Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, last night the National Party, its Government and its hon members in this House made a speech in the words of the hon member for Stilfontein and had certain statements recorded in the Hansard of this House which will remain inscribed there as long as this country exists. I believe history will prove that the National Party would like that speech never to have been made.

I believe it is one of the least edifying, actually one of the most insulting and unfortunate speeches made here in a very long time—if not in the entire existence of this Parliament. [Interjections.] It is a very great pity that such a speech had to be made at this time when separate population groups and their origin were used in this way in this House to incite racial feelings and to attempt through racial references to insult and humiliate hon members of this House. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stilfontein referred here to a book which is not regarded on all sides as an expert and scientific work. Even the author made certain admissions on the accuracy or lack of it of certain statements in the book.

Reference is made to certain names in that book and especially to their origin. I wish to cite only a single example to indicate the “scientific nature” of that book in that it is said that people with specific surnames arrived at the Cape from the East in the late eighteenth century. Because they came from the East, it was deduced that they were of a specific race or a specific origin but at that stage the East had been occupied, governed and inhabited by Hollanders under the Dutch East Indian Company for more than a century and many of those people with those surnames who came here from the East were not necessarily Orientals. I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for that constituency somewhere in the Northern Cape said: “Forget this or that”, but that is not my argument. [Interjections.] I am using the example merely to point out the “scientific nature” of the book. The truth is that the hon member for Stilfontein attempted to insult and humiliate hon members on this side of the House. He attempted assigning a specific racial origin to them and at this period it is one of the most unfortunate situations which we have in this country to be used at this time across this floor in that manner.

All 18 CP members sitting here belonged to the NP at some stage. I believe most of the hon members of the CP who are here— this is a fact which has not been blurted out for the first time by me or any of my colleagues on this side—were members of the Afrikanerbroederbond at some stage. [Interjections.] It is also known that these hon members resigned as members of the Afrikanerbroederbond at a certain stage. They were good enough to be members of the NP. They were good enough to be members of the Afrikanerbroederbond and to hold high positions in it and in its junior organisation the Ruiterwag. At a time when Afrikanerdom was following a specific course in this country through the NP, they were all ad idem regarding the standpoints and political messages we disseminated in this country. Now a—I had better not use the unparliamentary word I would have used—speaker like the hon member for Stilfontein comes and for the sake of insult and no other reason whatever …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May I suggest that what the hon member is discussing now has nothing to do with the Bill?

No, it has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I am replying to a speech made during the debate on this Bill which was approved by the chairman at the time. I am in the process of replying to that speech point for point.

It was a filthy speech.

As my hon colleague says, it was a filthy speech. We are involved in very sensitive matters here. The NP, the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will have to account for it. In our situation they are unleashing something in the racial sphere in this country the end of which we cannot predict or foresee at this stage. [Interjections.]

At the time when the NP was regulating racial relations and accommodation in this country according to a specific plan spelt out to it in the forties, there were political differences and tensions but in the process of regulation we were creating good relations, respect and a relaxed atmosphere in this country. Some of us who were in the USA at that time told one another there and also here after our return that we had seen how horrendous the racial hatred, prejudice and friction was in that integrated situation.

On the occasion of our travelling with a Black taxi driver there, he unloaded his resentment to us on the turn. Many of us observed that in an integrated, White-dominated community like the USA there was far more racial bitterness than in South Africa.

Now we are observing that situation arising increasingly in South Africa. The Government should take note of what it is unleashing in this country.

We can debate in South Africa without dragging in the racial element into the discussion as the hon member for Stilfontein did. [Interjections.]

You people talk about nothing but race.

There is a way to discuss race and there is another way too. [Interjections.] Race is a fact in the world and one cannot attempt to get away or run away from it; one will run into it somewhere. Consequently the CP is not afraid or ashamed to acknowledge one of the verities of the Creation and the world and to say it accepts it as a challenge. The CP does not deny the ethnic variety of South Africa or its beauty but it does not accept the intermingling and ploughing together of that ethnic diversity as the solution for South Africa. This applies to the Bill as well.

South African laws were instituted to order, regulate and maintain balances; that is why the principle Act is in our Statute Book.

Much is said here nowadays about how we of the CP come to be in these seats. The last general election was held in 1981; the majority of the hon members on the other side of the House were returned here on the 1981 election manifesto.

You were still in Waterkloof then.

Yes, I was in Waterkloof and I resigned there if the hon member does not know this. I think I fared better in the general election than the man who came in there after me at the by-election. Speaking of Waterkloof, I then went and stood in Soutpansberg and I am standing here as the elected member for Soutpansberg who beat one of the supreme champions of that party hands down. [Interjections.] When I stood in Waterkloof—perhaps you do not know this, Mr Speaker—Waterkloof once came second in the Transvaal NP for party organisation.

I wish to make this point as it is obviously the hon member for Waterkloof who is raising it. I have kept a letter which was delivered to my address in Waterkloof a year or two ago in which I was still requested as a member of the NP to contribute. [Interjections.] That is the state of the organisation in Waterkloof now.

It shows how poor your propaganda is. [Interjections.]

Let us leave it at that.

As they are sitting there, those hon members held an election in 1981. [Interjections.] Some of them have been in this Parliament since 1953; I think one of those remains.

P W has been here since 1948.

No, P W is no longer a member of Parliament.

He is a member of the Politburo now. [Interjections.]

Subsequently we had a referendum in 1983.

What does this have to do with the Bill?

The hon member for False Bay is blossoming into one of the more audible members of this House.

You are running a keep-awake competition.

I now want to tell that hon wide-awake member that I find it strange that he who was so far to the right and so much a conservative member of the NP that he spoke to us—usually in places where he could not be seen by others—now for the sake of his credentials also has to begin …

You lie!

Order! The hon member for False Bay must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Now he is also one of those people who is damning his past increasingly in the face of a leftist movement in the NP. [Interjections.]

I want to revert to my argument. In 1983 this Government called a referendum and that was only about the introduction of a new Constitution for South Africa in which the Coloureds and the Indians would be accommodated for the first time and nothing further. Not one of the hon members sitting there has a mandate from his voters to participate in the dismantling of the total—but total—statutory dispensation in South Africa to the point the NP has taken it today. Not one of them any longer has a legal basis for his presence in Parliament. [Interjections.] That is something each of those hon members in referring to us should know and remember. Not one of them has a mandate from his electorate to vote for the amending of this Act just as he has no mandate from his electorate to vote for the National Statutory Council and just as he had no mandate from his electorate to vote for all the dismantling Acts in South Africa. They should take note of this and they should reconcile this with their consciences from time to time—if a conscience remains among them.

I wish to conclude. I have a message for the hon member for Stilfontein from a Mr Arrie Paulus. A while ago Mr Arrie Paulus supposedly wrote a letter to the hon member for Stilfontein in which he challenged him to resign his seat because he did not have a mandate from his electorate to vote for what he was going to vote for because he did not have the support of the mineworkers of Stilfontein.

He has only Anglo American support!

He has only Anglo American support.

Mr Paulus requested us to repeat this challenge to the hon member for Stilfontein in this House and ask him why he did not even have the decency to let them know whether he had the courage to accept the challenge or not.

Mr Speaker, this debate has lasted a long time and has taken place over a long period. If I counted correctly, more than 20 speakers participated in it. I want to refer to a number of the speakers I can still remember.

In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Innesdal, who is also chairman of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs, sincerely for the work his committee has done, as well as for his support for the Bill.

I also want to thank the hon member for Vryheid. As I remember it, this was approximately the sequence in which they spoke. He gave a fine explanation of how thoroughly the people in Northern Natal had been informed about the implications and the contents of the proposed legislation, how frankly talks took place and how the people of Northern Natal need not be afraid of the scare-mongering which is emanating from the right-wingers.

Last night the hon member for Koedoespoort, of course, suddenly emerged—or so it appeared to me—as the future leader of the CP in Natal. [Interjections.] This is beginning to become fashionable now. The hon member for Rissik set the pace there in the Free State, and now it seems to me the hon member for Koedoespoort wants to do the same in Natal.

Your leader is Buthelezi! [Interjections.]

I just want to say to him, despite what he has just said, that neither the hon member for Koedoespoort nor any one of his party members will ever be able to unseat the hon member for Vryheid in that area. They are far too lightweight to succeed in doing that! [Interjections.]

I also want to thank the hon member for Umlazi for his support. He clearly indicated that the future of this country lay in the hands of those who adopted the course of negotiation, and not of confrontation.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Welkom. As Parliamentary representative from the Free State he explained clinically and sensibly why the Free Staters need have no fears in connection with the effects of this legislation which is being placed on the Statute Book.

We do not believe him! [Interjections.]

He explained that they need not feel concerned about all the emotions which are being stirred up over this legislation.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East indicated very clearly the strange differences between the views of the hon member of the HNP and those of the hon members of the CP. He also indicated very clearly how prejudiced and racist the attitude of hon members on the opposite side of the House was. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brentwood pointed out, and rightly so, that the Whites in the Free State and in Northern Natal have never been the sole inhabitants of those areas. In earlier years already there was co-operation with the other population groups who also found themselves there.

I also thank the hon members for Faure-smith, Stilfontein and Heilbron and the hon member Dr Odendaal for their contributions. Unfortunately there is not sufficient time to reply to them in full.

†I also thank the hon member for Umhlanga for his support of the Bill.

The hon members for Green Point, Johannesburg North and Pinetown gave their qualified support, as usual. I thank them for that. However, what struck me once again was that those hon members cannot accept or understand the fact that they are no longer the representatives of the Indian people. The Indian and the Coloured people now have representatives of their own and those hon members therefore really cannot speak on behalf of those people. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Johannesburg North supported the principle of this legislation, but once again conditionally and grudgingly. He again wanted to bring in through the back door the fact of the existence of group areas, and then joined hands in that respect with the CP. They joined hands with the CP also on schooling. They are very happy to agree with each other. I must say that it was only the hon member for Pinetown who had the courage to really pitch into the hon members on the right.

I rejected their amendment.

I think the hon member should know that one must at some stage take a definite stance.

*Next I want to come to hon members of the right-wing group. [Interjections.] I took thorough cognisance of the appeal which the hon the Minister of National Education made to all of us the other evening, and to the Afrikaners in particular, to set an example. I am not going to repeat what he said, but I accepted it as a personal example, and I believe other hon members did so too. While I was listening to the debate, however, I arrived at the conclusion that that message, that appeal, did not really gain acceptance from hon members on the opposite side of the House.

Certainly not from the hon member for Stilfontein.

I really do not find it pleasant to refer to the contributions of hon members of the CP and the hon member of the HNP. [Interjections.] Purely for the sake of the record, however, I am compelled to refer to their arguments. In places I am obliged to do so so as to try to rectify at least some of their mistakes and to point out the difference between fallacy and fact.

Mr Speaker, what struck me in particular was the way in which a few hon members used their language to express their ideas. It is an awfully great pity that words which normally have so much emotional value, words which are normally filled with so much feeling, which have so much impact, were garbled and mutilated to such an extent. A word I want to refer to as an example is “traitor”. This word was tossed about here as though it were a plaything. Furthermore the same treatment was meted out to other words—words such as “nationhood”, “hereditary land”, “heritage”, “tradition”, “pride”, “holy”, “people”, and so on.

Oh please man, you do not understand these things any more! You have forgotten what they meant long ago!

These words were used over and over again, in a superficial way, to give expression to ideas which suffered from a lack of depth.

Oh, shame!

In the end nothing remained except fragments of meaningless and hollow rhetoric. Many, many words with, oh, so little meaning! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I do not think that hon members of the Conservative Party are deliberately acting in this way.

Man, you can believe what you like! I think exactly what I like! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should also like to point out something else which cropped up here, and that is the way in which members hon members of the Conservative Party, and the hon member for Sasolburg, bandied about the names of heroes out of our history. This was done with the purpose of trying to demonstrate anew the validity of selective concepts, which today are really no longer valid. For the purposes of certain arguments which were advanced here, it was really not necessary to drag in the Free State Volkslied as well. Those are matters which arouse emotions, and when we are guilty of doing things like that, there are certain questions we must ask ourselves.

I am now making an appeal to all those hon members who indulged in all that name dropping, not to play the old game of who was on our side and who was not on our side.

If we have to play that old game, I want to point out to hon members that Dr Verwoerd—he was after all the spiritual father of the CP and the HNP—granted permanence to the Indian community of South Africa.

That is not what the argument is all about.

We are not denying it, are we?

Does the hon member reject Dr Verwoerd?

Surely we are not denying what was said.

Dr Verwoerd did after all grant permanence to the Indians.

Yes, but we admit that.

I am not addressing the hon member for Kuruman.

The hon member for Sasolburg indicated that he moved away from Dr Verwoerd. I could not deduce whether it was a question of moving away or moving forward.

I stated it explicitly. [Interjections.]

The hon member can reply to that on a subsequent occasion. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg again kicked up a great fuss about the Free Staters not having a mandate in respect of this Bill. The hon member for Rissik in particular harped on that point. After all he is the leader of that group as far as this matter is concerned. I want to ask the hon member— surely I am entitled to ask because I am now a fully elected member—what seat he represents in the Free State. He cannot talk about a mandate. Does he have a mandate to represent the CP in Rissik?

We are begging you for an election.

The hon members on the opposite side are definitely not in a position to talk about a mandate. [Interjections.] There was full consultation in the Free State. The hon members of the Free State in this House made this absolutely clear.

Few of them will come back to this House.

The Free State Congress of the NP considered this matter thoroughly. The congress resolved almost unanimously that the measure in question should be repealed.

They are now the second party in the Free State.

The leader of the NP in the Free State ought to be praised …

Who is he?

… because he saw to it personally that this matter was examined and sifted so thoroughly.

He is the leader of the opposition in the Free State.

There is another matter to which I also listened during the course of the debate. When I speak to the hon members on the opposite side, I am also speaking to the hon members of the NP. I just want to refer to the fact that religion was also involved in this matter. I just want to quote what my friend the hon member for Rissik said:

What did the DR Church of Bloemfontein East say?

What about the Transvaal?

The hon members must just exercise a little patience. I shall reply to them.

I find it extremely strange that the hon member, who after all has a profound theological background—he is a member of a people in whose history the urge for religious freedom played such a determining role—wishes to deny other people the right to practise their own religion.

Of course we are Christians, and we are proud of professing this as individuals, as churches and as State. We do so in our Constitution, our education legislation and our legislation on publications control.

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

No, the hon member has already spoken far too long.

One of the characteristics of the Christian religion is its tolerance. It finds what it considers to be disbelief a pity, but he does not condemn other people to damnation because of it.

As the hon members opposite spelt out so clearly, we are descendants of the Dutch Protestants and the Hugenots. We are people who know how precious religious freedom is, and we do not want to deny others what we demand for ourselves. Our religion exists for as long as people exist and we also know that nothing will ever destroy it.

If anyone wishes to harm this religion, we shall fight for it and throw everything into the struggle, but the survival of this religion does not depend on denying dissentients their right to worship.

I have another reason for alleging that the arguments of the hon members are completely unfounded. It has other implications. It must be accepted that the hon members on this side of the House are now trying to tell the Free Staters that the quality of their culture and their religious convictions is of such a nature that it will inevitably become watered down, empoverished or will disappear completely in a contact situation with Hindus and Muslims. Must we accept these allegations of theirs, and that they want us to isolate ourselves in a cocoon in this country with its heterogeneous composition? Is that what hon members want? [Interjections.] All the hon member must do is listen. Those hon members kept me listening a long time.

What is the conflict in Lebanon all about? It has been in progress for 10 years now.

The kind of argument we are now hearing, is not acceptable. The hon members of the CP are implying that those of us who had to coexist with these other faiths in Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape, have degenerated. [Interjections.]

He is saying the Free Staters are better than us.

A few other arguments which were raised so repeatedly—and which we also heard from the platforms and out in the bundu—were those concerning the purchase of farmland and the group areas. It is being stated repeatedly that the Free State is suddenly going to be swamped, the Group Areas Act is going to disappear and that farmland is going to be purchased by Indians on a large scale. One can keep on mentioning these complaints. In this connection, as I said earlier, the PFP, the CP and the HNP are saying almost the same thing. They sound almost like allies, but we know their motives differ.

I do not believe for one moment that there will be a stampede of Indians to the Free State. Many of the hon members on that side, who discussed this matter, have already proved that statement to be false. [Interjections.] However, I just want to say that surely the Group Areas Act is there to promote and protect group rights. It is of no avail if hon members shy at their own Aunt Sallies. The hon members are not going to force us to do anything in that way.

The principle of the Group Areas Act is that the group character of the owner of the land determines who may legally own or occupy the land. This provision can only be changed by means of a permit or the proclamation of an area for occupation by another group. As is the case for any other population group in any province, provision will also be made for the Indian population in the Free State through the normal processes.

The hon members are so disappointed now, because I am not giving them an opportunity to indulge in further rumourmongering.

Surely you know what you are saying there is untrue. You know that you are telling an untruth in this House.

Order! I did not call upon the hon member for Langlaagte to speak. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte say that the hon the Minister is telling an untruth, and he knows it?

Order! The hon member said “what you are saying now, is untrue and you know it”. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it, but I should like to have a few words with him.

I am asking the hon member for Langlaagte and the other hon members in a nice way to grasp the fact that they are not going to threaten anyone. [Interjections.]

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

The hon member has said enough. He must put what I have said to him here in his pipe and smoke it! [Interjections.]

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

The NP subscribes to the group principle, and will support and promote it.

Fairy tales!

Whatever they say will stand on record as fairy tales on their part.

Go and tell that to Red Riding Hood.

I could just add that I have heard that the regional office of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning—this is not my area, but I understand that this is what is happening—in the Free State is already engaged in provisional negotiations with a number of local authorities with a view to the identification of areas. This is a process which is already taking place. Why the hon members take exception to this at this stage with so much confidence, I cannot understand.

The issue of Indian children in White schools in these areas was argued in the same vein. Several hon members discussed the matter. I want to make it clear here and repeat what hon members on this side of the House and my colleague behind me here explained last week: It is and remains the standpoint of the Government that White schools are for White education.

We do not believe you! [Interjections.]

I just want to say that that matter has been thrashed out. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who is also a Free Stater, will look after the White schools in the Free State and Northern Natal. I have full confidence in him.

Then where should the Indian children attend school?

The hon member should take a look at our Constitution. [Interjections.] In accordance with paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, provision is in fact made for the rendering of services to pupils who do not belong to a particular population group. White education will take place in accordance with the provisions this Government puts into practice. [Interjections.]

Where are the Indians going now? Time and again in this debate and also at public platforms, the hon members became emotional and claimed that the Free State and Northern Natal were now going to be occupied by Indians and that they want it to stay White.

Incidentally, they have not yet furnished the hon members on this side of the House who discussed the matter and asked what they intended doing with the Coloureds in that area with a reply. It is general knowledge, however, that the CP has a Coloured homeland in mind. According to their policy it is surely logical that there should be a homeland for the Indians as well. Surely that is a logical consequence of their partition policy. [Interjections.]

Of course the hon members of the CP also talk about a White homeland. I am not discussing the dreams of the Oranje-Werkers or the Aksie Eie Toekoms now. [Interjections.] I see that on 27 April 1984 during the CP congress in Pretoria a motion introduced by Advocate Moolman Mentz was passed. He insisted that the old Boer Republic, the Free State, the Transvaal and Vryheid in Natal, should be united into one Boer State.

As a Natalian, I was very interested, of course. A CP pamphlet which was distributed after the congress made the picture clearer. According to that pamphlet those areas would now become the Boer State and the rest of Natal a Zulu State. If the hon members now tell me that the Indians in Natal must receive a homeland, I do not know how they are going to succeed …

You would not understand! [Interjections.]

Perhaps hon members could indicate to us now or on a subsequent occasion where the Indian State should then be. We in Natal are interested in this. During the election in Port Natal a great deal was said about this. Bear in mind now, Port Natal is south of the Tugela, to which they said the Indians should go. In Port Natal and in many of the constituencies in that area where they hope to make progress—I know they will not succeed—they have not yet explained where the Indians should establish themselves. That is why they have nothing to say for themselves now.

You are so hopeless; one does not want to react! [Interjections.]

May I then ask the hon member who is going to live in that Boer State? Are all the White people going to live there? Are they going to allow a White communist to live there.

We do not want you there! [Interjections.]

You will not be allowed to live there!

Will they only allow Whites to live there, regardless of what their political philosophy is? [Interjections.] The hon members cannot give replies to those questions. All they can do, is speculate. If they have to explain something, they cannot do so! [Interjections.]

I now want to come to a very serious matter. It is the attitude of hon members of the CP towards the Acts of this Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik says his party does not consider itself bound to the Acts and measures which are being enacted by this Government, in terms of which the Whites in the Free State according to him, are going to lose their rights.

Do you think that Dr Malan in 1948 …

The hon member must listen carefully now. He and his party are by implication claiming the right to ignore those Acts with which they do not agree. Is that correct? [Interjections.]

We are going to change them all when we are governing!

Will they even contravene the Acts?

Just as you ignore Acts of this Parliament! [Interjections.]

This attitude is in conflict with the most elementary principles of democracy.

You are not applying the Act of this Parliament!

Are they with this kind of statement, encouraging disobedience, particularly when their arguments are presented with unbridled emotionalism? [Interjections.] What does the CP mean by those statements?

I also want to issue a challenge to the CP today to say precisely what they mean with this kind of threat. [Interjections.] Does it mean that the CP, like Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, is now going to turn to extra-Parliamentary action? [Interjections.] Does it mean that the CP, which has representation in Parliament and which has an opportunity to say what it wants to say in a democratic way, does not feel itself bound to the laws of the country, like the AWB? Is that what they mean? [Interjections.] I think those hon members should react to these questions at some time or another.

The other matter which is constantly emerging is also a spectre which was conjured up here, namely that the removal of the immigration provisions should be regarded as the throwing open of the sluice-gates to a flood of Brown immigrants. I was even asked by the hon member for Rissik during question time, whether the Government now intended to open new immigration offices in India and Pakistan. My answer was a definite “no”.

For how long? [Interjections.]

The Government maintains a proven immigration policy, and the hon members on this side of the House explained it very well. [Interjections.] The object is to meet the labour requirements of this country. We have great respect and sympathy for our countries of origin, and we will, of course, look for immigrants in our traditional countries of origin.

Under the present economic circumstances our efforts are aimed mainly at the importing of that expertise which in turn creates jobs. We need that kind of immigrant and we shall recruit and accept them, while always bearing in mind South Africa’s requirements and interests, which hon members also elucidated so clearly. [Interjections.]

There was also suspicion-mongering in respect of the oath of allegiance. I explained clearly what the position was during my Second Reading speech. I just want to repeat what I said then. In the present oath, emphasis is placed on renouncing allegiance to the country of which one is a citizen. However, a person’s sentiments in regard to this country of origin cannot be changed merely by signing a document. The present wording of the oath discourages some people of accepting South African citizenship, while others who are a dependent on a social pension, from the countries of which they are citizens, are unwilling to endanger such citizenship out of fear that they will lose their pensions. That is basically what I wanted to tell hon members.

The making of an oath is a sensitive matter. We all know that the concept of allegiance is a sensitive one. We experience it every day of our lives, as when one promises to be faithful in a marriage, or allegiance to a party. These are sensitive matters and I do not think they are matters which should be dragged into the political arena.

†I should also like to say that I thank the hon the Minister—the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates— for his support for this Bill. He presented his arguments effectively. His contribution was worthy of the dignity of this House and I thank him for his contribution. [Interjections.]

*Another matter I wish to refer to is the unsavoury attitude which a few hon members on the opposite of the House displayed towards the Indian community during the debate. [Interjections.] I want to quote a few things which the hon members said with reference to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates, and about the Indians in general. One hon member said, with reference to Mr Rajbansi:

Someone else said:

Another hon member said:

Reference was also made to the “Coolie Act”.

Actually he made a mistake; you are the grovellers!

I do not think the hon member for Soutpansberg was fully aware of the implications of what he said, but this afternoon he objected vehemently to the statements made by the hon member for Stilfontein because—I wrote down what he said—what they amounted to was that he felt insulted because an incorrect extraction was being ascribed to them. He implied that those fellow citizens of our country were therefore of a different kind because we felt insulted.

I am mentioning these things specifically to indicate that throughout this debate only one language was spoken by hon members on that side of the House to the Indians. It was a language of contempt. Furthermore a crude attitude of racial superiority was displayed.

No, that is not true! Why do you not quote what I said?

I am coming now to the hon member for Kuruman. Fine words …

I said I had more respect for an Indian than for you!

All the fine words of sound ethnic relations which partition ostensibly implies according to those hon members were rudely unmasked. Hon members of that party were simply not able to disguise their true feelings—I am not saying that this includes all of them during this marathon debate. [Interjections.]

If you only knew what Afrikaners thought of you!

That is why it is a good thing that this debate took place. The hon members of the CP must know that they are not impressing anyone when they hurl threats around. That vindictiveness of theirs is regarded with contempt.

I now want to tell hon members, as has already been indicated, that it was not the intention of the hon member for Stilfontein to insult anyone.

Let him say so himself! He revelled in it! [Interjections.]

During this debate emotions were aroused to such an extent that it was a natural consequence that we reacted to one another’s statements.

It was a smutty speech!

Hon members must see it in that light.

Let him come here and say so himself!

The hon member for Stilfontein will say whatever he wants to say, and need take second place to no one!

You support him! You endorse what he said! [Interjections.]

I conclude by saying that when this Bill is passed, it will be a further step forward for a just South Africa. The Government will see to it that the identities of the respective population groups are maintained and that their interests are preserved and promoted. [Interjections.]

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

Upon which the House divided:

Amendment declared negatived.

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I would firstly like to convey my appreciation to hon members of this House for the work they have done in the committee, approving the principles contained in this Bill.

Black local authorities were first established during November-December 1983, in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982 (Act No 102 of 1982) and I shall hereafter refer to it as the principal Act.

As Black local authorities progressed and became more efficient and experienced in making their own decisions, it became abundantly clear that most Black local authorities wanted local government legislation which is more in line with that of the other population groups in the country. Legislation for Black local authorities deviating from that of the other population groups is considered inferior and therefore the principal Act is to be amended to bring it into line with other laws on local authority matters and institutions.

The question why separate legislation exists for Black local authorities was raised, I believe, in the standing committee. Why is it not possible simply to apply the existing legislation applicable to local authorities of the other population groups to these communities as well?

Let me immediately say the ideal is, of course, a uniform Act for all local authorities in the Republic of South Africa. This is an ideal which is being striven for and I have already instructed my department to investigate the matter. This investigation has already commenced.

The Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill amends the principal Act so as to ensure a greater uniformity with the existing legislation for local authorities of the other population groups.

Community councils are the local authorities that were established prior to the commencement of the principal Act. They have limited decision-making powers in terms of the Community Councils Act, 1977, and function under the guardianship and supervision of the development boards. Approximately 190 community councils that were established under that Act still exist today.

The amending Bill provides that all existing community councils are to be deemed to be town committees and shall cease to exist as community councils. The town committees will become autonomous local authorities.

Local committees, which are established in terms of the principal Act and which have advisory powers only, are raised to the level of local authority committee status by the proposed amendments. Local authority committees will also be a form of local authority. For this reason the amending Bill provides for four categories of local authorities, namely, a city council, a town council, a town committee and a local authority committee. These categories are in line with the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry of the Co-ordinating Council into the Establishment of Criteria for viable Local Authorities which was constituted under the chairmanship of the Administrator of the Transvaal.

I wish to refer to the Government’s constitutional guidelines announced by the then Prime Minister on 30 July 1982, in which it was pointed out that various forms of local government exist in each province for from small to large communities which may be extended to the other population groups or communities.

The time has now come to grade all local authorities in the country into more rationalised categories for purposes of the devolution of their powers. As I have already stated, this matter is receiving the attention of my department.

The Bill provides for similar procedures to those which pertain to local authorities for the other population communities, to be applied for the establishment and dissolution of local authorities for Black communities.

In the principal Act, provision is made for the constitution of local authorities. When a town council is dissolved with a view to the simultaneous establishment of a city council in place thereof, the members cease to be councillors and new members have to be elected. This may result in the new authority losing valuable expertise. The principal Act is being adjusted to make provision to overcome this deficiency. The amendment provides that the same principle shall also apply in respect of a town committee or a local authority committee.

The principal Act is amended to empower Black local authorities to acquire immovable property or any right in respect of immovable property outside its own area of jurisdiction. This is in line with the power which other local authorities possess.

The amending Bill is also innovative in that it empowers a Black local authority to increase tariffs by way of a council resolution when a Tenderer of services such as Escom increases its tariffs, provided that such resolution shall lapse after six months from the date on which it was passed, unless the increase is made known by by-laws before the expiry of the six month period. This amendment has the effect that consumers become liable for payment of increases much sooner than at present, where by-laws must first be promulgated and, due to the time lapse, up to six months arrear payments have to be recovered from the consumers, which seems inconvenient to them.

Mr Chairman, the proposed amendments also make provision for the extension of the powers of law enforcement officers, namely:

Another important aspect of the amending Bill is that it does away with the existing procedure of laying financial statements of Black local authorities upon the Table of Parliament. Instead, as is the case with other local authorities whose statements are required only to be submitted to the provincial directors of local government, their statements will now also have to be submitted to the Director-General of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The last important aspect of the amending Bill is that Black local authorities are to be construed as institutions or bodies referred to in section 84 (1)(f) of the Provincial Government Act, 1961, save as is otherwise provided in any law or where the context thereof otherwise indicates.

Mr Chairman, from the aforegoing I think it is clear that there has been an endeavour to bring Black local authorities within the ambit of legislation similar to that applying to local authorities of the other population groups.

Finally, I wish to mention that the principles of the amending Bill have been recommended by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on which the Urban Councils’ Association of South Africa also serves.

Mr Speaker, I rise in order to pledge the support of this side of the House for the Bill. During the course of my speech I shall refer to certain aspects concerning the Bill, without dealing with and analysing the Bill in full. Not only has that been done in the standing committee, but the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning dealt with the most important aspects of the Bill. Consequently I do not think there is much sense in my simply repeating these things.

The aim of the Bill under discussion is to bring the legislation applicable to Black local authorities more into line with the legislation on local government for the other population groups, and especially that of the White group. In the light of this fact the Bill seeks to make the necessary terminological adjustments, as well as the necessary provision for Black town and city councils, town committees and local authority committees. This of course entails mere adjustments with regard to the terminology which is used, and in essence therefore the Bill does not contain anything really exceptional. Quite rightly the hon the Minister reacted in his Second Reading speech, which has been delivered in the other two Houses, to the question which was repeatedly asked in the standing committee, namely whether it might not be desirable for there to be a single piece of legislation which will apply to local government throughout South Africa, instead of separate legal measures which are applicable to each separate group. This is of course an important question, Mr Speaker. That is why the hon the Minister also reacted to it in his Second Reading speech by saying that it was in fact the ideal of the Government as well, and that he had already instructed his department to investigate the possibility of uniform legislation in this regard. That was said by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and I welcome that announcement of his, Mr Speaker.

It would most certainly be a great help indeed if there could be uniform legislation in this regard. The essence of the problem does not lie here. The existence of the problem is caused by the policy of the Government, namely that separate local authorities must at all costs be modelled on a racial basis. The problem lies in other words in the preservation of the ideological policy of the Government, which amounts to local authorities having to exist on a racial basis and having to be separated.

Mr Speaker, now it is very clear that the other population groups reject this policy approach. Time and again it has been clearly stated on the standing committee by the members of the House of Representatives as well as those of the House of Delegates that they reject the whole concept of separate local authorities. The question I wish to put now, is how long must we continue to apply a system and a policy and institutions which the other population groups themselves do not want to accept. I put this question to the hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and also to hon members of the National Party. Even among the Whites there are many people, especially on White city councils, who do not want to accept it either. What sense is there, Mr Speaker—in all honesty and seriousness I put this question to my hon friends on the Government side—in continuing with a policy which other groups find totally unacceptable, and about which a very strong measure of dissension exists even amongst Whites? I want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether any rational thought has ever been given to whether or not it is desirable. Now the hon Deputy Minister must please not try to involve the Constitution in this. He must please not try to reply by pointing out that it is provided in the Constitution that local government is a own affair or whatever. There is no basic logic in that answer. It does not answer one’s logical questions. What I want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister and from the Government, Mr Speaker, is the following. Has the Government ever really reflected on what the rational, the logical justification for that standpoint is? Ideologically, of course, I can understand it. If we support the ideological standpoint that in a number of areas, including that of local management, the principle of apartheid or of a racial basis must be maintained, fair enough. But then we should make it clear that it deals solely with the ideology, and not with logical and rational considerations.

I want to ask once more whether the time has not come for the Government to give itself an account for its own sake and for that of the process of change and reform as well as the future of this country—not of the ideological justification for something like that, but for the rational right to existence of such a policy. I wish to put this question very clearly. It does not help to say that that was the policy in the past. The Government must simply provide a rational and level-headed reason to explain why they are continuing to implement a policy which is rejected by the other groups and which we also know is not in the interests of the future of our country.

This brings us to the next point which made itself apparent time and again, also in discussions on the standing committee. In all honesty I wish to say that I understand the standpoint which was adopted by the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, namely that these steps which we are taking, will endanger their position. Quite rightly they spoke about the fear which exists in those communities that they due to the support which they give to steps such as these, run the risk that action will be taken against them in the same way as action is unfortunately being taken in Black residential areas against those people who support aspects of the Government’s policy.

Therefore, I wish to repeat that for the sake of the measure of co-operation, as small as it may be, which exists between the Government and the hon members of the other three population groups, we shall have to be a hundred times more careful in future not place those people in a situation in which they are nolens volens obliged to support measure with which they do not agree and which in fact constitute a measure of mortal danger for them. For their sake too I wish to tell the Government that we shall have to reconsider many of these steps.

Do you wish to frighten them away?

Oh, what a nonsensical question that is! Again we see a sign of the old problem. I cannot understand how the Government can bring those people into this Parliament and then assume that they cannot think for themselves.

If that is the case, the Government must be honest. The Government should say to those hon members that they do not want them here because they cannot think for themselves.

The hon member must not put that nonsensical question to me. It is really a stupid question. [Interjections.] It implies that we prescribe to other people, that they are so stupid as to listen to people who prescribe to them. [Interjections.] I hope we shall not hear that kind of language in this House again. That hon member must not come and accuse me of prescribing to other people what they should think.

I honestly believe that a serious conflict situation is prevailing with regard to the existence of Black local authorities; and I do not know whether these improvements which we have brought about with this measure, and which are also about to be effected by means of the other Bill on Black community development, will succeed in making Black local authorities more acceptable to the Black population than they are at this stage. I shall return to this point in due course.

It is not desirable, nor can it be justified, to suggest that Black local authorities must be dealt with on a different basis to that of other local authorities. When I say this, it does not mean that I am advocating that Black local authorities should not be dealt with on the same basis as other local authorities. In my opinion it would be an error of reasoning on our part—I say this in all honesty—if we think that these steps which we are taking will eliminate the problems in regard to the acceptability of Black local authorities. Hon members are aware of this; one will simply have to be pardoned if one frequently cannot resist pointing out to other people that prior warnings have been issued and these things spoken about.

Allow me to mention just two things to hon members. At the time when this Bill was being considered by the select committee, my hon colleague, the present Leader of the Official Opposition, introduced the following motion on that committee. I wish to repeat it because it has a bearing on the whole dilemma which affects us all. I quote:

1. (1) recognises the need for and the desirability of establishing an effective system of local government for Black citizens;

He therefore asked that the committee recognise it. I quote further:

1. (2) believes that—
   • (a) the effective functioning of such Black local authorities and the acceptance by Black citizens are of critical importance for good government, peace and stability;
   • (b) such effective functioning and acceptance requires that the establishment, powers and functions of such local authorities be based on the same general criteria as those applicable to local authorities in which Whites—and in future possibly also Coloureds and Indians—participate;
2. (3) is therefore of the opinion that further consideration of the Black Local Authorities Bill should be postponed until—
   • (a) consideration can be given thereto in the light of the report of the President’s Council …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order; I wish to point out to you that in my opinion a quorum is not present because there are only 46 members in the House.

Quorum:

The attention of Mr Speaker having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, the debate resumed.

Order! The hon member Prof Olivier may proceed.

Mr Speaker, for the information of the hon members who were not here, I wish to say that I was discussing Black local authorities and said that at that time, when the select committee of the House of Assembly considered the Bill, certain standpoints were adopted on the prerequisites we thought ought to be laid down if Black local authorities were to be acceptable. The third part of the motion which my hon colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition introduced in the select committee and which was of course not accepted, read that we:

1. (3) are therefore of the opinion that further consideration of the Black Local Authorities Bill should be postponed until—
   • (a) consideration can be given thereto in the light of the report of the President’s Council on Local Government and of the Government’s response thereto;
   • (b) the provisions of the other two Bills relating to the position of Blacks in urban areas (the Black Communities Development Bill, 1982, and the Orderly Movement and Settlement Bill, 1982) are known;
   • (c) the Committee is satisfied that adequate steps will be taken in order to provide the required basis to ensure the financial viability of such Black local authorities.

I wish to comment on three aspects arising from these points. Reference is made here to the Orderly Movement and Settlement Bill. As hon members know, that Bill in fact never came any further than being merely a Bill. Fortunately it was never passed. How can we in the interim discuss Black local authorities, while a fundamental Bill such as that is still hanging in the air? The Black Communities Development Bill was subsequently passed, but in that Bill, too, certain things we asked for in order to give viability to Black local authorities were not included.

On that select committee and also during the debate in this House we made it very clear that if those Black local authorities were not provided with a sound financial base, those authorities would not be able to perform their functions properly and would therefore not be acceptable. That is exactly what happened. I am terribly sorry because I do not want to adopt a “we told you so” attitude now, but we did in fact issue the warning time and again that in the absence of a sound financial base, the local authorities would not be able to function in such a way as to be acceptable to the Blacks.

Another related aspect has emerged: The question of Black property rights. Time and again on the select committee and in this House we asked that the houses belonging to the development boards be transferred to the local authorities so that the latter could have a sound revenue base. That did not happen, however. Only now do we have a Bill that has to make provision for this, and it must still come before the House.

On that occasion we asked why we could not allow Blacks to acquire property rights in their own residential areas.

Would the Whites receive such rights in kwaZulu?

Oh please!

At that stage it was contrary to Government policy to allow property rights for Blacks in Black urban areas. Now we receive a Bill which does make it possible. If these things had been done three or four years ago, it could perhaps have happened—I do not want to swear to it—that those Black local authorities would have been able to function on a different basis and could therefore perhaps have been more acceptable.

I wish to repeat: Can we not learn a lesson from these things? Are we not able to learn that in every sense of the word it does not pay to proceed with the application of ideological principles which do cannot withstand the demands of logic? When we spoke about property rights in Black urban areas, it was made clear to us, despite the logical arguments, that it was contrary to Government policy.

I wish to take my hat off to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who at that stage asked us not to take the matter to the point of an actual vote on the select committee. He undertook to refer the matter to the special Cabinet Committee. I am grateful that we are now going to receive such a Bill which will indeed make provision for this. For this I am grateful.

I say once again, however, that we must not continue to make the same mistake time and time again. We must not again be driven by ideology as is the case again now with the fundamental premise that there must be separate local authorities, while we know that it is already unacceptable to all the communities, with the exception of a few Whites.

I welcome the improvements which this amending Bill constitutes in respect of Black local authorities. I wish to refer inter alia to the right which is granted according to this Bill enabling Black local authorities to acquire property rights outside their areas of jurisdiction as well. Here I am referring to clause 7(a) of the Bill.

Furthermore we welcome also the automatic rise in tariffs, which will obviously facilitate the task of local authorities, as contained in clause 7(c) of the Bill. Furthermore there is the facilitation of the presentation of financial statements, for which provision is made in clause 12.

A further matter which was discussed by the committee and to which important amendments were effected on the committee was the question of the use of law enforcement officials. I think the formulation in the Bill, as amended by the standing committee, is in fact a vast improvement on the formulation in the Bill as it was introduced. I am glad that it was possible for that improvement to be effected.

I am also very grateful that the Government agreed to remove the notorious clause 13 from the Bill, as introduced. It is the clause in which provision was made for the burden to be placed on the employer to make deductions from the wages of their Black employees for rent and service charges in arrears.

Apart from the strong representations which were received from all quarters in opposition to that provision, it was clear to the standing committee that if that provision were to remain in the Bill, it would firstly not be accepted by the standing committee, and secondly we would, through that provision, have been drawing the employer into the conflict situation in South Africa. I am truly grateful that that clause was removed from the Bill.

Now I wish to refer to a problem which confronted the standing committee time and again. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning indicated that Black local government would be transferred to the new provincial executive bodies which are going to be established in order to replace the system of provincial councils. We have a problem in this regard. Every time we have to deal with a Bill on this subject in the standing committee, reference is made to a future dispensation about which no one has any clarity, about which it would seem that no finality has been reached and in any case is not available to the standing committee so that it may, in the light of that information, assess what it has to do and how it should react in respect of the Bills before it. This does not apply to this Bill only, but to others as well. It seems to me to be the wrong way of doing things.

After all, the fundamental legislation must first be considered so that one can assess other related Bills in that context. It seems to me that it is a case of putting the cart before the horse to expect us to grant our approval here to all kinds of amendments, improvements, changes and what have you to existing legislation on local government, for example, while the whole problem of second-tier Government and the position of local authorities in that regard, are still quite nebulous as far as we are concerned, except for the preliminary announcements made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I wish to make an appeal to the Government, since good legislation will never be made by adopting that kind of procedure, for then we run the risk that the following year we will have to deal with a lot of amending legislation. My earnest appeal is that standing committees and hon members of this House should not be placed in that situation in which they have to grant approval to measures which can only be assessed correctly within the wider framework in which it has to operate while we do not have the wider framework available to us.

We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, allow me first of all, as chairman of the standing committee, to express my appreciation to the officials who supported the committee, advised them and granted administrative assistance. I am referring to the officials in the department as well as those of Parliament. I also wish to express my appreciation to the hon members of all parties who served on the standing committee and made it possible for us eventually to agree to all the measures contained in this Bill.

When the original Black Local Authorities Bill was introduced to the parliamentary select committee in 1982, the aim was that in their composition and function, Black local authorities should be as close as possible to the already established local authorities. Most of the Black local authorities which were to be established were in the Transvaal. It is logical, therefore, that the Transvaal Local Authorities Ordinance be used as a model in formulating the 1982 Bill. The establishment of fully-fledged Black local authorities was an important step in the development of third tier government for urbanised Blacks in this country.

Not making simultaneous provision for financial resources to enable Black local authorities to render proper, decent services, or at least to envisage the rendering of such services, was a serious shortcoming. It is not possible to render all the services within a short period of time. The envisaged establishment of regional services councils will address the problem in part, but that is not enough. Creating structures of authority is unsatisfactory if those structures do not have the ability to give the necessary attention to the problems of the voters concerned at the same time. There are measures which will have to receive further attention.

In clause 2 of this Bill provision is made for the establishment of four categories of local authorities in line with other local authorities—Whites, Indians, Coloureds—and for the possible combining of two or more local authorities after the necessary consultation had taken place. Provision is also being made for the conversion of community councils into town councils. They are therefore being converted from advisory bodies to authoritative bodies. For the sake of continuity and the continued utilisation of expertise derived from experience, limited though it may be, provision is being made for the members already elected to the community councils to continue as elected representatives until, as arranged, country-wide elections are held in all local authorities in two years’ time.

During the discussion in the standing committee, amendments were made to certain measures for which the original legislation made provision. The original clause 6, for example, determined that conviction for corruption in the RSA, South West Africa and the independent TBVC countries would serve as a disqualification for election. The question was raised as to why corruption only in Southern Africa, and not in other countries outside Southern Africa, was a criterion. The committee therefore amended the clause to include conviction of corruption anywhere as a disqualification.

Provision was also made to grant Black local authorities the power to adjust tariffs for services which have to be rendered, Escom services, for example. When Escom, as a supplier of services or a mass supplier of services adjusts its tariffs, local authorities are given the right to adjust those tariffs accordingly as soon as it becomes necessary.

Clause 11, which deals with urban law enforcement officials, is another important clause. This clause has a relatively limited range. It gives limited powers, inter alia, to investigate each offence, and the powers are limited to the investigation of offences. It does, however, also grant the power to act upon contravention of the Animal Protection Act. If maltreatment of animals occurs the urban law enforcement officials will have the right to take action. The same applies to the Mental Health Act. From time to time disturbed people wander around. The law enforcement official in the local authority area will then have the right to deal with the matter.

There is, however, another aspect which I should like to raise briefly, viz the principle that the maintenance of an orderly community life should be the responsibility of the relevant community. One of our great problems in the present situation is that, as a result of the unrest occurring in many Black areas which fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities, it is becoming necessary for the law enforcement officials to take action there. If, however, they are members of another community, this would provoke a negative reaction among the residents of that area. There was the case, several years ago, when dissatisfaction was expressed when it appeared that Black policemen from other parts of the country had taken action in the Eastern Cape. This led to dissatisfaction and political criticism. It is logical that when law enforcers are not members of the community concerned, the assessment of that situation cannot be concentrated upon the merits of law enforcement. The outsiders, who have to apply the law, are the ones who will be judged. That is why I should like to see that the enforcement of law, as far as it is at all practically possible, be undertaken by people who have received the necessary training, people from the community in which the laws have to be applied. Broadly speaking they should apply everywhere.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to a matter to which the hon the Minister already paid attention in his second reading speech, viz that it is envisaged that provision will and must be made for uniform general legislation to be introduced so that it can be applicable to all local authorities. In the past the ordinances in respect of local authorities were different to a certain extent in all the provinces. In addition there were differences between the legislation in respect of Black local authorities and that in respect of White local authorities. The hon the Minister announced in his second reading speech that his department was already giving the necessary attention to this matter. I can mention that it was repeatedly emphasised by the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in the standing committee that they objected to the distinction made between measures in respect of Black local authorities and other local authorities.

The hon member Prof Olivier also inquired as to the rationale behind something like this. Without becoming emotional about this kind of matter, it is necessary that one consider the rationale for such a matter. It is so, after all, that we in South Africa are really a combination of First World and Third World circumstances. [Interjections.] Because this is so, we live in communities which maintain standards which are comparable on the one hand to First World standards and on the other to Third World standards. As far as administrative management, and also the legal handling of these matters is concerned, in my opinion it would be less practical if that fact—which is not ideological, but instead is a straightforward fact—was disregarded. To extend this beyond South Africa, I wish to refer to an example on another level where the same principle does at least enjoy consideration as well. I wish to refer to the European Common Market, in which economic co-operation by the European countries is rationalised.

When countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain, which have different level of development from France, Britain, Germany, Holland, etc, applied for equal status in the European Common Market, this was accompanied by a relatively extended preparatory procedure. It took a considerable period of time before the countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain—where the gap in the level of development is not as great as the gap between that of a First and a Third World country—could be included in the European Common Market. Until today there is still hesitancy concerning the inclusion of Turkey, which is also interested in being included in the European Common Market. It is not for ideological reasons, but purely for practical and economic reasons and because of the administrative consequences which something like this would entail.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? By the very nature of things, one cannot comment by means of a question, but I merely wish to ask the hon member for Klip River in terms of which different Third World value system—economic or whatever—the people of Schotschekloof in the Bo-Kaap cannot vote for members of the Cape Town City Council.

The question of franchise is not the main issue at the moment. The hon member Prof Olivier and his party seem to be obsessed with one matter only, and that is the franchise. They are constantly politicking on that score.

I am talking about local authorities!

It concerns the administration of communities who have a totally different level of development in their local authority structure. The regional services councils which have now been introduced, through which an infrastructure and other services have to be provided, provide for the finance which is generated as the result of the prosperity of communities in one area, to be utilised in another area as well. I am talking about the buying power which is spent in the White area, and the manpower which is utilised in the factories in the White areas. Levies can be imposed in order to be able to render services to the respective communities.

A method must be found to bring about greater parity in services. This kind of higher level of development cannot be achieved overnight, however. It is a gradual process. We have moved into a phase in which the concept of the equal human dignity of all is accepted, but as far as voting is concerned, the necessary structures of authority cannot be thrown together in one fell swoop! It is essential that trust be built up gradually. As long as there is no process by which trust can be built up and mistrust be broken down, it would not be serviceable, according to the approach of the PFP, simply to ignore the practical circumstances and to concentrate on political unification without permitting evolutionary development to take place. It would not be practicable to bring about changes in one fell swoop. [Interjections.]

That is the difficulty we are experiencing with the approach of the PFP. They think and talk about their aspiration, viz political unification, all the time. I can understand that the representatives in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates would speak in that way, because at present there is an important deficiency regarding politics, which they sense. They will also realise, however, that this will have to be a process of gradual development. It must be accompanied by the building up of trust.

That is why the difference between Blacks and Whites in local authorities is acknowledged for the sake of the prevailing practical circumstances. We all know that by far the majority of houses in the Black local authority areas are subsidised to a great extent. The land upon which they have been built and the services in the areas are subsidised. In most cases electricity and water services are not linked to metres at each house; there is mass provision.

By contrast services are rendered individually to each house in the White local authority areas. Each household also pays individually for the services used. In addition the administration regarding the maintenance of municipal services is done on different level from the administration in most Black local authorities.

Because there are practical differences which can be eliminated gradually, it is logical that there must be a gradual process of equalisation. It is illogical to expect that we must simply ignore all differences merely for the sake of an ideology. The PFP always accuses us of supporting an ideology, but their demands are ideologically based. Practical circumstances are ignored completely.

This Bill deals inter alia with the services which were previously rendered by development boards. These boards were previously called administration boards. Community councils took over their functions and these will now be transferred to fully-fledged Black local authorities in terms of this Bill. We acknowledge the aspiration of the local authorities in wanting to exercise authority themselves. It is right that they be included in the training process so that they themselves can accept responsibility. I have seen too often what happens when people occupy positions of authority without really having to accept the responsibility of this authority. Those rights are not applied responsibly; they are often applied to bring political tension to a head.

I do not want to make comparisons with the political situation on the first tier of government when we still had three representatives of the Blacks in this House, but those people did not have the responsibility to give proper effect to the promises by virtue of which they had been elected. That is why they were able to act as political inciters in this House, because they did not have the responsibility to give practical effect to the promises they were able to make in the political sphere. It is high time we built structures by means of which those to whom political rights are being granted, also have to exercise full responsibility, right down to the lowest level—the third tier, that of local authority. For that reason I am grateful that this Bill is a step in that direction.

Mr Speaker, the speech made by the hon member for Klip River and the policy of the NP make it impossible for the CP to support this Bill, although the CP also holds the view that Black local communities should have local authorities.

The hon member for Klip River contradicted himself quite often in his speech. He has just said that substance is now being given to Black local authorities. He said inter alia that the application of the law within the community can best take place via those people’s own representatives; which, of course, I agree with. In addition the hon member said the NP stood for unification. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the same thing in his second reading speech. The hon member is in favour of unification, but he says it must occur in an evolutionary way, while the PFP wants it to occur immediately.

That is precisely why the CP cannot support this Bill. The PFP are honest in their standpoint, and I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that I have great appreciation for his contribution in the standing committee, because he is a knowledgeable man. His standpoint is honest and frank. My problem resides in the Government and the NP, however, who are now emerging with an own local government for Blacks. Yet the hon member for Klip River said that unification in this country should occur in an evolutionary way. That is my problem with that party.

The hon member for Klip River said this Bill was bringing Black local authorities into line with other local authorities in South Africa.

I said it was being brought more closely into line with other local authorities.

Very well, the hon member said Black local authorities were being brought more closely into line with the other authorities in our country. The hon member also referred to elections which have to take place in all these local authorities’ areas in two years’ time.

We already know that electoral legislation on local authorities is going to be submitted. That will mean a uniform Electoral Act for local authorities. It will entail the UDF’s being able to get the majority vote in elections in these Black local authorities which are being established. [Interjections.] I hear an hon member saying yes. That is correct, quite correct, and it can take place quite democratically. In Cradock, for example—I see the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is not present—the NP is in the majority in the White town council, but these two local authorities are both going to have representation in the regional services council. Consensus will have to be reached between the UDF and the NP or the CP. This is a problem which is going to arise in future as a result of this policy of the Government.

The hon member Prof Olivier said the PFP was in favour of unification and of having one Bill on local authorities. He also said he appreciated the hon the Minister’s setting it as an ideal which they were working towards, and that they—as the hon member for Klip River said—had to move in that direction in an evolutionary way.

I did not say that.

Yes, you did.

The hon the Minister said it too. I can quote him. The hon the Minister said that was the ideal.

Uniform legislation.

Yes, uniform legislation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Klip River spoke about unification.

No, I did not! [Interjections.]

Let us look at this standing committee, of which the hon member for Klip River is the chairman. This standing committee consists of 23 members. There are 13 Indian and Coloured members altogether, as well as two hon PFP members. They form the majority, therefore. I put it to all the hon members of the National Party who are members of that standing committee, that they are advocates of separate local authorities. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, and say they stand for separate local authorities.

Apart from Wynand Malan!

The majority of the members of that standing committee are already in favour of integrated local authorities in South Africa in any case.

In favour of non-racial local authorities!

Yes, correct. I believe, Sir, there is only one member in that standing committee who really advocates separate local authorities for the respective population groups in South Africa. That is the Conservative Party’s member.

Yes, quite correct!

I want to know from the hon member for Randburg whether he is in favour of retaining separate local authorities, just as they are, for the separate population groups in South Africa.

Yes!

I put the question to the hon member for Randburg, but the hon the Deputy Minister replied in the affirmative. I now want to know from the hon member for Randburg whether he agrees with the hon the Deputy Minister.

I believe in autonomous local government.

The hon member says he believes in autonomous local government.

Even if it is on a mixed basis?

Can the hon member tell us whether he believes a mixed local authority can also be autonomous?

Yes, that is possible.

Oh, is it possible? The hon member for Randburg is not prepared to say he agrees with the hon the Deputy Minister that there should be separate local authorities, Sir. That is why I say, Sir, it is only the Conservative Party and the hon member for Sasolburg who say openly and honestly that we stand for separate local authorities in South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are a lot of racists!

Mr Chairman, I hear an hon member saying we are a lot of racists. [Interjections.] Surely separate local authorities, separate representational governments, have never been akin to racism. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs said here today that we do not grant freedom of worship to other people who live in this country with us.

Yes, that is really a disgrace!

I want to maintain, Sir, that the greatest freedom a people can have, is that of having self-determination in an own fatherland, in respect of every facet that affects their lives, so that they can worship as they would like to in their fatherland. That is the greatest freedom a people can have. When these hon members tell us, therefore, it is racism when we maintain that we support separate freedoms, also on the level of local government, my reply is that they really belong in the ranks of the PFP.

Jan, you are a real old matriarch!

Mr Chairman, I should like to quote from what Prof Piet Cillié—at this stage still the editor of Die Burger—said with reference to politics.

Yes, come on! That hon Deputy Minister has to listen too for once! [Interjections.]

He said:

According to Prof Piet Cillié this is the crucial problem in South African politics. He goes on to say, and I quote:

He continues:

Yes! Just listen to that!

The Bill in question, Sir, is part and parcel of that process. That is why we are rejecting it.

Mr Chairman, what did the State President say in a speech at the beginning of this year? I quote him as follows:

The State President said:

Yes!

What used to be the liberal idea in South Africa, according to Piet Cillié, has been put into practice in South Africa by the Government. This Bill is only one of the building blocks of this undivided South Africa of the State President, with its one nation of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asians. The National Party, Sir, are the creators, the architects, of the liberal idea in South Africa.

When did Piet Cillié say that?

It was in 1972. I want to spell out the CP’s policy with reference to the Black peoples. I quote from the CP’s Programme of Principles and Policy.

That is the ideal. I continue:

Clause 7 of this Bill not only grants a Black local authority the right to possess property in its own area but also the right to possess property outside its area of jurisdiction. The right of ownership which is now being granted to Blacks in Crossroads—the same Crossroads which is going up in flames— Khayelitsha, Langa and Nyanga, will be repealed by the CP. I quote:

The CP therefore says that the Black residential areas which we are prepared to create here, will remain under the jurisdiction of the White Parliament of the RSA. I continue:

That is what the CP will do, rather than establishing these local authorities—local authorities which are separate at present, but will soon have representation in the regional services councils.

Will the Ciskei then do the sewerage for Crossroads? You are crazy!

I now quote from the second reading speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning (Hansard: House of Representatives, 21 May 1986, col 3185):

That was the question put by the hon member, Prof Olivier, here today and it is also the question put by the hon members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, viz why should there be separate legislation. The hon the Minister’s reply was that the ideal would be uniform legislation for all local authorities. I quote:

This gives substance to the Government’s policy of one country, one Government and one local government system.

This Bill brings the task of the Black South African citizen on the level of local government into line with that of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. This Bill is part of the implementation of power-sharing with Blacks.

The Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill leads to an own political authority for Black local authorities on the level of Government. This Black local government which is being established by this amending Bill will have representation in the regional services councils. With reference to that, I accept that the voting qualifications will be the same for the separate groups in South Africa in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill—viz on a basis of one man, one vote for the four separate groups on the local government level. I do not know whether the Government is going to make ethnic provision when they institute that legislation. By means of their local authorities, the Blacks are now getting representation in the regional services councils via this Bill. When we look at the functions of regional services councils, we see they are responsible for the following inter alia: Bulk water supply, electricity supply, land use and transport planning in the region, roads and storm water drainage, passenger transport services, traffic affairs, abattoirs, fresh produce markets, refuse dumping areas, and ambulance and fire-fighting services. Health services, airports and civil defence will also fall under the jurisdiction of the regional services councils. This Black local authority is getting representation in the regional services councils in respect of civil defence in South Africa. The UDF-controlled Black local authority in Cradock will serve in a regional services council with the hon member for Cradock’s people. The possibility exists that Cradock’s Whites may supply 80% or 90% of the money necessary for the functioning of the regional services council, but the Bill provides that Cradock’s White local authority has a maximum of 50% of the voting power in that regional services council. This is one of the results of this Bill.

The Bill also provides—the hon the Minister stated this explicitly—that when this Bill has been passed, the task of implementing it will be transferred to the new executive committees on the second tier of government. That is why I want to agree with the hon member Prof Olivier. We are passing a Bill in which we are told it will be implemented by the second tier of government, while Parliament does not yet know what the second tier of government, which will have to implement and execute this legislation, will look like. This Bill delegates certain tasks from the hon the Minister to the administrators, who are executive officials. They in turn can delegate certain powers to other bodies. Certain powers can be delegated to the regional services councils. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said a Black man could also become the chairman of such a regional services council.

Let us look at the executive committee in the Cape, to which Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks can be appointed. There are 2,2 million Coloureds and 1,2 million Whites in the Cape. According to the Government policy, the Constitution Act makes provision for a fair and just distribution in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians on the basis of a ratio of 4:2:1. Our question is under whose jurisdiction these local authorities must fall on the second tier of government in the Cape? When Rev Hendrickse and his people say there are 2,2 million Coloureds in the Cape, and only 1,2 million Whites, and for this reason they want a majority in the executive committee, and in addition they say the Administrator of the Cape must be a Coloured, what moral right has the Government to refuse this? The hon members of the Free State say there are many more Blacks in the Free State than Whites. [Interjections.] It is recorded in Hansard that they say the farm labourers in the Free State—the farm labourers of the hon member for Parys, who is kicking up a row over there—will get representation in the regional services councils. If the Blacks, who are the majority in the Free State, tell the State President there are more Blacks than Whites in the Free State, and ask for the majority of the members of the executive committee in the Free State to be Blacks, what moral right does he have to refuse them? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that only public sector organisations have representation in the regional services councils?

I can answer that question immediately from what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in reply to a question put by the hon member for Albany. Does the hon member for Klip River want to tell me he does not know the hon the Minister said Black farm labourers can also get representation in regional services councils?

What does the Act say …

Is the hon member aware that farm labourers can also get representation in regional services councils? [Interjections.] He was not aware of that. That hon member is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, but he does not know what is going on in this country.

Prove that to me!

I shall prove it to him. I shall be able to prove it, since the hon member for Albany put the question here.

Prove it from the Act!

There is nothing in this legislation about the regional services councils, but I tell that hon member that Black farm labourers can get representation in the regional services councils. These Black local authorities also have representation in the regional services councils.

We do not yet know what the executive committees will look like. The Statutory Council has been appointed. The legislation concerning the national councils grants Black South Africans a say in the governing processes on the local government level, the second tier of government, and probably also the third tier of government.

I should like to refer to the hon the Minister’s second reading speech. I quote from page 4 of the written speech, in which the hon the Minister said:

The Black local authority can increase its tariffs when Escom increases its tariffs. That is correct. That is the way it should be.

I now want to quote from Hansard of 25 February, col 1175, in which the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister something. If these Black local authorities are established now, and the residents of the area refuse to pay the service charges, who is going to pay for them? That is the case at present. The UDF collects the money and the present community councils are sitting with millions of rands of debt which has to be subsidised by the Government. This year bridging capital of R168 million was passed in Parliament, and made available to seven development boards. This is bridging capital to assist these Black local development boards in keeping community councils going. I therefore ask the hon the Deputy Minister: If these Black local authorities refuse, who is going to pay for this?

Since Black local authorities which will be in line with the White, Coloured and Indian local authorities, are being established, the standing committee is considering legislation about influx control. This legislation abolishes approximately 20 Acts which control the influx of Blacks to White areas. My friends on the opposite side will remember what happened in Khayelitsha. I want to address myself specifically to the hon member for False Bay, who is such a rowdy member of this House these days. When Khayelitsha was in its planning stages, the Government told the Cape Peninsula hon members of the House of Assembly that they wanted to move the people from Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads to Khayelitsha so that we could have one consolidated Black city. The hon members then said Khayelitsha had to be built.

Khayelitsha already has 100 000 residents and Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu are still exactly where they have always been. As a result of the lifting of the influx control measures, there will be 600 000 Blacks in Khayelitsha soon. That figure equals Botswana’s total population. This will all be within the boundaries of the False Bay constituency. It will be able to have a local government, with a town council which can have representation in the regional services council and can obtain a certain right of ownership. Its residents will be citizens and voters, who can obtain right of ownership there. That is one of the results of the Government’s policy.

I was in the region of Port Nolloth in Namaqualand recently. Approximately 360 Blacks were turned out of South West Africa. They said they wanted to go and live in Port Nolloth. There are 6 000 Coloureds in Port Nolloth at the moment, of whom 49% are unemployed. The Government is going to force that local government to establish a Black residential area there, which will eventually get a Black local authority.

What is happening in Port Nolloth, is what is in store for each small rural village in the Cape. This applies to the whole of South Africa, but to the Cape Flats in particular.

The PFP, the Coloureds and the Indians who are extolling the virtues of abolishing influx control and of applying this Bill, are creating the channels through which the Whites and the Coloureds in the Cape are being ousted from their own residential areas.

Right of ownership is being given to the Blacks here. In 1936 Geni Hertzog and Geni Smuts set aside a certain amount of land for the Black peoples. The old UP demarcated the traditional land, and added seven million morgen. We said not a single additional morgen would be granted, and the land has already been bought for the Black people and given to them.

It was seven and a quarter million morgen.

I shall add the quarter if that will satisfy the hon member.

The Whites had to pay for it.

The seven and a quarter million morgen was given to them, and, thank heavens, some of the Black peoples have full freedom today in that territory which was given to them. They have more freedom there than the hon member for Randburg or I have in our own fatherland.

Wynand does not want to be free!

The Tswana people can take decisions in respect of every facet of their lives, but if the hon member for Randburg and I want to take a decision, we have to ask the Coloureds and Indians first. That hon member himself said in this House that not one of us has first choice in this process of give and take; we often have to be satisfied with second and third choice. [Interjections.]

In Bophuthatswana, the Tswanas have first choice in respect of everything that affects their lives.

In so far as this proposed legislation makes Black local authorities part of the constitutional dispensation of South Africa and, as the hon member for Klip River put it, in so far as it brings about the evolutionary unification, also of the South African nation, the CP can never support it.

I should like to quote from Prof Piet Cillié’s speech once again. After the old UP had accepted power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians in one Parliament, Prof Cillié made the following analysis:

The NP is also involved in a devilishly dangerous plan today. The Bill is part of it. Prof Cillié goes on to say:

Were those not true words? The Whites have already been irretrievably divided. Power-sharing is responsible for the greatest division Afrikanerdom has ever experienced. Power-sharing is responsible for an hon member’s rising in this House and humiliating his own people by compromising his origin. [Interjections.] According to Prof Cillié, the establishment of integration will irretrievably divide the Whites and destroy the Whites’ leadership, power and authority for good. By bringing Blacks into this constitutional dispensation—I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister—they are destroying the authority of the Whites of South Africa in this country for good. Prof Cillié also said this could become the precursor to racial chaos and revolution.

Prof Piet Cillié!?

Yes, that is what Prof Piet Cillié said. [Interjections.] That is why I want to ask my hon friends in the NP today to come to their senses. Why do they not go back to the course of separate freedom and separate development, which brought about the greatest peace experienced at the southern tip of Africa for 35 years? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member made a number of comments not directly related to the legislation and I should like to respond to a few of them if you will permit this.

The first aspect on which I want to speak is his reference to the speech made by the hon member for Stilfontein yesterday evening. He alleged that the hon member for Stilfontein had risen and humiliated his people by casting aspersions on their descent.

His compatriots!

The dilemma appears to me to be that the hon member still does not understand what the hon member for Stilfontein said here.

Let him say what he meant.

Yesterday evening he spoke for half an hour in an attempt to explain this to hon members but I shall try to say it within the limit of a minute or so. [Interjections.] The hon member said we were not of pure White or pure Dutch or whatever descent. He was not trying to attack the CP members about their ancestry.

You are very naïve!

He was not trying to attack Afrikaners about their descent. Some of the surnames mentioned by the hon member are not found only among hon members of that party; there are hon members with the same surnames in this party. The hon member for Stilfontein tried to say this made no difference; it was irrelevant whether 7% or 3% or 50% of the ancestry stemmed from a specific source—whether from India, the Netherlands, England, Germany or Russia. That was unimportant; the question was who we were; that is what it was about. He did not try to say that White people supposedly had mixed blood, that this was humiliating or that we should be ashamed because of this.

What did he say about repatriation when he mentioned our surnames?

That is the point the hon member made. These hon members want to repatriate on the basis of descent. They do not want to examine the facts of the present situation; they are not prepared to see who are South Africans today. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman spoke about nationhood. If he could reinstate the 1961 constitution, we should still have a nation of the same people as at present. We are worse off, however, because we are saddled with a group of people within the nation who do not even have political rights.

I quoted Prof Cillié on a nation. Do you differ with him?

Yes, I differ with him as the hon member quoted him. Obviously.

He quoted only Prof Cillié.

No, I am referring to his speaking about nationhood today and about the one nation we want here. He said there was legislation…

We stand for a White South African nation. Does the hon member also stand for that?

I do not think there is any such thing as a White South African nation. I think there are certainly Whites within the South African nation but within a much broader context.

When did you find that out?

In terms of the concept “nation” in constitutional law, those hon members will have a White South African nation only if they can obtain a White homeland. When there is a White homeland with a White nation, I can assure hon members that the vast majority of the White South Africans of today will not be able to be accommodated within that state in any way because traditionally we do not have a single or focal point where Whites are a majority group to the exclusion of other groups. [Interjections.] I do not wish to devote my entire speech to this argument, however; I wish to revert to a few points the hon member made.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to Black local government bodies. In fact, he claimed that they were in favour of autonomous Black local authorities themselves. He stated that some national and independent states could furnish services to these local authorities if an ethnically homogeneous majority of the people of a specific national state lived within the area of jurisdiction of a municipality.

But under the jurisdiction of a White parliament.

Yes, under the jurisdiction of a White parliament. What the hon member is saying now is actually the crux of their policy. The jurisdiction of a White parliament means the other people may live here but we remain their master. White people remain the masters of the Black people. [Interjections.] They may remain here and govern themselves but White people have to remain the masters.

And Tswanas are the masters in their own country!

Order! I notice another hon member of the CP is to speak on this matter. The hon member for Randburg may proceed and I am sure the speaker to follow him will certainly point out a few of what he thinks are mistakes the hon member made.

Hon members of the CP are ranting about the principle of power-sharing but power is also shared by means of the tiers of government. We are moving certain functions which have to be exercised in terms of the constitutional process from one tier to another. Consequently this also involves negotiation on what powers are to be exercised where in geographical and regional areas and those of local government. Consequently, if these hon members speak about a certain autonomy in the exercise of certain functions, I assume they are the functions which a White parliament, which is sovereign according to their point of departure, will transfer and relinquish to local government which will be Black. Functions will also change. Hon members would surely consider delegating certain security functions but they could also consider imposing such functions. Those hon members will be involved in a process of power-sharing which they will call a division of power but there will be negotiation within one system within one area throughout. The actual fact is the entire philosophy of these members runs along the lines of dominance, of mastery of White people over others.

The hon member for Rissik who has just walked out said in an interjection during the hon member for Kuruman’s speech that I did not want to be free. I want to tell those hon members that there is nothing I should prefer to freedom.

We shall permit you in the White fatherland, Wynand. You are very welcome there.

If a White fatherland were to be established and it suited me, I would live there. If I could feel free there, I should be pleased. While I find myself in a situation in which I am in a position of dominance in conjunction with another group of Whites over other people and have to force them to actions they do not wish to take and I actually do not desire either, I am not free. I do not want that situation because I should then be cherishing an ideal I could not attain. I wish to contend that those hon members will not be free before their consciences are free and before what they advocate—the idea of independent ethnic states—is applied geographically to the minutest detail. They cannot be free before that happens.

Could you be free under a Black majority?

No, I could not be free either under a Black majority. I could be free, however, if I could be included in a system in which I were protected, in which I had a feeling of security and, if it were also a fair and just system in which all could participate and in which I could give substance to a democratic process and structure.

Would you have that under a Black majority?

No, obviously one would not have that under a Black majority. Every majority linked to any group whatsoever would not bring freedom.

How would you accomplish this?

How I should accomplish this forms part of a constitutional debate we have been conducting for long enough in this House but which those hon members cannot understand. Perhaps we on this side of the House should concentrate more on repeatedly discussing the principles by which we stand with these hon members. [Interjections.] On every occasion the hon members draw a debate away from the principles and from points of departure concerning justice to an emotional one of mottoes and slogans. [Interjections.]

The hon member Prof Olivier made a good speech here and I thank him for his support. He specifically indicated one problem in that we were encountering difficulties in this process with the chronology of Bills coming before us. All the other hon members of this standing committee who also discussed this Bill had this problem.

I think the hon member will concede that, even if we were to establish chronology, this problem would partially remain because we do not know exactly what functions have to be brought in and what structures created. I accept that a different chronological order could have reduced the problem.

It would perhaps have been easiest if we could have had seven or eight Bills before us simultaneously on condition that they formed a unit so that we could deal with them all.

We are in a situation, however, in which we should at least understand the ministry’s and the officials’ problems. After all, we have quite a number of Bills before us and, without discussing their merits, I think they include many positive measures. The hon member also said this was a very positive measure and he supported it.

I should like to accentuate one point which emerged in the standing committee from the investigation regarding this Bill.

Under this dispensation I think we are in the process this year of moving in a far greater degree into the system according to which the process operates. Last year we started using standing committees and we proceeded tentatively and with some difficulty. I think, however—hon members of the standing committee including the hon member for Kuruman will concede this—that very open discussion takes place there. We speak freely to one another and we are not angered by one another.

We greatly appreciate you.

I am very grateful for that. I also have great appreciation for that hon member. He should just not say the things he actually says; then I should appreciate him even more. [Interjections.] I think the hon member says things he honestly does not mean. I only wish he understood them better before expressing them; they would then make much more sense. [Interjections.]

What I am trying to say is that the process has developed to such an extent in the standing committee …

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon member for Koedoespoort would give me a chance. I should like to put a point here which I consider important. Hon members have probably taken note of it but I want it recorded so that it may be noted outside too. It deals with the functioning of the system.

The point of departure was to see whether we could not attain the so-called “concurrent majority” within the system. This comprises a majority within each House and last year it worked basically in this way that the Opposition voted on one side and the majority parties then reached so-called consensus.

I think discussion is much freer this year which has resulted in our starting a real search for consensus as members of the standing committee. Discussion is much more open and I believe this Bill is an example of how it has developed. I am referring to clauses 11 and the original clause 13 and specifically to the material amendment to clause 11 to which the hon member Prof Olivier referred and the deletion of the previously envisaged clause 13.

This position developed from the standing committee as an extension of Parliament itself and in the process of negotiation with the hon the Minister and the Government, as the hon member so aptly pointed out, it was ultimately decided to abandon clause 13 of the original Bill. The Government was prepared to permit its deletion.

What I am trying to say is that not only is there a negotiating process among the Houses but that a real negotiating process is becoming established between the Government and the representatives in Parliament. We see this in other standing committees as well. In the process we are instituting we are actually providing a certain degree of structure and visibility to the division between executive and representative authority.

I regard this as an enormously positive development which places great stress on the executive authority—on the hon members of the Cabinet. In addition to having to work in all three Houses, they now also have to work in what amounts to a public situation in their own caucus. Caucus meetings took place in a closed situation under the old dispensation and debate was concluded there.

I think there is a further positive aspect. In a caucus situation members miss something from time to time which was then raised under the old system by way of amendments across the floor of the House. There was no real opportunity to converse, to negotiate and consider the advantages and disadvantages of a matter. It then resulted in a vote. On occasions in the past we did not adopt amendments which could have made a positive contribution. It happened inter alia—this applies to both sides of the House—because we spoke to a gallery. Opposition parties frequently rejected points raised by the Government—also for the sake of the impression this would make on the gallery.

In the standing committee situation there is certainly a type of consensus developing at present in that Opposition parties and the Government, the Houses among themselves and individual members of Parliament are starting to seek the best solutions for South Africa and to a situation. I think this is an enormously positive development which we should note.

You are now passing the tenth floor after falling from the twentieth. It has gone well so far but there are problems ahead, Wynand! [Interjections.]

For the past number of years, from about 1982, the hon member for Rissik has been rising from the twentieth floor. He is like a character in a cartoon climbing into the atmosphere only to find himself without a ladder suddenly. He sits there perfectly happily for a while and the next moment he starts falling. We know how long and hard he falls before reaching bottom! Hon members of the CP are in the process of rising; we are coming down to earth in an orderly fashion so that our feet may be planted firmly on the ground. [Interjections.]

This is certainly limited legislation. Many of its clauses are of a technical nature but I think a number of them are essential. Hon members—I think it was the hon member Prof Olivier and also the hon member for Klip River—pointed out that they would not solve problems. In fact, the hon member Prof Olivier spoke much more generally and said we should have to do far more to get the system of local government off the ground. I do not believe we should omit taking steps which are significant but will not necessarily provide solutions. The hon member supported the Bill on that basis.

He referred to the motion of his colleague the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in which it was moved that we should not proceed with the consideration of this Bill before certain actions had taken place. I think the PFP is attempting to convey a message in this way but I do not believe its members are unhappy that we are proceeding with this so they are supporting it on that basis.

In conclusion, I wish to say that hon members in this House should know that the legitimacy of every system depends on the measure of its support. Black local authorities will have to have the support of the majority of people.

In this regard I wish to refer briefly to the argument raised by the hon member for Kuruman which was that the UDF could obtain control of the local authority of Cradock or wherever in terms of this legislation. What would we do in such a case?

Let us first revert to the CP’s point of departure on Black local authorities. If the UDF were to participate in an election for representatives to the Black local government system, would those hon members accept the result if the UDF won? Obviously they would not! They are dead quiet; they admit it.

What exactly do you want to know?

I am asking whether hon members of the CP would accept it if an election were held and the UDF participated and won in terms of the system under which Black local authorities are to function on an autonomous basis.

We shall reply to you on that. [Interjections.]

We shall consider banning the UDF.

So there is a further reply in the words of the hon member for Brakpan which is that they would consider banning the UDF. Let me put the question in a slightly different way. If Inkatha were to adopt a strong stand against them and participated in the election and won, would hon members of the CP accept this?

Yes, because they repudiate violence.

Did hon members hear that? The hon member for Rissik will reply to me later but the hon member for Brakpan has answered me now. [Interjections.] His reply was “no” in one case and “yes” in the other but the hon member for Rissik is keeping the door open. They will reply to me later. [Interjections.] I want to contend that there is no difference between who participates and wins and the current system which they actually say they support. The hon member for Kuruman has no difficulty with the basis of the legislation; he experiences a problem with the basis on which Black local government would slot in according to our policy. If they were to come to power, they would be quite satisfied to build on these structures. Nevertheless they put forward arguments which they know are irrelevant to the time in which we live.

The point of departure they state is very clear. They will not really accept democracy, not even the participation of people who are prepared to recognise structures as stated. They want to be in control.

I wish to put a second point in this regard. If the UDF were to participate under the current system—in the form of participation in local government—that would be no problem but a solution. The day we succeed in getting the UDF to participate in elections within structures instituted by this Parliament, we shall have achieved an enormous victory. I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to hon members’ speeches and especially to that of the hon member for Randburg.

It struck me that he was very concerned about the question of freedom. He could bear almost anything but the lack of freedom of other people worried him more than the fact that he and his own people were not free. A great objection the HNP has against people like the hon member for Randburg’s view of affairs is that in spite of the flaws— we concede this pro tem for the sake of argument—which according to them are attached to the execution of what we shall call the Verwoerd vision, in our case it is clear to all what our destination is. Hon members may argue with us, find fault with us and criticise us on our ultimate goal of separate peoples in Southern Africa but we cannot obtain an idea from the hon member for Randburg and other hon members of the Government party of where they are heading with their policy. They would regard it as a good thing if Inkatha won; it would be a good thing if the UDF could be involved peacefully in local authorities. They have a number of desires and expectations and dream dreams but they cannot paint a picture for us and—what is worse—for themselves of their destination.

I see the well-known Mr Alistair Sparks is in the visitors’ box today. He has written an article in the Cape Times today which all hon members in the House could read five or six times. They should also read Dr Piet Muller’s article which appeared in Beeld yesterday because basically these two very talented and capable leftist political commentators are saying the same, which is that this Government has reached a stage in which fundamentally it can take no more steps to satisfy the Blacks on its way ahead. Both of these gentlemen emphasise that the NP is making various concessions on the road of integration but the fundamental, great steps which will fire the imagination of the Black masses to the extent that they will trust the NP and the Government to be “the vehicle of reform” are simply not seen by Dr Muller and Mr Sparks.

What they spell out further is that the Government is now faced with the dilemma that it cannot satisfy the escalating anger to the left. In spite of all the steps over the past years on the road to integration—as is the case with this legislation as well—disturbances have been aggravated. The number of deaths is rising; destruction is becoming worse. Riots have succeeded in doing to Crossroads what Dr Piet Koornhof failed to do. While all this is going on and there is no immediate prospect of a shred of improvement, the National Party and all those hon members on the Government side continue along their so-called road to reform. Yet both Mr Alistair Sparks and Dr Muller say it is not working. They say the Government should produce imaginative steps which will enable the Black masses, the ANC and the UDF really to feel that this is ultimately the real McCoy. The Government says it does not see its way open to this, however—for fear of a split.

Meanwhile—as the Government bobs about in the middle of nowhere—Mr Sparks and Dr Muller say feelings are escalating to the right. Yesterday we saw in this House how rightists were becoming increasingly explosive because those very rightists, of whom I form part and parcel, feel their hearts constricting at every successive step this Government takes on the road to integration—as is certainly the case with the Bill before us.

Right!

Mr Chairman, I want to put it altogether candidly to the Government that I am more concerned …

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

No, Mr Chairman, tell that member to sit down! I have no time to argue with him now! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member does not wish to reply to questions now.

Mr Chairman, I am busy with an argument. This is actually the first time I have had the opportunity of speaking somewhat on the theory of politics.

Watch it! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the rightists are putting their definite demands; I am saying this quite frankly here. I love my own people more than any other people on earth. I am also more deeply concerned and worried and anxious about my own people than about any other people in the world. I shall work and sacrifice myself—I have done this all my life—for the freedom of my own people but I cannot—nor can I expect it of anyone else—give my life for the freedom of another people. There are exceptions! Obviously there are exceptions! There are cases, for instance, like that of Robert the Frenchman during the Anglo-Boer War and so on but those are exceptional cases.

Normally, Mr Chairman, every man lives for the freedom of his own people.

Of course!

I say here today we want to carry out our policy according to the Verwoerd vision because we know that in the world in which the White finds himself today—in Southern Africa and everywhere else in the world—the days of imperialism are past. Obviously not everywhere yet; the Russians, for example, still practise their imperialism. Nevertheless we in Southern Africa have pledged ourselves that all Black peoples will be free. We have actually extended Dr Verwoerd’s principles regarding Black people to the Coloureds as well which was a step which Dr Verwoerd did not see his way to taking in his time. We did that the day the HNP was formed. On that very day we extended that line as regards the Coloureds as well. As I have already said, our policy on the Indians is according to what the hon member for Fauresmith read to the House yesterday evening so I shall not repeat it now.

If it is our vision and our plan for every people to be free, even if not one is perfectly free, and even if the Zulus or the Xhosas are not always going to be happy about the freedom they receive—or which they seize for themselves or which they have with our blessing—and even if our own freedom will perhaps not be perfect—in any case, nothing in this world is ever complete or perfect—we are heading towards an opinion, a vision which can already be conceived. People can already see it in their mind’s eye. All right, there is still fault to be found with it. Obviously! No one can tell us, however, that we do not know where we are heading. Anyone whose eyes are open can see where we are heading. At the same time this cannot be said of the Government. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Personally I have great regard for the hon member for Randburg; I have great appreciation and regard for most hon members on the Government side. Of course, there are a few of them who make me see red but such is life! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, a second matter remains which I want to point out. I can assure hon members that no week passes without representatives of foreign media visiting me in my office. This morning a Reuter representative visited me. The day before yesterday I received a representative of the Los Angeles Times. As I have already indicated, representatives of the BBC have visited me three or four times and those of ABC in America four or five times as well. There have also been Germans and French—I cannot even remember them all.

Each time I open my conversation with them by saying: “We are not prepared to sacrifice our freedom and independence as an Afrikaner nation, and as a larger White nation, and there is no earthly justification for sacrificing the freedom of a nation, that has already accomplished its freedom, in order that other nations may be free.” I can see no justification whatsoever for Black peoples or other masses to become free whereas my people has to lose its freedom in the process. No justification at all, Mr Chairman!

In addition there is not one of those leftists, not one of those international media representatives to whom I do not put this clearly. They are not usually very talkative. Many of them are hearing the story for the first time. Not one of them can deny, however, that morally it is an entirely justified and justifiable basis. I could go to Peking or New York or London and use the same words. People could possibly differ with me but they could not tell me my policy was not morally justifiable. And if the hon member for Randburg wants to set me higher moral values or norms or standards, he may do so; but I am not prepared to accept higher norms and standards from other people if the price I have to pay for them is my people’s sovereign political independence. [Interjections.] Hon members on the other side of the House had better understand this. That is the significance of our determination to be at the Voortrekker Monument on 31 May; fundamentally it is the underlying significance of incidents at Pietersburg, Brits and Warden. It almost seems that the mass of Afrikaner people out there are gasping for breath. They felt like this before the hon member for Rissik or I arrived to address them. I shall be speaking at Bredasdorp for the first time this evening but the people there have sent for me. The English telephone me from Fishhoek and Maitland; they want us to hold meetings there. “It is time the English supported the HNP and the CP,” is what they tell one. [Interjections.] Why do they say this? They say this because there is a constriction about the hearts of the White people, an anxiety, a concern and a fear that this Government is leading them to a point where they will lose their sovereign political independence.

I repeat to hon members that they should read Mr Sparks and Dr Muller. There they will find that only two choices are open to the NP: Its left wing has to break away and form a greater leftist coalition government— let us call it that—in conjunction with the NRP and the PFP or—I am now using Dr Fred du Plessis’s word—form a centrist party a little more to the left of the current NP so that they may take imaginative steps forward which will hopefully satisfy the Blacks—including the ANC and the UDF. Or, if the hon member for Randburg, the hon member for Johannesburg West and the hon member for Innesdal do not have the courage the HNP had in 1969 to walk out—even if it means the political wilderness—they are not sincere. [Interjections.] If that is the case, they do not really mean it. I challenge the progressives—the hon member for Johannesburg West is one of them—to walk out of the NP and to convince the voters together with the NRP and the Progs. I challenge them to do this. If they have the courage of their convictions, they will take the way through the political wilderness for 16 to 17 years if necessary. [Interjections.] I can tell those hon members now that, over the past years, the HNP has collected almost R20 million from the pockets of a small group of people to fight its battle. This is concrete evidence that we meant what we said. It is concrete evidence of how convinced we were of our cause. I am not saying those hon members are not convinced but their conviction is 15% of ours; they do not really mean it. They want to remain in that central position mentioned by Mr Sparks and Dr Muller— just to remain in power. [Interjections.] They merely want to continue ruling the country. As one hon member said, they merely wanted to … all right, I shall not use an ugly word.

I want to give those hon members a bit of advice here this afternoon. I am speaking from experience in saying that, if they are convinced that their cause is just, they will take the way through the wilderness even if they are all alone. [Interjections.] Nobody told me I would win a seat in Parliament again; there was no foreseeable prospect of success. The only testimonial, the only credit I claim—and which time has also proved—is that we were absolutely convinced of our cause and there are no people in the NP, to the left or to the right, with a real, deep-seated conviction. [Interjections.] They are a bunch of chancers! [Interjections.] They are just sitting there waiting until the AWB or an earthquake or something else plucks them from their inertia. [Interjections.]

I now wish to move closer to the Bill, however.

Hear, hear!

Order! The hon member will withdraw the word “chancers”. [Interjections.]

Then they are fortune-hunters, Sir.

Nevertheless the hon member will withdraw the word “chancers”.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say …

The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally otherwise he may not proceed with his speech.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

The hon member may proceed with his speech. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, Sir, I wish to move closer to the Bill. This measure fits into the pattern of the broader and greater matters on which I expanded a short while ago. The Government knows just as well as we do that numbers of present members may stay on in these Black local authorities according to the new arrangement. If an election is to be held, however, what is to become of them? The Government is too frightened to hold an election for fear that these people who are prepared to co-operate with it on this middle-of-the-road idea will lose their positions. If they hold an election, how many candidates will stand and how many will recoil in fear of intimidation? How many people have already resigned whose posts have not yet been filled? How many of those who are now serving on these governing bodies are not mere Government pawns in the eyes of the ANC and the UDF? How many of the Blacks who are serving on Government local authorities at present are at all acceptable to the Black masses? The Government cannot risk calling an election. It cannot call an election for itself; it cannot call one for the Coloureds; it cannot call one for the Indians and it cannot call one for its Black local authorities!

Nor for the Whites.

I said they could not call one for themselves. There are areas totally without local authorities. We now want to know a few facts from the Government. The Government and the hon the Deputy Minister must tell us explicitly in the course of this debate how they are going to fill those posts. How are they going to get local authorities off the ground at all?

A second important question is where and how local authorities are to collect money. Since November millions of rands in electricity bills have not been paid and millions upon millions of rands in rentals have not been collected. Meanwhile the State has injected millions of rands—I think it is R168 million—to enable these Black local authorities to pay their debts to administration boards and other White authorities so that regional services councils can become operative. Of what use will this be if they have no alternative by which they can collect this money in future? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave notice of a Bill on 16 or 17 April. I shall read the report on it from Die Transvaler.

This effort to recover money in a different way was withdrawn; nothing came of it. What has taken its place? How are they going to do this now? They introduced this Bill because they knew they had to devise some other plan. They knew there had to be an alternative because the present system was not working and they were not getting their money in. They then came up with this but they withdrew this Bill just as rapidly as they had introduced it.

I want to put a second question to the hon the Deputy Minister this afternoon. How are Black local authorities going to collect their money? I think a reason why the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning withdrew this Bill on 16 April was that approximately 30% of all Blacks did not have permanent employment—they work for a daily wage or for very short periods. Seventy percent of them work for such short periods that one cannot recover money from them on a monthly or any other regular basis. In short, if that legislation had been passed, the employer would have been saddled with a problem which he could not solve. The older guard of Blacks who work in factories in particular are the very people who pay regularly so the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s Bill was not necessary.

I am merely sketching a few of the problems. The hon the Minister will have to explain a few points to us. Let us assume he fills the posts and his local authorities are established. How are they going to collect money, however? If they are not going to collect it, who is to pay for the authorities? There is a further problem. Numerous White local authorities do not wish to venture into these regional services councils. I referred to this the other day; I referred to the chairman of the Black local governing body at Mbekweni at Paarl. It backed out and said it did not want to become part of this Cape dispensation. Do not tell me that Mbekweni is the only Black community feeling like this. There are numerous Black communities which will say they have no intention of venturing into this. What prospects are there in the face of this apathy— not only among Whites for instance in Paarl, Stellenbosch, the Swartland, the Free State and other places—to become part of regional services councils? What will they do if the Blacks also back out? What will they do if Paarl is not the exception but becomes the rule? The hon Minister will have to reply to this.

In conclusion, hon members can speak of evolution, the dreams they dream and their great feeling of morality and they can explain how idealistic they are. One after the other they theorise—with or without notes. Today or tomorrow, however, I wish to know of the hon the Minister how on earth he is going to get the system of local government off the ground if even now, as he is poised on its threshold, he does not have the vaguest idea of how to put the Blacks’ systems into operation.

Integration is a noisy, howling failure; it is perceptibly collapsing; it has not a chance of getting off the ground. Hon NP members mean well; take a man like the hon member Dr Odendaal for example. If there is a man who is genuine as regards NP policy, it is he. In this way they continue with their good intentions and grope in the dark. The State President once said on the West Rand: “Ons loop voel-voel in die donker rond. Ons het nie die lig nie en die lig val ook nie op ons nie.” [Interjections.] Where is the light to come from? What did the State President mean in saying “die lig val nie op ons nie en ons het nie die lig nie”? What he meant was: “I am leading you but I do not know where I am heading with you. I do not have the vaguest idea of what the destination looks like.”

That is why they are afraid of striking out into the political wilderness and putting up a real fight. They have no idea what the end of the road looks like to which their middle-of-the-road reform policy is heading.

Mr Chairman, although the hon member for Sasolburg did not say so, I assume that he is against this Bill and that he will vote against it. The last few moments of his speech gave me that idea although he did not say it outright.

The hon member talked about what he termed “the broad principles of politics and freedom”.

†I agree that everybody wants peace and freedom for himself and for his people, but the price of freedom is also the price of survival. I certainly do not want to be part of that hon member’s vision of South Africa where the price of freedom will be to get into a trench, to have a rifle in your hand from the time when you can carry it till the day when you are blotted out and to see the whole structure of civilised life being gradually whittled away in SA.

To me freedom includes the freedom to live and to have something worthwhile to live for. The hon members on the ultra-right seem, however, to be living in a dream world. They seem to think that one can isolate freedom for oneself, keep it for oneself and to blazes with everybody else.

Both the CP and the HNP claim to stand for self-government and autonomy for Black local authorities. They accept that Black local areas will have their own local government. Their objection is therefore not to this Bill as this Bill creates a structure for Black local authorities. Their objection to this Bill is that it will become part of the regional council system—that is their objection to it. They do not object to what this Bill creates but to what it will enable the Black local authorities to do with it.

The hon member for Sasolburg spoke of the road to integration. Does he not realise that there are differences between integration and co-operation, and between integration and co-existence? Does he not realise that if we want to have the freedom to live a full and free life, that freedom is going to depend on co-operation and co-existence?

If, having created a vision of a free “volk” somewhere up in the clouds, one goes about realising it by objecting even to local government structures for people of other colours, one will never retain that freedom.

Do people like the hon member for Sasolburg not see what is happening around us, not only in South Africa? Do they not know what is happening while they talk in their vague, theoretical terms?

Of course the hon member is right; his is indeed a beautiful theory which he could preach on Trafalgar Square, but we are not dealing with a theory here; we are dealing with the reality of life in South Africa and with things as they are.

It is for the same reason that I disagree with some of the things the hon member prof Olivier said. He was also dealing with the theory of an ideal rather than with the reality of the situation as it exists now. He was looking at what it should be, and not at what it is.

Let me say that I agree with much of what he said, although he spoke as though his was the only voice in the original discussions on this Bill uttering those views. I do not mind if he takes the credit, but there were other voices, including my own. Although I am only standing in here for the hon member for Umbilo, I sat on that committee with the hon member and the hon the Minister for nearly three years discussing that unholy trilogy of Bills, one of which fortunately disappeared into limbo.

We suffered together.

Yes, we suffered together. Even the hon the Minister agreed with our arguments in his heart although he could not always accept them openly. As far as this particular Bill is concerned, we argued for the things that have now been introduced in it.

The hon member prof Olivier was right to say: We told you so, but what a difference there is between this Bill and the original proposed legislation! If we had had this attitude four years ago, how much headache and heartache would it not have saved!

We in this party can happily support the Bill in the form in which it has emerged from the standing committee. I am sorry that the hon the Minister has just left the Chamber.

I am listening.

The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs says he is listening, but I was very glad to see the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning enter the Chamber. It would not be fair to say what I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister because this is not his baby; it is a stepchild that he is just looking after.

I have to say, however, that this Bill reveals once again a mental block on the part of the Government. Even when they are about to do something right, they have to put something into it which kills its credibility.

The right thing the wrong way!

Even when they are doing the right thing, they so often do it in the wrong way.

They also always do the wrong thing in the right way!

The original of this Bill was a typical example. The purpose of this Bill is to try to equate as far as humanly possible the provisions for Black local authorities with the corresponding ones for White, Coloured and Indian local authorities. So what is the first thing they do? They start coining terms like “great cities”. So Johannesburg which is a White city, would be a city but Soweto would be a “great city”. What on earth are they playing at? They seem to have the very opposite intention of what this Bill is supposed to do. The first thing they do is to coin funny names. This nationalese language which they have developed over the years just has to differentiate. Therefore, when there is a population explosion, they call the Department of National Health the Department of National Health and Population Development. That is the way they do it. They want to control a population explosion, but then they call the department that does it the Department of Population Development. [Interjections.]

Now, here they have a Bill which seeks to bring Black authorities closer to the norm of other groups and so they create beautiful names like “great cities”, “cities” and “towns”—they left out the “great towns” and made do with “towns”! I know that, they have now been removed from the Bill. They also used terms like “city clerk” instead of town clerk. So, in Durban one has a town clerk and in a “great city” one has a “city clerk”. It is so stupid! It is absolute unbelievable stupidity!

Who are they bluffing?

They are trying to normalise things and bring them into line so that everybody is on the same basis and then they deliberately create ridiculous terminology like “city clerks” and “great cities” to make them different. Thank heavens the standing committee got rid of that nonsense!

Clause 13 was the most incredible of all. They put in a clause which imposed on an employer the responsibility for the collection of rentals. No wonder there was such outrage on the part of everybody, including every employers’ organisation in the country. There were threats of disinvestment and of firms pulling out of SA if this was imposed on them. The absolute insanity—there is no other word for it—that makes a government think it can use an employer to extract rentals on its behalf from its own employees in the present unrest situation in South Africa, is mind-boggling. Half the rents that are not paid are not paid because those people do not want to pay them. They are not paid because they are dead scared of a necklace. They have been told not to pay rentals by the radicals. Because the Government cannot handle the situation, it brings in a clause—absolutely without consultation— that provides that the employers must do their dirty work for them.

In a different way the same thing has happened as far as other matters are concerned. However, to ask employers to become involved in this sort of fight by arbitrarily deducting money for rentals from wages is absolutely crazy and has fortunately been withdrawn. However, it emphasises again the problem this Government has, that even when it is doing the right thing it does it in the wrong way, or it brings in a provision to discredit it in the eyes of the people.

At this time when we are moving forward there are so many things that are happening that are good, and so many reforms that are real, but they are just getting lost in the mistakes. There was more publicity here and in the overseas press and on television over clause 13 of this Bill than about all the good aspects of it. All the good aspects did not get the headlines. What got the headlines? Clause 13! It was said that draconian powers were to be taken to force employers to collect rents.

They even gave it number 13!

Yes, they even gave us the right number—No 13! [Interjections.] That is what hit the headlines. We pleaded for many of the aspects embodied in this measure some two, three or even four years ago. It was in 1981 or 1982 that we pleaded for property rights and freehold title. We pleaded for all these things. We pleaded four years ago that these bodies should correspond to the maximum extent with White authorities. Now that it is happening, who in South Africa knows about it? Hon members can ask anyone today what the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill is about, and they will say that its purpose is to make employees collect arrear rentals. This is a tragedy because much of what is being done happens without anybody knowing about it because of this sort of idiocy.

I want to agree with the hon member for Randburg’s remark concerning the standing committees because that is how things are going to be in the future. We shall be coming together, talking together and seeking agreement together, and this is what the opposition to this Bill is all about. It is not that the Bill is bad and it is not that the structure of the authorities is bad. The objection of the rightists is that it is going to involve them in the negotiating process and the joint decision-making process. In their minds, as soon as one puts people around the same table to talk, that is integration. According to them, that is the end of the world. It means the end of one’s freedom and “surrender” or “selling of one’s soul”, to name some of their horrific expressions.

What this is leading to, however, is not integration but rather to sitting together around a table and making joint decisions on matters of common interest on the third tier of government. If we do not sit around the table and make these joint decisions on the third tier of government, what is the alternative? Is one simply going to say to a Black town council that it is autonomous and self-governing but that it will do what one tells it to do? When one does not like a decision they take, one then simply vetoes it and, if the UDF wins an election, one bans them. How on earth will one achieve freedom in that sort of system?

The hon member for Kuruman is an intelligent person. Surely he cannot believe that Black local government is forever going to be a subsection of White-dominated politics? Surely he cannot believe that they will not have any powers other than those which one gives them and that they will not be able to take any decisions other than those which the State approves of? That is the only alternative. If one does not bring them in to talk around a table and decide together about things, then one has to control and dominate them.

That will be when freedom goes and when conflict comes. Then all the dreams which those parties have for a White utopia, a White Eden, will disappear into the mist because if we do not build together the structures where we can talk and decide together on matters which affect one together, there will neither be hope for this country nor for the Afrikaner nor any other group in this country, including the Blacks themselves.

That is why I am so worried about the sort of opposition we have even to a measure like this. It reflects a distortion of the political reality and turns the only hope of peaceful co-existence in this country into a bogey with which people can be frightened out of their wits in an attempt to win votes.

It may well be that the party to which the hon member for Sasolburg belongs has raised RX million and that they are all fanatics. Extremists have always been fanatics, but extremists have also been the people who have brought real tragedy to the world wherever they have been. What I am worried about is that this extremism is going to discredit the structures we are building in the eyes of the people who have no powers today and that other radicals will try to prevent them from coming into the structures which are being created in the new system. That is something we dare not allow.

The hon the Minister was unfortunately out when I talked about the stupidity of the original Bill and of the Government. However, I hope somebody will tell him, because I spoke strongly on it. I am referring in this regard to clause 13 of the Bill and the fancy titles—great cities and things—and which has now been omitted.

The Government must be careful that it does not contribute to that exploitation by approaching halfheartedly some of the challenges and even the good things like this Bill because it is worried about the effect it is going to have and how the CP and the HNP can exploit it. We have to give credibility to the innovations to prevent them from being discredited. We will not do so by going into it hesitantly and by trying to give it different names so it will look different. Let us do what we say we want to do and what the hon the Minister says he wants to do. In this measure we are now doing what we wanted to do which is to bring these bodies into line with those for White, Coloured and Asian local government.

At a later stage the thoughts which the hon member Prof Olivier expressed here may be practical, but today the practical reality is that we have different systems, different levels of government and different problems. Let us create structures which will deal with those differences and not try to imagine that we are all one people with the same abilities, capabilities and possibilities and that one can just have a blueprint which one can apply to everyone and that it will work because it will not work.

We will support this Bill. We believe it is an important step in the right direction, and we are only sorry that the picture people have of this Bill was so smeared by clause 13 that they have not noticed what is good in the rest of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the speech of the hon member for Durban Point illustrates exactly, or at least to a very large extent, why the CP is against this Bill.

He mentions the struggle that took place four years ago when the NRP and the PFP tried to persuade the Government to see the situation as they saw it and to move along the so-called “enlightened lines” that the NRP and the PFP had demonstrated to them. [Interjections.] I realise why that hon member is happy; but it is for that same reason that we cannot accept this Bill.

Talking about realities of life, Sir, what are the realities of South Africa? The realities are that in the whole of South Africa we have approximately 5 million Whites and about 20 to 25 million Blacks. How, then, are we going to ensure a situation in which we will not have domination of one group over the other? Are we going to reach a situation of non-domination by bringing the Blacks into a unitary state?

No, that is exactly what you do not do. You do not opt for a unitary state but for a federal system.

Even so, the federal system is merely part of the process that will result in Black majority rule.

No.

That has happened north of the Limpopo, however. This has been demonstrated to us often in the past. So how anyone can still argue that we can solve the problems of South Africa or even save South Africa by accelerating integration or, for that matter, by means of a slow evolutionary process towards integration when no success was ever achieved in attempts to solve similar problems north of the Limpopo, is beyond me. All I can say is: Save his soul! [Interjections.]

*The hon member went on to say that he could not understand why we were still clinging to the old ideas nor did he know how we could be happy if we forced the Black people into a situation in which we made the rules. He showed that he had no understanding of the policy of rightists in South Africa. He obviously has no concept yet of what separate development comprises in toto.

When one examines scientific studies which have been made, one sees that a majority of Black people live in the national states and in areas immediately adjacent to them. This is up to 70% the case in kwaZulu and 60% or more than 50% in almost all the other national states. One must channel urban development in the part which is known as White South Africa to the national states at this stage and try to make urban areas as homogenous as possible. That is the ideal and, as the hon member for Lichtenburg said on a previous occasion, it is a continuing process.

In 1953 the existing situation was that 66% of Black people lived outside the national states; in 1979, 53% of Blacks were already living within the national states. It was a process which was succeeding. The various administration boards are disappearing at the moment. It was wonderful to be able to see how those dedicated people in control of development boards strove to channel the Blacks on the East Rand, from where I come, to Lebowa and kwaNdebele and how they established farms there for Blacks where they could live according to their customs traditions and culture.

This was part of an ideal at which we were working but, in consequence of the NP attempt to go over to integration, it is being dissipated like early morning mist. It is a tragedy that they have abandoned that ideal.

The hon member spoke about the advantages of standing committees. We had an interview with Assocom the other day and its members said a Bill was published and then disappeared into the standing committees. One heard no more about it until the Second Reading was debated here. An organisation like Assocom is given the opportunity, for instance, to submit a memorandum to the Government. It is then submitted to the standing committees and such an organisation has the opportunity of giving evidence itself in the standing committee but then hears nothing further about the Bill before the Second Reading commences in the House. Is that good legislation?

The hon member for Randburg spoke about playing to the gallery in the old system. Under the old system we argued every clause and every comma and full stop of a Bill in full view of the Press and the public. Consequently the public could listen to it, comment on it and it also appeared in the papers. That was democracy in full operation. According to the current system, those who are not members of a specific standing committee do not know what is happening to a Bill before it is tabled here. Surely such a process cannot lead to good legislation. I do not know why there is so much argument on the original clause 13 of the Bill because it has been removed in any case. We are merely wasting time and energy in further debate of that clause except that I wish to stress what the hon members for Kuruman and Sasolburg said.

How is the Government going to collect those moneys? In terms of legislation on magistrates’ courts there was a system of garnishee orders which was altogether a legal method by which debt could be collected. Would the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member Prof Olivier prefer those moneys to be collected from the taxpayer by way of a subsidy? Would the hon the Deputy Minister tell us how he proposes recovering these moneys in time? Are they to be subsidised perpetually by the White and other taxpayers?

I now wish to return to the hon member for Randburg even if he is not present. He also wanted to reply on behalf of the hon member for Stilfontein, just as the hon member for Johannesburg West attempted to do yesterday. We continue to maintain that the hon member for Stilfontein delighted in his attempt to humiliate and insult us. [Interjections.]

When are you going to stop crying?

I am not crying. I am replying to what the hon member for Randburg said on behalf of the hon member for Stilfontein. Surely I am entitled to do this, even in the so-called NP democracy in which we now live.

We do not cry; we hit back!

If I am not entitled to do this, that hon member have better say so. Am I not entitled to reply to this? [Interjections.]

If I may reply, I want to ask the hon member for Randburg and other hon members what they think of the statement I shall now quote:

Is that not an argument which was conveyed to us with the greatest degree of viciousness and spite toward us in this party? The hon member for Stilfontein did not reply to this himself; the hon members for Johannesburg West and Randburg had to attempt to do so.

The hon member for Randburg went further and said we were still thinking of White domination. That is an absolute caricature of CP policy. [Interjections.] What is the hon member saying?

I say your policy is a caricature.

He says our policy is a caricature; in other words that hon member is alleging …

The charming member for Parow.

… that the policy which brought his party to power in 1981 is a caricature. [Interjections.]

We have never advocated a Coloured or Indian homeland.

The question of Coloured homelands as far as we are concerned is merely a further development of the policy of separate development. But let us leave Coloured national states out of this. [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon member would only give me a chance to speak …

Order! The hon member may be digressing from the Bill but hon members must give him the opportunity of making his statement.

The policy on which the NP drew votes in 1981 was that of separate development. This is a policy repudiating power-sharing … [Interjections.]

Order! I requested that the hon member be given the opportunity of making his statement and the hon member for Vryburg must make fewer interjections. The hon member may proceed.

We are all busy …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether a Coloured or an Indian homeland was NP policy in 1981 or ever before? [Interjections.]

That is quite right. It was not spelt out but … [Interjections.] Oh no, just give me a chance to reply. Dr Mulder, as the chief NP information officer in 1968 was permitted to propagate a Coloured homeland in Mr Vorster’s time. The hon member for Klip River propagated it with him. [Interjections.] Just give me the chance to finish replying to the question. In spite of the fact that Dr Mulder advocated it as the Chairman of the Information Committee at that time, he was permitted to remain in the NP. What is more, he was subsequently included in Mr Vorster’s Cabinet. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. Does the hon member wish to put another question? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is correct that in the 1981 manifesto his current leader rejected a Coloured homeland as a possibility for furnishing Coloureds with political rights?

Yes, Mr Chairman, that was so. It was said at that stage that it was practical politics but do hon members know what happened next? We accepted at that stage that there would be no power-sharing or joint decision-making. We believed there would not be a movement in the direction of a unitary state as is the case at present. We then said that, if one took separate development to its logical conclusion, one had to place Coloureds on a course where they could develop according to their highest aspirations. When the NP Government accepted power-sharing as a solution to South African problems, we realised that a policy of separateness had to follow as regards Coloureds and Indians as well. What did the manifesto to which the hon member referred also say inter alia? One finds the following:

That is our policy.

Read us the bit about Coloureds and Indians.

But we have already discussed that. [Interjections.]

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

I have answered enough questions now.

We debated this Bill on 11 June 1982 when the hon Dr Koornhof was the hon Minister who piloted the Act through Parliament. At the time he said the following, inter alia:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was the hon member for Sea Point at the time, then said the following:

At that stage, however, the NP was still arguing that this in no way prejudiced its policy as regards national states. What is the position today?

Before getting to that, I want to mention what I asked the Minister at that stage (Hansard: House of Assembly, 11 June 1982, col 9391):

The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development then replied:

What does the charming member have to say now?

I quote further:

That was on 11 June 1982—four years ago. [Interjections.] Talk about a whirligig; it is sitting in front of us now. [Interjections.] This is the reason why the hon member for Sasolburg says the public of South Africa no longer accepts guarantees the NP gives them. My friend the hon member for Rissik then made a very true prediction. He said at that stage (Hansard, 11 June 1982, col 9412):

What is the situation today—four years later? Four years ago we fought Dr Koornhof, who was the Minister at the time, and asked him how he could give property rights to Black local authorities whereas White local authorities could not even have full property rights to land in terms of section 63 of the Local Government Ordinance.

What is happening now? The position is such that Black local authorities may also purchase land elsewhere and, as the hon member Prof Olivier so aptly indicated, the prospect is being held out that Black people will also be able to obtain property rights in South Africa. Consequently it is no longer even a question that the integration process is to take place in four or five years, as the hon member for Rissik said at a time; it is happening right now!

This also accords with the standpoint of the State President that we are moving in the direction of a unitary system in South Africa in which there will be general citizenship and general franchise for all. [Interjections.] This is in marked agreement with the planned development in the direction of an undivided unitary state with citizenship and one general form of franchise. The hon member prof Olivier said inter alia—when he raised the subject of local authorities—that the essence of the problem was separate local authorities and that the Black people wanted nothing to do with separate Black local authorities. I hope I have summed him up correctly.

A while ago the hon member spoke about Coloureds and Indians on the standing committee.

That is exactly the question I want to ask the hon member. Does he have any grounds for mentioning Black people’s disinclination for separate local authorities?

As far as I am aware, they reject every form of forced racial separation.

I want to present hon members with a very interesting example in this regard. It touches upon an incident in West Germany at which the hon member Prof Olivier, you yourself, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wynberg, the hon member for Yeoville and other hon members were present.

We were discussing the very question of disinvestment with a banker there and the fact that inspectors were sent from some firms to their subsidiary companies in South Africa to investigate the current development of circumstances in South African industries. They had the fullest opportunity of talking to people about their working conditions, living conditions and everything revolving around their existence. They questioned these people incisively and also asked them why they did not want to live near the industries where they worked. They found the workers to be satisfied with their working conditions and the situation there. Those people do not want to live here because they say there are too many White people. They want to live among their own people; they want to separate themselves. This is a natural process among those people. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should like to tell the hon member for Klip River that the CP agrees with him that law and order should be maintained by the people in that area. Their own ethnic group should maintain law and order. They should react and they should also see to the security and the peace and order in such a country or territory.