Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (a) inquire into and report on the matter of parliamentary privilege in all its facets; and
2. (b) propose appropriate amendments or additions to the Standing Rules and Orders and related legislation if and where necessary,

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr Speaker, at this stage we just want to point out that anyone who served on the select committee concerned would agree that it was necessary to investigate this matter fully in order to maintain the dignity of and order in this House. We associate ourselves with this motion.

Mr Speaker, it is not our intention to oppose this motion. In fact, we will be supporting it. However, we do wish to make one or two points in this regard.

In the first place we believe that there are literally centuries of practice and precedent in regard to a breach of privilege in terms of parliamentary rules and regulations. It does go back centuries— not in this Parliament, although of course we have a long history in this Parliament going back to 1910. There have, however, been centuries of experience and precedent in other countries in the world.

Therefore one must rely very heavily on these precedents and, I believe, that these precedents make it reasonably clear what constitutes a breach of privilege and what does not constitute a breach of privilege. In this regard one need only look at page 71 of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice—this is not the latest addition— under the heading “Breach of Privilege and ‘Contempt’ ”. He states:

I submit that that is indeed remarkably clear. One can also quote from Kilpin in this regard. Therefore, in my view a breach of privilege is very clearly defined. One hopes that the joint committee that is to be appointed, will in fact take due note of all these precedents and of Erskine May and Kilpin on the subject.

There is one fact that I think we should ask the members of this committee to be very careful of. That is that freedom of speech in Parliament is an absolute essential in any democratic system. Naturally when one is in opposition and an investigation of this nature is started, one immediately wonders how it will affect, adversely or otherwise, members of the opposition who, after all, do not have a voting majority in the House concerned. With a voting majority one can, of course, accomplish all sorts of things. Therefore, we do ask the members of the joint committee to consider this very carefully, because we believe that the fairness of a democratic system entitles every hon member to be equal to every other hon member, whether he is a member of the opposition or a member of the governing party. We realise that any recommendations that will come out of the joint committee have then to go to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and have then to be passed by this Parliament. As an opposition party we can, as an ultimate course in the event of anything coming out of the joint committee that we disagree with vote against it. We can always object if a new standing rule or order is, in fact, introduced into this Parliament.

Therefore, as I have said, we will not be opposing this motion. In fact, we very sincerely hope and trust that clarity will come out of it and that it will prove to be of benefit to this House and to all its members.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank the hon member for Ermelo and his party for their support of the motion.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for his somewhat tortuous support of the motion. I just gain the impression that the hon member would not have supported the motion if he had had a personal choice. The fact of the matter is that the motion is worded exactly in accordance with a report which was supported by all members of that select committee on which the hon member for Yeoville also served.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the abundance of precedents available. Maybe it is that abundance which makes the issue so unclear. Quite often that is the situation. Our typical approach in South Africa is not one of just acting on precedents, but of also going to the principle on which precedents are being built. I think the select committee made it quite clear in unanimous report that there is need for clarification.

This is what the joint committee will do. With regard to the question of freedom of speech, I think even without this investigation the question of freedom of speech has been properly handled throughout the history of the South African Parliament and the hon member really has no reason to fear that this basic important right of all parliamentarians will in any way whatsoever become the prey of such a joint committee. The whole object is to balance within the framework of the right of freedom of speech, also the rights of all hon members and the rights of our courts and other bodies which fall under the abundance of precedents to which he referred.

I therefore think that we are going to get greater clarity and, hopefully, some clarification arising from this committee which will also be of assistance in the maintenance of the freedom of speech.

Question agreed to.

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

It has always been clear to me that the motivation for the existence of the policy of apartheid in general, and more specifically all the Acts placed on the Statute Book in terms of that policy, was twofold.

In the first place the need existed to separate Whites and non-Whites from one another so that the Whites could be in a better position than the other race groups and so that non-Whites could be kept away from Whites.

Rubbish!

Racial intolerance in itself also existed. I hear the hon member saying that this is rubbish, but there is no doubt about it. All he has to do is read what the original motivation was in the debates when some of these pieces of legislation were before Parliament.

The second motivation was to arrange society in South Africa in such a way that White political control would remain attainable and would become increasingly more justifiable. The physical separation of races into various residential areas and into constitutional units not only satisfies race prejudice, but also creates a very useful basis of justification for separate political structures. In its turn this is conducive to White political control in the largest part of our country—we are now excluding the independent Black states.

If I am correct in my identification of these two motivations, one finds it striking to what a large extent the philosophy of apartheid—in spite of the repeal of a number of discriminatory measures—is today still the current policy and philosophy of the Government.

Consequently there are two basic motivations, namely giving expression to racial intolerance on the part of people who want to live separately from others, not on the basis of religion, culture, background or level of education, but on the basis of race, and in the second place the arrangement of South African society so that White political control can remain unscathed. It is alas becoming increasingly clear that the more fundamental a specific piece of apartheid legislation or an apartheid institution is to the retention of White political control and the more it serves to give effect to racial intolerance, the less likely it is that the Government will do away with it voluntarily.

If this elucidation is accepted, it is clear why the Government is clinging so desperately to elements of apartheid such as race classification, group areas, separate educational institutions and all those manifestations of constitutional apartheid in South Africa.

There will be hon members who take it amiss of me for using certain terminology, but the fundamentals are there. After all, members on the opposite side of the House do believe in separate residential areas and separate State institutions, and they believe that Whites should retain political control in the final instance. If one accepts this elucidation, it is clear to one why the Government is clinging to certain of these laws.

If the Government intends to pursue this political course, it simply has to accept—this is important—that reconciliation and peace in this country will remain a dream, a dream which will continue to evade us and which will continue to drift further away from us. When a constitutional and political system is aimed at giving one racial group an advantage over another as regards political power, choice of residential area and standards of education, one cannot expect the race groups against whom the discrimination is being applied to be satisfied, and one will not be able to get co-operation from the best elements among the other population groups, because one is then expecting them to co-operate as subordinates. One is expecting them to barter away their self-respect in the process.

Real political reconciliation will remain out of our reach so long as we adhere to a policy in which all the emphasis is placed on divisiveness, a policy which focuses exclusively on the one discernible differentiating factor between us as South Africans, namely the colour of one’s skin or one’s race classification. This divisive factor, owing to the statutory substructure that has been given to it, cuts across religious differences, cultural differences and value systems.

These are all elements which could in some way or another be cohesive factors for us in South Africa. These are all factors which could in some way or other be enriching for South Africa. However, if we insist on drawing dividing lines on the basis of skin colour and race, a basis which would be repugnant to a moral political society, we have to accept that we are doing it at the expense of any possibility of real long-term cooperation on a basis of assessing one another as equals and retaining our mutual self-respect.

†Of the many legislative instruments of apartheid that have been placed on the Statute Book over many decades, Mr Speaker, the Group Areas Act must surely rate as the most infamous. It has established for itself a record of bitterness and divisiveness that is scarcely equalled by anything else that has been done by successive governments in the history of this country.

You do not sound convincing enough.

That little term “the group’’, and all the pain it represents, has already been inscribed indelibly in the folklore in this country. There is hardly a Coloured or Indian South African who is not aware of the significance of group areas and does not experience this awareness with revulsion or even with hatred. It is argued very often by the protagonists of the group area system that the Act is there for the protection, the maintenance and the development of own communities. It is clear from the content and the application of the Group Areas Act, however, that it does nothing to bind communities together; that it does not contain any provision or any prescription that rallies people together around a laudable ideal or a worthy objective.

The Act is not inclusive. That is not the purpose of the Group Areas Act. The Act is exclusive. The purpose of the Act is to exclude certain people from joining one community or another. The purpose of the Group Areas Act is to exclude people from moving into a residential community in which they might wish to live and of which they might wish to become part. It is simply not valid to argue that group areas are there for the protection of communities in any worthwhile sense of the word. I am not referring to communities in a derogatory sense. I am not talking about communities in the sense of groups which seek to protect themselves purely on the basis of the basest motivations of their instincts, such as their intolerance of others. I am talking about communities who want to be together because they have some worthwhile, positive dynamic which brings them together. In that sense, Sir, I believe that to argue that group areas establish and protect communities is to argue on a false premise.

Another charge which, I believe, one can validly level against the Group Areas Act is that personal merit is irrelevant in terms of that Act. I believe this is a very fundamental charge, a very fundamental indictment of that legislation. There is nothing one can do to improve one’s own position in terms of the Group Areas Act. If, in terms of the administration of that Act, one is told that one has to live in a certain residential area or that one has a choice of two or three residential areas when one knows full well that another race group has a choice of 25 residential areas, some of which are excellently situated and much better developed, there is nothing one can do personally to elevate oneself to a position where one can be part of that better community; there is nothing one can do to improve one’s own position. One can educate oneself to the maximum degree conceivable. One can work hard to improve one’s financial position. One can be a pillar of society in terms of service to one’s fellowman. When, however, the Group Areas Act stipulates that one has to live in a particular township because one happens to be a Coloured or an Indian or a Black, there is nothing one can do about that.

That, Sir, is surely unacceptable. It is made even more unacceptable by the fact that the Group Areas Act is not applied in an evenhanded and equitable way. There is not even a suggestion of that. There is simply no choice available to Coloured and Indian South Africans which can be compared with choices available to us as White South Africans.

It is therefore not surprising that the Group Areas Act is the source of such enormous bitterness and resentment. It is therefore not surprising that people subject themselves to the almost demeaning process of applying for race reclassification. We learnt just the other day—this has become somewhat of a national joke—of the number of people who apply annually to have themselves reclassified in terms of race. I have a lot of personal experience in this respect. I have advised probably hundreds of people over the years in respect of what they should do in relation to being reclassified and escaping in some cases the particularly difficult consequences of their race classification.

It is not an easy process to which to subject oneself. It is not a pleasant process. One almost has to go back into history in search of one’s ancestors. One must have photographs taken— colour pictures; front and side views—on the basis of which somebody can judge whether one can pass as White. One has to appear before a committee of officials who will then listen to one’s pronunciation of English or Afrikaans or whatever other language in order to judge whether one will fit in in Bellville rather than in Bonteheuwel; in Green Point rather than in Guguletu, or wherever else.

One has to obtain opinions from other people in one’s community, in the area where one lives and people who work in one’s employment environment. One has to obtain opinions from them— not to the effect that one is a worthy citizen, not that one is a good and loyal South African, not an opinion as to whether one is a devout Christian, but an opinion as to whether one is acceptable to Whites as a White.

In this process, of course, one comes across some rather curious and even amusing incidents. In one case where I had occasion to advise an applicant in regard to race classification, I told him to go to some prominent citizens in his community whom he knew and ask them whether they could give him some sort of statement in writing that he was accepted by them as a White person. One of these written statements that came back to me was as follows:

I shall not mention the person’s real name—

[Interjections.] That is a very amusing statement, but inherent in it there is also a terrible tragedy because the people who are required to submit these statements find it incongruous that they are asked to present something in the form of a testimonial that does not attest to the human value of the person involved, but rather to make a statement as to whether that person is acceptable as a White person in a White community. Perhaps the person concerned is in fact a Coloured person and they know it and he is still acceptable in that White community, but that is not the issue. They cannot make a statement to the effect that, as a Coloured person, that individual is acceptable in the White community because he is a nice fellow and fits in with everyone. The statement has to say that he is acceptable in a White community as a White person. It is this kind of detail that these people have to subject themselves to when they find themselves on the receiving end of group areas legislation.

It is this kind of thing that makes people embittered because it affects their self-respect and their self-esteem. They resent it. Some people grow up with a massive chip on their shoulders because of it, and yet we insist on maintaining this type of legislation on our Statute Book. I say that this kind of attitude is completely irreconcilable with any form of national reconciliation. One cannot reconcile this type of thing with peace and cooperation in a community such as we have in South Africa, something that is vital to the survival of all of us. One cannot on the one hand appeal to people to be tolerant of one another, to have more understanding for one another, and to co-operate more with one another and then, at the same time, tell them to keep an eye open for any Coloured person moving into a White area so that they can report that person to the police. These elements are completely irreconcilable.

The Group Areas Act and its continued application also creates confusion, part of which has to do with the fact that there have been other indications that the Government is prepared to move away from racial discrimination. I want to say that the removal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, and the retention of the Group Areas Act, is creating a great deal of confusion. The other day I visited the home in Durban of two people who had been married across the colour line. They cannot understand why, out of the blue, the husband has suddenly acquired an Indian race classification because he married an Indian woman and has now to move to an Indian area. I also want to say that these people to whom I am referring have spent weeks and weeks trying to find accommodation so that they can move into an Indian group area in compliance with the law. However, the housing shortages are there, and we all know that. The best deal those people have been able to come up with so far is a garage at R600 per month, and at the moment they are occupying a beachfront flat in Durban. They find it incongruous and cannot understand what is going on.

I have to ask the members on the other side of the House whether they still consider it morally reprehensible to marry across the colour line, even though it is no longer illegal. If not, why should such a penalty be imposed on those who do so? There is no doubt that it is a penalty. It is a terribly difficult situation to be placed in.

In the final analysis the Group Areas Act and its application is a concession to racial obsession and racial intolerance. We can spend days and days trying to find some respectable intellectual rationalisation for it, but deep down we all know that that Act gives vent to people’s racial intolerance.

*It is frequently said that the Government and the NP will find it difficult to repeal discriminatory legislation because they will have problems with the White voters, particularly from the ranks of the far right. I do not know whether that is true. Many are of that opinion, and hon members will simply have to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. To those hon members of the Government who do think so, I just want to make a few suggestions.

Drop-by-drop reform is frequently grist to the mill of the far-right elements in South Africa, particularly when NP spokesmen make promises, in motivating such reform, that that reform process will not go any further. When the tricameral Parliament was sold to the people, we heard hon members of the NP making promises ad nauseam across the floor of this House, promises which were inevitably broken afterwards because realities dictated otherwise.

Such as? Mention examples!

They said Coloureds and Indians yes, but Blacks never, and surely that promise was broken. [Interjections.] Surely hon members must concede that, and it is a good thing it was broken. What I am saying is that in that process one is making a rod for one’s own back, and one cannot escape that fact. The consequences are terrible.

Later this year a Bill will be brought before this House, and according to what we are now hearing in the replies to certain questions, it will be possible in terms of that measure to create open residential areas. Hon members know that we support that idea as a small step in the right direction, but at the same time I want to warn that each of those group area investigations preceding such a move is going to be converted into a political circus par excellence, and the hon members must know that. It is really going to be easier for them in the final analysis—I am now speaking to those who are really committed to reform—to get rid of this Act in one fell swoop. Then there will not be that kind of constriction.

Green Point!

Let them come. They are already there. [Interjections.] My constituency is full of people who are living there despite the Group Areas Act, and more of them may come.

The hon members of the NP must give serious consideration to getting rid of this Act in its entirety. I remember only too well how the prophets of doom in this House, shortly before we got rid of the system of influx control, spoke about the terrible consequences that that was going to have for us. This was even before the Government decided to get rid of influx control.

There were even people with a relatively liberal disposition—not members of the NP—who were themselves apprehensive about influx control being done away with. These people had grown so accustomed to the existence of such a system that they thought we were no longer able to get along without it.

Today we are rid of that system. It has brought relief to the lives of millions of South Africans. What has become of those prophets of doom? What has become of those terrible consequences we were supposed to have suffered?

There is one final thing I want to say. The hon members must try to remember it. I think it is important in a country such as South Africa, in which politics is continually developing, not only to have a political position for today; one must also have a political vision for tomorrow. It is therefore not good enough to be constantly in a position where one is retiring from a policy which one previously adhered to; one must also be able to make it clear to one’s followers that one has an alternative vision of a more attractive dispensation for South Africa, one in which one believes, which one is analysing and towards which one is moving. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I do not know why the hon member is asking these questions; that is what I have been telling him all afternoon. The hon member should listen. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am prepared to reply to any questions arising out of a real need to know and an attempt to ascertain one’s standpoint, but I am not going to reply to any questions asked out of complete ignorance. It is extremely important to have such a vision. It is important that the Government should clarify for itself this question of reform and what destination it wants to arrive at with reform. As long as it does not have replies to these questions it can only defend itself from an uncomfortable position and from a position of political embarrassment. That cannot get the Government of South Africa anywhere.

Mr P L MARÉ: Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the opportunity of debating the Group Areas Act. When one looks at the motion of the hon member for Green Point, one sees he has attenuated the question to a rather simplistic, either pro-apartheid or anti-apartheid matter.

*The PFP attenuates its political arguments and its political vision into a measure being either an apartheid or an anti-apartheid one. Then they proceed to describe an apartheid measure as being a measure which places a certain group in a better position, in a position of privilege and one in which it will retain political control. In this way they fail to appreciate the South African situation and do not contribute to the solution of the problem of inter-group relations.

The hon member for Green Point’s motion reads that the House records its rejection of the policy of apartheid by means of the immediate repeal of the Group Areas Act. What this amounts to is that as soon as the Group Areas Act is repealed the realities of South Africa will change. That will not happen, however. I do not know for whom the hon member wants to place it on record, but as far as the South African community is concerned, they understand the problem of a multicultural society and they know that it is not all that simple.

The PFP elevates the right of the individual to an absolute. In none of their arguments do they take account of the fact that we are not a homogeneous community. We are not a community in which groups find their power-base in terms of voluntary grouping. Surely everyone knows that.

I want to examine the Group Areas Act on the basis of the question of whether it is purely discriminatory. The challenge in today’s politics is to create a balance between group rights and individual rights and to reconcile in a society its reasonable aspirations with human dignity.

If the hon member is so concerned about the individual and the cases he mentioned here, surely it is true that the accommodation and protection of the group in a non-discriminatory way is the best guarantee for the individual members of that group. The individual can establish his rights best by means of the establishment of his own group. If one argues that we are living in times in which the process of acculturation has progressed to such an extent that groups no longer exist and that differentiation can be phased out, it still does not take the realities of our situation into account.

The reasonableness and the fairness of the practical application of the Act is debatable—that I readily concede, but that does not make the measure perse unfair, unless one does as the PFP does and elevates the right of free association to a principle. In that case, however, they must also acknowledge the right of people who want to reserve the right to live and move within their own community, as well as the right of disassociation or non-association in certain spheres. Those are people who want to protect and cherish their own way of life and everything that goes with it. [Interjections.] They want to ensure that each group has its own community life and residential areas, its own schools as well as its own political and constitutional power-base. Such a community does not want to impose its own system of values on others and does not want to influence others detrimentally.

Each group and each individual is entitled to strive for better living conditions. That we acknowledge. Every individual is entitled to opportunities for upward mobility. That is why the Act always made provision for controlled areas, a provision which resulted in industrial and business areas.

If the methods and measures do not create those opportunities, the practical implications can be reconsidered in order to determine in which spheres improvements can be made.

On 5 October last year the hon the State President said it would be unfair to deprive people who wanted to live in their own communities of that right. On the other hand it would not be fair either to prevent those who want to from living in open areas. In cases where the request comes from within the ranks of the community itself, the opportunity for the establishment of open areas will be created. In reply to questions put to the Deputy Minister today, we heard that the enquiry into this matter is under way.

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

No, Mr Speaker.

The State accepts the duty of allocating to people geographic points of settlement. In the acceptance of that duty the State will also take the nature and character of the community into account. We can differ on that, and we can take evidence in that regard and call on experts for help. We on this side of the House, however, consider it to be an own affair of that community itself, and that that community has to take such a decision within the provisions of the Constitution itself.

Even the PFP takes into account, within their self-governing states, the homogeneity of a self-governing federal state. They call it a “community of interests”. We say that our communities display such a community of interests and that we cannot ignore that community of interests and we have to take it into account.

That is why I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon member for Green Point:

cultural nature of the community and reflecting it in its institutions.”.

Mr Speaker, after having listened to the hon members for Green Point and Nelspruit, I have some difficulty in dealing with the motion itself, because the hon member for Green Point asked that the rejection of the apartheid policy be placed on record by this House.

It therefore appears to me to be an acceptance of the fact that this House, and in particular the Government, has already rejected the policy of apartheid as we knew it. That would be in accordance with the policy statement made by the hon the State President when he said the Government had abandoned the outmoded policy of apartheid. It would also be in line with the propaganda pamphlets being distributed overseas and everywhere here to present South Africa—the Untold Story in which “The Ending of Apartheid” is resplendent in all its glory. It would also be in line with the statements in overseas countries such as America, where we know the honourable gentleman, Dr Koornhof, represents South Africa.

I think the hon member for Green Point is being a little hasty. I think he is being too hasty, because the Government is well on its way to that destination. He must not be too hasty. The Government is certainly going in the direction the hon member would like it to go. [Interjections.] The Government has perhaps one ability that this hon member does not have, and that is that they are doing it in stages. They are doing it one way, and he wants to do it another way, so that the voters out there will not realise at all what he is doing. [Interjections.]

I also find it strange that the hon member for Nelspruit has not said anything at all about the motion in as far as it is stated here that, basically, the policy of apartheid is something of the past. He tries to define it with all kinds of, I want to say, “bigger” words, but he does not arrive at the essence of the matter.

To me and to this side of the House one thing is very clear. This motion in fact illustrates the dilemma of the Government. It illustrates it in this sense that although they dissociate themselves from apartheid, they do not want to face the logical consequences of their policy. They recoil every time the full implications become apparent.

What is the policy and the consequences the Government is trying to get away from? They say they want to bring about an undivided South Africa with equal political rights for everyone. It is true that there are certain qualifications attached to this, but for the purposes of this motion they are not relevant.

What are the consequences of this policy of power sharing? I ask that with special reference to the motion on the Group Areas Act under discussion. Firstly, legislation which is fundamental to a policy of apartheid is becoming an anomaly.

It is becoming a complete anomaly when legislation which has been introduced to bring about separation, is still being retained on the Statute Book. It is becoming an anomaly which is in turn leading to other things.

The Group Areas Act is one of those laws which formed the basis of the apartheid or policy of separation. It is a cornerstone of the policy of separation. While that Act remains on the Statute Books, the situation has arisen in which that Act is, in the first place, no longer being applied, because it is in conflict with the present policy. That is the first result.

The second inevitable consequence is that this failure to apply a law is considered to be a concession or a licence to disregard that law completely. That is exactly what is happening at present with the Group Areas Act. A powerful organisation such as Anglo American told the Government that as far as it and the properties it controlled were concerned, they were no longer going to apply the Group Areas Act. What was the Government’s reaction to this? The Government told them that they were going to amend and give some potency to the Act. The only potency that that Act will have is none. [Interjections.] Based on the fact that the Government has not applied the Act in the past, I say that they will apply it even less in as much as it will bring them into conflict with their new ally, big business.

That is why Pietie was moved.

The further consequence of this is that further amendments are being made to such an Act. Apparently amendments are now going to be made, and we know that there is acceptance of the concept of “open areas”. What are the consequences going to be? Once again I tell the PFP not to worry. They really do not have to worry, because the Group Areas Act is on its way out. We say that because the principle of the Group Areas Act, as the hon member for Green Point has pointed out, entails the settlement of various groups of people in separate areas. That is the principle of the Act.

Here the principle of the act is being overthrown by the acceptance of open areas. The moment that is done, the inevitable consequences follow. What is an open area and what is going to happen there? What is going to happen is that non-White people are going to live in the area and will own property there. As far as the local government level is concerned, those people have to have the franchise somewhere. Where are they going to vote? They are going to vote where they live. After all has been said and done there are no limitations on them. Who are they going to vote for? In terms of the President’s Council proposals they are going to vote. Who is going to stop them from voting for someone of their own colour? Who is going to stop them in that situation from voting for such a person? The Government cannot stop it. Because such a person would in principle be a taxpayer, surely he should have the right to vote for that local government somewhere. Those are the inevitable consequences, but what is another consequence?

We know that the central business districts, may now in accordance with the Group Areas Act be owned by all other groups. What is going to happen there? When a White person is the owner of a property in an area of a specific local government, he will have the franchise on the basis of the fact that he is the owner. He has the franchise because he is the owner of a stand. Now a Black person may own a building there, yet he may not vote there. How is the NP going to prevent that?

By means of the homeland ties!

Now the hon member is being facetious. [Interjections.]

What is the NP going to do about that and how are they going to prevent it? That is not a situation that can be prevented by being fair and reasonable. The final result will be that new voters’ lists will have to be compiled for the open areas which makes provision for all racial groups. Anyway, how is the Government going to prevent a Black person from living in a central business district if the White owner of business premises can be permitted to build a flat on top of his business and then live there? The Black person is not, however, allowed to do so. In any case it is in accordance with the President’s Council’s recommendations on the Group Areas Act that the Black person shall also acquire residential rights there.

Eventually we shall be confronted by the indisputable fact that the Group Areas Act will simply go the same way as the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. That is indicative of how untenable the situation is. I have already indicated the reasons for these Acts being scrapped.

I have a very interesting document here in my hand. It has been implied that it was written by the secretary of the NP in Jeppe. In that case the hon member for Jeppe should pay careful attention. The secretary wrote that the executive committee of the NP in the Jeppe constituency instructed him to prepare a memorandum in respect of the contravention of the Group Areas Act in his constituency. This document professes to be his report. I quote selectively …

As always.

Hon members do not have to be afraid—they can have the whole document.

He refers to the CP and says:

Hennie, do you agree?

The secretary went on to say:

That is an intelligent NP member.

He also says:

He was referring to Jeppe.

Ons het beleef hoe die afgelope jaar of twee veral, ons morele leefwyse en beskaafde standaarde toenemend bedreig en vervang word deur ’n Derdewêreldse barbaarse kraalkultuur.

Disgraceful! What a way for an NP member to talk! [Interjections.]

Hon members should listen further:

So the hon member for Green Point need not be worried, because that view is also shared by members of the NP.

Why did Koos run away? [Interjections.]

Suffice it to say that we on this side of the House obviously cannot support the hon member for Green Point’s motion, nor the amendment.

Mr Speaker, in a moment I shall return to the exercise in disinformation with which the hon member for Ermelo presented us here a moment ago. I shall also consider the second part of the motion as I see it, namely the part dealing with the Group Areas Act.

I want to refer back to the debate on this matter a few days ago, when the hon member for Losberg—I am very sorry that he is not present this afternoon—made certain statements which were followed up by the obscure gossip-mongering pamphlet of the right-wing radical party, namely that I am supposedly the first National MP who acknowledged that certain existing residential areas would be thrown open, and moreover that I had supposedly said that in the past we had bluffed the supporters of the NP. That is of course a downright lie. The NP has never promised total separation in this country.

Last year on 6 May we fought an election based on an election manifesto in which we also mentioned this and we also mentioned it in a election manifesto in 1981. We said that we stood for own schools and own residential areas, but we always added “where possible”. In 1981 it was still possible for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to sign this election manifesto. Today, with the hon member for Ermelo in his ranks, it is no longer possible for him to do so on this basis.

On 5 October last year, in reaction to the President Council’s report, the hon the State President said in addition that existing residential areas and new residential areas in South Africa could possibly be open. I did not say that.

Of course an individual cannot explain which residential areas will be opened. The procedure will be that a board of experts, such as the Group Areas Board, will make enquiries and certain recommendations, after the inhabitants of those specific areas have been widely consulted, and if it affects White residential areas, the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly would have to give final approval to such a decision. Those are the guidelines the hon the State President furnished in this case.

The NP took cognisance of the fact that certain export committees such as the Strydom Committee and the President’s Council Committee under the chairmanship of Prof Dries Oosthuizen, held an inquiry into this matter and found that certain realities were developing in South Africa. Certain socio-economic processes are taking place, namely that certain central city areas are deteriorating and becoming derelict. That is happening all over the world, and in South Africa as well. In South Africa there is an over-supply of White housing—in some categories it is as high as 30%—while there is a tremendous shortage of non-White housing.

New living patterns are developing, among Whites as well. The living pattern of townhouses, cluster housing and similar housing projects in suburban areas has become the order of the day. It has become necessary; Whites no longer prefer to live in central city areas. Those are realities which we in South Africa have to take into consideration. It has been spelt out to us, and on these grounds the NP and its leaders decided to adopt these standpoints.

I now want to hear from the hon member for Ermelo whether he and his party guarantee absolute separation in South Africa. When he is able to disinform and gossip he does it with abandon, but the moment he has to adopt a standpoint on these matters, he sits in his bench, bewildered and silent. [Interjections.] It is important that we in this country know what is going on in the minds of those hon members because I know that what is going on in his mind, is quite different to what is going on in the minds of other hon members of that party.

I want to know from him, if that is what he is promising now, whom he would remove from those residential areas? Is he going to remove the Blacks? Is he perhaps going to move the Whites? [Interjections.] For many years in South Africa we have been engaged in establishing separate residential areas. We also did it with the greatest possible compassion. That is why I say to the CP that their promises to the voters of absolute separation are not possible.

If the hon member now says he is going to separate people, and he does not receive the co-operation of those people, we want to know whether he is going to compel them to do so with machine-guns and bull-dozers. No, they will not reply to questions of this nature. [Interjections.] When it comes to gossiping, however, that is something that they can do really well. [Interjections.] The standpoint of the hon member for Ermelo, who is the patron of the AWB, is that he will force Whites back to areas where they no longer want to live. That is the hon member’s standpoint, Sir. That will also be his eventual standpoint. [Interjections.]

The repugnant and uninformed way in which the hon members of the Official Opposition take decisions and adopt standpoints in this House, is absolutely frightening. The NP will take decisions to set the legal and administrative machinery in motion to bring about open residential areas—existing and new open areas. However, the NP will also take decisions to retain own residential areas. It will also take decisions that will bring unscrupulous estate agents to book. It will take decisions which will close loopholes and prevent people settling in residential areas when they may not do so. We in the NP will take these decisions regardless of the possible consequences. On 6 May 1987 we promised our voters that we would give them their own White residential areas and their own White schools. We shall do so where possible. We shall not bluff them.

Where possible?

We shall keep our promises to them. [Interjections.]

If I may in conclusion move to the local level, I want to say the NP of Sasolburg says that Sasolburg’s White residential areas will remain White. [Interjections.] There are no reasons whatsoever why the White residential areas of Sasolburg should be thrown open. If it is true—incidentally, I have also read what the hon member for Ermelo said—that Anglo American has threatened that they are deliberately going to contravene the Group Areas Act, they should think again. A subsidiary of Anglo American operates in Sasolburg. They are major employers there. They also own houses in certain White residential areas. They also have housing schemes for White employees. If that subsidiary of Anglo American deliberately wants to contravene the Group Areas Act, I am telling them they should rather not try. They will come off second-best. [Interjections.]

We have given our voters this undertaking, and we are going to give our voters this undertaking again when this year’s municipal elections take place. We are not going to bluff the voters. We shall abide by our undertaking.

I reject the motion of the hon member for Green Point, and I support the amendment of the hon member for Nelspruit.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sasolburg will forgive me if I do not respond immediately to what he has said in his address. During the course of my remarks, however, I will touch on the matters raised by him.

I rise in support of the motion moved by the hon member for Green Point. While he has dealt mainly with the Group Areas Act, it is my intention, in the time available to me, to devote some attention to the policy of apartheid.

Racial discrimination has been with us for some considerable time, and all the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of the NP. There is no doubt, however, that subsequent to their coming to power in 1948 they indulged in an orgy of legislation to divide this country into clinically separate compartments, the consequences of which will be felt for generations to come. At times they went to ridiculous lengths to segregate South Africans who should have been drawn closer together. Many Acts of Parliament were passed during the first decade of their coming to power, and only some of them have been repealed in the past few years.

I should like to touch on a few aspects of the policy of separation.

The first of these relates to education. The scene was set in 1953 when the then Minister of Native Affairs, Dr Verwoerd, later to become Prime Minister, said when he introduced the Bill to provide for Bantu education:

That was 35 years ago and it would seem as though the same “policy of the State” is being pursued by the present Government, particularly when one takes into account certain figures that have recently become available. For example, in 1986-87, R2 508 was spent on educating each White child in schools in South Africa, while only R387 was spent on each Black child.

The squandering of human potential by not training millions of Black minds and condemning them to a lifetime of providing what Dr Verwoerd called “certain forms of labour to the European community” is mind-boggling and is a state of affairs the NP should do everything in its power to rectify. What is needed is a crash programme for the education and training of Blacks to play a more meaningful role in the economy of South Africa.

I should like now to touch on health services. In February of this year the Sunday Star reported that the multiplication of health bureaucracies under apartheid is costing the country more than R800 million annually, and speculated that this figure could edge closer to an annual wastage of R1 billion. One billion rand is being wasted while there is an outcry against the poor facilities at Baragwanath Hospital outside Johannesburg where patients have to lie on the floor underneath the beds because every available bed is occupied.

South Africa has 18 health administrations and 14 Ministers of Health as well as deputy ministers and ministerial assistants. This is a scandalous state of affairs and led Prof Loening, who is the professor of Maternal and Child Health at the University of Natal to make the following remark, viz:

There are reports of a lack of clean water in the rural areas and worrying statistics regarding poverty-related diseases. In this regard I want to quote from the South African Yearbook for 1986 in regard to the infant mortality rate, as follows:

These shocking figures speak for themselves and are a condemnation of Government policy.

Apart from the money that is being squandered on the duplication of health bureaucracies, Prof Mike Savage in his inaugural lecture at the University of Cape Town in August 1986 calculated that 12c of every R1 voted by Parliament could be attributed directly to the Government’s insistence on segregation.

In yesterday’s Cape Times and Business Day Mr Ken Owen noted that this Government had accumulated a staggering debt of R57 billion. Using Prof Savage’s calculation this would indicate that almost R7 billion has been squandered by this Government over the past 10 years in promoting the separation of our people.

One could research the whole aspect of our way of life from housing to squatting, from recreation to transport, in economic affairs, labour matters and communications, and find that the network of separation has intruded upon our lives in every possible way. It has permeated our way of life like a cancer.

I can do no better than quote the late Adv Ernest Wentzel who, in an address in Johannesburg some five years ago, labelled apartheid as “ an exercise in immorality with few rivals”. He said the following:

In addition, many of the Christian churches have labelled apartheid a heresy.

A side effect of apartheid is that Whites are cut off from their fellow South Africans of colour. Many Whites have never been to a township and have no idea of conditions there. They are shocked when they see overseas television films showing the conditions that exist in some of those townships, and cannot understand how this can possibly be.

Yet another side effect of apartheid is the depressing number of young people who leave this country because they see no hope for the future. Many of our finest brains leave South Africa to contribute to other societies, and they have no intention of ever returning. Some of those who remain are frustrated by what they see as the lack of progress towards a nonracial South Africa.

A devastating incident took place last week. A young South African son has been accused of planting bombs to achieve his political aim. In no way do I condone the actions of that individual; I condemn them outright … [Interjections.] … but we must accept that unless we move away from apartheid, we will reach a situation in which that policy will further tear the fabric of our society to the extent that points of view may become irreconcilable. [Interjections.]

The Government has to accept that the apartheid Parliament of three chambers that we have established is no solution for the constitutional future of South Africa. I think that has been admitted by some hon members of the NP. The existence of three separate residential areas for members of Parliament, however, is simply ludicrous. It took some time before we could all eat together as members of Parliament. How long will it take before we can live in the same residential area? [Interjections.]

In the past, a number of individuals have said that apartheid is dead. In my view, anyone who says that is a liar, because I believe it is alive, well and thriving in the NP.

Another development flowing from apartheid has been the move towards authoritarianism. We have an enlarged security force, the prisons are overflowing as a result of apartheid laws and of the state of emergency, and the security laws have been expanded over a number of years.

Order! The hon member must come back to the motion.

I will return to the motion, Sir, by saying that the things I have mentioned are the direct result of the desire to separate people. This has caused a number of people to object, which in turn has brought about increased tension among the peoples of our country. The move towards authoritarianism has developed from this.

The decision-making process has been taken away from this Parliament, and we are governed mainly by faceless men who report only to the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must come back to the motion.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The motion states “that this House records its rejection of the policy of apartheid”.

Surely the hon member has been addressing himself to that particular point in the motion.

Order! The motion goes on to urge that the Group Areas Act be repealed, and the hon member has made very few references to that Act.

The rejection of apartheid is part and parcel of the motion, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

Thank you Sir; I think I have made my point.

Realising the error of their ways, the NP embarked on what they regarded as a programme of reform, and a number of changes to existing legislation have been made. Typically of the NP, the consequences of these changes were not fully contemplated. For instance, when the pass laws and influx control regulations were abolished, no provision was made for the people who came into the cities.

I believe that we now have almost one million squatters around Johannesburg. No provision has been made for those people.

It was good that the pass laws and influx control regulations were done away with, but the consequences of those actions were not followed through. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was abolished but no provision has been made for mixed couples to live together. The White partner has to downgrade and move into the area where the other partner lives. Some important amendments were introduced, and they were certainly not cosmetic as some people have indicated. We are, however, left with what can be termed the five laws which provide the basis for the policy of apartheid as applied in the eighties.

The first of these five laws is the Population Registration Act. Race classification lies at the root of the apartheid policy and provides the framework within which discriminatory policies and practices are applied and implemented on a racial and colour basis. Secondly, the Group Areas Act, which my colleague, the hon member for Green Point, has dealt with effectively, has done more harm to race relations in this country than anything else the NP Government could possible have hoped for.

My colleague the hon member prof Olivier said that he cannot understand that the Government has been and seems to be so utterly incapable of understanding the depth and the intensity of feeling among the Coloured and Indian communities about this Act. Here I must say that the partial opening of areas in places like Hillbrow, Mayfair and Woodstock is a recipe for disaster. It will create an impossible bottleneck where the demand for property will outstrip the supply. The entire Act should be scrapped.

There were reports in the weekend Press that the Government was considering making the administration of the Group Areas Act an own affairs matter. I consider this very sinister indeed as it will entrench the provisions of the Act almost irrevocably. One hopes that the hon the Minister will clear the air with regard to this matter in his reply to the motion.

Thirdly, it is clear that the prohibitions on the acquisition by Blacks of rights to land imposed by the Black Land Act of 1913, the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 and reinforced by the Group Areas Act—particularly as far as controlled areas are concerned—can no longer be justified, and should be repealed.

Fourthly, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act has caused a great deal of friction and should also be repealed. One has only to look at the debacle surrounding the question of beach apartheid to realise that the solution is simply to open the beaches to all.

Fifthly, the tricameral Parliament and the President’s Council will have to be replaced by a system which will provide representation for all. Blacks simply have to be allowed access to the decision-making process on an equal basis.

Those five laws provide the three pillars on which the NP claims its policy is founded, that is, that Whites will have control over White schools, that Whites will have control over White residential areas and that Whites will have control over White political structures. I believe all five of those laws should be repealed but I would be satisfied if we began with the Group Areas Act.

If all these laws providing for enforced separation of our people are to be repealed, what are they to be replaced with? I believe that the answer lies in the PFP policy of a national convention. We are the only party with a plan to lay before such a convention. I have a copy of it in my hand; it is our constitutional policy. Some weeks ago the hon member for Parow asked me for a copy and I was able to provide him with one in about ten to fifteen minutes. I believe this debate has something like an hour left to run and I hope an hon member of the NP will provide me with a copy of their policy. [Interjections.]

I believe that the comment on the Radio Today programme of the SABC this morning was significant. It noted that the Government’s attempts to bring about some form of dialogue with Black people had failed, and that what might be necessary would be a programme of “talks about talks”. That might very well be the intention of the Government, but however they bring it about, in the end they are going to be forced to talk to people of colour on how to do away with all these discriminatory measures and on how an equal basis for people to co-operate and participate in all the decision-making processes is going to be brought about.

I believe that the PFP policy offers security for all South Africans and a realistic alternative to the divisive and destructive policies of the NP.

Order! Earlier in his speech the hon member for Johannesburg North said that the Government “indulged in an orgy of legislation”. The hon member must withdraw the word “orgy”.

I withdraw the word, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ermelo very briefly referred to open trading areas, and I wish to speak about open trading areas, and more specifically about the way they are applied in Durban. When in 1984 section 19 of the Group Areas Act was amended, it was made possible to declare certain areas free trading areas by proclamation. After that amendment was accepted, on 31 October 1986 the Durban City Council made formal application for all areas zoned for trading, business and shopping in the Durban city area to be declared by proclamation to be free trading areas. As a result of that application some time later the central business district of Durban was declared a so-called open area. One was grateful for that. Only the central business district was declared an open area, however, and the many other areas in the city of Durban zoned for business and other similar purposes were not declared free trading areas.

The position in Durban is that the Chamber of Commerce, a very strong body representing some 6 000 businesses in the Durban area, fully supported and still supports the application by the Durban City Council for all business premises to be declared free trading areas. The city council has that backing as well.

A similar situation exists in the Westville and Pinetown areas where the Chambers of Commerce in those areas and the municipalities have applied for all business premises to be declared open and free trading areas.

In response to a further formal application by the Chamber of Commerce in December the regional representative of the hon the Minister’s department stated in a letter that it was the policy of the department to confine the opening of areas to central business districts, and, with exceptions, to specific shopping centres. That is quite clearly a question of policy because, as I understand it, the section itself makes it possible and is wide enough to have all business premises which are zoned as such, declared free trading areas. I ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot in areas such as Durban where there is support from the elected representatives of the voters, the Durban City Council and the business community, for the entire area to be declared open, give heed to the views of the people in that area and declare the entire zoned business area in the greater Durban area open as a free trading area.

There is a definite need for this in Durban. In my constituency alone I continuously receive applications channelled through the provincial administration for people to carry on business into areas which do not necessarily fall in the central business district of Durban. The same applies to other constituencies in that area.

What is the policy of the department going to be in future? Are they going to stick to that very narrow interpretation of that section? I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister can give us an indication of whether there will be a more relaxed application of that provision in future.

There was a painful effort made by the hon member for Nelspruit to justify the Group Areas Act on a sort of moral basis. He prepared his speech and he wrote it out to make sure he did not slip up, because it is such a sensitive area. Here the NP members sit. They know there is no moral justification for the Act. They know that it keeps other South Africans back, and there is no possibility for, as he put it, “upward mobility” as long as the Group Areas Act exists. [Interjections.] They know it. That is why they feel ashamed.

They cannot compete with the CP in defending the status quo, and they get hammered from the left and the right. They come along with ill-prepared speeches to make sure they do not slip up on something. [Interjections.] They cannot explain or justify that Act to the left or to the right. [Interjections.] Why cannot they grasp the nettle and say they want to treat all South Africans as South Africans and accept the fact that there are people who prefer to live together in communities? That must be accepted. However, it must not be accepted on the basis of race or race classification. No one can deny that there are strong groups in South Africa. It would be counter-productive to have that attitude. However, to come along with a purely race classification in order to keep others down and to keep one’s own privilege is indefensible. They have not managed to defend it today and they will not be able to do so in future. It is indefensible.

I support the hon member’s motion.

Mr Speaker, I shall leave it in the competent hands of the hon member for Parow, who is to speak after me, to react to the speech of the hon member for Durban Central. [Interjections.]

I think that hon members who were privileged to see the David Kramer musical, District Six, will agree with me that when one speaks about the Group Areas Act there is a very strong group in South African society which, on the one hand, has a very emotional response to the Act, requesting that it be abolished. On the other hand we know that the Government’s standpoint is that the Group Areas Act is essential to the meaningful ordering of a plural society. Owing to my unique position, however, and the unique position in which my constituency finds itself, I do not want to express an opinion about that this afternoon.

What I want to do this afternoon is firstly to present the House with a picture of the realities of Hillbrow. Secondly I want to ask a few critical questions.

†Hillbrow is a non-racial, totally integrated society. That is the first reality we have to accept. No one—not an ANC Government, not a CP Government—is going to change that. One cannot unscramble a scrambled egg.

*We simply have to accept the fact that Hillbrow is a microcosm of South Africa. Where Hillbrow stands today, the rest of South Africa will stand in 10 years’ time. [Interjections.] As sure as God made little apples, no one will be able to change Hillbrow’s unique circumstances. I also want to say—and I believe this—that the Whites of Hillbrow “are not race-conscious, but definitely class-conscious”. The people of Hillbrow say they want certain standards. They are not opposed to people of colour, but they ask for the maintenance of certain standards. This brings me to my plea this afternoon. Even if we have to use Hillbrow as the basis of an experiment, let us incorporate the necessary mechanisms for security in Hillbrow to show the rest of South Africa and the rest of the world that Hillbrow can, in fact, work as an integrated community. In this regard I think it is important to amend the Slums Act. I know that Prof Hirovitz of the Johannesburg City Council is already engaged in delivering a very strong plea to have this incorporated in the municipal regulations of Johannesburg. He is asking for mechanisms to be incorporated in the Slums Act which will provide for no more than five persons per bathroom; for a surface area of 3,74 square metres per person. In other words, one must ensure that there is no overpopulation in Hillbrow. [Interjections.] We are not engaged in a quiz now. Please give me an opportunity to complete my speech.

Secondly I want to advocate a quota system. In an open area the people of colour living there must not constitute more than 10% or 15% of the inhabitants if the Group Areas Act is ultimately abolished. Thirdly I am asking for law and order. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is an independent member who has extremely limited time. Hon members must please bear that in mind. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

In conclusion I want to pose a few critical questions about Hillbrow. The Whites of Hillbrow say that they purchased property there because they were under the impression that Hillbrow was a White residential area. What is going to happen if Hillbrow becomes an open area? Is the Government going to buy up their properties or compensate them in some or other way?

On the other hand, the people of Hillbrow are asking why, if Hillbrow must be an open area, the rest of South Africa does not have to be. Why must we be the magnet drawing other people to our area? Would it not be better, when all is said and done, to scrap the Group Areas Act in toto and to have a normal influx of people? Those are the questions that the people of Hillbrow are asking.

Mr Speaker, in discussing the Group Areas Act, what has again clearly emerged here this afternoon is that such discussions are merely a manifestation of the schools of thought of the various parties represented in this House. They are a manifestations of various philosophies of life, of various constitutional solutions, of how we see things.

The first school of thought that became apparent here this afternoon was that there was no such thing as groups in this country and that provision should only be made for individual rights. This school of thought is represented by hon members of the PFP. The second school of thought that became very clearly apparent was that there was, in point of fact, only one group in South Africa, that of the Afrikaner. There are a few English-speaking individuals and there is also a token Englishman appointed to make what is said sound more plausible or acceptable. In point of fact, however, there are only White Afrikaners in this country. The third school of thought which emerged, and which was not very clear to me, was represented by the NDM which was in favour of the abolition of the Group Areas Act. I cannot quite understand what their standpoint is on the strength of their actual philosophy. [Interjections.]

The NP’s standpoint in regard to this matter is very clear, and that is that we acknowledge the existence of a diversity of groups. We also believe that the solution to our country’s problems lies in the recognition and accommodation of those groups. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to what the hon member for Green Point said when he introduced the debate. I am grateful for the fact that he caused this debate to take place in this House. He equates the recognition of groups with apartheid. He then says, by a leap of the imagination, that we want apartheid in order to retain White political control in this country. Let me tell the hon member that the NP’s policy in this regard is very clear. We say that there should be a sharing of power amongst the various groups, but not powersharing amongst individuals. That is the basic difference. One gives the lie to the myth that no groups exist when one looks at Africa. I have spoken about this matter in this House. People seek their political and personal salvation within the group context. The moment one denies the group, one threatens the survival of that group. Individual survival is then also threatened.

What do the other groups have to say about that? Yours is the only group that says that.

I have discussed this matter with the hon member. I do not know whether he was here when I discussed the existence of groups and the manifestation of that phenomenon in Africa.

He was in Dakar at the time!

The recognition of the existence of groups also entails the structuring of groups. As undeniable as the existence of groups, is the fact that one cannot divide groups up into watertight compartments. It is a fact that one is bom into a group, and this elicits certain reactions from people. Some people are happy in the group into which they are bom, form part of that group and spend their whole lives in that group. It is also true, however, that there are people who want to escape the confines of their group. That is true. Various people have various reasons for wanting to escape the confines of their group. This escape from the group, or changing from one group to another, has always been a fundamental part of South African society.

It is no use the CP’s denying this, because although few people have changed from one group to another, this has in fact taken place. Nor can we deny it; on the contrary, since this side of the House has introduced the classification of groups, we have acknowledged that people can change from one group to another in specific circumstances.

One can see it too.

Have you ever tried to be reclassified?

We say that a person can be reclassified. I should now like to know from the CP whether they would repeal that provision in the Act if they were to come to power. Secondly I want to know whether the CP is going to make provision for group areas to change their racial classification.

In terms of CP policy the NP is, in point of fact, the only party in this House advocating the preservation of the Group Areas Act, because if it were to be consistent in the implementation of its constitutional policy, all Coloureds would live in Coloured homelands, all Indians in Indian homelands and all Black people in Black independent states. In accordance with the CP’s policy, therefore, there would be no necessity for the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

This principle has also met with a response in the Group Areas Act. With the proper planning of population groups, which the Government has tried to bring about by way of the Group Areas Act, proper provision has also been made for cases which prove to be exceptions and for mobility between groups.

Whilst I am dealing with the Group Areas Act I merely want to add that the introduction of this Act has largely contributed to the socio-economic upliftment of other less-developed population groups in this country. It has done so mainly in the spheres of housing, community facilities and the economy because people were, in their own areas, placed in the position of not needing to compete with First-World capital and expertise. In that way large-scale development took place in their areas as well.

The Group Areas Act acknowledges the principle that there should be mobility. That is why there is the permit system and why a group area can change its group character by deproclamation and reproclamation.

The Government is even prepared to go further in this regard. The hon the State President stated in this House, as early as 5 October 1987, that we accepted the recommendations of the President’s Council on open areas. The hon member for Ermelo spoke at great length about the constitutional implications that this could embody. I concede that the hon member is right about the fact that it does embody constitutional implications, but we know that. In that speech the hon the State President specifically said that we did not accept that report blindly because the implications had to be studied. I believe that at present the implications are being assessed. The hon the Minister also mentioned it today in his reply. I am convinced that the Government will give us a lead in this regard.

I still wanted to speak about the implications of the Group Areas Act in the constitutional sphere, but I notice that my time has virtually expired. I conclude by saying that the recognition of various groups and the grouping together of people in certain concentrated areas, open up options for us in the constitutional sphere which we would otherwise not have had. I believe that this Government—also as far as its constitutional policy is concerned—will be able to implement the Group Areas Act in the future to the benefit of everyone in this country.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Parow described this debate in words similar to the following: “A manifestation of political philosophies of the various parties taking part. ” I would agree with that, but I believe it has further significant consequences for economic progress in this country, and I would like to deal with this point a little later on.

During the previous session the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning accused the PFP of naively believing that the repeal of the Group Areas Act would solve all our problems. He further said that efforts made by this party to rid South Africa of apartheid were to placate radical elements.

I wish to say unequivocally that we are totally opposed to all forms of racial discrimination, and I believe that has clearly been stated by the mover of this motion this afternoon. We abhor the social injustices that have resulted from this Act and we support voluntary association where the rights and dignity of the individual are protected under all circumstances.

We do not deny the existence of groups, as has also been said here this afternoon, but we do not elevate certain groups through statutory protection to a position of privilege at the expense of others.

This Act conflicts with our beliefs, and therefore we will continue to fight for its total repeal so that all South Africans will have the right to live where they choose and where they are able to afford to live.

The hon member for Nelspruit tells us that we in the PFP do not understand the realities of community or group structures in South Africa. May I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the deep cleavages and unrest in our society are a direct result of NP obsession with these group structures.

Those who favour the retention of the Act do so for two main reasons: They believe segregated areas protect communities and a way of life, but secondly, they also fear the economic results of repealing this legislation which they perceive will be a decline in living standards and a crash in property values. I wish to deal with these fears. Much has been said and written on this subject, and many of the facts I will discuss this afternoon are contained in a study by Dr Renfrew Christie entitled Group Areas and Property Market Economics.

Group areas legislation represents another instance of State interference in a free market mechanism. This leads, and has led, to a distortion of property values, of which there are many examples. Prices are a function of supply and demand. Where supply is artificially restricted, as in Rylands in the Cape which is reserved for Indians, property values become distorted. A house costing R70 000-R80 000 in a White area such as Goodwood will sell for R150 000 in Rylands, purely because of a shortage in supply. Rentals paid by Black tenants in Hillbrow are significantly higher than those paid by Whites. In Zeekoevlei, an area of Cape Town, vacant land on one side of a street within a Coloured area fetches far more than land on the other side which is reserved for Whites. These discrepancies are morally indefensible and one will note that invariably it is the poorer group that is made to suffer.

The question to be answered is whether the repeal of the Group Areas Act will necessarily result in a decline in living standards and a drop in property values, for this is what those who oppose the repeal fear most. This is the issue most frequently raised, and not the protection of community life as argued by this Government.

I believe, Mr Speaker, that home prices will in fact rise in an integrated neighbourhood. The reason for this is quite simple.

People moving across what was previously an artificial barrier do so in order to upgrade their accommodation in a suburb of their choice. They are those who have the money to afford to pay higher prices in order to escape low living standards. They do not wish to create slums. Their intention must surely be the higher standards to which they have aspired for so long.

There are suburbs in Cape Town which are already effectively mixed. There are statistics available to prove that prices in these areas have risen faster than elsewhere. There has not been a general decline in standards, and in fact often the contrary has been experienced. Those who fear being swamped must realise that even when restrictions are lifted, only a small proportion of Blacks will in any event be able to afford moving into White areas. Mr T J de Vos of the National Institute of Building Research has estimated that 76% of all Black households have in fact no money for housing, and that only 15% at most of Black people can afford what is the minimum standard for Whites.

Fear of swamping is unrealistic. It will happen only in marginal areas, where, even with the Group Areas Act, it is happening already, purely as a result of population growth and pressure.

A far more important consequence of repealing the Group Areas Act is that sufficient land will become available so that townships can be developed for all groups in response to natural socioeconomic forces. This, Sir, is of critical importance. Unless there is free access to land for all groups, the large and self-generating economic force associated with urbanisation will not materialise. Developing squatter settlements on the fringes of our cities are a stark reminder of this fact.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated that legislation aimed at easing the acquisition by Blacks of property rights and at giving them a greater say was in the interests of White security. Yes, Sir, that is true. In passing it is interesting to note that the Institute of Building Research has estimated that there are 37 000 houses vacant in White areas. Based on existing Soweto housing standards—that is the average space occupied per person—these 37 000 houses could accommodate 1,5 million people. Nevertheless, Sir, they are standing vacant.

The Human Sciences Research Council has estimated that the Black urban population will increase from 6 million in 1985 to 19 million by the year 2000. That is an increase of some 13 million in 15 years. Some even believe these figures to be conservative. Most of that growth will take place in the cities of Durban, Cape Town and the greater Johannesburg area. To house these people, at least 1,5 million houses must be built between 1986 and 1990, with a further 500 000 in each subsequent five-year period.

This will not be the pressure of people with the necessary money wanting to cross an artificial barrier and buy into better living standards. The pressure will be of desperate people searching for homes and having very little chance of obtaining them. Unless sufficient low-cost housing schemes are developed for people in which to live the effect on the property market on the whole will be severe. A major obstacle to development is the Group Areas Act.

New urban land is simply not being released on the necessary scale. One reason for that is bureaucratic lethargy, but a far more important reason stems from racial zoning. This ensures that attempts to open new residential land for Blacks usually prompts political resistance from Whites who feel threatened. Racial zoning also implies the creation of unused buffer zones between racial lines. We cannot afford to let land lie without being used. We can no longer afford this luxury of exclusivity. Pure population pressure— let alone the political requirements of people— dictates that we have to remove all impediments to housing development, and that failure to provide sufficient low-cost mass housing will lead to the swamping which is feared by so many.

Whites must be persuaded that the old protections offered by apartheid are no longer viable, and, more importantly, that they are no longer affordable. On economic grounds alone we can no longer afford the Group Areas Act.

It has distorted property values by reserving land for racial groups and has usually favoured the rich at the expense of the poor. One need only look at the Cape Peninsula to accept that fact, if no other. It must be realised that the piecemeal opening of areas will only exacerbate the economic problems that are already being experienced.

Furthermore, this Act stifles property development; it deters effective land utilisation in the face of massive population growth; it discriminates purely on the basis of the colour of a man’s skin; it creates political pressures in our already troubled country; and it will lead to the swamping that so many Whites fear. Above all, however, its very base is morally indefensible discrimination.

This Government is already doing much to address the housing backlog, but I believe that it is operating with one hand tied behind its back. By allowing market forces to operate freely instead of interfering in this mechanism, the Government will allow the prospect of resolving the housing crisis to become a reality. Economic forces will assist in meeting the aspirations of all, ranging from minimum housing requirements at the lowest level to higher standards for those who can afford them.

Finally, the removal of the Act will allow the principles of equal opportunity and voluntary association to be realised. The economy as a whole will benefit, land hunger will be reduced and instability resulting from political, economic and housing shortage pressures will diminish.

The simple fact is that South Africa can no longer afford discriminatory measures which stifle economic development while penalising the majority of the citizens of this country purely on the grounds of their race.

Mr Speaker, listening to the PFP, it is clear to me that they believe that there will suddenly be a Utopia here the moment apartheid and the Group Areas Act are abolished. There will no longer be a housing shortage; on the contrary, houses will be much cheaper. Members of other ethnic groups will be in a position to obtain houses more cheaply than they can at present in their own residential areas and, in fact, we in South Africa will have no further problems.

On the other hand, when I listen to the NP it is clear to me that as far as they are concerned we have also taken leave of separate development or apartheid. The only thing is that they cannot decide how much milk there should be in the coffee, how white, black or coloured the final product should be.

I think we all agree that in this country a power base is necessary from which the respective peoples can maintain their position. We believe that it should be a geographic power base and that the Group Areas Act creates such a geographic power base on a small scale. We believe that it should be extended, but if the Group Areas Act is abolished without a geographic base, we can forget about separate political structures for the respective population groups and peoples in this country. That is why we are saying that that Act should be retained. [Interjections.]

I am glad the hon member for Sasolburg made that remark, because with the municipal elections at hand, he quickly had to blossom forth this afternoon as a right-wing radical supposedly prescribing to us precisely how group areas can be maintained. He says no coloured persons will move into Sasolburg. He will take Anglo American’s subsidiaries by the throat and ensure that that does not happen. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir; I have only four minutes at my disposal.

We on this side of the House believe that the policy of separate development should be maintained, that group areas should form the basis of that separate development and that the Group Areas Act should, in fact, be enforced. We believe that as soon as one allows the nonenforcement of an Act on the Statute Book—it does not matter which Act—one is undermining law and order. One is thereby undermining the enforcement of that Act, and in the long run that results in lawless and disorderly conditions in the country.

So if the Government does not see its way clear to enforcing this Act, we ask the NP to stand up and say, like a man, that it is abolishing that Act. Then we will know where we stand. The NP must not, however, want to keep the Act on the Statute Book and, at the same time, fail to enforce it. The choice is therefore: Endorse this motion and abolish the Act, or stick to it and, in fact, implement it so that we do not have another mixed Hillbrow or Mayfair, but rather a White area, a Sasolburg, as the hon member for Sasolburg has said.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the hon member for Nelspruit, the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon member for Parow, not only for their contributions to the debate, but also for the fact that they have supplied other hon members with answers to specific aspects raised by them.

I do not think the hon member for Green Point really introduced this motion so that we could have a meaningful discussion about problems involving relationships in this country and about ways of solving those problems. I think his primary object was more specifically to debate the relevant matter for party-political purposes.

I want to say at once that there is no hon member in this House who does not comprehend the sensitivity of the issue involving the existence of groups in this country and the conflict potential inherent in the existence of such groups. There is not a single hon member in the House who does not comprehend the sensitivity of laws embodying definitions applicable to groups.

Those who think, on the other hand, that in a society such as ours we can ever achieve any success by denying the existence of groups, the protection of groups and the utilisation of groups, for the development of the individual too, are doomed to failure.

As far as that is concerned we are really not going to allow ourselves to be placed on the defensive by the hon member’s party—not by an adulterous political party which forms alliances with anyone merely for the sake of political expediency. The hon member must forgive me for saying that his party reminds me of someone with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana-peel.

Yesterday they acquired three additional members from the Indian community; this morning there are only two of them left. Oh, no, the hon member must really not think that we take him very seriously. It is somewhat presumptuous and arrogant of him to have moved and debated the motion in the spirit in which those hon members did so. As far as I can recall, they have on the basis of what they were advocating here today, changed from the Official Opposition to just another little opposition party in this House.

In a spirit of friendliness I also want to tell him that it is no use trying to score political points in a debate on these sensitive subjects, these sensitive matters. I want to thank him, however, for the opportunity he has given us to have a brief discussion of South Africa and the NP’s stated policy on the future of this country. In that respect I think the hon member has done us a favour.

I should like to remind the hon member and his party of the measures aimed at reform which have been implemented over the past decade under the leadership of the hon the State President, the leader of this party. In fact, if the hon member wanted to perform a stock-taking exercise, he would find that during that decade more was devoted to steps aimed at bringing about reform than in any other comparable period in the history of this country. Those steps aimed at reform were aimed at a broad spectrum covering every aspect of daily life: The social, the economic and the political spheres; every sphere in which one can express oneself. I do not have the time to give a list of all the steps taken, but somewhere along the line there will have to be some appreciation for the initiative, the courage and the drive of this Government on the road to reform in South Africa. [Interjections.] The object was to give substance to people’s lives and endeavours, to make the lives of many members of various communities freer and more meaningful than they were and to add more richness and depth to their existence as human beings.

The hon member for Green Point basically argues from the viewpoint that in its policies, and the steps taken to implement those policies, the Government is simply engaged in a political act of deception in the sense that it wishes to structure the groups in such a way—including their geographic location—that White domination will simply remain intact. Secondly his point of departure is that the Government’s policy of citizenship and the development of communities implies nothing if not discrimination towards other groups.

Let me tell him that the Government’s standpoint has been very clearly formulated. If its policy is interpreted as involving the domination of one group over another, if its policy is interpreted as involving the exclusion of specific communities from the bodies in which political decisions have to be taken, if its policy is interpreted as being unjust and as involving the creation of unequal opportunities for people and if its policy is based on racial discrimination and the infringement of human dignity, let me tell the hon member that the Government rejects such a concept of its policy; to tell the truth, my contention is that this is the first Government since Union which has succeeded in extending and not diminishing political rights. [Interjections.] It is the first Government which has succeeded in extending and not diminishing land rights, in extending and enlarging the economic participation of all the communities instead of opposing it. I therefore want to tell the hon member that because he is debating on the strength of a false premise, his conclusions are equally false.

I come to the hon member for Ermelo. I am only going to refer to him in one respect. He says the Government is, step by step, implementing measures aimed at reform on the basis of PFP policy. He says that the reason why the Government is doing it step by step is because it wishes to mislead the voters. Let me tell him that I am not prepared to have such a low estimate of the intelligence of the voters of this country as the hon member for Ermelo has. [Interjections.] I should like to take the matter further. I want to ask the hon member and the hon member for Sea Point whether they do not believe, too, that the implementation of their political policy, whatever it may be, should take place gradually, or do they believe that they have defined a comprehensive final plan for this country and that it is acceptable to the various communities?

The hon member for Green Point and his party first want to negotiate a method for the process of reform before getting to reform itself. Now the hon member is attacking this party on the basis of a policy which, in his opinion, cannot be justified on moral grounds. He says it is not morally justifiable, as if he is the grandmaster of morality.

The hon member for Ermelo said something very interesting which ties in with what happened yesterday. He said that someone should be able to vote where he pays his taxes.

No, I said where he lived.

No, I wrote down his words. [Interjections.] The hon member said that where he lived, he paid his taxes. Where he then paid his taxes he should be able to vote. That is what the hon member said. I think that is a very accurate statement.

I am saying that you will not stop them.

Very well, then, if one cannot stop them, then that is a fact. [Interjections.] Then it is, a fait accompli. It is interesting that this fact, which the hon member acknowledges to be irreversible, has not yet got home to him in the formulation of his political policy. I agree with him. It is correct; one should pay taxes where one lives. I also agree with him that one can vote where one lives, and that provision should be made for institutions in which those votes can be cast. The hon member, together with his colleagues, accepts the presence of the people living here. [Interjections.] Let me ask him: If he accepts that, what becomes of all the independent homelands for all the communities?

But you know the answer.

No, I do not. I am trying to find out. No one knows.

The CP liberalists. [Interjections.]

I want to debate the issue with the hon member; I do not want to quarrel with him. I want to ask him whether it is not true that the Group Areas Act has always made provision for group areas for specific groups, whilst at the same time acknowledging the possibility that circumstances could arise in which this could not be achieved and in which the reasonable implementation of the Act … [Interjections.] Hon members must please give me a chance. I wanted to say or where the reasonable implementation of the Act required an element of flexibility? As a legal man, the hon member surely knows that what I am saying is true.

You are now referring to the permits.

Of course I am referring to the permits! Do permits not mean that one can grant permission to a member of a group other than the group for which the area was declared?

Then it is an open area.

Then the area is an open area, or does it only become an open area if control is not exercised? That is the only point I am trying to argue with hon members.

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions now. All I want to say—and in this respect the hon member for Sasolburg is correct—is that it was the view of those hon members, and is still the view of this Government, that members of communities have the right, and that the State has the responsibility to acknowledge that right, to live in a specific community as far as this is possible.

As far as it is possible, but in Sasolburg it is not working. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the hon member for Green Point’s motion. There is a third fallacy in his approach. Firstly he equates the Government’s policy with discrimination. He says apartheid is discrimination.

He goes even further, because any form of distinction or differentiation he also makes synonymous with apartheid or discrimination.

Let me tell the hon member that that is where his party is arguing from two different premises in regard to the analysis of South African society and the specific policy about how society should be ordered. It is true, of course, that the hon member and his party proceed from a completely absolutistic standpoint, ie that the only subject for constitutional participation should be the individual, without including in the equation the existence of groups in society and without including in his calculations that when groups are living in the same country they compete for power, and the fact that this country has a developed and a developing section of the population is not brought into the equation either. They also do so without bringing into the equation the fact that the exposure of specific communities to demo cratic institutions and the economic system of free enterprise has been a limited one. As long as we argue solely on the basis of an individual point of departure for the structuring of society, our “solutions” will be doomed to failure.

On the other hand this side of the House argues that we cannot, in our system and our institutions, ignore the existence of communities, their relative positions and their greater or lesser exposure to certain systems if we are to bring about reconciliation. I want to tell the hon member that we can question one another’s solutions if we have to, but we should not do what the hon member did here this afternoon when, in sanctimonious indignation, he passed judgment on other people’s morality. When he speaks about tolerance, let me tell him that I have never seen a more intolerant person than a pink liberalist. [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Green Point’s motion were to be adopted, it would have very important implications, because those implications would manifest themselves in the social, the economic and the political spheres. As the hon member for Parow said, an approach based on the Group Areas Act also has political implications, because for specific reasons it forms a geographic basis for specific systems of Government.

The hon member for Sea Point must explain to me why his party yesterday supported legislation in this House making it possible to have township registers and making it easier to register townships for Black communities. In other words, there is a definition of groups embodied in that legislation. Today the hon member for Green Point tells us we should abolish all acts embodying a definition of groups. Yesterday the hon member did not argue that he was supporting the legislation because it improved conditions. One day the hon member adopts one standpoint on legislation and the next day he adopts another. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member’s motion embodies a general element and a specific one. Firstly he wants to place on record his rejection of the Government’s policy of apartheid. Secondly he refers to specific measures, in this case the Group Areas Act. Let us see how he defines apartheid policies. He defines them on the basis that everything embodying group differentiation or a definition of groups is untenable.

Are you now defending apartheid?

I am now addressing the hon member for Green Point.

I have always defended and propagated a system acknowledging the existence of communities and making the community and the group instruments in the realisation of individual rights, and I am not apologising to anyone for that. If we were to adopt the hon member for Green Point’s motion, on the basis of the motivations advanced by the hon members for Sea Point, Johannesburg North and Pinelands we would have to abolish the Constitution of 1983, the Regional Services Councils Act of 1985 and systems of local government which his party supported.

A good thing.

The hon member says a good thing. [Interjections.] What are the implications? The implications are that the hon member’s motion rejects the concept and principle of power-sharing amongst the various population groups in the country. [Interjections.] The hon member rejects the institutions within which that joint decision-making should take place. [Interjections.] Hon members can present us with their model, because we have been waiting for it for years.

The hon member also rejects the right to self-determination of communities which perhaps want such self-determination. He rejects the institutions within which people and communities can decide on matters affecting only their communities.

I suggest that you join the CP.

I would suggest that the hon member for Sea Point devise a name for a party to be formed to which he can belong. [Interjections.]

You are talking just like the CP.

Not only does the Government acknowledge the existence of communities, but in the philosophy underlying its policy and the practical implementation of that policy, it also acknowledges the right of communities to self-determination. At the same time the Government also recognises the fact that there is a large sphere of common interests among communities constituting the South African population, that the need exists for all of them to participate in decision-making and that it has to create the institutions within which this can take place.

If the hon member wanted to advance a reasonable argument, he would have referred to those institutions that have been established, because the existence of a Parliament consisting of three Houses emphasises the fact that at the legislative level there are mechanisms for self-determination by communities. The fact that there are Ministers’ Councils emphasises that need which finds expression within those systems. At the same time the systems also make provision for joint decision-making in regard to general affairs or matters of common concern and in regard to legislation.

The hon member’s motion accepts the rejection of regional Government within the national states. This means the rejection of the concept of the geographic division of political power. This is negated in his motion. He builds up the argument in support of his motion on the fact that a definition of groups is discriminatory, and for that reason opposes it.

His argument is also based on the concept that differentiation inevitably embodies the benefiting of one community and the prejudicing of another. I want to tell the hon member that there are, of course, communities—the hon member for Sasolburg said this—which feel aggrieved about the implementation of legislation, but surely that does not mean that the purpose of the legislation or the principle underlying it should be rejected.

I want to go further. I reject the standpoint that differentiation is at the same time discrimination. I reject the standpoint that differentiation in our society is morally untenable and that it cannot be implemented in practice. Developing a system to reconcile communities—and we all share that goal of reconciliation—would mean, as we see it, differentiating without discriminating, because I think that differentiation can be positive in our country in the sense that it can become the means or mechanism by which peoples’ rights, as individuals and in the group context, can be granted.

Sir, the motion rejects the right of communities to shape their own community life and to establish and administer their own institutions within that community context. It denies the State’s responsibility to protect communities which make that choice.

I want to tell the hon member that there are economic implications, because vested rights have developed by virtue of the Group Areas Act and other legislation. The hon member for Hillbrow is making statements which are completely contradictory. He says that the people in Hillbrow accept that Hillbrow is going to remain as it is, and then asks why the country as a whole cannot become like Hillbrow, but on the other hand he is saying that there are people who say that they purchased property when Hillbrow was a White group area and are now asking whether they are going to be compensated. Surely that is a contradictio in terminis, Sir! [Interjections.]

The principle adopted by the Government in regard to that specific motion is, firstly, that there should be opportunities for the formation of communities; that there should be opportunities for institutions within those communities which have thus been formed; that there can be an own community life; that land ownership should be guaranteed to those who think it important to live within that community, but that provision should be made, on the other hand, for people who choose a different way of life—and that is a voluntary choice. It is the Government’s standpoint that the nature of society is such that it needs singular measures to effect the protection of rights and the protection of individuals. After all, we have seen the models propagated by the hon member for Green Point’s party, and we know, do we not, that in comparable societies nothing has come of either individual or group rights. Therefore we can argue about the definition of “group” and about what the basis of a group should be, but a system that does not include that in its equation, cannot maintain it. We say that in our circumstances there must be optimal self-determination for each group and also joint responsibility in regard to matters of common concern, and that this should be done in such a way as to eliminate domination and grant participation to everyone.

This must be brought about by ensuring that all communities have their own community life, inter alia by means of the maintenance of their residential areas, their institutions—social and political—and the preservation of self-determination on as many levels as possible. We also accept the principle—in fact we are embodying this in legislation—that alongside the general pattern of own residential areas, own community life and so on, there are also the needs of other people who do not want that, and that provision should also be made for that fact.

To achieve that, statutory amendments will have to be introduced. Those amendments imply that there should be consultation between the affected communities themselves and the institutions in those communities, for example local governments. It also implies that a decision cannot be taken about changes to the character of a specific area without consultation with the community concerned. Only when that has been done can attention be given to changing the character of a relevant residential area, and then on the basis of making provision for compensation and protection for those who do not want to live in such a group area.

The opinion of the community must therefore be regarded as being important to a decision of this kind. The task of carrying out the investigations will, in the first place, have to be considered by the State President. Here the Ministers’ Council of the specific group in regard to which it is proposed to change the character of the area, will have to play a decisive role. Therefore we reject the motion of the hon member for Green Point. That is why the Government is being asked to continue with reform and negotiation for the sake of everyone in South Africa. I am asking for a distinction to be drawn between the principle of joint responsibility and that of the self-determination and that that should be the basis of our points of departure. On that basis I believe we can also include other communities, which are excluded from participation at certain levels, in those levels of the decision-making processes. On that basis I believe we can enhance the human dignity of all people. On that basis I believe we can develop a feeling of pride in people living in specific communities. On that basis I do not think that a definition involving groups need be derogatory, humiliating or discriminatory. On that basis I think it can be uplifting. I believe that on that basis it can give substance to people’s endeavours. I believe that on that basis it can give substance to peoples’ rights. I therefore think that we must state clearly that we in this country must proceed on that basis.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members who have participated in the debate for their participation. I think it was essential for us to discuss this important question once more.

I merely want to react to a few statements the hon the Minister made here. Amongst other things he criticised the PFP on a few aspects of our constitutional approach and the whole basis of our philosophy. He said that the PFP believed in a political dispensation, without the existence of groups in South Africa being brought into the equation in any way whatsoever. That is, of course, untrue. [Interjections.] The PFP accepts the fact that groups do exist in South Africa and that this has a certain constitutional significance. We accept the fact that in this country groups exist which could possibly influence the political choices that are made, probably do influence political choices at the moment and are also going to do so in the future. That existence of groups, and the extent to which people function in accordance with group leadership and group orientation, we include in our calculations in the form of a minority veto. We include this in our calculations on the basis of the existence of a decentralised system of government. We include it in our calculations by advocating a bill of human rights. Those are all recognised constitutional mechanisms in terms of which attempts can be made to limit or eliminate the abuse of power by one group in relation to the interests of another group or other groups.

Does it work in …

I am not trying to imply now that our system has been implemented in just this form in any other comparable part of the world or that it has ever worked. That is stupid. No one could validate that comparison. I could also ask the hon the Minister whether the NP’s policy has an equivalent elsewhere in the world. No one else has it. [Interjections.] We cannot discuss that with one another, because it is an argument without any foundation.

I want to go further in regard to the PFP’s position. We do not include the existence of race groups in the constitutional political equation of South Africa by entrenching these divisive factors in our Constitution in such a way that people virtually become prisoners of their own race groups. We do not do so because we do not believe that including group interests in the equation in that way is any kind of salvation for us in the future. We believe that this deprives people of the opportunity of moving closer to one another more naturally and organising themselves politically in a truly meaningful fashion.

I think the hon member for Parow also referred to that. I want to ask him, however, whether in his political views he finds himself closer to the LP in the House of Representatives than to the CP. [Interjections.] Does he find himself closer to members of the NPP in the House of Delegates than to the AWB? If his answer is yes, his argument that one must necessarily function politically within racial limits, falls away.

Surely it is ill-considered for one to draw artificial dividing lines between oneself and other people on a politically irrelevant basis such as race when one agrees with those people about fundamentally important political aspects. If one agrees with someone about the economic dispensation of a democratic structure one wants in one’s country, or if one shares some aspect of human rights with him, why would one then draw an artificial dividing line between oneself and that individual merely on the basis of the fact that he is a member of another race. That is foolishness. It simply means that White South Africans who, on historical grounds, form a racial minority group in this country, are forever condemning themselves to being a political minority group. How that can be meaningful from the point of view of White interests I do not know. [Interjections.]

When the hon the Minister speaks of “this Government” I am never quite sure whether he is referring to the Government of the hon the State President, the NP Government since 1948 or what government. He said that this Government had further extended participation in the democratic processes in South Africa and also the division and use of land by other races. I should nevertheless like to tell him that I think it is time for the NP to stop basking in the glory of simply having corrected its own mistakes in the past. If it were to do something new which was of value in creating a future for this country, let it bask in the glory of that achievement.

That does not mean that we do not appreciate the fact that the NP is attempting to rectify its past mistakes. We are glad that that is happening. The hon the Minister referred in detail to the whole reform process. Reform measures have, of course, been adopted, and we referred to that fact in the debate. I personally referred to the elimination of the influx control system, a process in which that hon Minister played a key role, but that was the last significant reform measure adopted in this Parliament, and that was quite some while ago.

It is now almost two years since that happened, and I think it is high time now that something more took place. The hon the Minister does not want to accept the quite simple reality that at present the Group Areas Act is at the very top of the agenda for reform. He cannot get away from that. If he wants to carry out any further meaningful or significant reform, he cannot escape the consequences of having to give attention to the fundamental aspect of the Group Areas Act.

Already the hon the Minister concedes as much by implication, because he says that attention is being given to possible amendments which will come before the House later this year, and the hon the State President said as much last year.

What is happening to all these wonderful arguments about group existence and own communities? What is happening to all those arguments which are so fundamental as to justify forcing people into racial groups? What happens to those important, fundamental arguments when mention is made of open residential areas? The moment the hon the Minister begins talking about the creation of open residential areas, he concedes that that principle is correct. We are glad about that, but ultimately he will have to understand that the Government will have to abolish the Group Areas Act. There is no salvation for us in that Act.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

The Bill provides that recognition be given to the indigenous law without its having to be formally proved on every occasion, but also that, where necessary, evidence can be furnished by expert witnesses.

The matter of hearsay evidence is also dealt with.

The point of departure is still that hearsay evidence is not admissible except with the consent of the party against whom it is to be adduced, or in a case where the court permits it, taking certain criteria into account. Our view in that regard is that this does not pose a danger because the criteria set for the court and the discretion afforded the court in that regard still protects people against hearsay evidence which, in the nature of the matter, is not lightly admitted, since its probative value cannot in normal circumstances be tested by cross-examination.

There was also a section in the Act in terms of which copies of documents could be submitted as evidence, and in addition there was the requirement that such a copy had to be certified a correct copy of the original. There was a second clause which made the witting submission of a false document liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

There was a considerable dispute on the standing committee as to whether it was necessary for such a document to be certified. Our view is that if a copy of a document is submitted, it is usually checked by the opposing party. Nowadays such a document is for the most part submitted with permission. The penalty of two years’ imprisonment to which anyone who wittingly submits a false document as evidence is liable, also serves as a sufficient guarantee that it will be ensured that a copy is not falsified or that a falsified copy is not deliberately submitted.

We trust that as the hon the Minister has intimated, this matter will be further investigated. The omission of certification can nevertheless result in considerable savings. In the nature of the matter certification entails higher costs which will be recovered by the person who performs the certification, for example if it has to be done by a person such as a notary or whoever.

This amending Bill also deals with the competency of a spouse to be a witness against the other spouse. A spouse will be a competent but not a compellable witness, except in certain instances where offences are committed against the children or against the spouse himself or herself. In this instance the person will be both a competent and compellable witness. We have no difficulties with that aspect of the Bill either. The other provisions are largely consequential, such as that the position of a spouse in a putative marriage will be precisely the same.

For the reasons we have already furnished here, we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must say the hon member for Bethal speaks a lot more sense about the law of evidence than about the Group Areas Act.

As a new member of the Standing Committee on Justice I am very pleased to be able to support this Bill. I must say I am very impressed with the efficient working of this committee. It seems to operate more like a co-operative panel of legal experts than a bunch of warring politicians. It is really a privilege to be able to sit in a committee with such an eminent jurist as the hon member for Sundays River.

This is a significant piece of legislation as far as the law of evidence is concerned. I understand that it has been well received by the legal fraternity.

Its purpose is to eliminate certain shortcomings in the law of evidence as identified by the South African Law Commission, and it does this in some important respects which will certainly have far-reaching effects. An example of this is the fact that the courts will now be able to take judicial notice of foreign law, provided it is readily ascertainable. This could have an impact on the choice of law of some contracts between South African and overseas parties. Previously foreign law would as a matter of course have had to be proved by an expert witness, and this inevitably incurs substantial costs.

The ability of the courts similarly to take judicial notice of customary law is long overdue. Customary law is in fact part of our law, and, as has been pointed out by the hon the Minister, it is to some extent recognised by statute. The Law Commission’s report points out that it is humiliating for Blacks that until now their law has been regarded as foreign by the courts in their own country.

Important changes to the time-honoured rules of hearsay evidence contained in clause 3 of this Bill will certainly be welcomed by forensic lawyers as answering an urgent need for the reform of this rule which is apparently also receiving attention in related legal systems abroad. Hearsay evidence is further defined as explained in the memorandum at the back of this Bill in a way which will promote the administration of justice; for instance, the court will now have the discretion to admit hearsay evidence in the interests of justice in certain circumstances which are described in the Bill.

Also important in this Bill are the changes in the law of evidence affecting the competency of a spouse as a witness in criminal proceedings. Prior to the changes to the law set out in clause 6 of the Bill, a spouse was a competent and compellable witness for the State only where the other spouse was charged with the sort of offences which one family member may commit against another family member, for instance in the case of child abuse. There are a number of other instances listed in clause 6. In clause 7 the Bill now extends the competency rule to provide that the spouse will be a competent witness against another spouse in any criminal proceedings, both for the prosecution and a co-accused. In my view this is not an undesirable development. The dictum of judges in a number of recent cases, as well as the comments of some legal academics, have tended recently to support this development. One of them, for instance, commented as early as in 1978 that the rule that the spouse of an accused is normally not competent to testify for the State against her husband, especially where she has the only or the most important evidence against the accused, is indefensible. Another comments, correctly, I think, in support of this argument that the spouse of an accused should be competent to give evidence for the prosecution that the previous attitude was based on the sanctity of the ideal marriage, irrespective of the actual state of the marriage relationship in question and the gravity of the charge against the accused. This is clearly not the right approach.

Finally, the Bill clears up some confusion in the law as to whether the marital privilege applicable in civil proceedings also applies to communications between spouses in cases where the marriage, or putative marriage, is dissolved by death. The answer provided by the Bill is no; only where it is dissolved by a competent court. The law has thus been made uniform in this regard.

It gives me pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am in full concurrence with the views expressed by the hon the Minister, the hon member for Bethal and now the hon member for Rosettenville. I believe this Bill is to be welcomed. Its subject matter was studied very carefully by the Standing Committee on Justice and its passage occurred without dissent.

The Bill contains several unrelated provisions, all of which, I believe, are improvements to the existing situation. In my very brief comments today I would like to mention only two of these provisions.

The first of these, which I regard as one of the most important, is to be found in clause 3 which relates to the extension of the powers of the court to admit reliable hearsay evidence. The present position is that no hearsay evidence can be admitted unless each party against whom the evidence is to be adduced agrees to the admission of this evidence, and secondly, unless the person upon whose credibility the probity value of such evidence depends himself testifies at such proceedings. This is most restrictive. After we have passed this particular Bill, in addition to the above which I have quoted, and taking into account a whole series of factors which are set out in the Bill, the court may, where it is of the opinion that such evidence should be admitted in the interests of justice, admit such hearsay evidence.

Various and adequate forms of protection are built into the Bill to ensure that no party is prejudiced by such admission. It is my belief, in concurrence with the various legal academics who have welcomed this provision, that the law of evidence will be vastly improved by this innovation. In the past the rather rigid hearsay rule often led to the exclusion of reliable evidence and the inclusion of less reliable evidence. I believe this clause will eliminate that defect.

The second important provision is contained in clause 6 which brings fairly far-reaching changes to the law relating to the competence and compellability of spouses. Contrary to general past practice this clause makes the wife or husband of an accused in a criminal case generally competent to give evidence. The wife or husband remains both competent and compellable in a number of family-type offences. This change is to be welcomed. As the hon member for Rosettenville said, the reason given in the past for spouses’ legal incompetence to give evidence was that it was supposed to prevent a strain being placed upon marital relations. In my view this is hardly something which should obstruct the conviction of the guilty or the acquittal of the innocent. Accordingly, it is my pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is hardly necessary to comment on a debate in which we are unanimous about a Bill of a technical nature. The Bill deals with a number of aspects. It is true that these aspects were identified by the commission after they had considered codifying the law of evidence in South Africa. They even called in one of the more well-known professors specialising in the law of evidence, Prof Schmidt, on a working committee of the commission. As the investigation into codification progressed, however, they concluded that it was a wide-ranging and comprehensive task, that the law of evidence was in any event reasonably to completely accessible to interested parties, namely practitioners and the Bench—our courts of law—and that in the normal course this was not a matter in which the public was very interested.

We can accept that the reason why there are attorneys and advocates is that this is a field that is not always very easy for the public to understand and deal with. That is why they rely on attorneys and advocates who have to be experts in the rules and law of evidence.

Moreover, this is in any event not a subject to be underestimated, because after all, it constitutes the machinery, the implements and instruments that practitioners use in the courts.

For that reason it is important to be aware of the commission’s ultimate train of thought. After concluding that this was a matter of considerable importance for our courts and legal practitioners, and that on the other hand it was reasonably accessible and that it would be a tremendous task for them to tackle, they decided only to give attention to those aspects that really deserve attention and that required improvement and alteration. This was how they arrived at those aspects that hon members have identified here. It is unnecessary for me to go into that again.

Just take as an example the whole issue of hearsay evidence. According to the hon member for Sandton this will mean that evidence that was previously excluded but was significant, may be included. The words he used were “the inclusion of reliable evidence”. These words in fact emphasise what will be achieved here, namely that if the person whose credibility must be relied on does give evidence later, either in court or in his absence, and in the best interests of justice the court decides that this evidence is indeed admissible, it will then be admissible. Previously this was not acceptable in terms of our rules of evidence. This will mean that there will be a gain in respect of evidence that used to be available, but excluded. This could also mean that court procedures will be shortened and postponements perhaps reduced. Previously the courts would postpone a case to provide an opportunity for the witness on whose evidence reliance had to be placed, to be found. If the court were to apply all the caveats mentioned in the Bill, it would now be able to admit such witnesses.

Let us take as an example the amendment of the criminal procedure legislation to make certain evidence compellable as regards evidence between spouses. I shall only dwell on one point which the hon member for Rosettenville clearly stressed, namely the issue of child abuse, because the courts can oblige a spouse to testify. This satisfies the sense of justice of our public. I want to emphasise that in this way all of us, as Parliament—I do not claim this for any specific party— are looking after the interests of children. We are very sensitive to, for example, the interests of children and the prevention of child abuse.

I am of the opinion that there are spheres which may well still require attention. For example, the commission recommends that the whole issue of certification of court exhibits from abroad must receive the necessary attention from the department.

I want to indicate that we shall examine the issue of certification. For example, in its report the commission points out that the office of Commissioner of Oaths as we know it is not known abroad. However, the outside world is acquainted with the concept of a notary public, who is regarded in the continental systems as an official with seven times more credibility than the individual. Therefore his word also carries seven times as much weight as that of the individual. We must make provision for that in our indications of what we require for the certification of documents. We shall give detailed consideration to this.

The Standing Committee on Justice is regarded as being highly professional, as the hon member for Rosettenville expressed it. She is a new hon member, and I do not think she is making a mistake. The committee has shown that it does indeed act in the best interests of the administration of justice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we in the CP support the adoption of this report dealing with the collection of debt and the problem experienced in that a person who does not comply with a court order relating to debt payments could in certain circumstances be committed to prison.

Quite rightly there was agitation that this rule be done away with since many people feel that a debtor should not serve a prison sentence if he is unable to pay his debt. The other point of departure was that he could be sentenced to imprisonment for not complying with a court order. Therefore this amounts to contempt of court if he does have the financial resources to comply with the order but intentionally refuses to do so. The view was also held that this punishment should also be imposed in the case of certain types of debts. It was argued that the dealer who granted credit to a buyer who had committed himself contractually to the credit, should not be entitled to collect the debt in this way. It difficult to distinguish among debts, because there are many debts that do not arise out of a contract, or that arise out of a contract where it would be extremely unfair if it could not be collected in this way. For example I have in mind here a person who has been involved in a car accident and sustains damages without any neglect on his part. In fact there is no coercive measure to ensure that the guilty party pays the debt, if he does not possess assets that can be sold.

I could also mention examples of cases which are dealt with according to contract. If I purchase a house that is not delivered to me, I am not entitled to compel, by way of this procedure, the repayment of what I have paid. This, too, can in many cases be unfair.

After considering a great deal of evidence on this matter, the standing committee, for these reasons, concluded that debt may indeed be collected by means of this coercive measure. However, there is a clear requirement that the debtor must be capable of paying, but must have deliberately refused to comply with the order. Moreover, no one may be sentenced to imprisonment if the sentence cannot be imposed in his presence. Therefore it is now not possible simply to issue a warrant in terms of which a person is sent to gaol for 14 days if he has not appeared in person before the magistrate. We feel very strongly that no one may be sentenced to imprisonment without having been before the magistrate at that moment, and having had the opportunity to defend himself.

If you were not to appear in court in response to a notice, a warrant could be issued for his arrest. However, he will not be sent to prison in terms of that warrant; it will simply provide that he be arrested in order to appear before the court. For these reasons we feel that a fair opportunity is being accorded all parties in this regard and we should like to support the report in that regard because we think that at this stage this is essential for commercial practice in this country.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in thanking the hon member for Bethal and hon members of the Official Opposition for their support of this report. This is also characteristic of the good co-operation on the standing committee, where legal problems are really not considered on a political basis but in an objective way.

I wholeheartedly agree with his fine exposition of the problems involved in this matter. The problem of debt and the effective collection of debt is as old as our legal system itself. When we look back at the origins of our law in the Roman Law and when we examine the Twelve Tables from the years 450 BC, we find that even in those times detailed provision was made for the collection of debt. Any person who did not pay his debt could be offered on the market square and sold across the Tiber River as a slave, or else he could be killed by his debtor. If he had various debtors, each of them—this gruesome provision also appears in the Twelve Tables—could claim part of the body, with the further assurance that if anyone demanded more than his rightful share of the body, nothing would happen to him.

In time these gruesome provisions were mitigated, and what remained was a system of civil imprisonment, which meant that a person could be detained in prison for not paying his debts. In the Western world this method of enforcing judgement of debt eventually declined in popularity and gradually disappeared. It was replaced by the principle that a person was accountable for payment of debt, not through his person, but through his resources. In 1977 civil imprisonment was abolished in the Supreme Court in South Africa. What was retained was a system in the magistrates’ court whereby a person could be imprisoned for contempt of the court’s judgment if he did not pay.

Against this background the Law Commission investigated the matter with specific reference to representations made by the hon Mrs Justice Leonora van den Heever with reference to the fact that she had encountered people in prison who were clearly indigent and not in a position to pay their debt. The Law Commission was faced with two conflicting principles, and these two conflicting principles had to be considered in the standing committee as well. On the one hand there was the principle that a man ought not to be held accountable in his person for debt. On the other hand there was the principle that it ought to be possible to enforce a court finding effectively.

Eventually the standing committee accepted a compromise whereby committal to prison for debt was not generally accepted as a point of departure, but was only accepted in those cases where a person was able to pay but did not do so—where, therefore, there was deliberate contempt of the court’s sentence.

I do not wish to dwell on the details of how the standing committee would wish to see this procedure operating, because the hon member for Bethal has already referred to that. I take pleasure in supporting the report of the standing committee and I regard it as another milestone on the road of legal reform in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I have absolutely no quarrel at all with the views expressed by the hon member for Bethal and by the hon member for Sundays River, and I also have no quarrel at all with this document before us now, being the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice. Accordingly, I have decided not to gild the lily and to say merely that we will support the adoption of this report.

Hurrah! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I hope I have the right to reply. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to make it clear that whereas we are accepting this report, the significance of that is that the report will be studied further. It does contain departures from the report of the Law Commission. Accordingly we—my department and I—will study the report very carefully and will subsequently decide which will be the best way of dealing with the recommendations of the standing committee.

One of the facets to which, for example, very careful consideration must be given, is whether the whole procedure in terms of section 65 should in fact be referred back to the Law Commission. The elements which have been formulated in firm recommendations by both the Law Commission and the standing committee are in fact only subordinate elements of the provisions of section 65 as a whole. If, therefore, we were to refer the entire procedure in terms of section 65 back to the Law Commission, it is possible—I would even say that it is probable—that most of the recommendations of the standing committee would come up for discussion again. It could then happen that careful consideration would have to be given to that.

Therefore I wish to put it as follows, Sir. Now that we have considered this matter once again and legislation may therefore now be called for, either as the result of a report by the Law Commission or as the result of our own inquiry, we shall come back to Parliament with proposals relating to legislation. I therefore trust that the same illustrious, juridically well-grounded standing committee will be available to give the matter further attention.

At this point I wish to reiterate that the Standing Committee on Justice, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, renders us an outstanding service. I should very much like to thank them for that.

Hear, hear!

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The main purpose of the Bill is to give format to the change in course of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the CSIR, which the Government has agreed to, and at the same time to modernise the legislation in regard to the CSIR.

The CSIR’s involvement in science and technology can be narrowed down to two main activities, namely—

1. (a) the funding of research development at universities, museums and technikons and the development of high level manpower in science and applied science by the awarding of postgraduate bursaries; and
2. (b) the CSIR’s own efforts in the field of research, development and information technology and the transfer of knowledge to the various markets in the private and public sectors.

The Bill has been focused especially on the promotion of the latter activity.

The principle objectives being pursued under the new dispensation are mainly to ensure the optimum and more market-orientated functioning of the CSIR by providing a greater measure of freedom with regard to the appropriation of funds and personnel administration and to enable the CSIR to become self-financing to a greater degree by means of contract research and services.

*With this in mind, the following broad amendments to the Act are proposed:

1. (a) The objects and functions of the CSIR are defined in such a way as to give substance to a market-directed management approach.
2. (b) In changing the name of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Bill also aims at clearly differentiating between the CSIR as a research and development organisation on the one hand and the CSIR Council as a decision-making body on the other.
3. (c) The Bill also makes provision for the separation of the offices of chairman of the council and that of President of the CSIR which were previously vested in one person. This is congruent with the devolution of greater authority to the council and is aimed at easing the management responsibilities of the president.
4. (d) A greater measure of management freedom with regard to personnel matters in accordance with the CSIR’s needs within the system of framework autonomy will be brought about by the proposed legislation.
5. (e) In order to remove any uncertainty regarding the council’s authority to delegate, provision has explicitly been made in the Bill for the council to delegate its powers and functions to specified functionaries or committees. The provision for executive and auxiliary committees is being obviated in this way.
6. (f) The Bill also enables the CSIR to obtain and hold shares in private companies and corporations, such as the South African Inventions Development Corporation (SAIDCOR), for example. Negotiations regarding the future relationship between the CSIR and SAIDCOR pertaining to shareholding and the transfer of rights with regard to inventions are far advanced and will in future be arranged mutually and by way of contract.
7. (g) Another important aspect is the provision in the Bill which allows the CSIR to invest its reserve funds according to its discretion. When an organisation is expected to earn an ever-increasing share of its budget, it is only reasonable to grant the necessary freedom to such organisation to achieve this aim.

However, a high percentage of the funds of the CSIR is still granted by Government at this stage and proper Parliamentary control should therefore be ensured. To achieve this, section 7 (7) stipulates that the Minister may from time to time reserve any matter contained in this Bill as a matter in respect of which any decision of the board is subject to the consent of the Minister. The same principle applies to financial matters, except that the Minister and the Minister of Finance may jointly reserve financial matters in respect of which any decision of the board will be subject to the consent of the Minister and for which the concurrence of the Minister of Finance will have to be obtained. Naturally, as the CSIR becomes more self-supporting, Governmental control will reduce accordingly.

I believe that this Bill is ushering in a new era and is giving substance to a more dynamic organisation in the field of technology development.

Mr Chairman, I am speaking in support of this Bill. We on this side of the House made a thorough study of the Bill and came to realise what it would mean to South Africa. Consequently we supported the measure in the committee.

I briefly want to elaborate on the continued existence of the CSIR. In clause 2 the Bill provides, amongst other things:

The objects of the CSIR are set out as follows:

The functions, powers and duties of the CSIR are set out as follows in clause 4:

For these reasons we on this side of the House support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the CSIR can undertake research in connection with the improvement of technical processes and methods aimed at the improvement of industrial production, Clause 4(3) reads:

Mr Chairman, let me quote the amendments as set out in the Standing Committee amendments on the Scientific Research Council Bill [B51A-88(AS)]. Clause 7 of the Bill reads as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, in line 15, to omit “of’ and to substitute “not exceeding”.
2. 2. On page 9, from line 25, to omit subsection (7) and to substitute:
   1. (7) (a) The Minister may from time to time reserve any matter provided for in this Act, as a matter in respect of which a decision of the Board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister.
   2. (b) The Minister and the Minister of Finance may jointly from time to time reserve any financial matter provided for in this Act as a matter in respect of which a decision of the Board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Heidedal and Heideveld for their relevant contributions. The hon member for Heidedal referred to the continued existence of the CSIR and also to the board’s objects and functions. I merely want to link up with that by saying that the Government regards the CSIR as an instrument for industrial and scientific development in this country. Clause 3 provides:

Here the emphasis is on “through research”. The CSIR is therefore a governmental instrument for the development of the country by way of research.

In the definitions clause “research” is defined as follows:

The CSIR is therefore clearly defined as a body that must develop the country by way of research. The concept “research” is also very clearly defined. In this regard the proposed Act is a very great improvement on the existing Act in which the concept “research” is qualified in many respects, and in which a distinction is drawn between, for example, scientific research, industrial research, technical research, scientific industrial research, etc. On reconsidering the Act it was decided to relinquish these distinctions and not to embody any adjectival qualifications to “research” in the Act, but rather to define “research” and then to use the word “research” without qualification in the Act.

To a very large extent this Bill is indicative of modernisation, as I have said in my Second Reading speech. The Scientific Research Council Act was placed on the Statute Book for the first time in 1945. Since then amendments have been introduced, with the Act having been consolidated on occasion. Basically, however, the CSIR has not changed since the introduction of the existing Act in 1945. The legislation before us is the first major development in regard to the existing Scientific Research Council Act and in regard to the objects of the CSIR since 1945.

The hon member for Heideveld also referred to the amendments introduced by the standing committee. He also mentioned them. Those are the amendments incorporated into clause 7(7) of the Bill.

As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, while the CSIR is still obtaining a large portion of its funds from Parliament, there has to be ministerial control, and it has been stated that the Minister can reserve certain matters for his approval and that, in respect of certain financial matters, the Minister and the Minister of Finance must agree before the CSIR can take certain decisions. These are very important provisions, and I want to thank hon members for having supported us on these issues in the standing committee.

With these few words, Sir, I again thank hon members sincerely for their support of this important legislation. The Government as a whole and I wish the CSIR everything of the best in the new course it is embarking upon, namely that of earning a great deal more money by way of market-orientated research, and in this way also making a considerable contribution to the development of South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Sir, I remember a similar motion being tabled at a conference of the Cape Teachers’ Professional Association while I was the organizing secretary of that body in the Eastern Province. If my memory serves me correctly, that was after the sudden drop in the 1979 pass rate in which we had reached the all-time high of 88,5%. An investigation was launched in 1980, but I do not remember the result of that investigation ever being made public. I have often pondered this. It puzzled me and made me wonder if somebody had something to hide. It made me wonder if the result would not have revealed things which would have made the so-called Coloured too good a student, a leading student, and ultimately would have made Coloureds leaders in the best disciplines and professions in the country. This thought has bothered me for a long time and has eventually given rise to this motion.

This, however, is nothing new, for in January 1983 the hon leader of the LP expressed his concern at the poor results of that year and called for an immediate independent commission of inquiry into the whole question of poor standard 10 examination results. In an interview with Zelda Jongbloed of Rapport on 2 January, 1982, our hon Leader was quoted as having said:

That is what I call hitting the nail right on the head. Let us stop wondering, let us get down to proper investigations so that we can establish the causes, and thus find the solutions to this recurring problem, because we will never be able to wish it away. Unfortunately, this call by our hon leader was not heeded and the rot, which had set in in 1980, continued, and is still with us today.

It is five years later and we have still not laid the ghost, with the result that my good friend, Mr Franklin Sonn, President of Utasa and CTPA, again had to echo the refrain. On 17 January this year he demanded that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate the matter.

He stated that he simply could not accept the high failure rate of Brown and Black students compared to that of Whites and Indians. I fully agree with Mr Sonn, because I do not believe that Brown and Black students are less intelligent than others; in fact, it has already been proved that they are not. All that remains for us to do is to establish the reasons for the poor performance of our students.

In the five years that have elapsed since Rev Hendrickse—of course, he is now the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—commented on the 1982 results and Mr Sonn on the 1987 results, the world has stood still as far as our Standard 10 final examinations are concerned. In 1982 the pass rate was 67,3%. In 1987 it stood at 67,9%. Do these figures not give cause for concern? Nothing was ever meant to be as static as that. No, Sir, this calls for action.

Allow me, Sir, to give a brief review of the results of our senior certificate examinations since they were taken over by the then Department of Coloured Affairs. In 1964 the pass rate was 44,3% and the failure rate, therefore, 55,7%. In 1965 the pass rate was 47,4% and the failure rate 52,6%. More than half of our children failed in that year. In 1966 there was a sudden spurt from the 40% mark to a pass rate of 60,2%. The failure rate, however, was still 39,8%. I want you to note, Sir, that it was in this year, 1966, that we started getting percentages in the 60s.

In 1967 we had a pass rate of 61,5% and a failure rate of 38,5%. In 1968 the pass rate was 65,2% while the failure rate was 34,8%. In 1969 the pass rate was 67,8%; the failure rate being 32,2%. There was a slight drop again in the pass rate in 1970, when it dropped to 65,2%. It was still in the 60s though. The failure rate was 34,8%. In 1971 there was a further drop to 63,4%; the failure rate being 36,6%. There was a fluctuation in the pass rate at that time. As a matter of fact, for 13 years, from 1966 to 1979, the figures fluctuated between 60% and 68%, except in 1976—the year of great tragedy—when we had a pass rate of 53,5% again and a failure rate of 46,4%. I suppose that was because we all went to jail in that year, Sir.

To continue, in 1972 the pass rate was 64% and the failure rate 36%. In 1973 the pass rate was 63,3% and the failure rate 36,7%. The pass rate in 1974 was 65,8% and the failure rate, 34,2%. In 1975 we had a pass rate of 63,3% and a failure rate of 36,7%.

As I stated previously, in 1976 the pass rate was 53,5% and the failure rate 46,5%. In 1977 the pass rate was 65,9%, while the failure rate was 34,1%. In 1978 the pass rate was 65,6%, while the failure rate was 34,4%. In 1979—and now hon members must listen carefully—there was a pass rate of 88,5%, and a failure rate of 11,5%.

I want to stand still here for a moment, Sir. In 1979 we practically reached the standard of normality and so the answer to our problem is locked up somewhere in 1979. What it is, I do not know. What happened in 1979? Why was there this absolutely magnificent improvement of 22,9%? [Interjections.] That can be true. I feel that when we find the key to this problem, we will find our solution.

In 1980 the rate again dropped from 88,5% to 63%. This was the year in which the unrest started, and in which the CTPA called for an inquiry. Again we had dropped back to the 60 per cents of the early seventies.

In 1981 we dropped further to 57%. We had never before been in the 50% pass range. In 1982 we went back to the 60s. In fact, the pass rate was 67,3%. That was an improvement on the previous year’s results, but there was still a failure rate of 32,7%.

In 1983 the pass rate was 71,3% and the failure rate 28,7%. That was an improvement. In 1984 the pass rate was 73,4%, and the failure rate 26,6%. The latter was less than 30% again. That represented a gradual improvement over the 1982 result, until in 1985 the pass rate dropped back to the 60s, with a failure rate of 35,6%.

In 1985, therefore, we were back to where we were in 1966. This was 19 years later. It seems as if somebody does not want the failure rate to be less than 30%. It seems as if somebody wants to keep us in an inferior position. It was the year in which disruptions in our schools started in earnest, and was to drag on indefinitely, until today. Somebody wants to keep us down there.

In 1986 the pass rate was 67,6%, while the failure rate was 32,4%. In 1987 there was a pass rate of 67,9%, while the failure rate was 33,1%. So now, 22 years later, we are still where we were in 1966. These are the statistics. They certainly present a gloomy picture. They leave us with a lot of unanswered questions. What causes the gloom?

We want to know whether the Standard 10 examination papers are too difficult. We want to know whether those in charge of the examinations are competent and clued up enough to perform their task. We must make sure of what effect upheavals and unrest have on the academic lives of our students. Are students properly accommodated with sufficiently equipped classrooms? Are our students and teachers working to their full potential? I want to pose a question: Why is it that a 70% pass rate is acceptable for Substandard A, but not for Standard 10? Why is it so, Sir?

Are the correct study methods being employed in our preparation for the examinations?

These are but some of the questions confronting us and which will be dealt with by my panel of speakers, in detail, during the course of the debate. We look forward to the answers which the hon the Minister will give during the discussion of his Vote.

In conclusion, Sir, we have round that it is essential for us to know the cause if we are to cure the symptoms. Hence the debate that will follow.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I rise in support of the motion moved by the hon the Chief Whip of this House. It is indeed a pleasure to do so after a matchless speech such as that of the hon member who moved this motion. This afternoon the hon member said a great deal here about aspects that have contributed to this low pass rate. This has one looking at the situation with a great deal of concern.

This afternoon I want to devote my full attention to the socio-economic and social causes prevailing throughout the country, but particularly in the urban areas where our students are exposed to the direct influences of extraneous ideologies. Firstly I am going to speak as a parent and secondly, as an ex-educationist and school principal who has an intense interest in the education and progress of all our children. Hon members will understand that I, as a parent, ex-educationist and school principal, ought to be concerned about the poor image one gains of the progress made by our children at matric level. This afternoon my words come straight from the heart, and what I am going to say may perhaps prove hurtful to people occupying certain positions. I am speaking, however, as a parent and as someone who is hurt and disappointed when his child evidences no progress at school.

I think the time has come for us to make a clinical analysis of the circumstances to which our students are exposed and the exploitation of these circumstances by certain bodies which politicise them to the detriment of our pupils’ overall discipline and progress at school. When we look at the basic socio-economic causes of the extremely disappointing examination results since 1980, our average pass rate having been a little more than 60%, we cannot ignore the fact that this can be ascribed to one salient factor, and that is poverty. This wonderful country of ours, which is described by many economists and experts as a developing country and which, on the continent of Africa, is acknowledged to be a showcase of development, is a country that has problems.

These are problems which it has brought upon itself and which impede the socio-economic development of its people. That has given rise to the development of certain classes in a society based on skin colour, resulting in clearly discriminatory allocations being made in the sphere of education. Thus it is made difficult for the common labourer to keep his child at school.

We know how many of our children frequently have to return from school to a house in which there is perhaps no food. We know how many of our pupils and students simply have to drop their books quickly after school and then go to work in order to keep body and soul together. Not to mention how many of our young students do not have decent light by which to study in the evenings. This can all be ascribed to this one factor that sticks out like a sore thumb, ie poverty.

This afternoon, however, I want to take my hat off to those students—I am talking about the vast majority—who have had the willpower and have refused, and still refuse to throw in the towel, who accept their circumstances, however parlous they may be, as a challenge in their efforts to rise above the syndrome of ignorance and who have proved themselves.

At the commencement of my speech I said that I was going to speak this afternoon about exploitation by certain bodies and the politicisation of the situation in which our people, our children in particular, find themselves. There are bodies which effectively exploit the situation to the detriment of our children’s overall progress at school. One could perhaps contend that poverty has long been a part of man’s existence, but I want to emphasise that the poor of bygone days were not subjected to the modem means of communication which intensify the feeling of injustice, particularly amongst our Blacks in South Africa. What hurts even more is that this feeling of injustice has spilled over into the classroom situation. There our children are exposed to those elements that seek to engender feelings of rebellion against the authorities. It is understandable that certain of our pupils cannot always come to terms with the situation in which they find themselves. The will and the desire to persevere with their studies and to make a success of their school careers become enmeshed in political ideologies which are presented to them. It is during this period of frustration that some of our matriculation pupils become an easy target for the proponents of revolutionary ideologies. These poor, impressionable students are presented with instant solutions to the social and socio-economic problems of South Africa.

As a basic cause of the students’ problems and those of the country, they are presented with the violation of human rights by the discriminatory legislation of this country. This violation of human rights is also regarded as a direct consequence of the prevailing poverty in our country, and then the already impressionable minds of these frustrated students are fired by revolutionary ideas.

Edgar Hoover, the erstwhile head of the FBI, is someone with a great deal of knowledge of subversive warfare, and in one of his books he wrote the following:

I now want to ask: Is that not the case in South Africa too? Have our schools not become places where political ideals of a revolutionary nature are formulated, concocted and applied to our pupils and students? Then, wondering as we do, we ask this afternoon why such a declining trend is discernible in our matriculation results. This is a cliche on some school campuses today, and the following ideas are propagated, by word and deed, amongst our school pupils by certain subversive elements.

†Our children are persuaded to do away with all loyalty oaths, to eliminate all laws governing obscenities by calling such laws censorship and the violation of free speech and a free Press. Our students are persuaded to break down all cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenities at our school campuses. Our kids who had been brought up with love, are being taught to discredit the family institution, to infiltrate the Church and replace revealed religion with social religion. Then we still wonder why our matric results are so disappointingly low.

*Sir, some of our pupils are recruited by these elements on school campuses with a view to breaking out of their existing way of life and being trained as leaders of revolution and subversion. It also deserves to be mentioned that the free distribution of liquor and drugs amongst our youth has increased to such an extent that it has assumed dreadful proportions and is having a detrimental effect on the overall progress of our children, making them reluctant to study and write examinations. The child enters the examination room, not to write the examination, but simply to fill in his examination number and then spend a bit of time there.

In some schools one witnesses the dreadful spectacle of some of the students being encouraged by certain elements to defy the authority of the teacher and of the vandalism and destructiveness that take place there, having a detrimental effect on the progress of the average and poor students.

If we are seeking further causes for the poor examination results, let me also present hon members with the following. Firstly, there is the statement that punishment should be divorced from any sin or any form of offence that is committed and, secondly, there is the fact that the writing of articles about the possible consequences of premarital and extramarital sex and also the provision and use of the pill by our pupils are all the rage in our schools. Then we still wonder why the results obtained by our matriculants are so poor! Let us thank God for those who, in spite of all these negative factors, can still stand firm and make a success of their studies. Let us thank God that there are still students who want to rise above this syndrome of subversity in which they are caught up. Sir, there is no doubt that every educationist and parent in this country has a tremendous task to perform, particularly amongst our people, when it comes to opposing or counteracting the fundamental danger of leftwing radicals and saving what can still be saved. The time has come for us to get to it and save what can be saved.

The question, however, is whether we can still do something, at this late hour, to salvage the education of our children. If our children’s educators love the children whom they are supposed to be educating, they will have to give the children positive guidance on the road to maturity. In love for our children let us, as parents, also talk to them at home. Let us give them the necessary guidance at home; and let us ask those who educate them at school to devote some time to trying to get back to the image of “the teacher of old” who was still the master in his classroom.

Mr Chairman, today it is a singular pleasure for me to be able to speak in support of the motion moved by the hon member for Bethelsdorp.

Since as far back as the fifties certain White bodies have been campaigning to an increasing degree for the separation of the control and the administration of education for the Coloureds and the Whites. In 1963 the Coloured persons Education Act brought about such separation, and this came into operation on 1 January 1964 in the Cape Province and the Transvaal, and on 1 April 1964 in the Orange Free State and Natal.

The various teachers’ associations which have represented thousands of our teachers, various denominations under whose auspices these schools have functioned and public opinion amongst members of the Coloured population group were vehemently opposed, as they are today, to the takeover by the Department of Coloured Affairs. This separate education department slowly began to introduce its own curricula, syllabuses and examinations, and as from 1970 began setting its own senior certificate examinations in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Matriculation Board. When the matric results of the various departments are published each year, they reinforce the sobering, shattering, cold reality of the divide and rule vice-grip which education in South Africa is caught up in.

That was also the case at the end of 1987 when the average pass rate for White pupils was almost 100%. The 76,9% pass rate of Coloured matriculants and the mere 56,3% for Black pupils is an accurate reflection of the widely divergent conditions prevailing in those three communities. In Black education, for example, there were 137 600 matriculants last year, only 77 454 of whom passed. The high annual failure rate in the senior certificate examination is a true reflection of apartheid in education, regardless of the fact that the Department of Education and Culture has already conducted an investigation into the high failure rate amongst our matriculants. To date, however, the findings have not been made public.

The high failure rates in those of our schools which fall under the Administration: House of Representatives is a great cause for concern. From 1970 to the end of last year a total of 45 815 Coloured matriculants failed. From the takeover in 1964 to the end of last year 50 352 matriculants failed! That is why there should be an investigation into the high failure rate amongst our matriculants. Everything must be exposed in all its ramifications. The problem in South Africa is that there are so many different examination authorities that apply divergent criteria to question papers, the marking of scripts and the drawing up of graphs based on marks obtained. The drawing up of graphs based on the marks obtained in White departments gives those matriculants a tremendous advantage over Coloured matriculants. The Labour Party is directing its efforts at achieving one single education department with only one examination authority to place all matriculants, regardless of race or colour, on an equal footing. There is a saying that goes “There is never smoke without a fire”, and for that reason one should take note of the accusation which is being levelled these days about the question papers of Coloured matriculants in the finals being more difficult than those of the Whites.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I merely want to tell the hon member for Steinkopf that we are dealing with a serious matter as far as our people are concerned, and that this is no time for jokes.

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp must please return to the subject under discussion. The hon member may proceed.

It is an irrefutable fact that when Coloured matriculants write national examinations conducted by the Department of National Education, they pass more easily. It is beyond comprehension that apartheid even triumphs in the examination room. It is common cause in our community that our private matriculation candidates have a much better chance of passing the examinations controlled by the Department of National Education than those under the control of the Department of Education and Culture. The latter department, of course, falls under the Administration: House of Representatives. Sir, why must our Coloured matriculants pay such a steep price for apartheid in education? I now want to quote a passage to hon members from Die Burger of 30 August 1984. In a letter “Would Like to Help” writes:

We would only be able to find out what was really happening if an investigation were conducted into examination results. An investigation into the high failure rate amongst our matriculants would also answer the question about whether there is, in fact, proper control over the standard of matriculation examinations. I am saying this because matriculation finals written by Coloured pupils are much more difficult than those written by White pupils. [Interjections.]

Order!

Gallatjie!

That is possibly where the reason lies for the difference between the White pass rates and those of Coloured matriculants.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I strongly object to the fact that some hon members here are really acting like small children. They keep calling me “Gallatjie”. [Interjections.]

Order! “Gallatjie” is an unparliamentary word. Will the hon member who used the word please withdraw it?

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp may continue.

It is staggering that year in and year out the pass rate of matriculants in schools under the White education department is virtually 100%. Why can one question paper not be drawn up for all matriculants—regardless of race or colour—in the respective subjects? What is wrong with us? Why do so many matriculants fail?

One of the major causes of the high failure rate in the senior certificate examinations is the substantial shortage of qualified, graduate teaching staff in our senior secondary schools.

According to statistics, in 1985 only 7% of teachers in secondary schools were graduates. In addition, the decrease in the number of matriculants who pass with matriculation exemption leads to a continuous under-supply of qualified teachers, particularly in subjects such as science, biology and mathematics.

A further cause of the low pass rate is the lack of proper discipline in senior secondary schools. There is also a lack in the provision made for education, which is the result of lower per capita expenditure on Coloured education in comparison with that on White education. This definitely gives rise to inadequate accommodation.

Mr Chairman, I want to quote from a document furnished to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture by the Outeniqua Divisional Council and dated 10 February 1988. The letter deals with the Lancewood Primary School, and I quote:

We are in earnest about seeking solutions for our low pass rate in the senior certificate examinations. We shall have to uncover the problem and the concomitant pattern that this gives rise to. If there will have to be an in-depth investigation, because we are bowed down by the burden of apartheid. The idea of one education department and one teaching body remains, for us all, a dream that must be realised.

I want to conclude. Every human being is the architect of his own future. Today I therefore want to make a serious appeal to our matriculants to put their shoulder to the wheel and study harder this year, because there is work to do. With sacrifices and determination, those who persevere will make headway along the road they are travelling.

Mr Chairman, allow me to participate in this debate on the motion that “the House is of the opinion that an in-depth inquiry should be held into the high failure rate in senior certificate examinations in the schools falling under the control of the Department of Education and Culture…” The failure and dropout rate in the schools falling under the department is alarming, especially in senior certificate examinations. Considering the amount of money spent annually on the construction of schools and the entire organisation from the hon the Minister down to the kindergarten teacher, as well as the incalculable amount of paperwork, the text books, the stationery and the hours spent each day on the education of a child, our failure rate is not warranted.

Perhaps we must address this problem of the failure rate comprehensively.

In our investigation certain socio-economic and political factors must be looked into, and thought must be given to unpleasant, discriminating policies and conditions which the present education department has inherited. The double shift education system which is employed in certain areas needs to be addressed as lack of accommodation may be the major problem. Sir, according to Education for Life, compiled by the Education Bureau and edited by Messrs H J Harmse et al, 34,8% of the total number of pupils enrolled in the department are involved in the double shift system. Considering that 12% of the total school population were accommodated in afternoon school classes in 1974 and that 12 years later, in 1986, there was a mere decrease of 1,2%, this issue merits full investigation and must be addressed comprehensively and I emphasise “comprehensively” once more.

Sir, some of the problems pupils experience in high school can be traced back to the formative years, ie the pre-primary and primary stages of development. These unpleasant conditions can determine our matric results. Allow me, Sir, to probe deeper into the unpleasant situation before 1974. Each province had its own curriculum and consequently conducted its own examinations. There were, however, some striking similarities in the curricula and the syllabi. With the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs in 1964 the system of central control was adopted, whereby uniformity was introduced progressively. By 1970 this metamorphosis was complete. Despite the central control our pass rate in the examination has never reached the desired percentage.

The high failure rate needs to be investigated. All aspects of differentiated education need to be investigated, particularly in the high schools, so as to give the pupils a chance to satisfy their individual needs, abilities, aptitudes and interests, rather than confine them to our present system of education. Guidance services should be investigated as they play a fundamental role in differentiated education. This is mainly so because differences in aptitude between pupils are catered for by such guidance services. If correctly employed, such services can help to determine a pupil’s particular personality pattern, interests and personality activities. It is on the strength of these factors that our senior certificate results may be based. The curricula and syllabi from the primary level up to matric level are acceptable in my opinion, but our children need to work harder and harder to meet the challenges of the future.

It is my opinion that the department should investigate intimidation and violence as well as their effects on militant boycotters in our high schools. The department should investigate the physical intimidation which has caused an increase in absenteeism, leading ultimately to poor and low standards of education.

The department should investigate the primary mandate of teachers as part of their professional mandate to teach and their traditional role as leaders in the community. The department must also investigate inadequacies in our present system of education as well as learning methods and habits which may be the source which discourages that active dynamism which our children need at high school.

However, the department must investigate disciplinary measures and other related factors which have destroyed the eagerness in our high school pupils to reach for the best and to excel in their examinations. The department must investigate and encourage professional responsibility in our teachers in creating a proper and worthwhile perspective in achieving their goals as pedagogues.

Finally, the department must investigate the destructive effects of apartheid and its consequences. Apartheid has created bitterness and antipathy in high school pupils towards examinations. Last, but not least, the department must investigate internationally accepted norms of education as education, in my opinion, is in itself a universal phenomenon.

Mr Chairman, I support the motion as moved by the hon member for Bethelsdorp. The reasons for my support of his motion will become very clear in the course of my address.

Let me start off by saying that as an ex-teacher I regard one failure out of any number of pupils who write an examination or who complete an education course as a high failure rate. That is one of the first reasons why I say I support this kind of investigation. We have to regard education —particularly in South Africa—as the greatest investment that we can make in the future of this country. For that reason every single child who is engaged in this process of education is important, and if one child fails a course that failure should be investigated. That is my first reason for supporting any investigation of this kind.

The second reason for my suggesting that it will be a good thing for us to have a comprehensive investigation has already been mentioned, to a certain extent, by the hon member for Dysselsdorp. He suggested that the failure of our whole education system to produce results should be “tot die been oopgevlek”. The reason I support this kind of investigation on the second score is that the truth must come out. We need to learn the exact figures and the whole truth. This leads me to refer to an article which appeared in Sunday Tribune Herald of 6 March 1988. The heading reads:

I mention this article because it leads me to a point I wish to make. I want to amplify this point before coming to it. I was asked by a rather prominent person today what the future of the Coloured group in the Republic of South Africa was. Sir, it may sound as if I am digressing but I am not.

Implicit in that question I find an acceptance of the future permanence of the racial group in South African society. This is totally unacceptable to any person who dares to call himself a Labour Party member, because the LP believes in the protection of the rights of the individual. We regard education in any country as a right and not as a privilege or a concession. It is a right, and whatever opportunity is given to one citizen of a country should also be offered to no less an extent to the next citizen of that same country. The reason I am mentioning this, is that I need to repeat the call that has been made in this House so often, and that is the call for a single national education system under a single ministry, possibly with regional departments within that ministry.

I want to explain why I am saying this. The present system lends itself to racially divided education departments being compared with one another, hence the article in which it is alleged that a particular education department, which happens to cater for the education of a racial group, is actually manipulating figures in order to boost its own results so as to give itself more credibility. Sir, this kind of comparison is one of the most dangerous things that one can have in any country. It is at best comparable with the homeland system of this country where we find a clinical compartmentalisation of people with all the attendant problems that are associated with such a system.

Since I have mentioned two reasons why I support the whole idea of an investigation into the failure rate—whether it is high or low, depending on what we regard as high or low—I would also like to mention that since we are in an investigating mood, we might as well also look into the reasons for the high dropout rate from Sub A to Standard 10. I believe that the dropout rate for 1987 from Sub A to Standard 10 in schools under the control of the Administration: House of Representatives is above 31 000. In other words, 31 000 children are simply lost to the education process.

I have looked at some figures and these figures need to be mentioned as some of them confuse me. I would rather declare my sources and also give the dates of the source. I am going to quote from the The Educational Journal of January and February 1988. These are fairly recent statistics. It is necessary for me to quote the figures in regard to teachers and their qualifications. The number of teachers in the department of the Administration: House of Representatives without a teacher’s certificate or diploma is 2 274. The number of non-graduate teachers without other diplomas totals 1 614. The number of non-graduates with other diplomas totals 134. The number of teachers with a Bachelor’s degree only is 427. People with honours or B Ed degrees total 87. The number of teachers in our classes with Masters’ degrees is 11. Apparently there is only one teacher with a doctoral degree. These figures are for the teaching profession. I might mention that teachers with teachers’ certificates or diplomas number 18 374. The non-graduates without additional diplomas number 16 361. The nongraduates with additional diplomas number 989 and people with Bachelors’ degrees number 909. I mention these figures, Sir, because it has been alleged that the number of teachers who are becoming more and more qualified is dwindling. This is simply not true. Teachers are doing their darnedest to qualify themselves even better for their job. In this respect I will rise to the defence of the teacher any day.

When it comes to an actual comparison of results I should like to mention the following from the same source, viz The Educational Journal. I shall take a few different departments of education— I believe there are something like 16 in the country. I will begin with the Department of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Assembly. The matric pass rate was 92,7% in the Cape and 94,8% in the Transvaal. In comparison with that, the 1987 matric pass rate among students falling under the Administration: House of Representatives was 68%; and as far as the Administration: House of Delegates was concerned the matric pass rate was 93,12%. The Department of Education and Training, on the other hand, had a pass rate of 56,3%. As I said, these figures relate to 1987.

Since I have started talking about teachers, Mr Chairman, I have to mention certain things about them. When I think about teaching today, Sir, I can safely tell you right now that after having worked outside the department for seven years, I would have to have my head examined if I should ever decide to return to teaching under today’s circumstances. I do not say that because of particular individuals or for personal reasons, but simply because of the oppressive system that is being used. This may be the case consciously or unconsciously. I have looked, Sir, at what teachers have to go through today, and I can say, first of all, that they are hopelessly over-policed.

For instance, a teacher has to subject himself to reports by his head of department. When the department head is done, the principal comes along and inspects the teacher. After that the subject adviser comes along and inspects the teacher still further in case the principal did not do the job. If the principal did not do the job, he is sent back to the teacher once again. After the subject adviser has been, the circuit inspector comes along and also inspects the teacher. After that the teacher is still subjected to a mini-panel. That is why I say there is over-policing. It is a statement to the teacher that he is not trusted and that he is being observed so that it may be seen whether he is complying with the official requirements. There is no incentive for the teacher to do his best.

Secondly, we have unconsciously allowed the teachers of today to place a heavy emphasis on academic qualifications for themselves. We have allowed the universities to recognise, for degree purposes, certain courses at teacher training institutions. Now, a man is a man and he is going to try to do the least work for the most money. If, therefore, he can study at a teachers’ training college and take academic courses that will be recognised for degree purposes he is saving time and will reach that higher notch faster. That is human nature; we must not blame the teacher for that, because he is simply taking the shortest route. We have to learn to cope with that situation. The fact is that the emphasis is now on academic qualifications. The man studies history itself rather than how to teach history. The emphasis has thus shifted from methodology to the content of the subject when it comes to the obtaining of a teachers’ qualification.

Furthermore, Sir, our subject advisers are being loaded with reports upon reports instead of being left free to do what their titles suggest they should do. The emphasis is not being placed on actual subject advising. Whatever advice needs to be given to the teacher is supposed to be given during the teacher’s “own time”. We no longer have those orientation courses in teaching time that we used to have. We no longer have those get-togethers of maths and science teachers during which school time used to be used as an investment for better teaching. We need to reassess the need for such things.

Let us take the example of the teacher who sits after examinations, marking scripts, tediously and painfully looking for every mistake the child has made, deciding whether full marks or half a mark should be given for a certain question. When he tenders the results to the principal, some bright spark, some big deal inspector comes along and decides that too many pupils have failed at that particular school, that they want 20 more passes and the teacher must then find the marks. This is the most deflating thing under the sun. It leads to total disregard for detail and there is also no motivation to work hard to get those pupils to do the right thing. Passing or failing simply becomes an academic exercise. The whole matter of allowing pupils to proceed needs to be looked at carefully. A teacher spends the whole year telling a child, “Listen, Johnny, you must start working, because you are not going to pass at the end of the year.” Johnny listens with faded eyes and thinks his old buzzard of a teacher does not know what he is talking about. Johnny knows he will get to the next standard and that that teacher will be his class teacher whether he likes it or not. He does not have to listen to the teacher. The “atp”—allow to proceed—situation allows the child to get away with this attitude. Johnny returns the following year and the teacher is embarrassed when he again tells him to work hard. Johnny can then say he knows a better system, a system under which he does not have to work but which works for him. Atp is our teachers’ biggest headache.

We need to look at the attitudinal problem that is prevalent among teachers and pupils, as well as professional bodies, as regards the higher-gradestandard-grade arrangement. Many people still attach a stigma to the standard grade provision and believe that it is a second chance to pass. Perhaps certain departments also believe that. The fact is, we need to work through our professional organizations to get this attitudinal problem addressed, so that people will understand that not everyone needs to study history or geography or any other academic subject in order to gain a tertiary education. The effect of a technikon education has to be passed on to our pupils.

This again ties up with the whole matter of career guidance which is a hopelessly neglected aspect of our educational structure as far as the Administration: House of Representatives is concerned. A child has no motivation to matriculate if he sees all his older friends hanging around on street corners with their matric certificates with academic subjects—some even have distinctions in some subjects. Our education needs to be goal directed, and in order to get this instilled in the minds of the pupils we need to use whatever means are available to us. The means available to us today is the professional organization which in itself has to be taught that there is no stigma attached to doing a standard grade course and that such a course allows the child to enjoy technikon education which in many cases is superior to university education.

In closing, I have this plea for the teacher who is so beleaguered today, by repeating a statement I made in 1985. We have a shortage of teachers in certain subjects, particularly in English and Afrikaans in the Transvaal. We have a shortage of Afrikaans teachers in Natal and a shortage of English teachers in the North Western Cape.

Why do we not look at some sort of system—I am not an expert in this field, experts can be found to do this, or computers could be used—whereby incentives can be created for people to fill the existing gaps? Pay the mathematics teacher more for teaching mathematics, and we will not have a shortage of such teachers. Pay the man more for teaching Afrikaans in Natal, or English in Namaqualand, and we will not have such a shortage of staff. We have to use the carrot rather than the big stick. Modern computer technology allows for all the little detailed problems that are associated with working out such a system.

Finally, I want to suggest that while we are in this investigative mood, we not only look at what the problems are, but that we also arrive at solutions to our problems. We ought to investigate what should be done, as well as investigate what is wrong.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the hon member for Bethelsdorp, Mr W J Dietrich, Chief Whip of the ruling party in this House.

We have heard a number of reasons today, from a number of hon members who have an educational background, for the low pass rate of our matriculants. They are men who, speaking as representatives of their parts of the country, expressed concern about the quality and standard of the education of our people. As someone who spent the best part of his life—23½ years—in education, in both the subeconomic and bourgeois areas in the Cape Peninsula, I feel that I have the experience and the background to speak in support of this motion with conviction, sincerity and concern.

However, before I come to the motion, Sir, allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on his appointment as Minister of Education and Culture in this House. I am sure, Sir, that the tremendous challenge which he has taken up is one which he is well able to rise to. He has proved over and over again in this Chamber his ability as both a statesman and politician. [Interjections.] I am sure that with the co-operation of his department and those of us in this Chamber who are concerned about the state, quality and advancement of our system of education and the education of our children, this hon Minister will take this important, challenging portfolio to great heights. He certainly has the quality of leadership and the intellect. [Interjections.] Sir, I must also take the opportunity to assure him personally of my support, as a member of this House and as a member of the Standing Committee on Education. [Interjections.]

Sir, this motion is indeed a motion of concern— concern, because all is not as it should be in our education circles. However, we must stop blaming the system. I am a product of the system. I am someone, like many others in this House, who has achieved, and who has arrived, despite the system. There are many hon members in this House, Sir, who have achieved despite the system. This also applies to their children. I think, for example, of the hon the Minister of Health Service and Welfare’s son. He is an intelligent young man who has passed matric and is now studying medicine. That is an achievement, despite the system. The hon member Mr Lockey, a young man, is another example. He is a product of the University of the Western Cape. He has also achieved, despite the system.

This morning I spent about an hour with the ambassador who has just arrived back from Canada. He said to me that on average 2 000 South Africans, often intellectuals, leave this country per year.

Ten per cent of those who leave South Africa for Canada are non-White intellectuals of the highest calibre. We cannot afford to let this braindrain continue. We cannot allow these men to leave our shores for greener pastures in Australia and Canada. They have gained experience, and they have gained education in South Africa, despite the system.

Today I want to address those people in our schools, colleges and universities who are not concerned with education. They are not there to improve their qualifications or for intellectual advancement. They are there to waste their time, our time, the State’s time and its money. It is a wonder that they are allowed to carry on at these institutions.

I want to address the many pseudo-educationalists, radicals, teachers, parents, as well as countless students who blame the system to hide their own shortcomings. They want to hide their own failures and incompetence within the system. As I have said before, there are many examples of men who have achieved, despite the system. There are countless others outside this Chamber who have reached great heights, despite the system.

I want to pause here and say to hon members that I do not for one moment deny the fact that inequalities, disparities and backlogs do exist. I am not denying that; but never before in the history of so-called Coloured education has there been so much scope and opportunity for advancement. There are departmental officials in this Chamber who can bear me out and support me in this. There is tremendous scope and opportunity for young people who are willing and eager to learn and to reach the top in education.

Let us look at some statistics. I am quoting from the latest figures published by the Central Statistical Service. The booklet is called RSA Statistics in Brief. Let us look at some of the statistics for education since 1970. The number of teachers in primary education increased from 16 000 in 1970 to 32 000 last year. The number of pupils in primary education increased from 400 000 in 1970 to 590 000 in 1987. The number of students at tertiary institutions increased from 4 500 in 1970 to 24 000 in 1987. These figures speak for themselves.

However, I wish to repeat that despite these increases, despite the improvement in the standard of education, despite the increase in the number of teachers, despite the increase in the amount of money spent on education, and despite the improvement in the facilities at institutions, there has been a drop in the standard of performance of our “Coloured” students. There has been a drop in our standards of achievement; there has been moral decay amongst our students and teachers; and there has been a lack of respect amongst our teachers and students. As someone who spent 24 years in education, I can say that the dignity of the profession has almost been lost. We must try to get back into education the dignity that is required.

I remember the year 1959 when I was a matric student. We had no matric balls or R1 000 dresses for matric balls. [Interjections.] I went to a matric farewell party in my Livingstone High School uniform. It was like a Sunday school picnic, but we were there and we were sober; and we had the highest respect for our teachers. [Interjections.] Where are our children today? In the last week of school they are away from the campus. They are in caves on mountains; in dance halls and at discos or at seaside resorts. Where are they? Nowhere, or at least not in school.

There has been moral decay and a lack of dignity in our education and this must be addressed. That is why we have this failure rate. It is right under our noses and in our homes. In many homes the parents have lost control over their children. Teachers have lost control over their classes. Lecturers have lost touch with their students. It is right under our noses.

There are hon members in this Chamber who have spent many hours behind the scenes and at committee level to fight our cause for equality and for parity in education, but equality and parity must not only be achieved through legislation. For how much longer can we and must we tolerate a situation in which so many of our students are abusing the facilities at their disposal? This is a root cause of the failure rate.

Let us go to our schools, our colleges and our universities and examine the attitudes and behavioural patterns of our students. Must we continue to wink or to turn a blind eye at so many of our teachers who, instead of teaching and preparing our citizens of tomorrow, are actively engaged in twisting the young minds entrusted to them so that these pupils become boycotters and disrupters of classes? [Interjections.] This is where the hon the Minister and his department must take on the challenge to get hold of this root cause of the failure rate which we must investigate.

Therefore, an in-depth inquiry will definitely expose this major factor which has brought about this high failure rate in our senior certificate exams. It is time that the department and the hon the Minister, especially, take definite steps to prevent a repeat of last year’s comparatively poor results.

Two types of individuals are found in our schools and on our campuses today. The first group is definitely serious about learning and improving their qualifications, and the second group is a group of spoilers. They infiltrate our schools, sow confusion, disrupt classes and promote unrest. I believe it is time that these minority groups were positively identified and excluded from these premises and facilities where they so freely abuse privileges and opportunities denied to so many who cannot be accommodated.

In closing, Sir, I want to say to the hon the Minister and his department that the task ahead of them is not an easy one, but I believe that there is enough goodwill and co-operation both inside and outside this Chamber and among the ranks of teachers as well as students to help us to improve the present situation. I wish the hon the Minister, especially, and his department all the very best in tackling this most important problem in this country.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to follow on the hon member for Ottery without attacking him. This shows that we all learn as time goes by.

†Public debate has largely restricted itself to internal issues in education such as the curriculae, teacher-training, certification, accommodation and finance. However, the forces that most heavily affect developments within education are to a large extent to be found outside of it and are not reflected in the debates on it, as we heard from the hon member for Wentworth this afternoon. In terms of the motion before us we will be addressing some of these internal issues and their effect on the results of the senior certificate examinations under the control of the Administration: House of Representatives.

It is true that there has been a marked increase in the number of successful Coloured matriculants. In the ten years from 1968 to 1977 a total of 18 654 matriculants passed, while in the decade 1978 to 1987 the number rose sharply to 78 451. In a sense one could pat the educationalists on the back, but I am sure they would be the first to acknowledge that one’s success is not measured by the hundreds of successes but by the singular failures. While 78 451 matriculants passed in the last ten years, no less than 36 237 failed during the same period. To compound matters 22 558 or 62,25% did so in the past five years. This illustrates the urgency with which this motion has been brought to this House today.

The past decade has also been marked by a series of classroom boycotts which has—I believe no one in this House can deny this—to a greater or lesser degree, taken its toll in the success rate of our scholars. We have seen a variety of reasons given for these classroom boycotts. They range from opposition to the tricameral parliamentary system to the Koornhof Bills, to detention of political figures and the non-appointment of certain teachers to promotion posts. I, for one, do not believe that we should enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of these reasons today. Let us not forget that school boycotts have meant a loss of teaching time and a loss of study time— the two fundamental elements of success at school. Let us always remember that it takes between four and five years to work oneself out of a system of poor results in any one year. Therefore, if one has more than one set of poor results in any five years it compounds the issue. Of course, there are exceptions; but educationists will tell you, Sir, that a poor standard 6 pupil becomes a poor standard 7 pupil who becomes a poor standard 8 pupil who eventually becomes a poor matriculant—if he ever gets there.

Taking all factors into consideration, good results are ultimately dependent on two basic factors: The quality of teacher-pupil contact in the classroom, and the amount of time that the pupil spends with his books. No sophisticated teaching aids, important as they are, and no fancy system of financing, important as it is, can ever act as a substitute for teacher-inspiration and pupil-perspiration.

Having said all this I will be the first to admit that Coloured education, like all Black education in this country, has suffered as a result of the amount of money historically spent on it. However, the quality of education also involves the academic qualifications of the teachers. The inequalities in the provision of education to the different population groups were clearly identified in the HSRC’s education report of 1981. The report clearly illustrated the differences in unit costs, the differences in pupil-teacher ratios, the differences in teacher qualifications, the differences in the total percentage of pupils who passed standard 10 and the differences in the percentages of pupils who obtained university entrance certificates.

According to those statistics it is also true that members of the Coloured community lag behind their White and Indian counterparts. It is also true that the budget under discussion in Parliament at present—and last year’s budget—seeks to bridge the gap between the education “haves” and “have-nots”. Obtaining the ideal, however, is still some way off.

Let me conclude by saying—the hon Whips are trying to include as many speakers in this debate as possible—that while we may yet reach the ideal where only a minimal number of pupils will fail the senior certificate examination, we will have failed in our task on the other hand if we do not change the emphasis on academic-oriented education which is increasingly taking place at the cost of technical and career-oriented education.

Continuing on our present road can only lead to the unprecedented situation of matriculants joining the unemployment queues owing to the irrelevance of their qualifications. In terms of the requirements of the labour markets we can ill afford that. We must ask ourselves if we want to continue training the unemployed.

Mr Chairman, our task of today can be likened to that of a wine connoisseur—or to put it in more digestible terms, to that of a wine taster. A wine taster takes a delicate sip of wine, swirls it round in his mouth, swallows a little and sometimes even spits out a little bit. Then he proceeds to give one the most intimate details of that specific wine. The details include the area which the wine comes from; the farm on which the grapes were grown; the vintage year and whether it was a bad, good, dry or wet year, and the opinion of the wine taster.

Today the hon member for Bethelsdorp has given us a similar task, and that is to look into the matriculation results and to give our opinion of our children’s scholastic performance. Immediately the year 1976 comes to mind. It was a bad year in some respects and a good year in other respects. It was a good year inasmuch as it served to wake up South Africa. It was the year of our schoolchildren’s revolt. It was the year when they said to their parents: “Wake up; we are tired of the way in which you are pussyfooting with reform in South Africa. ” In that year the children said to the Government: “We are tired of disparity in our school facilities.” Sir, I am proud to have been part of that particular period in our history.

At a time when everybody was up in arms and wanted to bum down the buildings and throw stones, I stressed the following—I do so now and I will do so in the future: Do not destroy your own things like schools, halls, etc. Do not destroy your own future. Be angry, but contain your anger and your venom and channel it in such a way that you, your family, your friends and your community can benefit by it.

“There are too many academics and so-called leaders in our communities who are wilfully misleading our children and destroying their school careers.

†I want to quote from the SRC Update of March 1987:

As final year students are supposed to graduate on 12 March 1988, I would like to share my views on this controversial matter. Before deciding whether to graduate or not I think it is important to reflect on the history of education struggles in the country …

He goes on to say—

He then refers to those children who are out of school, and so on. I quote from further on:

Sir, how can a final-year student—he has signed his name and, underneath his name, has written that he is a final-year student—who has completed his education, who has his degree, whether he decides to be capped or not, now instigate people who still have to be educated, the children in primary and secondary schools? How can people like this man now urge those children not to go and complete their education?

I also want to quote from South—a newspaper of the radical group—of 22 to 28 October 1987:

This bit that South has printed about these people being “opstokers” and “communists” is true, because these people who have completed or partially completed their university education are now telling those people who must still go to school not to go to school. Are those the people who insist that “education is a right to be enjoyed by all”? An inquiry must be held into these disturbing events so that this type of action can be stopped once and for all.

*You know, Sir, sometimes I ask myself: What has happened to the practice of playing truant? In my schooldays, when I did not want to go to school, I hid my books under a tree or somewhere else and did as I pleased for the rest of the day. The next day I would go back to school. I would tell a little lie, get a hiding and the matter would end there. These days, however, playing truant is a thing of the past. When children play truant today, they instigate other children and in this way a whole boycott starts for no reason. We must look into this matter. Maybe we should make it compulsory for pupils to play truant. [Interjections.] I think a child should rather play truant as a means of getting rid of his frustrations and laziness. This would only be to his own detriment.

Another issue that was raised by one of my hon colleagues and which I, too, want to discuss, is vocational guidance. I think vocational guidance should be regarded as an essential subject. Teachers should be trained to provide guidance. Too many teachers regard a guidance class as a free period. Surely this is where motivation should take place, where the correct choice of subjects should be made and where pupils should take decisions which could determine the course of the rest of their lives. In the final analysis a school’s ability is measured not only by its results, but also by the number of children who manage to find an occupation or are accepted by a tertiary training centre after matriculating.

If we concentrate on vocational guidance—I have often referred to this issue in this House—we shall be able to motivate our children to proceed from primary education to secondary education and ultimately to tertiary education. However, we shall succeed in doing this only if we concentrate on good vocational guidance by our teachers. Children should be encouraged to take subjects such as mathematics and physical science and chemistry. It seems that our children are hesitant to take these subjects. An investigation into this matter revealed that there seemed to be a shortage of mathematics and science teachers because these subjects were not sufficiently emphasised at primary level. One of my colleagues has already referred to the fact that primary school teachers tend to be lenient about promoting pupils to the next standard in the secondary school, thus passing the responsibility on to the secondary school teacher. The business world needs people who has taken these subjects and we should see to it that our children are motivated to continue their school careers and find occupations.

Another thing that goes against the grain is that our children are highly motivated at the start of the school year—their parents, too, have encouraged them—but before that motivation can be consolidated by means of a normal educational process, the children are exposed to sport. I have nothing against sport. It is healthy to take part in sport, but one sees children jogging along streets and even along our national roads. During the first term the child should be assisted in adapting to school life and preparing himself for the new year that lies ahead. Many of the sports activities are exploited in a dissipated manner, and I must say some of those teachers really do not look like people who take part in sport. These teachers use the sporting events as an opportunity to rest after the activities of the festive season.

Sir, the Whips have indicated that I should end my speech, and I want to conclude with a quotation from Rapport Ekstra of 24 January 1988. A matriculant from Port Elizabeth wrote—and I quote:

Sir, this is also my message to our secondary school children. They should follow that example and persevere, because we cannot hang our heads in shame every time we get bad results.

I want to conclude by referring to the examination papers that had to be remarked last year. There were cases—I hope the hon the Minister will reply to this—of papers that were remarked in which pupils received considerably higher marks than they had originally. I also want to ask for a reduction in the fee that is charged for remarking papers so that more pupils who did not pass matric will be able to have their papers remarked.

Mr Chairman, before coming to the motion, I first want to take the opportunity of thanking the University of the Orange Free State for the wonderful way in which it has accommodated our youngsters. In January the University of the Western Cape gave notice that it could not accept certain students from the Northern Cape. The day after I received the news, I telephoned the UOFS. They said I could send the students to them. They accommodated those students without any problems. I thank them for doing so.

Sir, I should like to focus the House’s attention on the following aspects: The environment in which a child grows up has a very important influence on the development of his personality. It influences the learning process and the child’s intellectual abilities. In this regard we must give attention to poverty in our Coloured communities. In the environment in which our children grow up we shall have to give attention to the type of classrooms provided. Classrooms are frequently crowded, cold or there is not enough space. We shall also have to give attention to the attitudes of the teachers. For them it is frequently merely a case of self-fulfilment.

These days pre-school supervision and training is a very important subject. The most important aspect in regard to those schools is that a wide variety of intellectual and social experiences prepare a child there for subsequent experiences in society. We shall have to teach the children to move away from doing things in the customary parrot-fashion. We shall also have to take note of the cognitive development of our children. This is an area that is sadly neglected, yet it is in this way that children glean information.

It is regrettable that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to be involved in politics these days and that this tendency has extended to our schools. In school, children are indoctrinated by their elders. I want to request that politics be included as a subdivision of geography. Children must learn something about political geography, for example.

Certain aspects are grossly neglected in our schools, and this leads to a further decline in the level of education of our children.

Use must be made of inductive and deductive teaching methods to improve the memory capabilities of school-going children. In regard to the former method, for example, one works from the particular to the general, from the example to the rule or from the phenomenon to the law governing that phenomenon. According to that method, the child first becomes familiar with the example and then learns the rule that is applicable to that example.

We shall also have to re-examine the methods of analysis and synthesis. The educational authorities can no longer neglect these ideas. At school level the child’s thinking processes will have to be honed. As the child progresses and his memory capabilities develop, the subject matter is changed. The learning process then involves moving from the concrete to the abstract. In education the child must first observe actual examples by means of his senses. At a later stage we must allow his memory to retain a picture of the object without direct observation.

As the child’s memory capabilities develop, he can move from the known to the unknown in his mind. The appeal I want to make is that examiners should be fully trained. They must prepare themselves thoroughly before arranging for an examination, because it must be adapted to the child’s level of development.

Mr Chairman, the educational process is a three-pronged process. The foremost element is the pupil, but the parent and the teacher are equally important. I should like to talk about the preparation for examinations, and I want to quote from a book Doeltreffende Studie, by Dr J F van Niekerk. He says, and I quote:

kollege en aan die universiteit radeloos staan teenoor die massa werk wat baasgeraak moet word.

Any subject teacher ought gradually to teach his pupils how to master his subject and how to think in the terms applicable to that subject. The pupil must not simply memorise subject matter. I should like to draw a clear distinction between memorising and study. Memorising is parrotwork. The child must be taught to think. The child must be taught to help himself in an examination situation.

If giving a lesson is to be equated with conveying facts, the child could just as well stay at home and consult his study-guides or handbooks. That is not studying. Subject teachers must give more purposeful study guidance in their classes. Teachers themselves must make a more thorough study of how their subjects should be studied and how they should be approached.

Subject teachers must take the lead and be able to talk to their pupils, not only about the facts, but also about how to master those facts. Specific methods differ from pupil to pupil. Frequently one pupil does not know how another pupil is studying. Ample time must be devoted to allowing pupils to discuss methods of studying amongst themselves. The cultivation of a lively interest in a subject amongst pupils perhaps constitutes the most important element in preparing for an examination. If the presentation of a lesson by a subject teacher consists merely of conveying facts, such a teacher is actually superfluous. It is not the teacher’s task merely to convey facts. Because so much study, so much self-study, is required of students and pupils, this is of vital importance to the student.

We must also, however, look at the parents. Parents wrestle with the problem of their children’s needing assistance with their homework. We concede that parents can study with their children at primary school level, but at secondary school level parents should no longer be checking the work their children do. Children must learn to work independently at secondary school level. They must already have developed unerring thought processes which can assist them in examinations.

One’s first task as a student is to set acceptable, motivating and clearly circumscribed goals for one’s study. One wants to know why one has to study, what one has to study and what course of study one should pursue. Often we tell children that they must study, but they do not have answers to the above-mentioned questions and therefore lose all interest. One must prepare oneself generally, but also with a view to a career.

The general, formative school education is very important. We must teach the child how to study; how to ask questions and how to consider all the ramifications of his subject. He himself must be able to think of possible questions concerning a specific chapter or aspect of the work. We shall discover that the child who can think, can help himself in the examination. A child who has unfortunately memorised long passages finds himself in great difficulties in the examination, because the memorised facts escape him and disappear into thin air. He must be able to resolve problem situations. He must be able to think up questions and answers. I am afraid that at times we do not consider these aspects.

One need not consider tests and examinations as stumbling-blocks. They are stepping-stones to a profession, to success, to a new life. Tests and examinations are specifically part of one’s preparation for dealing with problems one will come up against in one’s profession. One must be able to get the better of these tests and examinations, because they are a simulation of the real world out there, a simulation of professional life. That is why we have to prepare children to take cognisance, even then, of their subsequent professional lives.

During one’s studies one should ask oneself what questions can be asked and what answers one can give. One must constantly ask oneself that question. Eventually it must be part of one’s approach to one’s studies. The questions one formulates whilst studying must be written in the margin so that when one is doing revision, one can reflect on them once more. I have already said that there are teachers who use the question-and-answer method and do not do a single piece of work which is not an answer to a question. The question is so important that the pupils must respond to it. The most important part of their studies is the way in which they think about the questions. Pupils must plan in advance how they are going to do their reasoning in the examination room. Pupils must gain practice in how to answer questions. The logical way of thinking must be rehearsed. There must be a constant search for such logical patterns of thought.

I should like to talk about a few things which concern parents and which our teachers should help the children to overcome. Words are evocative, but examples draw a picture. The neatly and properly organised child can sometimes experience disruption in an unorganised environment. The things that have been said here this afternoon about the school are true, as are those things which have been said about the home. In the home we blame the school at times, expecting the school to do everything. At home, however, we do not always set an example for the child to follow. Then we expect the child to be a little angel at school. An organised environment is reflected in the child’s behaviour, and that is why it is very important. If a child’s parents do not set him an example, he cannot learn to lead an organised life.

The child cries out: Help me so that I can learn. In order to be in a position to help the child, we must give him a place which is his own. Just as I have a little place here in which everything lying here is mine because this is my seat, the child must have his. As parents we must give the child such a place where he can, at any time, work undisturbed.

There is another very important problem that our children experience. Many of our matriculants do not have a first language. They have two second languages. How can one, during a scientific discussion, or in response to a science question paper, give a good answer if one’s language ability is poor? I trust that attention will be given to this request. We must start thinking about that.

Over the weekend I attended a small party with a group of learned individuals. I told them I was sorry that I was bilingual, because a person who has only one language is very good at that language and can get along well in the examination room. The child who cannot speak Afrikaans or English properly experiences very great problems.

When must a child learn? The child who learns from the moment he comes out of school until the sun sets remembers nothing. We as parents should arrange for shorter periods of study from 20 to 30 minutes in length. Then the child should first take a breather of between five and 10 minutes. Thereafter he can tackle another period of study. Research has proved that a child who studies in this way does much better in examinations than a child who sits studying for long periods. The ideal length of one session should be no more than 40 minutes. It should preferably be closer to 20 minutes.

What must I study? “When are you going to do your homework?” asks the parent. The child replies: “I have no homework.” Now the parent has a problem, because he is completely powerless in the face of such a reply. The parent does not know whether the child has any homework or not. The mother is concerned about the child’s homework. The answer, however, is clear. If a child has completed his homework during the first study period, he should not defer the second period of study, but should rather start doing revision. If the child has no homework, he should still keep to study periods, because if he works according to that pattern, he gets into the habit of doing so. Just as hon members grow accustomed to their benches, a pupil grows accustomed to studying in set periods. By doing so, he remembers a great deal more. He knows when it is time to study, and during that time he is not roaming the streets. Such a child is a disciplined student who studies on an organised basis. When a pupil does not have any homework, or when he has finished doing his homework, he must do meaningful revision.

What must I learn? Memorising long passages is mere parrot-work. Nor can we underline everything. If we tackle our work properly and are interested in our pupils, we shall achieve success. My time has expired, but I should just like to say the following. Sir, my advice to pupils is the following: To achieve success in examinations, get to the examination room in time; read the question papers and instructions over twice; plan the order in which questions are to be answered; answer your best questions first; do not neglect those questions that count the most marks; and if you have any time left at the end, do not walk out; rather correct any spelling mistakes you have made. If pupils take these precautionary measures, they will achieve success.

Mr Chairman, it is evident that a great deal of research went into the speeches of the hon members who spoke on this motion. As the bon member for Diamant said, inspiration and perspiration went into those speeches.

The speeches were characterised by an excellent representation of facts, comprehensive study of the subject matter, well grounded arguments, finely researched discussions, a lucid dissertation of certain facts, and a vivid description of the position as it appertains.

It is obvious from hon members’ contributions that there is concern about the high failure rate amongst Black children in the community. It is evident that we dare not allow education, the most important element in our quest for liberation, to be neglected. We dare not allow this high failure rate to continue. We cannot afford the wastage of a potentially valuable resource, as the hon member for Wentworth said.

For the reasons I have set out, I thank every hon member for his contribution. In conclusion, I want to thank the hon the Minister for his understanding and for his willingness to listen to our ideas. It is fervently hoped that he will assist us in having our ideas implemented. One can only hope that when this is done—ie during the education debate when the hon the Minister will reply—channels of communication will remain open between the hon the Minister, his department and ourselves so that no fancy frills are added to our intentions. Things must be done the way we say they must be done here.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill emanates from recommendations made by the South African Law Commission as a result of its investigation into the law of evidence. The commission’s original intention was to codify the South African law of evidence in its entirety and to consolidate it into one Act. Codification as a whole is an enormous task which would have taken years to complete. Since the law of evidence is reasonably accessible, the commission decided to ascertain through research which aspects of the law of evidence are unsatisfactory or do not meet current needs, and then to formulate suggestions for their reform.

In its final report the commission came to the conclusion that reform through legislation was desirable in respect of the following aspects only. Firstly, any court should be able to take judicial notice of the indigenous law of Black persons and of foreign law, provided that evidence can still be adduced on the issue. Indigenous law and customs of Black persons are not regarded as foreign law in the same sense as, for example, French law. To the Black people it is incomprehensible and even humiliating that their law is regarded as foreign law in South Africa, whereas it is, in fact, part of our law and is to some extent even recognised by statute. Furthermore, indigenous law is offered as a course in most of the curricula for legal qualifications for the judiciary, and customary law is furthermore readily ascertainable in text books.

As regards foreign law, the position at present is that whenever it is in issue it must be proved by an expert witness. It is felt that this rigid rule ought to be relaxed by allowing the courts to take notice of foreign law in so far as it can be ascertained readily and with certainty, and provided that the parties are not prohibited from adducing evidence on certain aspects or on the law as a whole. Clause 1(1) gives effect to these recommendations and clause 1(2) makes provision for expert evidence still to be adduced.

Secondly, regarding the hearsay rule, the commission made important recommendations which are contained in clause 3 of the Bill. The commission is of the opinion that the hearsay rule in its current form inhibits, rather than promotes, the administration of justice and that there is an urgent need for reform on this terrain. The reforms which the Bill envisages in this regard, are the following:

1. (a) A definition of hearsay evidence is laid down. Hearsay evidence is defined as evidence, whether in oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence.
2. (b) Hearsay evidence should be admissible if the party against whom such evidence is to be adduced, agrees to such admissions, or if the person upon whose credibility the probative value of such evidence depends, himself testifies at the hearing.
3. (c) The court should have a discretion to allow hearsay evidence if it, having regard to certain factors, is of the opinion that such evidence should be admitted in the interests of justice.

Sir, South Africa is taking the lead in the field of hearsay evidence with these provisions. In certain academic circles the opinion is even held that if Parliament were to agree to this clause, our law in this regard would be better off than that of many Western countries, including England and the United States of America. I can assure hon members that I shall monitor the application of these provisions in practice so as to evaluate the effect thereof in due course.

Thirdly, the commission recommended that a spouse should be a competent witness against the other spouse, but not a compellable witness. At present there is nothing which precludes a husband from testifying against his wife or a wife from testifying against her husband in civil proceedings. In criminal cases the position is, however, different. Save for the exceptional cases referred to in section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, the wife or husband of an accused is not competent to give evidence for the prosecution in criminal proceedings. In terms of section 196(1)(b) of the Act, the wife or husband of an accused can also only be called as a witness for the defence upon the application of the accused.

Mr Chairman, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, as well as certain authors, have on occasion already criticized these provisions and the decisions of our courts are proof of the untenability of the law as it now stands. The Bill therefore provides in clauses 6 and 7 that a spouse will be a competent witness against another spouse in criminal proceedings for both the prosecution and a co-accused. The spouses will still not be compelled to give evidence.

Fourthly, the commission recommended that marital privilege should, as a rule, apply to communication between spouses made during the subsistence of a marriage, or even a putative marriage, which has been dissolved or annulled by a competent court. At present there is no uniformity in the application of marital privilege in terms of the provision of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, 1965, and the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. The amendments in clauses 4, 5 and 8 envisage bringing about uniformity in this regard.

Lastly, the commission also recommended that when a document is admissible as evidence a copy of such document should be admissible as evidence unless a court orders otherwise. The Standing Committee on Justice in their wisdom and after proper inquiries, negatived the clause contained in the Bill which required that the document had to be certified. The committee requested me to refer the matter to the South African Law Commission for further inquiry. I share the committee’s viewpoint, especially in the light of the fact that our Bench is also not ad idem regarding the appropriate legislation in this regard. The question of the practical implications of the clause is of particular importance. I therefore undertake to request the Law Commission to investigate the matter once again.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill refers to the following: Clause 1 deals with taking judicial notice of the law of a foreign state and of indigenous law. Clause 3 deals with hearsay evidence. Section 3 previously dealt with the admissibility of copies of documents as evidence. All the other clauses merely deal with amendments to or the repeal of previous sections of the relevant Acts. My other hon colleagues will elaborate on this.

Sir, after having scrutinised this amending Bill, the committee was of the opinion that clause 3 could not be accepted in its present form. It was decided, therefore, to request the hon the Minister to refer clause 3 back to the Law Commission for further investigation. We have no problems with any of the other clauses and we support the amending Bill in its present form.

Mr Chairman, this is a good piece of work that has been done by our Law Commission. Since this Bill was published it has received favourable reports from all the Press groups. I believe this Bill is going to put us in the forefront in the world. I believe that if this Bill is agreed to, the position here will be better than in England and the United States regarding this aspect.

Clause 3, which deals with hearsay evidence, will free the court of many unnecessary technicalities. Therefore, we have no problem with this. I regard this Bill as most welcome.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support this Bill. Firstly, I want to commend the Law Commission. Whereas labola and bogadi were previously provided for in customary, indigenous laws, in terms of this Bill they now become accepted principles in our law. Previously these customs were not accepted. I commend the law commission for this change because, as far as reform is concerned, this is definitely a step in the right direction.

I also wish to point out—the hon the Minister also mentioned this—that customary law is not foreign law in the same sense as, for example, French law is foreign law vis-á-vis South African law. Sir, I fully support that particular clause.

My hon colleague has indicated that the standing committee requested that clause 3 be withdrawn. I think there are sufficient provisions in other pieces of legislation by means of which the courts could verify facts in order to make this document admissible as evidence.

As far as hearsay evidence is concerned, I think clause 7 is another reform measure that has been introduced. At times I think that the spouse can be of tremendous assistance in criminal proceedings.

*In the past the wife’s credibility was always questioned and her evidence was not always accepted. Here the position is now being changed. She, too, may now be called as an official witness if necessary.

We support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate in the presence of the hon the Minister. He has already explained to us the details and reasons for this particular amending Bill. I will therefore not repeat that. All I want to say is this: I have practised indigenous law for over 20 years. I am glad that the SA Law Commission has taken cognisance of indigenous law in this country, because it affects people in our neighbourhood, for example Guguletu and Langa or wherever.

Yes.

Yes. The hon member must not say “yes” while I am speaking! Indigenous law is part and parcel of our legal system. I refer hon members to the memorandum on the Bill, so that they can see what is actually intended thereby. Hon members know that we have experienced problems in the past whenever evidence was required from foreign countries about atrocities and offences committed there. If the Bill before us is passed, such evidence will then be admissible.

I do not want to go to into more detail, but the law of evidence in our country is based on English law, and those rules of evidence are the best. In other words, one does not just accept a man’s hearsay evidence. One cannot simply accept that someone said this or that. The court is more likely to accept what a witness has seen. Although this is an intrusion into the law, we are making it more acceptable for our courts to accept hearsay evidence when other evidence is not available. This means that hearsay evidence is now more admissible. We hereby support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think it is a good thing that the debate has come to an end now, because after listening to the hon member for Daljosaphat, I realised that we are running the risk of rewriting the law of evidence completely. I thank hon members for their contributions. It was enlightening to see what each hon member regarded as important.

It was also enlightening to see that hon members participated in the proceedings of the committee with a very good understanding of the points at issue. Nevertheless, I want to place on record that we are not proposing in this Bill that the “best evidence rule” be done away with. That we do not want to do away with it is evident, for example, in the fact that the committee itself decided to refer the recommendation with regard to the probative value of a duplicate or a copy of a document back to …

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

As long as it is not hearsay, Sir.

Mr Chairman, does that mean that the onus of proof in the court now falls away and that one could possibly be punished on the basis of hearsay? There are a lot of drug smugglers in the area in which we live, but the Police cannot catch them. If they can now be taken into custody on the basis of hearsay, will that mean that the case can stand up in court?

If the hon member will just give me a chance to finish my sentence first, I shall reply to that. I wanted to say that the best proof of the fact that we are not simply going to throw the “best evidence rule” overboard, lies in the fact that the committee itself decided to refer a particular aspect back to me and to the Law Commission. I refer to the paragraph in my Second Reading speech which reads as follows:

I quote this merely to prove that the committee itself was very careful and did not summarily discard or qualify the “best evidence rule”, because they referred the one provision by means of which that could be done, back to the Law Commission.

That brings me to the hon member’s question on hearsay evidence. First of all we have to look at the definition of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is defined as evidence the probative value of which depends on the credibility of any person other than the person who gives such evidence. Subsection (4) of clause 3 contains a clearer definition:

We see further that hearsay evidence—this is what is being proposed—will be admissible if the party against whom it is to be adduced, assents to it. The person must indicate, therefore, either himself or by means of his legal representative, that he has no objection to hearsay evidence being adduced against him. It is provided that hearsay evidence will be admissible if:

In clause 3(l)(c) the court is also granted the discretion to admit hearsay evidence in certain circumstances if it is of the opinion that such evidence should be admitted in the interests of justice. My answer to the hon members is, therefore, that it will, in certain circumstances, be easier for the State to bring certain evidence before the court.

I do not want to put it more strongly than that. I do not want to say that that will be done in order to find someone guilty. That will not be the intention. The idea will be to bring evidence before the court on the basis of which the court can arrive at a decision. Hon members must remember that the court will have to decide, in the interests of justice, whether or not to admit such evidence. There is an additional admissibility factor. The factor, “in the interests of justice”, does not apply only to the complainant, but also to the accused. Justice should apply to the complainant as well.

To sum up I want to refer hon members to subsection (3) where the following appears:

It can happen, therefore, that the court provisionally allows certain hearsay evidence. Hon members should note, however, how carefully we have qualified that once again:

The court thus has to warn such a person twice before it admits hearsay evidence. The question is whether or not the man whose credibility is being relied upon, will indeed give evidence later on. Should he not do so, his hearsay evidence is scrapped unless the court decides to admit it in terms of paragraph (c)—“any other factor which should in the opinion of the court be taken into account”. I want to emphasise that this is an exceedingly careful, but fair measure which will make it easier to bring evidence before the court and will prevent valuable evidence from being lost, as sometimes happens. Sufficient caveats have been included, however, to prevent an innocent man from being found guilty.

I thank the hon members who participated in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I know that the standing committee met on various occasions, that they heard a lot of oral evidence, and that they considered quite a bit of documentary evidence. I should like to thank the standing committee, which was under the chairmanship of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, for the trouble they went to in this regard. I can give those hon members of this House who served on that committee the assurance that I greatly appreciate the thorough manner in which they considered this commission’s report. The mere fact that they did not simply accept a commission’s report, but that they examined it carefully and also instituted their own investigation, testifies to the worth of the standing committee.

I may even consider referring the recommendations of the standing committee back to the South African Law Commission. If it appears that legislation is imminent, I shall come back to Parliament and gladly ask the same standing committee to consider the matter again.

Mr Chairman, I wish to endorse and support the committee’s recommendation that this report be referred back, and we are looking forward to it.

This report deals with legislation—I termed it township legislation—and it is provided in sections 60 and 65(a) of the relevant Act that a person should be taken to court if he fails to pay a debt. Sir, the people, especially those in the lower income groups, are experiencing a problem in this regard. The people do not know what a civil summons is. When they get a civil summons, they do not know what to do with it; and eventually the summons is executed. Today I wish to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. There are legal firms which have become “debt factories”.

*They are called debt factories. They flourish as a result of this provision and the poor people are antagonised because they do not understand the procedure according to which this kind of debt is collected. They pay the debt, but they do not understand it. I also want to appeal to the hon the Minister to introduce a simpler form so that the people can understand what it is all about.

I want to suggest that the acceptability of this practice be investigated so that it may be established whether the time has not come to remove this type of legislation from South Africa’s Statute Book. The practice that is followed in other countries when a debt is incurred between two people is that they have to settle the matter themselves. What we are dealing with here, however, is a salesman who goes to somebody’s house. He talks to Aunt Bet; she does not understand everything and by the time he leaves her house she is in debt to the tune of R9 000 or R10 000. In the end the taxpayer’s money and the courts have to be used to collect money from such a person. I think the time has come for serious consideration to be given to whether the courts should still be involved in this type of debt collecting.

I do not want to elaborate further in this regard. However, I do feel that there should be a cut-off point before a person is taken to court for debt, especially if we look at the amounts of money for which people are sent to jail. This usually happens to people in the lower income group. At the moment I am dealing with the case of a woman who had debt to the value of R25 and who is being threatened with section 56 (a). I feel the hon the Minister should also investigate this matter.

†There should be other means of getting the money back. The taxpayers’ money should not be used to get back R25. Something should definitely be done to curb these “debt factories". I fully support the assertion that there should be legislation this regard.

Mr Chairman, I note with appreciation the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I snail definitely take them into consideration when we process the report.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (a) inquire into and report on the matter of parliamentary privilege in all its facets; and
2. (b) propose appropriate amendments or additions to the Standing Rules and Orders and related legislation if and where necessary,

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr Chairman, I am compelled to oppose this motion. This motion is aimed at curtailing the privilege of members of Parliament. As usual, when the ruling parties find certain difficulties in administering their policies, they bring this up in Parliament. This has been proven by successive governments of South Africa, namely that when they were envious of Indian competition in their workfield they instituted job reservation. When they were envious of Indian property development they brought out the Asiatic Land Tenure Act and Indian Representation and the subsequent Group Areas Act. This was done in envy.

Simply put, Parliament is a legislative institution and members of Parliament have the freedom to express their views in the House. This motion mentions precedents, but I do not know if in the annals of world history any Parliament has such stringent measures aimed at curtailing or eroding the privilege of members of Parliament. Therefore I oppose this motion.

Mr Chairman, with great respect to the hon the Minister of Justice, whom I respect as a lawyer, the preamble to this motion is completely unfactual.

I am astonished that a motion of such an unfactual character should have been placed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon the Minister of Justice. The preamble states that it is in view of the lack of legal and procedural rules and precedents in relation to parliamentary privilege. It then qualifies this as relating to those specific instances which formed part of the inquiry by a select committee. However, Sir, there is no shortage of legal rules or precedents when any matter of parliamentary privilege has to be considered.

What is the nature of parliamentary privilege? The basic tenet is that there must be relatively untrammelled freedom of speech by the elected representatives who are seated in Parliament. I say “relatively untrammelled” because whilst freedom of speech is supposedly guaranteed indeed, Sir, it is not actually guaranteed.

From time to time the Chair, ie the Chairman or Mr Speaker, will call to order any hon member of this House if he exceeds the bounds of the freedom of speech which is permitted. To that extent that freedom is trammelled. It is curtailed so that the privilege which members of Parliament have in respect of freedom of speech may not be abused so as to cause unnecessary hurt to any person who is not in a position to defend himself. That is the rationale behind the curtailment of the freedom of speech.

However, it is a time-hallowed convention that members of Parliament have the privilege of freedom of speech, subject only to the constraint that I have mentioned, namely that no person may be needlessly or unnecessarily hurt.

If any person, whether by error of judgment or by deliberate intent, performs a certain act or fails to perform an act which he ought to have performed—in other words, if he does something by an act of commission or omission—or fails to do that which he should have done and he ought to have reasonably foreseen the consequences of the act which he committed or failed to perform, then that person is not entitled to the protection to which the curtailment of the freedom of speech, which is an inherent right of members of Parliament, applies.

I am not going to deal with any specific instance, although the Select Committee on a Question of Privilege (House of Assembly) (C15-87) did, in fact, deal with a specific instance. I think every hon member here will know that the strictures that were placed upon a certain personage— whether or not those strictures were justified is not relevant to the purpose of my argument— followed upon certain acts performed by the person concerned. Anyone who performs an act must reasonably foresee that the performance by him of that act or, as I say, his failure to perform an act, could lead to certain consequences. The hon the Minister knows full well that every reasonable man is expected to foresee the reasonable consequences of that which he does or fails to do. Therefore, that is no justification for curtailing the privilege to which members of Parliament are entitled.

I want to come back to the preliminary statement. It mentions a lack of legal and procedural rules. Each hon member of this House has what we call a black book which contains voluminous details of the Rules and Standing Orders of the House. To some extent, these lay down certain procedures and rules and have codified certain prescripts. However, all the precedents obviously cannot be codified, which is why from time to time you, Mr Chairman, with respect, will refer to Erskine May, other learned authors and the writings of distinguished Speakers, not only of the House of Assembly of South Africa or the preceding assemblies.

Mr Chairman, I do not have it here at the moment, but last year I had occasion to refer to a ruling given by Mr Speaker in the Legislative Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope. Certainly also there are precedents emanating from the legislature of the old Natal Colony. We go back also to the mother of parliaments, the House of Commons.

What happened in the House of Commons last week when Mr Nigel Lawson read his budget speech from the dispatch box in that illustrious House was certainly not very edifying, and there some members of the opposition behaved in a manner which is certainly unknown in this country However, no new laws were promulgated, no select committee was appointed to tighten the rules, no new legal requirements were sought. The Speaker of that House, relying on the traditions and convention of that House, laid down certain instructions which are binding on the members.

We have been regaled from time to time with the assertion that this House of Delegates has to observe the precedents, the traditions and the conventions of the Westminster system. Indeed, the Constitution itself lays down—and this was Drought to the attention of this House by none other than the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—that the traditions, precedents and the conventions of the Westminster system—in other words, the House of Commons—should also govern procedures and precedents in this House, inasmuch as they also govern the other two Houses of this Parliament. So why does the hon the Minister now want to appoint a select committee?

Another select committee, which was called upon to enquire into the conduct of a member of Parliament, after due deliberation, found that that member of Parliament had not transgressed the principal rule which he was alleged to have Transgressed. In other words, that select committee, because of the quasi-legal situation obtaining in relation to that particular enquiry, was obliged to find that hon member not guilty of misbehaviour. It imposed strictures upon that hon member in a certain lesser respect.

What do we find here? We find that the Government side in this Parliament—that is the National Party—resented a statement made by a member of the House of Assembly and proposed in that House the formation of a select committee, obviously with the intention and the hope that that member would be found guilty. In the event he was found to be not guilty.

Let us never forget that any select committee of Parliament is a judicial body. It is a tribunal that has to conduct itself almost as if it were a court of law bur the responsibility rests upon the members of the select committee. If a person is accused by the Government of having committed an offence and is brought before the court where he is found not guilty, will the Government come along to Parliament and say: “Let us have a quick enquiry to pass a new law so that next time when we want to find a fellow guilty it will be easier because the necessary law would have been made.” It would be a complete travesty of the entire legal system if any state were to legislate for a particular case.

I do not think the hon the Minister will gainsay what I have said now, namely that legislation must be based on general principles on the basis of what is in the interest of the generality of the total community. Legislation should never be for particular cases.

As far as I am aware the only instance since 1910 where there was legislation to deal with a particular instance was when the same hon Minister of Justice came to this House in connection with a problem that had arisen in which a large number of innocent and trusting persons had been taken for a ride, to use a colloquialism, by a very clever individual. Resulting from that the State—correctly in that particular instance promulgated specific legislation because parliament wanted to protect insofar as was possible the rights of these people who had been taken for a ride. I am referring to the kubus culture episode. In response to a plea from the hon the Minister of Justice we allowed him a piece of legislation on the strict understanding that it would be a temporary piece of legislation.

I am not aware of the basic rule of civilised conduct being transgressed in other instances. Civilised conduct simply means that the law must be as fixed as it could reasonably be. It must also be sufficiently well publicised so that the average person could acquaint himself with it. It is a fiction of our legal system that everyone knows the law. Indeed, as the hon the Minister who is himself a lawyer can tell us, no lawyer knows all the laws. Even judges do not know all the laws which is why so often there are successful appeals against the judgments of judges. It is a fiction that every individual is presumed to know the law. That presumption comes to us from old Rome and it comes to us because there has to be some kind of fixed position so as to regulate the conduct of the citizenry of any particular society. It is the hallmark of civilised conduct that there must be as reasonably as possible fixed the laws and rules which become conventions as a result of long practise over a considerable period of time. Traditions are formed likewise.

It would be stupid and an insult to Parliament if new traditions and new conventions were to be made to fit particular circumstances. It would be uncivilised and no hon member of this House would want that kind of situation to arise.

We do not believe that there is any necessity for a select committee of the kind contemplated because we believe that the existing conventions, the existing traditions and the existing precedents are adequate to regulate the conduct of members of Parliament. They are also perfectly adequate to protect the interests of the public at large and we have the fullest confidence that the respective chairmen of the three Houses, and Mr Speaker, will apply those precedents, conventions and traditions impartially. For these reasons we say that this motion should be rejected.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House wish to associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

I do not think that there is any need for me to repeat the argument that he has advanced in this particular regard. However, to concur with his sentiments, I do not want the public at large to believe that the type of restrictions that we have are now even going to be imposed on parliamentarians. This is the kind of thing we do not want to see happening.

Here in Parliament we enjoy a certain measure of freedom of speech and of expression and we do not want to see any further measures being implemented by way of this select committee to restrict the freedom of speech of members of Parliament. I agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the conventions and rules etc in respect of parliamentary proceedings have sufficed all these years. It is not as if Parliament was only established a few years ago and that we are still in the dark and are not aware of the situation.

We have had a tried set of rules; they have worked all these years and we do not see the necessity at this stage of having a select committee.

Mr Chairman, I am somewhat taken aback this afternoon by this motion calling for a select committee, in brief, to curtail the privileges of members of Parliament.

I would have liked to have heard the hon the Minister of Justice in advance of my reaction on it. Nevertheless the intention is too obvious. Let me pose this question: What is the problem? I see no problem whatsoever in the situation as it now prevails.

The immediate thought that comes to mind is the fear of the media—the presence of the Press and other forms of media. Is it intended to assert indirect control over the Press? In any case the Press in this country is already rigidly controlled.

Another thing I am concerned about, and I am sure all hon members in this House are equally concerned, is that this kind of recipe with its abnormal flavour with the intent of inhibiting freedom of speech, will in my own opinion be damaging to the image of the RSA.

If this country, judged as it is by the international world as one of those countries applying clampdowns on many facets of life, should even enter the hallowed precincts of Parliament where people should have the freedom of expression and particularly when it comes to curbing and confining this traditional privilege, I think it would be too naive.

I want to go further and say it would be an act of grave injustice if we were to allow this situation to go unchallenged.

There is always an opportunity to curb any excesses and, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated, all three Houses have men of calibre who are responsible people. I will go further and say that by and large MPs are responsible people. If someone oversteps the mark, he will be brought to a halt. I think that is why we have Mr Speaker and the Chairmen who have ultimate control over the proceedings in each of these Houses and over situations that make a mockery of or discredit this fair land or its legislature. This will certainly not be tolerated …

Without adding anything further I have pleasure in associating myself with the other hon members who expressed points of view opposed to this select committee. I may go further and say that with all due respect I would like the hon the Minister of Justice to have a word with bis Standing Committee on Justice. I would like him to give them an informal exercise in advance and after having discussed the matter with them on an informal basis, to resort to this kind of exercise if necessary. I feel there is no need for a select committee to look into the laws of privilege of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, when one looks at the expressions on the faces of the hon members of the opposition, one realises they are very despondent. I must reassure them and tell them that this motion is not designed to curtail freedom of speech. That is not the intention of the motion. The hon member for Reservoir Hills went to great lengths to warn that freedom of speech must not be curtailed. However, perhaps this select committee would increase the freedom of speech we have here.

There is a sense of a lack of understanding by certain hon members when it comes to breach of privilege. One merely has to look at the Hansard, especially those of the House of Delegates, to see how often some hon members here have to withdraw remarks etc, because they have committed breaches of privilege in this House.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is cognisant of the fact that this motion was a result of the recommendation by a select committee of the House of Assembly which was appointed to look into a breach of privilege committed by an hon member of the PFP. Is this perhaps why he is so upset at the appointment of such a select committee?

The hon member for Stanger is getting upset. Is the truth hurting him?

You are not telling me anything.

I am merely pointing out the fact that this came about as a result of a breach of privilege committed by a certain hon member.

What does the PFP have to do with it?

It is over here. That is a valid question.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member take a question?

At the end of my speech.

I am not saying the hon member in the other House committed a breach of privilege.

So you are retracting your statement.

In his attempt to commit a breach of privilege, this committee was appointed.

It was an attempt to nail him that failed.

Our usage of Standing Rules and Orders and parliamentary conventions is based on the House of Commons. This was quite in order whilst Parliament consisted of one House only, namely the House of Assembly. However, circumstances changed when the tricameral Parliament came about. I can give examples of this. The hon member for Reservoir Hills is getting quite excited, but I can give him examples if he calls at my office tomorrow morning.

Own affairs.

I do not believe that we shall waffle on this issue. We are calling for a select committee which will comprise members of all three Houses which, in turn, will be comprised of all parties. They will discuss this at length and determine whether the rules relating to breach of privilege or the facility existing in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders should be extended or curtailed or whatever. Members will then have adequate opportunity to address this issue and vote against it.

[Inaudible.]

I believe that enough has been said in regard to this matter. It was necessary for the Official Opposition to say what it has said, and we take cognizance of it. However, I do not think we should dwell on this at too great length, nor do I think we should pre-empt the select committee in its work.

I support this motion.

Mr Chairman, I could not believe my own ears when I heard hon members opposite who purport to be jurists—I underline that; who purport to be jurists—giving an interpretation to this motion in the manner they did this afternoon. It took me completely by surprise.

You are in for more surprises.

However, it also caused me plenty of mirth. I tried to analyse, while hon members were speaking, why they were opposing this motion. What could be behind this? What are they trying to cover with their words? What are they trying to say to us that they dare not say openly? To me that is still a mystery.

In the argument and in the words of the hon member for Reservoir Hills is perhaps to be found the tiny embryo of contradictions that may arise amongst the three Houses. For instance, suppose different Chairmen were to give different rulings on the same issue on the same day. This is possible because according to the argument of the hon member for Reservoir Hills you, Mr Chairman, are in possession of very wide powers to interpret privileges of members of Parliament.

Do you deny that? Of course he has.

The hon the Chairman of the House does have these very wide powers. It is possible, therefore, that there may be a difference in emphasis among the Houses on the same afternoon.

Mr Speaker can decide.

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills would accord me the same courtesy I accorded him, I should appreciate it, Mr Chairman.

This may arise on the same afternoon. In other words, if we look at the very Act that did not create the privileges, but which sought to codify to a certain extent the rights and privileges of Parliament, we see that it dates back to 1963. However, it also flows from the very wording of the Constitution that this is possibly not the last word on the question of conventions and parliamentary usages. Section 88 of the Constitution reads:

This indeed foresees a situation in which, prior to the commencement of Parliament, our conventions were made up of—I put it very mildly—a labyrinth of usages, practices and applications by various Speakers and Chairs.

In other words, it is and was foreseeable that a Chairman or a Speaker could be expected to apply the knowledge of those advising him and— if I may put it so, his own common sense his own knowledge of past precedents and whatever knowledge he may have obtained and gleaned from textbooks etc. However, it is not possible for any human being to be in instant command of the knowledge applicable to all these usages and conventions.

Looking at Erskine May it becomes even more apparent that today we are speaking about a labyrinth of usages and conventions. Take the privilege of access and just see how wide the privilege of the House of Commons is interpreted to be with respect to its own constitution:

Have we, for instance, inherited that convention or are we bound by the dictates of our Constitution? Apparently the answer thereto lies in section 88 because it uses the term “insofar as it is not inconsistent”, which brings me to the second point.

In how many other cases and issues—now that we have a tricameral Parliament—may there be inconsistencies with either the Constitution itself or with some other law? I am arguing this case from a theoretical and academic point of view. In other words, none of us was surprised or should have been surprised by the finding of the select committee of the House of Assembly on a certain question put to them. Today I want to emphasise that I am not discussing the merits or the demerits of their findings with regard to the main question put to them. We are discussing their final recommendation. As I say, none of us was or should have been surprised, in view of the background that I have given, by what they have recommended in the closing paragraph of their report. This amounts to the point that they could not make a finding on the main question. They did not make a finding to acquit, nor did they convict.

In the jargon of my learned friends on the opposite side, there was absolution of the instance. However, they—the members opposite—are so far removed from matters juristic and from matters of proper interpretation that I would not be surprised if they do not understand what I am talking about. [Interjections.] If words mean what they say, it says here that they did not make a finding because of the time allowed to them and in view of the question put to them because of—

precedents which have a direct bearing on a case such as the one in question.

That is what they said. They did not make a finding one way or the other and if that applies to that House, it would apply to this House and it may apply to the other House. Therefore it stands to reason that they made a very acceptable recommendation, as far as I am concerned. Although it did not deal with the main question, it was so clear that they could not have dealt with the mam question because of the lack of legal procedural rules. Therefore I find the following heir most acceptable finding:

This s not a matter of parliamentary privilege applying to one House alone. Hon members will ecall—if the hon member for Reservoir Hills would accord me the courtesy of listening to me—that when the original select committee on a question of privilege was established in the House of Assembly it was argued that it should include Parliament as a whole. However, the alleged breach of privilege had been committed only in one House. This is therefore a very important question that still has to be resolved through investigation. If an alleged breach of privilege takes place, does it affect only one House or does it affect Parliament as a whole? I say that may be a question which the committee which is to be appointed will see fit to deal with. I shall mention only that one incidence.

To continue, the report states the following:

' am so pleased that the hon member for Moor cross has taken hon members on the opposite side of the House to task for having attached an interpretation to the motion that is so wide of the mark that I find it ridiculous, ludicrous and, I might even say, orchestrated to catch the eye of the Press.

I am sure the hon member for Cavendish has not yet read the report for himself. I have always thought him to be a man capable of explaining whatever he has in mind. Therefore, I was quite surprised that the hon member should have argued that we had the media within our sights. That is a lot of nonsense.

Another thing the hon member for Moorcross said which made sense was that this joint committee of Parliament would, if nothing else, make a contribution towards greater clarity and not towards the curtailment of privileges. If nothing else, it will contribute towards the proper establishment of the privileges of members of Parliament, and not towards a curtailment of any nature whatsoever.

Lastly, I want to emphasise that it is not the intention of this motion to direct any action against any particular hon member. It does not represent an attempt to produce legislation or to bring about any changes because attempts to find a particular hon member guilty, failed. I want to make myself very clear on this particular point. No, Sir, we have too high a regard for the privileges of hon members of Parliament, namely the privilege to be lucid, honest and straightforward in expressing their opinions and not to hide their true intentions behind veiled motions and proposals.

Therefore I want to emphasise in the final instance that in effect, this motion proposes to deal with the further development of our constitutional dispensation as it exists in practice at the moment, in order to render clarity; perhaps, in the final instance, to be of assistance to Chairmen and Speakers of Parliament; and if nothing else, to re-emphasise our position in the democratic world, where freedom of speech is perhaps the most important and central privilege of all.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed on the Order Paper in my name;

That the House records its strongest objection to the further restrictions on the freedom of political speech, movement and activity imposed by the Government, on the grounds that such restrictions are counterproductive to—

1. (1) the reform initiative;
2. (2) creating a climate conducive to peaceful negotiations; and
3. (3) the professed aim of extending democracy,

and therefore calls upon the Government forthwith to remove all political restrictions which violate basic human rights, in the interests of long-term stability and peace in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it grieves me each time I read the newspaper and on the front page I see the little qualification to the news items. In terms of the state of emergency regulations, news pictures and comments are restricted. This creates the impression in our minds that what we see in the paper is not the whole truth, but just part of the truth, and that what ought to be printed is not printed in the newspapers.

I begin this debate with a rather heavy heart. I keep asking myself: Would I have to share the guilt of silencing people, denying people their basic civil and human rights? Must all those who reject the apartheid and racial policies of the Government be silenced? It is evident that the Government is not addressing itself in a positive way to the real issues facing South Africa.

I believe that there are two ways to react to the political situation that is challenging the system of racial segregation and White political domination in South Africa. One is by facing the challenge of our times and making bold moves towards accommodation and reconciliation. The other is to meet the challenge head-on by choosing violence and aggression as a means of dealing with the aspirations of people who have been denied constitutional and human rights in South Africa for the past three centuries.

Prior to 1984 the various governments of South Africa, in an aspired dream of creating a White heaven on earth for South Africa, met all attempts to change the status quo by the shortcut method of violence and aggression that, in the extreme form, was brutal. The haunting shadow of Steve Biko is proof of that contention. By 1984 the Government had shown a significant change of heart in meeting what, by its own definition amounted to the legitimate claims of people of colour to the basic freedom to which they aspired. The Government made a distinction between leadership that espoused violence and leadership that conducted a non-violent struggle. A further distinction was drawn between those in the non-violent struggle who made use of constitutional structures and those who chose to remain in the extra-parliamentary forum.

The Government nevertheless showed a far greater level of flexibility to ail those who espoused non-violence as their credo than had been the case hitherto. Proof of this lies in the fact that the President’s Council invited UDF co-president Archi Gumede to address its constitutional committee. That was a breakthrough in political relations, not only from the Government’s point of view, but also from the hardline attitudes exerted by the UDF which spumed all overtures good or bad. The Government wert further and drew a distinction between those in the extra parliamentary left who were extremely pro-ANC and those who were committed to a non violent struggle.

Whatever the pros and cons of any argument, be they from the Government side or even from the ANC side, there are certain fundamental truths that have to be recognised in order to understand the nature of the political struggle in this country Firstly, there is, has been and remains a gross inequality in the treatment of people in South Africa by various governments including the present one, based on race.

The racial superiority principle still remains the dominant one, if not in words then still in deeds The Group Areas Act remains a classic example of this concept and it remains on our Statute Books. This is one Act that is an assault to human dignity and it is structural violence of the worst kind. The allocation of financial resources in our budget based on race—that which is spent on White education, health care and services as opposed to those of the other race groups as well as the disparity in pensions—are all examples of this statement.

Secondly, political power remains the exclusive monopoly of Whites in South Africa. Even the tricameral system which was designed to be an exercise in power-sharing between Whites, Coloureds and Indians—let alone the Blacks—is an exercise of White power. Except in the amendment of the Constitution the veto rights of this House and the House of Representatives are hollow ones. The Government has not hesitated in the past to abandon the principle of consensus and sought to use its power by means of its built-in majority in the President’s Council.

It is evident from this that we who participate within the system—I am not referring to extra-Parliamentary groups now—are restricted and stifled by these mechanisms. Even in this limited situation Blacks whose lives are governed by the decisions of this Parliament have no say in the decisions about them.

Thirdly, people of colour are naturally expected to react to the above situation. No slave has been happier than his master for ensuring his slavery. The manner in which the Government deals with that reaction is a barometric indication of the Government’s humanity and sense of justice and fair play to which this Government lays claim.

Whilst the Government showed extreme flexibility right up to 1985 and for a short period thereafter when the state of emergency was lifted, the last two years have shown a massive bashing of political leadership across the whole extra-Parliamentary spectrum. The massive clampdown that took place in the past month has put the Government’s credibility under the spotlight once again.

In order to propagate the success of the state of emergency the Government repeatedly gave statistics to show that the situation had been brought under control and that South Africa was getting back to normality. If that was the case, either the Government was not truthful because the revolutionary climate has accelerated instead of abated—hence the need for the clampdown from its own point of view—or otherwise it was an exercise in cheap politicking in terms of its own electorate. The suspicion that it was an exercise in cheap politicking is supported by the fact that the clampdown on the 17 organisations took place just before the Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke by-elections. Otherwise the Government admits by its actions that the situation remains uncontrolled.

Be that as it may, the Government has to explain its clampdown on Mr Archi Gumede. He is a man of peace if ever there was one in this country. I request the hon the Minister to go and ask the members of the President’s Council who met him to repudiate my statement. The Government also has to explain to us its action against Dr Rashid Salojee of Lenasia—a man probably more committed to non-violence than many of us in this Chamber. If he has to be silenced I think many hon members of this House of Delegates should be silenced.

There may be others whom I do not know personally, but in precisely what way are these men committed to overthrowing the system? Is the Government afraid of peaceful protest? By its actions I believe the Government has sabotaged our economy more than any extra-parliamentary group ever did. By its actions the Government has changed friends into enemies and provoked the outside world to impose sanctions and has asked them to do their damndest.

As a youngster I knew the late Albert Luthuli. I loved this man because of his wise counsel and he never struck me as a man of violence or one who was any threat to the State. He struck me as an inspiring force who believed in the upliftment of the community, who believed in fair play and who believed that the people of South Africa should be paid a living wage. That was the extent of his guilt, and he has banned for many many years in that particular area.

Banning and silencing and Press restrictions will never be a solution in South Africa. I believe that the hon the Minister is only attempting to deal with the symptoms of the racist policies which are enacted by the Government. The solution lies elsewhere. The solution is to get down to the root cause of the problem.

I should like to submit that the solution really lies in the creation of a climate for negotiation for all South Africans. Attempts have been made by the introduction of the National Statutory Council as a forum where solutions would be found. However, there are people who will not participate in this particular forum hence this forum would not be able to resolve the issues.

I believe that to get people of credibility to the table to negotiate the Government will have to establish its bona fides and in order to do so it has to get rid of one piece of nasty legislation which will be in the way of any peaceful negotiation, a piece of legislation which I believe and would like to submit is unchristian, unislamic and indefensible and immoral from any religious point of view, and that is the Group Areas Act. It has to go. By repealing that Act the Government will establish its bona fides.

As we on this side of the House have been saying right from 1984, in order to create the right climate for negotiations the Government must release the political prisoners. Give them the opportunity and invite them to the negotiating table. With their release must come the indication that we in South Africa want reconciliation and that we do not want this conflict and this violence to continue any further.

The Government must repeal the emergency regulations and allow the climate of suspicion to be removed. One could go on and on about this particular subject matter. In a nutshell I believe—and in conclusion I should like to submit to the hon the Minister—that his approach or the approach of the Government he represents to curb and restrict people who are outside the parliamentary structures and who are engaged in peaceful methods of protest against laws which are indefensible and inhuman will not be a solution. Therefore the hon the Minister must ensure that he removes all these restrictions that are placed on people who are otherwise peaceful rather than forcing people who desire peaceful change and negotiation to go underground and to become transformed into violent people.

Mr Chairman, the restrictions and curbs announced last month are the biggest since 19 October 1977.

From 1960 to 1988 a total of 31 organisations— organisations alone with the exclusion of individuals—has been silenced by certain restrictions imposed upon them.

As the hon member for Stanger correctly pointed out we are co-legislators in this Chamber of Parliament and we share responsibility for certain actions on the part of the Government. However, I want to submit that the political aspirations of extraparliamentary forces and certain individuals can be neither ignored nor suppressed. Whereas one concedes that the hon the Minister has a function to perform in the interests of the citizens and safety of this country to ensure a stable society and movement under the present conditions, it is imperative that acknowledgement be given to the fact that negotiation politics is the only avenue for peaceful reform in South Africa. As responsible people belonging to a responsible nation, it is our duty to make attempts to achieve stability and peace without encroaching on the freedom of those that differ from us in their views.

We often talk about democracy. Democracy has to reckon with the emotions of the people. No one can claim to be democratic when organisations and persons are restricted. Any attempt at peace is crippled when it is based on a plan that indicates that the possibility exists of flexing authoritative muscles to stress a point. Peace depends on whether people can, by an effort of will, submerge their inherent competitiveness and so avoid destruction. The strength of people, perhaps based on fear, who operate outside the system cannot be underestimated because these people and organisations have a certain following. We stand here in the highest debating chamber in the country and we cannot ignore those people that stand on the outside because there are serious political implications for the entire situation in the country.

I want to quote from page five of the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation. It says that:

The White Paper goes further and says:

When we look at the curbs and restrictions that are placed on individuals, upon which the Press has capitalised, it is very strongly indicated that unless there is peaceful reform we may have a recurrence of what happened in 1976. I want to say that it may be so serious it could lead to civil war. We may then have a situation it will not be possible to curb.

I want to quote another example from the book by Louis Fisher, entitled The Great Challenges. He says that:

Before I conclude I have a very simple question to ask and that is: Are we really practising democracy, when such restrictions are imposed upon individuals and organisations, or are we indeed moving along the path to a dictatorship in which swift action is taken and decisions are made regardless of moral scruples or public opinion?

Mr Chairman, you will agree that the speech made by the hon member for Lenasia Central was a most interesting one and I want to take this opportunity to compliment him. It was interesting because quite obviously that hon member does not agree with whatever the leader of his party believes. If he did, the hon member would have realised that the leader of his party was, by his silence, in full support of the action that was taken by the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

The hon member spoke about the fact that we in this House were co-legislators. That, with respect, is not entirely true. The position is this: We are part of the legislature of this country, but we are not co-legislators. Only those bodies that fully support and are part of the Government, are co-legislators.

However, I should like to tell the hon member that there is a concept called “shared responsibility", and one called “collective responsibility". By this we understand that all those who are in Government; all those who are part of Government; all those who are in the Cabinet of Government, are together responsible for whatever actions the Government takes.

I should just like to place on record once again the fact that the party to which the hon member belongs is in fact represented in the Cabinet of this country.

The motion before this House deals with the high-handed and arbitrary manner in which 17 political organisations were effectively banned, while at least 22 people were restricted by ministerial decree during the early part of this year. I believe that the hon member for Stanger tried to use diplomatic language to voice his disapproval of this state of affairs I want to say, though, that in fact this motion deals with banning and detentions without trial. We in this House know that all parties in this House have publicly stated that they are opposed to detentions without trial and to bannings of any kind. Surprisingly enough, the majority party in this House has in fact supported these measures, as I indicated earlier.

We have already stated publicly our opposition to these measures and I wish to do so again this afternoon in support of the motion.

Quite apart from the philosophical and the principle reasons for opposing these bannings, I believe that if we wish to create a climate that is conducive to peaceful negotiation, we need to have all political parties operating openly and in the market-place of ideas, and to show support for those ideas openly in the market-place. I believe we must allow leaders of all communities to operate openly and to seek support for their respective policies, and to do so openly. I also believe, with great respect to the hon the Minister, that these restrictions will now force all of these political organisations and all of these political ideologies and political ideas to go underground, as indeed they have. The question that always arises when one talks about negotiations and politics in this country is this: Do we need this state of affairs to continue any longer? Obviously not.

As I have already indicated, I believe that the result of these restrictions is to curb the development of peaceful opposition to the policies of the Government. Any curb or proscription of peaceful opposition is, I believe, tantamount to the prescription of violence for the resolution of our problems in this country. This is a point that was made by the hon member for Stanger, and I must agree with him whole-heartedly. These curbs are a totally unjust clampdown on legitimate political activity and I believe it is tragic that instead of moving forward, the hon the Minister now seems to be moving backwards.

In this so-called climate of reform we need to be progressive, and the only way to progress in political reform is to engage in dialogue with all those who wish to engage with us. By criminalising and suppressing the exercise of basic human rights the Government is shutting off avenues for non-violent change in this country. Quite apart from that, it is also important to record that when the Government of this country does that, it is an appeasement to the extreme right-wingers. I ask the hon the Minister why the AWB is free to practice its brand of neo-Fascism in this country. Why is action in that regard not taken even handedly?

The hon the Minister has been reported to have justified the curbs on the grounds that these are aimed at groups that persist in establishing and maintaining or promoting a revolutionary climate. In this regard I would say to the hon the Minister that I believe, with respect, that ample legislation exists by which anyone in this land who is suspected of breaking the law may be brought before the court. If found guilty, then and then only may he be severely sentenced as provided for in our law. The records of our courts of law have ample evidence in this regard.

In summary I believe that the latest act of repression by the Government shows that it is undemocratic and that it lacks respect for and even understanding of the meaning of justice and due process and that it is totally inept in the management of the country’s law and order programme. In fact, this is an admission that the state of emergency has failed. I now recall listening to the hon the Minister when he argued otherwise on TV. I believed him then as indeed I still believe him. The fact remains that now, by imposing further curbs, it is an omission on his part that the state of emergency has in fact failed.

I would like to repeat that I opposed the state of emergency when it was imposed, but that one of the results of the imposition of that state of emergency has been that many Black leaders have begun to rethink their positions. I believe that in the light of the economic upliftment of the Black community in particular, there were many Black leaders who were considering taking part in Government structures. Many of these leaders and opinion-makers were seriously considering taking part, for example, in the October municipal elections. I believe that by the stroke of the pen which has now imposed these curbs, all of that has been swept away. I believe that no credible Black leader can now be seen to be willing to participate in governmental structures. I believe that all of these considerations ought to have been taken into account before these curbs were imposed.

I would like to associate myself again with what the hon member for Stanger said concerning Mr Archi Gumede, the president of the United Democratic Front. I know Mr Archi Gumede and I am aware of his political viewpoint.

I know that he personally does not believe in violence. He is, in fact, a non-violent person. That member of the larger Black community granted an interview to Leadership magazine In fact, he spelt out his philosophy I believe that we and the Government should, in fact, have greater empathy for the feelings of a man such as Archi Gumede.

All that gentleman is arguing for is justice and equal participation by Black people in all the structures of Government in this country. I ask myself whether I or any hon member of the Opposition argues for anything less. Of course not. Therefore, I fully support the motion that has been proposed by the hon member for Stanger and I certainly hope that we shall enjoy the full support of the majority party in this House in regard to this motion as well …

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by presenting a beautiful object. Whilst doing so, I want to go on to improve it, and when I say that I mean reform it.

The exercise I see before us today is becoming an object of deformation. When one looks at the situation in this country in very realistic terms, one notices the tremendous hostility that is being generated by the extraparliamentary forces. I believe that such an action can only come about if those people are denied what they believe should be done.

Having listened very carefully and attentively to the hon member for Lenasia Central, I must agree with the hon member for Springfield that being a member of the Opposition I am taken aback at the stand that the hon member for Lenasia Central has taken on this most sensitive issue. I am daunted by the prospect that perhaps the realisation of certain aspects in life has dawned.

He said that the extra-parliamentary forces had today reached the end of what they consider to be the reasoning process, and the hon member for Lenasia Central said that perhaps this may culminate in a warring situation …

This afternoon I want to sketch a little ideological situation that exists in this country, namely the situation in relation to the Group Areas Act. Where I come from we have 566 municipal flats accommodating no fewer than 750 families I believe that although those people who are sub jected to the type of conditions that exist there have made use of the channels open to them in order to obtain some relief, they have for the oast three years found no solution to their problems Hence we see the birth of the extra-parliamentary forces, which the system created. Then we want to sit in judgement on what their stand should be!

For many years we have seen, heard and witnessed persons and organisations that were only too prepared to come along and negotiate and discuss in order to bring about normality in an abnormal situation. However, because their requests were not acceptable to the Government, the best solution was found by silencing and banning these people. I do not believe that the method employed in this instance will achieve anything, apart from gaining world recognition of the fact that our beautiful country, South Africa, adopts totally inhuman measures, also in many other facets. Therefore I do not believe that the banning of these organisations or persons is in the sole interest of our country.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion, I fully support the hon member for Stanger in his motion, and I plead that the hon the Minister will take cognizance of this and perhaps throw further light on the matter. I call for the unbanning of these organisations and people. This will perhaps get them to a round table in order to resolve the situation.

Mr Chairman, Voltaire said: “I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”

It is common cause that law and order are essential requirements in any civilised country for the maintenance of peace and to preserve the lives and property of individuals. However, extreme restrictions may be dangerous and undue political restrictions may be deemed as violating basic human rights. The violation of basic human rights will give rise to unrest and strife.

If restrictions must exist, they must be applied fairly, justly and equally. One cannot restrict one side only. If the extreme left is restricted, the extreme right must also be restricted on the same basis and on equal terms. The application of the restriction equilibrium must be a definite factor as a deterrent of the evil on both sides. Let not undue restrictions gag a nation.

We know that other countries also have systems of restrictions, detentions and so on. Even in India Jawaharlal Nehru detained his best friend from Bangladesh for a number of years. We know there is detention without trial in Pakistan and other countries as well. There are also states of emergency in many countries. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

We cannot follow the wrong examples of other countries and compare our wrongs with theirs. Criminals and those causing harm and injury to society must be brought to book and justifiably penalised and punished. They must be tried, because without trials one does not know who the criminals are. All forms of undue restrictions should be removed. Firstly, the Government should remove the unnecessary restrictions that violate basic human rights. The wrongful and unlawful restrictions imposed upon the law-abiding citizens by those who purport to have the concern of the people at heart but who are in fact carrying out the wishes of the Kremlin—either knowingly or unknowingly and directly or indirectly—should also be removed. Let democracy prevail in its true sense. The Government should not interfere with the democratic rights and freedom of the people. Let vandalism and terrorism not interfere with the rights and freedom of the individual. Let necklacing come to an end. Let the course of hatred of the Police come to an end. Let bomb blasts come to an end. Let the destruction of innocent lives come to an end. Let injuries and disabilities come to an end. Let the destruction of the properties of decent, law-abiding citizens come to an end.

Violence of any nature and from any source is abhorrent whether it is in the form of purported freedom activities or undue police actions. The silencing of people will not bring about the effects that are required. Feelings cannot be suppressed but criminal elements must be dealt with in order to safeguard the interests of the community at large.

The SA Media Council has the following to say about the Press, and I quote from their first periodical report for 1984-85, page 4:

I came across some very interesting information in this little pamphlet explaining what the SA Media Council does to achieve true reporting from the Press and to put right the wrongs. I want to quote from page 10 of the report that refers to an incident of the SA Police vs The Star. I quote as follows:

This is very important—

Mr Chairman, this gives one a picture of what happened. Now it is the Media Council which brought about the facts here. If the Press is gagged and it is not brought to the notice of the public then the public will not know what went on behind the scenes.

It is no use blaming the other side all the time. The Government can keep on blaming the terrorists for the unrest and loss of life and the restricted organisations can keep on blaming the Government for the unrest owing to the frustration of the people. In the meantime more and more innocent lives are being lost and extensive damage to property continues to increase. This must now be completely eliminated. All sorts of restrictions must be removed and democracy must prevail. The Government has to allow democratic rights to all individuals. The individual citizens must respect the democratic rights of others and must allow their fellow citizens to exercise their rights in their own way as they see best.

Advertising or requests are one thing but intimidation is something unacceptable. With regard to Government policy I read from the White Paper quoted by my learned friend which states on page 5 under the heading “General Policy Framework”, par 4.2.1:

In order to bring about this rapid change one will have to have dialogue. Without dialogue we will not get where we want to. We shall never attain our goal. It is common knowledge and it is known that unless the Black people are brought into the law making machinery of the South African Government for the people of South Africa we shall have no rest or peace and there shall always be strife and trouble.

I think it is time for us to act quickly. We must act rapidly. The Government machinery works very slowly but this process of reform must come very quickly. I think that the Black people must be brought into the law-making machinery as quickly as possible.

We want to tell the people that we are bringing reform because since 1984 when we came to this tricameral Government we have been part and parcel of this law-making machinery. To my knowledge just over 100 pieces of discriminatory legislation have been repealed and taken off the Statute Book. Some of them are very insignificant but some of them are significant. However, the world at large does not know this.

It is difficult to bring this to their notice because the thorny issue of the Group Areas Act still remains. Until the Group Areas Act goes, apartheid will remain alive. It will be deemed dead only when the Group Areas Act is no longer on the Statute Book. It is no use thinking that the right wing is going to suppress us if the Group Areas Act goes. The world will not end, nor will the earth quake if the Group Areas Act is repealed. It did not happen when section 16 of the Immorality Act was abolished; it did not happen when the Mixed Marriages Act was abolished. How many marriages have there been across the colour line? Therefore, if the Group Areas Act is abolished, what is going to happen? It will the same sunny South Africa with milk and honey for everyone—Black, White, yellow, all kinds of people I therefore appeal to all sides—that is, the Government, the extraparliamentary organisations, whether they be the ANC, the UDF, the AWB or the BBB …

What is the BBB?

The Blanke Bevrydingsbeweging. There is an organisation called the BBB.

I appeal to all sides—both the left and the right, and to the purported leaders of the communities—to come to their senses and let sanity prevail, and to let peace and tranquillity be the order of the day for the people of this country, which is a beautiful country for all of us. If we can get together, talk together and come to an understanding we can live in peace and harmony, and that is what we want …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask South Africa: “Quo vadis?” South Africa is more chan its people so I would like to ask again: ‘Citizens of South Africa, quo vadis?” If we can find an answer chat is acceptable to the people of South Africa I think South Africa would have achieved a situation that many people in this country—men and women, boys and girls—pray for.

It is in that prayerful mood that I want to address this House because we are discussing what I regard as a solemn issue, a sacred issue confronting this country. It concerns human rights and matters that are near and dear to the minds of the people of this country, when the action of men can make or mar the people and this beautiful country.

The Government’s attempts to outlaw all peaceful opposition groups that are not prepared to work according to the Government’s structures further polarises the people in this country. This situation started several decades ago and is becoming worse, if I may say so, by the day. For this reason restrictions imposed recently on the 17 opposition groups cannot be supported. I think I am right in saying that these measures cannot be supported by any right-thinking people in this country, never mind the right-thinking people abroad. The hon the State President knows full well that this new attempt to curb Black political opposition means, in no uncertain terms, a significant setback for reform politics.

His attempts at reform will only be successful when he is able to hold negotiations, and negotiations are not merely dialogue. They are much more than that. It is not an easy exercise to control negotiations, and I refer to negotiations with representative Black leaders in this country. Let us leave aside the executive of the ANC for the time being, but these very leaders that were banned recently are, in many or all instances, people with whom this Government must hold dialogue if it is to overcome the present sad impasse.

We often claim that we do not want outside interference. Let us accept that for the moment. If we do not want interference from outside then we must be prepared to get on with the job. The Government has an assignment and it knows what it is. It also knows that this assignment is not an easy one, and therefore it must get on with it. However, instead of creating a climate for negotiations, a state of emergency has become the rule and this, in turn, has led to Black militancy. The very fact that it has become necessary for the Government to impose additional restrictions and curbs on what I would regard as too large a number of organisations, is indicative of the simple fact that the state of emergency has been counter-productive. I agree that on the surface it has probably brought about seeming quiet and seeming law and order, but this was a wonderful opportunity to have gone ahead and come to grips with the problem; to have brought the leaders to the negotiating table.

One might say that we have done this, that and the other, but in re-examining this question, we must concede that the very perceptions that emerge from these images are such that they are by and large the product of fear, of a lack of goodwill and in some cases I may go so far as to say they are the product of a lack of sincerity. Are we really anxious to solve the problems in this country? This is the question. If we are, we must not drag our feet; we must resolve this issue, and it can be resolved.

The clampdown will have negative results. What are some of the results of these unfortunate recent restrictions? These organisations that have been acting on the surface will now go underground. It will be too difficult for the human imagination to fathom what actions will be the result. On the other hand, had we allowed these organisations to continue, the various departments such as the Department of Law and Order—the department concerned with security—can exercise control over these organisations. Now, however, this becomes far-fetched. The other point is that it makes negotiation with the representative leaders of the people all the more difficult. It hardens feelings, and probably we are driving these organisations to the point— if they have not reached it already—of no return, the point of intransigence at which dialogue and negotiations will be totally forgotten.

The other point is that it will increase South Africa’s isolation. Even those few Western countries that are well-disposed towards us will completely ignore us. This has been very well demonstrated by the Zola Budd episode. This star athlete has had to go through this agony, anguish and ostracism because South Africa’s apartheid policy cannot be tolerated abroad. There are many different fields of activities where individuals are debarred from participation at international functions, conferences and forums, very much to the detriment of this country. In today’s age we cannot live in a cocoon and we should be so forward thinking that we are prepared to stretch ourselves souls, if not physically at least in other respects, to every corner of the world.

The scrapping of apartheid can only be achieved by a radical change of the age-old power structure. This is a crucial issue and because we have not resolved it we have found ourselves in this dilemma. Over the last decade and more so the last three years, we have been attempting at piecemeal reform, but this does not touch the silver thread that will satisfy the aspirations of the Black man. In fact, it has failed the Black leaders to the point that they have become disillusioned with piecemeal reform. On the other hand it has fanned the right-wing elements in this country to halt reform. We now find the Government, if I may say, between the devil and the deep sea. It has to make a choice.

It must be considered that every citizen of South Africa has a right of free expression of opinion; the right of free association; the right to assemble peacefully and without arms and for a purpose not opposed to law or morality. In respect of these things no one should have any qualms and no exception can be taken when people do get together peacefully and hear points of view— without causing destruction to people or property—if they do not come into confrontation with the law. This afternoon I and probably all hon members here, as well as most of the people in the country at large, would like to have a satisfactory explanation or justification for the restriction of these organisations.

The hon the State President knows that change is inevitable and that Black aspirations will have to be accommodated. How much longer are we going to keep them out? Are they really unreasonable? Are we really entertaining such great doubts, such great fears and such a feeling of hopelessness that we do not really meet them to discuss these issues which concern all the people in this country?

The hon the State President must go the whole hog. He has the honour of being the first man in this country to have taken such a bold step —a step of courage and tenacity. I think full credit must also be given to his moves in support of economic advancement in this country. I have no doubt whatsoever that this will bring prosperity to this country.

There is a need for the Government to choose its direction. Otherwise the large sector of the electorate that presently supports the Government will be found to be sifting away, some to the right and some to the left. Let us make no mistake about that.

The Government must be able to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that its claim that apartheid is, in fact, dead is a true one. It must be proved in no uncertain terms to be so. For the future to be peaceful, secure and prosperous there will have to be power-sharing with all the people in this country. This is important, both politically and economically.

We have other problems. There are no two ways about it. During the past 150 years the vast majority of the Blacks in this country have, through no fault of their own, suffered tremendous deprivation and oppression. More because of that than anything else they are, in the main, in a Third World situation. The lack of education and the lack of social facilities—no one can deny the fact that these are not of their own making but are largely due to the intransigent, unjust regime that prevailed in this country.

There is another aspect. The timing of the banning leaves me with grave reservations. I hope that my perceptions are not true. I am inclined to believe that the reason for the banning of these organisations has been largely to halt the rightwing backlash resulting from the tentative efforts at reform. I should like this to be refuted in no uncertain terms this afternoon. I agree with the hon member for Actonville, who also dwelt on this subject, and who pointed out that the rightwing organisations should not have been granted the licence to carry on in the manner they have been doing. The hon the State President must not kowtow to the Afrikaner electorate and be so concerned about the security of his Government that he shuns reform, to the detriment of the future welfare of this country and all its people. This is a very important issue.

The question that must be asked is: Have these restrictions now been imposed in order to appease right-wing aspirations at the cost of reform? Judging by my perception of the situation I fear that a tremendous amount of caution is going to be exercised with regard to going ahead and implementing those reforms and reaching the stage at which we will be able to confront either the members of the ANC, the UDF or any other organisation.

The other question I would like to ask is: Why the need for the banning of all 17 organisations at one stroke? If the Department of Law and Order was wary of the actions of these bodies, would it not simply have been—may I say—better and proper to ban one organisation, be it X, Y or Z, to be a lesson to the other organisations? This is important. We would like to be told this afternoon whether the banning of these organisations could not have been contained to the point where we would have made more progress regarding negotiations.

In conclusion I just want to read what the feeling of the Black people is. Can anyone say they really do not want to participate? All of them? The Langa Newspaper believes, and I quote—

I continue:

This is the beauty of it. It is interesting and encouraging that the Langa Newspaper, which represents a very large readership, has this positive attitude towards the hon the State President and asks him to continue with reform.

For far too long we have said that these bodies are satellites of, for instance, the ANC or the SACP and that they must therefore be banned. I do not think that kind of answer will satisfy anybody. We can go on endlessly banning organisations and people. I think it is time that we adopt a very calm, sober attitude. I would like to make this appeal to all quarters. Firstly, I would like to appeal to the Government itself that it now has an assignment to which it should attend. Go hungry, go without sleep, but let us get on with the job! It is important. We have waited far too long. Nobody can say what tragedy will next crop up in this country. We really want to act in the interest of the people of this country.

Again, I appeal to the Government to think seriously, with its head, and not to fall prey to any kind of emotionalism or sensationalism in banning organisations. Some, if not many, of these have a very large following. They have the rank and file behind them and by banning them one angers the people of the country. Those people who are suffering greatly are already angry and hostile. I think this is a matter for serious thought on the part of the Government.

Mr Chairman, some of the people who actually were proponents of extra-parliamentary activity and who were gaoled or banned are among the greatest heroes of mankind. In our own country Albert Luthuli was a great South African and a very compassionate Christian. He was the president of the African National Congress. He was banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. Here was this humane man, this decent South African whose description of a South African was—and I vividly remember this: “A person who is loyal to South Africa and who is loyal to all the people of South Africa is a South African.” Albert J Luthuli was the first South African to win the Nobel Prize. He was a great man but he was proscribed by the then Government of this country.

The present Government is acting in the same way with the seeming support of the hon members on that side of the House and some hon members sitting on this side who support the NPP. Some of them have opposed these bannings, for example the hon member for Actonville who in no uncertain terms has condemned the bannings. I salute him for that and I will salute every hon member of the governing side who will stand up and repudiate the action of the Government of which their leader is a member, insofar as the banning and silencing of organisations and individuals are concerned. Another great South African was Mohambry (Monty) Naicker, a medical doctor, who sacrificed tremendously to give leadership to the people of Natal in the main in their fight against the Pegging Act and against the Group Areas Act. That man was banned but he is a hero in my heart. Nobody can take away the fact that the names of Monty Naicker and Albert Luthuli are imprinted on our hearts and etched in our minds.

Dr Naicker was also banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. What was the result of that? The Government banned them but they could not banish their thoughts or kill their ideas. Their ideas proliferated therefore and more people became interested in the ideas of Luthuli got up at a meeting attended by 15 000 people on his release from banning at one stage and said “This damn bloody Government cannot silence me!” there was a roar of approval from 15 000 throats. What was worse at the time was that he was banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. These were great men who were loved and admired by the people and the result was that the people felt that if these great men were described as communists, communism had to be a good thing. If the Government said that a good man like Dr Naicker was a communist then communists were very nice people. The Government of this country actually assisted in boosting the Communist Party, which was illegal at the time, and giving it a fillip.

Jawaharlal Nehru was proscribed and put into prison.

What did he write from Almora to his daughter Indira? He said:

What happened? Those who banned him, those who put him in jail for holding certain political views, were ultimately the losers. Nehru emerged as a great hero not only of his own people but of the world. I am not talking of Mahatma Gandhi who is an ageless figure, a figure of the aeons; I am talking about a simple individual such as Jawaharlal Nehru.

So what does this prove? It proves only one thing and that is that it is stupid, or in the words of the hon the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition, it is counter-productive to ban individuals or organisations because of the views they hold. These organisations have been banned because of the views they hold and not because of any overt action any of them took, because if any of them had taken any overt action which was against the law, the hon the Minister and his department have a complete array of laws which could be used against such people.

The 17 organisations that have been hit in the latest assault upon human dignity, the latest invasion upon what little we have of democratic rights in this country, this transgression upon civilised values, occurred at a time when the hon the Minister himself was saying that as a consequence of the state of emergency the situation in South Africa was under control. The unrest had declined.

What was the reason for that? I am not asking what the justification was as there can never be any justification for this kind of activity on the part of the Government. What was the reason for that? If under the state of emergency the Government has sealed the country, has full control of the country, then why ban these organisations which have not committed any criminal offences? Was it because of the proximity of the two by-elections? Was it a desire to mollify the Swastika-bearing groups that are drawn from a certain section of the community? I am not making an accusation; I am putting a question and I trust that the hon the Minister will answer that question if he can and if he will.

Excuse me!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Moorcross apparently wants to take it upon himself to answer the question. He is at liberty to do so. [Interjections.]

I am commenting on your vanity.

I want to include among those who dissociated themselves from the conduct of his leader the hon member for Lenasia Central, because he made an excellent speech this afternoon in which every word he spoke was a knock against banning and a knock against the emergency regulations and a knock against the laws under which these bannings have taken place. He said—I wrote down his words:

In this House the maxim audi alterem partem has been bandied about by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He just rolls it across the carpeted floor. Audi means “give a hearing”, alterem means “before you can alter” and partem means “the status or the position of the individual”. The principle of audi alterem partem was sacrificed; worse, it was demolished by the Government when it banned these organisations.

I say that every one of those individuals that have been detained and every one of those organisations that have been banned consist of innocent persons, because our legal system correctly says that every person is deemed to be innocent until found guilty Only those found guilty in a court of law can be held not to be innocent.

Within South Africa the South African Indian Congress put up a valiant fight against the group areas legislation. Then, in 1952, the ANC started a campaign of defiance of unjust laws, homing in particularly on the pass laws. This was 1952. Thirty-four years later those pass laws were abolished by this Parliament, vindicating the stand taken by the ANC in 1952. They were proved right and those who banned them were proved wrong within a span of only 34 years.

One uses the phrase “extraparliamentary groups”. As long as there are South Africans who do not have representation in Parliament, the only way these people can give vent to their feelings and give voice to their thoughts and aspirations is by extraparliamentary means. It is this Government, represented by the hon the Minister and his colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, which is responsible for denying the vast majority of people in this country a say in Parliament. It is they who have to be morally responsible for the fact that extraparliamentary activity has become so absolutely necessary to the majority of people in this country.

We have not the slightest difficulty in supporting this motion and we only hope that common sense will prevail and that we will not have to wait another 30 years for this motion to be proved correct.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin my contribution to this debate by reasserting my very firm belief that every individual has the basic human right to express himself when and wherever he sees fit to do so. That individual then becomes part of a society, a body, or an institution and it should therefore be recognised that democracy spreads to these bodies.

I, like anybody else, am totally opposed to the loss of life and limb. I cannot contribute to any thinking, any measures or any group of people that holds that democracy also means resorting to violence. Therefore, we have a situation in South Africa today in which at this stage people are very frightened, and this may in the future develop into a devastating situation. We, as parliamentarians, need to apply our minds to these issues, project ourselves, and by our own actions seek to achieve the ultimate goal which is peace in South Africa, and for all South Africans to be able to enjoy what this beautiful country of ours has to offer.

The previous speakers have referred to bannings, banishment etc. As I read the hon the Minister’s pronouncements, he has said that he restricts these institutions, and therefore this does not necessarily mean that he has banned or outlawed these institutions. However, when one restricts an institution, then certainly this curbs the activities of that institution and they desire that such an institution should work within the parameters of their aims and objects. Therefore, when we look at the affiliates of the UDF do we consider them all—I do not say they are violent—to be a threat to the security of our State? No, Mr Chairman. The restrictions that have been imposed recently have added to the discomfort and embarrassment to us Parliamentarians, because we are also regarded as oppressors, and we are not the oppressors. On the contrary, we are participating in this institution in order to bring about reforms concerning which the hon the State President and the Cabinet have made pronouncements recently. We consider that in this negotiation and participation there should be some light at the end of the tunnel.

These restrictions have, however, made our lives very difficult. Within the family, these restrictions have changed the social life of all people. We have in our family members who belong to the extra-parliamentary institutions, and yet those very people that we know are not advocates of terrorism, but are participating in the extra-parliamentary system, are peaceful people who want to achieve the best for South Africa in a peaceful manner. Therefore I also believe that these restrictions are exposing and demonstrating our State’s fears, which fears are unnecessary and should never come into play in relation to reform in South Africa.

I believe that these restrictions have also dampened the spirit of those extra-parliamentary people who were prepared to give the National Council a trial. However, because of these restrictions, they have now retired into the background and are not prepared to come forward since, quite rightly, they feel threatened. They feel that should they participate in the National Council, their participation would be prejudicial and harmful to the people. There are important elections coming up in October, and there was a perceptible spirit entering the hearts and minds of people that they should be participating in the October elections so that even at the lowest level of government we could at least do something for people. However, just over two weeks ago, and just after these restrictions, the spirit of those people was killed. They do not want to participate in these elections since they say that restrictions are being imposed, and how are they to organise themselves for an election in October of this year …

The history of South Africa has excellent examples of how people who have disagreed with the Government and who have been interned have— in one case at least—become the Prime Minister of this country.

I refer to the late Mr Vorster, who aid not agree with certain things which the Government was doing. The Government interned him at the time, but when he was released, he participated in what he thought was right. He proved himself right in the end when he became Prime Minister of this country.

And State President.

Therefore I am a very strong believer in dialogue and discussions being the ultimate tools in seeking peace for this country. I take this further by saying that dialogue and discussions will follow even after there has been unrest and upheaval in this country. After upheaval or revolution, as it may be termed, the ultimate will be a round table conference. That will see to it that there will be peace, harmony and co-existence in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to preface my talk this afternoon by the following quotation, given to me by a wise man.

In the usual man the child of God is a touchstone of value and therefore society and the state exist for his benefit.

We had what may be described as very moving speeches this afternoon. In fact, I am intensely proud that one of my pupils, the hon member for Lenasia Central, had something good to say with regard to this debate.

Every government has the legislative right to enact laws to safeguard the security of the stare, its people and property—in other words the sovereignty of the state. Every government has that right. However, oppressive legislation to suppress democratic growth is a serious assault on the individual and gives rise to frustration When one is frustrated all the patriotism and all respect and obeyance of the law may be thrown aside. Frustration builds up and when a man finds that he has no peaceful avenue of negotiation left to him, this leads to violence, resulting in death and destruction of property as has been happening recently in our beautiful country.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned the names of two worthy men that can fill many a chapter in our history books. This reminded me of another man, the Rev Hendrickse who is now the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives. He was imprisoned in 1976 and today he is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in that House.

The striving for freedom is inherent in the spirit of man and the Government is accused by extraparliamentarians of stifling this spirit—the basic freedom of democracy. I had the pleasure of reading Detention and Security in South Africa.

In its foreword Albert Camus, who is one of the contributors, says the following:

Commenting on this quotation, Camus goes on to say:

Freedom does not rely on government, Mr Chairman. Hence the various extra-parliamentary forces are striving for freedom.

Some ardent protagonists of democracy have paid the price, as hon members know. They are in prison. Some of them continue to live in prison, serving their time. Some have been banned and others have been placed under house arrest.

What are we talking about? We are simply talking about human relations where every individual who is born free is equal, not only in the eyes of the State but in the eyes of God. Whenever repressive legislation is enacted, certain people rebel and they express their rebellion in various forms such as bombings and other criminal activities. However, they are not really criminals. They want to give some form of valid expression—albeit destructive expression—to their aspirations.

The legislative screw has gradually been tightened and we have a body of laws which give the extra-parliamentarians cause to say that this Government rules by brute force. These are not my words; they appear in the book from which I am quoting. Some of those laws confer powers to detain people for interrogation. We also have preventive detentions, house arrests, the banning of organisations, restrictions on the receipt of funds and on the freedom of speech. There are many well-meaning moderate people and, as the hon the Minister of the Budget has so rightly said, now is the time to rally all those well-meaning people—not those who are violently disposed— to sit together and work out a solution whereby all of us can live in peace.

Before I conclude, I want to introduce the hon the Minister to this little book entitled Reform in Crisis. It is a contribution by an hon member of this side of the House who serves on the President’s Council and I would humbly recommend to the hon the Minister that he read it. I want to read an extract from the Freedom Charter which I think would form a beautiful preamble to the present South African Constitution. It reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, it is evident here this afternoon that hon members have given vent to their innermost feelings in support of democracy and the democratic process. Our very participation in the tricameral system is as a result of our commitment to democracy and to the right of an individual to decide on his participation.

The hon member for Actonville is an example of that democratic process and the expression of those innermost feelings. Normally he goes like a Boeing, but today, because he was so concerned, he was calm, concise and to the point.

In 1984, immediately prior to the elections for the House of Delegates, I took exception when certain individuals were served with banning and restriction orders. I believed then, as I do now, that this was unwarranted and unnecessary and I immediately called for the lifting of these restrictions. Just as it was the right of an individual to vote and to canvass votes, it was the right of an individual to stay away from voting and to call for a stay-away. If it was found that an individual was agitating against the State in an undemocratic fashion, calling for a violent overthrow of the State, if violence had been the key-word, I believe the State should have brought that individual to court. If the State has enough evidence to restrict the movements of an individual or to ban an individual or organisation, that evidence should be used in a court of law to bring these persons to book.

It is unfortunate that at a time when South Africa seemed to winning its battle overseas, when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his team were selling South Africa after disinvestment and other measures had been taken against us, these recent restrictions had to be announced and served on individuals. It makes things rather difficult. I wonder at times—if I am allowed to think aloud, not knowing what happens in the Cabinet—whether, when these measures are taken, as in this case, the hon the Minister of Law and Order consults with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and decides whether the moment is opportune to restrict certain individuals.

I do not have much time, because we have two other speakers. I merely entered the debate to state that I believe that restrictions and bannings are not the answer. We need dialogue. I want to tell the hon the Minister that in 1982 I had occasion to meet with the Pakistani ambassador stationed in Maputo. His advice to me was: “Do not confront your Government from the outside. Do not confront your Government from any side, but talk to them, have dialogue with them.” We are, Sir. We are having dialogue.

By restricting people’s movements and the activities of organisations, we are making martyrs out of people and giving credibility where it is not necessary or deserved. We are merely giving them credibility and allowing them to go underground, from which position this Government nor any other government will have any control over their activities.

Mr Chairman, I want to approach this motion with a sense of concern. I am concerned about the plight of my family, my children, my people, as well as the oppressed people of this country. I am concerned about the welfare of all the citizens of this country.

I approach this motion with a sense of responsibility. I believe in a very strong government. Any government throughout the world ought to be strong, have control and have the power to control. However, that control must be exercised with some justice.

I also approached this with a sense of censure, introspection and possible solutions. I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not support the state of emergency and the banning of extra-parliamentary forces. It is strange that we have had a state of emergency in South Africa for such a long time. I would regard a state of emergency to be temporarily and urgently required for the purposes for which it was intended. If one has a prolonged state of emergency there is something wrong in the state of Denmark.

The recent banning of 17 extraparliamentary organisations is totally unacceptable. Those organisations who are opposed to the system of rule in South Africa such as the ANC, ÚDF and the institutionalised churches say that change can only come about when the Government is willing to negotiate with all the recognised leaders. Only when free political activity is allowed and organisations can test their constitutions, then only can a detailed plan for a future South Africa be drawn up. As long as the state of emergency is enforced and as long as the organisations are banned the problems of South Africa cannot be solved.

There are genuine attempts at reform in this country. I have a lot of respect for the Government for embarking on such a programme recently. I want to compliment the hon the State President at this stage for initiating reforms in this country. However much the direct and indirect friendship prevails—this is a sophisticated kind of friendship where White domination still prevails—I believe there is a sincere attempt on the part of the Government to bring about reform. The Government knows that it has embarked on a policy of revolutionary modernisation but it must realise that the social aspirations of the masses will grow. It will grow faster than the economy can provide for. These aspirations will inevitably turn to effective political demands.

I want to quote from an article with the heading “Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001” by Prof Hermann Giliomee, professor of political studies at the University of Cape Town. I quote as follows:

It is not when things are going from bad to worse that protesters will speak out. It happens when people who have put up with the present laws over a long period of time suddenly find the Government relaxing its pressure. It is then that the oppressed masses intensify their demands.

The Government must not think that bannings, restrictions, compulsions and house arrests will solve the problems of the country. The internal resistance seems to be more intense. I must warn the Government that it is more intense, more widespread and more effectively organised than ever before. This resistance which some are already calling a revolt will be sustained. It may become more sophisticated but it will never decline.

The line of action taken now is pointless violence as other hon members have already said. It is revolution in the form of terrorism. What is the result? The Government has to enhance its forces police, arms and prisons. They all have to work overtime to combat these elements.

I would now like to touch upon the new developments in the country concerning education and the church’s role. Some time ago education was the privilege of a few who became teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses and clerks. These classes of people were the thinkers for the Black people, thinkers who were tremendously influenced by White patronage. Things are changing today. This is the era of the emergence of the Black youth.

If we look at our educational programmes today—and one wonders what will happen in the next decade—it seems there will be an unprecedented enlightenment of the Black youth in this country. Then we shall see the emergence of youth the likes of Steve Biko. He stands as a shining example of the type of people we expect and we have to accommodate them with economic upliftment as well as better jobs, by giving better bargaining power. The union movement is another force that is coming through. Better education, better housing and a better social life is bound to lead to more political demands.

I want to mention that there are many moderates amongst us. There are many individuals, social classes and political parties who would like to find solutions to the political problems of the country. I have much hope and do not want to sound ominously prophetic or pessimistic. I look forward with hope; there is a lot of hope in this country. However, we have to strike the right note.

The Government must tell us what its objectives are with the continuous emergency regulations and the bannings. They might have some reason for this to take place now, knowing full well the effect of the recent banning of a church. Speaking of churches, there is evidence that individuals within that church explicitly identified themselves with the lives of the oppressed and in so doing they have been prepared to place their own lives and the future existence of the church at risk. I want to quote from The Church in South Africa: A protagonist for change or a reluctant ally? by Prof Charles Villa-Vicencio:

In conclusion I would suggest that the Government handles the situation wisely, delicately and with a sense of realism on the part of all concerned.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of this motion and it is with great concern for South Africa that I do so. Today we live in constant fear of terrorism and subversive action by the ANC.

In the late forties I shook hands with one of South Africa’s great sons, Chief Albert Luthuli, who was the president of the ANC. The ANC was a peaceful, extraparliamentary organisation. It was an even milder organisation than the Natal Indian Congress. What did the South African Government do? It turned them into terrorists, one and all. That organisation was banned for demanding political rights and today we are spending millions upon millions to combat the subversive actions of the ANC.

Who is to blame for that? We blame our own country and our own Government for endangering the lives of millions of South Africans. I concede that millions of South African’s lives are in danger, but who is to blame for that?

Who caused the ANC to become a terrorist organisation? The South African Communist Party was also a legal political party which had a member in Parliament. They were not planning to overthrow the Government by force. They were fighting the Government on constitutional lines. They had a member in Parliament and the Government banned …

Mr Chairman, on a point or order: The hon Whip should realise that both his and the other party’s time has expired.

Order! The hon member for Camperdown may proceed.

That has nothing to do with me.

I raised the point that that political party was banned by the Government, so what happened? They went underground and started working against the Government from outside the country. Similarly, when all of these organisations were banned they showed they had the courage of their convictions in opposing the Government, and urging it to bring about meaningful reform in the country. They had the courage of their convictions, in the same way that Robey Leibbrandt did who, during the war, opposed General Smuts’ Government, as did one of South Africa’s former Presidents and Prime Minister, the late B J Vorster. He was interned. Why? Because he showed he had the courage of his convictions and fought against the Government. The Government did not ban his organisation.

Oswald Pirow was the leader of the Nuwe Orde, and he opposed the government of the day in no uncertain terms, far more strongly than any ANC or any SACP member. He became a member of Parliament, and there is street named after him in Cape Town. These are the convictions of the people of South Africa.

Those people and organisations that have been banned did not plan to overthrow the State by revolutionary means. They did not advocate revolution in the country. However, by burying them, what has the Government done? It is adding more fuel to the fire and is creating a second monster like the ANC, because of whose actions we have to live in constant fear. We have to spend millions of rands of taxpayers’ money to combat the subversive actions of those previously lawful organisations which have been banned and turned into monsters.

Mr Chairman, violence brutalises its victims as well as its perpetrators.

We have already entered the time set aside for the Minister’s reply. A few years ago the Rabie Commission was appointed by the hon the State President to enquire into security legislation. I want to read a very important recommendation by this commission which was headed by the Chief Justice of the RSA:

Legislation which at present authorises the prohibition of certain gatherings, the preventive detention of persons, the imposition of certain restrictions on the movements of persons, the declaration of organisations to be unlawful and the prohibition of publications is still essential The commission takes the view that since it is the duty of the executive authority to watch over the security of the State the final decision as to what must be regarded as a threat to the security of the State and what steps should be taken to ensure the security of the State should also rest with the executive authority.

In this case the executive authority is the non the Minister of Law and Order. I am sure that when he exercises this executive authority there are people who criticise him genuinely. There are also people who criticise him because they are being watched by the public, and then privately praise him and give him a pat on the back for doing a good job.

I now turn to another important finding of the Rabie Commission, which is that it recognises the need for security legislation, and states that the power to implement measures to ensure the security of the State is vested in the executive authority. It goes on as follows:

I emphasise this. The report goes on to say:

Let us draw a line between those who use the parliamentary system and those who belong to the extraparliamentary forces. In 1960 a great South African leader, warning against the use of boycotts as a tactic on all occasions, said: “Do not brand all those who use the system as sell-outs, because there are many who are honestly and genuinely interested in the welfare of the masses”. Then, on the other hand, one can with equal justice say: “ Do not brand those who are using the extraparliamentary platform as perpetrators of subversive actions or terrorists in this country.” I want to quote two examples. There are decisions and events that make people and influence the course of history and events.

In India there were many giants. We hear of Gandhi, but there is also Gokhale and there was Tilak. There was also a man called Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. [Interjections.] I want to say: Let us find out why this aristocratic family joined the Indian National Congress, when the father, Mothilale Nehru, had issued the instruction that none of the members of his family should have anything to do with politics. It was because somebody at that time exceeded his authority and detained a very well-known Indian national called Dr Annie Besam. It was the detention of Dr Annie Besam that brought into the Indian national struggle …

[Inaudible.]

That occurred subsequently. It was the detention of Dr Annie Besam that changed the course of the history of India.

At the same time, let us take another example in South Africa, where people condemn detention. Let us take the example of the detention of the late Mr Braam Fischer. The whole of South Africa stood to attention; they could not believe their eyes that he was a communist. However, they stood with disbelief in their eyes when he admitted and confessed in a court of law that he was a member of the Communist Party.

A lot has been said about silence. I was with the hon the State President the year before last when hon members from the other side sat in his office in silence, supporting the security legislation in principle. This side of the House, through a statement made by the hon member Mr Thaver, was misquoted and the former Minister of Law and Order said in the Eastern Province that the conditions in the townships would have to be upgraded. I would also like to remind the House that the hon the Minister of Defence said that we must win the hearts and the minds of the people. If we have to condemn violence, let us not condemn it on the one side only.

Stick to the motion!

I am not senile. I do not speak as a result of senility. I am speaking to the motion.

What are you insinuating?

Let us be balanced. No amount of force, AK-47 rifles or guns will help find a solution to the problems of this region.

Who created that problem?

I am not defending anybody. I condemn violence from whichever side it comes. I condemn injustice from whichever side it comes …

Make your point clear.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish was a great champion of powersharing this afternoon.

Certainly, yes.

Does the ANC believe in powersharing? The ANC believes in one item on the agenda: The transfer of power. [Interjections.] I still say that no amount of security action or force, from whichever side it comes.

Tell us who you are defending.

I am not defending. If the hon member for Cavendish hears me correctly, I said no amount of guns and no amount of action will help find a solution to the problems of South Africa. We have to sit together in an atmosphere of peace.

Your actions drove them to the point.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions. Yes, that hon member must now have realised where his leader is and what he is doing and who sent him where he is.

That is not part of the motion.

No, that has relevance to the motion. This side of the House is realistic and I am sure that the hon the Minister of Law and Order will be patted on the back within the next 24 hours by the hon members on the other side of this House. [Interjections.]

This is the poorest speech on this issue. [Interjections.]

Nobody is defending any action. This side of the House is merely presenting a balanced view.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council admit that he has run out of facts now and that he is wide of the mark and attacking members with no relevance to the motion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish must realise what I have stated. I am not speaking as a result of senility.

Talk about the motion.

What about the security at home?

Yes, let him chase all the policemen from his house.

Mr Chairman, I have listened carefully to the hon members this afternoon. I have taken cognisance of their viewpoints and I wish to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for a balanced viewpoint. Hon members were highly critical, but I trust that this will help to clear the air on some of the important issues. Time is unfortunately too short to react to everything that has been said here this afternoon.

Regarding the motion by the hon member for Stanger, I wish to say that although I agree with him and I intend to explain why, in the little time that is available to me, it gives me the opportunity to supply hon members in this House with more information. The hon member for Stanger referred to the UDF. Let me immediately say that the UDF has been invited to negotiate with the President’s Council.

What has happened? Nothing. They did not accept the invitation. I therefore want to state categorically that I am convinced that the activities of certain organisations are in no way conducive to reform in this country. They are in no way conducive to creating a climate for peaceful negotiation.

The United Democratic Front is five years old. What have they achieved so far? Have they come to the conference table? Are they refusing to do so? Where are they? Time and time again, over a period of many years the Government has invited everyone, including the UDF, to come forward and negotiate. A month ago they once again refused to take part in the municipal elections. I therefore want to say that these activities are in no way conducive to the extension of democracy. They will destroy it completely as has been the case in Mozambique, for instance.

The hon member also referred to Mr Archi Gumede and said that he was a man of peace. I do not know whether that is true, but it is still open to Mr Archi Gumede to come forward and negotiate with the Government. There is nothing against that. [Interjections.] He is welcome to come forward. However, he is not interested in doing so.

In order to understand why these restrictions were necessary, one must know what is really happening in our country today. With reference to restrictions, I should like to point out that no organisation has been banned, as we have been accused of doing. If an organisation is banned it is declared unlawful and it cannot operate further in any way whatsoever. The hon the Minister of the Budget is absolutely correct in this regard. This is not the case with these organisations. Restrictions have been placed on their activities only insofar as they endanger public safety, the maintenance of public order and are detrimental to the ending of the state of emergency. We want to lift the state of emergency. All these organisations are still legal and are welcome to approach me for permission …

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

No, I am sorry but I only have a few minutes left. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

All these organisations are still legal and are welcome to approach me for permission to carry on with those activities of theirs which are not in conflict with the aforementioned guidelines.

However, returning to the initial question of what is happening in our country today, it is a proven fact that South Africa is the target of a concentrated and carefully orchestrated revolutionary attack being waged on all fronts of our way of life. Like so many other countries, South Africa is the target of a global crusade of communist-inspired revolutionaries and activists who are committed to terror, violence and chaos. The aim of these radicals and revolutionaries is to create a revolution in our country. This is a fact. The following definitions by counter-revolutionary experts sum up correctly what a revolution is:

There can be no doubt whatsoever that this is what is happening in our country at the moment.

We have a ruthless revolutionary minority who, as extra-parliamentary groups are not accountable to anyone for their actions and their deeds. They are not accountable to Parliament. They are not accountable to hon members sitting here this afternoon. They are not accountable to any constituencies. They are accountable to no one for their deeds and their actions.

However, all revolutions develop through certain phases. The first phase is the organisational phase. A master revolutionary organisation with hundreds of smaller organisations, all with radicalised but sometimes innocent members are formed around certain issues. They are needed in the second, but even more in the third and fourth phases of the revolution.

This has already taken place in South Africa. The master organisations, the SACP and the ANC, with certain legal fronts, are all in position. The SACP and the ANC are claiming: “We are revolutionaries and our business is to make revolution.”

The second phase is the terrorist phase. Whilst busy forming the organisation, a so-called military wing is created. The aim is clear: To force people to join the “movement”, or, as it is being called, the “democratic movement”.

The following definitions of terrorism say it all:

Terrorism is a resort to violence by a dissident faction in order to intimidate and coerce people for political ends.

These exporters and executioners of terror endeavour to force comprehensive changes in a country within a relatively short time through collective violence directed at the power bases of the State. They strike at political, military, socioeconomic, cultural, psychological and international levels. Their revolutionary activities manifest themselves in various forms of which the central theme is violence and intimidation. This has already taken place in South Africa. That is why Umkhonto We Sizwe is in position and deeds of terror increased by more than 100% over the past three years.

The third phase of revolution is the mobilisation phase. During this phase the masses of normal, ordinary people are mobilised through radical, revolutionary propaganda, violent intimidation and even sheer terror. This is in preparation for the fourth and final phase, namely that of insurrection by the population against the government of the day. It is now evident that South Africa has also reached this mobilisation phase and if this is not stopped timeously, it will explode in a terrible, violent revolution. All of us present here today will, I am sure, agree that this must be prevented at all costs.

With this as background, let us now further examine the situation a situation which we must handle if we want to save our country from falling into the hands of Communist tyranny. It is a proven fact that the ultimate aim of the SACP and the ANC for South Africa is the following:

I want to enquire from hon members here this afternoon: Do hon members of this House want this for South Africa? Do we in South Africa want a socialist regime? Do we in South Africa want a classless Communist society? If the reply is “no”—and I know the reply will be “no”—then hon members must help me to prevent it in South Africa.

The SACP and the ANC have been declared illegal and they are not allowed to operate legally in South Africa. To do their dirty work they need legal fronts, and they have been organising this very effectively in our country. To prove this, I want to call an independent witness. It is the United States Information Service, in their publication called Problems of Communism, July/August 1987 says, inter alia, and I quote:

It further states, and I quote:

It continues:

This is not what we are saying; this is evidence by an independent witness.

Turning now to some of the organisations, I further want to point out that one cannot avoid noticing significant similarities between statements, utterances and doctrines of some of the organisations operating in the RSA and of movements such as the ANC, the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Students and the PAC.

Time does not allow me to carry on with this and prove to hon members what I have been trying to tell them, namely that we are fighting a revolutionary war against ruthless enemies who want to transform our country into a classless, communist society. We do not want this in South Africa.

In the few minutes left to me I wish to draw the attention of hon members to this poster that I have in my hands here. Its heading reads “We remember Rivonia and life-serving political prisoners.” As indicated here, this poster was supported by the Release Mandela Campaign, the UDF, Cosatu and the South African Youth Congress.

Let us take a closer look at the subject of the poster, namely the Rivonia trial. I do not think it is necessary for me to sketch the circumstances which led up to this trial—it is well known to hon members. I do, however, want to quote briefly from the decision of the ruling judge, the hon Mr Justice J P de Wet, Judge President at the time. He said:

When the accused were arrested a document entitled Operation Mayibuye (Operation Comeback) was found in a room of the house that they occupied. I quote further from Mr Justice de Wet’s ruling:

After a lengthy trial the learned judge finally remarked as follows:

These are the people whom organisations like the Release Mandela Campaign, the UDF, Cosatu and Sayco would like to remember and to honour.

Let us take a closer look at Sayco itself. I quote from the Africa International Communications Bulletin, No 17 of December 1987:

With all this in mind let us take a closer look at the following relevant issues. Are these organisations against apartheid? The reply is “yes”. Hon members in this House and their political parties are also opposed to apartheid and are fighting it. They are not restricted, however, because they do not use revolutionary and radical methods. The State President declared in Parliament—and therefore in public—more than two years ago that apartheid was an outdated concept. This Government and the majority of White voters accepted the concept and the principle of powersharing in 1983. This is like water to fire for apartheid. The ANC, the SACP and such organisations, however, are not interested in powersharing. They do not want to accept it and they do not want to come to the conference table so that we can discuss power-sharing with them.

Hon members may argue that it happens too slowly, but it is a fact that the SA Government is moving away from apartheid and that a process of reform unequalled in the history of South Africa has been launched by this Government. It is committed to the continuation of the process of reform and, insofar as it lies within its power, to carry it through to its logical consequences.

There is, however, a further disturbing occurrence taking place in South Africa today. On the right of the moderate peace-loving people are groups who call themselves the “Blanke bevrydingsbeweging (BBB)” and the “Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB)”. They blatantly and recklessly beat the drums of racial hatred and inter alia declare that in South Africa there is no place for moderates. They say radicals will decide the future of our country.

I want to emphasise, Mr Chairman,—if you will please give me a minute more to complete this— that there should be no illusion about this: Under the rule of radicalism and activism the only future which awaits this beautiful country of ours is violence, bloodshed and endless misery.

These organisations and individuals are hell-bent on inflaming the emotions of people in a most calculated and reckless manner for egoistic purposes and devious aims. This is objectionable and creates an image of the Afrikaner which is false and untrue. They are treading the dangerous and senseless path of confrontation and violence.

In making an urgent appeal for restraint and for those involved to come to their senses, I at the same time, however, wish to issue a stern warning: Stop this dangerous incitement of emotions and intimidatory actions before it is too late!

The Government is committed to protecting the moderate and peace-loving majority of South Africans against destructive radicalism and revolutionary activists. There are ample democratic channels through which real grievances can be aired and rectified.

Should no hint be taken of this urgent appeal, the Government cannot be blamed should it take action against such organisations and individuals. They leave us with no choice. We have a duty and responsibility towards all South Africans which we will pursue at all cost.

We are being accused of acting against the church. This is a blatant lie. South Africa is proud of its record of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion even forms part of our constitution. This will not be the case if any of these organisations, the SACP or the ANC, are in control of this country.

Today I wish to challenge any church in South Africa to prove to me and the world that they are in any manner whatsoever being curtailed in preaching and bringing the gospel to the people of South Africa. If these churches do not accept my challenge then South Africa and the whole world must accept and know that they are not telling the whole truth.

I have to date tabled some evidence of the actions and aims of certain organisations and individuals whose ideals are not ordinary democratic reform but violent revolution.

Time does not permit me to elaborate further but it is clear that this evidence is above reproach unless hon members do not want to believe it. It is from the documents of the ANC, the UDF itself as well as other independent and reliable sources. Further evidence will be put before the Supreme Court here in Cape Town shortly as four of these organisations are at this moment taking me to court. [Time expired.]

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

Mr Chairman, I move—

Mr Chairman, the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill is one of those Bills that was first considered by the Standing Committee for Constitutional Development and subsequently it was withdrawn and taken to the Standing Committee for Constitutional Affairs.

The Bill deals with a number of issues, particularly the question of upgrading certain courts. The Act is being amended to permit assistant and additional magistrates to act at the level of senior magistrates in that they will be able to hear these cases.

I should like to read the memorandum because the entire amendment relies upon the following issues:

Therefore, this allows all Black people to become registered owners of property. The memorandum goes on to say:

This is not a contentious Bill and it received the approval of hon members representing all the political parties in the standing committee. I do not believe this House will reject the Bill and I firmly believe the Bill will receive its approval.

Mr Chairman, I have the honour of being a member of the standing committee of which the hon member Mr Thaver is the deputy chairman. Whereas inevitably I do not always agree with everything he says both in the standing committee and in the House, I think it is right, since we always say we give credit where credit is due, that I should take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable contribution the hon member Mr Thaver makes in the standing committee, and the manner in which he assists the standing committee in its work.

As far as the hon the Minister is concerned, I want to tell this House very sincerely and in the most amicable manner that the hon the Minister is two-faced. Sometimes he has a nice, handsome, likeable face. Today, for instance, his face is a good one, but when he refuses group areas permits or when he threatens to prosecute people under the Group Areas Act, he shows the ugly face. Today, however, we welcome the nice face because this Bill is constructive and very helpful. Of course, this Bill is the end result of certain things that started way back in 1976. Here, too, I think it is right that credit should be given to certain illustrious South Africans who helped bring about the climate that led to the original Bill. I am referring here to Anton Rupert, Harry Oppenheimer, Jan Steyn, Dr R E Lee and people such as those who, through the Urban Foundation, did a tremendous amount of good work. Of course, I think credit should also be given to the present Government for having listened to the sensible, cogent arguments put forward by the representatives of the Urban Foundation which eventually led to the recognition that freehold land title should be granted to Black South Africans. That was done but, of course, it is perfectly understandable that when something is done for the first time there are problems in the practical administration. It is the practical difficulties that arose that led to this Bill and, certainly, once this Bill becomes law it will accelerate and facilitate the acquisition of land under freehold title by Black South Africans.

I do not want to appear to cavil because this is good legislation but I think we should move away from this concept of Black people having freehold title in their own residential areas. That is wrong because, after all, before the White man and the Asians came here and before the Coloureds were created—because, after all, they were made in South Africa—who occupied the land?

All of South Africa was the residential area of Black people. There might be some argument as to whether it was the Khoi Khoi or the Khoisan, or whether the Bantu tribes were here first, but certainly they were Black. Whether it was the Khoi Khoi or the Khoisan, they were Black! The Hottentots and Bushmen were Black people. They roamed this country as hunters. Therefore the whole of South Africa was their residential area. Therefore it is wrong at this point to restrict them to certain parts only.

I am not saying that Black people have any better right to South Africa than those who are not Black. I believe that everyone who is a South African has an equal right. By the same token, however, Black people must have exactly the same right as other people in South Africa. This is what the hon the Minister said in his speech, and I quote:

I emphasise the phrase “and to eliminate inequality”. When one eliminates inequality, naturally one fosters equality. Equality as such is a goal to be desired, but not even God makes us all equal. Clearly, then, what we mean here is equal opportunity.

Mr Chairman, you occupy a very august position in this august institution, but you do not have equal opportunity to go and live in Rondebosch or in Sea Point. If you did, the hon the Minister may say that he is sending the Police after you. This, then, is the wrong part.

I shall not dwell for too long on that particular aspect since I do not want to make the hon the Deputy Minister too embarrassed! However I do want to quote his own words again:

I applaud those words in the speech by the hon the Minister. I think it is high time that the Black people have a proper say in decision-making concerning matters which affect them, and every single thing that happens in this country affects all of us, including Black people. Obviously, then, they must have equality of opportunity in the political sphere as well.

Mr Chairman, I again want to say that in normal circumstances one would have been unhappy with some of the entrenchments of the concept of own affairs embodied in this particular Bill. However, I would like to believe that whereas the Black community of South Africa is denied the opportunity of ownership, and where they were put into a situation of bearing a tremendous disadvantage compared to the other race groups, one could not, therefore, object to them being given the right to ownership and having the townships declared in a much quicker and easier manner. This Bill covers that aspect.

I have something I should like to ask the hon the Minister. What does worry me in this regard is that this Bill, in order to circumvent the problem of having to go through lengthy processes in so far as the establishment of Black townships is concerned, now delegates some of the functions to the Minister. The Minister, in turn, can redelegate that particular function to the provinces.

What worries me is the question of who the hon the Minister is going to be at any given time. Depending on the attitude of the Minister, what might appear to be a short cut, might turn out to be a dead end. That is what worries me.

You might be the lucky one!

I note that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is offering carrots again. I am not interested in his carrots, thank you very much! [Interjections.]

I should like to continue by saying that the Minister again states in his speech that clause 8 states that—

In practical terms this means that the Administrator may also delegate certain of his powers to a Black member of his executive committee. I would like to submit to the hon the Minister that having made that speech, he is probably unaware of some of the situations that exist in the country. I mean that he is probably forgetting that Natal is part of South Africa. If he realised that, he would be aware that no Black is at present sitting on the executive committee of that province and that the people of Natal have held their indaba. He would also realise that this whole issue was addressed at that KwaZulu-Natal Indaba and a formal structure was proposed that would bring everybody together.

I referred earlier to the concept of own affairs and I would now like to address its entrenchment. There is already an anomaly in the hon the Minister’s speech, because what he says cannot be implemented in Natal. The hon the Minister must acknowledge that because there is no Black MEC in Natal. This brings me to the point that whilst this may be expedient for the time being, we must look at permanent solutions. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister, who represents the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning here, to realise the fact that the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba has a positive role to play in giving us real solutions for South Africa’s problems.

Mr Chairman, the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill before us addresses certain practical problems that confront the Black community. It also meets their human needs and is therefore a small step in the direction of reform.

In 1986 property rights were extended to the Black people of our country, but subsequent development encountered certain complications with regard to acquisition of ownership of property. The Bill before us facilitates, inter alia, the acquisition of ownership in individual erven in the existing residential areas, which were singled out in terms of the urban areas legislation of 1923 and 1945, which in terms of the principal Act are now deemed to be Towns. This is a constructive Bill and therefore I support it.

Mr Chairman, here we have another piece of legislation which I believe will be a forerunner to reform in South Africa. In supporting the measures in this particular Bill, one must also remember that we hope that the day is near when we will have no need of separate measures for separate communities. I also believe that this Bill may be a forerunner in regard to certain other ordinances and Acts concerning land issues that need to be changed. Some of these measures are aimed at regulating and introducing positive steps in the assistance of property rights of the Black communities and may also be of great assistance to the rest of South Africa.

This Bill addresses one very important issue, as stated by the hon the Minister as well as the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

That is that the aim of reform is to create an equitable system for all and to eliminate inequality. It also states that in the socio-economic sphere the aim is the development of communities, the elimination of discrimination, the promotion of private initiative and the meeting of human needs. Therefore, whilst it is the intention to extend property rights to the Black people, we must accept that this community has been deprived of the right to property ownership for far too long, and it immediately prevailed in South Africa that a climate of patriotism existed. No one can deny that this is the kernel of security for a family and for the country as a whole.

In this regard I want to quote Mr Cruywagen, who is the Administrator of the Transvaal. In 1977, when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, he stated the following:

Today these measures will, in fact, reinforce that particular statement, namely that we will have a stable community.

May I just remind this House that two issues must be borne in mind. The first of these is that the hon the State President has stated very clearly—and this is the direction he gave—that: “If you do not change, then you must be prepared to die”.

The second person who came out very clearly on this issue a month ago was the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who said: ‘“Love thy neighbour as thyself—for your own sake”. These are important issues and if people in South Africa take them to heart, then they can only lead to changes for the good. The future is, of course, bleak, as has been stated in this House and we do not know what lies ahead. However, if we take positive steps with regard to the reform initiative then measures in so far as property rights are concerned will create those changes and will, of course, also ensure a good future for us.

I believe the measures contained in this Bill provide us with enough initiative to make further changes so that the Black community, together with the rest of us, may create the dispensation in South Africa which is so urgently required.

In the debate just before this one, a tremendous amount was said about the problems we are facing in this country. I think what is needed is that people in South Africa should not be afraid of one another. The hon the Minister and the Cabinet must seize every initiative in an effort to make changes—not cosmetic changes but changes which are positive and visible. These are the only things which will bring about proper reform in South Africa and a stable community in which we will be able to live and be certain of the future towards which we are headed.

Order! Before I call upon the hon the Deputy Minister to speak, I should like to request the co-operation of hon members. I do not mind hon members conversing amongst themselves, as long as this is done inaudibly. One gains the impression, however, that hon members seem to be holding mini-meetings within the House, and I want to appeal to hon members to give the speakers a fair hearing and to refrain from conducting minimeetings within the House. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support. I want to mention the hon member Mr Thaver and the hon members for Reservoir Hills, Stanger, Camperdown and Red Hill. I also want to thank hon members who served on the standing committee for the work they did there. The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that it is good legislation that is before the House this afternoon. I want to agree with him that it is good legislation, but it also represents the good work of the standing committee and I want to thank those hon members for their work.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills underlined the words of my Second Reading speech, namely that the aim of reform is to create an equitable system for all and to eliminate inequality. The hon member for Red Hill also mentioned these words. I fully agree that all the people of South Africa must have equal opportunities; that is, they must have equal opportunities to have a place to live. They must be placed in a position, for instance, where they will have equal opportunities to live in a township, but also to have a house to live in. I think this is the aim of the Government, not to support the provision of houses for all the people of South Africa—I do not think that is possible—but to place all the people of South Africa in a position where they can have a house to live in.

The hon member for Stanger complained about the words in the Second Reading speech, namely that “the Bill does further intend to empower the Minister to take certain steps on his own initiative in order to expedite the opening of town registers.” I think that can be amended later on, but for a start it serves to expedite the opening of the town registers for the Black townships, something which does not exist at this moment.

I agree with the hon member for Stanger that there is no Black MEC for Natal. Natal is part of the Republic of South Africa, I agree, but today we have a Black MEC in the Transvaal, in the Cape Province and in the Orange Free State and I hope that Natal will follow soon.

I thank hon members of this House for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this is one of the omnibus Bills which came before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning. A wide range of matters are dealt with in this Bill. One of these concerns amending the relevant Act to provide for the participation of Blacks in the local government elections which take place toward the end of this year. Various other Acts are also being amended, such as the Provincial Government Act and legislation of that nature.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether, in creating these statutes for the various communities to take part in local government elections, it will become possible for him to create one electoral Act in which all communities can be incorporated, to take part in the decision-making process of municipalities as one entity. Electoral Acts have been created for various communities. I think this was strongly opposed at the standing committee level by hon members of this House and as a result thereof the entire Bill has been put in cold storage. I think the hon the Minister must understand that local government is a very important institution where various communities are represented, have certain vested rights and pay rates and taxes.

I think they must be able to create a municipality where all communities have a share in the decision-making process. The hon the Minister must know himself and he should advise his department that they should move away from some of these apartheid structures. This particular Bill is such an apartheid structure.

Although we do have serious objections to this Bill because there is a need for the elections to take place towards the end of this year, we will support this Bill in general.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member Mr Thaver that this is a constructive Bill. It is more in the nature of a clearing-up or a housekeeping Bill to remove certain anomalies that existed in various pieces of legislation. I do not think there can be any criticism of those who drafted the legislation initially because, as everyone knows, it is only as a result of the application of legislation that the anomalies become apparent.

In one respect it is actually a tremendous improvement. In the Black areas in South Africa we used to have administration boards. These were changed to town boards or community councils. Then they were upgraded to town councils. Now, quite rightly, they will be called city councils if they are large enough, in exactly the same way that local authorities are referred to as city councils in other areas. That is something to be welcomed.

Certain aspects we are not terribly happy about but these were not created by this Bill. I am now referring to the local government bodies where the consultative committees, management committees, etc, are categorised as local government bodies. We are still unhappy with that concept because we are afraid that the hon the Minister and his colleague may try to impose what is referred to as “autonomy” but which really means “racially separated local authorities” according to the doctrine of apartheid. That fear is always present and that we object to.

When we approved of this Bill we did not realise fully that in terms of clause 5 of the Bill which allows the administrator and the provincial secretary to delegate powers, the Government can actually get in through the back-door and do something wrong and that is to delegate powers to members of the executive committees to deal with certain matters on an apartheid basis. They have not done it yet but it seems as though they are contemplating it. I now want to ask the hon the Minister that they must please not do it. If powers are going to be delegated to members of the executive committee let it be done on the basis of functions and not race. One member could be in charge of hospitals and another in charge of roads in exactly the same way that members of the executive committees had authority delegated to them in terms of functions under the old provincial system.

In terms of the clauses relating to the provincial government I think hon members will realise that mechanisms can be created for provinces to be subdivided. This is something which we look forward to because it is high time that the great aim of dividing South Africa into nine provinces so that there will be proper regionalisation—not racialisation—and devolution of power to the territorily reduced—they are not reduced in stature—provincial councils, can come into effect.

The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act has been amended to bring it up to date and to give more authority to the executive. That authority is necessary because squatters of whatever race or colour they may be create a health nuisance and that cannot be tolerated. In that respect the duty devolves upon the hon the Minister and his department to see to it that squatters do not create a nuisance and they should through the various local authorities exercise the powers that they have, and the additional powers which are going to be granted to them, to eliminate the nuisance.

Obviously when people squat one does not bulldoze their shacks, pack them onto trucks and dump them in the country as is done in Zambia today and as used to be done in South Africa a while ago. Obviously they have to be resettled so that their squatting can be eliminated.

Because this Bill is in most parts good we have no hesitation in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I just want to make a few comments before resuming my seat. The one comment I should like to make is in respect of what the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to.

This Bill goes on to define local government bodies and the whole concept is based on a racial definition. I think the hon the Minister is fully aware of our thinking in this particular regard. I am beginning to wonder when his department is going to get down to some serious work and start addressing our aspirations. We are not prepared to go on passing legislation that is based on race.

As the hon the member for Reservoir Hills said, these amendments themselves do not create that situation. I think we want stability and if the hon the Minister had been here in an earlier debate he would have realised that we canvassed various issues in relation to reform and what we perceive ought to be done by the State to address the whole spiral of violence in this country.

If one does not have reform at local government level one can have as many joint committees on a multiracial basis even including Blacks, it will not help. Unless and until reform is felt at the primary level of government where there is the greatest interaction between people of colour and the White community, all the other exercises and experiments will come to nought. I think the department should take serious heed of these doubts and should get down to something meaningful. I do not think we should start selling the idea of multiracialism on a horizontal basis. I think it should be on a vertical basis starting right at the top.

I also want to comment on and reinforce the arguments—even in this Bill—on the question of Natal. The hon the member for Reservoir Hills also referred to this question and I quote from the speech of the hon the Minister:

It would appear that the truth is coming out now. Am I being told in this speech that when a Black MEC—I grant there are none in Natal—does become a member of the provincial executive of Natal, he is going to be in charge of local authorities for members of his own community? Is that what is intended by this particular Bill?

I believe that there is joint responsibility between the Administrator and the executive. Why, then, is this type of suggestion being made here? I always thought that the provincial authorities dealt with general affairs.

I agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills that this is the back door for bringing in own affairs at that level. I do realise that in the Transvaal the provincial executive works on a portfolio basis according to which members of the executive committee are assigned certain administrative functions. This helps to remedy that situation. I understand that. However, I would like the hon the Minister to explain this particular part of the speech because I am not particularly happy about it. I would like the hon the Minister to give us an assurance that that is not the way it is going to be done.

I would also like to ask the hon the Minister not to be so enthusiastic about the Demarcation Board. Perhaps he does feel enthusiastic about this board, because prior to the last general election in May for the House of Assembly, the hon member for Southern Natal said Prospecton was going to be part of Amanzimtoti. Indeed, that is exactly what happened. Is that what is making the hon the Minister so enthusiastic about the Demarcation Board, when he refers to it on page 4 of his speech?

I would like to advise the hon the Minister that we—the Indian community—are not particularly enchanted with what the Demarcation Board has done, especially in the Isipingo area. I want the hon the Minister to know that at the time the legislation was introduced to enable the Demarcation Board to be established, I as spokesman for the party I belong to had discussions with his officials—I shall not mention any names—and they highlighted the fact that one of the anomalies had been the question of Prospecton which was attached to Amanzimtoti. They believed that the correct and honourable thing was for Prospecton to be part of Isipingo and that the Demarcation Board would address that very problem.

I have said before, and I want to repeat it, that even a person who is half blind in one eye and completely blind in the other would come to the conclusion that Prospecton ought to be part of Isipingo. However, the Demarcation Board sat there and in fact retained Prospecton as part of Amanzimtoti. They did not even consider giving part of that industrial revenue to Isipingo. The reason for this is that that area generates close on five million rand in rates and taxes. Those rates and taxes are now being retained for Amanzimtoti and for a particular group, namely, the White race group which controls Amanzimtoti. We, therefore, are not very enthusiastic about the Demarcation Board. I would suggest to the hon the Minister that when he refers to the Demarcation Board with that enthusiasm, he remember that he is a general affairs Minister representing three Houses and sometimes obtain our views and have some appreciation of the way we feel about this matter.

That is by way of comment in respect of the speeches. I would like to warn the hon the Minister that those appointed to the demarcation boards should be very carefully screened to ensure that they know about and have experience of an area, and that they have experience of the work they are supposed to do. Appointments should not be made merely on a political basis and in order to carry out the political wishes and ideologies of a particular party or group.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support and, again, for their contributions in this debate, the hon member Mr Thaver and the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Stanger.

Allow me to repeat the last two paragraphs of the Second Reading speech. In that speech I said:

We fully accept the need for change. This may be a small step, yet it is a necessary step to be taken. I would also like to thank the hon members for their work in the standing committee to bring this legislation before this House.

The hon members for Reservoir Hills and Stanger referred to the Executive Committees, and I want to inform them that at present there is a new system at provincial government level. The Executive Committees are working on a committee system so that there will be a committee for hospitals, one for roads etc. There will also be a committee dealing with Black affairs. We now find the position that MEC’s of other population groups can even become chairmen of such committees. We find this in the Cape Province and in the Transvaal. Thus we may find a Black person as chairman of the committee dealing with Black affairs. Therefore race and colour do not play a role in the system of the executive committees at provincial government level.

I would like to thank hon members and I think I have answered most of their points in brief.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, in keeping with its title, this Bill was so friendly at the standing committee, that the whole exercise with the friendly hon Deputy Minister present took us no longer than five minutes.

This Bill serves to amend the Friendly Societies Act of 1956 which has become obsolete because of present circumstances. It has two main clauses. The first one serves to amend the provisions of the Insurance Act of 1943 so as to increase the maximum limit of benefit that may be provided by a Friendly Society, and also to deregulate many of the provisions of the Act. Some friendly societies with an annual turnover of less than R100 000 will not be subject to the provisions of the old Act. As I said, this Bill is very friendly and it took the standing committee very little time to agree upon it. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the amendments provide for friendly societies whose income is less than R100 000 per annum to be exempted from most of the requirements of the friendly societies Act. This is in keeping with the Government’s proposed spirit of deregulation. A further amendment is clause 3, which provides for a friendly society to be converted into a company so that it can be registered as such. The Bill proposes to make it easy for smaller groups to enter the market. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us amends the Insurance Act of 1943 and the Friendly Societies Act of 1956. Both of these are administered by the Financial Institutions Office. The amendments augment certain shortcomings in the existing Acts and are aimed at better regulation of present-day situations that concern the friendly societies industry.

Members of these friendly societies take an exceptional interest in the affairs of their societies. As a consequence it is possible to further deregulate the friendly society’s industry. The proposed amendment provides for friendly societies with an income of less than R100 000 per annum to be exempted from certain stringent provisions of the Act. For the complete protection of members of the friendly societies, the Act is being amended to prescribe by regulation that exempted societies shall have appropriate rules and keep adequate records disclosing financial information according to prescribed guidelines and submit them to members at the annual general meeting.

Basically, friendly societies offer insurance benefits to members. Provisions are inserted into the Act to enable a friendly society to be converted into a registered insurer which will be a fully-fledged financial institution and in terms of the Assurance Act of 1943 friendly societies may pay members by way of benefits to an annual maximum not exceeding R144 per annum or in the case of death of a member, societies are restricted to paying a lump sum not exceeding R1 000.

Amendments in this Bill provide for the benefit to be increased to a maximum annuity of R720 per annum or a lump sum of R5 000 excluding accrued bonuses.

We support the Bill, Sir.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE (Dr G Marais): I wish to thank the friendly supporters of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.