laid upon the Table:

1. (1)
   1. (a) Local Councils Bill (House of Assembly) [B 125—87 (HA)]—(Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works).
   2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.
2. (2) Constitutional Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 127—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).
3. (3) Black Communities Development Amendment Bill [B 128—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development).

laid upon the Table the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province, dated 29 September 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Cape Province, dated 29 September 1987, as follows:

1. 1. UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE (1985-86)

1. 2. Your Committee has no comment to offer on the other paragraphs of the Report examined by it.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr D P A SCHUTTE, as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 29 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Public Accounts, dated 30 September 1987.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 29 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 29 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Standing Select Committee on the Library of Parliament, dated 28 September 1987, as follows:

1. (a) a research service be established within the framework of the present Library of Parliament;
2. (b) the present library service be extended and strengthened;
3. (c) adequate staff and accommodation be made available to make provision for the establishment of a research service and the extension of the library service; and
4. (d) the Secretariat commence planning for the implementation of an integrated computerized library and information system.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 30 September 1987, as follows:

1. (1) The description of the area mentioned in the schedule, in terms of section 2(4) of the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No 18 of 1936), as amended, as an area in which the State President may declare released areas for the purposes of the said Act.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, dated 30 September 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 5 October 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development, dated 5 October 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, dated 31 August 1987, as follows:

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House I move without notice:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker; and
3. (3) Mr Speaker shall be authorized, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 23 (3), at the request of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to refer Bills introduced by him during the adjournment to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs instead of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development.

I also announce that the House will adjourn at 18h45 tonight.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House I move:

I merely want to announce that I shall deal with the debate on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, before the debate commences I should like, by way of a statement, to make certain information available in connection with the President’s Council Report. I think that it will facilitate the discussion.

†South Africa is a country in which a variety of population groups have to live together. The various groups of people in our country have different customs, values, ways of life and lifestyles. It is not practically possible to separate the various groups in South Africa completely from one another. We must, therefore, organise our society in such a way that the best possible opportunity is created for each group to live up to its own particular values and ideals, without impinging upon the right and the freedom of other groups similarly to live up to their own values and ideals.

The Government’s approach of according the greatest possible degree of self-determination to each group, accompanied by joint decision-making on those matters that concern all groups, is the logical outcome of this point of departure.

The report of the President’s Council argues convincingly, on the basis of international examples and international literature, that it is necessary to make provision for adequate protection for minority groups. This confirms the validity of the Government’s approach in this regard.

It is, however, also true that in a society as diverse as ours, there are those with a very strong desire to live among their own people and have their own community life. There are also those who do not attach so much importance to it. However, everyone must surely want to live within orderly communities.

On the one hand, it would be unjustifiable to deny those who do want to live amidst their own community, the right to do so. On the other hand, it would also not be correct to deny those who prefer to live in the context of an “open area”, their right to do that.

Against this background it must be emphasised once again that the Government’s approach has always been that each population group has the vested right to cherish and to protect its own way of life, and to confer it upon future generations, thereby preserving its own unique identity.

That is why it has always been considered a high priority to enable each group to ensure its own community life within its own residential areas, with its own schools and its own political and constitutional power base.

This remains a priority. In other words, the basic point of departure of the Government is still that individual and group rights can, in the South African circumstances, best be protected within the context of an own community.

This principle includes the requirement that no group should force its own values and way of life upon others, but that as far as practicable a way should be found to arrange our society in such a manner that each group of people can be granted the opportunity to uphold its own values and way of life without adversely affecting other groups or making it impossible for them to do the same.

In this spirit, provision must be made for both those who hold an own community life dear as well as those who prefer another way of life, as long as this does not bring about disorder and undesirable conditions.

This general approach is in accordance with the policy of the NP as reflected in paragraph 2.2.1 of its manifesto where it is stated that the NP stands for “the assurance of an own community life for all communities through, among other things, the maintenance of own schools and residential areas as far as possible”.

*The President’s Council Report contains many recommendations on a wide diversity of subjects which, if they were simply accepted, would have important, far-reaching and even unpredictable consequences. It is therefore not possible for the Government to furnish a full reaction to each recommendation within such a short space of time.

However, in order to eliminate a feeling of uncertainty, it is possible at this early stage to adopt a standpoint in principle on the most important recommendations. Comment on other recommendations, particularly of a more technical nature, will have to wait until further enquiries have been completed.

I am referring in the first place to the general principles of the Group Areas Act. The most important recommendation of the President’s Council in respect of the Group Areas Act is that, supplementary to the general pattern of own residential areas for each population group, provision must also be made in certain cases for open residential areas, in which members of all population groups can live. In principle this recommendation, in view of the general standpoints stated above, is acceptable to the Government. In fact, the Group Areas Act itself in its present form, makes provision for controlled areas which throughout have a different population character from declared areas.

In view of the particular priority which the Government accords to the basic rights of population groups to maintain a community life of their own, a responsible procedure will have to be followed with the creation of new residential areas with an open character and this is even more applicable in regard to the changing of the present character of any existing residential area.

Consequently a clear distinction must be drawn between existing residential areas and new residential areas that are going to be created. As far as new residential areas are concerned, it is possible that some of these can be declared open areas from the outset. The established rights of people in adjoining residential areas will still have to be taken into account. In these cases newcomers have a free choice in the matter whether they want to settle there or not, and it can therefore be accepted that they accept the implications of their own choice.

Since the present legal inhabitants and owners of property in existing residential areas have established rights in the present character of those residential areas, comprehensive consultation will have to take place with those interested persons before it will be possible to give any consideration to changing the character of the residential area in question. Further thought will have to be given to procedures that have to be adopted in this connection—once again with the view to protection of the established rights of individuals and members of the specific groups.

A body, consisting of recognised experts, will have to be established to institute an investigation into the desirability of throwing open individual areas. Such a body or council may quite possibly be able to replace the present Group Areas Board. [Interjections.] An investigation by this body—in my opinion it must also be broadened—can then be initiated by the local authority concerned, or by a certain percentage of legitimate inhabitants of a specific area. It is desirable that such a request should emanate from among the members of the community itself, but in certain specific circumstances it will also be possible for it to be initiated by the Minister concerned.

This body must then carry out its investigations on the widest possible basis, for example by hearing evidence, by carrying out opinion polls and other applicable methods. The purpose of such an investigation must be to establish a complete socio-economic profile of the area and its environment.

In addition the investigation must be geared to establishing inter alia the opinions of the local authority and interest groups, such as owners and businessmen, in the area in question; the position of unlawful occupants of the area; and whether the local authority will be able to comply with its obligations under the Slums Act in respect of the prevention of slum conditions, and to deal with the problem of squatting.

The preceding outline of the functions of the envisaged body will obviously have to be defined more clearly and laid down in legislation by way of further investigation and deliberation.

The result of the investigation of this body will then be submitted to the State President as well as the Ministers’ Council concerned. The State President will then, with the consent of the Ministers’ Council, be able to declare an area “open”. The involvement of the State President in determining the character of the residential areas is an existing practice and does not therefore represent a new principle. On the other hand, the Ministers Councils are representatives of the interests of the respective groups, and ought therefore to be involved. As far as rural land is concerned, the same basic considerations apply, except that they are applied to a different set of circumstances.

While it is undoubtedly true that the need for agricultural land among all communities will have to be re-examined, this is also a matter which will have to be dealt with with the greatest circumspection. The existing White Paper in connection with the Orange River Scheme addressed some aspects of this matter for Whites and Coloureds years ago. Among the Indian community in certain parts of the country a need also exists which still has to be addressed. I can merely say in passing that it is at present the subject of a thorough departmental investigation.

In the meantime we must remember the following. To give effect to the said proposals of the report will require complex statutory amendments, which obviously cannot be submitted or disposed of during the course of the present session. Preparatory work in connection with this will take place with the view to the 1988 Parliamentary session, although not necessarily early in the session; I am not making any promises in this connection.

Undoubtedly there will now be a great temptation for some people to anticipate the final arrangements that are being envisaged by disregarding the provisions of the Groups Areas Act, as it exists at present. Such conduct could lead to serious uncertainty and even to disorder. In some cases there is serious friction as a result of such conduct.

It cannot be allowed. The possible throwing open of specific residential areas is an important adjustment of the present situation, and it is of the utmost importance that it be implemented on a planned and orderly basis.

It will not be possible to allow further “intrusion and follow-up occupation”—that is how the President’s Council describes it—with the purpose of affecting residential areas in an attempt to compel subsequent throwing open of the area. Only after Parliament has agreed to statutory amendments, and after specific procedures have been followed to throw specific residential areas open, will it be possible to recognise legal occupation of such residential areas by all groups. Let there be no doubt about this. It is the intention to apply the present provisions of the Group Areas Act until the amended or new legislation can come into operation.

Who believes that?

The Government also intends to improve the legal instruments for preventing squatting and slum conditions considerably. That is why the Act will have to be re-examined in this connection in order to insert more stringent provisions.

On numerous occasions in the past the Government has amended and improved the Group Areas Act. In fact, this has been done by successive governments. If this is found to be necessary again in future, even as far as the name is concerned, it will be done. In addition the necessary means will be created with which community-bound residential areas can in the long term be protected effectively against intrusion. This will form an integral part of the package.

I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to all citizens of this country to co-operate with the Government in this respect. Law and order must be maintained and casual disregard of existing laws cannot be allowed. The Government would not like to be compelled to introduce drastic measures, or to have to introduce legislation with retrospective effect. If it becomes essential, however, the Government will have no choice.

The President’s Council pointed out the crux of the underlying problem when it referred in its report to the need for the early identification of residential land for all population groups. This matter is already being dealt with by the Government as a high priority.

By taking timeous steps to identify sufficient land and make it available for urban occupation, the Government is urgently working to bring affordable housing within an own-community context within the reach of all population groups. This will cause the pressure on existing residential areas where housing is available, to abate.

By acting positively and shortening procedures for the identification and making available of land the Government is in the process of enabling all communities to acquire urban housing in an orderly way—also in decentralised areas—and, together with that, to obtain representation in local authority structures in their own community context.

I just want to make one observation in this connection. During the past few weeks it has been my privilege to be able to see what is being done in connection with housing in numerous areas. I saw how co-operation with the private sector was achieved by means of the trust, the way in which departmental actions in respect of various population groups were launched, the way in which the rotating fund of the Housing Commission is making its contribution to add, in addition to the amounts already appropriated by Parliament further momentum to housing, and also the way in which the private sector itself is coming forward, in numerous cases, to help solve housing problems. I was impressed by the co-operation and I am convinced that provision in this connection is being made on a large scale, within the means of our country and within the means of the State.

The recommendation of the President’s Council that each population group retain its own schools—even in view of the possibility of open residential areas—is endorsed, since education in each case is an own affair in terms of the constitution. We do not have any intention of deviating from this.

On the other hand there is of course nothing to prevent private schools which can be accessible to everyone in such an area, from coming into existence.

Yes, nothing except money.

But if people want integration, they must pay for it.

Why?

That is terrible!

The President’s Council also investigated the implications which open residential areas would have on the franchise arrangements on local level. They spelt out various options without selecting one or making specific recommendations. Not one of these options complies fully with all requirements, but it is nevertheless an indication that a variety of possibilities in respect of franchise at the local level does exist.

Full investigation and deliberation in this area is therefore necessary to take the constitutional implications into account so that a satisfactory arrangements can be made within the framework of a distinction between own affairs and general affairs, on the local authority level as well. This matter will first have to be clarified before any new arrangements, such as the establishment of open residential areas, can come into operation.

Any new arrangement in regard to franchise on municipal level that is introduced must also be of such a nature that it will not affect the right of self-determination of communities and the essential character of the existing franchise arrangements on the central government level.

Furthermore the President’s Council recommends that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act be repealed and that no substitute legislation be introduced or even any central instructive policy guidelines laid down.

This should, according to the President’s Council’s own findings, lead to the reservation of amenities lawfully taking place as it is regulated by common law, as the position was prior to the passing of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in the fifties. There is no legal certainty as to how the courts will find thirty years later—in times that have changed. Consequently legal uncertainty will prevail until court actions have been instituted up to the Appeal court.

It would be irresponsible of the authorities to summarily repeal legislation on such sensitive matters without knowing what all the consequences of such step would be and without laying down policy guidelines for action.

At the same time we cannot be blind to the realities of our multinational society. It must be rationally taken into account that communities also live their own lives in recreational resorts, in swimming baths, on beaches, and in other places of entertainment. In respect of some such facilities groups must have the assurance that the laws of the country recognise their right to their own institutions and that these are guaranteed to them.

However, there will also be many cases in which amenities cannot or should not be duplicated and in which they will have to be utilised collectively by all population groups in an orderly and civilised way—and I am emphasising “civilised way”!

We must be honest in our search for a fair and practical solution to these sensitive matters. A balance must be struck, which cannot be found in the stringent application of the present Act—an act which in any case never gave full satisfaction and never was successful. I have said this before in public, and I repeat it.

Summary repeal in itself will, however, not solve the problems. In fact it will, particularly in the short term, create more problems than it will solve. Before such a step can be taken, thought will have to be given to alternative modes of action after the repeal of the Act, which will ensure that all communities are dealt with on a non-discriminatory basis with the protection of the individual and group rights of all groups, so that amenities can be utilised within the group context by those who so prefer.

The Government really has a serious intention, by way of adjustments, amendments and the abolition of certain current provisions of these two Acts, to take reforming steps in the sphere of group areas and the use of public facilities. The object of this is to make new patterns of life possible in South Africa, which will ultimately be to the benefit of all the inhabitants of our country.

The Government is constantly endeavouring to expand the living space of persons and groups that feel themselves confined by the present circumstances, without narrowing the lives of other persons and groups which are quite probably in the majority by far, in an unreasonable way.

The key to a peaceful future for everyone lies in the principle of good neighbourliness. If all individuals, groups and leaders display an understanding for the interests of others, we can realise the high ideals we are all striving for through well-intentioned co-operation.

Good neighbourliness presupposes attitudes which are based on mutual respect and self-respect. Good neighbourliness recognises boundaries, but also friendship across boundaries. Good neighbourliness recognises the maintenance of own rights, but also respect for the rights of others.

Good neighbourliness is a key to peace and co-operation in the communities of the Republic of South Africa, but it is also the key to peace and co-operation in Southern Africa.

Mr Speaker, I hope that at the end of this discussion of this important matter this afternoon, hon members will concentrate on making a contribution to the maintenance of good relations in our country. We are living in dangerous times. We are living at a time in which there are crisis points throughout the world, at a time in which South Africa is also being turned into one of those crisis points as a result of external meddlesomeness.

I hope that we will conduct ourselves in this way in our deliberations and that, in what we propose, we will make an attempt to ensure a decent future for everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we heard nothing new from the hon the State President this afternoon. If that was an effort to cast light…

You were not listening.

… on this report of the President’s Council, we want to say that he did not succeed in that either. [Interjections.] He merely succeeded in once more vaguely explaining its obscurities to us. [Interjections.]

It was not necessary for us to wait until today to adopt a stance as regards this report, but we understand why the Government waited until today with this. We are aware why we had to struggle until today to obtain a definitive standpoint on this from the side of the Government. We say this was a one-party report from the start. While we had no difficulty in adopting a stance on this, I believe the PFP similarly experienced no such problems. This was the case because the way is clear to us; we have made a choice on where we should be heading. [Interjections.] It is clear to us that there was a delay in adopting a standpoint on this because a strategy had to be considered. That strategy involved the question of how to sweeten the pill somewhat which was to be offered to conservative Whites in this country. It obviously had to be done by presenting certain aspects to them as a guarantee. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, of course, some chocolate also had to be provided for Mr Hendrickse.

Yes, of course!

This proves the duality of a policy, the duality of an approach as reflected in the report.

We have no difficulty in saying clearly today that we reject this report in its entirety.

Splendid, Moolman!

We reject it as a breach of faith toward our history, toward our past and toward everything our forebears stood for. [Interjections.] This is the breach of a tradition; it is a breach of faith toward the past of our people. [Interjections.] In any case we have no cause to accept the assurances the hon the State President is again attempting to give us as regards the manner in which this legislation will be applied. We have no reason to do so. After all, this is not the first time that the Government has told us regarding the Group Areas Act that it intends applying the Act strictly. Hon members are free to investigate this themselves. I have a statement here issued some time ago by the then Minister Pen Kotzé in which in eloquent language, similar to that of the present report, it was said that the Government would no longer tolerate the actions of people who were settling in so-called White areas illegally. It was stated in this that drastic measures against such people would follow and the Government would not permit that situation to continue. Such people were warned: “Do not expect any mercy from us in future.”

Mr Speaker, we say this situation is very clear to us especially in the light of the past election. We know only too well that we have no reason to be trusting. In my own constituency the hon the State President said—hon members all saw and heard him on television—that there was no such thing as a grey area. “What is a grey area?” he asked. “I am grey; look at me,” he said. [Interjections.] Today a grey area is an open area.

It is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

A grey area is an open area today.

It is treason!

That is what the Government told the electorate before the election of 6 May this year. Its members told the voters the NP continued to stand for the retention of an own community life. This, they said, was what they stood for. They claimed to stand for the retention of group areas. But what is happening now? These promises, on the strength of which the Government was returned to power, are not being honoured. We are experiencing this again today in the form of this report. We are experiencing it because the principle of the Group Areas Act is being rejected. [Interjections.] This is the principle which is being rejected. What is the principle of the Group Areas Act? The principle of this Act is control over the ownership and occupation of land for the establishment of groups in separate areas. Now we see here how this principle is being rejected. Now the principle is suddenly being interpreted as that of the existence of mixed areas too. [Interjections.] The moment the principle of this Act is rejected, the situation is as boundless as God’s grace, one can go where one pleases and do as one likes, as it suits one. What it amounts to is something for everyone; something for Mr Hendrickse as well, to help him in case he should decide when the Whites may hold a general election again at a date to suit the Government. At the same time we also offer the so-called conservatives a little something. [Interjections.]

Let us for a moment consider the matter of the direction taken by the Government. If we look at editorial comment, the following is stated explicitly: The Government can go only so far at this specific stage, otherwise the price it will have to pay will be too high. The price is a political one and that means if they state now where they are heading, it will mean only one thing, which is that they will not be able to occupy these green seats again. This is the price and that is why they dare not reveal to the people outside what the final destination will be.

It is predictable that we shall hear from the Government in this debate that the CP is rejecting this thing because it alleges it is going too far, whereas the PFP is rejecting it because it states it does not go far enough and both cannot be right. They are going to say only they are right and only they take realities into consideration. I want to say today the PFP is right and we are right and they are wrong. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The PFP is right because, since the Government took the decision to follow the course of an undivided South Africa with equal rights for all, it is an intolerable position that an Act which was intended to effect division, can be retained. This is an essential contradiction. That is why they will be right.

Similarly, as far as we are concerned, it is an intolerable situation that the pillars on which separateness is built are being toppled. It borders on insanity when a person wishes to follow the path of separation and one wants to push the pillars that form the foundation of separation out from underneath him, while continuing to say one will retain separation. That is why we say these are realities they will have to face. They shall have to get around the fact of this obfuscation and they will not escape it. We shall tell the people outside of the way they have chosen. The Government says a so-called own existing area must be retained.

Let us examine the content of the proposals. In the first place they state that provision has to be made for mixed central business districts in those existing own areas. This refers to the existing ones—they have to be mixed areas. Provision is also to be made for open residential areas adjacent to these central business districts.

Oh no!

I read this in the report! It is printed there that there are also to be open residential areas next to those areas. Go and read it—it is there! [Interjections.]

Furthermore the present permit system or system of permission is retained and buildings, land for industrial sites, etc also have to be open. What will the position therefore be in these existing areas? This in itself will be a mixed structure. It is also true that the Government, which invokes realities, was unable to prevent grey areas while the principle of open areas did not exist. The inability to apply an Act becomes a reality for the Government, on the strength of which it wants to say today that it should be accepted. That process is already being indicated to us in this report on group areas. Hon members on the other side are free to examine those portions of the report. In addition, if the President’s Council was unable to come up with a comprehensive plan on the voting after months and even years of study, the NP will not succeed in this either. People will vote wherever they are, which is within the so-called existing White areas, and it even confirms that voting will be mixed—in own areas.

As far as we are concerned, it is clear that the course the NP is taking will lead to the total abolition of the Group Areas Act. In our opinion no aspect of that Act will be retained. [Interjections.]

Let us examine another intolerable situation. The NP Government was unable to maintain this Act which was to implement separation. It was incapable of it. The recommendation now is that local authorities should exercise control of housing as proposed. Because the Government was too weak to do this, it is now being left to local authorities, and to some extent the provinces. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, Mr Speaker, there is no time. [Interjections.]

In brief, this represents to us a breach of what we regarded as sacred. We see it as a breach of the bond between our people and the land. We shall arraign that Government as the government which deprived our people of the essence of its nationhood, that it must of necessity be linked to an own territory. Present and future generations will never forgive the Government this and it will take note of it in the next election. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, there is one statement made by the hon member for Ermelo with which I do agree, namely that the PFP was apparently right about this matter. The hon member found it necessary to speak forcefully this afternoon, as one often has to do when one finds it difficult to put some distance between one’s political opponent and oneself, because whilst the standpoints of the NP and the CP on the question of group areas are fairly closely related, we could scarcely have imagined that they could be further reconciled after the publication of this report. That is indeed what the hon the State President ensured this afternoon.

It is often said in defence of the Group Areas Act that it provides for the development of individual communities and that this Act encourages and protects such individual communities. If one is to take that argument seriously, one must surely accept that those who employ that argument have in mind that such individual communities—and the hon the State President used that term again this afternoon—must be brought together or kept together for some or other commendable cultural or social reason and that they will then make some form of contribution to the national interest. However, when one looks at the spirit and the letter of the Group Areas Act, at what is written in that Act and how it is applied, it is difficult to comprehend how this Act could achieve such lofty ideals. There is no question of cultural considerations in the Group Areas Act. No mention whatsoever is made of cultural unity and social adaptability. The Act enforces boundaries between people, and not on the basis of religion, value systems or any specific cultural considerations; even if one places a fairly wide interpretation on these words.

The boundaries which the Group Areas Act enforces are based entirely on race and skin colour. The Act makes this as clear as it is possible to do in legal terminology. I am not saying that one’s race or the colour of one’s skin is entirely culturally irrelevant; on the contrary it is sometimes crucial to cultural and social developments in any society. Why, then, is the positioning of boundaries on a purely racial basis unacceptable to us and, if the truth be known, morally objectionable? The answer is simple, and there are a number of reasons for this. The Group Areas Act does not take cognisance of the natural tendency of people to unite around some political or social ideal. No cognisance is taken of the fact that people are brought closer together for economic or other reasons. The Group Areas Act takes no cognisance of people’s personal merits. The hon member knows that.

The proposals make provision for them.

No, it does not provide for them. The Group Areas Act does not provide for or take cognisance of these important considerations. After all, one cannot alter one’s race or the colour of one’s skin. Regardless of how hard one may try to better oneself by raising one’s standard of education—in order to improve one’s financial position—one cannot change one’s race. Therein lies a fundamental indictment of forced racial separation and the forced building of boundaries and walls between people on a racial basis.

Furthermore, it must also be said that the Group Areas Act is not inclusive—this is important and I hope hon members will listen—and does not unite people around some lofty ideal. No provision is made in the administration of this Act for the organisation of a particular community for any particular reason—either for its own protection or to assert itself in one way or another. In the first instance the Act is exclusive and precludes people from forming part of a community in a specific residential area. It excludes them, regardless of what their cultural, religious or social propensities may be.

As far as we are concerned, race and skin colour are elevated by the Group Areas Act to the most important principle and, by implication, all the other considerations I have mentioned are naturally viewed as being of lesser importance. When one takes that into account, how can one arrive at any other conclusion than that this Act is devoid of all those characteristics which might make it acceptable to those who, in principle, are opposed to racial discrimination and divisiveness? In all earnest I want to ask all representatives, and particularly those representatives of the White electorate sitting in this House, to reconsider whether an Act such as the Group Areas Act protects anything which, in the final analysis, is really worth protecting.

The thoughts underlying the Group Areas Act are irreconcilable with increased cooperation between people of various races. It conflicts with real power sharing. It cannot co-exist politically with attempts to give effect to reconciliation and the dismantling of prejudice and mistrust.

One cannot—and neither can the hon the Deputy Minister who is charged with the application of this Act—appeal to the citizens of this country to work together and to display an understanding for one another in the interests of unity and then tell those self-same citizens the next day that they must spy on one another in order to establish whether members of another group are moving into a White area in transgression of the Act. One cannot engender unity and build a nation, or create mutual understanding in that manner. Any attempt to enforce the Group Areas Act effectively gives rise to racial polarisation and creates an atmosphere in which mutual understanding cannot easily be engendered.

One must understand that the public becomes confused when mixed marriages between races are legalised, as was the case when the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was abolished, whilst the separation of residential areas is still strictly enforced in this country. People find it difficult to understand why they may associate with one another in cinemas, theatres, restaurants and on beaches, whilst it is a criminal offence for them to live together in the same residential area. This has a great deal to do with the charge levelled by hon members of the Official Opposition. They are also aware of the confusion that is being created.

I am aware that it is inevitable that a certain amount of confusion and conflict will arise in the minds of the general public during a transitional or reform process—we hope we are engaged in such a process at present—but the Government’s continued support for group areas creates a far greater problem. It creates a problem in that the continued existence of the Group Areas Act is viewed as being fundamentally opposed to reform. It displays an attachment to a political anachronism which is not reconcilable with racial reconciliation and increased co-operation in South Africa.

†Group areas are more divisive than any other piece of legislation on the Statute Book of this country, particularly since the abolition of influx control. The Group Areas Act not only emanates from racial prejudice but was also enacted because of racial prejudice and lends statutory respectability to racial intolerance and even racial hatred in some cases. Any hon member who has had any dealings with the inhabitants of an area where people live close together will have heard them complain about it and will know what I am talking about. This Act panders to racial prejudice and hatred.

Group areas not only give expression to racial prejudice, but have also removed the opportunity for ordinary South Africans to meet and grow with one another and to work through the prejudice that I am sure is probably latent in all of us. They take away from them the opportunity to work through their prejudice and to find out for themselves that this is, after all, not the most important thing in the world.

It is revealing to me to experience directly the kind of attitude that the Group Areas Act caters for. It is invariably—I say this with great consideration—racist in its nature and viciously intolerant.

In one of the cases that I was involved in recently an elderly complainant said about the block of flats where she lived: “Once you let the Coloureds into the block of flats prostitution and criminal activity take off.” The sad thing is that this kind of racist generalisation contaminates every one of us as long as we cling to legislation of this kind.

This is the basis of the vested interest referred to by the hon the State President. After all, what other vested interests are there in this regard, other than perhaps the odd financial interest which quite probably came about in an immoral fashion in any event? Other than that, these vested interests are based on racial intolerance alone.

Would it not have been better, in the case that I have just referred to, if some effort had been made to persuade that particular complainant that her new Coloured neighbour was also a human being with feelings, and that he was not breaking the law and flouting the Group Areas Act merely for the hell of it, but was doing so out of sheer desperation for a roof over his head, a desperation which had come about in the first place because of the existence of that Act? The Government’s record regarding the application of the Group Areas Act has done nothing to redress the damage that has been done by the theory of the Act. In fact, it has done the opposite; it has aggravated the situation.

The following figures have been quoted many times before, but I feel I should do so again. Until the end of the year before last, I think it was, the number of families in South Africa who had been forcibly removed in terms of the Group Areas Act was, in respect of Whites, 2 200; in respect of Indians, 39 400; and in respect of Coloureds, 81 900.

What are you quoting from?

Who can argue that this represents a fair application of any kind of legislation? Who can even think that one can apply the concept of separate but equal, if this is the way it is applied?

Let us look at the total surface area of group areas proclaimed up to 31 December 1982. In the case of Whites, the total was 775 000 hectares; Coloureds, 98 000 hectares; and Indians, 49 000.

What are you quoting from?

I ask again who can suggest that that amounts to an equal and fair application of any sort of legislation. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, the report that we are discussing today does very little to right this wrong. It is a compromise between right and wrong. The hon the State President referred to certain concepts. He talked about “an orderly community”. An orderly community is naturally something that we all desire, but why should one equate an orderly community with one that is regulated on the basis of race? I simply do not accept that as a sine qua non.

*The hon the State President spoke about further intrusion and said these would not be tolerated. I have a little experience of this problem. People do not infringe the law because they enjoy doing so. It is a trying experience for anyone to live in a place in which he is continually threatened by the law, where he may expect a policeman’s knock on his door at any time of the day or night, and where he may receive a threatening letter from a Minister telling him that he may be evicted from his house at some stage or another. This creates a problem for people. People do not do this because they like it. They do so because they have no choice.

In that respect I must say that this report is a great disappointment and that the Government’s reaction to it was an even greater disappointment, if that is possible. We look forward to the day when we may do away with this Act because it is not an Act which will enable us to proceed towards a future of reconciliation.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the last few comments made by the hon member for Green Point. I also subscribe to the view that the report was a disappointment in that it lacked, in the first place, the decisiveness that a report of this nature should have, bearing in mind that the exercise undertaken by the committee was a very intense investigation of an Act which has formed part and parcel of the whole social economy of this country over many years. One realises that a structure that has been in operation for so long cannot be broken down overnight. I would, however, have liked to see a very much more decisive recommendation coming from that committee.

I have very little time, and as a result I must cut my speech to the bone. I think one of the most interesting aspects of this report vindicates the policy that the NRP has laid down for many years in relation to group areas. It vindicates it from the point of view that the report centres around many of the philosophies and the policies of the NRP. Let me mention the question of local option, a concept that was howled down in this House on many occasions and is now being held up as a solution. Let us look at the question of open areas, equally criticised in this House and now being accepted as an NP recommendation. [Interjections.]

When it comes to the Group Areas Act, I think one must realise that this Act is linked specifically to any future reform initiatives in this country. It must also be realised that the exclusivity of property ownership cannot be sustained in its present form. Pressures will build up and are building up, not only from the point of view of meeting the physical accommodation requirements in the country but also from the point of view of preserving economic values. Here, in particular, the local option concept is an ideal instrument to bring this about.

However, I must criticise the manner in which the Government has handled this report. It can only be described, with great respect, as being ham-handed and abysmal because regrettably the Government has seen fit to play party politics with this very important issue.

It has literally fiddled around for one year and when it was first presented, the report was referred back to the President’s Council. I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to assess the damage that was done by the delaying tactics that were employed by this action.

During the period in which the report was back with the President’s Council we saw a hardening of political attitudes. The final recommendations submitted by that committee were not accorded the full support of various political parties whereas a year ago that report—which I assume is in very much the same form—would have been underwritten and supported by those parties concerned. I regret having to say that this is a case where indecisiveness and a lack of practical application were two of the main reasons why the credibility rating of this report is now being questioned.

Finally, I want to make it quite clear that the various mechanisms that the hon the State President has enunciated will help in breaking down the structures of the Group Areas Act. However, may I just say that they are too complicated and need to be simplified. This is a matter where, if the procedures are dragged out they will lose their significance.

Mr Speaker, this debate opened on a very high note this afternoon when the hon the State President calmly made a definitive statement, which I actually wish to describe as a very strong policy speech, on a very difficult matter. The Government standpoint, and consequently that of the NP, on this question was very clearly stated this afternoon.

Immediately afterwards, however, the hon member for Ermelo rose to speak and I want to tell that hon member I should like to award a prize at the end of the session for the most absurd and also the most ludicrous statement made during this session. [Interjections.] That was the statement emanating from that hon member when he said the CP was right and the PFP was right. [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point followed the hon member for Ermelo. I now want to ask the hon member for Ermelo, because he must have listened to the hon member for Green Point, whether he agrees that the hon member for Green Point is right.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to questions.

Was the hon member for Green Point right in what he said in his speech? I know the hon member for Ermelo agreed with this a number of years ago when he was a member of the United Party. He must still have agreed on all these matters at the time because the Group Areas Act was not considered good then; it had to be abolished. This afternoon the hon member said that the CP and the PFP were right.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Ermelo also opened his speech by saying that the hon the State President had said nothing new. Well, if one comes to this House to listen to a debate with a prepared speech and one does not wish to listen but merely make one’s speech, it is obvious one will come to the conclusion that nothing new has been said. I want to say to the hon member for Ermelo this afternoon that, if he had only listened, he would have heard clear standpoints of policy this afternoon as well as new standpoints which I shall come to later.

The hon member for Ermelo went further and said the hon the State President had stated in his constituency that there was no such thing as a grey area. Surely the term “grey area” does not exist. The Group Areas Act certainly does not provide for it and I challenge the hon member for Ermelo to show me where in the Group Areas Act of 1966 the term “grey area” is used. [Interjections.]

It is used in the report.

The hon member for Ermelo then went further and said we were now rejecting the principle. Surely no principle is being rejected, because the Group Areas Act provides for proclaimed areas—a proclaimed area for Whites, one for Coloureds and one for Indians. Provision is certainly made, as the hon the State President said, for controlled areas. One finds members of all population groups living in these numerous controlled areas. I know there are certain restrictions but the fact remains that controlled areas exist.

One no longer becomes grey; one becomes “controlled”! [Interjections.]

I deduced from the hon member for Green Point’s speech this afternoon that his only interest was in where people lived. He was not interested in people’s community life; it was of no interest to him that people wished to practise their culture and it was of no consequence to him that population groups in this country also wanted to group themselves and live together. To him the point at issue was merely one of race and all he could see before him was skin colour.

[Inaudible.]

He then said the Group Areas Act eliminated all reconciliation and all efforts to further it. The hon the State President, however, emphasised neighbourliness this afternoon. It is quite possible for different population groups to live and exist next to one another in this country; after all, we have been doing so for centuries. We can certainly be good neighbours to one another as we have always been. Surely it is unnecessary for a person to live in a specific spot to be a good neighbour to somebody. That is why I want to tell the hon member for Green Point he is quite wrong in his view that the Group Areas Act eliminates all reconciliation.

The report of the President’s Council on the Report of the Technical Committee, 1983, and Related Matters is a competent piece of work and my heartiest congratulations go to the committee of the President’s Council which conducted the inquiry and compiled the report. The report and recommendations of the President’s Council should be judged in the light of the context of the request directed to the President’s Council, which was to advise the State President on—

This Technical Committee was the Strydom Committee.

The Strydom Committee had specific terms of reference and was committed to conducting its inquiry with cognisance of them. The first of the terms of reference of the Strydom Committee read:

Secondly, the committee was called upon to indicate possible “identifiable deficiencies, problems, areas of friction and discrepancies” in existing legislation.

Thirdly, the basis of the Strydom Committee’s terms of reference was that the “principles which are contained in the various Acts and specifically the principle of separate residential areas as contained in the Group Areas Act, should be retained”.

The terms of reference and report of the Strydom Committee therefore form the basis of the report and recommendations of the President’s Council. The President’s Council consequently mentioned in paragraph 1.11 that it interpreted the request to advise the State President in such a way that—

I consider this piece of work we have before us as excellent. I do not believe the Committee of the President’s Council, which accomplished the task, lays claim to total comprehensiveness. This is an exhaustive subject and it is impossible to go into it in full. In consequence the report may also have deficiencies which we may supplement by means of further inquiry and consideration.

I deduce very clearly from the report that the Group Areas Act cannot be repealed in South Africa without bringing about drastic and disruptive change in the community structure of the country. The hon member for Green Point cannot or will not understand that, if this Act were totally repealed, disruptive change would be brought about in the community structure. The Government and the NP were never in any doubt or uncertainty about this matter and I want to say to the hon member for Ermelo this afternoon that what we set out in our 12-point plan in 1980 remains our point of departure and policy. Under point 5 we spoke of:

That remains our point of departure.

What do you have to say about open areas?

I wish to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that we said at the time “wherever possible”. I shall revert to this later in my speech.

I want to repeat what we said in our 1981 manifesto. I actually do not want to repeat it but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that he himself signed it:

Surely that is what we have had confirmed here this afternoon and what is contained in the report of the President’s Council.

Where in the report?

Paragraph 2.2.1 of the 1987 manifesto, which deals with group security, provides:

The words “wherever practicable” have been used throughout the years, even when those hon members sat on this side of the House.

At the time they were not yet able to read.

It is a fact that we have never experienced a condition of total separation of residential areas in South Africa. [Interjections.] Throughout the years there have been the Woodstocks and other areas I do not wish to mention here now. Consequently there has never been a total division of residential areas. The NP and the Government have maintained throughout that this is impossible to realise in its entirety.

The hon the State President advised at the Federal Congress in Durban this year that we should cling to this cornerstone of own community life in South Africa. This emerged clearly again this afternoon from the hon the State President’s statement and from what the NP places first, which is the maintenance of community life of not only the Whites but also of the Indians, the Coloureds and every population group in this country. This Act does not centre only on Whites and the protection of White community life and culture; it also deals with the protection of the life and community life of other population groups and other people who live in this country too.

The statement is frequently made and it is alleged that the existence of the Group Areas Act thwarts negotiations. I want to state here this afternoon that the repeal of the Group Areas Act in its entirety would cause the social collapse of the multinational and multicultural life in South Africa, the results of which would be catastrophic for any reform or constitutional adjustment.

Different communities have arisen in South Africa; this cannot be denied. It cannot be ignored, still less cancelled out. It is not only the NP that alleges this. It is not only a political party or parties which say this or elevate it to the status of a policy. The existence of different communities is a reality in South Africa which is confirmed and emphasised in discussions with individuals.

I want hon members not only to talk to political leaders; they ought to talk to people in the community and in residential areas. Then hon members—and I want to turn to the PFP in particular—will very soon find out that many individuals harbour a great anxiety which is expressed in the fear that their community life will be disrupted.

The hon the State President will tell you…

That is why the NP approach has always been that every population group has the inalienable right to protect its own way of life…

As in Hillbrow.

… and it is for this that provision is made in this report of the President’s Council, Sir.

It is the NP approach that every population group has the right to develop its lifestyle; that it has the right to bequeath it to its descendants and that it has the right to safeguard its unique identity. That is why the NP has always regarded it as a matter of very great priority to give every group the opportunity of ensuring its own community life, with its own residential areas, own schools, own politics and own constitutional power base.

It is a fact—nobody can deny this—that new circumstances have arisen which have necessitated adjustments to the Act. [Interjections.]

There you have it!

Now you are giving yourself away! [Interjections.]

The NP has always said this Act can be adjusted; as we have done over the years. [Interjections.] We have adjusted it 17 times since 1950. [Interjections.] We are also aware that new circumstances have arisen which have been caused by urbanisation.

Are these realities?

We are also aware that new circumstances have arisen because residential areas have been vacated by Whites in city centres. We also know members of other population groups were eager to settle there, among other reasons to live nearer to their places of work. We are well aware that a surplus of White housing has arisen, especially as regards flats. This happened in Hillbrow too, a neighbourhood continually referred to by the hon member for Overvaal. [Interjections.] There is an oversupply of flats for Whites.

How many?

Owners of flats in large numbers tell me their flats are left empty when they seek to uphold the Group Areas Act. On the other side—that of the Coloureds—there has been a backlog. [Interjections.] I have the greatest appreciation of the work being done by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives in an effort to eliminate this backlog. I greatly appreciate the work being carried out by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates in an effort to wipe out this backlog.

There is really a shortage of accommodation for members of other population groups whereas there is an oversupply for Whites. [Interjections.] Consequently we have situations such as that which has arisen in Hillbrow. I could enumerate many other factors such as the economic factor. The fact is—and I want this stressed this afternoon—that in some cases the reorganisation of communities and residential areas has become essential. This Government cannot evade this, neither can South Africa escape it; it concerns us. Almost 40 years have passed since the Group Areas Act was placed in the Statute Book for the first time in 1950. South Africa has not remained the same in this time; our communities have not remained static; our residential areas have not remained unchanged either.

It is true that the present Group Areas Act does not provide for this. The mandate which can be given to the present Group Areas Board is merely one of investigation, of proclamation or deproclamation or even reproclamation or of the declaration of control over a specific area. That is all the Group Areas Board can do. We wanted the Group Areas Board to investigate the matter of Hillbrow. Now, what instructions as regards Hillbrow would we give the Group Areas Board? In terms of the present Act we cannot give the Group Areas Board any mandate. We cannot request the Group Areas Board as it is composed at present to conduct a socioeconomic investigation of a specific area. Retention of this Act in its current form in the Statute Book is simply impossible. These new circumstances have to be dealt with most responsibly and—I wish to stress this—without harming the community and without disrupting the social order.

How?

How? As the hon the State President stated explicitly here this afternoon. [Interjections.] Let me put it as follows. The recommendations of the President’s Council as regards… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are making it almost impossible for the Chair to hear the hon the Deputy Minister. The hon the Deputy Minister has to raise his voice continuously to be heard. I request the co-operation of the House in this regard. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the recommendation of the President’s Council in respect of open areas is of great interest. I wish to state this responsibly and say that, if it is handled correctly, it can deal in an orderly fashion with new conditions which have arisen in South Africa. In conjunction with this there was the announcement by the hon the State President this afternoon of a new council, one of greater stature, a new council with enhanced status, which will eliminate the deficiencies which currently exist—this we cannot deny.

This proposed new council can eliminate problem areas so that land for occupation by the respective population groups may be more easily and rapidly identified. This new council about to be formed can see to South African community life in a responsible way and infuse our community life with new content and fresh significance.

I should like to say we are entering a new phase, a new period in our history as regards the establishment of people and communities. We shall have to work together to make a success of this and that is why there will have to be control as requested by the President’s Council. It does so in paragraph 5.59 which reads as follows:

We are moving into a new era but not one of uncertainty and chaos. We are advancing to a new era in which we shall be able to live our community life to the full, in which each population group will be able to fulfil itself. I want to reassure the CP this afternoon that it need not be afraid. Follow the NP and we shall build a great and beautiful South Africa!

Mr Speaker, it emerges very clearly from the hon the State President’s speech as well as from that of the hon the Deputy Minister that it is the modus operandi of the Government to look over its right shoulder for a change and to placate the rightwingers in the face of what is coming—the pertinent decisions.

You overestimate yourself, man!

Up to the present we have taken no pertinent decision on this report of the President’s Council. The hon the Deputy Minister says: We stand for separate residential areas but we shall open them for the new era to come! [Interjections.] This is a typical case of sitting on the fence, and that party will not get away with it in the next election.

It now seems very clear from the publication of the report of the President’s Council on 17 September why the Government did not dare announce this report on the Group Areas Act before the election for the House of Assembly. Why not? Because the cornerstone on which the philosophy of the policy of that party was founded was in jeopardy. The basic cornerstone—the spatial ordering of peoples, which formed the basis of the existence of the NP—is disappearing in the face of the onslaught of the liberalism and the humanism which that party has absorbed and actually adopted. [Interjections.] Weak-kneed and spineless leadership has meant that even now there has been no adoption of a definite stance on the report on the part of the Government—even after the hon the State President’s speech. The only further information from Government circles has been the statement from the Office of the State President which expresses the standpoint of the Government inter alia as follows and I quote:

It is still subject to abrogation. Just like the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, it is not a sacred cow! In fact, the two choices are very clearly stated on page 158 of the report—either the repeal of the Group Areas Act or appropriate amendments to the existing Group Areas Act. The various ways in which adjustments may be made are then described.

The Government is therefore still able to satisfy the basic demand of the Labour Party for consensus. It is still able to provide those “chocolates” demanded by Rev Hendrickse. It dare not say this now, however—not before the municipal elections next year. You see. Sir, it must be possible again to trumpet out on posters to its more right-wing supporters that the NP stands for own schools and own residential areas—as the hon the Deputy Minister said this afternoon. On the other hand the Office of the State President says in its statement it must also be possible to make provision for those who choose a different lifestyle. We are moving into a new era; in other words, a totally open, integrated society in a grey area is NP policy now as well.

This is the typical “You want it, we have it” policy of the NP.

Smorgasbord!

Satisfy everybody—everyone to the right as well as everyone to the left. In other words, it must also be able to print on its posters: Work together, swim together, live together, play together, govern together, etc. In the idiom and in the form of the peace song “Together we shall build a better future” it will be a mixed and bleating bunch living together in love and harmony. This is the new NP policy now. [Interjections.]

We and the country in general are still waiting for the Government to adopt a definite standpoint. Everyone had adopted a stance the day after the report had appeared. Assocom, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Dr Motlana of the Soweto Civic Association, the Urban Foundation and even churches had adopted a standpoint. The FAK said the golden mean was the course to follow. According to Die Burger of 18 September—Prof Johan Heyns, the moderator of the General Synod of the DR Church, said:

Almost the same words are used to state the official standpoint of the church as it appeared in Die Kerkbode of 23 September. On the other hand Dr J C van Wyk, Deputy Chairman of the General Assembly of the Reformed Church, says his church does not like any dilution of the Group Areas Act. He foresees serious problems if the provisions of the Act are abolished. The same standpoint is stated officially in the publication Die Hervormer of July 1987.

We are dealing here with statements of church leaders such as Prof Johan Heyns and Prof Tjaart van der Walt who said on another occasion that the Government should keep a firm hand on the reins before the election but could let go after it. In dealing with church leaders here who advocate and acclaim equalisation and the process of extinguishing barriers, it is ironic that it is specifically church leaders from the same churches who held the conviction on biblical grounds that the policy of division between peoples should be propagated and supported. We call to mind a church leader like Prof J D du Toit, Totius, of the Reformed Church. I wish to quote a single paragraph from the paper he read at the National Congress in 1944:

He continues:

These people of necessity left a particular stamp on the nature and essence of the policy of separate development. It is the stamp of Christian Nationalism which justified and defended the right to existence and the independence of the Afrikaner people theologically from the Word. I have a book here which was published in 1947. It was written by Prof Cronjé, Dr W M Nicol, the then moderator of the DR Church, and Prof E P Groenewald. Listen to what Dr Nicol has to say on page 34:

He continues:

On page 35 he says the following:

Is that not the order of the day at present? There is mixed living and no plan and that is why there is confusion and no sense of direction. [Interjections.]

Hon members are free to look up the sound pronouncements of Prof E P Groenewald, who has the following to say in his conclusion on page 207:

Nevertheless this Government is attempting to seek a middle course now.

The Government has to tell us whether it intends repealing the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in toto as the report recommends. The hon the State President indicated today that something had to replace it. The Government should say whether it accepts recommendation 7.3.4 on page 158 which comes down to the fact that, with the exception of residential areas, all buildings, land and premises—like libraries, public swimming baths and other public recreational facilities—should be open for the use of and ownership by all population groups. The Government should say which of the five alternative methods of dealing with voting arrangements it intends choosing in open residential and business areas, as described on pages 127 and 130. The Government should say what the education arrangements will be in those areas—or will all the schools in those areas be private now, so that they may be thrown open? The Government should say what its decision will be in respect of recommendation 7.4 on page 161 regarding rural areas. We received only a vague indication from the hon the State President today that it would require complex amending legislation but no further intimation of how it would be done. He should tell the people he is expropriating the land and living space of his people.

We want to say to them: Do not delay; for goodness’ sake adopt a standpoint so that the people we represent here may know where it stands with the NP. Then it will know there is only one party which places a high premium on its own living space and that is the CP.

Mr Speaker, I shall leave it to the hon Government members to reply to the many questions put by the hon member for Pietersburg. That is not my task in this House.

However, I was very interested to note that the same degree of sophistry accompanied the introduction of this debate by the hon the State President as we had way back in 1950—I was not here then, but I read the reports—when the then Minister of the Interior introduced the Group Areas Act. This afternoon the hon the State President told us that we must organise our society in such a way—

These are fine, high-sounding words, Sir, and very similar to the words that were uttered by Dr Dönges who was then the Minister of the Interior. He said on 29 May 1950 in this House—hon members can find this in Volume 73 of Hansard—that “one of the main objects of the policy of apartheid, namely the elimination of friction between the races in the Union, by providing separate areas for the different races” would be achieved “without recourse to discrimination between the various races.” He said:

He went on to say:

Furthermore, he said:

He also said:

I do not want to say much about the elimination of racial friction between the races and bringing about conditions most favourable for racial harmony because quite frankly, Sir, I have not seen very much in the way of racial harmony in this country in the 37 years since the Act was originally passed.

However, I do not think one can allow all the sophistry—all the guff about giving justice and fair play to the non-Europeans and the surrender of each group of its rights for the common good of all groups and about the sacrifices we all have to make—to go unchallenged because, if the introduction of that Act was steeped in hypocrisy, its implementation has been proof positive that the surrender by each group of its rights has in fact been for the good of one group only, and that is the White group, of course. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point mentioned some statistics and I wish to bring further statistics to the notice of this House. Page 55 of the report of the President’s Council committee gives the lie to everything that Dr Dönges claimed were the objectives behind the Group Areas Act. According to Table 4. 1 (a) 126 176 families were resettled under the Act, between 1950 and 1984—a better word for “resettled” would, of course, have been “uprooted”. Of these families, 1,92% were White; 66,33% were Coloured and 31,75% were Indian families. Table (b) indicates the number of families eligible for resettlement—eligible, of course, means “qualified for selection”, but a more accurate description would have been “under threat of removal”. Of the 6 414 families eligible for resettlement, 4,02% are White; 59,09% are Coloured and 36,89% are Indian families. Table (c) of the report shows that, of the number of people removed from business premises, 1,95% of the total of 2 771 were White; 6,75% were Coloured and a whopping 91,30% were Indian people. I hope that the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in the House of Delegates is listening to these figures. That is a fine example of the common sacrifice that has been demanded of all of us.

In every “dorp” throughout the Transvaal platteland Indians have been uprooted from their trading premises. They have been moved from the main streets of those “dorpe” across the railway tracks, next to the cemetery—anywhere where they would not be in competition with White traders. This has not done the White traders much good, I might mention. I am sure that the same thing applies to the Cape platteland and to Natal; in the Orange Free State, of course, there were no Indian families or traders to be removed. So, they have been pushed outside all the main town centres and the central areas of the large cities and shunted to the outer limits.

I must tell this House that I visited Rustenburg a few years ago, when Indian traders there were under threat of removal, and they asked me to come to talk with them about what could be done for them. They told me that they were going to be moved across the railway tracks, miles out of the centre of the town, and that they had been granted their original trading rights by Paul Kruger in gratitude for actions of their predecessors—their fathers and grandfathers—who granted extended credit to the farmers during the rinderpest, when they were faced with bankruptcy. Now, Sir, there is a fine way in which promises have been kept. It is disgraceful!

Hon members here should have another look at District Six and see what this common sacrifice was all about. This is something which the hon the State President was very much responsible for at the time of the removal. However, it is also something which he has conveniently forgotten. All we have left are a couple of mosques and a church or two, in case the wrath of heaven would come down upon the Government if they removed those as well as the people.

To my mind the definitive statement in the report appears on page 71, and I quote:

That is not reflected in the recommendations of the committee. The grey areas and local option recommendations lend themselves to overcrowding, rack-renting and, as our PFP representative on the President’s Council, Mr Pieter Schoeman, said, to upsurges and the organisation of racial prejudice.

The open society where all South Africa is available—by choice—to all who live in this country, is the obvious desirable alternative.

The committee has passed the buck by suggesting options as far as two very important things are concerned. The one is franchise at local government level and the other is the schooling for the children who will live in the so-called open areas.

Of course, the hon the State President has also passed the buck. This has become a country which is very similar to the Russian doll situation where one opens one doll to find another below it and when one opens that doll there is another below that. There is one committee after another making recommendations and another committee examining the recommendations of those committees and making further recommendations.

I agree with the hon member for Pietersburg on one thing and that is that the Government was unable to release this report of the President’s Council committee on group areas before the general election of May 6 because it does not have the guts to make up its mind on this important issue.

Mr Speaker, the report we are debating at the moment is disappointing, especially in the light of the absence of a finding on the discriminatory nature—or the opposite—of the Act, which has apparently disappeared since the recommittal of the previous report.

The theme being argued is the concept of “vested rights”. The Chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council, Dr Oosthuizen, said in an interview on Netwerk that it was a vested right to be able to choose one’s neighbour. With all due respect, it is utter nonsense to argue that this Act affords one the right to choose one’s neighbour. The only way to do this is to move away from him and therefore actually not to choose him.

The hon the State President argued that the vested right was represented in the fact that one could decide upon one’s neighbourhood. Is the nature of a person’s environment to be found in his colour or language? The actual broad concept usually used by the Government is that of an own community life. I come from the town of Randburg of which approximately 80% of the inhabitants are English-speaking. If one were to ask any Afrikaans-speaking person there whether Randburg were Afrikaans or English-speaking, nine out of ten of them would say it was Afrikaans-speaking because that would be his experience of community life. Experiencing community life is not merely to say it is purely for Afrikaners or only for the English-speaking. Nevertheless we have a fixation about race and we argue about community life on that basis.

In any case we talk of so-called White areas, whereas there is a single room in every back yard in which Black people may live under poor conditions but they are not permitted to live decently in the place next to mine. They may live under poor conditions on my own premises but not next door under decent conditions. The question is what morality we are dealing with.

I am not able to discuss everything I should like to discuss in the limited time at my disposal, but the approach to a local option in the report and especially its recommendation that separate areas should be dealt with in separate applications, will give rise to one Menlo Park incident after the other, especially in consequence of the recommendation that the residents’ attitude be tested. The hon the State President did say in his reply he would make the final decision in his official capacity but in so doing he is in any case rejecting the local option approach and is merely furthering an expansion of the permit system of which the executive authority retains control.

Unfortunately it is also true—perhaps it is actually fortunate—that the Group Areas Act does not receive much attention or come in for much discussion in extraparliamentary and Black politics.

If we are going to open area after area, however, against the background of a backlog of approximately 500 000 residential units at the moment and a further estimated 3 million by the end of the year, there cannot be reference to a market mechanism because these few areas will be inundated. Then the President’s Council is using the wrong approach in any case if it talks about a market mechanism capable of playing its part in the acquisition of housing. This can best be dealt with by a total opening up.

I now want to get to the Official Opposition. This Act will certainly be abolished but it will be done reactively, without proper planning.

You know them, Wynand. You know.

People moving into certain areas is not, as the hon the State President said, intended to enforce open areas, but is merely done on account of the need. This process will continue and the Government will be unable to handle it. The same process which led to the abolition of influx control will also lead to the abolition of the Group Areas Act—as we shall see.

Mr Chairman, we were aware that the hon member for Randburg would have a relatively short turn to speak but I really expected him to make more of his four minutes than he actually did. [Interjections.]. This is one of the basic reasons why he left the NP. I recall that according to that hefty document—the statement comprised something like six pages in which he gave reasons for his departure—we are dealing here today with one of the fundamental matters which concerned him. I also remember his saying in that statement that he was not appealing for the abolition of the Group Areas Act at the time. I at least expected him to give us an indication today of what he and the movement of which he forms part, had in mind as far as this matter is concerned. [Interjections.] He took up some of our time to state why he was not saying this, instead of, for once, getting away from the vague assertions with which they have been going about confusing people since he left the NP.

The key question that he, too, has come up against is whether he wants an enforced open community. [Interjections.]

Abolish the Act!

Does freedom of association mean that everything is compelled to be open… [Interjections.]

Just like the church!

… or does it then become compulsory integration? That is the crux of the debate we shall have to conduct with one another and to which I shall be coming back. [Interjections.]

I also wish to refer to the hon member for Houghton.

†She made the statement that the Group Areas Act was only in the interests of the White group.

Of course.

I challenge her on that.

Look at the figures in the report!

I say that home ownership for all population groups was greatly advanced by the institution of own living areas for them, properly planned, with proper streets and where home ownership would be advanced. [Interjections.]

That is absolutely untrue.

I say that the establishment of viable townships and community services counts among the positive results of the application of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Yes, there is a debit side, but there is also a credit side. On balance, all communities reap vast benefits from the orderly planning of residential areas for the various population groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Why don’t you ask them?

Let them speak for themselves!

The hon member for Ermelo as well as the hon member for Pietersburg tried to create an image that the NP was maintaining a duality in its reaction to the report and in the report itself—something for everyone in an effort to satisfy everybody.

But that is so.

That is patently untrue. Let us approach this assertion from two angles. In the first case we shall not be popular with anybody because of our standpoint. If we had been seeking popularity, surely we could have attempted to move forcefully to one side like the CP, or to the other like the PFP.

You want to be popular with everybody—just not with the Whites.

We shall not satisfy the LP with this; neither shall we satisfy foreign countries. Hon members of the CP have heard we do not satisfy the PFP and they themselves have said we do not satisfy them. So with whom are we seeking popularity? What we are doing is the following.

We do not satisfy the demands of parties but we try to satisfy the demands of reality in South Africa because of the position of authority we hold in this country and because of the responsibility that rests on our shoulders.

Why did you not say that before the election?

We said as long ago as the federal congress—hon members are free to read my speech; it is printed in a booklet which I am sure hon members possess—we were not wedded to the Group Areas Act as a specific instrument or method. We stated—this does not differ by a single iota from what the hon the State President said today—we believed in an own community life and were convinced one of its fundamentals was a basic pattern for residential areas and own schools. We therefore already have a mandate for the standpoint we have adopted here; hon members can also read our manifesto in which it is very clearly sketched that we are prepared to consider this matter critically.

Hon members on that side said it was something for everybody. Let us take a brief look at the history of hon members of the CP when they spent years with us in the NP. It was when we were together in one party that legislation to the effect that trade unions had a free choice whether they wished to be mixed or not, was carried with the support of those hon members. Now where do these standpoints differ from each other? It was with the support of those very hon members that legislation permitting hotels to choose their own character, and sanctioning international hotels to meet specific needs, was passed. In all their years in the NP those hon members did not express any criticism whatsoever of the established, recognised system of private schools which offered freedom of choice. At the time those hon members agreed with justification that it made sense in a country with a population composed like that of South Africa that, while one fulfilled the need of the vast majority for protected own community life, one should create room for contact with others and opportunities for peoples who were differently inclined. It has never formed part of NP philosophy to force its ideology on another and the NP has always been prepared to enter into open dialogue and to create space, opportunities and channels for others.

The idiom has obviously changed; circumstances have obviously changed. The hon member for Pietersburg can quote from 1934 and 1944 until he is blue in the face. Under circumstances prevailing at the time those dictums were understandable and justified. When Totius used the words referred to by the hon member, the Reformed Church did not yet have a mixed synod, but it has one now. Why? Circumstances have changed. The various components of the Reformed Church meet regularly in a single synod. As a member of the Reformed Church, allow me to tell him this now and remind him of it. When Totius spoke the words he quoted, the Archbishop of Canterbury was still alluding to Black people in a derogatory way. The hon the State President has already referred to this in this House.

We are living in a developing South Africa and the Groups Areas Act has made an enormous contribution in transforming circumstances which threatened to create chaos in South Africa into a properly regulated system which has resulted in opportunities for all communities.

Now you are repudiating what Totius said.

No, Sir, that regulation has been completed. [Interjections.] At present every community has a basic pattern for an own community life by which it lives in its own residential area, its children attend school in departments already controlled by an own power base in the case of White, Brown and Indian. Consequently this Constitution will remain as long as the NP is in power. [Interjections.]

For how long?

Fundamental adjustments are yet to come but the principle of self-determination on own affairs is the foundation, and that principle will not be jeopardised while White voters choose the NP.

New conditions arose, specifically as a result of the good work done over the years, which now make it possible to satisfy new and growing needs in another way too.

It is necessary for us in this debate and the debate on this matter that is taking place outside, to take particular note of the impact of this. What is said here today re-echoes, not only around our entire country, but throughout the world. What we are discussing here is an exposed nerve in the minds of many people. If we wish to argue the matter sensibly and responsibly, standpoints on it are absolutely divergent. On the one hand we are confronted by the emotion of those who are totally negative toward existing measures. These are the measures which regulate who is permitted to live where and who may use what facilities. On the other hand there are millions of South Africans—I want to say here today they are not only White, because there are also numerous Coloureds and Indians among them—who specifically cling to the existing legislation as being important protective measures for their own community life and lifestyle.

It comes as no surprise that we get the “all or nothing” approach from the Opposition. Typically the PFP goes all out for total repeal and the CP for vigorous retention, regardless of consequences. Each ignores strong insistence to the contrary among a significant part of our population. Each ignores the demands of our circumstances. Each of them plays to its gallery, enmeshed in their dedication to the onslaught against the NP without asking what would be in the best interests of South Africa.

An “all or nothing” approach will not get us anywhere. Forcefulness for or against existing measures does not take the enormous conflict potential built into the subject under discussion into account. The direction in which the NP is heading is the only practicable approach.

In simple terms, what are we saying? The NP says that the composition of our population and ingrained differences between communities necessitate measures for the protection of the community life of each. These are measures capable of guaranteeing security and certainty. We are not wedded to specific laws and are prepared to examine other methods and instruments. There is no doubt in our minds, however, that there have to be enforceable measures. Nevertheless we shall also ensure that those measures are not inflexible because everybody does not think and feel alike after all. Total separation of residential areas is impossible, arid hon members confessed this, as we did, in the 1981 election.

While the vast majority’s insistence on a protected, own community life can be satisfied, there is room for those who feel differently to act differently. The circumstances of our time demand this.

†The time has indeed arrived to write a new chapter with regard to the relevant legislation. This the NP is prepared to do but not at the cost of the stability and security of minorities. In other countries where the situation is less complex disturbance of historical residential patterns went hand in hand with major friction and conflict. In our country the potential for this is much greater. We therefore need to tread carefully. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President s statement does just that. On the one hand it offers firm assurance to the millions of South Africans who feel strongly about their own community life. On the other hand it offers an alternative to those who feel differently without threatening existing and vested rights. The question of freedom of association is simultaneously suitably addressed. Freedom of association can only exist if there is a choice. If all the areas were to be open on a compulsory basis it would mean compulsory integration. The converse is also true. The recognition of open areas alongside the maintenance of a ground pattern of own areas creates that choice and is therefore a significant move towards much greater freedom of association.

I hope that realism will prevail in the aftermath of this debate and that full recognition will be given to the need to handle this matter with sensitivity and wisdom.

*In his announcement of the Government decision the hon the State President deviated from one of the important elements of the report of the President’s Council. This was when he announced that we were convinced that, although there should be full opportunity for contributions and certain initiatives at local level, we could not apply the typical local option in that way. He also stated that final decision-making on this would be taken in interaction between the Government and the various own affairs administrations. In doing this the hon the State President acted absolutely in line with the provisions of the Constitution. I want to refer hon members to item 5 of Schedule 1 which says community development is an own affair—

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

This also links up with section 14 and item 14 of Schedule 1. That is why I say the significance of this announcement by the hon the State President, that the consent of own affairs has to be obtained, makes a fundamental contribution to the guarantee of security to the various groups participating in these elections.

This means that the elected majority party, in our case from the White electorate, will play a decisive role in decision-making on which area may be declared open. Add to this the forceful emphasis the hon the State President laid on consultation with the local community involved, and it becomes clear that every group is being equipped with the effective power to maintain its own community life. This emerges equally clearly from the hon the State President’s introductory speech.

The NP will be prepared to fulfil specific needs but not at the expense of the security and identity of those we represent here.

We expect that the CP will attempt to unleash an enormous storm about this. I should like to enter into direct debate with them and ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he and his hon colleagues have modified their standpoint as regards this matter at any stage. Does he stand by what he signed in the 1981 manifesto? [Interjections.]

I want to ask him whether he stands by the acceptance of the principle of own schools in communities wherever possible. Or has he abandoned the qualification “wherever possible” in the policy of his new party? [Interjections.] We want a reply to this as I wish to state that, when they were still in the NP, the most eminent members of the CP accepted and endorsed this openness as regards the impossibility of getting South Africa to the point of total division of residential areas.

Do you want to remind us of the past now?

No, but we get reminded of the past as far back as 1934! [Interjections.] It now seems to me the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to run away from his past. It appears to me he wants to vault over his own past to the period which preceded him.

To the time of Noah!

When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was involved in an official capacity in the admission of people of colour to White hostels, he had to concede that there were also exceptions to the rule.

And then you distorted the picture. It is disgraceful!

I want to put a second question to the hon member. Mayfair was a problem as early as 1979; and it was a greater one in 1981. Nevertheless I did not hear the hon Leader say how dangerous it was at a single meeting of the chief executive of the NP or at any other meeting I attended. [Interjections.] At the time the hon Leader appreciated the enormous problems we are grappling with in an area like Mayfair.

Have you forgotten A C van Wyk? That was in the caucus!

He stood quite alone and did not have the support of the Transvaal leader. Perhaps he had support at their meetings in dark corners, but it was nothing we could see or hear. I think the hon member was already a member of the Cabinet when as the Minister of Mining and Planning at the time I had to present certain decisions to the Cabinet and subsequently made a public announcement on decisions concerning Woodstock. What did we announce at the time? We announced that—

Nevertheless we also announced that—

The hon Leader was a party to that decision. We added:

[Interjections.] He had no objection.

Let us go further. There was another area on the map which was attached to my statement. It was area B. I had the following to say about that in my Press release:

Would hon members note that I refer to a White group area—

[Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member will recall that I explained what the deputation of the then minister of religion of the DR Church involved said to me, how he appealed to me not to tear apart this community composed of Whites and Brown people because they had learned to know one another and because they were happy where they were living together and because they had no desire for us to drive them apart. This is the reason why that area was left untouched.

Sir, when will the CP wake to the reality of South Africa? [Interjections.] When will its members wake to the great truth that in this country they will not succeed in isolating one population group in a watertight compartment so that it is concerned with its own people only? The salvation of everybody in this country lies in the fact that we shall find a way while protecting what is our own to be good neighbours as well—as the hon the State President said. [Interjections.] Good neighbourliness means that people acknowledge one another’s rights and also that they do not turn their backs upon one another.

Hold an election in 1989!

We shall hold an election the moment the time is ripe for it and I want to tell those hon members that we shall be leaving them even further behind in history with this step. [Interjections.] This action will put us a step further forward on the way to the establishment of a South Africa in which all communities may have the fullest opportunity and in which each may also feel safe. [Interjections.]

I wish to return to the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Green Point who claimed that measures aimed at the maintenance and protection of the basic pattern of own residential areas were divisive measures. If we cannot give every population group and every community in this country a feeling of security in heart and mind, no positive and constructive co-operation will be possible among them because we shall be reacting like CPs if we do not remove the fears from their minds that co-operation means suicide and that there are so many risks attached to co-operation that one dare not embark upon it. [Interjections.] They are afraid of interaction with other population groups. They seek their salvation in isolation because they lack a sense of security. [Interjections.]

I say here today that the co-operation which all reasonable South Africans desire can really only be built on one foundation and that is to offer real security to all on the one hand as well as the fullest opportunity on a non-discriminatory basis to all on the other. This is not a policy of “a little here; a little there” which I am explaining now. It is the only meaningful, practicable policy, founded on principle, which can work in South Africa.

Why does it not work?

The hon member asks me why it does not work. Does she want us to adopt their policy and look like a Zimbabwe in five years’ time?

Yes, of course.

Do we have to say it works?

You are just doing it more slowly.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says we are doing it more slowly. [Interjections.]

There is a basic difference between what was done in Zimbabwe and what we are doing here. In Zimbabwe there was no fundamental protection of the rights of the Whites, the Shona and the Matabele as three distinguishable groups and peoples. [Interjections.] In this country there is fundamental assurance and effective protection of those cardinal needs. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I am not prepared to permit this. I cannot permit five or six hon members to shout at the hon the Minister at the same time.

What palookas!

Order! Those are not interjections or questions which are being put; hon members are just shouting at the hon the Minister. We cannot continue like this. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: While you were handing down your ruling on order, an hon member shouted “palookas”. Is it customary for interjections to be made while Mr Speaker is addressing the House?

Order! Did someone interject “palookas” and, if so, who was it? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, my time has expired, so I shall make one more statement before resuming my seat. If the CP is offering itself as an alternative government, or when its members criticise us as they have done in this debate and will do, they are faced with the challenge of telling us how they propose to deal with the Hillbrows and the Wood-stocks of South Africa, with whose money they will do this—they are the ones who say there is White taxpayers’ money and other money—if they come to power. Who will finance it? Will they make use of forced forms of removal to attain their goal? Do they see their way to doing this or will they use White taxpayers’ money to create that room?

I wish to resume my seat with a last endorsement of what the hon the State President said, if I may. We shall be able to do everything the hon the State President announced but this cannot solve the basic problems of South Africa. The actual, enormous demand facing us is to lay emphasis—as the hon the State President did—on the creation of new room, on providing real opportunity for development on a community basis by the development of and investment in housing and the planning of new townships for a growing population. We on this side of the House are committed to this.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting that the hon the Leader of the House has again used one of his old tactics to try to convince people of his standpoint; as soon as he is in a corner, he makes personal attacks on specific members of this party. I wonder whether the hon the Leader of the House thinks that anyone in this House is so naive as to think that it will change anyone’s opinion on the political principles of the hon the Leader of the House? Even if someone had said anything at any stage, it would still not change the political principles under discussion.

Let us examine the political principles of the hon the Leader of the House and his party, and how they put them into practice. I have here a publication of the NP, which they used during the past election—NP policy: The Facts!

They know it!

I have already introduced hon members to this specific one which I have in my hand. It was distributed by the hon the Minister of Finance in his constituency, where I happen to live. That was during May. Less than 5 months ago the hon the Leader of the House and his party told the voters of South Africa the following, on page 6 of this publication:

They will not be thrown open, Sir!

That still is the case!

The hon the Leader of the House and his party fought an election on that basis. [Interjections.] I just want to say that they have repeatedly misled the voters of South Africa. Scarcely five months after the election we received the President’s Council Report which was brought out by the NP members of the President’s Council and their one Indian colleague, in which they recommend precisely the opposite, and today the hon the State President stood up here and supported it. This is exactly the opposite. This report of the NP members and their Indian colleague in their committee, Mr Gounden, is seen by conservative politicians, who have been following the NP’s political moves, as expensive, well-articulated, leftist political predictability. We have known since 1983 that the NP has lost the will-power to maintain group areas effectively. Do hon members remember how the then Minister of Community Development, Mr Pen Kotzé, and the hon member for Johannesburg West, who is now a Deputy Minister, made visits to Mayfair at the time…

There were a lot of other people as well!

… to reassure the dissatisfied White residents before the very important referendum in 1983? At the time Mr Kotzé, after his visit, threatened to submit legislation to put an end to the illegal occupation by Indians and Coloureds of White group areas. Then the Rev Hendrickse stated that such statements could result in the Coloured Labour Party reconsidering its support for the new constitution. The leftists in the NP then got such a fright that Minister Kotzé gave Rev Hendrickse his personal assurance on 19 October 1983 that he actually wanted to act against the owners and agents who were exploiting Coloureds and Indians, and not against the Indian and Coloured offenders themselves in White areas. The rest is history. A part of Mayfair was later proclaimed as an Indian area and from then until today there has been an influx of people of colour into the White part of Mayfair. In one case a White resident had to physically prevent an Indian family from occupying a residence in the White area. I wonder what the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order is saying now, after he, together with the other hon the Minister, gave the Whites of that area the assurance that action would be taken.

In order to be accepted by the rest of the world, the NP says that they want to create a new constitutional dispensation which will end White domination. To retain the support of White voters in South Africa, they say that separate residential areas and schools will be maintained. To a very great extent this report reflects the same equivocation. We know by this time that it is merely part of the political strategy of the NP—that the ordinary White voter must on the one hand be pacified as far as possible, and on the other must gradually become used to infiltration by people of colour so that they will eventually accept total integration.

An actual situation of mixed residential areas is being created by the non-application of the Group Areas Act, and these are later formally legalised by reproclamation. In the meantime the White voters are being misled by statements such as the one to which I referred in the election pamphlet of the NP, and also by statements such as the one made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning in this debate this afternoon, as well as the hon the Leader of the House. These are statements which strongly stress the retention of separate residential areas, the protection of self-determination rights and the freedom of association of the Whites, while, on examination of the real measures which they now propose, exactly the opposite seems to be the case.

This report is merely part of the whole integration process launched by the NP. Paragraph 5. 55, on page 91, up to paragraph 5. 56. 2, on page 92, is a striking example of this. In these paragraphs the legalisation of influx into existing residential areas and the development of new, integrated, open residential areas are accepted. In paragraph 5. 138, on page 118, another aspect emerges. Exactly what the CP warned against in relation to the opening of business districts in White towns and cities, is happening now.

The NP President’s Council and its Indian partner recommends that the local authorities should give particular attention to, and I quote:

This is in addition to the creation of own residential areas for the different population groups, or as an alternative for such own residential areas. The motivation which is offered here, is the alleged relative inconvenience for non-Whites with regard to commuting times, distances and costs, and that there is a need for residential areas close to city centres.

The political pattern is very clear. White towns and cities will have to be integrated outwards from their core, their central business districts. If Whites do not want to integrate, they will effectively be pushed further and further to the peripherals of towns and cities. To do business in future, they will be forced not only to accept integrated businesses but also to travel through the so-called open residential areas to get to businesses. Gradually pressure on Whites to accept full integration is being intensified.

As far as educational institutions go, it is quite laughable to see what solution the NP coalition in the President’s Council advocates. Their recommendation to permit open residential areas, particularly near business centres, will often make the influx of a large enough number of people of colour possible so that separate government schools will be established for them in the area. Integrated private schools are proposed in areas where there is not a large enough influx of people of colour. In this connection I am referring to, amongst others, paragraphs 5. 197. 2 and 5. 197. 3, on page 135 of the Report.

I say that a recommendation of this nature is laughable because on the one hand it sounds so logical, but on the other hand the integration plans of the NP are being clearly revealed now—those integration plans which were kept so carefully hidden from the voters of South Africa in the past.

Can anyone still trust the Nats?

As far as tertiary educational institutions are concerned, it has been recommended that decision-making in connection with residence on the campuses of these institutions should be under the complete control of the control bodies of these institutions. It is unnecessary to repeat the statistics here which the hon member for Brits has already quoted in the education debate with reference to people of colour on White campuses.

By the careful use of leftist rank and file members of the NP and the Broederbond in these control bodies, the NP cum Broederbond have imposed their will on certain of these institutions in the past. [Interjections.] If a CP Government does not come into power, the new integration policy of the NP will be forced further down students’ throats in this manner, whether they agree with it or not. Just as in the case of residential areas around business districts, the choice for the Whites will be: Integrate or do without the facilities!

With reference to voting rights for local authorities, five alternatives are proposed, of which the first alternative is a joint voters’ roll without restriction on choice of candidates. That is, fully mixed local authorities. I refer to paragraph 5. 174, on page 127 of the Report.

It is significant that the NP has only accepted positive motivations when considering this alternative, of which the first one on the list is the following argument and I quote from paragraph 5. 174. 5, on page 128:

As far as the CP is concerned, Mr Speaker, we reject this attempt by the NP to introduce integration in our society on the basis of legislation. We reject it totally, and we shall fight against it on every forum offered to us.

Mr Chairman, both the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning and the hon the Minister of National Education referred to the chaotic circumstances which would arise if the Group Areas Act were to be abolished altogether. The hon the Minister of National Education referred to the disturbances which had occurred in other countries in areas where historic patterns of residential living had been disturbed—countries which were not even as complicated as ours.

I do not know why we have this prediction of disaster by the two hon Ministers, when right next to us in Namibia—in Windhoek—we have an example where the Group Areas Act was lifted. If either of the hon Ministers can give me an indication of any friction, chaos or problems, it would be interesting to hear about it. I am informed that in Windhoek, where the Group Areas Act does not apply, no problems worth mentioning have been reported.

Except that property prices have increased.

However, the fear is being put into South African Whites that any relaxation of this kind will result in chaos and threaten one’s security. That is not the case. The hon the Minister of National Education suggested that these amendments are now being contemplated because they want to provide for freedom of association—“omdat hulle redelik wil wees”—but it has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with a fresh look at the principle and at the moral aspect of the Act. However, it has everything to do with an inability to withstand the pressure. They have been unable to withstand the pressure and, as has been said before today, they will not be able to withstand the pressure in future.

The only reason why Mayfair was not tackled was because, as the hon the Minister of National Education said, it was a very complicated matter which at that stage they did not know how to handle, and they are not able to handle it now. There are going to be many, many more areas where this pressure is going to be exerted and the Group Areas Act will go.

The problem with this proposal today, however, and with the speech of the hon the State President, is that they suggest it is going to happen on a fair basis. The hon the State President said that on the one hand it would be unjustifiable to deny those who do want to live amidst their own community the right to do so. On the other hand, he says, it would also not be correct to deny those who prefer to live in the context of an open area their right to do so. This Suggests that both have a right to do what they want to do.

That, however, is not the reality of the situation. The ones who want to live in an area where their privilege, as they see it, can be retained in terms of a racial basis, have the State and the law to back them. Those who want to exercise the right to live in an open area are dependent on the lowest common denominator in our society as far as value judgments are concerned. If a new area is to be opened in terms of the hon the State President’s speech, there must be an investigation, and those who have vested rights in neighbouring communities must be tested as well.

We know that those in the neighbouring territory who are going to determine whether there is an open area or not, or rather, who are going to prevent it, are the ones who have the greatest racial prejudice, who exhibit the greatest degree of fear and have the greatest inability to acclimatise to the South African reality.

You won’t complain?

During the election the hon member for Durban Point tried to exploit the lowest common denominator and meanest characteristic of South African Whites by walking around to the old ladies and saying: If you vote PFP you will have a coolie or a Black man living next to you.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That is an absolute untruth. [Interjections.]

That is not a point of order!

Order! That is for the Speaker to decide, not for the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP. What is the point of order of the hon member for Durban Point?

Mr Speaker, what the hon member for Durban Central has just said, is not true.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Durban Central may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I refer the hon member to newspaper reports in which he publicly called upon people to report mixed couples etc living in his constituency? Their literature also reflected it.

That is not what you said just now.

The point I am making is that those with the greatest prejudice in our society will now determine whether or not the ones who want to live in an open society will be entitled to do so.

Order! Did I understand the hon member for Durban Central correctly to say that the hon member for Durban Point used the meanest form of tactics? Would the hon member for Durban Central be so kind as to repeat what he said?

Mr Speaker, I cannot recall the exact words. What I was trying to suggest was that he exploited the lowest form of prejudice.

Order! If the hon member cannot recall his exact words will he have a look at his Hansard tomorrow morning and call upon me so that we can discuss the matter.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban Central in typical PFP fashion…

Mr Speaker, if as has been suggested the hon member for Durban Central did say that this was the meanest form of electioneering, are you then suggesting that that would not be in order?

Order! It is not for the hon the Chief Whip to ask me what I am suggesting and then before I have had the opportunity to see what the hon member did say and, if necessary, to discuss it with the hon member and then come to a decision, to ask me to give an explanation. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North may proceed.

The hon member for Durban Central has very conveniently and with the holier-than-thou attitude typical of the PFP, forgotten about Norweto. He did not tell us that most of the objections to Norweto came from people supporting that party. [Interjections.] More importantly, he has conveniently not told this House what the PFP’s attitude was with regard to the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. They supported the indaba and one of the proposals of the indaba was that the Group Areas Act be totally abolished in Natal but—this is most important—that the largest area reserved for a group in Natal, KwaZulu, be retained for the Zulu people. [Interjections.] That is a fact. The reason for this is that that area traditionally belonged to the Zulus and should therefore be retained by them. [Interjections.] I do not have any quarrel with that proposal. I think it is a very good proposal as is another proposal of the indaba, viz that the traditional chieftainship be retained. The point is, however, that by supporting that proposal the PFP, in fact, supported the idea that a specific area should be maintained and reserved for the Zulu people. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to say that another hon member is lying?

Order! What did the hon member for Greytown say?

Mr Speaker, I said that the proposals mentioned by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North were not the correct proposals. Then I said that he was in fact lying by saying that those were the actual proposals.

And what is the hon member going to do about it? [Interjections.]

Sir, I intend to say that I withdraw that statement.

Order! The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North may proceed.

But he does not tell the truth.

The question that the PFP must answer is: Why are they in favour of one group having an area reserved for them, but are not prepared to allow other people that privilege?

That is not true!

You know it is the truth. [Interjections.]

It does not make sense, it is not rational and it is not a just solution. The PFP will have to tell the people outside why they prefer the group rights of the Zulus, but not of the other groups in this country. [Interjections.]

The KwaZulu-Natal Indaba proposals are of course the best proof of what the Black people feel…

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

I do not have any time; the hon member has taken up all my time.

The Indaba proposals are of course the best proof of how the Black man feels about his own land.

He did not ask for that protection at the indaba.

I challenge the PFP to show me one elected Black leader who is prepared to open up his own tribal areas to other groups. [Interjections.] They are not even prepared to open up their own tribal land to the private ownership of their own Black people, let alone White people. If that is the case then I see no reason why all the other groups should unconditionally open up their land for Black occupation.

Furthermore, if the Black areas are to be opened up unconditionally, this will unavoidably lead to the Black people in the end having less land for their own occupation. That has been the experience in the United States, and the Black leaders in this country are very much aware of that. That is why they do not support this. [Interjections.]

This do-gooder attitude of the PFP is not morally accountable, and if it is at all their view that the Black areas should also be opened up, it will lead to the devastation of Black group ownership, which is also not acceptable. [Interjections.]

*The one charge that cannot be levelled at this Government in respect of residential areas, facilities and occupation is that we are not serious in our intention, firstly, to move away from discrimination and, secondly, to recognise and deal with social realities.

The clearest proof of this lies in the fact that quite a number of investigations have been undertaken in this field in recent years. One could refer to the Riekert Report, the Erika Theron Report, the Strydom Report and the two President’s Council’s reports. In every one of these investigations, the realities of our society were emphasised.

It is a multi-ethnic society. In the President’s Council’s report of 1982, the opinion was expressed that the Republic may have the most heterogeneous population in the world. This complex society, with the deep divisions which exist between communities, differs not only in respect of culture, traditions, language and level of education, but also in respect of the system of land ownership.

In order to demonstrate this, one may refer to the percentage of land owned by Blacks in their own states and in the independent states. It is a fraction of the percentage of privately owned land in the other areas. This is the position in spite of repeated requests by this Government to those governments to change that system of land ownership and to make it more accessible to their people. However, there has been little change. And this illustrates the deeply rooted differences between people, in this respect as well.

I want to suggest that this is of major importance, because it would be unfair if these traditional areas were retained, while the areas of all the other groups were simply opened up without qualification. This would only benefit the Black group at the expense of the other groups.

Another approach, one of forcing the Black groups simply to throw open their areas, contrary to their traditions, would not be equitable either. Therefore the approach that this Government is following is an equitable one, ie that more land should be made available for private ownership in the Black areas, but that other areas should also make provision for exceptional cases and for the needs that exist. This is what the Government’s proposals boil down to.

I have referred to many recent reports on the Group Areas Act. Not one of them has suggested a deviation from the principle that residential areas are designated by statutory measures. The Erika Theron Commission said—I am referring to the summary given by the Strydom Committee, as quoted on page 77 of the Report of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council [PC 4-1987]—

What is particularly important, however, is that legislation regulating the rights of occupation and ownership of the respective groups existed and was implemented long before the Group Areas Act was passed. The earliest statutory measures in the Transvaal were introduced in 1849 and 1855. During the British occupation of the Transvaal, too, measures to this effect were introduced. Similar measures were introduced under the United Party Government as well. The point is that these commissions and this Government were not the only ones who believed that rights of occupation in residential areas should be regulated by law. It has been regarded as essential by successive governments over a period of more than 100 years. Since this is so, very good reasons will have to be found for deviating from it now.

Successive generations have obtained and developed vested rights on the basis of these measures. In view of this, it would be absolutely irresponsible of any government simply to negate these vested rights by completely abolishing the Group Areas Act as such, without providing effective guarantees to take its place.

Because of these vested rights, we shall have to go about creating open new residential areas with the greatest circumspection, so that existing residential areas may not be affected. In particular, existing residential areas will have to be opened up with great circumspection. It is important that this should only be done by the State President, with the consent of the Ministers’ Council concerned, after thorough investigation and with due regard to the views of the people living in that environment.

I wish to refer to the question of facilities. I should like to thank the Government for its realistic approach in this connection. The academic discourse of the Independents and the ideological rigidity and maladjustment of the PFP will get us nowhere. We are simply faced with the facts, with a First and a Third World situation, with different cultural groups and with a shortage of facilities. It is an undeniable fact that recreational activities are an integral part of community life. For this reason it will be necessary in certain cases to provide communities with a guarantee that they will be able to enjoy their recreational facilities without any friction resulting from intrusion by other groups.

The Government’s standpoint with regard to the report is that needs that have developed in society, such as the need for open residential areas, are recognised. We are not running away from it, because the need does exist. It will be satisfied without creating any friction and without affecting vested interests.

The Government’s primary concern remains the right to self-determination of groups and the protection of community life in the interests of all groups in this country and of the harmonious co-existence of all these groups.

Mr Speaker, although the State President is holding out the prospect of new open areas, he is at the same time, I think, personally giving the green light to hundreds of peeping Toms, as we used to call them in the Cape, who prowl about the White residential areas at night to identify people who are not White and to report them to the police. This is one of the two things that the report seeks to do. This is just as disgraceful as turning District Six into a White area. [Interjections.]

†Accepting that in terms of the procedure which was set out by the hon the State President in his speech, it will take a very long time to open an area, and accepting that people of colour who move into so-called White areas will still be hounded by people trying to get rid of them, the millions of South Africans who at this moment are experiencing hardship as a result of the Group Areas Act will not in effect experience any change in their lives within the next year or two until the process has been sorted out. If people do not experience change in their daily lives, I believe the serious conflict which at the moment exists in South Africa will in actual fact continue. Looking at the report before us we are actually fiddling while Rome is burning.

*Moreover, this report does not address the problem of Blacks in many Western Cape towns, for example, where there are no—I repeat the word “no”—residential areas for Black people.

In a township such as Kraaifontein, the situation is much worse. There is not even a potential residential area which could be made available to Blacks. The hon member for Wellington will know that the Kraaifontein Municipality has been trying to get rid of a mixed group of Coloured and Black squatters at Bloekombos for quite some time.

Until you poked your nose into it and bedevilled the whole situation.

It is quite true that I poked my nose into it. However, what was the outcome of the matter? The hon member will also recall that we held a meeting which was attended by the mayor, the town clerk and the hon member for Wellington, among others. What was the outcome of that meeting? We said that the people should be allowed to live there. The outcome was that the Kraaifontein Municipality said that over their dead body would they allow a Black residential area in Kraaifontein.

That is correct and I agree.

The hon member says he agrees, but then he must join the CP. [Interjections.]

That municipality and that hon member say that the Blacks may work in Kraaifontein, but they must live in Khayelitsha or Mbekweni at Paarl and commute to work every day. [Interjections.] It is a disgraceful policy which is being presented here today as an enlightened policy. In practice, however, it remains one of apartheid and discrimination.

†While this Government continues to make some vague promises about changes, people will, because of the colour of their skins, be denied living space and hounded out of their areas. This is a travesty of justice and can be compared to the way in which the Jews were persecuted in Nazi Germany.

Mr Speaker, we have completed more or less two thirds of this debate. If I now have to give my impressions after having listened to the various speeches that have been made up to now by the Opposition members, I should like to sum them up by saying that those who do not keep account of the realities of the day are gambling with the future. It has been clearly pointed out time and again by the speeches of the various hon members opposite that current realities can simply be manipulated to adapt them to a particular political policy. If we do this I am quite convinced that we shall not be able to enter the future in the way in which we all should like.

There is a second aspect which I should like to bring to their attention. It is very clear that various hon members prepared their speeches before the time. Of course they should have done that, and I am not objecting to it, but these speeches were not adjusted after the hon the State President’s speech and statement. The best evidence of this is the hon member for Pietersburg. He shouted out that the NP was not stating what was going to become of the schools in those open areas.

The hon State President did not say!

The hon member should go and read the hon State President’s Hansard and study his statement, then he will notice that the State President has already said it. [Interjections.] However, the hon member does not have to be worried about that, because I shall spell it out further.

There is something else. The hon member for Roodepoort, over there in the back benches, makes specific statements which make it very clear that he, too, did not adapt his speech and did not examine the report of the President’s Council well enough. [Interjections.] The hon member levels the charge at us that the retention of own schools as far as is in any way practical, which was endorsed by his hon leader and other hon members over on the other side years ago, merely serves as a smokescreen.

[Inaudible.]

I want to challenge the hon member to name a single State school where during the past number of years we have deviated from the principle that they are only for White pupils, with the exception of the children of diplomats. [Interjections.]

You should go and read my speech. I was referring to residential areas and schools together, and not…

The hon member makes specific statements without knowing what is at issue. [Interjections.] I am sorry that I have to tell him that. The hon member attacks the system of private schools, and he justifies doing so by saying that he regards as ridiculous the hon State President’s recommendation, namely that in the existing system of private schools within such an open area this service can also be offered to people of colour, or people who belong to other population groups. However, that is precisely what has been happening in practice during the past number of years. While the hon members over there were still members of the NP they did not complain about this.

We opposed it! [Interjections.] I personally opposed it! [Interjections.]

I am not talking about children now who do not know what it is all about.

One can sometimes learn from children!

The fact of the matter is that when we discussed the legislation concerning private schools in this House we did not hear objections from the other side. Now all of a sudden this hon member wants to cast it in the teeth of the Government. [Interjections.] I want to leave it at that and not waste my time any further on that hon member.

I should very much like to refer briefly to the school setup in terms of the recommendations of the President’s Council. The point of departure of the report in so far as it concerns education can very clearly be deduced from the reasoning of the President’s Council in this report. I just want to mention two principles that emerge clearly, namely the recognition of group rights after those of the individual—that stands out—and the devolution of authority. Let me say here and now that this is in total agreement with the policy direction and principles of this side of the House.

However, there are specific points of departure that we should examine before we come to what is going to happen with regard to schools in such an open area. Firstly, it is a reality that in this country we are dealing with a multicultural setup. It is a premise that we cannot talk or argue about, and I am not saying that we do not recognise it. However, it is a further reality of life that the utilisation of all human potential in every population group will eventually be to the advantage of everyone in this country. We cannot escape this either. That is why co-operation and the recognition of each other’s human dignity, rights and privileges alone will lead to stability and progress.

There is also another point of departure contained in point 2.2.1 of the manifesto of the NP, to which reference has been made. In that manifesto assurance is given of an own community life and also of the maintenance of own schools and residential areas wherever practicable. From this it is clear that the greatest measure of self-determination is granted to every group and that this gives every group the opportunity to maintain its own way of life and its own identity. This is in agreement with the report; it is in agreement with the principle and policy of the NP.

However, it is also important to note that it is true that there is a communal sphere in which joint consultations, decision-making and acceptance of co-responsibility is essential. Likewise there is a group of people, to whom the hon the State President also referred, who have a very strong desire for an own community life. It is equally true, however, that there is a group of people who prefer not to live in such a specific group context. This is a fact of life which we cannot avoid and we have to deal with it.

There is also another point of departure, particularly regarding education, namely that the cultural needs of the different peoples in this country cannot be fulfilled in one communal culture. This has been proved internationally as well as in this country, and I believe it will also be the case in the future. This aspect is important because it also forms the basis of the truth that education and training are in fact nothing less than mainly cultural transference. One cannot transfer the education, the cultural transference that takes place in the home, from a different philosophy of life to that which is formed in the home in formal education. One cannot place it in a strange milieu because that will be to the detriment of those who are still at school, as I shall indicate to the hon member who is now shaking his head. [Interjections.]

The Government has adopted the standpoint that the education of a community is an own affair belonging to that community. This principle is written into the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and is also given further effect to in the own legislation passed by an own body, this House of Assembly, and it falls under the executive authority of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. This legal ordering of education as a matter which is controlled and managed by that same community is not a political matter. It is founded on a valid educational basis. The Government believes, and there is tremendous empirical evidence backing this viewpoint, that the mother tongue is the most suitable medium of instruction and that education is concerned with the transference of culture. This is endorsed by the Coleman report in America, amongst others. Forced integration in American schools posed serious disadvantages. The reasons given for this failure are precisely that the minority groups—this is important—had to fit in with the culture of the majority groups, with the resultant sacrifice of the own culture. There is no alternative. Pupils must experience their own culture, and as a result their parental homes and training, as inferior. They experienced a serious identity crisis. Bernstein has the following to say when he writes about this matter:

This is the truth. It is just as true in this country, and it is just as true in every country in the world where one has to do with a multicultural society.

Let me hasten to come to the standpoints… No, wait, it seems to me I am being given extra time. I can therefore continue to discuss this in more detail.

The Government also recognises the existence of community needs, after the existence of own needs. It would be wrong and a disregard for the realities if we only wanted to argue from a single viewpoint. It is for this reason that certain functions have been transferred to the Department of National Education within the present system of education in the country. Our system of education as a whole guarantees that education takes place in a milieu which will eventually include a fair division of resources so that demands for fairness can be fulfilled.

Furthermore education should take place in such a way that our young people can live together in peace and pursue a united, prosperous South Africa. If we stop and think this is the pursuit and goal of everyone in this country, regardless of which population group he belongs to.

That goal of course also demands the security of groups, because one can only achieve this if one also feels safe and secure within one’s own specific population group. It also demands that the various groups will recognise, respect and appreciate each other.

Communal needs are accommodated at two levels in the present education system. Structures to deal with communality therefore exist, but I do not want to discuss them in greater detail now, because this is not entirely relevant to the debate which is taking place here. There is also the opportunity for a community to be able to be of service to another community particularly in the educational context. This is the familiar principle of the provision of service which we have in paragraph 14 of the Schedule. I think that this is a Christian principle that is not in conflict with our consciences. This is a principle which can eventually extend to the advantage of everyone in the country.

The concept of provision of services is fundamental to common humanity. It is proof of the recognition of a communal commitment to a common fate on the one hand, and on the other existing vacuums and needs. It is the expression of a Christian ethic which is fundamental to the religious fundamental motive which unites this House, as well as the people whom we represent.

This principle comes into its own in the structure of the various Departments of Education and Culture. This applies not only to White education, but also to that of the Coloured, Indian and Black communities. There is a department—in this case it is the Department of Education and Culture of the Whites—which controls the system of State schools in which own education is offered by own teachers so that the system and the training can fully come into their own. Besides that a system of private schools has existed for many years which on the basis of the multitude of cultural and religious criteria, make provision for the fulfilment of the educational needs of a great variety of groups.

It is true—also within the White community—that we have specific cultural groups which feel that not enough is being done in the State schools as such for the advancement of their particular culture. An example of this, which I can mention, is the German private schools where they feel that more attention can be paid to the advancement of the German culture within those schools. There is nothing wrong with that either. In the same way satisfaction is also offered to specific religious groups within a particular private school where a particular religion can also be expressed in the transference of education to the children of that religion.

Of course the people who support these schools choose, within the parameters of availability and affordability, to educate their children in institutions which pursue values that are more nuanced than those in the State schools. These private schools also offer the opportunity to provide an educational service to people who belong to other population groups than those for whom these private schools were created in the first place. We think this is a sound principle and I am convinced that no one can fault it.

I next want to indicate to what extent the recommendations on group areas that now appear in the report, are already in agreement with the education policy which I have briefly summarised. I state categorically that the principles that are educationally relevant within the report, and on which the report is based, are entirely in harmony with the principles which form the basis on which the education policy of the Government is built.

If there are people here who are trying to look for a problem in the management of education within these open areas, they are searching in vain. The present system of education must simply be continued within that open area, as the report also indicates very clearly. Group rights are recognised at present, but in addition, the right of groups to control and manage the education of their youth is not being disputed for a single moment either—not by the report nor by the Government. The right of the individual to make a choice between the options that are made available by the Government are likewise not being disputed at all. With the present education policy we can satisfy all the points of departure as well as all the needs that are being pursued by the different population groups, within such an open area that can come into existence. The State schools within such an open area would be able to offer White pupils the opportunity to receive their education according to language groups, if at all practically possible. This is how we are offering it at present—mother-tongue education, mother-tongue schools, single-medium schools and parallel-medium schools. In contrast, pupils of other population groups, if at all practically possible, can without any problem go and establish their own schools within that same open area as well.

There is also a third possibility, namely that private schools can also offer the opportunity in those open areas to specific cultural and religious groups to manage their own schools as they are already doing throughout the country. The principles and the recognition of the provision of service as applicable in private schools at present can be maintained in exactly the same way within those private schools which are possibly going to establish themselves in such an open area.

There is therefore no problem in continuing with the present system in open areas. The last reply which the hon member is looking for, I can also give him. If there is an own school for a particular people in an adjoining area it will be possible for pupils who belong to that population group to receive their education in that school as well. [Interjections.] There is therefore no problem preventing this from taking place in the same way in open areas as it is taking place at present.

Ducking and diving!

Welcome to the 19th century!

I want to conclude by saying there is therefore no clash of principles between those that underlie the report and those which I pointed out and those on which the South African educational system rests at present. This fact of life is underlined by the finding of the Committee of the President’s Council:

The fundamental basis is healthy and the legal framework is cast-iron. I am only being realistic when I say that this does not mean that there will not be any problems. There will be problems. [Interjections.] Like the practical problems that we have within the education system at present, none of those problems, however, will be insoluble. There is no difference. I accept this challenge, too, with confidence. My department also has a proven record of sophisticated service, sensitive service, service to our young people, but also service to the young people of other population groups. In all humility I want to say that my department also has the necessary knowledge and expertise, and also the deep compassion to transform this challenge into golden opportunities, not only for us, but for everyone who lives in this country.

Mr Speaker, at the very beginning of his speech the hon the Minister of Education and Culture made the statement that certain hon members on this side of the House delivered prepared speeches which bore no relevance to what the hon the State President said. However, if one were to look at the speech he has just made, one would see that he referred continually to the report of the President’s Council. It seems to me that his statement was particularly politically dishonest. It seems to me that his speech was prepared before the hon the State President spoke.

Hear, hear!

That is precisely what I should like to debate this afternoon—the political dishonesty of that side of the House with regard to the state of affairs concerning the Group Areas Act.

This report of the President’s Council and the view of the hon the State President has the potential of exploding in the face of the NP in the future; and I say that because total lack of credibility is the order of the day in both. Before and during the election they even had to go to the length of hiding the report from the voters. It even had to be referred back to the President’s Council because the last thing they wanted was for the voters to read the report, because if they had done that, the NP would never have won as many seats or attracted as many voters as it in fact did. [Interjections.] Where on earth will one still find a government, except this Government in South Africa, that takes part in such an important election and does not make public in advance information in connection with the Group Areas Act, which is central to the election? The hon Minister of National Education must tell us honestly today whether he knew what this report of the President’s Council contained before the election took place. Let him tell us. I am looking him in the eye, but I am getting no reply. [Interjections.]

Let the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning tell us whether he had the privilege of studying this report although we, on this side of the House, did not have that privilege. [Interjections.] Let them also tell us now once and for all whether they stand by that pitfall of “we support open residential areas as far as possible”. Let them tell us now whether they told the present Leader of the Official Opposition at the time what they meant by the things they are now casting in his teeth. They told him, “You know that if you endorse this, you are actually endorsing open residential areas? [Interjections.] Of course that is absolutely untrue, Mr Speaker. In South African politics this is scandalous, and the NP will pay the price for this scandalous politics. [Interjections.]

Let us now look at some opinions that were given before the recent election. I am referring to November 1981. That side of the House will probably say now that that was very long ago, but naturally one should respect what the Government of the hon the State President of one’s country says. In November 1981 the hon the State President said:

However, when we look at page 101 of the report of the President’s Council—and hon members must appreciate that we have done our homework—we read that the President’s Council states that their proposals tamper with the principle of the initial Group Areas Act. However, the hon the State President says that it will be a different Prime Minister to him who will tamper with this principle. Nevertheless today he said in this House: “I am tampering with the principle; so there! What are you going to do about it?”

However, we are telling him very clearly that this side of the House has no alternative but to tell the people. We shall tell the people, and hon members may be assured that we shall do so from platform to platform. [Interjections.] We shall do it in Standerton, and we shall do it in the forthcoming general election. [Interjections.] We shall tell the people that they are being misled in this way.

I should like to pause for a moment at what the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning said at Henneman. According to the report in Die Volksblad, he said:

Subsequently he made a speech here today that I cannot reconcile with the attitude taken by the hon the State President. This confused prattle is the greatest political swindle in South Africa’s political history.

This is served up to the voters in the form of attractively sugared pills, but in effect the situation is that in the past the NP has never accepted mixed areas, grey areas or open areas. Now in this debate, in this report, and in this view of the hon the State President, they accept open residential areas. That is a deviation from the principle, and we are not going to leave any stone unturned on this point. We shall tell the voters day in and day out that they were deceived about this in the election of 6 May.

They have no conscience! [Interjections.]

We should also like to point out the consequences of this view taken by the hon the State President. It cannot now be absolutely denied—I want the hon the Minister of National Education to deny it—that the way has been prepared for mixed city councils. It cannot now be denied that because residential areas are being opened, the way is being prepared for mixed voters’ rolls in a general election or any by-election. [Interjections.] I want to present a logical argument. If there is an open residential area in a constituency, and the constituency consists of a number of residential areas, at least one of which will probably be open—if we can believe the NP today—there will inevitably be mixed voters’ rolls. The hon the State President has said on more than one occasion—and I thought I could take him seriously this time—“I have always advocated own voters’ rolls for each population group.” However, today the logical conclusion of his view is mixed voters’ rolls.

The hon the State President said on another occasion: “People must vote where they live.” Sir, if they must vote where they live, it means that the way is being prepared for mixed voters’ rolls, and for a State President who will not come from the White group. We are convinced of that, just as surely as we are sitting in this House today.

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

I do not have time for questions.

The hon the Minister of National Education said the following: “We are leaving the CP in this House far behind today in taking this step.” We want to tell him—and we are saying it in no obscure language—he must know that we are going to tell the voters about it, and that it is his responsibility when we say this—that he legalising the existence and residence of a conglomeration of mixed individuals by means of this step. He is no longer upholding the ethnic principle. He has departed from that today, and we shall also tell the voters this.

Long ago! [Interjections.]

The hon the State President says that in the report of the President’s Council international examples and examples of international literature has been followed. Our point of view is clear. We would rather follow the examples of our own people, the national identity, because then we know that we are on the same track as the one taken by our forefathers. [Interjections.] The hon the State President also said in today’s debate—I should very much like us to pause at this and consider this statement—summary repeal will give rise to more problems in the short term. In other words, repeal will give rise to no problems in the long term. This is the logical conclusion. [Interjections.]

Moreover the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Aid said in this debate that there has never been an absolute division in residential areas in South Africa. I want to tell him today that there has never been open residential areas. Does he think that we are so stupid that he had to stress own residential areas on his part today, while the hon the State President referred to open residential areas? I have already dealt with this question of equivocation. We invite him to repeat his statement in Standerton. We invite him to meet us in an election in 1989 on the view of the hon the State President. We are asking him who will be their candidate in Standerton.

Hendrik Schoeman!

Does he know that the official NP candidate took to his heels before the previous election? We are asking the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether they are going to postpone the local government elections, as was proposed at Naboomspruit at the municipal association. We want a reply in this debate to the question whether they are going to postpone it or not. [Interjections.]

I quote the words of the hon the State President: “A different leader will have to repeal the principle of group areas.” I say this today with respect, but I feel called upon to say this. [Interjections.] He occupies two constitutional positions. We are asking him, respectfully but urgently, to resign because of his own words. The only remaining question is whether he can still leave honourably. We feel it would be preferable for him to go before he sells our native soil for a mess of pottage. [Interjections.] We feel it would be preferable for him to go before he buys the box of chocolates to give to Hendrickse to prepare the way for an integrated South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to turn to the hon the State President, and I do so with respect. [Interjections.] To him, who grew up at the feet of Dr Malan…

Order! I should merely like to point out to the hon member that in this House, as in other Houses, hon members must be referred to as hon members, and not by their surnames.

He has no respect!

The hon the State President, who grew up at the feet of Dr Malan, has now turned away from him. He has turned his back on that history. Does he still remember the words of Dr Malan:

May I now add to that: Throw open the Group Areas Act as well, as has taken place here today.

The hon the State President must know that we will make the necessary arrangements with a firm hand to guarantee the survival of the Whites in South Africa, and the survival of the Whites is not dependent on today’s debate. We will protect the survival of the Whites with everything at our disposal, and we will not be intimidated by the NP, which is now in control. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Losberg made quite an interesting admission this afternoon. The hon member spoke about the by-election in Standerton. Surely that is a blatant admission by the hon member that that hon member’s friend has contravened the Electoral Act. [Interjections.] That is a blatant admission, Sir. That election is not even in progress yet. [Interjections.]

And he is a lawyer!

That hon member has got into the habit of always speaking in the superlative degree about political dishonesty and fraud, credibility gaps and scandalous politics. After listening to this debate this afternoon, I want to tell the hon member that that is not going to help them at all, because they have no go left in them. As far as their “political dishonesty” is concerned, the chickens have come home to roost, Sir. They told the electorate that the Group Areas Act would be abolished if this Government took office after 6 May. That is why they find themselves in their present situation. They have no arguments; they have painted themselves into a corner and they are disappointed. Mr Speaker,…

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that I am considering whether or not the reference to political dishonesty is parliamentary. I shall have certainty about that tomorrow morning, but at this stage I want to ask hon members not to refer to hon members’ so-called political dishonesty. There was also a reference to a party as being politically dishonest and I shall consider both aspects, but I request hon members’ co-operation in giving me an opportunity to gain greater clarity on this tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, I shall refrain from using those words.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we are probably dealing with one of the most important socio-political issues of the day today. We on this side of the House want to compliment the Government on the clear standpoint they have adopted. It is surprising that the hon member for Ermelo, who is the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman, could accuse the Government of being vague. I want to tell the hon member that we know this hon State President. If there is one thing of which we cannot accuse the hon the State President, it is that he is vague and speaks ambiguously when he states a standpoint. [Interjections.] There are very few people who do not know exactly where they stand with the hon the State President. The hon the State President left no doubt today about his standpoint or the standpoint of the NP. He once again let a very clear point of departure emerge this afternoon, viz the basic point of departure of the NP, who still believe that individual and group rights in the South African context can be protected best within an own community context.

The electorate understood on 6 May this year what we had been saying to them. The NP has always maintained the approach that every population group has the inalienable right to protect its own way of life in the first place, to develop it in the second, and in the third to transfer it to coming generations, thus protecting and preserving its own unique identity.

But the NP has never hesitated to moderate its idealism with the realities of the day. This discussion today is another good example of how the Government acts when it has to deal with a problem.

You have not always believed that, Andre!

South Africa, with its complex diversity of people, is experiencing a changing community as well as a changing socio-economic climate. That is why it is essential to consider the Group Areas Act from time to time as has been done over the years. That is precisely what we are doing once again in this case.

It is very clear that a reconciliation is necessary as far as the problem facing us is concerned. In the case under discussion, I want to use the concepts used in the report of the President’s Council. It mentions the statutory protection aspect, the established rights of the Whites, the fears of being swamped and crowded out, the loss of a standard of living and values, as well as a degree of prejudice—this is probably true—among one part of our population with regard to the statutory compulsion aspect, as the President’s Council report refers to it, and the finality thereof, the exclusion of exclusivity and the frustration of the restriction of another part of the population. This demands creative thought from the Government. It demands rational consideration from the Government. It also demands realism and a recognition of reality. This we find in the Government’s standpoint as it has emerged here today.

The hon member for Green Point claimed here this afternoon that “established rights” were based merely on race, and that that amounted to racial prejudice. We find proof of the simple arguments of this hon member in the standpoint of the electorate. That is why his party came back here with only the few people they have in this House at the moment.

In a debate such as this one, one is deeply impressed by the realisation that without the NP chaos would be South Africa’s fate. [Interjections.] Yes, chaos! I want to tell the hon member for Ermelo that these people are simply not prepared to recognise the realities of South Africa’s situation. You know, Sir, the hon members of the CP remind me of an old man who got home late one night—drunk as a lord. His wife asked him where he had been, and he replied: “But you know which dinner I attended.” His wife said: “I had a look at your diary. That dinner is only tomorrow night.” He said: “You can say what you like; I am sticking to my story.” [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon members of the CP are like, Sir. [Interjections.] They are not prepared to face the realities. They stick to their story, whether it is true or not.

I want to raise a further point. The hon member for Ermelo said here this afternoon that the PFP and the CP were both right. Of course I understand the hon member’s argument. He was arguing from the point of view that there are only two answers for South Africa: Either total segregation or total integration. That is what the hon member meant, not so? He meant total segregation or total integration. That is how simplistically that hon member argues.

The hon the Leader of the House asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who has been exceptionally quiet during this debate, whether his party stood for full segregation, and whether he still stood by the 1981 manifesto, in which we all said an own community life should be maintained where possible. I want to present the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with a standpoint from a second book of which the hon member for Ermelo is co-author. This book is called Witman, waar is jou vryheid? It was published by Oranje Promosies in 1985, only two years ago. I want to read only one paragraph from it to hon members.

That is good reading matter!

Yes, that is a good book!

I quote, Sir:

Listen to what else he says. I quote:

[Interjections.] Group areas is no solution! That hon member therefore advocates total segregation in South Africa. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to tell us and the electorate whether his party stands for full segregation. If people of other races are going to remain in the so-called White homeland, according to the hon member for Ermelo the Group Areas Act is no solution. The hon member must give us a further reply to this question at a later occasion.

If we leave this delicate matter, this problem that the Government has to contend with, to the CP with its surrogate organisations such as the AWB, the Afrikaner-volkswag, Sabra and other right-wing alliances, or the colleagues and friends here on the right-hand side, the PFP, with their left-wing appendages, the ANC, the SA Communist Party, the UDF, Idasa and other left-wing elements, one wonders what would happen without the NP.

On a point of order. Mr Speaker: Is it parliamentary to level the accusation at a party in this House that the ANC is an “aanhangsel” of that party? [Interjections.]

Who said that? [Interjections.]

It may be very funny to you, because you have a strange sense of humour, but I am taking a point of order.

Order! Is the hon member addressing me or another hon member?

I am trying to address you, Sir, while other hon members are interrupting.

Order! To which hon member did the hon member refer?

The hon member for Umlazi.

Order! A point of order is being taken. Which hon member made the remark to which the hon member for Yeoville was referring?

I did not make any remark.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville referred to the hon member for Umlazi. Does the hon member for Umlazi have any knowledge of what is being referred to?

Mr Speaker, I did not open my mouth. [Interjections.]

Sir, if they make a noise without opening their mouths, it is a fascinating thing that is happening. [Interjections.] May I please take my point of order?

Order! What is the hon member’s point of order, and to whom is the hon member referring?

With respect, Sir, you are confusing two issues. The one is that I took a point of order in respect of the hon member for Turffontein, who alleged that the ANC was an “aanhangsel” of the PFP. I am saying…

Order! I have got the point.

*I want to know from the hon member for Turffontein what he said.

Mr Speaker, I shall tell you exactly what I said. I said: “If we leave this delicate matter to the PFP, with its left-wing appendages such as the ANC, the SA Communist Party, the UDF, Idasa and other left-wing organisations”.

That’s right. Then the SA Communist Party is also included.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville…

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member wants me to consider his point of order, he must give me an opportunity to do so.

*I think the hon member for Turffontein went a little too far. I do not think it is correct to refer to “those left-wing appendages” of a particular party in this House, and I should appreciate it if the hon member would withdraw that reference.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that reference.

Order! The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Speaker, one is not surprised, however, to hear this emotional explosion for short-term party political benefit in right-wing ranks, and the naive stating of standpoints by left-wingers is merely an attempt to embarrass the NP Government. That is a pity, because they are simply not putting forward any viable alternatives for us to debate.

Allow me to discuss a few practical proposals. The hon member for Pietersburg must listen; perhaps we can assist him, or else he must go and read the report and read the statement made by the hon the State President this afternoon once again. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House support the Government with its principle that apart from the general pattern of own residential areas for each population group, provision must also be made in certain cases for open residential areas in which all population groups can live.

A clear distinction is being drawn when it comes to the idea of open areas, viz between existing residential areas on the one hand and new residential areas on the other. In my opinion this approach of the Government accommodates the existing interests that exist in South Africa, as well as the aspirations and demands of other people in South Africa.

The problem questions can be expressed in three questions. The first is how one controls the infiltration into existing residential areas. The second is what procedure should be followed in opening the so-called open areas, and the third is how one determines the nature of completely new areas in South Africa? The Government is addressing these problems very clearly.

What are the realities of South Africa? South Africa cannot escape the Third World problems of Africa south of the Sahara. These are things such as the population explosion, the economic backlog, the lack of sufficient job opportunities and the backlog in education, which all contribute to the critical shortage of housing in South Africa. In our opinion the main problem that should be addressed is the inadequate availability of land for normal township development for people of other races. In addition there is the overprovision of White housing which leads to owners of buildings being forced for purely economic reasons to use the increasing demand for housing among people of other races to obtain revenue from their capital investment. These are the hard facts and realities that we have to consider.

The pressure on existing residential areas with established rights such as a character peculiar to that community can only be relieved in an orderly way by the standpoints stated by the Government today.

The implications associated with the opening of certain areas include the implication of education in the first place. We on this side of the House welcome the standpoint that there will still be own schools for the various communities in South Africa. Is that really such a problem? Let us look at this simplistically. There are open residential areas for Whites everywhere in South Africa. Yet there are English-speaking schools, Afrikaans-speaking schools and in Johannesburg there is also a Deutsche Schule to which German-speaking children from miles away attend, in the open residential areas for Whites. This German school is in the constituency of the hon member for Houghton.

Private schools!

Yes, they are private schools, but that is what the hon the State President said.

We also welcome the standpoint in respect of a comprehensive investigation into the voting arrangements on local government level in proposed open areas in particular. This is very important, because the CP is trying its utmost to make political capital out of this. We advise the Government to use its time. We on this side of the House will also think about the matter and try to find solutions. Instead of those hon members criticising us, they should tell us what their solutions are. They are not going to talk the facts and the realities in South Africa away with their arguments.

Another very important question that we should consider—we are very grateful to the Government for this—is the people’s concern about the interim period. The Government’s standpoint is being made known and expectations are being created. One wants to issue a warning that purposeful exploitation, particularly by left-wing elements who are creating sentiments for infiltration and are encouraging estate agents to ignore the provisions of the Group Areas Act or telling people to ignore the action of the Government, as the hon member for Green Point does, will not be tolerated. The hon member for Green Point addressed a group of estate agents in Johannesburg a few days ago. I quote from a report in The Star of 1 October:

I hope the hon member is satisfied with what the Government told him, because no one can have any doubt about that any more. He went on to say, however, and this is the crux of the matter:

He then said the following:

This was followed by the hon member’s recommendation to the people. He said:

I think we should warn people against this kind of action. The hon member knows what happened to Mr McIntosh who did not want to attend an army camp. We shall set the hon member for Yeoville onto him very quickly. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, this debate which the public might have listened to with high hopes has turned out to be a field day for the “verkramptes” in the NP. [Interjections.] It has been a field day for them, but a very sad day for South Africa and an absolute defeat for the remaining “verligtes” within the NP who believed that one day the NP would abandon the Group Areas Act.

Two weeks ago hundreds of thousands of South Africans were disappointed with the let-down of the President’s Council’s report. It did not live up to expectations. I believe that today the hon the State President has made sure that that report is an absolute damp squib. We have seen in the hon the State President today perhaps a little conservatism in relation to his own standpoint, but in terms of the dynamics of South African politics a retreat before the “verkrampte” onslaught of the CP.

Once again the hon the State President has simply failed to cross his political Rubicon, and here South Africa is stranded on the critical issue of the Group Areas Act. The tone has been set with people praising the concept of racial separation and the hon the Leader of the House talking about the credit side of the Group Areas Act.

Let us recall that the predominantly NP committee signed a report which said:

Can there be any stronger condemnation coming from fourteen people on the President’s Council who are members of the NP? Yet there is still the silent defence of the concept of the Group Areas Act in South Africa!

*The hon the Minister of National Education has once again performed a kind of skilful eggdance. When the NP wants to abolish apartheid it says it is moving away from discrimination, but when it does not want to do away with apartheid, it says that should it do away with apartheid, forced integration would ensue.

Today was once again a day for forced integration. There is no forced integration in churches; it takes place on a voluntary basis. There is no forced integration in our hotels, restaurants, libraries, in the field of sport, the business world, the professions or our trade unions. Is this forced integration because there is no forced apartheid? Is forced integration the only alternative to forced apartheid? Have hon members on the other side not yet heard of the concept of free association? There is free association in all these spheres. On this occasion, because the hon the Minister does not want to move away from apartheid, he says it is forced integration.

†The hon the State President set the tone. In spite of the fact that he was instrumental for the report of the President’s Council being sent back twice and being held over for more than a year, once again he has failed to cross his Rubicon. He has ducked the critical issues identified even by that rather timid report of the President’s Council.

They said that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act should be abolished, and they have given the reasons for it. The hon the State President has not even accepted the principle of abolishing the Act. He said that there was going to be uncertainty with regard to the law. He knows what the law is in this regard. He knows full well that the only right that is enshrined in the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is the right to discriminate. When that right is taken away, it will mean that people are not able to discriminate.

He says we must investigate it to see that there is no uncertainty in law. In fact, what he is implying is that they have to manufacture a new way of discriminating in order to get round the law of separation and apartheid.

Separate and unequal!

In the next instance the committee recommends the opening up of all land and property occupied or owned by various races for industrial, business, commercial and professional purposes. There was no reaction to this opening up as recommended without any reservation in the report of this committee.

Then we get the question of the so-called grey areas. I do not think that the committee suggested an appropriate method, but even the concept of local option whereby local communities will be able to decide, albeit fraught with difficulties, is brushed aside. No, Sir, there is going to be continuing central Government control over group areas in South Africa, and instead of the Group Areas Board there is now going to be a “raad van deskundiges”. I thought all those people were “deskundiges”. What do they have to be? “Deskundiges” on racism? If somebody is a “deskundige” on town-planning, there does not need to be a racial connotation. So, we are going to get “deskundiges” on racism in South Africa to determine whether there should be open areas or not. This is going to be another group areas board.

Then he says we are not going to do this until we have found a new system of franchise. However, the committee was advised to find a new system of franchise. Why has the Government not found that new system of franchise? They have been fiddling around with recommendations for changing the Group Areas Act ever since 1981. The hon the State President knows that it is not just a question of franchise; it is a question of rates and taxes and local authorities. He knows that as South Africa forcibly gets rid of the Group Areas Act—because the Group Areas Act will go—so the whole concept of a constitution based on own affairs on a geographic basis is going to collapse. And he is not prepared to face the consequences of that.

However, even when he says there can possibly be open areas, this cannot happen until the “deskundige” committee has recommended it; until it has been to the Ministers’ Council; until it has been to the hon the State President—in fact, not until we have devised new systems of local government franchise etc, but we must bear in mind that established rights have to be maintained. But who created those established rights? He was the father of the Group Areas Act; the only remaining member of those responsible for the original Group Areas Act which destroyed mixed communities and established new racial vested interests. Then, with utter cynicism and sophistry, they say “Yes, we will do these things but we have to take into account the very racist self-interest which we as the NP have nurtured and created over the past 37 years.”

They carry on and say that the one thing they do accept, of course, is the concept of separate schools. That is easy because it involves no change. So, Sir, this debate today has shown that there has been no progress. Separate schools are going to be entrenched. There is a possibility of open areas under a series of stringent conditions—provided that vested interests are taken into account; that the committee of experts recommends it; that the Ministers’ Council agrees; that the hon the State President agrees; and that one day we have a new voting system for local government.

This is the progress we are making in South Africa today, a South Africa in which the Group Areas Act has ripped the fabric of our society and turned us into a nation of strangers—strangers towards one another, who no longer see ourselves as allies in South Africa but as adversaries in racism.

Mr Speaker. I listened to the hon the Leader of the PFP, and I want to say at once that he and his party would have made far more of an impression if his members, who served in the President’s Council, had participated in the debate on the report and had given us the benefit of their standpoint. As we have come to expect from that party, when it has responsibilities to meet it avoided its responsibilities and was conspicuous by its absence. His party did not think it proper to participate in the committee’s report and the debate on it, and convince the members of the President’s Council of its standpoints. For that reason the hon member for Sea Point must really not take it amiss of me if I do not devote much attention to the standpoints of him and his party.

The debate today was an important one. I think it is true that we are living in a dynamic community and that we must make our policy adjustments in accordance with the changed circumstances we are experiencing; as a matter of fact, no one is suggesting that we are living in a static society. If this were the case, it would have been the first symptom of total collapse and deterioration. Nothing that does not develop, live and adjust to life can really meet the demands of progress and development.

I want to suggest that whether or not we disagree with one another, this House owes a word of thanks to the members of the President’s Council who were prepared to participate in the debate. The report attests to thorough study, expertise and particularly the fact that the members of that Council held a specific view on the changed circumstances of our fatherland.

I should like to talk to the hon member for Ermelo as well as the hon member for Losberg, who is not here now. We can disagree with one another; as a matter of fact, that is why we belong to different parties, but we must be careful of accusing one another of breach of faith and of political dishonesty. In the light of your remark I shall not pursue the matter further, Mr Speaker.

The hon member for Ermelo accused the hon the State President of a breach of faith. If I understood him correctly, the breach of faith lay in the fact that the hon the State President accepted the recommendation of the President’s Council in respect of the creation of open residential areas. This is the breach of faith of which he is being accused.

Let us look at the Act itself. I assume that the hon member for Ermelo has read the Act and is acquainted with it. What is the implication of an open area as recommended by the President’s Council? If I am interpreting it correctly, it is a residential area within which members of the different population groups or races live. This would be a simple definition.

According to the hon member for Ermelo the acceptance of this is a breach of faith. Surely the hon member knows that since the Act was passed, members of different population groups have lived together in the same residential areas in controlled areas. As a matter of fact, I want to inform the hon member that members of his party have addressed representation for permits in terms of that Act. [Interjections.] In terms of the Act as it reads today, it was legally possible and it did happen in practice that people of different population groups lived in the same residential area.

Because you allow it.

The hon member made a very interesting remark. He should rather speak to his own leader because he has had occasion to make use of that permit authority. Nobody wants to hold that against him, because he was confronted with the responsibility of government at that stage.

Surely that is the forged document you are referring to.

I did not interrupt the hon member.

I want to pursue the matter. Surely the hon member knows that the only difference between agreeing to an open area and the controlled area which worked by means of a permit system, is that the people have a statutory right to go and live in an open area. Why is the hon member therefore arguing his case by making a false accusation against the hon the State President? After all, we do not win debates in this way, let alone the country outside. Is it not true that in spite of the criticism against it, the principle of the Group Areas Act and its implementation has provided thousands of South Africans with housing and property which they would otherwise never have had?

Why not, if…

I shall reply to that question now. The fact of the matter is that this Act did the most for the poorest people. It gave the underprivileged people property which the market mechanism would never have provided. This does not mean to say that I am arguing that this Act is perfect. The fact that we referred it for investigation proves that it is not perfect.

I want to go further. The statement which we frequently hear, namely that only the Whites benefited from this Act, is a false premise. As a matter of fact other communities are asking for protection for their own residential areas and schools. [Interjections.] These are communities other than the Whites. All I want is for us to stick to the facts when we discuss these matters with one another.

This is an emotional topic. When different nations and races and groups inhabit the same country, the potential for conflict is high, particularly because the presence of different races and people stimulates group action. When different groups inhabit the same country, there are also groups seeking power. Then the individual frequently finds security in the group context, but then the group definition must be used in a positive sense and not to discriminate against other people and to prejudice some while benefitting others. This is the crux of the matter.

I want to go further. Let us consider the hon member for Sea Point’s speech for a moment. In the debate he maintained that the Groups Areas Act had been included in the Statute Book for the sake of discrimination and racial prejudice. However, he does not listen when one replies to him. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is, the NP does not make assessments—it assessed the report of the President’s Council in this way too—on the basis of the policy standpoints of the Official Opposition or the PFP. It did not assess the report in terms of their extremist standpoints or reactions from one side or the other. The NP assessed the report in terms of its programme of principles and its policies in regard to the implementation of that programme from time to time.

That is why the NP is not apologizing for not wanting to accommodate the Official Opposition or the PFP, because it has another responsibility, namely not only to talk politics, but to regulate conditions in the country in a dangerous world in such a way that we can achieve optimum co-operation and peace within the borders of our country. No-one will suggest that this is an easy task. The Official Opposition, just like the PFP, reacted predictably to this report. I do not think it was even necessary to listen to the hon members. We knew what they were going to say.

That is a good testimonial!

It is not a good testimonial. If one walks backwards into the future, facing the past, that is not a testimonial. [Interjections.] That is what that hon member is doing.

I am proud of it!

The hon member says he is proud that he is walking backwards into the future. That is why he is stumbling along, because he cannot see where he is going. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the extreme standpoints we have also heard today with different nuances. The hon member for Sea Point’s party says abolish and demolish, ignore the established group rights and throw open and forget about the consequences. The PFP implies that this is a homogeneous country, and that all the individuals have precisely the same aspirations. It also implies that the country can be governed on the basis of such an oversimplified approach.

You are implying that in South West!

I now come to the hon member for Ermelo and his party. This is the other extreme we are dealing with, namely that those hon members allege that we have an exclusively White world, in which there should only be place for the Whites, and preferably the Afrikaners, and that all the other people must seek refuge in their own fatherland. I want to tell him that there has never been an exclusively White land in South Africa.

Did Dr Verwoerd not say that?

I also want to say that there will never be one either, and the sooner we learn to work together with the country as it is, the better it will be for all the people who live here. [Interjections.] I also want to maintain that it is possible for different nations and population groups to live together in harmony within the borders of the same country on the basis of good neighbourliness, understanding and respect for one another, and recognition of everyone’s rights in the same fatherland.

I should like to say this today. I unreservedly support the concept of own interests, but on the other hand I also want to say that we must obviously attach more importance to general interests. I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg that, in the words of the song he quoted, I am not ashamed to say that we must build the future together. As a matter of fact, I want to say that if we do not build it together, an uncertain future probably awaits us. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not like to turn South Africa into a homogeneous land. I do not think there is anyone who would not have preferred this country to be a country inhabited by only one people.

Oh, nonsense!

I am not referring to that hon member now; I am talking about the rest. [Interjections.] This can happen, because we know that the regulating process is far easier in a homogeneous country than in other countries. No-one can dispute that. The only difference is this is not a homogeneous country. The characteristic of this country is variety; that is what it is known for, and few countries in the world have been able to maintain the system we are striving for in a country with such great variety.

And you lot discovered it in 1985.

No, Sir, we have been working on it for 40 years now. [Interjections.] I shall get to that in a moment. I want to know whether there is anything wrong with that. The hon member for Lichtenburg worked with me on it.

He saw the light!

With me he saw the realities in respect of citizenship and links with the national states. Let us not quarrel with one another.

[Inaudible]

That is true, Sir. He did work with me on that. However, I want to maintain that both parties are wrong. Both are ignoring those facts which do not suit their policy. What about the NP? Let us take a look. Most hon members will understand this. Since 1915 the NP has constantly drawn up plans of action on the basis of its programme of principles in order to realise those principles. Of course those plans of action, those strategies, changed from time to time, as the specific circumstances changed.

To such an extent that you are now heading in the direction you used to oppose!

I shall get around to that hon member in a moment.

Under the leadership of the hon the Chief Leader of the NP, the programme of action was incorporated in the so-called twelve point plan. I do not want to score a political point with what I am saying now, but this was both our plan and that of the Official Opposition. On the basis of that plan the reform process developed under the leadership of the hon the State President. Whether or not we agree with him is not the point, but the reform process was based on that. On that basis—it is not complete or final—this reform developed in a manner unprecedented in the history of this country.

The question now arises whether the tempo is being maintained. Let us consider this for a moment. I want to remind the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the twelve point plan was agreed to in 1979 by all the congresses of the NP, including the congress which he himself led. When the twelve point plan formed the plan of action of the NP in 1980 in the general election, it contained the signatures of all four of the provincial leaders of the NP.

Did you say then that it would be open areas?

If the hon member will just give me a chance, I shall reply to him on that. [Interjections.]

Supplementary to the twelve point plan, the NP congress accepted specific proposals in Durban last year, and on the basis of those proposals we won the election.

We had left the NP by then!

Yes, that is of course true.

Order! The hon the Minister is replying to this debate under difficult circumstances, and I want to make a friendly appeal to all hon members to assist him.

The proposals were agreed to and endorsed by all the provincial congresses of the NP. Let us consider the hon members who are in favour of it, for example the hon member for Turffontein, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and the hon the Minister of National Education. There was, after all, not an unqualified statement of absolute separation of residential areas. That is not contained in the programme. Surely that programme did not contain an absolute standpoint that there had to be an absolute separation of residential areas; on the contrary, it took the fact into account that this was not the case and that there were areas in which people lived together. It took the fact into account that such residential areas would be needed in future. That official document emphasised what the report of the President’s Council emphasised, namely the general rule that we were in favour of own residential areas for the groups. However, we also understand that in our country, as is the case in other countries, there are people who do not want that protection.

That is not the principle!

Of course! [Interjections.]

The report of the President’s Council points out that here, as in other countries, there is a natural grouping so that people of the same group live together. Besides that grouping, there are, however, also other people, also in our country, who have other wishes or standpoints in this connection, and for that reason provision must be made for them.

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

No, I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

However, the President’s Council also accepted the de facto situation that there are already residential areas which are open by way of a permit, which have to be rectified by statute. The President’s Council therefore accepted the principle of own residential areas as a general point of departure and pattern of life for our country, but that provision will have to be made in specific areas for open residential areas, where the circumstances require it. Now I am asking the hon member for Ermelo whether it was a breach of faith to acknowledge this factual situation.

Yes, after all, there are many people there who do not want this.

No, I am getting around to that. We can deal with this in a moment if the hon member will just keep quiet now.

The hon member cannot get away from the fact that he and we foresaw that there were areas which would have to be thrown open. However, what does “as far as is possible” mean?

Are they open areas?

No, as far as is possible they will be closed areas, and the other areas are the exceptions.

The qualification in the NP’s programme of “where at all possible” recognises the reality which I have just referred to. It recognises the reality of Woodstock, of Salt River and of Mayfair. It also recognises the reality of Hillbrow, and wants to create mechanisms to deal with these situations.

And Suurbekom?

Yes, in any case that hon member will still come to regret it. After all, mixed occupation did occur.

Further on the report of the committee of the President’s Council also recommended nothing more and nothing less than that we had to give effect to this de facto situation, or this reality, in our legislation. Nothing more and nothing less was recommended. It is accepted that areas do exist which can be defined as open.

Why?

Because they exist!

How did they originate?

Because people went and lived together in the same residential area, and with permits in terms of the Act which that hon member supported. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I maintain that in accordance with future needs more such areas will develop, and every government must make provision for that kind of reality.

That is why you are throwing everything open!

Divergent circumstances, particularly in the large cities of South Africa, are such that the fact must be recognised that there are certain cases and circumstances in terms of which own residential areas are simply not possible and, I want to emphasise this, are not wanted by the residents either.

Where are they?

Order! I think the hon member for Lichtenburg has now made interjections for long enough. He must please contain himself for the next couple of minutes. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The party’s congress formulated the group security definition as follows:

This is yet again a document which the hon member himself supported.

I should like to comment on the speech of the hon member for Randburg, although he is not here. He simply brushed aside the concept of the protection of established rights. However, the fact is that the implementation of that Act created rights. Those rights were not created for one population group only, but for everyone. If a government is not prepared to maintain rights, it is not worthwhile for it to govern. We are therefore not apologising for the fact that in the approach to the report we accept the principle of the protection of established rights until people themselves want to forfeit them. In 1981 the NP gave the voters this undertaking, but it also did so in the recent election on 6 May. In our manifesto our endeavours indicated that the maintenance of White rights was a prerequisite for the maintenance of the rights of other population groups. The statement I should like to make which apparently did not dawn on hon members on that side of the House, is that there can be no suggestion of the maintenance of White rights without the maintenance of the rights of other peoples.

Nobody disagrees with you on that!

However, on the other hand we will never be able to maintain other rights either by trampling on and destroying White rights. The one is a prerequisite for the other.

Furthermore the committee recommends in its report that those persons who want to be protected must be protected. Therefore those persons who want to be protected in their residential areas must be protected. However, I want to say that a person who does not want to be protected will not be protected under any law. If the hon members of the Official Opposition therefore want to implement their philosophy, they must lodge an appeal for those people who want their rights protected. However, we cannot continue to protect people in terms of the Act who want to adopt another lifestyle of their own free will. That is why the principle contained in the report in this regard is acceptable. I am quoting from the committee’s report:

In consequence of the report and its own standpoints, the Government will take the logical steps by coming up with legislation to give effect to this. Legal protection will therefore be given to those residents and owners who accept their own residential areas. This legal protection will also apply where open areas are established.

Hon members referred to franchise. The committee of the President’s Council worked on its report for 18 months, and proposed four alternatives. We nevertheless want to maintain that those four alternatives are not the only alternatives. The only prerequisite is that franchise, whatever pattern it may assume, may not in any way change or harm the party’s standpoint at national level. This appears in the statement by the hon the State President. When statutory amendments have to be made, we will obviously have to adopt the same course which we adopt with all legislation at local government level, namely to refer it to the Co-ordinating Council on Local Government Affairs.

I want to put a question to the hon member for Pietersburg. The hon member was his party’s spokesman on all the local government legislation which came before the House of Assembly, yet to this day we do not know what standpoint the Official Opposition adopted with regard to its own committee’s investigation into local government. To this day we do not know this. Indeed, their chief spokesman on local government affairs left the party, quite possibly as a result of an inability to adopt a standpoint in this specific connection.

Which chief spokesman?

Mr Fanie Ferreira.

What was his price? [Interjections.]

That is a disgraceful remark! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Barberton that remark was unbefitting of him. [Interjections.] Sir, it was unbefitting of him because nobody said the same thing to him…

Why are you now so hurt?

Does the hon member for Brakpan know why? It is because that hon member is a lawyer. He knows the man is not here to defend himself, and now he can slander him in his absence. [Interjections.]

You are trying to argue about the concept.

Order!

But why did you drag Fanie Ferreira’s name into this?

I want to tell the hon member for Barberton that it was unbefitting of him. It is befitting of other hon members sitting behind him, but it is unbefitting of him. [Interjections.]

Of course long processes of negotiation will still have to take place before we take a final decision.

In conclusion I just want to say the following. The hon the State President has placed us on a course which no one can change. [Interjections.]

Oh, yes?

All that can happen is that we can continue on this course. I therefore want to tell hon members of the Official Opposition—I tell myself this frequently—that we cannot do a thing about yesterday. We cannot do a thing about it! We can reproach one another, but we cannot do a thing about it. We can only do something about the future. Let us be orientated to and involved in the future. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I now ask the leave of the House to withdraw my motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr Speaker. I move:

Agreed to.