laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Transvaal, dated 10 September 1987, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, yesterday I submitted the following Bills to Parliament: (a) The Immorality Amendment Bill, 1987; (b) The Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1987; (c) The Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1987.

The Immorality Amendment Bill, 1987, emanates from recommendations of the President’s Council as embodied in its report on the Immorality Act, 1957 (Act No 23, 1957). The proposed amendments to this Bill entail aspects that ought not to be contentious, and accordingly the Government supports them. The idea is therefore that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice for consideration in the normal way.

The amendments to the Law of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1987, and to the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1987, emanate from the recommendations of the South African Law Commission as embodied in its report on women and sexual offences in South Africa. This in turn was preceded by repeated debates in this House in which the Government was requested to examine the fate of victims, particularly women, in specific assault situations.

The proposals embodied in the abovementioned Bill are also supported by the Government and will be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice in the normal way.

The position with regard to the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1987, differs somewhat from that in respect of the other two Bills. The Bill in question contains the following two proposals:

1. (a) In our law a man cannot at present be prosecuted for the rape of his own wife, except as an accessory and also for indecent assault. The Commission came to the conclusion that the existing immunity of the husband is archaic and unjust, and amounts to unequal treatment of the two sexes. Accordingly it is recommended that it be provided that a husband may be prosecuted for the rape of his wife, provided that a prosecution is not instituted without instruction by the Attorney-General.
2. (b) It is also proposed that questions concerning previous sexual experience with persons other than the accused be prohibited, unless grounds for the relevance thereof are advanced in an application made in camera to the presiding officer. This is aimed at sparing rape victims the trauma of testifying in public about their private lives. According to the commission this facet of evidence had previously inhibited women from laying charges.

The recommendation that a man can be prosecuted for the rape of his wife is particularly contentious. This fact is evident from the commission’s report. For example, this aspect elicited the most vehement discussion in the course of a seminar, and when the matter was put to the vote, opinions were equally divided, but for a single vote. The members of the commission were themselves divided on the issue. It was further evident from comments on the commission’s questionnaires and discussions with interested parties that at present there is no unanimity on this aspect, and strong opinions were expressed on both sides. In countries where reform in this regard has been at issue, the rule that a man cannot rape his wife has not been totally abolished but only adapted. Apart from the aspects mentioned, it is also true that the relevant recommendation extends further than the law and may entail far-reaching implications. For example, marital and family relations are at issue here and in view of the heterogeneous nature of South Africa’s population it is possible that such a provision would be experienced and accepted differently by the various population groups.

The proposal that questions concerning previous sexual experience with persons other than the accused be prohibited by statute, also appears to be contentious. Our common law already prohibits such questions and a qualification of the common law on the grounds of the reason advanced by the commission, namely the lack of experience of the law officers, may not be regarded as a convincing argument.

In view of the above the Government takes the view that it cannot lend its unqualified support to the relevant proposals at this stage, nor can it summarily reject them. It is considered that the recommendations require thorough and in-depth consideration and that the aspects to which I have referred should be given special attention. Accordingly it is proposed, as set out in the official notice of proposal, that a joint committee of Parliament be appointed to examine the relevant recommendations. The joint committee will consist of members of the various select committees of the various Houses.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the reaction—I am tempted to call it an attack—of the hon member for Maraisburg to an earlier speech I made about the conditions concerning Suurbekom in my constituency. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Maraisburg more or less said that I was not telling the truth about to the illegal influx of Blacks to, and the associated transgression of the Group Areas Act in, Suurbekom. He also said I was not telling the truth about the detrimental effect this has on that White residential area, or about the detrimental effect this has on the number of pupils attending school and education in general in the Suurbekom Primary School. I should like to reply to his accusations.

As in my earlier speech, I am simply asking for a thorough, in depth investigation, by the Commissioner of Police or officers appointed by him, into the illegal land transactions that are taking place in Suurbekom.

The hon member for Maraisburg is not the only one who is so well-informed about what is happening in Suurbekom; the hon member Dr Geldenhuys is aware of what goes on there too. There can be no question, therefore, of these hon gentlemen, members of this House, being unaware of what is happening there. On the contrary, I indicated on a prior occasion that the hon the Minister was profoundly aware of what goes on there, because representations were made to him. I want to thank him on behalf of the voters in Losberg. He was the only Minister who took the trouble to acknowledge, in writing, the letters addressed to him.

That is ancient history.

Order!

In addition I request that a commission of inquiry be established by the Office of the State President, and another by the Department of Education, to investigate the matter properly.

Should I be wrong and the commission of inquiry proves that the facts in Suurbekom are different from those I presented to this House in my first speech, I would be prepared to take the floor and apologise to this House for having made misrepresentations. If I am proved correct with reference to the facts of this matter, however, the hon member for Maraisburg and the hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys—incidentally he is a very good old friend of mine—should also be prepared to take the floor in this House to apologise for having challenged my explanation. [Interjections.]

In the second place I should like to refer to what the hon member for Maraisburg said in this connection, and I quote:

It just so happens that I am a lawyer and I know when one person is slandering another. I also know when there is justification for bringing certain things to light. I think it is very important to public opinion concerning Suurbekom to bring this to light.

I want to tell the hon member that on three occasions at public political meetings during the election campaign I adopted the same standpoints I have adopted in this House, and I stated the same standpoints about Mr Bartmann and his illegal transactions, which have not been investigated as yet. What is more, I shall do so again, and they can invite Mr Bartmann to that meeting. I shall state the same standpoint there. Perhaps I should make this qualification or perhaps address a friendly invitation to the hon member for Maraisburg to be present on that occasion. He and Mr Bartmann can both come along, and then he can tell those present what Mr Bartmann really does in the divisional management of Maraisburg. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to refer briefly to the ever-increasing squatter problem in South Africa. We put questions in this connection recently. The hon member for Overvaal put a number of questions, and I want to refer briefly to two of his questions to which we received replies. In the first place we now know that after the abolition of influx control in June 1986, 1,301 million squatters flocked into the country and are living in various areas in South Africa. Approximately 850 000 squatters are living illegally in the Transvaal alone.

They were there before influx control was abolished.

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

Yes, I am prepared to reply to a question.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to make sure that I am understanding the hon member correctly. Is he saying that in reply to a question we said that after the abolition of influx control there were 1,3 million squatters?

That is the case at present. I am not saying that this was necessarily the case after the abolition of influx control. [Interjections.] Whether this was after the abolition of influx control or not, I do not think anyone in this Committee can deny that squatting became a real problem in South Africa only after the abolition of influx control. [Interjections.]

What is more, the Cape Town City Council recently published a report, which received wide coverage in the newspapers, stating that the squatter problem was increasing drastically in the Cape, and particularly in Cape Town.

The standpoint of this side of the Committee is very clear. Whether this took place before or after the abolition of influx control, that side of the Committee is responsible for the fact that widespread areas in South Africa are being made the residential areas of squatters who have never lived there before.

In this connection I specifically want to refer once again to my constituency and an area which is known as Wheeler’s Farm. From the replies given to questions put here, it emerged that 8 000 squatters are living on this one farm. What I am telling this Committee is that 8 000 squatters are living on one farm in one constituency in one province. We had a thorough investigation made into this during the election campaign and it was proved that 90% of the squatter problem on Wheeler’s Farm had arisen as a result of the abolition of influx control.

When we look at the legislation that was abolished, we see that all this legislation deals with the abolition of influx control measures. The Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, Act 25 of 1945, was abolished. The old Native Trust and Land Act, Act 18 of 1936, was abolished. The Contributions in respect of Bantu Labour Act, Act 29 of 1972, was abolished. Act 67 of 1964 was also abolished. I can continue in this way.

We want answers to a few questions, because in the report of this hon Minister’s department—I am not quoting from a newspaper article—“reform and the future” is mentioned, and we read in a number of places that the NP is in favour of “orderly urbanisation”.

Hear, hear!

Yes, the hon member may well say, “Hear, Hear”, but in practice this “orderly urbanisation” has become the “disorderly influx” of Blacks to areas which were traditionally reserved for Whites only. [Interjections.]

We want to ask the hon the Minister very clearly today why he is turning our White fatherland into a country that is foreign to our children. [Interjections.] Why does he take part in programmes in which he tells the voters first of all that he is in favour of “orderly urbanisation”, whereas in practice the area is becoming an area which our children will not be able to live in?

Do hon members know what the voters tell us at meetings? They say their areas are completely unsafe. I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the following consequences of what is happening at Wheeler’s Farm in the Losberg constituency. Letters were sent to the hon the Minister about this matter. The area is completely unsafe for the residents as a result of the increase in crime. Those who have toiled hard to build their own houses on sites adjacent to Wheeler’s Farm are finding that the value of their properties has dropped, as much as threefold. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg raised the problem of squatters this afternoon. I want to tell the hon member and his party immediately that if they think this side of the Committee is not concerned about the problem of squatters in South Africa, they are making a mistake. [Interjections.] We are also concerned about it. The question, however, is how we should solve that problem. Our question is what the CP’s solution to that problem is. Must those people be loaded onto trucks and simply dropped somewhere, with those members washing their hands in innocence? The hon member can make his pointedly disparaging remarks about the NP’s orderly policy of urbanisation. We on this side of the Committee should also like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government about this aspect.

There is only one solution. We must identify the necessary land in good time and we must apply the principle accepted by the Government, the one the CP does not want to accept, of right of ownership for Blacks in White South Africa, as we have always referred to this in the past. We must do this. We must identify land and make the well-known “site and service” schemes available in terms of which people, if it is in fact necessary, can squat in an orderly fashion, because no one in the country can afford to supply the Third-World component, which we have to contend with, with normal, conventional housing.

I want to ask the hon member where he was—a long way from this House—when Crossroads was here, despite influx control measures. All the governments in this country have tried to implement influx control, from the time of Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster to the present, under this State President and this Government. It is impossible. We must recognise that problem and accommodate it to the best of our ability.

I shall say nothing further about the hon member’s speech because their politics is typical Rip van Winkel politics so suited to the hon members of the Official Opposition, because when it suits them, they are very quick to point out that they are a new party, that they have a new set of objectives and principles and that from time to time they also make amendments to those objectives and principles.

When they criticise the Government’s standpoint and NP policy, however, it is so easy to return to on the argument of who said what and when. Then the statements made by Dr D F Malan, Adv J G Strydom, Dr H F Verwoerd and Adv John Vorster, and even the present State President and Cabinet Ministers in bygone days are found to be very handy. I am not saying that many of the NP’s fundamental points of departure and standpoints of 1987 differ drastically from those of 1948, 1954, 1958, 1966 and 1978. A great deal has happened on the course taken by the NP, and many of those hon members were members of the NP Government who condoned and accepted the standpoints and the new course adopted by the NP. What is important is that this was not one-sided. None of the changes in standpoint and direction by the NP were made without the agreement and permission of the White voters of South Africa.

Let us look, for example, at the course adopted by the hon the State President in the decision to move away from the Westminster system of government. The Constitution of 1983, which…

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

No, Mr Chairman, I have too little time. The hon member can make another speech at a later stage if he wishes, because apparently there is a lot of time left in this debate.

The Constitution of 1983, which was condoned by two thirds of the White voters in South Africa in a referendum, was a clear change of direction, but not without the permission of the majority of the White voters of South Africa.

That is where we have problems with the CP. Nothing the Government has done during the past few years has been done in a sectional or subjective way. The Government consulted, and the voters condoned it. The CP does not want to accept that, however, and they fancy that they represent the majority of White voters in South Africa. [Interjections.] The mandate the NP Government received on 6 May 1987—once again this was a mandate from two thirds of the voting public—was a mandate to launch the process of negotiation in South Africa.

But that it not true! [Interjections.]

It was a mandate to negotiate a system for Black participation in the decision-making process of South Africa. We went from platform to platform, asking the voters in South Africa for this mandate. How can hon members say in this debate that the Government has no direction and does not know where it is going? The key concept in the new dispensation in South Africa is power-sharing, not a take-over of power.

This evolutionary process has been in progress since South Africa—please note, not the NP or the hon the State President alone, but South Africa—decided to move away from the Westminster system. The reason for this is that the Westminster system, with the typical approach of “winner takes all” and one man, one vote, cannot accommodate the factual realities of South Africa in its structure. Surely everyone in this House is ad idem that the Westminster system is obsolete as far as South Africa is concerned. I am sure all the parties in this House will accept that principle. I want to ask, however, whether the time has not come for us to begin debating rationally—not about yesterday, but about tomorrow and what we in this House of Assembly, as the highest authority in South Africa, are going to leave to those who come after us.

Our hon State President issued an invitation to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to have talks with the Black leaders of South Africa, to sell his idea of partition to them and to market it to the Blacks of South Africa as the answer to South Africa’s problems. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition replied with a very evasive political answer which I want to present to hon members this afternoon. He did not reply here in the House, where he was challenged, but he went to his congress to make the following statement which was reported in Die Vaderland of 19 August as follows:

I do not want to differ with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on that last statement, because naturally we are all entitled to land in South Africa, but he then went on to say:

The point I want to clear up with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon, is how that statement of his can be regarded as being consistent with the objectives and the principles of this party in respect of the principle of consolidation, which they have presented to us once again in debates in this House.

He says he would rather have a smaller South Africa. In the same breath, however, they say the 1936 land is the final word on the matter, and if additional land must be given, it must not be bought, but must be given by way of exchange. The Blacks can buy it, however. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon members in passing whether they know from which group the greatest numbers of people come forward to the Commission of Co-operation and Development, where we are collecting information, to offer their farms on a platter. They are CP supporters! If they should come into power and their supporters should start selling their farms, they would be selling out the whole of South Africa. These are the people who apparently have South Africa’s interests at heart!

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I have very little time. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition why, according to what he himself has said, he wants to spend more than the R1,22 billion. What does he want to spend it on? Does he want to establish a smaller South Africa? Does he want to buy more land for Blacks?

The second important question concerns the so-called smaller White South Africa. Does this mean more land for Blacks than in the 1936 quota? If so, on what basis will this be done? Was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition perhaps forced into this at his congresses by the majority of AWB and Afrikaner-volkswag supporters, who advocate a White homeland—such as the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal and Mr Eugêne Terre’Blanche—and not a so-called smaller White South Africa? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to a newly converted disciple of orderly urbanisation, especially someone like the hon member for Turffontein. Although the hon member has asked us to debate the future, one cannot help thinking about the years that have been wasted in this country while we on this side of the Committee had to argue with the Government about the whole question of orderly urbanisation. One also wonders to what extent the problems we are experiencing today with regard to squatting and the development problem of urbanisation as a whole, are due to the fact that this Government supported the system that hon members of the CP are now defending so vigorously and pleading for so strongly. I shall never forget this, and the hon member has said here that the CP wants to load people onto a lorry. The Government is still doing this kind of thing. It is still happening. So, what is the hon member talking about? [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I am very happy and grateful that the hon member has entered upon this new era. I think he should perhaps be a little careful when he talks about Rip van Winkel, because he himself only woke up yesterday. [Interjections.]

I should like to direct the Committee’s attention to a problem that is very similar to the whole question of influx control and has the same ideological substructure, something about which I believe the Government has over the years been making the same mistakes, and is still making them. I hope they will not be making them in the future. I am referring to group areas.

At this stage group areas are controlled and administered by several State departments and bodies. The hon the Minister’s own department is responsible for proclaiming group areas and the activities of the Group Areas Board. The Provincial Administrators now have the power to grant permits or, as in most cases, to refuse them. Goodness knows why this has been done, other than to grant the provincial system artificial status. We are, of course, also concerned with the housing departments, the own affairs housing departments of the various Houses of Parliament, which are becoming involved in the group areas question as far as their responsibility in respect of housing extends.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the way the administration of group areas has been expanded actually aggravates the situation with regard to group areas.

†It aggravates the problems experienced by people who are the victims of the Group Areas Act. I want to tell him that a month of two ago there were officials of his own department who could hardly tell one where to apply for a permit, or which part of which administration was responsible for which element of group areas control.

This does not make life any easier for the public at large. If members of Parliament and other people who are used to dealing with the Government have difficulties in establishing whom to go to with problems related to group areas, how much more should that not apply to the public at large? Let me state what by now should be obvious to any reasonable South African, ie that the Group Areas Act is discriminatory in its theory and application. One only needs to read a few sections of that Act to see to what extent a sort of Herrenvolk concept is built into some sections of it—White purity, rather than the purity or exclusivity of other races. One must just study section 12 of the Group Areas Act to realise to what extent this is in fact so.

It is discriminatory in its application because over the years infinitely more people of colour in this country have been the victims of the Act than has been the case in respect of Whites. For every White person who has been moved somewhere, pursuant to the administration of the Group Areas Act, there must have been a 100 or more people of colour, whether Indian, Coloured or Black. It is discriminatory in its application in terms of the amount of residential land which has been made available to people over the years. Once again, the figures are astronomically different when one compares the total number of hectares available within White group areas with the total numbers of hectares available in Coloured and Indian group areas. It is a very simple matter. It is grossly discriminatory. It even applies to farming land. Why in heaven’s name should one require that kind of discrimination in respect of farming land? It does not even answer the arguments that the Government advances in defence of the Group Areas Act. Let us make no mistake about it. It is a discriminatory piece of legislation, it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion and it is in fact the most offensive apartheid law that we have on our Statute Book.

That is not only my own view, Sir. That has been scientifically verified by opinion polls over the years. I believe it is a gross insult to very significant elements in our society. The phrase “the group” has become an infamous concept which has been printed indelibly into our political terminology, and will probably be remembered for decades after the Group Areas Act has disappeared from our Statute Books because of the intense hurt, the difficulty and the tension caused by it to so many people over so many years. It is a concept which for those who have to work with it describes not only the Group Areas Act but also any official, any institution, any Government department charged with the application of that Act. Moreover, it is a concept used with a mixture of fear, contempt and hatred.

The PFP has recently established a unit in this region which deals specifically with group areas problems. We have made our services available to people in need of advice and support—people who find themselves at the receiving end of the group areas dilemma. It is interesting to hear people speak about some of the problems that come to the fore. We have had one case of an owner of a sectional title unit who was subjected to immense pressure in order to make sure that he should get—as it was termed—“tenants of high quality”. Those were the words used by the management agent operating on behalf of the body corporate which was, of course, under indirect pressure by the Government.

When one goes into the history of this case it is interesting to note that the owner of this particular sectional title unit interviewed more than 20 prospective tenants interested in renting that flat. It just so happened that, after careful consideration of the merits of those prospective tenants, he decided to let the flat to a young Coloured couple with two small children. He did so because the husband had a stable job. They were decent, fairly well-educated people—the type of ideal tenant that any investor in property is eager to accommodate. Nevertheless, Sir, the pressure continued. It is very obvious that the “high quality tenant” referred to in this instance did not mean “high quality tenant” in the normal sense of the word. It was meant to convey to the owner that his tenants should be Whites only. That is what was really meant.

It is really sad, Sir, that this pressure continues in spite of the fact that this man has excellent tenants, who are also excellent neighbours. The reason for this sad state of affairs is to be found in the fact that the Group Areas Act demands not “high quality tenants” in the customary sense of the words, but White tenants. Interestingly enough, Sir, one of the things this man drew to my attention was that the owners of another unit in the block had complained to him because he had accepted a Coloured family as tenants. An elderly lady, who is also the owner of a unit, said to him: “You should not have Coloured people in your flat because if you let them in others will join them, and before you know where you are you will be sitting with prostitution and all sorts of crimes in the block.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during the course of my speech I shall come back briefly to the real subject which the hon member for Green Point dealt with in his speech. Before I do that, I just want to react to the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday. He made a number of personal remarks about me, to which I do not want to react. We have held many long discussions with each other over a long period of time, and I think he has enough information at his disposal to realise that his remarks were not consistent with the truth.

The second matter, to which I just want to refer briefly in this regard, is that of his quotation from the translated Hansard transcript of 9 June, not the original language in which I spoke. Incidentally, this was one of the last remarks I made on 9 June. The hon the Minister spoke after me on that occasion, and he did not interpret my words in the terms he has just used in this debate.

I should like to suggest that the person who did the research for him and who submitted the English translation to him, with its concomitant interpretation regarding a certain standpoint relating to an approach to the politics underlying the ANC’s Freedom Charter, be taken to task and that he rectify this interpretation, since what was clearly stated was that politics should be addressed and that there should be a concentration on politics for the sake of the process, and not that those politics should be accepted. The hon the Minister may make the most of this opportunity to display his wittiness—I merely think one should quote the content correctly.

I want to discuss a few points in connection with the hon the Minister’s speech. First of all I want to say that he has exceptional powers of reasoning. I do not think there is anyone else in this House who can outdo him when it comes to logic. I think we all accept that.

Are you serious, Wynand?

I am very serious about it, and all that hon member has to do is listen to me. [Interjections.] I really am deadly serious.

The problem is that he argues like a latter-day Plato. Plato took an idea, which he accepted as a premise, and on the basis of that premise—that idea—he proceeded by a process of logic to pursue the argument through to its conclusion in such a way that the logic itself could not be questioned. He based it on so-called perceptions of the truth; so-called realities. This is similar to what happens when one uses a computer and feeds information into it. It works out the programme perfectly. It can accurately process every piece of information one feeds into it and arrive at the correct answer. In fact, it cannot arrive at an incorrect answer. However, if one has programmed it with the wrong software, the answer is not relevant; the answer is false.

What I am trying to say is that we must come back to the starting point, to the perception. There is a degree of great arrogance inherent in logic. Logic is equated with the truth, but one does not look at the perceptions, at the impressions of what the realities are. Therefore, what the debate should primarily be concerning itself with is what, in fact, those realities are. There are various impressions of reality.

A very interesting article by Prof Njabulo Ndebele, a professor at Lesotho University, appeared in the Star of 8 September, the same day on which the discussion of this Vote began. The heading under which this article appeared was: “European culture in South Africa ignores reality”. It deals with the same point. In fact, the introductory paragraph begins as follows:

This is another impression of what reality is. The debate should concern itself with our points of departure. It is no use applying perfect logic—perfect computer processing—if one’s suppositions cannot lead one to the actual truth.

In the course of his speech in this debate the hon the Minister made the statement that we should serve the national interest, as opposed to our own self-interest. However, the national interest and the various own interests in a society cannot clash, because the moment they do clash, this cannot really serve the national interest. The national interest can only be a reality if own interests in general are satisfied.

I shall tell hon members what this leads to. The hon the Minister pursued his argument on the basis of the national interest, and the national interest was monopolised as being the standpoint of the Government, or the NP. The hon the Minister then went on to pursue his own argument on the basis of that conception of what the national interest was. We must be able to satisfy the interests of all the various groups in this country—as opposed to implementing their programmes or their models—at the same time, because if their real interests, aspirations, fears and needs cannot be accommodated, then the national interest cannot really be deemed to be the national interest.

That is quite a mouthful!

The hon the Minister made another statement here to the effect that the House of Assembly controlled the course of development. This is yet another perception of reality. At one stage he spoke about Parliament, and at another about the House of Assembly. Arguing in accordance with the rules of logic, based on the premise that the House of Assembly controlled the course of development, he told the Official Opposition that they should come forward with their answers if and when they obtained the support of the majority of the electorate, because it was the majority party that was entitled to implement its policy. He is therefore far removed from the subject of our debate, namely the negotiation process or process politics.

Let us take another look at reality. Does the House of Assembly control the course of politics? That is the hon the Minister’s perception, but is it the perception of the millions of people involved in extra-parliamentary politics? They complain that the House of Assembly is irrelevant and that it is not legitimate.

Who are they?

I am talking about the extra-parliamentary politicians, about the so-called “progressiveness” of the “antisystem” politicians. They represent millions of Blacks and the hon member for Turffontein knows that. They say the course of development is determined by the powers of progressiveness.

Do you agree with that?

No, I do not.

The point I want to make is that not one of the two assertions is true. Actually, both elements jointly determine the course of politics. It is important that we should investigate what the real truth is, because if we were to accept that either the one or the other controls the course of politics, we could not engage in process politics, because then we would be constrained by control politics. The various groupings jointly control the course of politics.

The hon the Minister also claimed in his speech that the 1983 Constitution was the result of negotiation. However, he was still expressing it in the idiom of the House of Assembly controlling the course of politics. He said that the Constitution was the result of negotiation but that the other parties had not necessarily accepted it or agreed to it. If one proceeds from the standpoint that the House of Assembly controls the course of politics, then negotiation is irrelevant and one may make such statements. If, however, we really desire to reap the benefits of negotiation, this should after all be something with which the parties involved in the negotiations agree, otherwise it cannot be said to have been the result of negotiation, but rather of control.

On various occasions, both before and after I left the NP, I advocated a total, all-embracing strategy. However, a total strategy does not entail a totalitarian strategy, but rather the involvement in the process of everyone who ought to be involved in it.

In reaction to the hon member for Overvaal’s question as to whether the Group Areas Act was discriminatory, the hon the Minister said that if the application of the Groups Areas Act was discriminatory, we should rectify its application. However, he did not confine himself to that perception. This can leave one with only one of two impressions—either that the hon the Minister is convinced that the Group Areas Act is not discriminatory or that he is, in fact, convinced that it is discriminatory but is not prepared to say so because this would affect his control-oriented approach.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to deal with a certain matter which I should have liked to discuss in detail, but I should nonetheless like to join the hon member for Green Point in saying a few words about the squatter problem. Last year we amended the Act by the insertion of section 6A. Squatting is a tremendous problem and demands speedy, urgent and co-ordinated action. If the Government does not do something at once to provide the lower income groups with housing, we in this country will regress into a Third-World situation and be forced to go back to the bush. This Government will have to take the blame for that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have just listened to the 34th speech on this Vote, and in all fairness I should like to reply to all hon members. Hon members will appreciate that this will be an exhausting experience for me and for them.

Particularly for us.

In that case I shall simply ignore the hon member for Overvaal.

No, don’t get the wind up so soon.

I should like to reply to the hon member for Randburg in full, because he is making a lot of perceptional and logical errors which I should like to discuss with him.

I should like to begin by making a few observations. Recently a strange phenomenon emerged, that of certain hon members quoting selectively from speeches made by other members. On the basis of their selective quotations, and even their misrepresentation of such quotations, they then construct specific arguments in order to reply to these hon members. Various examples of this practice have emerged in the discussion of this Vote. Naturally I do not want to deal with all of them, but I do want to refer specifically to a few examples.

Firstly I want to refer to the hon member for Overvaal; secondly to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and thirdly to the hon member for Sea Point. I should like to quote a specific example from the speech made by the hon member for Overvaal. That hon member—and I do not hold this against him—has a specific view of the NP’s proposals for constitutional solutions for the country. In the debate yesterday he made the statement that the NP was “stumbling around aimlessly in the dark, without any guiding light on the path of South Africa”. Naturally he has the right to make such a specific deduction. I maintain, however, that he does not have the right to arrive at such a conclusion on the grounds of an incorrect quotation of what the hon the State President allegedly said. In all fairness I do not think that is honest debating.

Did I quote incorrectly?

Yes, I should like to point it out to the hon member. The hon member quoted as follows from a report in Beeld of 23 May 1980:

I did not quote that.

No, I am quoting the hon member. He said this yesterday:

This is a statement—

What is relevant here is the date, and it is 1980.

That was before we walked out. [Interjections.]

The reform step that is being referred to was the abolition of the Senate at a joint sitting of the two Houses.

The hon member for Overvaal is an intelligent hon member. [Interjections.] The hon member, without going to very much trouble, could have established the circumstances under which this speech on which Beeld was reporting was made by the hon the State President. The hon member could, with very little trouble, have established the forum in which the speech was made. He could also have established the circumstances under which this speech was made. The hon member will concede that any standpoint from the past has a temporal, circumstantial and contextual perspective.

The hon member could have done even more. He could have verified the contents of what the then Prime Minister, now the hon the State President, actually said. [Interjections.] After all, he was present when that speech was made. Not only was he present; he also voted for the motion which the speech dealt with. [Interjections.] It means, then, that the hon member, by definition, was part of the start of the planless reform.

That was before I walked out.

The hon member is making an important statement. He says it was before he walked out.

No, I am saying it was why we walked out.

No, that is not correct, but let us not interrupt one another on that point now.

That debate dealt with the abolition of the Senate, and various leaders and hon members participated in that debate. Let me say this today. It was a dramatic debate, because it implied that a House of this Parliament, which had existed for 70 years, was to disappear. It also implied that old friends from the legislative institutions were to disappear. That is why it was a dramatic occasion. I do not want to quote what the hon member said, except that Senator Van Rensburg referred to the speeches of other hon members and said (Joint Sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly, 21 to 22 May 1980, col 29). They are speeches that place, on the horizon before us, a beacon of light for the future.

By way of summary the then Prime Minister said (col 40):

He went on to say:

I am still quoting:

Why does the hon member for Overvaal quote the hon the State President for political purposes by way of misrepresentations, while he had access to the speech, and was present when it was made? [Interjections.]

If the little report in Beeld had been all the hon member had at his disposal, there would have been an explanation for his conduct, but since the hon member voted for the motion which the speech dealt with and since the hon member was aware of the circumstances under which the speech was made, I would have expected him to have quoted the full speech on the specific point he wanted to make.

I do not have 120 minutes, as you do. [Interjections.]

If one has less time at one’s disposal, one must use it more effectively and be more careful in the choices one makes.

I maintain it was fundamentally incorrect and politically dishonest to quote the words incorrectly for one’s own gain and build a false premise on those words. I think the hon member must rectify the matter. It is in his and his party’s interests. [Interjections.]

I come now to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He alleged that the hon the State President had supposedly said that if in politics power was the name of the game, he would have nothing to do with it.

I immediately concede this point to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is a virtuoso in the art of quoting people out of context, making misrepresentations on the strength of such quotations and building an argument on them.

What did the hon the State President actually say? I am quoting what the hon the State President said (Hansard: Assembly, 13 August 1987, col 3766):

[Interjections.] No, wait! Not so fast!

The hon the State President then continued and indicated from the history of the Afrikaner that to make only—this is a key word—a power-game of politics is unfair. There is a big difference. He said:

That is why it is also the NP’s standpoint that we must establish a dispensation in which groups must not see their domination over others as the only way of exercising power. That is why the hon the State President gave his explanation in this specific context of how one should share power with one another, and how we are already doing so.

I come now to another subject with reference to the speeches made by the hon members for Losberg, Krugersdorp and Bellville. The hon member for Bellville correctly stated that we were talking in a new political idiom. We are all talking in a new political idiom. A moment ago the hon member for Turffontein made the point that the NP is, from time to time, quoted on previously-adopted standpoints and then accused of having changed its standpoint.

I want to elucidate that point from another angle.

You have not yet replied to my question.

I am still going to deal with the hon member’s questions; I just want to dispose of this specific matter first. I have everything here, and I should like to reply to it. [Interjections.] Yes, particularly if one is speaking to children.

What are the facts? The hon members for Overvaal and Losberg, and other hon members too, say that the Government changed its standpoint in respect of power-sharing. To find support for that argument they use formulations of standpoints that were used within a specific temporal perspective. Yet surely politics and political thought have not stood still. Let us consider one specific facet. The political progress of Coloured people was subjected to a commission of enquiry, the Theron Commission. They published a report in 1976, which the hon member for Lichtenburg accepted. He accepted it, but a crucial recommendation in that report was that the Westminster system did not lend itself to satisfying the political aspirations of Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

[Inaudible.]

The Government accepted that recommendation. Then the question of constitutional development was referred to a commission, under the direction of the then Minister of Public Works and of Immigration. In 1981 it published a report from which I should like to quote one paragraph:

Hon members of the previous Official Opposition signed that report; it was unanimous. The former hon Leader of the Official Opposition will remember that his party signed that recommendation.

We drafted it of course.

I know. We both drafted it.

That’s right.

When the Government and the former Official Opposition all accepted it, we entered upon a new milieu in politics. The hon members were involved in that commission, and we therefore thought they understood that that decision created a new context…

Some; not all!

Well, then you will just have to settle it among yourselves. [Interjections.]

As the hon member for Krugersdorp argued, surely it is clear that we were not prepared to accept power-sharing within a Westminster system. A specific reason for that was that a system of one man, one vote within electoral divisions implied that the winner takes all, which in its essence is based on majority rule.

When we relinquished that model and developed new models, surely the reason for our rejecting power-sharing also fell away. [Interjections.]

That is a new story!

No, wait wait. Not only did hon members accept this as we did, but they also accepted the 1977 proposals. In the 1977 election they enthusiastically proclaimed that the concept of power-sharing in their system was different to that in the previous one. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow this stream of interjections. The hon members of the Official Opposition are going to receive further opportunities to participate in the debate, and they can state their case then. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Therefore it is unreasonable and without foundation to argue about power-sharing now as though we were still part of a Westminster system.

I want to thank the hon member for Mossel Bay very sincerely for his contributions. He correctly stated that the course and content of South Africa’s development since 1652 had basically been that of a First-World model. I agree with him. Our 1910 Constitution was based on that, and the Constitution we inherited in 1948 was also based on that. Hon members would do well to read the 1910 Constitution again, because the term used in that Constitution is not White, but European. If there is one terminology which proves to what extent confused thinking exists, in regard to models that can succeed or that cannot succeed, it is the fact that all of us—I am not levelling any specific reproaches now—considered ourselves to be Europeans for too long. For too long we regarded South Africa as an extension of Europe. Today I want to say that we are not Europeans. We are European in origin, yes, but we are living in an African country. We shall have to find reconciliation, within our borders, with Africa and among the people of Africa, if we want to grow and develop in South Africa.

Are we Afrikaners?

Yes, we are Afrikaners. [Interjections.] Yes, of course. Of course, what the hon member is saying is true. The European models were useful to us. However, that does not mean that we should cling to them, and that is why we developed structures which we think are better than that structure, and which are adapted to the circumstances of this country.

What are the structures?

The tricameral Parliament is one of them, and the regional services councils is another. If the hon member does not know this, I cannot help him. [Interjections.]

The hon member also replied effectively to the hon member for Ermelo in respect of a statement he made, which I could understand if it had come from other hon members, but not from him. He said we wanted to make one nation of everyone. Surely governments do not make nations! Surely nations exist. Surely it is a constitutional concept that citizens of a state are part of that nation. In many countries nation and people are the same, but in many other countries they are not.

And in our country?

Our nation is not homogeneous. In fact we speak about the diversity of peoples in our country. We are in fact struggling with the problem of how we should give substance to the civil rights normally associated with nationhood.

The question is whether nation and people mean the same thing.

Order! I cannot allow hon members to put questions to the hon the Minister while he is speaking. That must stop now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I just want to thank the hon member for Sunday’s River for his speech. I agree with him that group rights should be protected, but not at the expense of individual rights. That is why we are trying to devise a system which makes provision for group and individual rights and we must, as the hon member correctly stated, eliminate those elements which are a threat and are hurtful.

The hon members for Parow and Caledon referred to the importance of negotiation. The hon member for Parow referred to the fact that negotiations frequently cannot take place visibly. I agree with him and would also prefer to have it otherwise. I think the process is so delicate that it is not always possible, but what is important is the fact that negotiation is taking place, and is achieving results.

I agree with the hon member. I think we can review the role of standing committees. I do not think they should merely talk when they have Bills before them. I think such an action could, even informally, achieve greater consensus. I thank him for that idea. I agree with him that the style of negotiation is a very important element for success. It is frequently far more important than the results. I want to tell him today that to reconcile two worlds and have them to negotiate with each other, is far more difficult than we usually think. He was right.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North gave a very interesting analysis of politics. He pointed out that it was not merely divided into horizontal lines. I agree with that view; in fact, I also agree that the extremes frequently meet, whether from the left or the right of the spectrum, and then they are all dangerous to our country.

The hon member for Sasolburg addressed the question of the partition policy of the CP. I agree with the hon member’s conclusions, but I do just want to make an observation, if I may. The CP is more than a little vulnerable when they say, in this specific connection, that they are not going to give people any more land; the people can buy it. Blacks therefore receive more land, but this must be done on the basis of purchase, and not on the basis of donation. Do hon members of the CP agree with that?

Meaningful consolidation.

The hon member speaks of meaningful consolidation. Now I want to ask how much land the Black people may purchase to make consolidation meaningful. Where may they purchase land? May they purchase land anywhere? How small can the South Africa be which the CP eventually wants to accept as their South Africa? Hon members of the CP must please give us the answers to these questions.

I have already referred to the hon member for Krugersdorp. I agree with his analysis of power-sharing. I hope we are finished with that now.

I want to tell the hon member for Stellenbosch that I appreciate his concept of the comprehensiveness of the reform process and the fact that it consists of many facets. I agree with him that the creation of a climate is sometimes more important than anything else. I want to state today that without confidence on the part of the negotiators—that is without the necessary climate and the will to find solutions—we shall not get anywhere.

I have already referred to the hon member for Bellville, and I agree with him. The essence of politics, which has to regulate life, lies in the ability of people to have a temporal and circumstantial view, and to formulate their standpoints according to those views. I make no apology for the NP having changed its policy; it changed its policy. Nor do I make any apology for the fact that I am working on changing it again in future. [Interjections.]

Go and say that in Standerton as well!

Yes, I shall gladly do so.

It worked in Helderberg!

It is very interesting that hon members are challenging me to say this in Standerton. Why are they telling me to say it there? They are doing so because they do not agree with me that there must be change, and for no other reason. The hon members of the Official Opposition are therefore saying that they do not want to change anything. [Interjections.] There must be no policy adjustments; it must remain as it is. [Interjections.] Surely it is a fact that the hon member for Losberg is inviting me to state in Standerton that we want to change in this country, and that we shall change our policy to make this possible, so that they can win against us in that constituency. There is no other reason for that. Surely he does not want me to talk there so that they should lose.

We are going to beat you! We just want to beat you by a wider margin! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Cradock that I have great appreciation for the role he is playing, on the regional development advisory committee and in agriculture in the Eastern Cape, in developing that region. I shall discuss the subject of regional development later, and I do not want to refer to it in detail now.

One of the points the hon member for Hillbrow made was that a declaration of intent was necessary. As regards its content, I find no fault with what the hon member said. We must just bear in mind that declarations of intent, per se, do not mean much if they cannot be implemented in practice.

†The hon member for Germiston referred to the position of the English-speaking people. I would say Natal set the example for cooperation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people on 6 May. They should be lauded for that.

*The hon member for Potgietersrus referred to coercion which the regional development associations might exert on district development associations to employ people of colour. I wonder whether the hon member knows that in terms of its constitution he is in fact a member of the district association of his area. I wonder whether he knows that the association’s constitution provides that the association itself determines who its members are, and that no one can prescribe to it who its members ought to be.

It does not work like that!

The hon member says it does not work like that; then that association of his is surely violating its own constitution. Then he must not come and reprimand me; he should go and talk to them. I want to take it further, however, because I have a standpoint in this regard. I say it is not possible for more than one population group to develop in this country alone. If we therefore say that other people should be involved in their development, they should also be involved in the institutions of their development. I am submitting that as sound advice.

I have already replied to the hon member for Losberg on power-sharing.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the escort agency. It is very interesting—perhaps the hon member will indicate to me later whether the hon member for Germiston’s information concerning the licence-holders of that club was correct.

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

No, I first want to reply to this point.

As far as my point of departure and that of the Government is concerned, I content myself with the preamble to the Constitution. It commits the Government and me—to the extent to which this is possible—to uphold Christian values and strive for civilised norms. I think the hon member must accept what I am saying. The hon member knows under what circumstances that ordinance was amended, and that it was done at the request of the Police. I told him that the last time we discussed it. Finally, I explained how it could be changed. I said it could be changed by an ordinance of the Transvaal Province or by an Act of Parliament, and I want to suggest that the hon member takes a look at sections 4 and 8 of the Immorality Amendment Bill [W104-87 (AS)], of which the hon the Minister of Justice has given notice. I think that ought to anticipate the situation.

The hon member for Brits made a good speech.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon the Minister has just said, referring to the hon member for Germiston, I just want to ask him whether he will accept anyone promoting the cause of homosexuality as a member of the NP.

Sir I do not know of anyone furthering homosexuality, but what I do know is that people can accept that there are other people who are that way inclined. That hon member should not turn this into an issue; he should rather go home and pray about it.

The hon member for Brits made a good speech. I think he realised that while he was speaking, hon members on this side appreciated him. I have an idea it was slightly embarrassing to the hon member. He thought it would cast suspicion on him if we said he made a good speech, but he did make a good speech. What did he say, Sir? He identified the criterion we should apply for a successful constitutional policy and development. If I understood him correctly, he said there was a threefold criterion. It must be moral. It must be justifiable. It must be acceptable. There is no one who can differ with that. But now I am asking the hon member, if he wants to use that as the criterion, what is he doing over there? I want to ask him whether he would not do me a favour now. [Interjections.] Would the hon member not do me a favour? Would he not apply those criteria objectively to his policy? He should do that and determine whether it is acceptable to most people.

That is not what I said!

That is the important thing, Sir. The hon member claimed that that was not what he said. He said it must be moral as far as Whites were concerned. He said it must be acceptable to Whites. He said it must be fair to Whites. As far as the rest are concerned, it does not matter at all.

You really twist people’s words, don’t you!

That is an absolute caricature of what I said! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we can argue about that until we are blue in the face. Most of us—let us admit this now—are struggling with the question of morality. We are struggling with the question of the acceptability of systems. We are struggling with the concept of fairness.

You people are simply struggling! [Interjections.]

And the hon member for Overvaal is simply drifting about. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal has put a question to me. I want to give him an example of how minorities are protected.

How are you going to do that?

No, just wait a minute! I shall give the hon member an example. I shall give him an example of something which he once participated in, although he did not vote for it. The constitution of regional services councils is an example of how minorities can be protected. The hon member must simply go and read how this is done. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I want to tell the hon member frankly that if we could implement that experiment—in fact I do not think it is much more than that—successfully and could make adjustments in accordance with the requirements and needs, they could become a model for institutions on other levels. [Interjections.]

On higher levels as well?

Yes, on higher levels as well. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the hon member for Sea Point. I want to have a few friendly words with him. The hon member must go back and read my introductory speech. He will see that I did not refer to any specific member, except the hon member for Randburg. I did so because the hon member for Randburg does not belong to any party. Because he does not belong to any party, I had to refer to him personally. Consequently I did not make personal attacks…

You should go and read it again!

What?

You own speech.

In respect of these people? I shall go and read my speech again, yes. Nevertheless, I gave my view of the role of Parliament. I gave my view of the role of political parties. I gave my view of the restricting factors. I gave my view of how delicate and fragile a democracy in this country can be. I also tried to create an atmosphere in which we could see eye to eye with one another. Of course the hon member has every right to level an accusation at me.

A political party’s policy is expressed in words, but also interpreted. Consequently there are two elements involved. No interpretation of the policy of the PFP offers anything other than majority rule. The hon member for Sea Point’s own members say as much, although I must concede there are certain of them who do not accept it.

The hon member for Berea made a strange remark. Listen to the remark he made, Sir. He said: “The National Party Government is a minority Government.”

Correct!

That is true, Sir, when measured in terms of the total population. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Just one moment, please!

*He therefore wants to substitute a majority government for the minority government. [Interjections.] You see, Mr Chairman, as soon as hon members arrive at the consequences of the policy they proclaim, they back away.

It is not necessary to be so arrogant about it!

I am not arrogant, Sir.

Of course you are! [Interjections.]

No, Sir! In all fairness I must really say that every time hon members in that party get into difficulties because of their statements, they accuse other people of arrogance. [Interjections.] Let us take this a little further, Sir. Let us take it a little further in regard to the hon member for Berea.

*If the hon member for Seapoint is looking for someone to interpret his party’s policy as black majority government, it is the hon member for Berea.

The interjection that the hon member for Berea made when the hon member Mr Hattingh was speaking, is very interesting. What the hon member Mr Hattingh said—I am not commenting on what he said, merely stating the fact of what he said—was that the voters rejected the indaba proposals. The hon member for Berea then interjected that it was the White voters, and asked why we did not have a referendum. That is what the hon member for Berea wants, is it not? [Interjection.]

*I am going to give the hon member the reply now. But what is the implication of this. We must ignore the White votes and hold a general referendum so that the White votes can be neutralised by mass votes. No other inference whatsoever can be drawn from what he said.

†The hon members for Umhlanga and Umhlatuzana, as well as Mr Hattingh, spoke about this. I should like to reply to them tomorrow on these issues.

*I come now to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He quoted from an article in Leadership, which I wrote, and put certain questions to me with reference to that article. I should like to give him replies to those questions, because he is entitled to them. He referred to the following statement in the article:

I did say that. It is my party’s standpoint. The hon member then went further and, with reference to this, alleged that Whites too, in the same way as Blacks, had to have the right to independence, and therefore to secede from South Africa, otherwise—listen to this—the Government was granting the Whites less than the Blacks, who were receiving the best of both worlds.

I should like to reply to him on that point, if he will give me an opportunity.

You have already had so much time, and you are still asking for an opportunity!

I just want to tell the hon member that there is no analogy or comparison whatsoever between the position of the Whites and that of the Blacks. The Government recognises the right of self-governing territories to exercise their choice between accepting independence and participating in constitutional structures that have to be negotiated for the Republic. The Government encourages territories to accept independence. The Government’s standpoint in respect of KwaNdebele proves this. However, we shall not force any territory to accept independence. In this regard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agrees with us that we cannot force them to do so. At least, he agreed with us when he was still with us. He never advocated that independence should be forced independence. The same applies to the self-governing territories. The NP—the hon member can differ with me in this regard if he wishes—arrived at that decision at its congress in 1986, as I have just said. It is stated in our election manifesto for this year.

However, I maintain that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is making a serious error of reasoning when he compares the position of the self-governing territories to that of the so-called White regions. The Whites of South Africa have had political self-determination since 1910. I hope hon members are listening to the word I am using, which is self-determination.

Not any more!

They did not have it in 1910 either. Let us not bluff one another about this now. [Interjections.] They had self-determination, but no sovereignty. [Interjections.] There is an important difference—just ask the hon member for Losberg. This reached a peak in 1961, with the establishment of the Republic. If this is not so, what does Union mean, and what does becoming a Republic mean? [Interjections.] Hon members will just have to wait a moment; I am going to deal with the matter for the sake of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Perhaps they would show him the courtesy of giving him a chance to listen to my reply.

In addition the Whites have self-determination in terms of the 1983 Constitution. They can argue with me about that if they wish. I am making a statement purely in terms of constitutional law.

[Inaudible.]

I am referring to the Whites now. I shall be dealing in a moment with… [Interjections.] May I first reply to this hon member? When I have replied to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I shall come back to that hon member.

But you have been talking for an hour already.

I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal whether he knows for how many hours hon members have been debating. The hon member did not reply to that. What is it that he wants to say to me? [Interjections.] Surely there is no question of the Whites having to secede in order to acquire self-determination—they have it already. However, that was not the position of the self-governing territories at all. At one stage, in terms of our policy—I concede as much—they were only able to acquire self-determination in specific areas. Practical experience taught us—the hon member for Lichtenburg knows this better than anyone else, because he investigated the issue—that this was not acceptable. The Black communities were not participants in the liberalisation which decolonisation brought to the Whites. That is true, and I am not concealing the fact.

[Inaudible.]

I just want to dispose of this point before I come to that.

I want to challenge the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Let him define the territory of his White state, and let him find a majority of Whites to support it.

We are working on that. [Interjections.]

It is no use saying that they are working on it. Let them first succeed, and then we shall talk again.

There is no one in this House who would not want to get rid of the vexatious questions in connection with heterogeneity or diversity if it were possible. We are all struggling with these problems. What we are dealing with, however, is what is practicable.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us where the traditional dwelling-place of the Whites is. [Interjections.]

The White group areas.

Someone on the opposition benches is saying that the traditional dwelling-place of the Whites is the White group areas. I thought the group areas were statutory residential areas. This is very interesting. The traditional dwelling-places of the Whites, which have to form the basis of the ethnic state (volkstaat), must therefore be White group areas. [Interjections.]

Go and participate in a high-school debate.

The hon member for Lichtenburg is an old friend of mine and I should like to give him a piece of good advice: He must go to the kindergarten.

I should just like to talk to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about another statement of his. He used Biafra as an example when he spoke about a right to secession. Of course a self-governing territory has the right to secede. But the contrary is also true. No self-governing territory can be forced to secede from the Republic if its people do not wish to do so.

The hon leader used interesting terminology in this context. He said that Biafra had been “bludgeoned into a unitary state”. Those were his words, not mine. What does the CP envisage doing with the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black communities that do not wish to accept the independence they propose? What are they going to do? Is the CP going to negotiate with them—we have heard respective CP members saying that they are not going to do so—or is the CP going to “bludgeon” them into independence? There is no middle course. The CP must choose whether it wants to negotiate or whether it wants to use coercion.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also made the statement that every self-governing territory had the right to secede, but if such a territory refused to do so, it did not give it the right to govern its own people, in other words to participate in the governmental processes within the Republic. In that way, surely, the CP is not giving them any choice. Surely it is not a choice to tell them they are welcome to secede, but if they do not do so, they are not going to receive any political rights in the Republic. Then they become stateless and without any rights in another country. I would suggest that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition try to negotiate.

The hon the leader referred to the following statement in my article in Leadership:

With reference to this the hon the leader asked me whether I was, in that way, issuing an invitation to the independent states to relinquish their independence. The answer is no. What the hon the leader does not understand, however, and what revealed his insensitivity, is that those countries are proud of their independence. In addition, it is not the policy of this Government that they should surrender their independence.

It is also a practical standpoint that the interests of these countries are interdependent. I make no apology for what we have accomplished in finding co-operation on a basis of agreement with the four independent states within a confederal context—if one wishes to call it that.

Of course the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will be the first to acknowledge that there are common interests. He will be the first to acknowledge that these must be promoted, because there is a wide area of interdependence—transport, health, agriculture, security, economic development, an so we can carry on. It is simple common sense for us to establish structures of negotiation in which we are able to deliberate on these common interests, and reach agreement. It was an achievement when we were able, in 1982, to establish the Council of Ministers.

What I want to tell the hon the leader—I hope my memory is not playing tricks on me—is that I do not know of one occasion on which it was necessary, within the framework of that inter-state co-operation, to vote on any subject or any item.

Are you referring to a constitutional framework?

Yes, of course.

Then there are two aspects involved.

Those are the two aspects.

A negotiating framework is different to a constitutional framework.

A confederation means an agreement among various states to cooperate on specific subjects, and defined in that way, that is a constitutional framework, but with the qualification that any participating state or member state need not acquiesce in the decisions, and can withdraw. [Interjections.]

Of course we must co-operate. The hon leader knows that we have succeeded, by way of agreement, in establishing a joint secretariat which is manned and financed by all five states. Between Pretoria and Johannesburg a complex is being constructed which will accommodate the secretariat.

Therefore, when I say that is part of the solution, I do not mean in one state. I want to ask the hon leader please not to be so mistrustful. Nor am I inviting them to rejoin the Republic. In any event, I would not be so insulting to them, because what right do I have to do so?

The fault lies with the hon the leader’s concept of self-determination. He believes that self-determination can only be self-determination in absolute terms, to use his own words; such absolute terms that only states which are fully separated from one another can have full self-determination. That is the hon the leader’s definition.

I want to ask him whether, when France and Britain are acting together in the European Common Market, they have relinquished their self-determination. When the USA and West Germany are acting in concert in NATO, and the USA, by way of agreement, deploys some of its missiles in Germany, has Germany lost its self-determination? Surely that does not make any sense. [Interjections.]

The hon the leader will know that self-determination is a relative concept. If we want to absolutise it, as the hon the leader does, we are being unrealistic in our views.

The hon the leader said the Constitution had failed.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

He also referred to the test to which the tricameral system was being subjected. I think there is a misconception that the Constitution has to eliminate all differences and conflict. [Interjections.] However, that is not the task of the Constitution; on the contrary, even if it were, the Constitution could not succeed in doing so. On that point the hon member Prof Olivier is correct. Formulae and institutions are not going to succeed in doing so. It is people who have to succeed in doing so. The task of the Constitution, which is in fact where the rules are made, is to deal with and regulate any differences which exist.

Consequently the Constitution is succeeding if the differences can be accommodated, without destroying the system and rendering the governmental function ineffective. That is why we must expect there to be conflict and differences from time to time. Not only does the Constitution presuppose this; it makes provision for mechanisms for resolving the conflict in specific cases. It makes provision for a decision on the conflicts.

I maintain that it does not indicate a failure of the Constitution if differences exist. The criterion we must apply is surely not what happens once only. We must look at the performance of the Constitution over the past three years. Then it becomes apparent, in spite of differences, and there are major differences, and tension—there is tension in this House, why should there not be tension between the respective Houses?—that a tremendous amount has been achieved. Through their participation our Coloured and Indian communities have achieved an enormous amount in order to improve the living conditions of their people. The participation of the three groups in this system has been the driving force behind continued reform. Innumerable forward steps were taken in this connection, but I am not going to repeat them again.

Hear, hear!

Oh please, the hon member for Overvaal will concede that I did not keep on interrupting him when he was speaking.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must please contain himself!

The system has been successful in achieving a high measure of unanimity in the decision-making. Surely hon members know that during the past three years the decision-making mechanism, the arbitration power of the President’s Council, was used on only three occasions. I maintain that the Constitution proves that peaceful and democratic constitutional development is possible, but we must ask ourselves to what extent we are, with our participation in the committees, increasing tension and conflict with our own standpoints.

It is no use taking a delight in all the snags and in the conflicts that we see in the system. There is not one hon member in this Committee or in any party that comes here with a cut-and-dry model and says “this is mine”. That is the reason why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition appoints a partition committee, even though his policy is one of partition.

A partition commission!

A partition commission!

Where do you get that from?

I understood the hon member for Sasolburg to say that the CP was going to appoint such a commission. [Interjections.]

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

No, I just want to finish.

The hon leader then asked us whether we allowed ourselves to be blackmailed by Rev Hendrickse. The hon leader is very fond of expressions such as “extortionary”, and “I won’t stand for it!”. No, the Government does not allow itself to be held to ransom; not even by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition! [Interjections.] The Government enters into negotiations with everyone who is prepared to lay their claims and aspirations on the conference table, so that we can find a method of surviving or existing.

The Government is negotiating with people, but I will understand if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not grasp this. He asks whether we still adhere to the standpoint that Black communities “should not be included in the present Constitution”. The answer is “yes”. Our standpoint is the same today as it was in 1983. Precisely because of the fact that we believe that the present Constitution is not suitable for extending democracy to the Black people as well, an election was held this year on 6 May in which a specific mandate was requested to negotiate on the participation of Black communities at the legislative and the executive levels. If it had been possible to accommodate them in the same system, surely it would not have been necessary to do that.

In that election the NP Government stated unequivocally that there had to be negotiations on those structures, and that the structures had to make provision for power-sharing among Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Consequently we are still openly and expressly adopting the standpoint that the present Constitution has limitations and that new alternatives must be sought.

I come now to the hon member Prof Olivier, and I immediately want to convey my thanks to him. I thank him for the self-controlled way in which he addresses the problems of South Africa. I have great appreciation for that.

The hon member argued that we were no closer to a solution to our constitutional problems today. One of the reasons he advanced was that the participants in the tricameral Parliament say that their participation in the system does not mean that they support it. That was one of his arguments.

Now let us immediately say to one another that not a single hon member or party thinks that the 1983 Constitution, which made provision for the tricameral system, addresses the constitutional problems of our country with any finality. We agree on that score. Nor is the 1983 Constitution the only legal instrument for constitutional-political participation in our country. The hon member will concede that there is a series of Acts dealing with this matter. Therefore the 1983 Constitution was not final.

What is important—I should like to propagate this idea to the hon member—is that in spite of all the criticism and in spite of all the efforts of previous governments, it is surely true that people of colour have representation in the legislative institutions and the executive authority. This must serve as a training ground for us to demonstrate that people of colour can co-operate, and if we can prove that, it can allay people’s fears about further reform in the future. I am sorry, but I want to concede that the hon member is correct in saying that it is not possible to attain the ideal system overnight, for it is not an ideal society for the systems we know.

†Then the hon member says that it is not correct to talk about broadening the base of democracy, but that we should rather talk about co-optation if I understood him correctly.

Co-optation and not the broadening of democracy.

That is how I understood it. I assume that the hon member, among other things, is referring to the fact that Blacks, Coloureds and Indians serve on the executives of provinces when he talks about the concept of co-optation. He indicates that that is what he had in mind.

I would just like to make the statement that democracy as a concept means representative government, and the hon member would agree with me.

Yes.

He agrees. In this sense democracy has long been part and parcel—in a limited sense, I concede—of South Africa’s constitutional history. If words have meaning—I submit they have—and if the term “broadening” is applied to the main element of democracy, namely representativeness… [Interjections.] That is not the only element, if the hon member will just give me a chance. If it applied to the main element of democracy it indicates that democracy is broadened whenever more people are represented in governmental processes.

In contrast, co-optation means the appointment of people who are not representative of the people.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member may differ with me, but may I please just complete my exposition.

†In terms of this definition I would like to suggest that the appointed provincial executives cannot, except—that I want to concede—in a limited sense, be termed or called an example of co-optation.

The question is rather whether the executives are representative of the people, and I submit that to a large extent they are, since the members have been appointed on the advice of the majority parties in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Another argument is that co-optation and democracy are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that is true. I believe that co-optation can, when necessary, be applied together with other forms of representation, for example in elections. I concede that point to the hon member. Let us, however, apply this principle to the South African situation. Then I believe the hon member will accept that democracy has in fact been broadened on various occasions in the past. Historically it was broadened when the franchise was extended to females, because they had not had that right before. Democracy was broadened when self-governing territories elected legislative assemblies, and when Indians and Coloureds were, through negotiation, included at central Government level by the Constitution Act, 1983. Whether the rights are limited in terms of the perception of the hon member for Sea Point is not the argument. I believe the argument is that in terms of the hon member’s own definition the Constitution Act, 1983, implied the broadening of democracy, because it implied greater participation on an elected basis in the case of people who had never had it before.

Democracy was broadened when Indians and Coloureds were included in the executive committees of the various provinces, and when all population groups were accommodated in regional services councils at local government level.

I believe that if we pass the Bill dealing with the National Council a further forum will be created to extend this even further.

*The hon member said that we were no closer than before to a political solution. He referred to proposals, such as those for the constellation of states, the Special Cabinet Committee and the National Council. I maintain—we can differ on this point—that the democratic base of participation has been broadened over the years. It is not only the present Constitution which has brought about a broadening of political participation. The hon member knows what the situation is. I say again—he must please not regard this as criticism—that he knows that in 1982 the Act on Black local authorities was passed, and it contained an element which the hon member supported in principle.

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

Please, I can reply to that later. I shall give him an opportunity to put his question later, if he does not mind.

If we want to accommodate the people elected by the Black communities on the regional services councils, surely we have made progress. I maintain—I make no apology for this—that we must create institutions that can serve as a training ground to which people who, for historic reasons, have never functioned in such institutions, can be exposed.

Surely the Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu-Natal cannot be seen as anything but part of a process of democratisation in South Africa, on a regional basis. In fact, the Government modified the National Council Bill, after negotiation, to provide that elected members of all the population groups of the country may serve on it as well. I maintain that this is a powerful, dynamic stimulus for reform.

I think the hon member is caught up in a contradiction. He criticised us and said—he has the right to do so—that our models had failed. Later, however, he said that structures and formulae were not the answer to our problems. I agree with him on that score.

The hon member for Stellenbosch raised an important point in this connection. He said that if we did not succeed in the social and economic spheres, then political models would not resolve the problem either. I agree with the hon member. If democratic values and tolerance cannot be written into the hearts of our people, no constitution, however ideal it may be, will withstand the ravages of time.

The hon member asked whether the NP was in favour of Black people being represented in Parliament. Did the hon member not read the election manifesto of the NP? The election manifesto states unequivocally that Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks must be represented on the central legislative and executive levels. It said that the structures within which this needs to be done, must be negotiated by the parties. Surely the hon member knows this.

This is going to be the last observation in this connection. First the hon member says—he must tell me if I have misinterpreted him, because I may have—that the South African communities have certain inherent conflicts. I agree with him. That is true. Later in his speech, however, he then says that the exclusion of the Black communities from constitutional structures is the reason for the conflict. There is something in the hon member’s argument that I want to concede to him, namely that the exclusion can lead to conflict. That is why, when we debated this Constitution here, we simultaneously adopted the standpoint that Black communities should also be further accommodated, and then the relevant process of investigation and negotiation began. Surely the hon member knows that. But the contention that the exclusion of Black communities is the cause of conflict in South Africa surely cannot be true. At best the hon member can argue that it is an element which can inherently affect conflict, but as an academic the hon member cannot, in all fairness, adopt an absolute standpoint in that regard. The contradiction is revealed in the statement made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He maintained that no other system costing such a great deal of money had done so little for people. But the hon member Prof Olivier—and I compliment him on this—said in his speech that important structures, fundamental and functional reforms, had taken place. But not enough.

Changes.

Yes, or reform. Surely it is the same thing. I want to thank him for that testimonial, and for his reasonableness.

The last aspect is that of the hon member who adopted the standpoint that by the devolution of power to the provinces we have fragmented matters which should be dealt with on a national level. I am the first to concede that there are matters which must be dealt with on a national level, and examples of such matters are defence, foreign affairs, finance, the economic policy and the Treasury. That is true. However, there are many general affairs which can in fact be devolved to the provincial or regional tiers of government, or to the local level. But then this should not be seen as a fragmentation of services; it must be seen as a philosophy with which the hon member’s party agrees. His point is that these are processes involving the division of power and of executive functions.

Then there must be legislative…

I am coming to that. They have it. Listen to what the hon member for Sea Point is saying. He says there must then be legislative authority. But surely the provinces have it!

Where?

Go and read the Provincial Government Act. [Interjections.] Sir, with all due respect, the principle is not to bring about fragmentation by devolution, but to bring the Government closer to the grassroots level, to expedite decision-making and to make flexibility an integral part of the system, so that regional differences and conditions can be accommodated. I want to tell him that the maximum devolution of power is part of the policy of the hon member’s own party, because listen to what is stated here. I am quoting from the PFP brochure entitled Constitutional Plan for a new South Africa. I am quoting from page 7, and the government system which the PFP recommends is the following:

Now we must take into consideration that the federal participating states are going to be entitled to original legislative powers derived from a written constitution. There is no other way of doing this.

The question which now arises, in my opinion, is this: How many federal participating states are going to be established in terms of this policy? Will this not, in the implementation of their functions, also bring about a fragmentation of functions? The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is not present at the moment, but he levelled criticism at the proliferation of institutions by the Government. I want to ask him whether this federal model will not have own governments too? Will it not have ministers, a prime minister, officials and legislative assemblies? The hon member and his party would do well to establish what the cost of such a system would be. It is very clear that whereas the hon member Prof Olivier feels aggrieved about the devolution of executive and legislative functions, his own party can provide him with a reply in that regard.

The hon member for Ermelo is not present at the moment. Consequently I shall reply to his speech tomorrow.

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

No, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by making five brief observations on the hon the Minister’s voluminous speech. Firstly I want to say that if the hon the Minister chooses to view himself and the members of his party as belonging to the same nation as the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, he is free to do so. However, we on this side of the Committee do not view the matter in that light. We see ourselves as members of the Afrikaner people and, together with other White cultural groups in this country, as members of our fatherland’s White nation as well. [Interjections.]

Secondly I want to say that we on this side of the Committee have a high regard for the hon the Minister’s honesty in acting like a man—unlike some of his hon colleagues in the Cabinet—and openly admitting that the NP had changed its policy. [Interjections.] Furthermore, he also openly admitted that the NP would make further changes. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I hope I shall enjoy the same protection against interjections as the hon the Minister enjoyed.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that there is virtually only one more way in which the NP could change its policy, and that would be to claim, like the PFP, that South Africa should be handed over to a majority government dominated by Blacks.

Thirdly, the hon the Minister said that the 1983 Constitution entrenched the self-determination of the Whites. Admittedly he did go on to say that this was a relative concept. It is ironic that the self-determination of the Whites has been guaranteed in the 1983 Constitution in such a way that the so-called mighty NP Government is today unable to postpone the general election which, by rights, should take place in 1989, until 1992 without the approval of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Fourthly I want to say that I think the two marathon speeches the hon the Minister made yesterday and today have assured at least one of his colleagues, namely the hon the Minister of National Education, that no more opponents remain in the race for the presidency. In his marathon speeches the hon the Minister succeeded in providing concrete proof that the NP had no definite plan which it could submit to the Whites regarding their future. He proved that the NP was indeed on the road to nowhere as far as the Whites are concerned. As a Transvaler representing a constituency bordering on the Orange Free State, it is inevitable that I should be in constant contact with Free-Staters and, consequently, that I should also share in the passions, the expectations and the ideals of our Free State farmers. In fact, after the Curry Cup champions of 1987, namely Northern Transvaal…

Hear, hear!

… the Free State team has always been my favourite rugby team. I always support Free State unless, of course, they choose to tackle the Blue Bulls. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to say a few words about the Free State in this debate.

Just as the Free State finally tipped the balance in favour of becoming a Republic in the 1960 referendum, so it will also be the Free State which finally tips the balance in favour of a take-over of power by the CP in the next general election. [Interjections.]

The complete ideological about-face on the part of the NP, with regard to the constitutional future of our fatherland, is having a practical impact on the welfare of our people and, more particularly, on that of the Free State. It is particularly the NP’s new policy in relation to Blacks in urban areas, in which regard the NP, having accepted the principle, is now engaged in planning how these Blacks may exercise their political rights at the highest level of government in the same political dispensation in an undivided father-land together with the Whites, as the hon the Minister has in fact said, that has caused—and this is quite natural—the expectations of Blacks to acquire the effective power in the undivided fatherland as a result of their numerical preponderance, to soar. This is, of course, one of the direct determining causes of the state of unrest, violence and revolution in our fatherland today.

It must be stated categorically here today that the NP’s new policy with regard to Blacks, particularly on the abolition of influx control and failure to apply the group areas legislation, is also directly responsible for the present dramatic increase in the Black population of the Free State. In this regard I want to ask the hon the Minister a few direct questions about the Government’s plans for the Black town Botshabelo, which was formerly known as Onverwacht. I want to ask the hon the Minister to listen to me, because this is a direct question. In the first instance I want to know whether the Government plans to incorporate Botshabelo into the national state of Qwaqwa.

Would the hon member repeat that question, please?

Does the Government plan to incorporate Botshabelo into the national state of Qwaqwa, or has such a proposal already been submitted to the government of Qwaqwa? Rumours to the effect that Qwaqwa would only be interested in Botshabelo if all non-Sothos were to be removed from it are, in fact, being disseminated in that area. If those rumours are true, what is the Government’s standpoint on this issue, and what will happen to the non-Sothos, who will no longer be welcome in Botshabelo and will have to leave? It does not take a logician to arrive at the conclusion that these approximately 300 000 Blacks would swarm into the White group areas because, after all, there is no longer any legislation to prevent the influx of Blacks into Bloemfontein, for example. On behalf of the Free Staters we should like to have some clear answers from the hon the Minister regarding Botshabelo and the planning of the constitutional future of this Black township.

We have just been talking about the Government’s new policy in regard to urban Blacks. However, let us take a look at what the NP’s urban Black policy was as recently as 1973. [Interjections.] I know the hon members on the opposite side of the Committee are extremely sensitive and touchy about their own former doctrines. We on this side of the Committee shall continue to remind them of this and we shall continue to quote their words and to tell them what they themselves professed and believed in so far as South African politics is concerned. I should like to quote:

Mr Chairman…

I want to read a quotation; I do not have time for any questions. I want to quote from the Nasionale Boek of 1973, which commemorated the 25th year… [Interjections.] Certain hon members are now passing some strange comments on that book…

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

Order! The hon member has already indicated that he does not wish to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

In this book, which in many respects was regarded as the proverbial bible of the NP, and which was published to mark the 25th anniversary of the NP’s coming to power, the NP said the following about the “Bantoe in Blanke gebied”:

They were therefore referring to 1998—

This is the NP speaking—

Another sort of policy—

This is the policy of the NP:

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

I quote further:

That was the policy of the NP and that was what hon members on the opposite side of the Committee professed, something which today they are attempting to portray as being ludicrous and unfeasible.

To continue, the second very important and delicate matter I want to deal with is that of the Government’s handling of hospitals in the Free State. During the last election the NP went from one platform to another and reiterated ad nauseam their guarantee of an exclusive community life for the Whites. I take it the hon members are still doing so, or are they no longer doing it? There is no doubt that the fact that the Free State did not fall into the hands of the CP during the past election was largely attributable to those guarantees.

The fact is that only five hospitals in the whole of the Orange Free State have been classified as own affairs hospitals for Whites. All the others are now general affairs hospitals for people of various races. [Interjections.] The question which must now be asked is whether the Government, which until recently still guaranteed the Whites a community life of their own, is now of the opinion that Whites in hospitals no longer form part of the community. I ask this because their right to an exclusively White hospital, with White nursing and medical services, has now been nullified by the Government’s policy, which has led to a situation in which only five White own affairs hospitals will remain throughout the whole of the Free State. I want to tell the hon the Minister across the floor of the Committee today that every sick White individual who is taken into hospital and is nursed or could possibly be nursed by non-Whites…

Do you object to that?

Of course we object to it! [Interjections.]

By the time those Whites are discharged from those hospitals, they are already CP supporters, or not far from it. [Interjections.] As with all integration measures—I hope you will afford me a little protection now, Sir—which this Government has implemented, the integration of the Free State hospitals will play an important role in exposing the treachery of the NP against its own people.

I have already spoken about the NP’s plans for our constitutional future. As a result of the unrest which has stemmed from the expectations of the Blacks, the Police are finding it simply impossible to control the border with Lesotho effectively and to combat crime and theft in the border area. In this regard I am referring specifically to the area adjacent to the border between Zastron and Wepener, the so-called flats, as well as the Clarens area, where robbery, theft and general plundering have now begun to assume unmanageable proportions. I request the hon the Minister to speak to his colleagues so that these problems, which some of our people are experiencing there, may receive urgent attention and so that law and order may be restored to those areas.

The absurdity of the Government’s policy of sharing power through consensus government is probably nowhere more clearly emphasized than in the composition of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State. According to the 1985 census there are 330 000 Whites, 62 000 Coloureds and 70 Indians in the entire Orange Free State. During the last election the CP polled 43% of all the votes cast in the Orange Free State and therefore represents 141 000 Whites in the Orange Free State. The House of Representatives represents less than half as many voters, and with the exception of 70 voters, the House of Delegates does not represent any of them. These two Houses together represent less than half the number of voters which the CP represents in the Orange Free State. However, those two Houses combined not only have more members on the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State than the CP, but they also have more than the entire House of Assembly, which represents 330 000 Free State voters. [Interjections.]

This absurd situation is a reflection of the NP’s policy of power-sharing. One may rightly ask, if power-sharing, even with minority groups such as the Coloureds and the Indians, has this sort of result for the Whites, what will become of the Whites when they also have to share power with a Black majority in our fatherland.

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has now become the new unofficial leader of the CP in the Orange Free State. This happened after Mr Daan van der Merwe tried in vain to gain a foothold in that province during the general election. Moreover, I also want to say that we Free Staters are renowned for being decent people. In a lighter vein, I want to ask hon members not to hold it against us that we cannot choose our neighbours, because the hon member told us with great pride that he was a neighbour of the Orange Free State. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke dealt with a number of matters. Firstly, he reacted to the whole question of the Afrikaner people and so on…

And so on! That is all it means to you. [Interjections.]

If the arrogant hon member for Potgietersrus will just contain himself, he will discover what I mean by “and so on”. He said he was proud to be a member of the Afrikaner people. I have no fault to find with that. I am just as proud…

And so on!

… of it. He also said he was a member of the White nation. I want to tell him that there is no such thing as a White nation. As the hon the Minister has indicated, a nation is a political concept. [Interjections.] When one talks about White, this refers to a biological concept. One therefore speaks of a White race in a biological context.

Oh, man, you should go and study Political Science I.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke also claimed that the Orange Free State would tip the balance in favour of the CP during the next election. I have quite a surprise for the hon member, because the Orange Free State has always been known for its moderation, loyalty and level-headedness. I need not remind him of the history of the Anglo-Boer War. I also want to quote what the hon leader of the NP said in this regard in the Orange Free State. He said, and I quote:

That is to say, the Free State—

And I want to add that we will not—

Hear, hear!

The hon member also referred in passing to hospitals in the Free State, saying that only five were known as own affairs hospitals. I just want to tell the hon member that the historical development of the hospitals has been such that some of them provide for White and non-White wards under one roof. The hospital at Hopetown is therefore not an own affairs hospital because it has been accommodating various population groups under one roof for many years now. That is the only reason why it is regarded as a general affairs hospital, and therefore it does not in any way impinge upon the exclusive community life of the Whites in the Free State.

He also spoke about those non-Whites who were being employed as nursing staff in the Free State. The administration of the Free State went so far as to send a team of people overseas in an effort to recruit nurses—without much success. Therefore, the question the Free State had to ask itself was whether it should rather let people die than allow them to be nursed by people of Colour. I must say, there has been a very favourable reaction from certain members of the public—some of whom, I believe, were CP supporters—who were treated with compassion by these Coloured nurses for whom I personally have the highest regard. Nevertheless, several wards in the Free State hospitals have been closed due to a shortage of staff. That concludes my remarks to the hon members for Schweizer-Reneke.

In preparing for this debate I took a brief look at some of the previous debates on the Constitutional Development and Planning Vote, particularly in so far as they dealt with the provinces. I came across some very interesting reading matter. On Thursday, 7 May 1985, a speech by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was reported in Hansard…

Sixty pages long.

… in which he said that no democratic…

Mr Chairman, as I see it, since one may not refer to the hon member for Overvaal, who is not prepared to go to the border, as being afraid, one may presumably refer to him as being less than brave, and he should kindly just give me an opportunity to speak.

Run, Koos, run!

The hon the Minister said that no democratic system in South Africa could last if the model did not bear the following stamp in bold letters: “Manufactured in South Africa for the demands and circumstances of South Africa, for and by all its citizens”. The hon the Minister went on to make a further reference during this debate. He also said there were several preconditions for success in this specific regard—that we would have to make sacrifices; inter alia personal sacrifices. He also said it would make certain financial and economic demands on us, as well as emotional demands and would require intellectual sacrifices. The limitations to our success were to be found in all these elements. Then the hon the Minister said the following (Hansard: Assembly, 7 May 1985, col 4994):

The present system of second-tier Government serves as a good example of the new school of thought in South Africa which is intended to satisfy the demands and circumstances of our country. The new form of provincial government has become firmly established since the provincial councils were phased out a little over a year ago and, notwithstanding the inevitable growing pains, they have not created the slightest impression, during that transitional period, that a vacuum has been created. The credit for that must go to the Administrators, the members of the executive committees and the officials in the various provinces.

The Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State, of which I am privileged to be a member, met this year for the first time to consider the budget and the report of the auditor-general. The hon member for Bethlehem did a very good job of controlling the proceedings at those meetings and one trusts that all the members of that committee, including those from the other Houses, are kindly disposed towards the inhabitants of the Free State. I also want to congratulate the Administrator of the Free State, as well as the members of the executive committee and those officials who were present, on the Free State’s performance before the standing committee. These people reinforced our impression that they had their finger on the pulse of every facet of provincial government in the Free State.

Provincial Executive Committees dealing with general affairs are now racially mixed; in other words, these bodies are at the forefront of relations politics in our country. Because they have also taken over the work of the old development boards, the Executive Committee and Provincial Administration of the Orange Free State also administer 76 Black townships in the province.

Executive Committees promote the image of reform politics because, among other things, they also come into daily contact with all communities on either a collective or an individual basis. Attitudes at this level of government must also reflect the attitude of the central Government, and the rapport that exists among the various population groups in the Free State is also attributable, inter alia, to the actions of the executive committee and the provincial administration. We dare not underestimate the role the executive committees play in this country.

Provincial government deals with very sensitive matters such as health care for all population groups. As a Bloemfonteiner I should like to point out the importance of the training hospitals of the faculty of medicine at the UOFS in Bloemfontein, namely Universitas Hospital, the Pelenomi Hospital and the National Hospital. Consultation takes place on an ongoing basis between them and the various faculties of the university.

The quest of the training hospitals is for excellence. This applies to three components. The first of these is training, the second is research and the third is patient care. As far as training is concerned, it is interesting to note that more than 1 000 students are being trained as doctors and receiving instruction in para-medic fields at those three hospitals. The academic staff at those hospitals understandably perform an indispensable function. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I notice that the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, who is one of the representatives in the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State, does not think it is worth while to be present in this Committee during this short debate. I must accept that this hon member is one of the people the CP feels should be responsible for the leadership of the CP in the Free State. If that is the approach of this non-residential hon CP member of the Free State, we shall not be able to conduct a debate with him.

How many Ministers are sitting on the opposite side? [Interjections.]

We are involved in a debate on the Free State. If I were to make a choice, I should much rather send the hon member for Delmas to act as chief spokesman of that party on this matter.

It was an experience to see the hon member for Delmas and the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke taking part in the sittings of the standing committee. The amazement and astonishment of the two hon members was extraordinary.

Middelburg!

I am sorry, I meant the hon member for Middelburg, not the hon member for Delmas. They witnessed how an executive committee, which did not consist only of Whites, could co-operate and take decisions. That is what they experienced there.

What decisions did they take?

The hon member wants to know what their decisions were. Does the hon member not understand that administrative decisions are taken by the executive committee on a daily basis?

Is that democracy at its best?

Democracy cannot be judged in terms of what takes place in only one specific body.

But also in terms of that.

It was with visible amazement and astonishment, however, that the two hon members of the CP took part in a discussion in which people of other races were in a position to make contributions as well. In due course these hon members and their party will learn as well.

It will be a bit of a struggle.

The hon member says it will be a bit of a struggle.

The standing committee on the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State has dealt with a series of matters. One aspect emerged very clearly, and that is why I am very pleased that the Administrator of the Free State can be present here today. The efficiency with which the executive committee functions in the provincial administration can, in my opinion, be assessed in terms of certain important criteria. The most important of these is how central Government legislation is being implemented, and how general central Government policy decisions are being implemented in the province.

Because I have very little time, I want to indicate to hon members, using one example, how the executive committee in the Provincial Administration of the Orange Free State deals with sensitive legislation of this Government. I am referring specifically to the handling of the Group Areas Act and certain provisions of that Act.

We had a rather acrimonious debate in this House on the admission of Indians to the Free State. Hon members will remember that by the end of the debate even the CP were becoming convinced that we had no real reason not to admit Indians to the Free State.

Nonsense!

I think the hon member, who is reacting all of a sudden, is one of the hon members who was beginning to see the sense of our arguments towards the end. They were beginning to accept this. How did the executive of the Free State deal with the small group of Indians that wanted to settle in the Free State? With sound judgement and with wisdom, permit authorisation residence was arranged for those Indians until a place could be identified for their permanent settlement.

What are you going to do about their franchise?

The hon member wants to know what we are going to do about their franchise. Is the hon member not sitting in a tricameral Parliament? Does he not know that they have the franchise already, even if they are living in the Free State? These people are not without representation. Surely the hon member knows that. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately my time has almost expired. I merely want to address this short word of thanks and congratulations to the executive committee and the administration of the Free State for the understanding and wisdom with which they are implementing the legislation and the broad policy guidelines established by this Government. We as Free Staters are truly proud of the executive authority of the Orange Free State.

Mr Chairman, the debate now in progress has to date illustrated very well how the hon members on that side look after the interests of their voters here. Not one of them took the floor, in the interest of the Whites, to put their case. [Interjections.] They are more concerned about the advancement of the affairs of the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians here, while they completely ignore the people who have sent them here.

They do not need it.

If we go back to the referendum we see that since then the NP has been intimidating the Whites in South Africa. They are not managing to do this. An increasing number of Whites see through their plans. Yesterday the hon the Minister again told us that if we did not do this or that we would have a revolution overnight. Surely that is not right. Why do the Whites in South Africa always have to be reminded that if they do not want to relinquish their powers there will be revolution? The Blacks are not told “You are the cause of the revolution”.

The NP is also very deeply hurt when they are reminded of their past. The hon the Minister again referred to this in his speech this afternoon. They are then hurt so badly that they have to resort to anything.

NP statements over the past years were pinpointed. [Interjections.] Oh, and then we heard it. When we were opposed to power-sharing, we had a Westminster system. The ridiculousness of that! Whether one has power-sharing under a Westminster system or any other, it still remains power-sharing.

Real oxygen thieves. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon members to give the hon member a chance to complete his speech.

There are two hon members on that side of the Committee…

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

No, Sir, I am not interested in replying to a question.

When I spoke on behalf of the Whites some while ago I was reviled as a racist. I was simply advancing the interests of the Whites here, but yesterday when the Progs spoke about the Blacks here, they suddenly shouted: “What about the Whites? What about the Whites?” They only have courage after a Wednesday evening meal; then they can make a fuss. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to state that there is an accusation against the behaviour of members of Parliament in the insinuation that some can only make a noise after supper, after 20h00. I ask that the hon member withdraw that remark.

Order! I request the hon member rather to withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Before the referendum in 1983 they were opposed to power-sharing because there was a Westminster system, but after 1983 there was no longer a Westminster system. During the referendum those hon members on the other side of the Committee told the voters that we had to bring the Coloureds and the Indians into our system. For what purpose? To keep the Blacks out. That was what they were propagating. [Interjections.] They said that they did not want the Blacks with them and that they would be able to hold out if the Coloureds and the Indians were on the side of the Whites and sat in the same Parliament. [Interjections.] Now they are going to amend the Constitution again and then attribute problems to the other constitution they had. It was pointed out that they were groping about in the dark, and that is still happening every day. [Interjections.]

I want to deal briefly with what the hon member for Mossel Bay said the day before yesterday about our hon leader. According to him our hon leader supposedly said that in politics the name of the game is power, and the hon the State President supposedly never said that he did not agree.

That is not what I said.

The hon the Minister has just tried to explain this, but we must not play with words. I should also like to repeat the words uttered by the hon the State President for hon members:

What he said is very clear, and it will not help us to play with words now. The hon the State President said very clearly that if it was a power-game, he rejected it with all the force at his command. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay also said this. He repeated it three times. Hon members on the opposite side were not the only ones present in this Committee. We agree wholeheartedly with him, and we did not once deny it, but we did not say that everyone here was wide awake. If they did not listen, we shall repeat what we said.

The hon member for Mossel Bay also mentioned a few questions put by him. The first one was:

We must analyse this question. This was, after all, the same NP sitting there now, the one which spent millions of rands on independent as well as self-governing states. The land is there already. What still has to be divided up? They have, after all, done so.

They also ask us where the money is going to come from, but they ignore the billions of rands that they want to spend to house Blacks in the existing White areas. One could spend the money they want to spend far more effectively in the independent states.

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

No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

He went on to say:

I have already dealt with the fact that there are certain places:

We have said time and again that we are quite prepared to negotiate. [Interjections.] To that I want to add that we are prepared to negotiate from a basis of strength. [Interjections.] We are not going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by others. We are going to tell them that they can have independence. We are not going to force them to move like the NP did when they believed in separate development.

We nevertheless say that if those Blacks do not want independence, they will fall under the laws of the Republic that are made by the Whites and they will not have rights here. They will be given those rights in their homelands, in their independent states. That is where the difference lies, and I hope that this will put an end to this. [Interjections.]

I do not have much time, but I briefly want to look at the new system. The hon the Minister said the regional services councils were evidence of… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first instance I very sincerely want to thank all hon members who participated in this debate, which was supposed to be a debate on the Free State. I also want to make use of the opportunity to thank all the members of the standing committee very sincerely for their co-operation.

Second-tier Government is without doubt an extension of the central government and consequently also the responsibility of every hon member who serves on this Committee.

In the first instance I am surprised at the Official Opposition because their chief spokesman today made one very racist comment about hospitals, and for the rest did not refer to the Free State at all. I want to tell that hon member that the policy on hospitalisation in the Free State, and the admission of Whites and non-Whites, has probably not been changed during the past 10 years. While all those hon members were still in the NP, Whites and non-Whites were being treated in the same hospital. What is more, as far back as 1981, 80 Coloured nurses were employed at Universitas Hospital; otherwise those wards would have had to be closed. Those hon members have nothing to say about that now. [Interjections.]

Just as we are putting into operation, at the central level of government, a new system that has been brought into being, we are also doing this at the second-tier of Government, because it is after all no secret that all the hon members who are sitting there agreed that the Westminster system was not the solution to the constitutional problems of our country.

It seems to me that if the party of the hon member for Carletonville—that is the only conclusion I can come to—came into power, they would reintroduce the Westminster system. [Interjections.] Have I drawn the correct conclusion? [Interjections.] In 1981 they nonetheless all agreed that the Westminster system would not work.

I do not think I am going to enlarge any further on what was said by the hon members for Carletonville and Schweizer-Reneke. [Interjections.] I am sorry we had to go and borrow CP members from the Transvaal to serve on our standing committees. The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke comes along with great bravado and says that during the next election they are going to make the Free State CP. In the meantime, with everything that has happened, they could not win a single seat in the Free State. [Interjections.]

Allow me, on this occasion, first of all to congratulate the Administrator, Mr Louis Botha, and members of his Executive Committee very sincerely on the responsible and dedicated way in which they have managed and looked after the affairs of the Free State.

During the sitting of the standing committee there was no doubt that the hon members knew what they were talking about. In no way do I want to give the impression that the system we are dealing with at the moment is perfect. There is probably no system in the world that is perfect. I nonetheless want to say that this system embodies the best possibility of caring for the interests of that province, in a virtually depoliticised way, in the interests of all the inhabitants of that province. Here I am not only referring to the Whites.

I am grateful for the co-operation we have also received from the members of the other Houses. The hon members are now objecting most vehemently because they only have two members on the committee while the Coloureds have seven, but the Coloureds do have five representatives in the Free State. Let me tell the hon member that I went to listen to the debate in the House of Representatives and the Coloureds made a much better contribution than that hon member. [Interjections.] There is no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

Here is an opportunity for everyone to make a real contribution. [Interjections.] I shall now come back to the hon member. If we are sincere, everyone can make a real contribution, without trying to steal a march on one another, to the advantage of the Free State.

Although the Free State is the smallest province, we should not judge it by its size. We should judge it according to the contribution that it generally makes to South Africa. I am now merely referring to the fact that this year we have not lost a single match on our home field, and I hope the hon the Minister is not going to hold last Saturday against us too much. [Interjections.]

Just as the Free State was also first in this historic debate, the Free State is also first in many other fields. It was the Free State which was the first to have the Administrator introduce the Regional Services Council of Bloemfontein on 26 May this year.

The Free State was also the first to establish a game farm.

Where is it?

I will show it to the hon member later on.

Few people in this country are aware of the fact that the Free State is the greatest supplier of hunted as well as live game. As a result of the Free State’s conservation and utilisation policy and instead of having game thinned out using helicopters and spotlights at night the Free State decided that it was going to make this privilege of hunting available to the voters of the country. This has become so popular that there were more than 6 000 applications for the 140 hunting package-deals offered this year. The Free State was first again.

Also in the sphere of library services the Free State was the first to introduce libraries for Blacks. They erected the buildings with their overall content and left the administration of those libraries up to the Black local councils. Fifteen of those libraries are already in existence.

We can go further. The Free State also makes a tremendous contribution in the area of health. I think the hon member for Parktown will like this. In the Free State, at the present moment, up to 12 heart-bypass operations per week are performed. This is not a gimmick, because what is the Free State achieving? It is once again makes productive citizens of people who would otherwise die or become invalids. We are very grateful for that work. The Free State is also a pioneer in the area of oncotherapy. Prof Anderson received international recognition for the work he did.

He was followed by Prof Goedhart who is doing equally fine work. The Free State is one of the leaders in the area of eye diseases as well.

I should like to make use of this opportunity not only to congratulate but also to thank the University of the Orange Free State for the fine training and research done at that university. Hon members will allow me, on an occasion such as this, to congratulate Dr Francois Retief most sincerely on his appointment as Rector of the University of the Orange Free State. We also want to make use of this opportunity to thank Prof Mouton very sincerely for all he has done over the years for the University of the Orange Free State. We are grateful that these two men can work together for another year to augment their successes.

Although the Free State is the smallest province, it produces 40% of the total production in the agricultural sphere.

Fifty percent!

Yes, 50% and more of the wheat that is produced in this country. [Interjections.] I could continue in this vein. In the cultural sphere the Free State has the most modern and well-equipped theatre in the country, if not one of the best in the world. This theatre is not so exceptional because the Free State had a lot of money, but because the Free State was prepared to learn and could learn from the mistakes of the other provinces and from the mistakes and experience of the rest of the world.

The Free State has also done pioneer work as far as museum services are concerned. Hon members who have not yet paid a visit to the Nasionale Afrikaanse Letterkundige Museum in Bloemfontein should really do so. This museum was established under the expert guidance of Prof Petrus Nienaber. Today I should very much like to thank Prof Nienaber sincerely for the tremendous enthusiasm with which he worked each day on this important project at his ripe old age.

The Free State has also played its part in the sphere of reform. The Free State is the province with the largest proportion of Blacks in the country. Only 16% of the inhabitants are White. Now the CP comes along with their partition policy and wants to make a heartland of the Free State. I now ask those hon members how they are going to manage to remove that 84% of Blacks from the Free State.

They are going to paint the people!

The Free State has the largest proportion of Blacks, but it is probably also the province with the best cooperation among all the groups.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition for this opportunity.

I was saying that the co-operation in the Free State between the different race groups is probably the best in the country. Proof of this is the fact that only 3% of the unrest incidents occurred in the Free State. I think hon members should take note of that. [Interjections.]

A mere 18% of the gold-mines in the country are in the Free State, but they are responsible for close on 30% of the gold production. Mr Freestater… [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, you are not from the Free State. The Free State has much to be grateful for, but on the other hand the Free State also has much to be proud of.

Today I should have liked to deal with the separate Votes under the Appropriation, but as a result of a lack of time this is not possible. However, I should like to deal with just one matter for a moment, ie hospital services. Repeated reference has been made to hospital services, but if the Free State is not going to receive funds from the Treasury and is not going to receive further funds by means of savings and the increased tariffs, we run the risk of serious restrictions on the provision and the quality of hospital services in the Free State.

The total amount provided for hospital services is R287 million which is much less than the inflation rate. The Free State has already increased hospital tariffs by 100%, and in some cases by even more. However, if one thinks that only 11,8% of the total amount that is spent on hospital services is recovered from patients, it cannot make much of a difference to the whole problem.

Savings can also be made on medicines. During the past debate on health services much was said about pharmacists. The policy of the Government, however, is not one of opposition to privatisation, and the Free State is not opposed to privatisation either, but then it must not take place at the expense of the State or the province. Prescriptions at present issued by district surgeons average R64 per prescription. The hospital pharmacies can issue these same prescriptions at R35 per prescription. I trust that in the negotiations that are taking place at the moment a method will be found by which private pharmacists can also be accommodated so that they can also provide medicines to district surgeon patients. I repeat that this should not be at the expense of the State, however. We may not allow the quality of hospitalisation, which the Free State jealously guards, to suffer as a result of a shortage of money. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance that an in-depth examination of this matter be carried out in order to enable the Free State, in the year ahead, to continue with the fine work being done in the area of hospitalisation.

Mr Chairman, I will not be following up on the speech of the hon member for Bethlehem. I should, however, like to follow up on what various speakers have said in this debate, and start from where the hon member for Sea Point left off when he said that this debate should be to discuss constitutional options and not for party political hacking.

I believe that if we can emerge from this debate with a clearer picture of what needs to be done in order to bring about a just constitution, not only at central Government level but also at provincial and local government level, and if through this debate South Africa has even a slightly better understanding of what the Government’s vision and constitutional programme is, then we have not wasted our time.

It is my view that many of the speakers, and certainly most of the speakers from the Government benches, unfortunately chose to follow the lead given by the hon the Minister yesterday. For one and a half hours he spun a yarn of generality and convoluted sleight-of-hand. I regret to say to a large extent even in replying to the debate today this theme and this style of speaking were repeated. He certainly did not say anything specific in terms of what we are all looking for. When one looks at the newspaper coverage he received it is clear that there was not one new statement of any relevance to the constitutional future of South Africa that emanated from his address yesterday, and I did not gather anything new in his address today.

Nevertheless certain predictions on the probable course of Government thinking can be made from what has been said in this debate. I would suggest the most accurate prediction would be that we will continue to have delay and indecision in the field of constitution making. I say this because the most obvious indicator of this is precisely the vagueness of the hon the Minister’s speech.

In addition to that most of the NP speakers chose to emphasize the sort of thing that justifies delay. Like the hon the Minister, they emphasized the complexity of our society, the complexity of the problems, the intricacies of solutions, and the uncertainty of the future. All of these are thrown at us as excuses for what the hon the Minister calls caution—he says we should proceed with caution. In this context caution is simply a very polite way—if I may say so—of saying one is going to continue with one’s process of indecision and delay.

It is apparent to anybody who really analyses what has been happening constitutionally in this country, that the NP has always believed in not doing anything that is out of line with, and certainly not ahead of, the thinking of its supporters. “Liewers bang Jan as dooie Jan” has been the NP philosophy in terms of the direction to take, particularly when it comes to constitutional matters and matters to which their electorate will react. They are not inclined to give the lead. They would rather wait and see what will be acceptable, and then they follow. Unfortunately, the people whom they normally follow are on the far right.

This debate has, however, revealed a measure of kite-flying by certain NP caucus members, and this kite-flying, however limited, displayed thinking far ahead of the followers whom the NP normally kowtow to.

You will recall, Mr Chairman, that the hon member for Hillbrow yesterday stressed that any future constitution would have to be the product of all the people to be governed under that constitution. He knows that “all the people” means 25 million—Blacks, Whites, and everybody else in this country. They will obviously be represented by their leaders, and this will obviously include the ANC if this is what the hon member for Hillbrow meant by his statement that it has to be the product of all the people to be governed under the constitution. To me this quite clearly verges on progressive thinking.

They have to reject violence.

Likewise the hon member for Bloemfontein North stressed the morality of every man having the vote in the country of his birth. Although he was not brave enough to call this one man one vote, he knows what it means.

Just honest enough!

Clearly it is one man, one vote.

That is what it is.

If every man has the vote in the country of his birth, that is one man, one vote. [Interjections.]

He also emphasized the importance of the individual as opposed to power blocs which in my opinion are nothing other than a synonym for political groups. He suggested that the NP was a moderate group that emphasized the importance of the individual. I certainly do not agree with his positioning of the NP as a moderate party, but it nevertheless is significant that he should make this distinction between individual rights on the one hand and group rights on the other hand and suggest that the NP is starting to favour individual rights.

With this sort of view being expressed within the NP caucus, why is it that the NP cannot follow this line? Why cannot they take action? Why do they not have the courage to move in the direction of these philosophies? I think the hon member for Ermelo put his finger on the answer. It is very simply that the attitudes of the cycles of apartheid are rigid and unassailable. The racial philosophy and the fears that the NP, pre- and post-Verwoerd—in fact still today—have taught the people, have taken root. We have only to look at the bias of National Christian education and the indoctrination of and hate psychosis drummed into our sons while they are doing their national service… [Interjections.]… to realize that it is nigh on impossible… [Interjections.]

I can tell those hon members, Sir, that I have a son in the army now and the absolute horse-manure that is sold to him in the army, the things which he is expected to believe… [Interjections.]… is absolutely rotten. [Interjections.] My son is serving in the Army, yes.

That is hearsay, man.

It might well be, but I believe my son. [Interjections.]

With this sort of indoctrination that is still taking place in this country today, there is very little chance that people are going to undergo what the hon member for Ermelo referred to as the “gesindheidsverandering” in order to do what is necessary in this country.

The Government cannot afford to continue being led by this frightened group of people albeit of its own creation. It cannot afford to continue to be led by this group of people. If we want to solve the problems of this country I say that in the timespan available to us this Government has to take the lead.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Groote Schuur must forgive me for not reacting to his speech.

Just have a little go at him.

No, I do not even want to do that, because what bothers me is that we are supposed to be discussing provincial government, and apart from the contribution made by the NP during the past hour or two, very little has been said in this Committee about this very important level of our Government.

It would be a mistake to regard provincial government as a lower or inferior level of government. If we look at the functions dealt with by the provincial administrations, we shall see that these are extremely important functions which affect the inhabitants of our provinces directly. I want to go so far as to say that we, as representatives, would be failing in our duty if we did not participate properly in this debate and make contributions to promote that level of government. If we look at the Appropriation Bill, we shall see that 29 Votes have been budgeted for. Apart from two of these, viz the Defence Force and the Administration: House of Assembly, the amount voted for the province of Transvaal, R2,6 billion, is more than has been budgeted for the other 27 Votes. That is what is relevant in this House, and it is my earnest plea that we shall realise the responsibility that rests on us in this debate.

Strictly speaking, there are only two levels of government in my opinion, viz that of the central Government and local government. The provincial government, the provincial administration, is in fact a delegated branch of the central Government which deals with functions of a local nature on the regional or provincial level. As I have said, these functions affect the inhabitants directly. It is true that the provincial administration deals with general affairs, but the functions transferred to the administration by the Government departments, specifically with reference to the Black citizens, are also important. In fact, the administration deals with important functions, specifically in respect of Black citizens, which until recently were still dealt with by the former Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

In the Transvaal, the administration also deals with local authority development, which includes the former development boards. There are 81 Black local authorities in the Transvaal which are autonomous to a great extent, and here we find that the principle of devolution is being applied in an increasingly practical way.

Whereas I contend that there is delegation between the central Government and the provincial administration, we find that there is real devolution at the local level, and I am pleased that that is the direction we are working towards. The Directorate: Community Services of the province deals with the important matter of the development of Black local government, including training, housing and welfare services. It also deals with the establishment of the regional services councils.

By referring to only this one directorate, one can get an indication of what an important part the Administration plays in our constitutional development, particularly when we realise that 56,40% of the Blacks outside the self-governing territories are in the Transvaal. More than half the Blacks in the RSA, outside the self-governing territories, are in the Transvaal, and this Administration—whose vote we are discussing—is primarily responsible for taking care of the needs of these citizens in our country.

If we can succeed in promoting good government in respect of the Blacks, we will be making a sizeable contribution to solving our country’s problems. The Black community rates the assistance and advice, as well as the auxiliary functions presented by the Administration, very highly. The responsible Black leaders in the Transvaal appreciate the way in which they receive these auxiliary services.

It is essential that we allow the status of provincial government to come into its own, because local government and provincial government are the foundations upon which we must build. In many important respects we have succeeded in achieving consensus government on this level. Those who are prepared to take part in the system, people who are subjected to the worst form of intimidation and criticism, must get the credit due to them. I want to mention the name of an MEC, Mr John Mavuso, a man who is prepared to make his contribution in the interests of his own community.

I have said that 56,40% of all Blacks in South Africa live in the Transvaal. Of all South African citizens, 45,66% live in the Transvaal. This does not include the self-governing territories. Of all the Whites in South Africa, 53,94% live in the Transvaal. I want to make a plea, therefore, that when we allocate the funds available for provincial government, we do so in terms of a scientific formula. One province must not feel that another is deriving greater benefit. For that reason I request that we find a scientific formula for provincial financing, similar to the one we use in respect of education, a formula in which demographic as well as geographic and other factors are taken into account. In this way we shall obviate many of the problems.

In conclusion I want to express the utmost appreciation to the Administrator, the Executive Committee and the officials of the Transvaal who render an enormous service to more than half of the citizens of this country. The way in which they do so commands the utmost admiration.

Mr Chairman, in his speech the hon member for Roodeplaat emphasised the importance of our provincial administrations. I think hon members cannot agree more with him. We should very much like to express our thanks and appreciation to our four administrators, and their executive committees, as well as the officials who very ably perform a major and important task. During the past few months they have been entrusted with new and greater responsibilities which have made far greater demands on them. I hope we shall be able to continue with the discussion of the various provincial administrations and their activities tomorrow.

I would very much like to react to certain matters which various hon members raised in the course of the discussion of this Vote. There were hon members who referred to the Group Areas Act. When I listen to the hon members of the PFP, I gain the impression that the party, and the hon member for Green Point in particular, believes that the abolition of the Group Areas Act will lead to the solution of all South Africa’s problems. [Interjections.] However, that hon member and his party are consciously or unconsciously ignoring the fact that those radicals they want to satisfy are not interested in the abolition of the Group Areas Act. This is proved by what a speaker of the UDF said recently in Cape Town. He said:

This is the difference between the Government and the PFP. The NP’s policy is not aimed at a single factor such as the Group Areas Act. The policy of the NP Government is aimed at the retention and promotion of democracy and the free-market system in South Africa.

What does the Labour Party say? What does Mr Rajbansi say about this?

On the other hand we find that the PFP simplistically emphasises the Group Areas Act. This is merely an effort to conceal their lack of an overall strategy against the socialist forces.

I now want to refer to certain remarks made in this debate on the Group Areas Act. This afternoon I want to state very clearly that firstly—this has been stated before and I want to repeat it—the standpoint of the Government is that the Group Areas Act is based on the principle that every person has the basic right to own and to occupy property in this country, and no one is deprived of this right anywhere in South Africa. [Interjections.] On the contrary, the Group Areas Act recognises established rights and grants further rights by the proclamation of areas for the respective groups in which these rights are entrenched and protected.

The hon member for Green Point said this afternoon that this was a dreadfully discriminatory Act.

It is, yes!

He says the Group Areas Act discriminates against people of colour. He says this Act discriminates against people because of the allocation of land. He goes further and says this Act discriminates in respect of agricultural land. I want to refer the hon member to the House of Delegates, where this Vote was discussed on 27 August. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates does not consider the Group Areas Act per se to be discriminatory. During the discussion of this Vote he said the following (Hansard: House of Delegates, Thursday, 27 August 1987, col 2753), and I am quoting:

[Interjections.] Yet the hon member states that we discriminate in respect of the allocation of land, but I shall get back to that. The hon the Minister went on to say:

But it does not happen!

This is precisely what we are doing every day. Let me mention to the hon member for Green Point and the PFP that in spite of the things they say, from 1 January 1986 to 30 June 1987 16 White, 5 Indian and 33 Coloured group areas were proclaimed. The White group areas cover 2 177 ha, the Indian areas 266 ha and the Coloured areas 5 002 ha. For the information of the hon member who always sees discrimination in everything, at present 14 White, 12 Indian and 83 Coloured areas are under consideration. [Interjections.] There is surely no suggestion of discrimination in what I have mentioned to hon members now. [Interjections.]

I now come to the matter of agricultural land. The respective Ministers of Agriculture have recently been holding discussions on agricultural land. Today Coloureds have more than 2 million ha in rural areas, which they use for extensive farming purposes. May I inform hon members that recently large farms were purchased by the Administration: House of Representatives—two in the Little Karoo and one elsewhere. May I inform the hon members that Coloureds also have the right to acquire farms.

Where?

They can acquire farms anywhere in South Africa, by way of a permit if the farm is in a controlled area. [Interjections.] Such permits are allocated from time to time. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member says we are discriminating by way of this Act. [interjections.] The hon member need not shout; I shall get to him in a moment.

People frequently talk and write about hardships people are supposed to have suffered because of the implementation of this Act. I want to accept that this was true in the past. I do not want to argue about it, but at the same time I believe we must all understand that in order to regulate the respective communities, specifically to improve the living conditions in many of the communities and to improve their standard of living, at one stage in the history of this country it was essential to take certain steps. Therefore I want to ask this afternoon that we should not be blinded by what happened 40 years ago. Recognition must be given to what has been achieved, to what has happened in this country. Today all the population groups in South Africa have well-established communities to which local authorities, provincial administrations and the central Government constantly give attention, upgrade and assist.

Do you believe that, Piet?

I not only believe it; I see what is happening. The hon member’s problem is that he has been in the opposition benches for years. His party was the Official Opposition, and they are now sitting there, a defeated party not knowing what is going on. [Interjections.] They do not try to ascertain the facts. They are not interested in the activities of the department. They do not know what is going on in communities. That is why hon members cannot make meaningful speeches and contributions in this House. [Interjections.]

In the second place—I now come to Wood-stock—I want to refer to the frequently repealed fact that although the principles contained in the Group Areas Act are not negotiable, their implementation is under constant consideration. What is of importance, and what must be borne in mind, is that we are dealing with an on-going developmental process in South Africa. When circumstances change, as they are in South Africa, laws which regulate and control specific relations between people cannot remain static. No law which deals with people, eg the Group Areas Act inter alia, can remain the same for ever and a day. That is why, since this Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1950, it has been amended 17 times. One of its most important amendments concerns the introduction of free-trading areas. This afternoon I want to tell hon members that since 30 May 1985, when the new section 19 of the Act came into operation, 128 proposals for free-trading areas have been received from local authorities. Of these, 50 have been finalised, 44 are under consideration and 34 are still being processed.

These proposals include the 48 old deproclaimed user-areas, and of these 28 have already been proclaimed. There were 53 proclamations involved in the 50 proposals which have been finalised, and 106 free-trading areas have been proclaimed. In other words, the throwing open of free-trading areas is the work that is being done. Now hon members are acting as if nothing at all is happening.

I know hon members are aware that this Act is being considered by the President’s Council, and that a debate is going to be held on it in that Council in the near future. This afternoon I want to emphasise that the basic principle on which this Act is modelled, namely that of an own community life for each group and the protection of that community life, is not negotiable. [Interjections.] It is not negotiable.

I have said that we can consider the implementation of the Act, and I want to concede at once that it is not always an easy principle to implement. The Group Areas Act must therefore be made more flexible and must, as the hon the State President said, be implemented with greater understanding. That is what the Government is prepared to do, but this afternoon I want to repeat that we are not prepared to sacrifice the community life of the various population groups. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point also spoke about group areas here earlier this year, and he is a very staunch supporter of the abolition of this Act. I was under the impression that the hon member had the overwhelming support of his constituency, but if I look at his majority of 39 votes, I want to tell him I do not think he has that support.

What about Helderberg?

One cannot draw a comparison. Here is a supporter of the abolition of an Act. He held a meeting in the town hall of Woodstock, and invited the hon the State President and myself there by way of a newspaper report. He then gained a majority of only 39 votes in the election. There is no comparison between Green Point and Helderberg. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the time now.

In a speech the hon member for Green Point made here earlier this year, he referred to Hillbrow and a possible investigation by the Group Areas Board. He said I should have said this in Hillbrow during the election. This is what I did in his constituency. I told the Group Areas Board to investigate Wood-stock, and they held a meeting on this. What happened? The hon member’s majority decreased.

[Inaudible.]

If this had counted against us and had been so tremendously in his favour, he should have had a majority of 3 000, but he had a majority of only 39.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point cannot constantly make interjections.

This afternoon I want to say here that I have never spoken about Hillbrow behind closed doors. I have said in the past that the Group Areas Board must investigate the area. On Saturday, 16 August, I said in Die Burger that apartments or streets could be looked at. What happened in Hillbrow? A PFP majority of 3 000 was converted into an NP majority of 89. If what I had said about Hillbrow was so wrong, the former PFP candidate for Hillbrow would have achieved a tremendous majority. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal stated earlier that the Act was not being implemented consistently. The hon member asked whether the State was still enforcing laws. Again I find it so extremely funny that this hon member simply left his previous constituency, where the so-called infringements had taken place, and fled to another constituency. When that hon member left his former constituency, the NP’s majority rose by 1 500 votes. What is even more interesting is that the hon member for Overvaal’s good friend, Mr S P Barnard, who was the hon member for Langlaagte, where infringements also took place, simply left his constituency too. I do not know what became of Mr Barnard, but it seems to me he is still running. [Interjections.]

In the middle of the election the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order and I held discussions in Mayfair with community leaders such as teachers, clergymen and others, on Hillbrow and on the infringements in Mayfair. What I found interesting was that the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order increased his majority. Our people are therefore asking for order in their communities, and this is what the PFP cannot give or guarantee. That is why it will become a party which is irrelevant and will simply disappear from South African politics.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to the provision in Proclamation R228 of 1973, which states that the use of seating facilities in restaurants and places where refreshments are served, is deemed to be occupation. I want to refer the hon member to Proclamation R17 of 1986…

I did refer to it.

… which amended the previous proclamation so that owners of such facilities, when they are situated in free-trading areas, can decide for themselves whom they will admit. I have instructed the Group Areas Board to investigate the possible further amendment, or even withdrawal, of Proclamation R17 of 1986. Because the President’s Council is investigating the Group Areas Act, we have referred this report and this recommendation to them. I hope that it may possibly form part of their report.

†The hon member for Claremont referred to police investigations in certain of Cape Town’s suburbs and he mentioned that the police were peeping through windows to see whether the occupants were Coloured or White. I am fully aware of the fact that police investigations are taking place in certain areas. Illegal occupation of property is a criminal offence. [Interjections.] It is a criminal offence which is a matter that is dealt with by the SA Police.

How can you be proud of that?

As a matter of fact I have personally referred complaints regarding occupation by disqualified persons to the SA Police for investigation.

Disgraceful! Disgraceful!

The hon member for Green Point is a lawyer and a member of this House in which laws are drafted. However, when I read The Argus of last Saturday evening, 29 August, I saw that his party had established “The Group Areas Problem Unit”, and he featured prominently in that report. I was under the impression that he, as a lawyer, was not telling people to obey and respect laws, but rather telling them that he would help them if they broke the law, and would support them in the process. [Interjections.]

I dare you to report me!

I want to tell that hon member that a party that behaves in that way, and an hon member of this Committee who does that, has no political future.

†The point I wish to make is that the Group Areas Act is an Act of Parliament. I cannot close my eyes to complaints by persons who are not prepared to tolerate contraventions of the Act and who do not want to live in mixed areas. I am not going to close my eyes to that.

Why do you not repeal the law?

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens made the allegation that the hon the State President destroys hopes for reconciliation every time he reaffirms his commitment to the principles of the Group Areas Act. The hon member appears to have only one solution for all the problems of this country—I want to repeat it—and that is to scrap the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Hon members are aware of the fact that the report of the President’s Council—as I have already said—on the Group Areas Act is expected in the near future. I wish to repeat, however, and I want to make it quite clear this afternoon, that this Government does not intend doing away with the basic principles underlying the Act. These principles are the right of everyone to acquire property in this country, and the preservation of an own community life for each of the respective population groups.

*The hon members for Overvaal and Losberg spoke about squatting. I want to deal first with the hon member for Losberg who previously spoke about Suurbekom and who spoke about it again in his speech today. I just want to inform the hon member that our department received the complaints about the matter he mentioned. We have already referred these complaints to the SA Police for investigation, and I know that the SA Police is engaged in that investigation.

And is the matter receiving your attention?

For that reason I do not think it is necessary for us to appoint commissions, as the hon member requested. Let us wait for the results of the investigation by the SA Police. The Transvaal Provincial Administration is also giving attention to squatting at Wheeler’s Farm and a great deal of progress has been made in this regard.

The hon member for Overvaal says that there are 1,3 million Black squatters who are squatting wherever they wish. Let me tell the hon member, and he knows it as well as I do, that squatting is not a new phenomenon. It has been taking place for years now, and when I was a young boy here in Cape Town squatting was already taking place here. However, the Government’s policy is aimed at preventing illegal squatting or restricting that squatting to a minimum by means of planned township development.

The Government is aware that people go to the urban areas without the prospect of accommodation in the relevant residential areas. However, I want to say this afternoon that there are owners of land and buildings who allow their property to be occupied by squatters—in most cases for payment. I paid a visit to the West Rand with the police, and on smallholdings there—a smallholding is utilised for various purposes and eventually is fit for nothing—I saw how Whites had rented pigsties to Black people for R20 per month. It is therefore Whites who are undermining this process. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.