendment to that Bill?

Oh, come now!

No, reply to my question instead.

We moved that that Bill be read this day six months. Is that not opposition?

The hon member said they intimated their opposition to the Bill, Sir. What I am talking about now, however, was when we were discussing that piece of legislation on the standing committee. The hon member’s party then had the right to place on record their objection to the entire concept under discussion.

We said the Bill should be read this day six months!

Do you know what happened then, Sir? Do you know what happened then on the standing committee? I shall summarise it quickly. Those hon members who were there, will remember this. Hon members of the Conservative Party simply said they were opposed to the measure in its entirety. That was the end of the story. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, that was the end of the story. It was precisely what one could term political withdrawal.

Oh, come now, Chris, you are really weak today!

I must say this here today, Sir. The hon members of the Conservative Party accepted the permanence of Black people in South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon members of the CP accepted the permanence of Black people in South Africa. They supported the 1982 legislation, which was confirmation of the permanence of Black people in South Africa. They went even further. After all, that hon member claims all manner of people to be members of their club, particularly after their deaths. Did the late Mr John Vorster not say that the system of local government for Black people in South Africa would have to develop to a level above that of the powers of White authorities in South Africa? And then, Sir—when the hon member for Kuruman was still pretending to be a Nationalist—he applauded it jubilantly.

I am still a Nationalist! [Interjections.] I have always been a Nationalist! It is you and your party colleagues who have turned into a lot of Progs! [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I want to state unequivocally that all groups and all communities are entitled to participate—as the hon member for Newcastle in fact confirmed—on every level of government in regard to every facet affecting their own lives.

Are you in favour of a Black State President? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I can, with all due respect, make the contention that I think there are few Black State President’s who would want the hon member Mr Theunissen as one of their subjects. [Interjections.]

Let us take cognisance of this statement in practice. On the local level Black people will participate in regional services councils.

†Allow me, Sir, to put it immediately to the hon member for Durban Central that the question of participation in respect of the areas to which he referred is the subject of negotiation with the Government of kwaZulu. I understand those negotiations are being conducted by the proper functionary—the Administrator of Natal—together with his Executive Committee.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion and amendments lapsed.