Mr Speaker, I wish to thank you for granting me the opportunity of making two short statements.

During the course of parliamentary proceedings, disagreement between Houses may arise, for example when one House passes a Bill and the others reject or amend it. In such an event the Constitution makes provision for the State President to refer the matter to the President’s Council for its decision.

That does not mean, however, that as soon as such disagreement arises, referral to the President’s Council will follow as a matter of necessity. The Constitution invests the State President with a power which is exercised with great discretion and in view of all the circumstances.

Apart from the fact that a decision to refer a Bill to the President’s Council is not taken lightly, the Council itself is granted certain powers in the event of such a referral. In the case of a specific Bill, the Council may refer the matter to one of its committees.

Subsequently, the Council may either decide that the Bill in question has to be signed by the State President or that it is not to be signed. The Council may also decide to advise the State President that the Bill be amended or dealt with in a manner as recommended. Ultimately, the matter may therefore once more become the subject of parliamentary debate in order to achieve consensus.

It is therefore evident that the President’s Council does not serve merely to ensure the acceptance of legislation. Moreover, it is my viewpoint that before a matter is referred to the President’s Council for its decision, the highest possible degree of consensus should be achieved through deliberation. As I have indicated, such referral to the President’s Council does not necessarily preclude the possibility of consensus.

The Constitution also provides that the State President may withdraw the referral of a Bill from the President’s Council before the Council gives its decision on the matter. It appears as if it was initially foreseen that, despite the referral to the President’s Council, it is possible to reach a parliamentary solution to the matter in the meantime.

I do not intend to refer the National Roads Amendment Bill and the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill, which were accepted by the House of Assembly but rejected by the other Houses, to the President’s Council for decision. It would have been desirable if these Bills could have come before Parliament again during the present parliamentary session.

At present this is not possible. In the event of a decision by the State President not to refer a Bill to the President’s Council, Parliament should be in a position to reconsider the matter during that same session. I am of the opinion that Parliament should consider amending its Standing Rules accordingly.

This will be in the best interests of the consensus approach and the parliamentary system as a whole.

As far as the second statement is concerned, the following: The Government is fully aware of the fact that employees of the State made a substantial sacrifice in the interests of the country’s economy when a general salary adjustment could not be granted to them this year, and would like to express its appreciation for the way in which this was generally received.

During the past few years, however, the inpocket position of State employees has benefited in the struggle against increases in the cost of living, and specifically because of the following factors, ie the significant decrease in the inflation rate which, for example, has decreased from 25% to 12,6% at present, on a quarterly basis, since the first quarter of 1986; the considerable income tax reductions of more than R2,7 billion in total, calculated on an annual basis, granted during the past two years; and adjustments specific to certain professional categories granted during the past two years to several categories of State employees, adjustments totalling more than R1,2 billion, again calculated on an annual basis.

Despite this, the Government is aware that a large number, in fact perhaps the majority, of State employees are experiencing difficulties and that there are even cases of people not having enough to eat. The same applies to pensioners who are dependent on the State for their incomes.

As an employer the State offers many benefits which should be taken into account when assessing remuneration. Apart from the major benefit of job security, for example, the State also offers, amongst other things, attractive leave, medical, housing and pension benefits. In recent years, when tens of thousands of workers in the private sector lost their jobs owing to a low level of economic growth, not a single employee of the State was dismissed for any such reason. That is an important benefit which one should never lose sight of.

When a situation develops, however, which on the one hand entails privation on the personal and family level owing to means of livelihood which are lacking, and on the other a pattern of remuneration which is seriously out of step with market trends, resulting in the loss of expert and vitally needed manpower, the Public Service inevitably becomes anxious and unhappy. Such a Public Service cannot serve a country properly, particularly not a country like South Africa in which the State has such an enormous task involving development and upliftment, in conjunction with its administrative duties.

The Government is, in fact, aware that for a variety of reasons salary increases outside the Public Service have continued virtually unabated and that this has led directly to a considerable exodus of State employees to the private sector.

It also goes without saying that one cannot allow this backlog to develop too far. The Government has therefore decided to advance the general salary increases for State employees, which were to have been granted on 1 April 1989, to 1 January 1989. This general improvement in conditions of service applies to everyone who is remunerated by the Treasury. The Government trusts that this step will promote the objectives of relieving personal hardship and establishing a sounder balance in the levels of remuneration between the public and the private sectors.

The total amount, calculated on an annual basis, which will be involved in this overall adjustment of approximately 15%, is in the region of R3 billion.

The question of further adjustments for specific professional groups is a matter for the ensuing financial year, 1989-90. Consequently the affordability and extent of those adjustments will be dealt with in the next Main Budget submitted to Parliament in March 1989, with implementation taking place in the course of the 1989-90 financial year.

In conjunction with this, expenditure of approximately R790 million—calculated on an annual basis—for an increase in social pensions, and an amount of approximately R160 million for an increase in civil and military pensions, which will also be granted to everyone on 1 January 1989, is envisaged.

As far as social pensions are concerned, this means an increase of 15% or R32,70 per month for White social pensioners. Social pensioners of the other population groups will likewise be receiving increases of R32,70 per month.

In the case of civil pensioners, increases will apply to all those whose date of retirement is prior to or on 1 January 1989—i e whose last working day is 31 December 1988. This embodies an increase of 1% for every full year after retirement, as at 31 December 1988, subject to a minimum increase of 10%.

The pensions of military pensioners will also be increased by 15% with effect from 1 January 1989.

It is clear that the overall financial extent of these concessions is quite considerable and that this will afford substantial relief for a very large number of people in our country. This is the absolute maximum adjustment that can be made in the present circumstances, particularly in view of the pressing international conditions and the politically motivated action being taken against our economy.

Naturally the Cabinet only took these important decisions on the basis of complete unanimity and after a whole series of circumstances and the possible implications of these steps had been thoroughly analysed and considered. In fact, this represents the best available balance between the interests of State employees and the pensioners on the one hand and the country as a whole on the other.

Against the background of well-known economic and financial strategies and objectives of the Government, the most important considerations which were borne in mind were those of the present state of the economy and expected developments in this sphere during the next year or so, the effect of this adjustment on the economy, and what is probably the most important consideration, the method of financing these adjustments.

Since these salary and pension increases have considerable budgetary implications for both this year and next year, the hon the Minister of Finance has been involved throughout, and up to his departure last Friday for the annual general meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in Berlin, he was very closely involved in the necessary investigation, calculations and discussions.

At the request of the hon the Minister of Finance, however, further announcements on the financing of these increases and other related aspects will stand over until he returns from abroad. He and his advisers, the majority of whom are accompanying him to Berlin, will then put the finishing touches to their views and recommendations in the light of further available information and the then prevailing circumstances, and submit their views and recommendations to the Cabinet for approval. Further announcements can subsequently be made.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity which you have granted me.

Mr Speaker, inevitably the debate we are going to conduct now has important implications for Parliament and for the country. I hope it will be possible to conduct this discussion in the spirit of the opening remarks made by the hon the State President.

†This is a very important week indeed in the history of our country. This week commemorates the tenth year of acceptance by the hon the State President of the highest executive position in our country. It is obviously true that many commentators in this regard will hold different views as to the import of this decade in the history of South Africa. I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the diversity of opinion as to what has happened in our country over ten years during his term of office, it will be the unanimous view of all fairminded and objective observers that he has launched and guided a process of reform unprecedented in the history of our country, with farreaching effects for the future.

This process of reform aims at the development of systems which strengthen the values we uphold, which aim to free people and which will ensure our peaceful coexistence.

It has never been argued that this process of reform will be an easy one. It is not opportune today to discuss the many financial, emotional and political obstacles which confront any government or any individual embarking on the process and the road of reform. I believe that the difficulties of reform were aptly put by Machiavelli when he said the following:

It is also generally conceded that the process of reform will have to embrace all facets of life, if it is in fact to ensure stability, growth and development. It therefore follows, I believe, that this process cannot be limited to any particular sphere of human activity but should include the social and economic components of South African life and our South African society.

I do not propose to list the achievements of the past decade in many fields. Suffice it to say that the face of South Africa has in fact been changed, and I would hope that the hearts of South Africans have also changed in this process. Without the last the rest would be just a passing parade of no value and no substance.

Not only did South Africans—and most of them for that matter—opt for change and reform, but they also made a choice for the process of reform. They made a choice about the way in which that reform should take place. They have therefore opted for a peaceful negotiated settlement of the many issues that confront our peoples and our nation. They have chosen the road of negotiation instead of confrontation. I hope and trust that this debate on a very sensitive issue will confirm this perception that I hold of South Africa. I trust and pray that we who are gathered here today will be the witnesses of that process and that choice.

They have chosen the road of peaceful settlement against violence and turbulence. I understand the enormous impediments confronting the leaders from different political persuasions. I understand the impediments confronting the leaders from different cultural and ethnic descent and from different groups and different constituencies, and the aspirations of these groups and these constituencies. The faint-hearted might easily be daunted by the enormity of these obstacles but I will say that it will be a dereliction of our duty if we do not seek compromises and solutions, notwithstanding these impediments and notwithstanding these obstacles.

The best evidence to substantiate our choice of peaceful negotiations and constitutional development is the fact that we meet here today in joint session after the leading parties in the various Houses have come to an agreement to deal with the Bills this week within the Constitution and within the procedures and rules of Parliament. We are gathered here in joint session to give a demonstration of the orderly parliamentary manner in which we wish government functions to proceed.

We are also gathered in this debating chamber to discuss some of the most sensitive issues of our South African society. The very fact that we are prepared to discuss these issues in a joint debate is a victory for Parliament. I would say it is a victory for order, for fairness and for justice. It is a victory for the politics of co-operation. It is indeed, inadequate as it might be, a victory for the Constitution and the people who participate in it.

By gathering here today we once again confirm our choice in favour of peaceful and constitutional change and, I trust, we prove our determination to make a success of the journey ahead.

We accept furthermore that in order to be meaningful and enduring, change must be brought about by Parliament itself. All parties in Parliament agree that this Parliament and this Constitution must change so as to ensure that other communities and peoples not included in these processes can participate in and become jointly responsible for those matters that affect the lives of all South Africans.

By our presence here today we confirm that Parliament itself is the instrument which has to effect those changes. With this we loudly and clearly send a message to everybody outside Parliament that we reject violence as a solution. We loudly and clearly send a message that we are pursuing constitutional change and that we shall do so by using Parliament as our instrument. It is indeed incumbent upon us that we should all put this message across unequivocally.

For meaningful participation in this debate it is necessary—regardless of how difficult it might be—to understand the realities of South Africa and our South African society, and no wishful thinking will change that reality. I do not even believe that we should try to do so, but I believe it is the duty of the peoples of this country to live with one another as God created them.

This reality is that we have mutual, common and national interests in this country. However, we also have community interests. As far as our mutual interests are concerned, the emphasis must be and is on the interdependence of our peoples, our joint economy and our common fatherland. This also includes our right to joint participation in decision-making on national issues.

It includes our pursuit, I believe, of institutions where such joint responsibility can be shared and proper and orderly government can be ensured. Our common interests imply that there must be sound inter-group relations, good communication and continuous consultation. The emphasis is on friendly co-operation.

May I say this: This is not only the responsibility of government; it is also the responsibility of all leaders in South Africa and indeed the responsibility of all the communities in this country. The emphasis is therefore on fairness. Our objective should be that double standards do not apply to opportunities, education, training, wages and salaries, labour, health, housing and sport.

The second reality is obviously the existence of community interests within our heterogeneous society. The South African population, whether we like it or not, is made up of various groups and various communities that have different backgrounds, traditions, cultures, interests, desires and expectations. Let me say that there is nobody in this House who denies the existence of these groups. There is nobody in this House who, in his political philosophy, does not want to cater for the reality of these groups.

Because of this reality we pursue systems whereby domination can be eliminated and the interests of groups can be protected, not at the expense of others but to the mutual advantage of everybody. This reality requires that government plays a regulatory role with the aim of protecting group interests on the one hand and of enabling joint decision making to take place on matters of common interest on the other. This must be done at the constitutional level as well as the social and economic levels. Measures that affect the use and occupation of land form such a regulatory function of government.

The Bills that we are debating this week also have this function in mind. The Bills must reflect and treat the existence of common and community interests in a manner mutually acceptable to all. I understand that in the discussion of the subject matter of this particular Bill we are dealing with the most sensitive issues in the process of reform, issues on which various communities hold different views. I have no doubt that these different views will be expressed in the course of this debate.

To reconcile these many and divergent approaches requires wise leadership and wise leaders indeed, as well as people committed to the interests of this country. It relates to one of the most basic facets of the South African society; it also relates to one of the issues that has a conflict potential greater than anything else. The measure is, however, one of the most important socio-economic reform measures of the past decade.

Once again, as I have already stated, the Bills before us are not goals in themselves. The same principle applies to existing measures that regulate the settlement of land. These laws did not introduce a new concept, namely own residential areas for all groups, but merely recognised the existing residential pattern of our society. [Interjections.]

This is the principle involved. With this I do not deny the existence of a perception that some of these laws have been unjustly applied. I do not deny the perception, whether justified or not …

It is not a perception!

… that their implementation may have caused hardship and bitterness.

It is out there for all to see!

Sir, when members of the Indian and Coloured communities tell me that this Act has hurt them, I understand them. [Interjections.] My argument, however—I would ask hon members to understand this and at least afford me the ordinary courtesy when introductory speeches are delivered—does not apply to the implementation of the law, but to the principle, namely the necessity of recognising and safeguarding community and common interests.

Against this background I wish to state immediately that this attitude must not be interpreted as an inflexible approach and as though everything should forever remain unchanged. Through its policy of reform, the Government is changing the status quo in all spheres of life, with the aim of improving the quality of life of all South Africans.

By definition, Sir, this objective cannot be achieved whilst retaining the status quo. When we want to address the realities of common and community interests, it also implies that the reality itself should be addressed.

*That is why it is our express standpoint that laws are not sacred cows that can never change. [Interjections.] We are not clinging blindly to existin g laws as if they are unchangeable. To believe that would mean that we regarded society as static and stagnant, and surely that cannot apply. The fact that a law was deemed necessary in a specific form at one stage does not mean that it can never be amended or even repealed. Laws exist to serve a community and to regulate the community. The community can never be a slave to laws. A law must reflect and interpret the prevailing needs, circumstances and ideals, however, and the more involved the community is, the more involved this regulatory process will be.

If a law no longer complies with these requiremerits, it must be adapted or repealed, and new measures which can meet the new circumstances and a new approach must be taken. Because the Government is reforming to the advantage of everyone, and because it has to comply with prevailing conditions in this regulatory function, the measures applicable to the settlement of communities are constantly being adapted.

This was associated with certain investigations in the recent past. I am referring to the investigations made by the President’s Council as well as the Strydom Committee. Information and evidence were received and there was consultation across a broad spectrum in this process.

What these representations amounted to on the one hand was that certain communities wanted their own community life to be protected. On the other hand the evidence and representations indicated that there were other South Africans who preferred to settle on the basis of free association. This Bill grants recognition to both approaches and to the desires of various communities.

Consequently the Bill is not doing away with the existing living or residential patterns, and communities can still maintain their own community lives with the support of the Government. At the same time, however, the Bill acknowledges the need of those who want to settle freely, and creates the mechanisms that will make it possible for them to exercise that choice.

In that respect the Bill represents a fundamental adjustment to our approach to the control over residential areas and residential patterns. The need for free association is acknowledged by all three Houses. I want to emphasise that free association in respect of residential areas is not possible without this Bill.

Over a long period representations have been addressed from various quarters and standpoints have been adopted on the possibility of open or grey areas. If provision is to be made for such circumstances, the acceptance of the Bill before us will be essential to make this possible.

However, I want to make it very clear—to the left and to the right—that the Bill implies that those who insist on freedom of choice with regard to their own free settlement will have to acknowledge and respect the freedom of choice of those who prefer a different community life.

On the other hand the Bill implies that those who desire an own community life will not regard the group concept in such an absolutistic way that there can be no flexibility in its implementation. Narrow-mindedness and bigotry tend to ignore and misunderstand the rights, beliefs and ideals, and ultimately even to question the right of existence, of others. This kind of approach to the reality of groups is not held or supported by the Government. The Government has accepted that there must also be greater flexibility in other spheres, and what is more, this has been the case. The Government has adopted the point of departure that the reality of various groups and communities in our society must be acknowledged, but need not be enforced inflexibly. By means of this Bill, this flexible approach in respect of the group basis of society is also being extended to residential areas and residential patterns.

What about the schools?

Oh, Mr Speaker, perhaps it would be a good thing if certain people went back to school. [Interjections.]

In this way a certain need is being met. I want to emphasise that what is at issue is not the Government’s approach to a few problem areas that have to be dealt with. What is at issue is the principle of free association that has to be accommodated by the Bill according to the needs of the community.

†It is accordingly important that the initiative for the proclamation of free settlement areas should, in the first place, come from the local communities themselves. In addition the relevant Ministers’ Council will have to concur with any of these proposals. [Interjections.] On account of the sensitivities and complexities involved, it will not be possible to forecast in detail which areas may be considered for proclamation, but a number of potential areas for investigation come to mind.

The whole of South Africa.

In the Durban metropolitan area, for example, the following areas could conceivably be considered for investigation by the Free Settlement Areas Board, provided that there is adequate support from the local communities for such proposals. These areas are an area east of the Greyville racecourse commonly known as Block AK; the Maryvale area adjoining Westville; parts of the Mariannhill area west of the mission station and a part of the Harrison Flats area.

In the PWV area, once again subject to the support of the local community, consideration could be given to the proclamation of a number of the following alternatives, viz: parts of Hillbrow, Doornfontein and Joubert Park; a part of Mayfair; the Diepsloot area to the west of Midrand; an area adjoining the site of the Development Bank in Midrand, and the IronsydeWaterdal area adjacent to Sebokeng.

In the Cape metropolitan area the proclamation of the previously open area of District Six—or Zonnebloem/Lower Woodstock—as a free settlement area would, I am sure, be welcomed for investigation by all of us.

In the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area consideration could be given to the possibility of investigating the Fairview area west of Walmer as a potential free settlement area. [Interjections.] *In this way the Government is also being faithful to its own points of departure. The Government believes that minority and group rights should be protected and that an own community life must be made possible for communities. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

We not only believe that this must be made possible, but also that those communities are entitled to the Government’s protection of those choices. At the same time the Government believes that the individual’s fundamental rights must be protected and that an effective balance must be maintained between individual and group rights in our country. The Government believes that a certain freedom of choice for the individual within a group-orientated community contributes to achieving that balance. On this basis we are ensuring that group differentiation is not a purpose in itself, but a protective mechanism in a heterogeneous society. We are not pursuing group differentiation at all costs and to the detriment of people. We are using it as a reality of our society in order to prevent friction, unhappiness and tension.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of saying that the identification of land for residential purposes, in the first place, and the identification of land for specific population groups will have to take place much more quickly. I concede that the shortage of land for specific communities—or often the alleged shortage of land— creates artificial prices for people who often can least afford it. In fact, in many cases there has been an oversupply of housing for one group and an undersupply of housing for another.

The result of this was that unacceptable circumstances developed for all the people and all the communities. That is precisely why my department received instructions to develop procedures to expedite the process of identifying land.

That is why we say that if group differentiation in a specific sphere leads to the impairment of certain people’s human dignity and to discrimination, it does not prevent friction, but causes it. We shall adjust this and eliminate it.

The legislation before us is obviously fundamental legislation. It affects the basis of our society— not to try to do away with existing residential and living patterns, but to try to build a certain flexibility into our legislation in order to promote healthier relations between groups and orderliness in our residential areas.

We hope and trust that this meeting will approach this Bill and its discussion in this spirit. Parliament does not honour its obligation to the country only when the legislative programme is debated. Parliament also honours its obligation when it takes the correct decisions at the right time.

This Bill once again challenges us to make the correct decision at the right time. I believe that everyone in this Parliament will display the leadership of taking the correct decision.

Mr Speaker, let us understand very clearly the role that my party has to play in this parliamentary situation. We have made no secret as to why we have opted to participate within the tricameral system. It is because the present set-up is totally unacceptable to us and because we want to change the face of South Africa so that this country can take its rightful place in the world community. We opted for this simply because we believe that the other option available to us is totally unacceptable to the rest of South Africa.

*We did not come here to destroy South Africa, but to transform South Africa into a country that would be fully acceptable to the rest of the world.

Do not expect me to speak in favour of apartheid this morning. Do not expect me to stand by while we repeat the mistakes of the past.

Hear, hear!

Let us learn from history. The mistakes of the past should be the educators of the future. It is too expensive for us in this day and age still to think in terms of dressing the Group Areas Act in a new dress. If the Group Areas Act has been a failure—the hon the Minister has just admitted it—then what we need is for a big person to stand up here and say: I declare that my intention is to destroy that which has cost South Africa and its people so much.

It is a pity that at this late hour we are still trying to sell the Group Areas Act in some form or other. We came here with good intentions, and certainly with honest intentions, to destroy that which will destroy us if we do not destroy it. We expect this historic occasion to be the forerunner of the total destruction of apartheid, and in this instance particularly the Group Areas Act.

South Africa will never be the same again. So many of us have said this. Let us look at what South Africa must look like if South Africa is to become totally acceptable to all its people. South Africa and its people belong together. We cannot continue to act out separate roles. I find that disturbing.

When I came to Parliament in 1984 I was one of those who voted for the hon the State President as State President of South Africa, and not State President of a section of South Africa. I would have expected this morning to listen to a State President calling for the unification of all the people of South Africa. There must be no other priorities. We must be seen to be in the process of building that South African nation, because if we do not do that, we are going to perish as fools.

It is because of our great love for South Africa and its people that my party is prepared to play its role. We are prepared to do this at great sacrifice. Hon members should not forget that a bomb was thrown at the house of the hon the leader of the Labour Party just the other day. However, that did not deter him from going overseas to defend South Africa. Only a great man is able to do such a thing. It is because of the love that we display for South Africa and its people that we have to take a decision here. Today when we debate this. Free Settlement Areas Bill, it will be an historic occasion.

I think we are in a position to set the pace for the reform process that will become acceptable, not only nationally but internationally as well. If we have the interests of South Africa at heart, we must move away from this cocoon mentality.

*We can no longer think in terms of a “Boerestaat”. We can no longer think in terms of a Namaqualand for the Coloured people.

†That will not work. It is totally unacceptable. We have to understand that we are not an island. We cannot survive on our own. [Interjections.] The mistakes of 1948 must not be repeated 40 years later. We cannot afford to waste 40 years of our lives and 40 years of our country’s history. If we have paid the price, let us at least say that we have learned a lesson. Let us not have paid the price for nothing.

I certainly came here this morning to debate the Group Areas Act. However, I am not prepared to talk about free settlement areas and I want to question the wisdom of having rearranged the debates. There must be reasons, but I am not going to examine those reasons. I know that truth will prevail in the end.

Our presence here this morning, however, is indicative of our sincerity to destroy that which is evil. I want to assure hon members that we will play that role in this Parliament. We will not rest until all people have the right to live where they choose to live and have the right to choose those whom they wish to represent them in a parliament of their choice.

We have time on our side, but we should not waste that valuable time with futile exercises. We must look at what happened during this session of Parliament when we tried to outsmart each other, and accept that we can never outsmart South Africa. I believe one should be big enough to admit that the debates which took place in the House of Assembly were a mistake, another mistake, and a mistake that we can ill afford.

The other two Houses of Parliament that form an integral part of this Parliament are owed an apology. A debate as sensitive as that and one which touches the heart of every South African is the business of all South Africa. All South Africans should therefore have the right to take part in this debate.

*After all, we are the only ones who have paid the price of apartheid, and especially the price of the Group Areas Act. However, we are no longer prepared to go on paying such a high price for apartheid. The price we have to pay for separate areas is too high.

†The sooner people are brought closer together, the sooner we are going to start resolving the problems of South Africa. It must be understood that the minority is certainly not more important than the majority! If one is to govern, one should govern in the interests of all people, and not govern to satisfy the interests of a small fragment of people. Those who do not belong together cannot be brought together.

*However, it is important that the majority of the people of South Africa—Afrikaners—want to be united. We are obstructing the unification of South Africa, however.

†One should be truthful this morning and admit that, although the idea of free settlement areas is a good one, we are not expressing this philosophy in its totality because South Africa should be a free settlement area.

Mr Speaker, since the adjournment of Parliament there has been countrywide speculation as to the reasons for our having to gather here today and once again debate the same Bills which are virtually unchanged with regard to contents, objectives and provisions.

It is true that the NP were firmly convinced that their actions with regard to debating this Bill in their own House were entirely valid, and that they had acted in terms of the Constitution and the Rules of Parliament. It is true that these Bills would have had to be passed by means of the President’s Council, but it is also true that in this case the Bills in question will have to go the same way, namely through the President’s Council. That we already know.

If the aim is simply to give the other two Houses an opportunity to participate in a joint debate, as was alleged here a moment ago, we do not understand why, if this was considered so important and if that was the motivation, the governing party could not accede to the simple request for a joint debate, since that is now being done. In our opinion, all the obvious questions lead to the same unsatisfactory answer. For this reason one must ask what is behind the whole matter and what agreement was entered into, because it is clear that this has nothing to do with the contents of the legislation. If such an agreement has been entered into behind the scenes, we would of course not be aware of it now, but we would discover it later.

Possibilities which come into prominence, as raised by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, include the acceptance of the fact that specific areas are of necessity going to be thrown open. Is that why the legislation in the present instance mentions not only the desirability of the throwing open of areas, but also the necessity of doing so? Is that in fact what is behind it? Or is it a question of the number of areas and the period during which they must be thrown open, or does it perhaps have something to do with a general election?

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning maintained, a moment ago, that the Constitution had won in this particular case. What that means exactly is not very clear. In fact it is very vague. In my opinion it can mean only one thing, and that is that the Constitution is being maintained by the consensus that there is in fact no consensus. The breaking-point is simply being postponed.

It would appear that the majority parties in the different Houses are one another’s prisoners rather than co-rulers. Because they have chosen participation, they must maintain the illusion that something which is not at all viable, can be maintained. However, what is really at stake is the ethnic policy (volkerebeleid) of the NP. Threats were made by the other two Houses that one or both of them would withdraw from the dispensation. That would mean the final collapse of the NP’s policy, in which it presents the solution on a basis of power-sharing, because recent events have made it very clear that this system is unworkable.

Furthermore, it emphasises the powerless position in which the Government finds itself with regard to the other two Houses. The Government is caught in a stranglehold. With any threat of withdrawal, the NP can only save its political life by making further concessions to the other two Houses.

The initial opposition of the CP was based on a deviation from the principles of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I am talking about our initial opposition. That principle in the Group Areas Act has a bearing on the control of possession and occupation of land for the settlement of groups in separate areas.

In an attempt to give an answer in order to circumvent this definition, it was argued that a permit that was issued, was already a deviation in principle. We want to tell hon members that that argument does not hold water. The Report of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council on the Report of the Technical Committee, 1983 and Related Matters (p 99) states:

For that reason we are saying that to grant individuals a permit does not affect the principle of the settlement of groups in an area. Therefore, it is undeniable that the deviation in principle from the Group Areas Act is taking place in the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

The very fact that this argument about the permit system is being used as justification for advocating the creation of mixed areas, confirms our argument. If the principle is sacrificed, there can be no doubt that these free settlement areas, as they are now being commenced with, will go further and further and that one adjoining area after another will also fall prey to this process. It is the beginning of the end of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, we are saying that it is inevitably going to lead to the breaking-up and destruction of the established and accepted way of life in this country. The Group Areas Act was simply the statutory embodiment of the traditional way of life in this country. I am putting it to hon members in the words of Mr Strauss, who was the leader of the then UP, when he opposed this Group Areas Act, although not in principle. He said (Hansard, 29 May 1950, col 7455):

He went on to say—

He continued by quoting approvingly from a certain report in which the following was said—

Mr Strauss then went on to say:

Let us therefore make it very clear. The reason why it was necessary to incorporate it in law was an admirable one. It was to try to prevent racial friction, conflict and mixing. [Interjections.] The reasons that existed then are just as valid today and that is why it must remain. [Interjections.] We will not escape the fact that racial friction exists in mixed areas, as we see demonstrated in overseas cities, and that it happens everywhere all the time. [Interjections.]

It is being argued that de facto intermingling has already taken place here without any notable incidents. We are saying that the answer to that is that this situation is simply being tolerated as a transitional phase. The people who are involved and who live in these areas, hope that a solution is at hand which will provide an answer to this mixed situation. They are simply tolerating it. However, if it were to become a permanent situation, we are saying—we are issuing this warning to the authorities—it would be found that the lid would be removed from the pressure cooker. [Interjections.] What will happen will be no different to what is happening in the rest of the world. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, we explained our opposition to this Bill by saying that it was based on the false and unmotivated statement that the need existed among large numbers of people to live together on the basis of so-called free association and that it had become necessary to create mixed residential areas for them.

Where is Arrie Paulus going to live?

Sir, never has a greater lie been told in South Africa.

Order! The type of remark made by the hon member for Dysselsdorp will not be tolerated in the House and must cease at once. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

Sir, I said there was no greater lie than the one that was now being told in South Africa. Just take note of what is happening from town to town where local authorities are going to be elected. What is the NP proclaiming throughout the country from placard to placard? It is saying that it stands for own residential areas; that that is its policy. Why is it doing that? It is doing that because it knows that that is in fact what the Whites want. It is based on racism. That is what is being exploited, while we are being accused of encouraging racism.

We have already said that it is a lie that there is a so-called desire among people to live together. The truth is that people desire to live among their own people. This desire is not confined to the White community only. It is the experience of all of us in South Africa.

If that is your experience, why is there a law?

That was the basis of the Group Areas Act. However, it was also the express desire of the other population groups in this country, and in particular of the Indian community. We shall return to that. It is also embodied in the report of the HSRC which brought out findings to that effect.

It is perhaps time to rip off a few masks here and there. The Coloured and Indian Ministers who are concerned with the issuing of permits to members of other population groups in their own areas refuse to grant such permits to people from other population groups. [Interjections.] Regardless of how desperately they need housing, colour is not forgotten at that moment. When the leader of the Labour Party stands up and says that he is a Black man, I ask how that is to be reconciled with the refusal to grant a permit to a Black man in a Coloured area. [Interjections.] The human factor is then ignored. The excuse is then made that there would not be sufficient land for his own people, and his own community then takes precedence. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we have just heard the hon member for Ermelo mention some facts regarding the Indian and Coloured communities and I want to dissociate myself completely from what he has said. [Interjections.]

Speak to him in Afrikaans. He does not understand.

Does he not understand? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that I do not agree with what he said about the Indian and Coloured communities. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, this morning we have heard the hon the State President talk about the important implications that the measures before us have for our country and our Parliament. We have also heard what the hon the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning has said on the tenth year of leadership of the hon the State President.

We believe in reform, we believe in peaceful coexistence, we believe in stability, growth and development for our people. However, we also believe that we cannot go along with some of the measures that our people cannot accept. We have heard the hon member for Toekomsrus say that there was a change in the programme this morning and that we were supposed to have debated the Group Areas Amendment Bill. I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may change his mind and withdraw the Group Areas Amendment Bill later, after we have discussed this measure. [Interjections.]

I want to say that my party does not believe in confrontation—we believe in negotiation. We believe in peaceful negotiation for a peaceful settlement of the problems of our country. We have asked in the past for open areas or free settlement areas and I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that we do agree that there are certain clauses in the Free Settlement Areas Bill that we go along with. However, his strategy of marketin g these Bills has come from the wrong point of marketing. He has linked the Bill with another Bill that we do not agree with and which we will never support, and the hon the Minister is aware of the fact that we cannot support any amendments to the Group Areas Act. Because of the linkage of this Bills it is like taking a beautiful diamond, wrapping it in a newspaper and trying to market it. One cannot market something good that is wrapped up in something bad. I think the whole marketing system of the hon the Minister has gone wrong here. I still feel that it is not too late for the hon the Minister to withdraw the amendment to the Group Areas Act and give us another opportunity to discuss the Free Settlement Areas Bill. We are prepared to negotiate. We are prepared to discuss the Free Settlement Areas Bill, but we cannot go along with it as long as it is linked to the Group Areas Act.

The hon the Minister said he has a constituency, but we also have a constituency. When we look at the memorandum on the objects of the Free Settlement Areas Bill, we see that it clearly states in the opening paragraph:

He has linked this particular Bill with the Group Areas Act and because of that linkage we find it difficult to support it. I do not say that the principles of the Free Settlement Areas Bill are not acceptable to us. There are many clauses that we can support, should we discuss the Bill as such and not link it with the other legislation. I am not going to use all the time allotted to me, because we have heard what the hon the Minister has said about areas that could be opened for free settlement. I have no quarrel with that. We know—as previous hon members have said—that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

I want to make one last appeal to the hon the Minister. Let us take another look at the objects of the Free Settlement Areas Bill and let us withdraw the Group Areas Amendment Bill. We cannot go along with the objects of this particular Bill—I have said this before, and I want to repeat it—as long as it is linked to the Group Areas Amendment Act.

With those words, I want to make it clear on behalf of my party that we are prepared to negotiate and to assist the hon the Minister in finding a solution to the problems relating to settlement in our country. As we have said previously, however, we know that we are sitting on a time bomb due to the problems caused by the department in not identifying enough land for the settlement of our people.

Even at this stage under the Group Areas Act, which we hate, we still find that our people cannot expand in their areas. We cannot find the land. Let the hon the Minister tell us that he is now prepared to come forward and give us enough land for our people; that he is prepared to identify land in the larger metropolitan areas where there is a need for this type of identification of land for our people. Let us not debate the Bills before us. Let us defer the debate until next year, when we may find that the hon the Minister has found a solution in regard to identifying enough land for our people.

Mr Speaker, I am thankful that the hon member for Laudium referred to the fact that they have a constituency, just as we have a constituency, and that that fact must be taken into account, because that is the background against which I should like to discuss the Bill before us.

*He also referred to the fact that the Bill at present before us is linked to the Group Areas Act, and said this was his problem. However, it is not possible to separate the two from one another. Even if one were to introduce this Bill on its own, this would surely imply that amendments would have to be made to the Group Areas Act. The two matters cannot be considered or dealt with separately.

The background against which I would like to look at the Bill before us is, firstly, the fact that each and every one of us sitting in this House represents people, that it is our duty to represent the people who sent us here and to try to interpret their interests and aspirations. I do not think one can find any fault with that.

When our interpretations of the wishes of the majority of the people who sent us here differ, it is our duty and our responsibility, in the interests of South Africa, firstly, to try to find compromises, to find a basis on which we can work together to reconcile these differences in an orderly way.

If our interpretation is correct and we reach consensus on how to reconcile them with one another, this would, however, not mean a thing if it did not also lead to compromises and reconciliation between the people we represent. We also have a duty and a responsibility to lead the majority of the people we represent to the point where they accept and live with the compromises we have reached. Otherwise, I want to reiterate that these compromises will be meaningless. If we reach compromises which are not acceptable to the majority of our own people, we will in fact promote conflict and confrontation, and will not really make any progress towards peace in South Africa. We must, therefore, lead our people to these compromises.

Now I accept that my hon colleagues in the other two Houses are entitled to argue that the majority of their people do not agree with the principle of group areas and that they are unacceptable to them. They are entitled to argue in this way and to interpret the wishes of their people in this way.

However, we on this side of the House also have a duty and a responsibility to interpret the aspirations and views of the people we represent and to express them in this honourable House. We on this side of the Chamber would be misleading our colleagues in the other two Houses if we were to try to suggest that the mere abolition of the Group Areas Act would be acceptable to the majority of our people, because that is simply not true. It is not acceptable to the majority of our people. [Interjections.] That is the factual situation.

For that reason we must seek a compromise—not only among ourselves, but also among the people we represent. I submit that the Bill before us represents such a compromise. It creates a completely new situation. Although we have interpreted that the abolition of group areas is unacceptable to the majority of our people, we also accept that there are a substantial number of people in our own communities who do not mind living in open or mixed areas, and who would in fact even prefer this. For that reason we would also like to make provision for them. Consequently this legislation represents common ground in this regard. At the end of the day what we propose here must also work in practice. What we are doing with this legislation is to create a basis, for the people who want to live together of their own free will as well.

What are you going to do about the schools?

Let me carry the argument through to its practical implications. We have a responsibility to achieve compromises between our own people too. The interpretation which I give, without fear of contradiction, to the view of the majority of Whites living in my constituency is that they are not in favour of the throwing open of their residential areas at this stage. [Interjections.] However, I accept that some of them are also prepared to accept free settlement areas. In order to meet each other half way I, for my part, am prepared, as part of the compromise I am prepared to make, to do everything I can to co-operate in identifying a new area in my region where a free settlement area can come into its own.

What about the schools?

Arrangements have been made in that regard. We are concerned here with a new area, and I, for my part, am prepared to work actively towards identifying a new area, because we must meet each other half way and make progress in the direction of workable compromises.

[Inaudible.]

Having just heard the hon member for Overvaal make an interjection, I should like to refer to something to which I referred in the House of Assembly when the hon member was not present. There are also other reasons why we must look at this kind of solution timeously. By the way, it will be very interesting to see whether the hon member for Overvaal is permitted to participate in this round of the debate. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Overvaal will remember that during the 1981 general election he asked me to help him to prepare an election publication in the Jeppe constituency. I did so. At that stage the hon member for Jeppe argued that Jeppe had to be cleaned up, and that was the main item on the front page of that publication. There was encroachment, and he said that those people had to get out.

There was a specific area in the Jeppe constituency which was being demolished at that stage and which was earmarked for urban renewal. At that stage I argued with the hon member for Jeppe and told him that the sensible thing to do would be to ask that that specific area, which was close to the city centre of Johannesburg, should be developed as a high density residential area for Coloureds and Indians. I told him and warned him that this was the only way in which he would be able to relieve the pressure on the rest of the areas in Jeppe. He did not want to accept that argument. What has happened since then? The reality caught up with him and he ran away. He left the people of Jeppe in the lurch because he was not prepared to face up to the reality.

Now the hon member for Overvaal has an equally unrealistic plan of action for the Vaal Triangle in terms of which he wants to move people and draw rigid lines. He is going to do the same to Overvaal as he did to Jeppe, because he is not prepared to face up to the realities and plan timeously. That is the problem, but the fact of the matter is that we must face up to the realities of South Africa and that we must take action on the strength of these realities. This is not even a debate at the moment.

[Inaudible.]

I would be pleased to argue the matter with the hon member for Overvaal any time. I am merely asking him to participate in the debate and then we will argue the matter with him. [Interjections.] He must tell us his standpoint.

The fact of the matter is that we must face up to the realities and the whole truth of South Africa, and those of us sitting here as representatives of the people, must very responsibly seek compromises and we must then convey those compromises to our people, otherwise we will not make progress and we will merely cause conflict.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon member whether it is one of the compromises that there will be mixed schools in these mixed areas.

Mr Speaker, the Government’s standpoint on that subject is quite clear. The hon member would seem to have trouble understanding what he reads and what he hears. The standpoint of the Government is that as far as Government schools are concerned they will remain community schools for each population group but that, as is already the case, there can be private schools which are mixed and that people in such areas will be free to establish private schools which they have complete freedom of choice to attend.

The difference between that hon member and us is that they are forcing everyone and everything into a straitjacket, whereas we are prepared to give people complete freedom of choice. This is what this Bill is also about, because people do not allow themselves to be forced to do something. They make their own choices, and one must regulate this and handle it in an orderly way. That is the approach of this party.

In conclusion I should like to repeat that what we are dealing with here is that this Bill before us, firstly, represents a compromise which is feasible on the basis of the majority, including the people I represent, and, secondly, that it endeavours to deal with the complete reality of South Africa. I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to become embroiled in the fight between the hon member for Springs and the hon member for Overvaal so they will forgive me if I do not join in their debate.

I am first and foremost a South African.

*I am a South African.

†I believe that I have been created in the image of God like all hon members sitting here today. I believe that the Group Areas Act was based on the White man’s fear and on the White man’s greed. Emanating and flowing from that fear and greed is a mass of laws to protect that fear and that greed. I do believe that today we are seeing the beginning of the end of the fear and of the greed of White South Africans. The NP has realised that they can no longer walk along this road of strict apartheid. Therefore they are prepared to allow some concessions in terms of the Free Settlement Areas Bill to accommodate the reality of South Africa, because this reality has overtaken the NP. We have our Hillbrows and Woodstocks as well as numerous areas throughout this country where people, created in the image of God, have found each other and are living in peace and harmony.

I believe that this Free Settlement Areas Bill cannot be defended because it is an offshoot of the Group Areas Act which, as I stated earlier, is based on fear and greed. The reality of South African politics today is that we are living in a state of emergency where any organisation outside the parliamentary concept that is against Government policies has been effectively banned. People are being taken off the streets and locked away without ever coming to court. People are having to escape and then, to avoid unpleasant diplomatic incidents, such people are summarily freed. The reality is that whether we like it or not, this country will eventually be ruled by the majority of the people and not by the White minority. We want to be part and parcel of that greater majority of South Africans who will one day rule this country.

The NP’s fancy dressing and sidestepping in order to cling to power will not be supported by us. As my party stands here today, we believe that South Africa must be ruled by the majority. We are all South Africans first and foremost and as such we are entitled to the rights and privileges of all South Africans. I am not referring to the rights and privileges of an Afrikaner, an Indian or a Coloured.

I object to the NP’s group concept. A man may come from Greece and he can walk into any White area and be assimilated there. This man does not speak the language, does not have the same culture and does not have the same religion. However, a person from this side of the House who was born in South Africa, speaks Afrikaans and goes to the NG Kerk is rejected. On what basis is this done? It is certainly not on the basis of worthiness, but on that of pigmentation. These laws that have been passed in this Parliament to try to protect the Whites because of their pigmentation will not stand the test of time. We have entered a new phase in this country where merit will be the sole criterion. Man’s God-given ability will take him to the top. I want to put a question to those members of the CP who habitually refer to certain people as “Hotnots”.

*You must please tell us today to which “Hotnots” you are referring. Are you referring to the White “Hotnots” among you, or to which “Hotnots”? [Interjections.] We are sick and tired of hearing people in this House being addressed as “Hotnots”. Please! Your fears …

Order! Hon members must be addressed as “hon members”.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The fears of the hon members on that side …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think the word “Hotnots” that is being used by the hon member is parliamentary. He is insinuating that hon members of the CP use it. That is not true. I request you to rule that he withdraw that insult. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member was not referring to anything an hon member allegedly said in this House. He was referring in general to what is said outside and therefore the hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

†We can no longer allow this country of ours to be held to ransom by 23 hon members of the CP when we have a total of 308 hon members in this Parliament. Therefore I must plead with the NP not to keep looking behind them, because the ghost of the CP is a thing of the past.

*They are moving back to the previous century. We must look to the future of our people and of South Africa. We must look to the future of all the people of South Africa, not only the Whites and not only the so-called Coloureds and Indians, but the future of all people living in South Africa. †The fancy dressing of numerous laws that we have seen in the past four years in this Parliament and the attempt to make this system work so that the NP can cling to power are realities. We will not allow the NP to cling to power much longer, because we believe that the people of South Africa must rule South Africa. As far as the question of trying to broaden the concept of democracy is concerned, I want to say that democracy cannot be broadened, because democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. The sooner all the people of South Africa have the right to elect representatives to come to this Parliament, the sooner the salvation of South Africa will come about.

Mr Speaker, in my view the most unfortunate aspect of the Bill before us is the thinking that gave rise to it, namely that limited concessions, making some open residential areas possible, will allow and assist the group areas dispensation in general to function effectively elsewhere. That this was the thinking is confirmed by the grouping together of this Bill with others that serve to tighten measures used to make group areas work. This thinking is also reflected in statements by the Government and its spokesmen, and in advertisements placed by the Government. That thinking amounts to simply making a few concessions here and there to cope with the very difficult areas so that one can get tough on the others in the vast majority of South Africa’s residential areas.

The hon the Minister, in his introductory speech, denied specifically that this Bill was designed to deal with a number of problem areas, and said that it had to do with free association. However, later in his speech, the hon the Minister listed a number of areas which he believed should and could be investigated in terms of this Bill with a view to declaring them open areas. In every single one of those areas the group areas dispensation has already broken down irretrievably. We are not talking about areas which the Government generously says are the kinds of areas where it believes all South Africans should be able to live. We are talking about areas in which the Government has already failed to sustain the group areas dispensation, and therefore merely wishes to use this legislation to bring the legal dispensation in line with the reality which it may find unfortunate, but which is nevertheless inevitable.

Sadly, this thinking is based on an insufficient understanding by the Government of the problems created by group areas as well as an insufficient knowledge of the extent to which the Group Areas Act is being contravened. I would suggest respectfully that the Government does not realise just how many residential areas are today inhabited by people in contravention of the Group Areas Act. I know that the Government does not realise that these people contravene the Act not to score a political point but out of sheer desperation, because they have nowhere else to live.

The Bill is supposed to make an attempt to resolve some of these problems. However, let us look at the Bill’s contents and the trends it reveals. Because Whites have all the land and the housing that they need while others do not, it is clear from the drafting and the contents of the Bill that it will be mainly Whites and their political leaders who will determine whether there will be open areas or not. [Interjections.] I am talking about existing areas. The consequence of this Bill is therefore that the opening of residential areas will not be based on the need and the desperation of those who have not, but on the generosity or otherwise of those who already have, thus perpetuating the pain of racial discrimination in our country.

As such, this Bill confirms this consistent trend of the application of apartheid in this country. It is almost invariably based on the convenience of White people only. As such it is a Bill which is unfortunately designed not to break down apartheid but to help sustain it.

“The whole idea behind this Bill, which was also the way the hon the Minister put it across, was that this legislation would now give people or even communities the choice as to whether they wanted to live in an open area or not. Yet that is not the case. It is simply not true. The hon the Minister says that local authorities can apply to have an area declared open. He said that in order to indicate that the people, the public take this decision themselves. But who has the final say? The final say on the creation of open areas lies with the central Government.

It is not a democratically taken decision. Even the application made by a local authority does not automatically lead to an investigation by the Free Settlement Board. Once again it is subject to the veto of the Ministers’ Council concerned. The question of a free choice for the individual does not arise. Nor is there any question of free association.

The hon the Minister told us in his speech that the mixing of races in residential areas had only led to friction and that that lay at the root of the group areas system. He conceded that in many cases the enforced segregation of people in itself had led to friction. Now apparently the hon the Minister and the Government hope to solve this problem with arbitrary political decision-making and in so doing rectify the situation.

I am afraid that it is not going to work that way because the choice is essentially being taken away from the public and the individual is not given the right to live wherever and however he wishes.

My greatest dissatisfaction with the Bill before us is nevertheless that this legislation could possibly lead—not necessarily, but quite possibly I think—to the idea of free settlement being discredited in practice. What is after all the reality in this country? There was a long period in which South Africans were increasingly isolated from each other. Group areas were created to an increasing extent in that people were physically separated from one another. People were also separated from each other by influx control. By the establishment of separate schools, separate universities, separate institutions etc people have been increasingly separated and isolated from each other.

That is why increasing reciprocal distrust and even hatred and resentment arose. To avert that process requires a strong and convinced political leadership. A strong and convinced political leadership is necessary to avert that process and to persuade people, especially Whites, that it is morally, politically and economically correct that all South Africans have the right to choose where they want to live.

I am afraid this Government is not up to it, because this Government is itself not convinced of it. At this stage the Government does not apparently have their own, straightforward standpoint on the existence of open areas. Only by means of rare exception does this Bill create the possibility of open areas. The Government does not tell us that it is its aim to create open areas as far as is possible. Nor does the Bill tell us that. The Bill suggests that open areas will be created only when consultation has taken place on the broadest possible basis and after the last and most extreme verkrampte person has had the opportunity to have his say about it and to convey his standpoint. On that basis, and then only, will a decision be taken.

We cannot hope to establish successful open areas on that basis. If we create them here and there in the form of small patches of land in small residential areas and hope that those areas will be able to accommodate the huge population pressure which has come about because of the housing shortage we would once again be living in a dream-world. In that case I suggest that certain fears among the Whites, for example the fear of being crowded out and the fear of excessive increases or drops in property prices, are going to be realised to their maximum for the very reason that these open areas will be created in areas which are too small. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us today sets out to address the existing reality that there are people of colour living in White suburbs, but it does not really succeed in doing so. It fails in context and in content because the realities are that people of colour are short of accommodation and that the White suburbs are emptying. People of colour are moving there out of need, and of course those who own the commodity are letting and selling accommodation at good prices. These realities can be addressed only if those particular aspects are embodied in the legislation.

When one reads this Bill, however, one finds that every voter in an area earmarked as a free settlement area will have to say yes or no. As the last speaker said, it is the White community that holds this commodity and the non-Whites who aspire to attain it. If, therefore, most of the Whites in an area like Mayfair say no, then that aspiration will be mere pie in the sky.

This morning we heard the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning refer to places like the Harrison Flats area. I agree that there might be free settlement areas in such places, but what of areas where there is already free settlement? These are realities which must be addressed, just as other realities have been addressed in the past.

One of those realities resulted in the Constitution of 1983. The new Constitution addressed the reality that people of colour aspired to be involved in the politics of this country. Other realities led to the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act. The Government acted to face those realities. Segregation on trains was a reality, and Parliament acted to deal with it. The necessity of opening hotels to people of colour was also a reality, and laws were made to accommodate that necessity. The need to open beaches is another reality, and that need will be accommodated very soon.

I could mention other examples. South Africa is moving forward, and there are realities that have to be faced, but the sad part of it is that the Government always reacts; it does not act. It reacts to realities that have already materialised, but it does not take the lead. It merely accommodates realities.

We find the same sad situation in respect of the subject under discussion. The movement of people into White suburbs is a reality, and we have to address that reality in its proper perspective. I believe that this Bill has failed in context and in content to address that particular reality. It is necessary to realise that this Bill is of such a sensitive nature that it is not a matter for joint committees. All interested parties should get around a table to discuss the issues and negotiate a settlement and then propose legislation which will accommodate some kind of consensus. It is not sufficient for such legislation to be addressed only from debating platforms. It needs more than that.

The reality of people living in White suburbs has not come about because of anyone trying to go against the law. It has come about because of social, political and economic upliftment. When socio-economic standards improve, people have aspirations. If those aspirations can be accommodated where the commodity exists, then I believe people will take advantage of it. There is also no accommodation available in Indian, Coloured and Black areas, and people who can afford to purchase these homes will always purchase them. I believe that in this land of ours where law and order is fair, nobody has pulled out a gun and asked a White man to sign on the line to sell him his house.

There has been negotiation; there has been a willing seller and a willing buyer. How is it that that becomes illegal? Properties are vacant. Take Mayfair for instance. There is a belief that property prices will go down if these are mixed areas, and I have proof of investigations which have proved to the contrary that Mayfair is one of the suburbs of Johannesburg where property prices have rocketed to the tune of 160%, and that calls that bluff. There is also the notion that there is a high crime rate in mixed areas. That has also been proved wrong because there have been investigations which have found that the crime rate in those mixed areas is much lower than in other areas.

I think the point has to be taken that if people spend large sums of money and acquire properties, they will make sure that they are self-policed and the area is uplifted rather than downgraded.

In the end it must be understood that South Africa has come a long way and nobody in his wildest dreams is going to be able to take it back. There is nothing wrong in any nation, any group of people re-enacting their history or their past. We have no problem with that. But it is absolutely ridiculous when any nation or group of people want to relive history. It can never be relived. History is for lessons and history can be referred to, but history cannot be relived. If anybody thinks they are going to relive history, they are living in a dream-world. That is a total pipe-dream.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege to speak on the measure before the House. I say that it is a privilege because we as hon members of this House are considering this measure as fellow-South Africans today. This morning an hon colleague said here that the predominating factor was that we were all South Africans. On behalf of the NP I should like to say that we endorse those words.

In the final analysis the most important question to which each of us must be able to answer “yes” is the following: Do we really and fundamentally regard ourselves as South Africans? I believe that this measure is a first step as regards land rights to enable more and more people to feel that they belong in South Africa. On the occasion of the previous discussion in the House of Assembly I said that I could understand if our hon colleagues of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates did not like the Group Areas Act.

†I think on this occasion one should reiterate that viewpoint. I can fully understand that no person belonging to the Coloured community, no person belonging to the Indian community, could ever speak in favour of the Group Areas Act. In fact, I can see and I can sense the hatred among many of our colleagues and among many people in South Africa for this legislation. [Interjections.]

*Today we have come forward with a measure by means of which we as the Government party, within the limited room to manoeuvre which we have as regards political realities, are saying loudly and clearly to the whole of South Africa that we are building anew as far as land rights are concerned. We have come with a measure by means of which we are telling our people to let us accept the realities of South Africa, which means that we cannot even speak about matters like these in an absolutely racist way.

The CP are trying to create the impression that they, with their racist propaganda, can take the people with them. I want to state categorically here today that by means of this measure we want to tell our voters of the House of Assembly loudly and clearly that there are realities in South Africa which differ from the absolute racist views of the past. We are prepared to face our people and tell them that they live with those realities and we are prepared to propagate those realities.

The CP poster on the streets rejects open areas. By means of this measure we are expressing our ridicule for that poster. By means of this measure we are saying that the reality of South Africa is that there are and will be open areas and we propagate this openly and loudly in our constituencies.

Every farm is an open area!

We can talk about a free settlement area in this measure and we can call it what we like but ultimately what is being proposed in this measure as regards land rights is nothing more or less than open areas. That is why we are saying loudly and clearly today that we are also in favour of examining the free choice of individuals in this country, and we are saying this loudly and clearly in this measure.

In Innesdal?

We live in a shrinking world and that is why all in South Africa and all of us in this Parliament must be able to think on an increasingly expansive scale. With this measure I think—I am speaking as someone who represents a Pretoria constituency …

Not for much longer!

… we are looking at the realities of South Africa and are doing what we are able to do today within those realities in the interests of our country.

The hon member for Overvaal says “not for much longer”. I should like to tell him that I have represented that constituency longer than any hon member of the CP has represented his constituency. I shall continue to represent it for a very long time to come. I say frankly and directly to my people in that constituency that we are on our way to a new South Africa in which we have to make drastic changes as regards our absolutistic and racist views. I appeal to my people and tell them why it is necessary to do this. We shall continue to do this.

It may interest the hon member for Overvaal that I say frankly to people in my constituency who complain about parks that I shall fight any evil such as drunkenness in parks together with them, but that there is one thing they must never ask of me again. If they ask me to attach a signboard to the fence of that park again, saying that it is for Whites only, I shall tell them that I refuse to do so. [Interjections.] I should like to appeal to my hon colleagues the hon members of the House of Representatives, having said this morning that I could understand their problem, to help the governing party, not because they want to support apartheid but to help them in this historic moment in time in which we all have to reeducate our people.

It is true that not only the White people in South Africa are racists; there are racists in all groups in South Africa. They are the people who stereotype and judge other people according to their racial appearance. We all know that there are such people; we must fight this in this country. We must make our people aware that the person under the skin counts for infinitely more than the skin covering him. [Interjections.]

We are involved in an historic process and we are not going to run away from it. History shows that we have made many mistakes.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

I am not prepared to reply to any questions. We have made many mistakes in our history, but there is one mistake which we dare not perpetuate and which the NP will not perpetuate. This is that we will not consider absolutistic racist solutions at the expense of the interests, the feelings and the experience of the individual. We have come a long way as far as land rights are concerned and it is unnecessary for me to say this afternoon how much injustice was committed in the past in regard to people in South Africa. Let the simple statement suffice that in the history of our country from Van Riebeeck’s time injustice has been committed toward people in regard to the division of land on a racial basis. Let this statement suffice. Let it suffice further for me to say that we in this party wish to remove those injustices in South Africa and that is what we are attempting. We do not want …

What will we say on Wednesday?

Sir, the hon leader of the Labour Party asks me what we will say on Wednesday. I have very little time left; I hope I shall have an opportunity on Wednesday to join in the discussion of this matter.

I should like to say that we are ridding ourselves of the politics of yesterday and I say to hon members of the CP that this is not the time in South African history for political muzzle-loaders; this is the time for political picks and shovels to help build the foundations of a new South Africa and we shall not become frightened of the CP. I just want to say that they are very excited about a newspaper advertisement which states: “Hulle stuur die land op ’n revolusie af”. I want to make only this simple statement to them. The governing party is attempting in everything it does, including this measure, to get as far as possible from the potential for revolution in the country. In all they do and propagate, the CP are creating this impression among more and more people: Here is a small group of Whites which thinks that only the Whites exist, only the Whites have rights, the Whites have to remain the masters forever, the Whites are the chosen of God and will save this country. I put this to them categorically.

The hon leader of the CP is not even present at this important debate. I say to the hon leader of the CP that the most important reason why he is not here is that he cannot face our hon friends of the House of Representatives. He cannot look them in the eye and tell them what racist propaganda he is disseminating in country districts where he finds a crowd of people who applaud him. We shall not permit them to get away with this because we are more determined that this country must survive.

Ultimately the country can survive in one way and one way only and that is if the system which we have in the country—the political, the economic and the social system—is maintained by the majority of people. That is why I put it to the CP that they should take a look around the House. Today this House is a small particle of the reality of South Africa; it is not nearly the full reality of South Africa. They sit here like a miserable, dejected little group of politicians. I want to say that in the future of South Africa they will count for less and less and the realities for more and more.

We want the political, social and economic system to live in the hearts of the majority of people in this country. The majority of people must feel that they belong. That is why we are not afraid to come forward with a measure such as this to address the realities of South Africa.

We have come a long way with the Group Areas Act, even if my colleagues on that side of the House do not like it. Under the Group Areas Act there has been a series of exceptions which we have applied over the years. I want to say that this is no new principle. For ages the NP—I am arguing only with the CP now—has lived with permits and exceptions—when they were also members of the NP. The hon member for Overvaal fled from a constituency where there was a mixed residential area and the NP took it. He will flee a few more times during his political career but there is one matter from which the CP cannot escape. They cannot escape the realities of South Africa.

When we discuss this measure today, I should like to believe that it creates certainty but it also holds much uncertainty. I therefore want to appeal today that we move as speedily as possible to identify land for all people at this stage of our history. I believe that we should move away from the many very great injustices and look at rights and opportunities for people. I believe that the people of every residential area in South Africa will be justified in asking “what about my residential area?” That is why I believe that we should live beyond this era and this moment of racial tension and the potential for conflict. It is of no avail for me to lie to hon members of the House of Representatives by saying that race is not an emotive issue. I dare not do this. It is of no avail to tell hon members on that side of the House that the NP can ignore this because it cannot.

What the NP cannot do is to deal with this or any other measure which we introduce here in such a way that we permit the ridiculous CP with their racist orientation, their “Afrikaner-baasskap” mentality and their political orientation of having been called by God to obtain the upper hand in this country. This is the reason why we are dealing with this measure in this way to ensure that we take our people with us. We shall continue actively to educate our people for the new South Africa. The CP and AWB politics of yesterday are altogether a thing of the past.

And those of the NP!

I want to tell the hon leader of the Labour Party that that is the case. The NP have passed the politics of yesterday; we are on our way to the politics of the future. We do not have the perfect answer to a single problem in South Africa, but by means of this measure we are trying to move between the political realities which confront us as members of Parliament and the emotions which hon members of the House of Representatives do experience.

Power ultimately lies in freedom. If every person can feel that he belongs and if every individual can feel that he is free, there is power in that person’s self-awareness and in his participation in South African structures because he is free within himself. [Interjections.] That is why I put it unequivocally to our hon colleagues that I regard the Free Settlement Areas Bill as the only possible practical step at this stage of our history. I regard it as a positive measure and I am only sorry that the hon members of the PFP and Englishlanguage newspapers in South Africa have said so little about the realities of free settlement areas.

These free settlement areas will not only give substance in practice to the realities of South Africa but they will also make our people realise that a person’s future and self-awareness are not threatened by the person who lives next door. One’s future and self-awareness ultimately lie in what one really is. That is why I feel at liberty to say that a large number of Nationalists in my own constituency and throughout South Africa state that they are not frightened about who lives next door to them. Their only desire is that civilised and proper standards should exist.

I can identify myself with this. I believe that, if at a future point we look back on the measure before us today, we shall see that this measure made an enormous contribution in reorientating the thinking of our people and directing it along the road of acceptance of fellow South Africans on the strength of their inherent humanity and not the colour of their skin.

In a number of years’ time we shall look back and read these debates and all hon members in this Joint Meeting will be able to join us on this side of the House in saying that this measure certainly brought about a dramatic reorientation and reconsideration of the old racist thinking of the past. [Interjections.] That is why we are pleased to support this measure. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to listen to certain aspects of the previous speaker’s speech. Unfortunately, one finds it rather disturbing that he did not get one “hear, hear” from his side of the House. If it had been the leadership of the NP making some of those statements one might have been more hopeful.

While it is interesting to listen to certain statements of the NP regarding the CP, it must also be borne in mind that we do not see much difference between the NP and the CP. [Interjections.] Both parties believe in the group concept and apartheid. The difference seems to be merely in the method of implementation.

The one is just more honest than the other.

In the past there was always talk of “verkramptes” and “verligtes”. One day I read an article that spoke of the “vertraagdes” in the sense of always being too late. Even in the best of circumstances this Bill can only be seen as being too little, too late.

One must ask what the motive behind this Bill is. One must know what the intent of this Bill is, because to address this issue sincerely one has to decide for oneself whether the Group Areas Act is defensible or indefensible. We see this as merely an attempt to make us administer something that we find totally unacceptable.

We see this legislation as a perpetuation of racism because the basis of this Bill is race. There is talk, in reference to the White group, as if it is a homogeneous group. However, I notice that this White group consists of different language groups, different cultural groups as well as different religious groups but it is fine for those people to live together. The underlying factor is once again race and because of that this Bill is racist.

Sir, before 1948 we lived together—my parents and your parents, those of us who are younger, lived together—but we were forcibly removed by this Government. Why cannot we once again allow that natural gregariousness to take place? This legislation will merely serve to exacerbate an already intolerable situation.

On 2 July our party issued a statement as a result of a National Executive Committee decision earlier. I will read it to you, Sir. The Labour Party of South Africa has repeatedly stated, and I quote:

The statement continues:

This Free Settlement Areas Bill is truly a misnomer, a smokescreen, because the flip side of a free settlement area is a closed area. This Bill cannot be seen in isolation but is part and parcel of the Group Areas Act and its concept. Acceptance of this Bill also means acceptance of the group areas concept. It merely states that certain areas will be exempted from the Group Areas Act.

Why do we say that this will exacerbate the whole situation? If we were to open up the whole of Cape Town we would find two or three families moving into different areas and nothing would change. However, it is now proposed to isolate one specific area and to herd people who can afford it but do not have homes, because they cannot find homes in their, so-called, own areas at the moment, into that specific area. The result will be an overnight change in character in that area. Ammunition will then be provided for the rightwing reactionaries of this country, like the CP and the AWB, to say: “Sien julle wat gaan gebeur as ons oopmaak!”

*I want to appeal to the NP: Open up the whole of South Africa; open up the whole of Cape Town and see what happens. We can remember how terrified the NP was after the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act had been repealed.

†What happened? South Africa is still continuing. South Africa has not collapsed. Allow people who want to be together to live together without herding them into specific areas.

Koos is still White!

Who does this Bill cater for? We look at this Parliament. As a previous speaker has said: This Parliament is not representative of the whole of South Africa. There are many other viewpoints out there. Let us look within this Chamber. Who does this Bill cater for, who does it satisfy? It does not satisfy the rightwing opposition, neither does it satisfy us. Who is being catered for? Why is the NP prepared to ostracise people who are sincere in looking for solutions and to appease no one? Do those hon members sincerely believe, deep in their hearts, that because this Bill and the other legislation that will come later in the week is passed they will get extra votes? Do those hon members believe that people who have decided to support the CP will change their minds and now vote for the NP, and that because of this the people in White politics left of the Government will now support the NP?

Does the Government really believe this? People out there are looking for clear and positive leadership. People are politically and economically frustrated. People are looking for leadership that can remove their misery and transform society, that can take us into the new South Africa.

The NP and its leadership are not capable of fulfilling that role while they still remain in bondage to the group concept. The NP and the Government must be brave enough to admit to themselves, to us and to the people of South Africa in general, that the group areas concept is a racist one; that it is apartheid, and that apartheid is a heresy; and that, therefore, the group areas concept is morally and politically indefensible.

That which is inherently evil, Sir, cannot be amended, but must be repealed. They would then begin to face the reality and the challenges of South Africa. Until such time, the NP can and will only continue to lead this country towards a future of increased turmoil, fear, racial strife and uncertainty, and a poorer standard of living.

The NP and the Government, unless they are prepared to accept this challenge, will be responsible for the realisation of our worst fears.

Mr Chairman, the prior voting for the general municipal elections begins in two weeks’ time, and in these elections without doubt the focal point of the local authorities that fall under the House of Assembly is the trilogy of Bills linked most closely to local government affairs, and also of course to the whole concept of regional services councils.

Sir, inevitably this means a politicisation of local government in the broadest sense of the word. That is obvious. The NP candidates are shy of waving their banners in our areas, however, and of saying they support the Government’s standpoint on free settlement areas, as contained in the legislation before us, and that they are prepared to accept the political consequences, because they are not prepared to accept them. To me it seems that the whole principle, as contained in this legislation, is developing into a very thorny issue for the NP.

The most important principle in this Bill is to create a method of identifying and ultimately proclaiming areas which will be exempt from inter alia the Group Areas Act of 1966, and that is precisely the NP’s problem. Every uncommitted NP candidate that I have come across denies flatly that he will ever be in favour of throwing open residential areas or schools. They are so verkramp that one can hardly believe it! Without exception own residential areas and own schools have a place in the manifesto of the uncommitted candidates of the NP.

I say without exception, Sir. In fact, according to Press reports the hon member for Roodeplaat categorically denied that any such need existed in the Pretoria area. I now want to ask the hon member for Innesdal, who spoke a moment ago: Will there be such an area in Pretoria?

At some place or other, yes!

Incidentally, I think … The hon member said, “At some place or other, yes!” Incidentally, let me add that he was proclaiming a gross untruth when he said we stood for White domination over the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] We demand for ourselves what we grant every other people in this country. [Interjections.]

Where is our homeland? [Interjections.]

The Government must come forward with the facts. The electorate wants the facts to be laid before them, and do not want to be misled once again as they were by NP propaganda during the 1983 referendum. That treachery is on the NP’s account, and in due course the White electorate will pass judgement on it, either in 1989 or, if the NP gives in and crawls before the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, in 1992, when the final judgment will be given with regard to the NP and the destructive part it has played in our people’s ideal of freedom.

Hear, hear!

Speaking through the hon member for Innesdal, the NP says it is a myth that any such thing as a White fatherland or a White people ever existed, or that we should be entitled to an exclusive and sovereign right of determination over at least part of the territory of the RSA, as well as our own living-space, the very essence of which concept is being attacked in this legislation before us today.

I assume that the majority of the members of the NP caucus support the hon member in his view of matters, and therefore apologise by implication for our being here in Southern Africa at all.

What makes this legislation so exceptionally topical in the coming election is the fact that in clause 7 (3) (a) the local authority is, in my opinion, designated as being the most important initiator of the open residential areas, whereas in clause 7 (9) (c) the local authority, in my opinion, is also designated as being the most important institution whose standpoint must be taken into account by the Free Settlement Board before it can make any recommendation in this connection to the State President. In my opinion this emphasises the absolute importance of the coming elections. The role of the local authority is absolutely decisive in the designation and ultimate establishment of these free settlement areas.

I do not often agree with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, but when he said the following in Gordon’s Bay on 23 April of this year, as reported in Die Burger of 25 April, I agreed with him wholeheartedly:

This is precisely where the NP is running into difficulties.

Leave the local authorities alone!

The NP itself has serious doubts about whether the principle of free settlement areas represents a way of life that the voters would like to maintain. The best example to illustrate this point appeared in the NP-supporting newspaper Beeld, on Friday—in the editorial! I quote:

That is exactly our standpoint. I quote further:

The article concludes with this paragraph:

I predict that the House of Assembly’s electorate will not cheerfully buy the imitations, viz the uncommitted candidates that the NP is putting forward in these elections. They are rather going to support the real thing, the “ware Jakob” as the editor put it. They are going to vote for the CP candidate who is completely opposed in principle to the entire concept of open residential areas.

If the NP candidate, or the hidden or uncommitted or independent or NP realist-candidate, says he stands for own residential areas, this is irrevocably only partly true, because if this Bill is passed today, it will be Government policy that there can be open residential areas—in fact, that there will be an open residential area if an NP-controlled town council gives the green light. The hon member for Innesdal has already said there will be open residential areas in Pretoria.

Where?

Someone mentioned it. On page 24 of his book entitled The Dismantling of Apartheid, which is being distributed free of charge by the hon the Minister and the Bureau of Information, Prof Thomashaüsen says the following:

He goes on to say that the ultimate object is eventually to overcome any form of segregation in residential areas in its entirety, and the hon the Minister of Information agrees with him wholeheartedly. He asked us to distribute this information. As far as I am concerned, therefore, this represents the NP’s official standpoint. No one can deny that. Or else someone must rise to his feet here and repudiate the hon the Minister.

When, on a prior occasion, we debated this Bill in the House of Assembly under false pretences— and nothing but false pretences—viz that the matter would be discussed as an own affair, it was still before the official nomination day. At the time I said it did not look as though the NP would officially nominate candidates in our rural areas. [Interjections.] Nomination day came and went and no NP candidate made his appearance. Most of the NP-minded candidates still say they prefer separate residential areas and own schools and request that politics be kept out of the council. What a ridiculous situation! [Interjections.] The South African public is beginning to brand them as fence-sitters and no one votes for a fencesitter. Consequently I predict that the fencesitting brigade is going to have a hard time in this election.

The standpoint adopted by those of us on this side of the Chamber is unambiguously and specifically opposed to this measure. We are not ashamed of stating in this Chamber and to the world at large that that is our standpoint.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg says the CP is opposed to open residential areas. The intellectually honest CPs, however, say that the major portion of South Africa is going to be an open residential area and that they want to withdraw from that area and settle in a smaller portion of the country where they can isolate themselves. Is that how things work, however?

Let us take a look at the town of Pietersburg in the Northern Transvaal. The town is administered by a CP-controlled town council. An application was made to the CP-controlled town council in that town for a free trading area, and Blacks, Whites, Indians and Coloureds can acquire rights of ownership to business premises. That can be done at the request of a CP-controlled town council.

We must congratulate them!

I am aware of the newspaper in which it is stated that this has happened as a result of pressure exerted by the central Government. I have made enquiries in this connection and have found that that is untrue. I want to go further, however. The hon member said that regional services councils were another key factor in this connection. What does Pietersburg say, however, with its CP majority on the town council? It not only supports regional services councils, but insists that the town be the main seat of the Northern Transvaal Regional Services Council. [Interjections.] That is the truth of the matter, and that is how consistent the CP is. I commend the CP town councillors of Pietersburg on their realism. I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg, however, whether he is going to suspend them from the party, or does the CP no longer exercise any discipline?

The hon member says that the CP claims for itself what it is willing to grant to others. He is fond of quoting certain professors. I also want to quote a professor. I do not know him …

[Inaudible.]

No, Professor Hattingh. I do not even know what his political persuasions are. On the strength of a report stating that throughout South Africa—this is the result of a scientific publication of the HSRC—there are no more than 10 magisterial districts that have a clear majority of Whites, he said the following, according to Die Burger of 24 September:

That is what an independent observer said about the CP’s hollow appeal about “our granting others what we claim for ourselves”.

What do they have to say about the macropolitics which is foreshadowed by what we are discussing here today, the macro-politics involving the manner in which this country must be divided up in terms of their policy? At their congress they officially stated that we did not want to discuss that, that we were not prepared to reveal the fruits of our thinking about this so that it could be debated in the political arena. What, according to Beeld of 17 September, did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly have to say? He said:

What point are you making now?

He went on to state:

Order! There are a few hon members—I am looking at them—whose voices are being heard far too often. It is not necessary. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I shall continue with the quote. He said:

It is not freely purchased or exchanged. Throughout South Africa the Whites alone will decide, and that South Africa for the Coloured people who are represented in this House today, is such—I want to show hon members this map and advise them to study it—that in only two magisterial districts in that area in the Cape Province, approximately up to Kimberley, is there a White majority. For the rest, throughout that whole area—it covers one third of the whole Republic of South Africa—the Coloured people are in the majority.

They say that they want to decide, however, and then they say that they grant to others what they claim for themselves. They stand revealed before the entire country as a party without a policy, a party wishing to sell a dream which is impracticable. [Interjections.]

I was astounded to hear the hon member for Ermelo say that we were right when, in isolation, we conducted that discussion in the House of Assembly under those specific circumstances. Where was the hon member when the hon Chief Whip of the CP argued that what we were doing was immoral, wrong and unacceptable? The hon member for Soutpansberg also argued on those lines. Today he says that it was an honest attempt, that it was in order and that it was judicially quite correct. They contradict themselves. [Interjections.] One cannot get anywhere with such a party. They are no longer a party; they are a loose alliance of people who want a small South Africa, a “Boerestaat”, and also of people who say that the whole of South Africa is still a White South Africa and nothing more. They have no direction. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, when business was suspended I was reacting to the participation of CP speakers in this debate. I should like to remind them that when they were still members of the NP, their chief leader …

Oh, stop using that old argument!

Well, it is an argument that hurts and I shall therefore not stop using it. Their chief leader was a co-signatory of a document—the twelve-point plan—which stated that it was impossible to have exclusively own residential areas throughout South Africa. An illustration was given of this, and what it meant then, it still means today, and that is quite simply that it is not possible everywhere. In what remains of this debate they must tell us whether they have decided that since 1981 it has become possible to enforce total residential separation.

In their ranks they now have someone who concedes that it is impossible—the hon member for Overvaal. He had to be repudiated by their leader because he acknowledged that it was not possible in Hillbrow. He therefore adheres to the 1981 policy, Sir, and every hon member in that party must tell us whether or not he adheres to the 1981 statement.

The fact is that in South Africa we have, de facto, always had, and always will have, certain areas which are mixed residential areas, and without this Bill before us it would mean that we would always have to close our eyes to a situation which contravened the laws of the land. Therefore— apart from the other reasons I shall be coming to—this Bill places a de facto situation within the ambit of the law, and after this Bill has been passed it will be possible to bring about the orderly planning of the Hillbrows and Woodstocks of South Africa, to make them properly subject to health regulations and prevent slum development from taking place there. That alone ought to change hon members’ views of this Bill if they are in any way inclined to think of these matters in practical terms.

Hon members of the CP complain because we state, on our posters, that we advocate own residential areas. Sir, surely that is the truth! Why do they neglect to take note of the unequivocal policy statement I made here in the previous debate on behalf of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly? We then stated clearly that we supported this Bill and that we would cooperate in the establishment of free settlement areas, the test that we would apply being whether a need for them existed. We clearly spelt out that there was, in fact, a need in our large metropolitan areas, but in the same breath we said that we in the NP stood for the preservation of a basic pattern of own residential areas. We said that we would co-operate, because we believed that a need existed, but not at the expense of a basic pattern of own residential areas.

Other Ministers’ Councils are free to adopt a different attitude—and I do not begrudge them the freedom to do so—and to implement that other attitude. The Bill offers them the opportunity and scope to do so.

We also said that a clear segment of the policy framework we would adopt in the Ministers’ Council of the House Assembly when this Bill became law would be to state that existing residential areas could only be considered for conversion to free settlement areas if the vast majority of the inhabitants were in favour of such a step. We also committed ourselves to consultation with all legal inhabitants, and in particular to consultation with local authorities, and within this very framework I have just outlined, we shall also deal with the functions relating to the grantin g of permits when this is entrusted to us in the Ministers’ Council in terms of other legislation.

Free settlement areas do not dismantle own residential areas. The obverse is also true—own residential areas do not nullify free settlement areas or negate their importance. This Bill we are debating today remains a dramatically new step in the structuring of South Africa in such a way as to comply with the demands of the realities of this country.

A final matter to which hon members of the CP referred, particularly by way of interjection, was that of schools. For years now they have been saying that we on this side would ensure that there were mixed schools and that State-aided schools would not continue to be reserved for own population groups. Sir, that is untrue, and hon members know it.

In schools, however, there is good evidence to support the fact that free settlement areas do not embody all the sinister dangers which they have predicted. Surely in South Africa, virtually for centuries now, we have had private schools which were open to all population groups, and quite a few new private schools have been added to the list. Has that embodied a threat, or has it created some freedom of choice which has proved to be a solution for many people, enabling them to make a free choice? No, Sir. Our view on the question of schools is most clearly formulated in the report of the President’s Council and in the hon the State President’s reaction to it. In it no problems whatsoever are foreseen, it being made clear that this matter need not be linked to the question of free settlement areas.

Where possible!

Yes, where possible, because there have always been schools which have been open to all population groups, for example the private schools. [Interjections.] While two of the members of that party were members of the Cabinet, Coloured schools, which were then still administered by the Minister of the Interior or Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs, were run on the basis of there being open schools to a certain extent. Hon members from those groups know that their schools are still accessible. They were administered in this way by an NP Government of which CP leaders were members.

Before lunch I referred to the fact that there were no more than 10 magisterial districts in South Africa in which there was a White majority. What is the significance of this question? The significance is firstly that CP policy is not practicable; it is, to all intents and purposes, a non-policy. Secondly it means that the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and Black South Africans— all the people—will always be neighbours in the same town, in every district, in every region throughout South Africa. They will always be working together in the same factories, the same gold mines, the same offices, and together they will engage in agricultural activities on the same farms.

If it is true that we shall always be together in this country …

And swim together!

Who can deny that we shall always be together? Hon members of the CP are grappling with this problem, because they do not have an answer. They cannot say that they do not begrudge others what they claim for themselves if they are forced to acknowledge that there will always be people who must have second-class rights in the area they call White South Africa.

If that is so, in this country we have to find a way of living together in the same country as good neighbours and jointly exercising control in one and the same country. We shall have to find a modus vivendi which offers security to those who have a rightful claim to it and which offers reasonable opportunities to those who do not wish to seek or find their security within the group context. That is what this Bill is doing. As my hon colleague clearly stated in his introductory speech, it accepts the principle of the freedom of association. Another hon member referred to the fact that there were two sides to this principle. That is true. On the one hand it embodies the right to associate, but if one defines it in clear and unequivocal terms, it must also embody the right to dissociate.

If free association is interpreted as not being in line with what I have just said, then surely this becomes compulsory integration. Then there is no longer any question of “free” association.

In this debate a great deal has been said about the realities, particularly the one reality that the overall majority of Whites prefer—I want to put it in even stronger terms—insist on an own community life. That is a fact. This includes own residential areas and own schools. This is a reality that everyone must bear in mind. There is another equally important reality, and that is the opposition, from other quarters, to the concept of own residential areas. This is also a reality which was put forward in this debate and which is manifesting itself. I think we must take note of both these realities.

We must calmly and quietly tell one another that to make a great fuss about that, to denounce those who put forward a different view, or to think that pressure will change the reality of the situation, is an attempt to escape from reality. We can debate this issue as much as we like, but these two realities will remain, and that is why we in the NP believe that some measure or other is necessary to enable all groups which feel strongly about this—this is relevant here—to maintain their own residential areas, amongst other things. We also believe that groups which do not feel strongly about this have the right to the necessary manoeuvrability allowing them to give expression to their views in accordance with their own choices. The Bill before this Meeting takes note of both these realities. It takes note of the fact that many South Africans are in favour of own residential areas and that many are opposed to such areas. In a practical way it gives people enough scope to deal with these factual circumstances, considerable freedom of movement having been incorporated in this measure.

Viewed objectively, this new initiative entails more advantages than disadvantages. Firstly it is based on the principle of give and take. That is the only basis on which we can achieve lasting peace and sound relations in South Africa. An all-or-nothing approach will not get us anywhere. In this debate we shall not be able to persuade one another to accept an all-or-nothing approach. Hon members and the various parties must guard against an all-or-nothing approach, because such an approach will get us nowhere.

Secondly, this Bill is the basis for orderly development in accordance with existing needs. Thirdly, it eliminates friction and uncertainty. We must learn a lesson from other countries which have also had this traumatic experience in introducing substantial amendments to a system that guaranteed own residential areas. Because it was not done in an orderly fashion, bearing in mind the insistence, on the part of a large percentage of people, on the continued protection of their right to their own community life, it gave rise to tremendous friction which cost those countries dearly.

Finally, it ties in with the existing constitutional dispensation by recognising the Ministers’ Council’s responsibility for giving direction to the group which elected it and making the final decisive choice.

I want to conclude by lodging a plea. Let us not get bogged down in old differences and disputes of the past. On the road ahead we shall have to break new ground in every sphere of life in this wonderful country of ours. I believe that the day will come when we will agree on new measures with new names for the purpose of achieving two objectives, about which I think there is already a broad measure of consensus. Let me conclude by saying that the two objectives are fair participation for everyone in South Africa in every sphere of life and the effective protection of minorities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am standing here in the Joint Meeting of Parliament today in my capacity as a true South Africa citizen, and definitely not as an Indian or an Asian. However, I happen to be regarded as one because of the origins of my parents, my grandparents and their parents. I live in South Africa and my only loyalty is to South Africa. I rely on South Africa; I pay taxes and levies to this country just like any other South African, irrespective of race or group. However, it is tragic that I have no right to decide for myself in which residential area I wish to live. I have no choice. It is dictated to me by the White Government of this country.

†The Free Settlement Areas Bill before us is no solution to the complex and artificial problem created by the Government. In fact, it is a key to the contemplation of a perpetual complexity to be compounded as time goes on. In the guise of reform we are now in fact retreating to enliven the existing and prevailing evils of certain legislation surrounded by stupidity which has no bounds.

My people and my party have to reject and oppose this Bill, primarily because it implies an own affairs concept in a strange and unknown area. What own affairs can there be without the existence of subject matter? The subject matter emphasised in this Bill is land. When the people who are represented in the House of Delegates have no land for themselves, what free areas can they create and for whom?

This can be compared to a drunkard telling his mate: “Hey, Buddy! I have decided to purchase the Union Buildings”. His mate replies: “Yes, I know that you are in a position to do so, but I am at present not in the mood to dispose of the Union Buildings”. [Interjections.]

The issue of the allocation of land has to be addressed most urgently before any such foolish Bill as the one before us this afternoon can even be thought of. Who owns the land? Land is possessed by the White community. The Group Areas Amendment Bill, which forms part of the trilogy to which this Bill belongs, has largely, unjustifiably and disproportionately benefited the White group. If any free settlement area has to be proclaimed, it is obvious that such an area has to be sought within the areas held by the Whites.

Who can request the proclamation of such free areas? Firstly, the hon the State President, who of course will not be able to find time to investigate such areas. Secondly, the Ministers’ Council of any House that has jurisdiction over such land, but the Ministers’ Council’s in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates have nothing to offer. The House of Assembly will be most reluctant to anger its voters and supporters by suggesting that they part with land owned by Whites. Furthermore, any Administrator in whose jurisdiction such land may be found has such a right, but the possibility of a request from an Administrator is rather remote.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may put forward such a request. However, I want to tell you that the hon the Minister, for example, could not decide on an Indian group area in the East Rand for the best part of the past decade. During that period the people suffered severely.

That is a lie!

It is not a lie, Sir. It is the truth. We started asking for this ten years ago, and we have only just received Villa Lisa.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

The hon member may proceed.

Any management committee can make such a request, but an Indian or Coloured management committee has nothing to offer, and a White management committee will not venture to upset the feelings of its voters.

How does the NP view such supposedly contemplated proclamations? This is what eight prominent candidates in the forthcoming management committee municipal elections, to be held on 26 October 1988, have to say about this:

These candidates ask the question: “Why the amendments?” Here are some of their answers as given in the Western Telegraph of 22 September 1988:

The advertisement does not mention the confiscation of property. This is a disgrace!

The next heading reads—this is what the NP candidates are telling voters: “Did you know that the CP recently voted against these amendments in Parliament?” However, they do not say why the CP voted against them. It was not for our benefit! They want the Government to act more drastically. If the CP comes to power, will we not be in a worse position?

Order! Hon members should please lower their voices. They are competing with the hon member.

In trying to contemplate free settlement areas, this is what the NP candidates say:

How many Indian communities were compensated when they suffered great losses through the implementation of the Group Areas Act? They continue:

Elsewhere in the Western Telegraph there is a letter from the NP candidate for Ward 10 in Johannesburg. He has the following to say—I think it is only right that I should read this out:

Where is the NP’s sincerity in wanting to open up areas? Why do they want to open up specific areas? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Actonville. He made a most inspiring inaugural speech which left absolutely no doubt about his South Africanship.

However, I find it interesting that the hon member for Actonville has started to make propaganda for the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the CP. He said there would be no difference under a CP government. The hon member for Addo also said several things which gave one the impression that his speech was either written by an hon member of the CP … [Interjections.] … or that he had attended one of the CP’s congresses. I am going to prove this to hon members.

The hon member for Addo spoke about free settlement areas. He said free settlement was a very good idea, but that it should be made applicable to the whole of South Africa. Hon members can therefore see that there is a very close correlation between what the hon member for Addo said and what the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly said. They want free settlement areas throughout South Africa. The hon member for Overvaal only wants to set aside part of Hillbrow, and a few other areas here and there. However, I want to carry on with my speech.

The three Bills under discussion, namely the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Group Areas Amendment Bill, deal only with one specific matter, namely freedom of association. What was unnecessary and therefore undesirable in respect of residential areas only a few years ago, has now become desirable owing to specific circumstances. What has become desirable and essential is embodied, inter alia, in the the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

In my argument in favour of this Bill I shall now confine myself to clause 7 and in particular subsections (9)(a) and (b) of this specific Bill, in which reference is made, inter alia, to research which must be undertaken into the prevailing social and socio-economic conditions. Such an investigation should take the following aspects and elements into account. In the first place it should take into account that the State has a specific regulating function. It must introduce a juridical measure so that the conflicting interests of individuals and groups can be harmonised. In this way the State is guaranteeing the specific rights of people and it is affording security for peaceful coexistence and development in the national community as a whole.

In the process of creating order the Government must take specific facts into account. There are, for example, groups that want to remain separate and others that do not want to remain separate. It must take the legal principles and established rights of people into account in this process.

At the same time specific needs also develop from time to time in all spheres which must be embodied in legislation. Embodying these needs means only one thing, namely reform. Reform is embodying or giving substance to a specific need in such a way that the basis of existing rights is not encroached on. Put another way, this means that the creation of new rights and the expansion of existing rights by the government body must be harmonised with existing rights. This is the reform philosophy of the NP.

Over and above this regulating function such an investigation by the Free Settlement Board must, in the second place, take the existence of cultural differences into account. In contrast to the argument an hon member put forward here this morning, culture embodies more than language, religion and history. Culture is embodied specifically in the lifestyle of people; ie the way people do things, the way they live or their activities. For example, when I stand in a queue in a shop to buy something, and a person standing in front of me in the queue engages in a specific form of bartering, this irritates me tremendously. It is not because the person of colour should be different, but because the person’s way of doing business is in conflict with my way of doing business. That is where the essential difference lies.

It is also true that there was competition between the Western cultural values and the more indigenous cultural values. In this competition the generally valid Western cultural values became the lifestyle of the majority of people in South Africa. There is abundant proof that this Western lifestyle has become the generally valid lifestyle of most people, and I shall not pursue this matter. This common Western culture certainly does not do away with the narrower cultural differences of language, history, religion, etc, but rather transcends these differences.

The third fact which must be taken into account is that recently a new and strong middle class has developed amongst people of colour which also has specific socio-economic needs which the Government must in fact, meet. These are needs which they have satisfied, in spite of legislation and measures to the contrary, more specifically because of the surplus of White dwelling units and the undersupply of non-White dwelling units.

As regards the Free Settlement Areas Bill under discussion, for the present it will suffice to take cognisance of the freedom of association in respect of residential areas as well as the freedom of associators to determine their own lifestyle.

A previous speaker, the hon the Minister of National Education, also argued in respect of the freedom of dissociation. However, one can take the concept of freedom of association very far, in the sense that if a person is free to associate, in this associated condition he is surely also free to arrange those conditions according to his own views. The Bill in question offers the same choice, namely to live among their own people, not only to residents of an exclusively White, Coloured, Indian or Black residential area, but also to other people who do not place such a high premium on their own residential area. This means that the freedom of choice is the same in both cases. The only difference is the connotation being given to it.

I want to repeat that freedom of association, as well as the freedom of associators—the hon member for Toekomsrus, and I almost said “Toekomsgesprek”, debated in precisely the same way—and the freedom to associate also have another side to them. Freedom remains the same, however. The only difference is that we are giving it another connotation. In the past only one connotation was given to it, namely that one could live where one wished but only amongst one’s own people. Now another connotation is also possible, namely that one may still live where one wishes, but it need not necessarily be amongst one’s own people. By means of this Bill areas are being created and determined in which one can give a new connotation to one’s freedom of choice. In this way the State is still performing its regulating function and meeting the need which gradually developed and grew, owing to the coming into effect of specific forces which could definitely not be ignored by the State, but which had to be embodied in legislation for the sake of juridical order. I take pleasure in supportin g the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I speak in support of this measure. We have no other choice but to support the Bill.

I think it is also in order that I state by way of introduction that I represent nine hon MPs in this House and I can assure hon members there are more where we come from. [Interjections.] For the time being we will operate as independents in the House of Representatives. One of the reasons why we left the LP is our dissatisfaction with the attitude in the LP of the indiscriminate rejection of proposed legislation whether such legislation reflects a real movement away from discrimination or not.

Are you looking for a Cabinet post?

That is your stock-in-trade we have to deal with daily!

The nine of us believe that the Free Settlement Areas Bill deserves support and we will vote accordingly. There are thousands upon thousands of South Africans who are eagerly waiting for this Bill to become law. Who are these people? They are people who in desperation fell foul of the law by occupying premises in group areas where they are viewed as being illegals. They are those who have married across colour and race lines and who now find it an impossible task to find a home in South Africa where they can raise their families in peace and without bureaucratic harassment and interference from prejudiced neighbours.

There are also those who wish to exercise their God-given right to live among people of other groups on the basis of free association. To oppose this Bill is to tell these people to accept their frustration and be satisfied with the intolerable situation in which they find themselves and to dash all hope of relief. [Interjections.]

If one takes a dispassionate look at the President’s Council’s debates and report on the question of group areas one is brought up short by certain incontrovertible and undeniable realities that thorough investigation has brought to light. In that report and those debates there are also suggestions as regards solutions to certain problems. Certain points stand out very clearly, including the fact that not all communities are ready to move away from group areas. [Interjections.] This is not my point of view; it is the objective finding of scientific research. [Interjections.] I shall prove it in a minute, partly by quoting the LP itself. [Interjections.]

There are those who are ready to move, but who have no means of realising their aspirations. This Bill makes provision for this movement away from group areas.

There are those who are not ready for this, but who should have a right to exercise the local option choice. What too many of us overlook— wilfully in most cases—is that almost 40 years of group areas have resulted in the growth of substantial vested interests in those areas in which people find themselves. This applies equally to Black, Coloured and Indian groups.

Ideologically attractive as it may be to call for the total and immediate scrapping of the Group Areas Act, reality teaches us that there will be serious resistance to such a move from important sectors of communities other than Whites as well. I wish to bring to the attention of the hon members the way in which Black business, for example, views the summary scrapping of the group areas. I have here a photostat copy of a page from The Business Magazine of August 1988, which is specifically directed at Black business. I quote Dr Motsuenyane, who raised six points regarding the development of Black business in Black areas. The report reads as follows:

Having quoted Dr Motsuenyane, I would be the last to accuse him of supporting the principle of group areas. [Interjections.] He is reflecting a reality on the ground, and this is very true of all communities who, after 40 years of group areas, have developed vested interests in the areas where they find themselves.

It is also a known fact that Black radical opinion reveals a similar approach to the question of group areas and their removal. This is what they say: Group areas must remain while capitalism remains. They claim that White money will remove even that which Blacks now own under a capitalist free enterprise system. When we have socialism, they say, that will be the time to get rid of group areas.

While I was still a member of the Labour Party, I listened with great interest to the findings of a poll conducted by the party among Coloured people. It came to light that while more than 60% opposed the Group Areas Act, more than 60% also opposed the penetration of their areas by other groups. This is a Labour Party finding! [Interjections.] If we persist in remaining prisoners of ideological stances, we will certainly not be able to see the wood for the trees. We will certainly not be able to find solutions to the terrible problems of the people in this country who are looking for solutions to the problems with which they find themselves beset.

Did Chris Heunis write your speech?

Mr Speaker, that remark reveals a world of information to me. It is so typical of Labour Party speakers. They say that the NP is omnipotent. Behind everything that does not look like Labour Party policy, they will find the NP. They believe this. They do not believe that their own people are capable of thinking for themselves. They do not believe it, and hence this hackneyed accusation that the NP is behind every departure from Labour Party policy.

I and the group I represent in no way wish to convey the impression that we support the concept of group areas. We are opposed to it in principle. However, to try to remove a law in such a way as to jeopardise the vested interests of large numbers of people is the height of irresponsibility. It will create more problems than it intends to solve. The Free Settlement Areas Bill is to my mind a correct step in the process of educating South Africans away from their prejudices in order to prepare them for a dispensation free from discrimination. This is the essence of reform and is the only guarantee of successful change on a peaceful basis.

I have hopefully kept my statement brief and to the point, because I do not have an emotional head of steam to blow off. This Bill, when it becomes law, will be an acid test of the NP’s bona fides as regards bringing about real change. The country hopes that they will be equal to that challenge. I would direct an urgent request to the Government to begin promptly with the task of creating free settlement areas, especially new ones that begin from scratch.

You are a disgrace!

Mr Speaker, those who wish to lead a nation to a new era of peace, stability and good group relations, which is so essential in this country, must suppress and sublimate their own personal grievances and coolly work towards solutions. Any other approach jeopardises the cause of the people they wish to serve. [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon member said: “You are a disgrace”?

I did, Sir.

The hon member should know better. The hon member must withdraw that remark immediately.

If directed by Mr Speaker …

The hon member will withdraw those words immediately.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Speaker, I think it is general knowledge that for years now the PFP and I have been opposed to the concept of enforced residential separation in South Africa because we believe that it is fundamentally objectionable. I repeat that it is objectionable that there should be enforced separation in South Africa on the basis of race and colour. In fact that concept is an obstacle to good human relations in South Africa. We believe that through the implementation of the Group Areas Act a gross injustice was done to those groups of people in South Africa who were not classified White. I challenge any hon member in this Chamber to disagree with me that a gross injustice was done to those persons who were not classified White through the implementation of this Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister himself admitted this this morning when he spoke about the perceptions of the injustice which had been done. I do not think—I am saying this with all due respect to the previous hon speaker—there is a single hon member in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates who has not had personal experience of what the implementation of this Act has entailed for them and their community. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the statistics. Let us look at the areas which have been proclaimed. According to the latest data, that of 31 December 1987, no less than 750 000 ha has been set aside for White group areas, compared with 101 000 ha for Coloureds and 51 000 ha for Indians. [Interjections.] Then I am not even talking about the number of people who have been moved—the injustice done to the extremely large number of people from the other population groups who have been moved—not the Whites—and then I am not even talking about the controlled area and about the number of people who were not classified as White who own land in the controlled area.

However, it is not only the cold statistics that speak to us. I want to tell my hon colleagues in the NP that they cannot escape from those facts. However, it is not only the cold statistics which are at issue; it is the human pain and suffering …

The emotions!

… the emotions which were aroused by the implementation of this measure. [Interjections.] However, this is going on. If this had been the end of the matter, one could still have understood it. It would have been a different matter if one could come back to this Bill and the Government were to say today “Look, we are suspending the Group Areas Act. We are not going to proclaim any more group areas. We are going to proceed from this point and we are going to start negotiating with you.”

Then we would support them!

Then it would be a different matter, but almost every Gazette contains new announcements of new group areas. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. Some of us who have been involved in efforts to acquire permits for people, know what inhuman and undignified behaviour those people are exposed to. [Interjections.] We know that they have to go to the neighbours and say: “Do you have any objection to me buying a house in this area?” [Interjections.] Can hon members understand that? [Interjections.] I am acquainted with the case of a well-known Coloured—if I may use the word—a prominent, professional man who moved to America, and then decided to come back here. He wrote to me several years ago and said: “Look, I do not want to live where I am forced to live. I have the money. I also want to live in a residential area which suits me.” The hon Mr Marais Steyn was the Minister at that stage, and I went to him and said: “Mr Steyn, here are these people. I think we should be grateful that they want to return to South Africa. This man is able to make a contribution in his professional field in South Africa.” Mr Steyn’s reply to me was: “Please send me a colour photograph of the family.” [Interjections.]

It is not I who said that; it was Minister Steyn. I wrote to the man and said: “You must decide whether you want to do this.” He then sent me a colour photograph and it did not help at all. It did not help at all. I merely want to tell hon members, when we talk about the Group Areas Act and this measure, that we cannot overlook that human suffering, because that is the crux of the matter— not the statistical particulars.

Did you agree?

No, I did not. What happened was that through this legislation the NP strengthened, consolidated and accentuated the racial prejudice and the colour prejudice which is virtually inherent in our society in every possible way, to such an extent that the NP created a Frankenstein’s monster. It has become like an albatross dangling from the Government’s neck from which it cannot escape. In the interim the NP has strengthened and accentuated that racial prejudice and that colour prejudice, within its own ranks, and there in the CP benches is the product of those things which they created in their own ranks over the years.

Let us be quite clear about this, particularly with regard to the hon member who spoke before me. We cannot think of free settlement areas in any other way but as an outcome of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] There is no other way.

It is the creation of a new race!

This Bill we are now discussing is nothing but a confirmation of the concept of separate group areas, the concept of enforced residential separation. [Interjections.] We are not getting away from that, and I want to tell the hon member who spoke before me and the hon members of the House of Assembly that this is a fact which overshadows everything else here. In other words, this Bill is nothing but a further acceptance of the concept and the principal of separate, enforced racial separation in residential areas, and an acceptance and a corollary of the Group Areas Act. We cannot get away from that, and not a single hon member in this Parliament can refute the correctness of this statement. [Interjections.] I want to say at once that if the NP intends to move away from racial prejudice and colour prejudice in South Africa, it must do so, because as I am standing here we cannot build a future in South Africa based on racial prejudice and colour prejudice. [Interjections.] We cannot build a future when we assail the dignity of people so fundamentally as we are doing day after day. [Interjections.] We can forget about it.

Now I am asking the hon members of the Government with regard to this measure: What are they going to do other than to strengthen and intensify that prejudice? In the first place I have already indicated that as far as group areas are concerned, the biggest problem is in respect of the White group areas. That is where the problem lies, and as someone else indicated earlier on, it is in respect of those group areas that there must be a change, and not in respect of the small group areas proclaimed for other peoples. That is not where the problem lies.

What is happening now? We are getting a board on which Blacks are not even represented, but which consists of nine people, two of whom, unless the administrator nominates other people, actually come from the other groups. As I have said, the Blacks are not even there. They may be co-opted, but they are not entitled to vote on the board.

What is more, it is the White Ministers’ Council which must approve a recommendation for a free settlement area to be proclaimed in a White group area. With all due respect I want to say that we know the White Ministers’ Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof N J J Olivier is very widely respected for his academic achievements, but the political party to which he belongs has fought for multiracial residential areas and a common voters’ roll for a long time. Now that the Bill before us enshrines perhaps an inkling of those two principles it is summarily rejected by the PFP.

On 25 August 1988 I addressed the House of Assembly in regard to this Free Settlement Areas Bill. Of necessity I will reiterate some of the views that I expressed on that occasion. However, because of the nature of this gathering, I wish to emphasise this legislation in a broader context.

I am sure that all of us in this Chamber—except the CP—have a common denominator in that we all seek consensus in solutions to South Africa’s challenges. I exclude the CP which is not even prepared to share consensus in a common Parliament with their Coloured and Indian colleagues, never mind Blacks. In vivid contrast to consensus, they seek what can only be described as a monastery of seclusion for White racial interests. The NP’s point of departure is to reach consensus with all parties and persons who desire to solve the challenges of our complicated society in this country by peaceful and evolutionary means. I sincerely believe that that is also the point of departure of the PFP, the NDM, the Labour Party, Solidarity and the NPP of South Africa.

It is, however, upon the method employed to achieve a peaceful solution that we differ. That does not imply that consensus will not eventually be reached. Agreement involves hard bargaining, especially when the stakes are high. It involves give and take and ultimately concessions on both sides. These concessions must be acceptable to all parties and must result in a just and fair solution.

The Bill before us represents the introduction into our national life in South Africa of a major new concept, namely the concept of lawful multiracial residential areas.

We had them before!

The principle is one which the opposition parties to the left of Government in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have campaigned for for years. The apparent objection to this Bill, however, is that it is supplementary to the group areas legislation. The cry is: “Scrap the Group Areas Act now and be done with it!” [Interjections.] I want to say with the greatest respect to those who want to scrap the Group Areas Act overnight and who desire to bring about complete integration of the various communities in our South African society that no matter how worthy or appealing such a desire may be, the approach requiring the immediate scrapping of the Group Areas Act at this time, is short-sighted. It is short-sighted because of the following reasons.

Firstly, a traditional pattern of separate residential settlement was established long before the group areas legislation was introduced. To an extent it is fair to say that that pattern was merely recognised in the legislation. Secondly, there is a natural worldwide tendency for homogeneous communities to congregate together and to desire the preservation of their communities. [Interjections] Thirdly, different cultural and social backgrounds are not always compatible with each other and, if forced together unnaturally, result in friction. [Interjections.] All three factors I have mentioned imply …

Order! Some hon members seem to think it is quite in order to keep up running commentaries while another hon member is speaking. It is not in order and I request those hon members to refrain from doing so. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. All the factors I have mentioned imply the natural right of every individual in this country to associate with or dissociate from whomsoever he or she desires.

All these factors are not racialistic per se, but often similar cultural and social backgrounds will affect common group interests. Individuals tend to associate with those who have common interests and to dissociate from those with whom they lack common interests.

The existing legislation—that is the present Group Areas Act as it stands—caters for these factors, but does not cater for integrated communities. We are now breaking new ground and, while not disrupting the rights of those who wish to live an own community life, we are now catering for those who wish to live differently.

We must look at this Bill in the light of South Africa’s peculiar circumstances. This Bill, although part of a so-called trilogy, is in fact a separate piece of legislation. In the reform process we must accept that as they exist at the moment in this country, the differences in cultures and backgrounds are real and vary in degree. We must be pragmatic and realistic. We must take cognisance of the potential consequences of our reform measures and guard against disharmony.

We cannot afford to reform South Africa into chaos; we must reform it into improvement. We must make South Africa a better place to live in. If this Bill is enacted, South Africa will indeed be a better place to live in than it is at present.

Why do I say this? I say this because for the first time, irrespective of his race, colour or creed, an individual’s right will be enshrined to select a plot, a house or a flat of his own choice in a free settlement area, to become the owner of that property and to live in a fully integrated, multiracial environment. That in fact is a tremendous step forward. I ask: Who in this House could be so bold as to refuse to give any South African that right? Certainly not a member of the NP!

The ultimate solution to the future of South Africa lies in reconciliation within a new constitution of the rights of groups and the rights of individuals. This Bill is undoubtedly a step in that direction. It amounts to a reconciliation and a compromise between the concepts of group rights and individual rights. The Bill reflects the Government’s practical attitude towards changing circumstances in South Africa. It is an important adaptation of Government policy to suit the times. This legislation is progressive; it is not retrogressive. In the debate on this Bill in the House of Assembly even the hon member for Randburg was obliged to indicate the NDM’s support for the Bill. It appears they are not taking part in this debate and we shall watch how they vote with interest. There should be no reason why the PFP and other parties in the other two Houses should not support this Bill and the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill even if they vigorously oppose the Group Areas Amendment Bill or the Group Areas Act itself.

I urge them—particularly the hon leader and members of the Labour Party—to reconsider their stance seriously, even at this late stage and to disengage this Bill from the debate on the Group Areas Amendment Bill. Let us consider this Bill on its merits.

In conclusion allow me to quote from Webster’s first Bunker Hill Monument Oration in America words which are equally applicable in South Africa at this time:

Let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony. Let our dictum be our country, our whole country and nothing but our country, and by the blessing of God may this country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not to oppression and terror, but to wisdom and peace and to liberty upon which the world may gaze with admiration.

I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to make it known that it is by virtue of a commitment by the leadership of my party that we are participating in this debate. We do not support this Bill.

In general I agree with the statements made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning when he spoke initially about the amount of reform the ruling party of this country has brought about. However, that does not necessarily mean that those hon members of Parliament who happen to be of a different pigmentation or skin colour must tacitly approve anything the Government puts under their noses. We are not prepared to do so because, according to the Constitution, although some hon members of Parliament may have a permanent suntan they are constitutional equals. We therefore have every right to disagree with certain legislation which is submitted here.

We talk about realities. The reality is that the legislation which is to appear before us this week is all linked to the Group Areas Act. To talk about the Group Areas Act would probably take us a few weeks. It is an Act which is spoken about so much, that perhaps it is the most hated Act in the whole world. I do not believe any country’s legislative process has an Act like the Group Areas Act.

I am waiting patiently for interjections of some sort from the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I just want to assure them that if they antagonise me I am prepared to respond in like fashion. [Interjections.]

We are scared!

We are just as scared of you.

I like that.

†That is the only thing that is going to happen to that particular political party. They will have to run scared of everybody in this country because they are shying away from the realities. [Interjections.]

I consider this piece of legislation a temporary public relations exercise rather than a lasting reality. Legislation like this will make the reform process stagnate. The people of colour who have participated in the tricameral Parliament once made a pledge to their community saying: We are going there to dismantle apartheid. Because the Free Settlement Areas Bill is shackled to the Group Areas Act we cannot see our way clear to support this particular measure. Irrespective of what kind of window-dressing accompanies the Bill presented to us, all those people who truly represent constituencies and who have the welfare of the masses at heart will not support this measure, simply because it is linked to the Group Areas Act.

I would like to return to 1 October 1954, when the Tomlinson Commission presented its findings to Parliament. One of their recommendations was that nobody should shy away from the idea that the Black population would eventually spill over into the White-occupied areas. This was in 1954, and as far as I am concerned the Group Areas Act was the most terrible thing to happen. It may not seem relevant at first glance, but the date of my birth day was 29 May 1951. [Interjections.] Exactly one year before I was born the Group Areas Act was passed by what was at that time an all-White Parliament. Ever since I can remember I have been forced from pillar to post because of this Act. The White people in this country have not felt the whip or the vicious lashes of this Group Areas Act as the people of colour have. [Interjections.]

This Free Settlement Areas Bill is a piecemeal measure. If we want to make positive contributions and move forward pragmatically and with realistic ideas, as the speaker before me mentioned, we cannot propose piecemeal solutions. I just want to say that the whole of South Africa should be thrown open. We should not be given bits and pieces.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister’s introductory speech was a painful attempt in the first place to explain his party’s weak-kneed capitulation before the hon the leader of the Labour Party. Seen in conjunction with the first part of the hon the State President’s statement, this exercise represents a further painful, but desperate and futile attempt to save the failing Constitution. In the third place it is clear from his speech that the Group Areas Act is disappearing, that it is no longer a sacred cow, and this concurs with what the hon the Minister said in Worcester on 25 April 1986, according to Die Burger of 26 April 1986:

He went on to say the following about the Group Areas Act:

[Interjections.] This ties in with what Big Brother said. [Interjections.] Big Brother said:

That is exactly what the NP is doing now.

I now want to turn to the hon the Minister of National Education, the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly. It is clear from his speech that he thinks the best way of diverting attention from the Government’s maladministration is to attack and try to denigrate the opponents he fears most. He says the CP claims that they themselves will decide about making land available. He said the cruel monster, the CP, itself would decide. What is happening at present, however? Who is deciding about land at present? Who bent the rules forcibly two weeks ago in order to make the will of the NP prevail.

What does the Bill say about who is to decide?

What is going to become of this Bill once all the opposition parties have rejected it this week? [Interjections.] Then I want to ask the hon the Minister what he is doing in connection with Mr Danie van Zyl. Does he also regard this Bill as a punitive measure in that if one should vote against this Bill and that ward were to send an opposition party to the municipality … [Interjections.] Yes, there the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is telling the hon the Minister he must not reply to the question.

I shall reply to you! [Interjections.]

I want to know, if one votes against the Government on 26 October and that ward is not taken by the NP, whether it will become a free settlement area. In other words, it is going to become a penal settlement. What we have here, therefore, is a punitive measure and a free settlement area which is going to become a penal settlement.

You are distorting the truth!

We shall take a look at that too!

Then the NP must never tell us we are racists if that is the attitude of the NP leader in the Transvaal.

We now come to that fine expression that only the truth prevails. [Interjections.] With reference to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s announcement about the areas of Waterdal and Ironsyde … I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would listen to me now.

I am listening!

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the areas of Waterdal and Ironsyde would be considered with a view to proclaiming them as free settlement areas. In front of me I have a pamphlet distributed by the NP in the Vaal Triangle. This pamphlet contains the following very interesting words:

Yet they say only the truth prevails. [Interjections.] Yes, only the truth prevails. Here is their pamphlet, Sir.

You do not know the Vaal Triangle!

This is the document that they are distributing.

You are confused! [Interjections.]

In the first place it is shamelessly misleading the Whites in the Vaal Triangle.

Koos misled you! [Interjections.]

In the second place I want to know what will become of the credibility of the hon the Transvaal leader of the NP now.

It has been shattered! [Interjections.]

My next question is how the Cabinet operates. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning mentioned these two areas as areas which were going to be investigated with a view to free settlement. At the same time, however, the hon the Minister of National Education, who sits in the same Cabinet with him, knows nothing at all about it. [Interjections.] That is how the NP operates.

Mr Luyt brought a document with him from Africa after talking to the ANC and to other people. He gave that document to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, yet the hon the Minister of National Education does not know about that document. How is that possible? He caused an investigation …

Go and ask Louis Luyt!

No, go and ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs where that document is! [Interjections.]

When the hon the Minister says the conversion into grey areas is subject to the approval of the greater percentage of the legal occupants of an area—that is more than 51% …[Interjections.]

The majority is …

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must be given an opportunity to proceed with his speech without this constant stream of interjections.

It is only Whites. I now ask the hon the Minister of National Education, if the Whites vote against a free settlement area, what is he going to do about the illegal occupants?

What is that?

Is he going to evict the illegal occupants or must those who have fallen victim to that right of ownership move? That is the question.

Who determines who is illegal?

Mr Chairman, furthermore we want to say that Parliament also discussed the Bill under discussion from 22 August to 2 September of this year. That was an abortive session for the account of the taxpayer. [Interjections.] We have been informed that the joint committees, which consisted of 23 hon members, came from throughout the country. These sittings of the joint committees did not last longer than 10 minutes either—or 30 minutes at most—before adjourning without having accomplished anything.

We accuse the Government, which gave in to the demands of the LP, of recklessly wasting money while South Africa is in an economic stranglehold. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister should take the country into his confidence and tell us what the session lasting from 22 August to 2 September, as well as this week’s session, have cost the country. [Interjections.] What was the cost, during the failed session, of joint committees dealing solely with the Bills we are going to discuss this week?

What does apartheid cost the country?

Mr Chairman, I should like to repeat a few aspects of what we said during that abortive debate. We maintain that the establishment of group areas has a scientific and historic basis. This idea originated in the Transvaal in May 1848, and in Natal in 1885. Select committees made thorough investigations into this matter in 1926, in 1930, in 1937 and in 1939, and in 1950 Dr Dönges said it represented a conscious expression of public opinion over the past 70 years. It is 100 years now.

This public opinion was shaped by the problem and the challenge of maintaining racial harmony as a multiracial community. This public opinion is fed by the instinct for existence.

In April 1986 the hon the State President himself said that the international examples referred to by the President’s Council in its report confirmed the validity of this point of view. In that case, why abandon this principle? It is a principle for which the NP has received a mandate, election after election, and which it is now, as in so many cases on the course of reform, treating with contempt. This does irrevocable harm to the Government’s credibility.

One cannot simply appeal to the right of free association. Free association implies that the person with whom one wants to associate is happy with that. That is what free association means, and that is not what is happening in South Africa. One either has to put up with the new arrival or move, and that is not free association.

We repeat that the sword of Damocles is hanging over every square metre of White land in the RSA … [Interjections] … because it is now possible for the Minister, a Ministers’ Council, a city council or a township developer to have any White area in South Africa investigated and declared a grey area. These are areas of which the possible buyers at this stage make up only 15% of the population but which will now include the whole population. Surely any entrepreneur who is concerned only with profit will choose the second alternative. These are the circumstances with regard to all White land. If one listens to Danie van Zyl in particular, one realises that if the NP does not like one, they can at any time have one’s area investigated in order to declare it a free settlement area. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister keeps on making interjections, but in a muffled voice. He is welcome to put a question to me if he wants to.

The CP rejects this Bill with the same contempt with which it rejected it during the abortive session that took place only a few weeks ago.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan made a great fuss here about certain undertakings which the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid allegedly gave in their constituencies, inter alia in respect of two residential areas, Ironsyde and Waterdal. I have been informed that the Ironsyde area is, in any event, situated on the periphery of the Vaal Triangle. [Interjections.]

I have also been informed that the inhabitants of Ironsyde have themselves requested that the area concerned be declared an open area. [Interjections.] I understand that there have been specific requests for those areas to be declared Black areas. As far as the Waterdal area is concerned, I also understand that de facto infiltration has taken place and that similar requests from the Waterdal area have been made to the Government to have it declared a Black residential area. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House should also like to thank the new group in the House of Representatives under the leadership of the hon member for Southern Cape for the fact that they support this measure. I think the hon member has displayed a realism which can only promote the reform process in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The general rule in South Africa—I want to emphasise this—is that the various population groups have their own residential areas. With the exception of the Bible, however, there are no absolute rules in the world which are immutable for all time and in all circumstances. Alongside the general rule, there are exceptions which require different treatment. [Interjections.] Alongside the general rule that the various population groups are established in their own residential areas, there are exceptions which have to be treated differently, and that is the specific aim of the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

Practical circumstances demand that provision be made in law for free settlement areas in South Africa. Surely it is a fact that there are certain areas in South Africa in which people of different groups live together owing to certain socio-economic circumstances. Surely that is nothing new. Since the Group Areas Act came into operation in 1950 there have, of course, been certain areas which could not be disentangled. That was of course the main reason—and the hon the Minister of National Education referred to that—why the NP committed itself, in its election manifesto of 1981, to separate residential areas where possible.

If it was not possible, in the fifties and in the sixties, to disentangle certain areas, when Black urbanisation was still in its infancy, today it is not possible to do so either, given the fact that one is dealing with accelerated Black urbanisation. It is wishful thinking to maintain that one could suddenly make certain areas White which never were, in fact, White to start with.

If Dr Malan, Adv Strydom, Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster could not manage it, how on earth is the CP going to do so. Perhaps they are considering applying the magic formula of the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon member for Lichtenburg, of course, said that if the CP were to come to power, Blacks would disappear from South Africa so surreptitiously that no one would even notice it. Even if they were to apply this magic formula in Hillbrow, they would not manage to make Hillbrow White.

The fact of the matter is that there are de facto mixed residential areas in South Africa, and legal certainty in respect of these areas is in everyone’s interest. This Free Settlement Areas Bill can be used as an instrument to bring about such legal certainty.

The Bill also provides for new free settlement areas, provided a township developer or the local authority makes the relevant application. Obviously the establishment of new free settlement areas is subject to investigation by the Free Settlement Board. In the same way that a need exists amongst some people to send their children to mixed private schools, there is likewise a need amongst some people to live amongst members of other groups. In the same way that the need in respect of mixed private schools has been provided for, this need for free settlement areas is also being provided for.

One has to accept that such a need exists mainly in the metropolitan areas. Local authorities which are not favourably disposed to such areas being established in their areas of jurisdiction should think again, because a free settlement area could relieve the pressure on one’s own residential area.

I want to refer briefly to an important change to the present Bill in comparison with the one which came before the House of Assembly earlier. Clause 7 (3) has been defined more clearly in the sense that it has been placed beyond all doubt that a local government body—be it a city council or management committee—could only request an area to be investigated with the view to being declared a free settlement area if that area fell within the area of jurisdiction of the local government body. In other words, the Cape Town City Council could not ask to have a part of Athlone investigated, and Athlone’s management committee could not ask to have a White area, which fell under the Cape Town City Council, investigated. The powers which are hereby granted to a city council and to a management committee to make certain investigations regarding a free settlement area are on a par.

I venture to make an observation in this regard— directed specifically at the House of Representatives. I think it would undoubtedly facilitate the constitutional process in South Africa if management committees were also prepared to accept full autonomy. [Interjections.] If management committees were prepared to develop into autonomous local government bodies, as I see it, third-tier government would play an important role in a future constitutional dispensation for South Africa.

It is going to be the foundation upon which a new Constitution is going to be built. If a specific group did not accept full autonomy, this could have an inhibitory effect on future political reform. I want to illustrate this by way of an example. The Strydom Committee, which investigated the Group Areas Act, recommended that the Group Areas Act be scrapped and replaced by the Land Affairs Act. Instead of referring to group areas, reference would be made to municipal areas of jurisdiction. The fact that management committees do not accept full autonomy can therefore be an obstacle to any development in this direction. The hon member is welcome to participate in the debate at a later stage, and I should like to hear what he has to say about this.

I also want to deal briefly with objections to this Bill from other quarters. From the ranks of the PFP, but also to a certain extent from the ranks of the House of Representatives, it has been alleged that in practice no free settlement areas would in fact be established because registered voters had to be consulted. They could air their opinions, and in practice might exercise a kind of veto, because the registered voters are practically all White.

From the evidence before the joint committee it was apparent that in areas where people were already living among members of other groups, the objection was not to persons of colour moving in next door to someone else. The objection was to overcrowding, the contravention of health regulations and the creation of slum conditions in certain blocks of flats. Given the fact that the socio-economic situation also has to be taken into account before an area is declared a free settlement area, I think it is essential that the problems I have outlined be addressed in those areas which have been earmarked as free settlement areas.

I welcome the fact that in a place such as Hillbrow there is already an action committee, but I think the problem must be dealt with far more comprehensively. I almost want to say that an area such as that involving certain parts of Hillbrow should, in fact, be addressed on a JMC basis. In the same way as a city such as Alexandra is dealt with in its entirety, I think areas such as Hillbrow should also be dealt with in their entirety. Criminals and vagrants should physically be removed from this area. Slum conditions should be eradicated. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, while the hon member for Southern Cape was addressing this meeting the thought crossed my mind that if I were sitting in the Government benches I would have said to myself: A star is born. The hon member, who seems to have disappeared now along with the rest of his little group, had better understand that he can run but he cannot hide; we will find him.

This is an hon member who won his election as one of the top members of the LP in 1984. He is an hon member of Parliament who helped with the shaping of policy. He had a hand in many of the decisions that were made by the LP. Now he seems to find reason to criticise the very decisions which he had a hand in making.

He says that the LP is on a road of indiscriminate opposition to Bills brought forward by the Cabinet. He has to prove this! The LP has not been indiscriminate in its opposition to Bills. Did the LP oppose the Bill that was discussed the very last time we met in joint debate? Did we not risk opposition from people who were more leftistinclined when we helped with the passage of what was then referred to as the National Council Bill? We can quote many instances in which we cooperated in order that justice might prevail in this country. Therefore I feel that the hon member must come here and explain again what he means when he says that the LP is so irresponsible as to be indiscriminate in its opposition to Bills.

He is applauded for saying that—His Master’s Voice!

The hon member talks about his group giving support to the right of dissociation. If the hon member means giving support to discrimination on the grounds of skin colour, then I shudder when I think of the day when they find principles to work out for their as yet to be created political party.

I want to indicate what sort of people we have to deal with here. At a National Executive Council meeting of the LP at the end of April, two major decisions were taken. One affected participation of members of Parliament at third tier government level. The other decision that was taken revolved around group areas legislation. All of the members who now sit and talk in support of the right of dissociation, were present at NEC and were bound by the decisions of NEC. They supported both decisions, and I would like to read the Press statement that was released subsequent to that meeting.

I repeat that the hon member for South Cape agreed with this major decision. Sir, that is enough of that. We will address that matter again when the people are here to listen and interject if they so wish.

I would also like to refer to a reference to freedom of association which was made by the hon Minister of National Education. In his reference to freedom of dissociation he said that if one allows only for freedom of association and not also for freedom of dissociation, then one is automatically providing only for forced integration. Does the hon Minister mean that people who have enjoyed unfair privilege above other people over the decades, should now have the right of dissociation from those who have been dispossessed in all that time? Does the hon Minister prefer houses to stand empty because the only prospective buyers happen to be different only as far as skin colour is concerned? I would like that question to be addressed.

I would like to make an appeal that we listen to what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said just a few minutes ago. He said people do not object to people of a different colour living next door to them—that the fears centre upon slums and overcrowding etc. If that is the case, why do we discriminate on the grounds of skin colour? Does it mean that only Black people overcrowd areas? Given the same circumstances, would not people of any colour overcrowd an area? I would like us to appeal to the NP to think again.

Think!

Think and vote right.

†We ask the NP to think about totally scrapping the Group Areas Act and not to be fearful of doing that.

I must refer to references that have been made to my leader, both here in the sense of “Big Brother” and outside in the sense of “Baas Hendrickse”. Amongst our older so-called Coloured people it was always believed that people talk about “baas” simply because one Coloured does not like to be ruled by another Coloured! [Interjections.]

The opinion is held by some people that if the Group Areas legislation were to be scrapped in toto, South Africa would experience every variety of hell. To my mind this argument is based on emotion rather than logic.

Did we not hear the same argument immediately prior to the scrapping of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act? Did we not hear the conservative fringe of public opinion predict doom and disaster for the country? Did not this argument simply fall away when the deed was done? Is the country not better off today without that hated legislation? Is it not true that the fears that were expressed before that change took place, have since proved to have been totally unnecessary?

Over the years, countless numbers of people were affected by legislation regarding influx control. For years the “dompas” determined the social, economic, political and religious aspects of the lives of South Africans and their mobility or lack thereof. People died because they felt the need to express their political opposition to the laws relating to influx control.

Despite the fears of people as expressed before the scrapping of the laws regarding the “dompas”, when this particular change was eventually brought about and influx control was scrapped, those fears were again proved to have been hopelessly unfounded. It is a fact that largely because of the natural fear of people of that which is unknown and because of their resistance to any change from that which is known and comfortable, it is inevitable that there will be an overreaction in anticipation of any change. This stands to reason.

It is said in some quarters that should the Group Areas Act be scrapped, it will lead to chaos. Some say there will be murder and mayhem. For how much longer will the NP heed the prophets of doom and allow the right-wing bigots in this land and the vociferous lunatic fringe to drive it into sterile paralysis?

We appeal to reason. The Free Settlement Areas Bill is simply a variation on the old theme of apartheid and group areas. The motives of the initiators of this Bill may well be sincere, but we cannot be expected to support measures which are merely an effort to postpone the inevitable.

The Labour Party cannot support this variation, simply because it cannot accept the group areas concept. We expect that since the CP also opposes the Free Settlement Areas Bill, it will be as consistent as the Labour Party and also oppose the whole concept of group areas and therefore the policy of partition.

The right wing in this country is fast becoming so ridiculous that we wonder why the NP is still considering it. I am not referring to the right wing in the sense of the CP in this Parliament only, but to the right wing in the country. It is fast becoming so ridiculous that I cannot accept that thinking people in this land can still give credence to it.

For this reason we must of necessity be slightly suspicious of the NP’s fear of the right wing in this country. We cannot accept that the NP is really afraid of the right wing. We believe that the NP has built up a psychosis as far as right wing opposition is concerned. It is so pre-occupied with that particular syndrome that it cannot think clearly and simply move forward.

This is why we appeal to the NP to take heart. They have the support of the majority of the people in this country when they go on the road of reform. They do not have the support of the country when they go in half measures. The Free Settlement Areas Bill is not adequate to meet the needs of the people.

Let us have a look at what will happen should this Bill become law. I cannot accept that the opening of new areas that will be open to all communities while, at the same time, existing closed areas will be heavily policed can possibly be an answer. What we already envisage is that because the larger group in the country is dispossessed and the smaller group has the privileged areas, of necessity there will be an influx into whatever new areas are created. That influx will have the opposite effect to what is anticipated. We believe that undue overcrowding will take place and then our conservative friends will throw it back at us that open areas cannot work. We want to point out that the conservative wing in this country are the only ones who can gain should an experiment of this kind be launched.

What will happen if the Group Areas Act is scrapped? What will really happen? Will there be murder and mayhem? Will there be a new spiral of violence? We do not believe that that will take place. The good neighbourliness and gregariousness of people will come to the fore, people will have true freedom of association which has no need of freedom of dissociation simply because people will not mix unnecessarily just for the sake of mixing. People go according to where the need takes them.

Should any free settlement areas be created other than the ones where it is being attempted to legalise a de facto situation, where can such areas be located? All the best residential areas are already occupied. I ask: Who occupies those areas? Again we come to the point that it is the privileged few who have the best areas in the country.

What sort of areas are we looking at? We are looking at areas distant from work opportunities. Transport problems must ensue along with all sorts of other associated problems. Nobody will tell me that people live in Hillbrow simply because they love to be with people of a different skin. They live there out of necessity because transport is no problem. Everything is accessible to them. All we have to provide there is schooling facilities and then there will be no problem.

We are mindful of the fact that the argument has been posed before that so-called Coloured people want open areas. The question has been asked: Why don’t you open Mitchell’s Plain? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this Bill is part of the Government’s pathetic response to the crying need for a dynamic and vigorous approach to the major problem of urbanisation. I say pathetic because the Government is sandwiched between the need for positive action to solve the problem and the racist response it has received from insecure Whites it has fed a diet of “Swart gevaar” for generations.

The NP seeks to promote this measure as one of reform. However, it falls far short of what is required to deal with the needs of a non-racial society. The Government talks reform, but delivers apartheid. The Government talks of the need for dialogue and consultation with people of colour and then appeals to the CP to unite with them. This is typical of the approach of the NP who fail miserably in translating rhetoric into legislation. For example, the Government says it stands for free enterprise, but there is more inflation, more regulation, more bureaucracy and more red tape than we have ever had. The Government says it stands for participation by Blacks, but creates apartheid-style forums in which none can be seen to participate. The Government says it accepts the necessity for urbanisation, but fails to make sufficient land available for settlement by Blacks.

This is the crux of the whole matter. One can introduce legislation to deal with group areas, with squatters, with slums, and to create free settlement areas, but the obvious solution to the problem is to make sufficient suitably serviced land available so that people, particularly Black people, can get on with their lives.

We need to identify land and make site and service schemes available on a massive scale in order that millions of our fellow South Africans can be given security of tenure, and can be allowed to provide for their families and educate their children, rather than having to schlep back to some squatter camp every evening to reconstruct a cardboard and plastic shelter some overenthusiastic official has destroyed during the day.

We have a burgeoning population problem in South Africa, and what is the response of the Government to this enormous challenge? They introduce this Bill to declare a few selected and already grey areas to be free settlement areas, and then they threaten the voters, telling them that if they support the PFP in the municipal elections on October 26, those PFP areas will be declared open in terms of this Bill. That was the threat, the racist threat, issued by Councillor Danie van Zyl, the leader of the NP in the Johannesburg City Council, last week. [Interjections.] People in Johannesburg are not stupid. They see the threat for what it is—a knee-jerk reaction from a racist verkrampte who is bankrupt of ideas, dead scared of being beaten at the polls by the CP, a party whose basic philosophy he agrees with, and terrified to face the future. But I have news for Councillor Van Zyl. He can use this Bill to threaten voters as much as he likes, but in the end the whole of Johannesburg, including the ward he has run away from in Newlands and the ward in Linden he hopes to represent, will be free. The whole of South Africa will be free. One day people will live where they choose and no amount of sabre-rattling by frightened NP candidates will change that fundamental truth.

I am not sure all the members of the NP agree with Councillor Van Zyl. For instance, the hon the State President indicated in the House of Assembly on 5 October 1987 that the concept of open areas in which all population groups could live was acceptable to the Government. He did not threaten or promise to bring retribution down on the heads of those who voted for the PFP. He did not say that free settlement areas would apply only in PFP areas. He said it was acceptable to the Government that all population groups could live together in free areas.

I am not sure that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs agrees with the view of the man who is seeking refuge in his constituency. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was quoted in the mid-September 1988 issue of the Hillbrow Herald as saying that no area had yet been considered as a free settlement area. When asked to clarify the issue, he said that many factors had to be taken into consideration, for instance the values of properties would not be allowed to suffer and residents would be consulted.

Now Councillor Danie van Zyl has added a further consideration: If you vote PFP you will be punished and your area will be declared a free settlement area. I do not not know whether we are meant to quiver in our boots at the thought of open areas. The PFP is in favour of open areas. We believe the whole of South Africa should be declared an open area. We believe the Group Areas Act should be scrapped in its entirety and people allowed to find their own level.

The Group Areas Act is breaking down, just as influx control broke down some years ago. Thousands of people live outside their designated areas. The NP’s solution is to introduce this Bill, select a few grey areas—Hillbrow and the inner city of Johannesburg—and apply savage penalties there against people of colour who live anywhere else. This is a sure recipe for conflict everywhere and for overcrowding and slum conditions in the free settlement areas, as the Bill does not provide for standards to be applied. In fact, the NP controlled City Council of Johannesburg has allowed standards to lapse and has cut the budgets considerably for those departments required to enforce the standards everyone is entitled to.

One of Councillor Van Zyl’s colleagues in the Johannesburg City Council has different views when it comes to the Group Areas Act. Councillor Johan Fick is on record as having said that the Group Areas Act should be scrapped, and yet Councillor Van Zyl wants to punish people with shared amenities and services if they do not vote for the NP.

In addition, the hon member for Rosettenville is a keen segregationist, having been reported in the Southern Courier on 18 August 1988 as expressing sympathy for petitioners who wanted Blacks removed from the area. She said: “I have gone on record as saying that the Southern Suburbs are White.”

What does the CP—the party the NP wishes to get into bed with—say about mixed suburbs? In Johannesburg their slogan is: “Whites in, Blacks out.” That seems to be more in tune with the political philosophy of Danie van Zyl, a philosophy which has been roundly condemned by the newspapers. The Sunday Star yesterday, under the heading “City of gold must get out of the gutter”, said in an editorial:

The Sunday Times said, and I quote:

That is the point. If it is the policy of the NP to move towards opening certain areas, why are they allowing certain of their leaders to threaten the voters with retribution if they move exactly in this direction?

The final extract I wish to quote is from Beeld, a newspaper which does not support the PFP, but which said in an editorial last Friday that the concealed threat was nothing but CP propaganda, and the worst of all was that this looked like a shameless confession by the NP that its policy of free settlement areas was something it only wished on its worst enemies. Beeld continues : “We do not even talk about the tasteless implication that people of colour will be undesirable neighbours.”

Is that what Danie van Zyl is saying? I hope the hon the Minister will tell us whether or not that is the policy of the NP.

Mr Chairman, we have grown accustomed to the way in which the hon member for Johannesburg North always exaggerates, and therefore I shall not spend much time on him, although I do want to say that the hon member was only trying to help the PFP out of their difficulties in the city of Johannesburg. I wonder whether the hon members know how many of the Prog city council members have either packed for Perth, left the party or have deserted their wards for easier wards elsewhere in Johannesburg. I shall come back to the hon member later.

During the course of my speech I want to react briefly—perhaps it will fit in very well—to the remarks made by the hon member for Wentworth. This Parliament is not made up solely of a diversity of political points of departure. As we sit here we also represent a diversity of interests, aspirations and needs. This particular measure, as part of the trilogy of legislation relating to the Group Areas Act, is a clear example of the conflicting interests, divergent aspirations and unique needs that we experience in this country. The debate so far has demonstrated this to us very clearly.

One of the positive aspects of this 1984 Constitution is that we are being afforded an opportunity here, within the framework of the standing committee system as well as that of this joint sitting of this Parliament, to tell one another about our particular interests, aspirations and needs and to debate these in depth, and also to express unequivocally to one another our preferences and aversions. That is what has been happening up to now in this debate.

Within every community there are points of departure, standpoints, and—one may as well add—principles. I am almost afraid of the word, because Genl Smuts once said: “Jannie Hofmeyr is ’n baie goeie mens; hy het net een moeilikheid en dit is dat hy te veel beginsels het!”, but let me add this, however: These are points of departure and standpoints for which we as political parties are prepared to fight in the political trenches.

That is why we on this side of the Chamber want to concede with great understanding and respect today—I am saying this to the hon member for Wentworth—that anything pertaining to the Group Areas Act can be like a red rag to a bull for some hon members of the other two Houses of Parliament in particular. Proof of this is clearly apparent from the discussion of this Act.

Standpoints held by hon members on my left demonstrate that it is a source of irritation to them. We have understanding and respect for that, yet similarly we on this side of the Chamber ask for understanding for the expressed desire of our people for the retention and protection of their own community life as a traditional, vested right that has developed in South Africa over many years.

†I want to say to the hon member for Southern Cape, without being patronizing towards him, that at the moment he seems to be the only person in the Coloured community who has an understanding of the problems that we are facing in South Africa. The hon member is going to be ridiculed because people do not like it that he does not take the line he used to take when he was still a member of the LP.

*What surprises one, however, and what I deplore very much is that certain political elements and the so-called liberal establishment media in South Africa, our overseas critics and that ivory tower armchair brigade are either keeping absolutely quiet about this specific measure—the Free Settlement Areas Bill—or are presenting it to the public of South Africa as negatively as possible.

No one in this Parliament can dispute that South Africa, under the ten-year regime of the hon the State President, has embarked irrevocably on the course of reform and that substantial and visible progress in many spheres has already been made with reform.

In fact this measure recognises and confirms that evolutionary changes have also occurred in respect of settlement patterns in South Africa, which have to be accommodated. However, when reform occurs in an evolutionary and responsible way and when it occurs within the framework of orderly government, it is apparently not good enough for the critics of the NP. It seems as though the only acceptable reform for people opposed to the NP has to take place in a revolutionary way in order to make any impression on them, with anarchy and chaos as the end result, and South Africa in sackcloth and ashes.

I want to argue on the one hand that the free settlement areas measure does not detract from the needs and desires for the retention of the established, own community rights of our people. On the other hand, however, it accommodates the aspirations of that sector of the South African society that does not wish to accept own residential areas as a point of departure.

Accusations pertaining to “apartheid” have again been made during this debate. Once again “apartheid” is being dragged into it; 1948 is being dragged into it. Even the hon member Prof Olivier, who seems to have a guilty conscience about “apartheid” because he was one of those who was a member of the NP when the apartheid laws of South Africa were placed on the Statute Book, participated here this afternoon and with a pious face dragged “apartheid” into the debate. [Interjections.] I want to say that this measure creates responsible channels for those who do not want to apply “apartheid” and who want to declare their residential areas to be open areas in South Africa.

The hon member for Toekomsrus said that we must not expect him to sell apartheid. No one expects anyone in South Africa to sell apartheid. In addition no one is compelling anyone in South Africa to practise exclusive “apartheid”. I maintain, however, that those who do not want to make use of these responsible channels to have their residential areas declared free settlement areas and get rid of “apartheid” are themselves applying “apartheid”. [Interjections.]

The hon the leader of the LP was challenged to throw his areas open if he wanted to be so magnanimous, because if he does not do so, I accuse him of perpetuating apartheid in South Africa. [Interjections.]

But let me leave those hon members at that for the moment. I now want to refer to the PFP. There has been a great flurry in Johannesburg after the statement made by Councillor Danie van Zyl. Haphazard reference has been made to that statement, but I want to ask the hon members who referred to that statement whether they have read it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Nuweveld must please make fewer interjections. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

I shall like to refer to the statement made by Councillor Danie van Zyl, because I do not think any of the hon members who referred to it quoted that statement. Consequently I want to have it placed on record in Parliament. I am going to quote a few paragraphs:

If the PFP were to assume control of Johannesburg, he says:

This is the statement made by Councillor Danie van Zyl. I now want to ask hon members what is wrong with that?

The hon member Prof Olivier stated that his party was opposed to forced segregation. I want to ask the hon member whether he is in favour of forced integration in South Africa?

Let us see what else is also happening in Johannesburg. It so happened that Mr Tony Leon also ran away from his own ward, which is situated in the Yeoville area. [Interjections.] Of course he ran away. He has vanished. [Interjections.]

Mr Tony Leon said the following:

This is the official standpoint. However, I see that the hon member for Yeoville is not here this afternoon. One of his people, who is the Yeoville candidate after Mr Leon ran away, says the following, however, and I want to present this to the hon members of the PFP too.

Mr Martin Sweet, a PFP candidate in the October municipal elections—

Here we have a completely different standpoint. Mr Sweet is advocating that select areas in Johannesburg be thrown open. [Interjections.] Now the Progs will simply have to tell us what their ultimate standpoint is. I want to leave them at that though, so that they can choke on their own hypocrisy, because what they say today they contradict tomorrow.

I also want to refer briefly to the CP. The question is, where is their leader? I heard an observation being made that the hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was not prepared to attend a circus, yet he sent his clowns here! [Interjections.] The hon member for Ermelo made a speech here this afternoon. Whenever the hon member for Ermelo, a la “Witman, waar is jou tuisland?”, stands up to speak anywhere in Parliament he omits to mention the standpoint which he shares with the CP think-tank and the CP right-wing centurion, Prof Carel Boshoff. The following standpoint of the CP is very clear. With the secession of the Blanke Vaderland, the Wit Tuisland or the Blanke Volkstaat, the rest of South Africa will be handed over to Black majority rule by means of negotiation.

Why the CP is opposed to this Bill only they will know. They are prepared to throw everything in South Africa open, except that small area to which they are going to migrate in the Third Great Trek—somewhere between nowhere and Morgenzon. I had a quiet laugh to myself this morning when I thought of it. The hon the State President spoke about the National Roads Bill and the tollgate system. He said he was going to consider not sending that Bill to the President’s Council. If one supports the CP one need not be concerned about the tollgates. One only pays once on the road to Morgenzon, because one never comes back! [Interjections.]

In conclusion it is being reported in the media that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives wants to come and tell the Nationalists a thing or two. Surely that is precisely why Parliament is there! We should like to hear what he has to say. We should also like him to hear what we have to say.

You hear, but you do not listen!

Surely it is here and on the joint committees that hon members can tell one another how they feel. Surely they can say what their standpoints are. However, I want to issue a warning, or rather I almost want to direct a plea to hon members: Do not lapse into recriminations in your enthusiasm to label Government measures as discrimination. Hon members should rather identify the problems, needs and aspirations of all groups in South Africa. Hon members must discuss these matters with one another. That is how we will find solutions. Simply to accuse other people of adhering to “apartheid”, of merely wanting to discriminate against other population groups, and of not wantin g the sun to shine on them, is not going to bring us anywhere.

That is not true!

Hon members must talk to one another. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is now telling me that it is not true. Surely it is true! If he says it is not true, and I say it is true, we must sit down and discuss the matter with one another. We must not discuss matters at cross purposes and level accusations at one another. Only by means of discussion will we be able to solve South Africa’s problems.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Stanger to speak, I just want to say that I referred incorrectly a moment ago to the hon member for Nuweveld. I apologize to him because I was in fact referring to the hon member for Klipspruit West. In future I shall remember his constituency very well! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity today to appeal to my White colleagues in this Chamber not to become totally insensitive to the emotions and feelings of people of colour who have suffered tremendously under the yoke of the Group Areas Act. I see that there have been many exchanges in this debate between hon members in the House of Assembly belonging to different parties, as well as hon members in the House of Representatives belonging to different parties. However, I do not think that politicking of that nature is going to solve the problem. I want to appeal to my White colleagues not to be insensitive to the suffering.

I want to start off by saying that in any part of the world the entire question of free settlement areas would be a non-issue. However, looking at it from the South African point of view, and within the context of our history of apartheid, it becomes an issue. There are those people like the hon member for Southern Cape who would like to believe that this is, and indeed, who see in this, a positive aspect, and I can understand that feeling. However, whilst I understand that feeling, my appeal is also that one must look at the provisions that are contained in the Bill.

Before I deal with that aspect, I would like to refer to a news item that I heard this morning. The hon the Minister of Information, Broadcastin g Services and the Film Industry was quoted as saying to the outside world that we have adopted the consensus approach in dealing with our problems in South Africa.

The hon the State President, in addressing this Chamber earlier today, said the following:

I want to know whether that has happened in practice prior to this. Will it happen after this? I would like to submit most respectfully that consensus has not been reached on the legislation we are discussing today and the legislation which will be debated tomorrow and the day after.

At this stage I want to point out that if consensus cannot be reached amongst those who are within establishment politics, what chance is there of reaching consensus with the extra-parliamentary groups? If we cannot find each other here, what chance do we have of finding consensus with extra-parliamentary groups for the future and stability of South Africa? We must bury our differences and start working towards consensus here.

I do not think coming to this Chamber with these measures amounts to consensus. In fact, I believe the perception is created amongst people of colour that the President’s Council is now going to be used to steamroller this legislation through and that we are just going through the motions and mechanics of coming here to articulate and give vent to our feelings, whilst the mechanism of the President’s Council will deal with this legislation and the White community will in fact have its legislation enacted via the President’s Council—much to the detriment of people of colour. Is this what we want for South Africa? Is this the conflict we want for South Africa? I submit that this is a recipe for conflict and more conflict in South Africa.

In his speech earlier on the hon the State President also said that he might refer legislation back to Parliament via the President’s Council if there was a dispute about legislation which was not acceptable to all three Houses. In fact, he referred to two pieces of legislation which would come back. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister at this stage not to proceed with this legislation. There is a lot of conflict and acrimony already.

The international world is going to be watching what is happening here. Our success and progress as far as building bridges with the outside world is concerned will largely depend on how we act internally. If the people of colour internally are not going to be happy, how can the outside world be expected to respond in a positive way? It is not necessary for me to go into details on the subject of the outside world, but one is already mindful of the fact that financial support is needed for reform to succeed in this country. Funds are needed. The economic pressure put on this country by the outside world is not helping us in that particular regard.

Must that situation now be aggravated by passing legislation which is not acceptable to two Houses of Parliament just because the Government wants to appease one sector of the population? Are we naive enough to think that the South African population is not far greater than just Indians, Coloureds and Whites? Should the hon the Minister proceed with the legislation and the legislation hits the desk of the President’s Council thereafter—I know the President’s Council has already been given notice to meet—I submit that we, as people of colour who have participated for reform in a peaceful way, will have to reconsider the function of the Houses of Parliament in which we are sitting.

Are these Houses of Parliament simply chambers where, when legislation is opposed, it is subsequently passed by the President’s Council? Does this mean that the President’s Council can usurp the functions of Parliament? Will this mean that the President’s Council will then deal with such legislation? If that is the case, we as people of colour will have to consider very seriously whether in future we should debate any legislation whatsoever and not simply refer it all to the President’s Council. If that was the constitutional intention of the architects of the Constitution, they must face the consequences.

In his speech the hon the Minister said something about fairness with reference to the Group Areas Act and also said that the legislation would recognize existing patterns. I want to conclude by asking very briefly, if the Group Areas Act does in fact recognize existing patterns, how it is that Indian farmers, who prior to 1950 owned over 43 000 ha of land, today only have 23 000 ha of land. Is that what they call fairness? For consensus to work in South Africa, the hon the Minister in charge should get all the leaders in this Chamber together, sit around a table, discuss the problem, thrash it out and look at it from other people’s point of view—behind closed doors if need be—before legislation goes to joint committees or even the Cabinet. By taking that approach we will give some meaning and content to the word “consensus”.

Mr Chairman, the Government’s reform policy is nothing but a continuous admission that it has found itself in the position of having certain laws on the Statute Book which simply cannot be implemented any longer. For this reason the Government has to adapt those laws according to what it accepts and experiences as reality.

The hon the Minister of National Education said in his address, when he was arguing with the CP, that it was the Government’s standpoint as expressed in its twelve-point plan on group areas that the legislation should be retained as far as possible, but in cases where they have no alternative, they have to adapt to the circumstances. However, the hon the Minister said nothing about pro-active action, nor did he give any indication of where pro-active action was being envisaged. Every time they are criticised, they merely gloss over it.

In fact this has been the case from the beginning, and it becomes clear when the policy of reform is analysed. I have had experience of it, like many other hon members who are still sitting on the Government side today. There was the whole adjustment in respect of sport, the pain that went with the abolition of the prohibition of mixed marriages, the abolition of influx control and the pass laws, etc. Each case was accompanied by the admission that the laws concerned could no longer be enforced, and for that reason existing legislation had to be brought into line with what was being experienced in reality.

Our standpoint on the Group Areas Act is well known. We should like to do away with the Act as a whole, because we believe that that would be the easiest and least painful method. We nevertheless support the Bill, as we have already indicated, but not because of the supposedly pro-active action which it contains, nor because of the Government’s supposed reform intentions, but merely because of the expected results.

We are convinced that the Group Areas Act, like some other laws to which I have referred, will be removed from the Statute Book within the next four or five years because no other action will be possible. The credit will then be due not to the Government, but to the Coloured, Indian and Black voortrekkers and pioneers of the seventies and eighties of this century. The Indian traders led the way to open commercial and business districts using the nominee system, just as the Voortrekkers of old led the way into the wilderness. Blacks, Coloureds and Asians were driven by the inhospitable and unacceptable circumstances in which they found themselves, without adequate housing and peace. This is precisely what has happened in Hillbrow in respect of the Group Areas Act. The pioneers of the present day are moving in there and have led the way in order to find shelter.

This is actually a pattern of civil disobedience which the Government had no choice but to allow, because it became too much to take action against and because the public would not allow it to do so. In spite of legislation which is being envisaged—I do not want to anticipate that debate—in which stronger measures are being requested against people who occupy premises illegally, I want to predict that the Government will find itself unable to act in those cases as well. More permits will simply be issued as a means of doing away with the Group Areas Act.

The tragedy is that certain areas will now become free settlement areas because they have already become such areas.

The hon member for Pietersburg referred to Mr Danie van Zyl’s comments as reported in the editorial in Beeld of 23 September. They were brought up again in this debate by other members. The editor says:

He then says that this does not even deal with the innuendo that it is undesirable to live next to Black people.

I should like to ask the member for Innesdal whether he intends taking part in Wednesday’s debate, or whether he intends withdrawing, since he says that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition will not be able to take part in the debate. What is his standpoint going to be? Is it not high time that we stand up with integrity and, again in the words of the editor of Beeld, make ourselves heard and adapt ourselves to what we say we are going to do?

I want to advocate that we act in this way.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon member for Randburg today chose to deal with the motives for and the intentions of this measure in such a very negative and simplistic way.

He and others who have spoken in similar vein today completely ignore the context in which this measure is being brought forward by the Government. I should like to refer to the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning during the Second Reading of this Bill, in which he reiterated that the Government does not have a static view on laws, that laws on the Statute Book are not holy cows and that society must not become the slave of laws. He went on to say that laws exist to serve society and must reflect current needs and circumstances in society. I would submit today that the Bill before us falls squarely into this category, because it is not only intended to serve a new need which has arisen in our society, but also reflects—we have to acknowledge this—the changing face of South Africa.

In terms of the NP’s philosophy of own group rights, freedom of dissociation is a basic right, also in respect of residential areas. At the same time, however, we recognise that there are people who have a different attitude and who do not have a need for their own residential areas. The hon members of the other Houses have mentioned that repeatedly today.

In the measure under discussion the right of this group of people to associate freely is established beyond question, and so I cannot see how anyone can dispute that this is in fact a historic step forward in our society, such as it is. It is in fact the legitimising of a phenomenon which up to now has been regarded as unlawful. It meets a new need which has arisen and cannot be disputed, and which I say should not be disputed, because it is a natural evolutionary phenomenon which we are seeing in this country today.

*The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly made it quite clear during a debate on this measure in the House of Assembly, as he has done again today, that the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly intends to carry out its responsibilities with regard to the implementation of this legislation in a fair and balanced way. This assurance is to be welcomed, because no one can deny that the way in which this legislation is implemented will ultimately be of critical importance to something which is a new concept in our national life.

I would appeal to the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates who still have misgivings about this Bill, as we have heard them say again today, to be fair and to give this legislation a chance rather than to condemn it out of hand.

†I say that hon members should in all fairness be giving this measure the benefit of the doubt rather than rejecting it from the outset. If they continue rejecting this measure, they will be rejecting a golden opportunity to demonstrate to all South Africans that freedom of association can work and can work well.

Sell that overseas!

I do not have to sell it overseas. It is a fact … [Interjections.] If the determining factor is that we do things in order to sell them overseas, how can we ever make progress in this country? We should be doing what is right, and I say that they have an opportunity to help demonstrate that freedom of association can work in this country. However, instead of doing that, the hon members are falling into the trap of the all-or-nothing approach and they find themselves in the non-illustrious company of members of the CP, in the sense that that party is also taking an all-or-nothing approach.

*I concede at once that this places a great responsibility on us on the Government side if we want to be taken seriously in our intentions with this Bill. If we want this measure to be seen as a truly positive step, we shall have to make sure that free settlement areas succeed. If those of us who prefer to dissociate say that this is substantively a new approach to the orderly regulation of residential patterns, we shall have to be careful in all our actions to ensure that those who prefer freedom of association—as they are fully entitled to do—are not penalised in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, as a result of their choice of a lifestyle which we may not share.

†I would like to deal briefly with the strange and illogical phenomenon that this measure is being opposed by people to the left of the NP, including some in the White political spectrum. I would just like to comment on this briefly.

A women’s organisation called Women for Peaceful Change Now wrote to a number of NP MPs in Natal and commented on various measures before Parliament during this session, including the Bill under discussion. They say, inter alia:

This has of course also been contended by some speakers in this debate, but I say that this is a narrow and short-sighted view, because it simply does not stand up to objective, critical examination. I say this because it is a view which ignores the fact that in terms of the Government’s reform policy what we are doing now is a positive adaptation of the status quo and a change for the better. Nothing anyone says can change this fact.

While protecting the right to exclusivity, this measure is for the first time actively providing for inclusivity as well. In my view it is a tragedy that, as in the past, the PFP has failed miserably to rise to the occasion and missed a golden opportunity to play a constructive role for a change.

*I also wish to refer briefly to one statement that has been made by the hon member for Randburg and hon members of the PFP about this measure in the course of this debate. In my opinion, it is a very unfair and superficial statement. I am referring to the allegation that this is simply a reactive measure and that it is only aimed at areas that have already experienced an influx of Blacks and in which the Group Areas Act cannot be implemented—therefore, that it bows to the inevitable. I wonder whether these hon members have ever read the President’s Council report that gave rise to this measure. I wonder whether they have devoted any attention to the excellent Second Reading speech that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made on the Bill in the House of Assembly, and again here today, or to what the hon the Leader of the House has said about the matter.

The fact that the emphasis is likely to be placed on new areas completely negates the hon members’ argument and only serves to confirm in practice the pro-active nature of this measure. Of the areas mentioned by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning earlier today as potential free settlement areas, the great majority are, for all practical purposes, brand-new residential areas, and this confirms the Government’s standpoint on new areas.

It is also a tragedy that some members of the media have chosen to remain silent about the positive potential of this Bill and to bury it beneath all kinds of scare stories and misgivings that only occasionally correspond with the facts. This measure has many positive aspects, and if the media and those who have to implement this legislation would co-operate and would go about it with an open mind and a positive attitude, we would be creating a situation that no one would have to be ashamed of, something that could contribute substantially to the improvement of inter-group relations in our country.

†In conclusion I would like to say something specifically to my hon colleagues in the Houses of Representatives and Delegates. We on this side of the House have been viciously attacked by our critics on the right for introducing this measure, and we will be paying a political price for it. However, the fact of the matter is that we are doing this because we genuinely believe that it is what the times and the situation require, and it is the right thing to do. It is a step forward—not a giant leap, but a step forward—and anyone who is not prepared to take that step with us is hindering and not helping the cause of reform in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my opposition to the Free Settlement Areas Bill. According to clause 2(1) the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, declare any area to be a free settlement area. There is, however, a problem. The problem is contained in clause 2(2)(b)(iv) which states that in the case of a local government area for a population group this can only be done with the concurrence of the Ministers’ Council.

Today we heard that what this actually amounted to was that the State President could only do so when the White area and the White Ministers’ Council agreed to such an area in the White area, in which our people chiefly live, being declared a free settlement area. [Interjections.] That is unacceptable. To what extent would a Ministers’ Council be influenced by political considerations? To what extent would it be influenced by aspects such as an election which was in the offing? I am of the opinion that these free settlement areas would be overrun on an enormous scale. I believe that these overcrowded areas would have detrimental affects—inter alia in the sense that anti-social conditions such as racial friction, crime and squalor would proliferate. That would be the cry of extremists and conservatives. Unrest would be the order of the day, or there would be a prevalent lowering of standards in these areas. The value of properties would decrease, and then there is the fear of the unknown. Those would be political cries which would not be conjured out of thin air, because people know to what extent our Black people are living in White areas at this juncture.

Free settlement areas would create limited opportunities for the hundreds, no, thousands, of non-Whites living in downtown Johannesburg at present. Informed witnesses before the joint committee indicated that hundreds more are moving in. It is estimated that 60% of the inhabitants of central Johannesburg are non-Whites. These investigations aimed at declaring a free settlement area would, in the first instance, be time-consuming. It would promote suspicionmongering and dissension amongst various people. Conducting genuine, factual and valid opinion polls would prove an expensive exercise. These investigations would be racist in nature because they would take place on a racial basis. There would be delaying tactics when a certain area in a White area had to be declared a free settlement area. Such insensitivity would be the order of the day.

If group areas were to be scrapped, on the other hand, that would not be such an emotional issue. That 60% of the inhabitants of central Johannesburg would simply accept it. We know, do we not, that the city centre attracts the young people and the Blacks. Young people and Blacks prefer to live in the city centre to escape the chaotic conditions in the residential areas, the security risk and the steep travelling costs to and from work.

Someone has asked why I do not want to support free settlement areas. Firstly, I personally think it was a mistake to link this to the Group Areas Bill. It was a mistake for us to have had to be reminded, by way of these free settlement areas, of the fact that group areas legislation was now being given potency and that this was not easily being accepted.

Free settlement areas would not be a viable proposition. They would be overrun and degenerate into ghettos. Great uncertainty would prevail in these new areas because they could not accommodate the thousands upon thousands of misplaced individuals who live in White areas at present and would be forced out of those areas by the imposition of heavy fines and heavy terms of imprisonment. The answer lies in completely opening up all areas in all cities and provinces of our country, instead of declaring limited areas to be open areas. [Interjections.]

The Ministers’ Council of the respective Houses would not be prepared to leave their own people in the lurch, as it were, and to grant their approval for the establishment of free settlement areas. Our major objection, however, is still that free settlement areas would be inadequate areas. The large numbers of people in grey areas at present would not be in a position to obtain accommodation in these areas. The provision of free settlement areas would only be possible on a limited scale. Our fear is that the result of such a limited effort would be ghettos of the worst possible kind. An influx to these areas would lead to the poorest conditions imaginable, inter alia crime, hatred, envy and a return to conditions of squalor.

We are compelled to propose the scrapping of the Group Areas Act, and have no other choice but to reject the Free Settlement Areas Bill. It offers no solution to the problems of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, apparently the hon member for Grassy Park is not really opposed to the establishment of free settlement areas, because he argued that such areas should be declared. He was actually saying that he feared that these areas would degenerate into ghettos. It is, however, the declared policy of the NP that this will not happen, because an orderly dispensation must be one of the cornerstones of such an area.

The hon member raised another important point which surprised me somewhat. He actually anticipated the respective Ministers’ Councils by saying that in improving free settlement areas the respective Ministers’ Councils would not be leaving their communities in the lurch. By implication this would also include the Ministers’ Council of the community of which he is a member.

In a plural society, such as that in South Africa, there will inevitably be divergent views about the way in which society should be regulated. These views would be reflected in the views of the respective political groupings. It goes without saying that every government or authoritative body would take note of this standpoint if it wanted to ensure harmonious coexistence for all the social groupings that exist at present. Politically it would be foolish to disregard the existence of groups in South Africa. Such a view is held by wishful thinkers who strive for an unattainable Utopia, which they nevertheless present to their followers.

The two extremes which are presented as solutions are, on the one hand, that people should associate with one another on a voluntarily basis without statutory interference and, on the other, that the wishes of individuals should be totally ignored and that specific individuals should legally be forced, in advance, to form groups or to associate. Both these views are impracticable in South Africa. Voluntary association also implies voluntary dissociation.

In a homogeneous society there are inevitably fewer decisive factors for community absorption or rejection than in a plural society. If voluntary association is a basic right which everyone can lay claim to, a community which is grouped together in this way should also have the right to be protected as a community which was established by voluntary association. It would, after all, be absurd to say that one had the right to free association, but that if one exercised that right, it would not be protected. This protection of the right to free association is also basic to the Group Areas Act, but this legislation does not accommodate all levels of free association. It is with a view to augmenting these shortcomings that the Group Areas Act is now being introduced. The Group Areas Act protects the right of communities which exist as groups and want to associate with one another. They have, after all, exercised their right to free association and they lay claim to the statutory protection of their rights.

It has been empirically determined that individuals also have a need to associate with one another across the colour bar. It is a fact that there are people who wish to be outside the ambit of the protection of groups based on colour, who want to associate on a different basis and who want the freedom to decide where they want to settle. Because the Government also wishes to accommodate the wishes of these individuals, free settlement areas will be introduced. As is the case with those who want to live in group areas, the rights of those who want to live in free settlement areas will also be acknowledged and protected.

The NP endorses the own community life approach—a right which the community wishes to have protected. The NP, however, also makes provision for the accommodation of those who want a mixed community life. This is a fair and a just approach to the problems of a plural society and the unavoidable interaction that must take place in such a society. In these free settlement areas people will be able to live without any impediments based on race or colour.

It is interesting that those who endorse the two extremist views, ie those who on the one hand merely endorse a more intensified Group Areas Act and, on the other hand, those who want the Act abolished, have apparently not yet properly understood the full impact of the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Group Areas Act. Those who advocate the abolition of the Group Areas Act believe that this is basically the wish of all the people of South Africa. Not only is that untrue, but the recognition of an own community life forms the cornerstone of NP policy, and it is on this basis that the NP is the majority party in the House of Assembly.

Let us suppose, however, that the inhabitants of an existing group area wish to have the Group Areas Act abolished. Then the envisaged Free Settlement Areas Act is the best way of removing all areas from the sphere of operation of the Group Areas Act. The Bill specifically provides for the wishes of the communities in question and adjacent communities to be taken into consideration. If a community wished to retain its existing character, the status quo would be maintained and the Group Areas Act would continue to apply.

The wishes of the relevant community would play a fundamental role, and every political functionary who acted in conflict with the wishes of such a community would be politically insensitive and would be committing political suicide. It is for politicians to interpret the wishes of their electorate and to guide them in giving substance to them.

Although it is not embodied in this Bill, the envisaged amendment to the Group Areas Act would provide for compensation to those who did not want their residential areas to become free settlement areas, provided such people had, in the first place, had their residential property alienated within a specific period of time and, secondly, had incurred losses as a result of such alienation. No one is therefore being forced into a situation in which he would incur losses. Personally I see, in towns and cities, a need for free settlement areas, and I foresee that, with the exception of a few well-known existing areas, they will evolve mainly in new, undeveloped urban areas.

I should like to make an appeal to the Government. If this legislation is passed, every possible effort should be made to establish these areas as quickly as possible. Not only would this help to satisfy a urgent need, but it would also more quickly give the respective community a sense of security. This interim phase merely gives rise to political speculation and exploitation by political opportunists.

What the communities at large must realise is that they themselves actually determine their way of life and that in the true sense of the word this is not determined for them by the Government. What is important, however, is that once a community has determined its way of life, such a community’s wishes will be protected by law. A group of laws such as the now familiar trilogy cannot be more accommodating. Provision is being made for group protection and also for the protection of the wishes of the individuals in the free settlement areas. Provision is being made for the protection of the individual if he should incur losses as a result of the proclamation of free settlement areas. The NP protects these rights. These are rights which individuals and communities arrogate to themselves or determine for themselves, whether it be to live separately or to live in a mixed area. This approach has the potential to defuse latent conflict and to regulate the various forms of community life.

Mr Chairman, following upon the hon member for Port Elizabeth North I can only comment that as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned I represent a community that has been ill served by this Act, whereas he represents a community which has been well served by the same Act. [Interjections.] Therefore we will not be able to complement one another as far as that is concerned.

The concept of free settlement areas as a step towards the ultimate repeal of the Group Areas Act where people of different cultural backgrounds are to be allowed to live together is a good concept. Like other people we have in the past advocated the establishment of grey areas. Unfortunately this Bill does not address this concept as we understand it. As a means to an end, to our mind it fails miserably and we are therefore not able to support it. However, I must reiterate that the concept of allowing people the right to live in areas and in neighbourhoods of their own choice is something we do support. This Bill is linked to the Group Areas Amendment Bill, which also influences in no small way our rejection of this Bill.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has acknowledged the fact that the Group Areas Act has caused people of colour tremendous suffering over the years. We opted to participate in this Parliament with the objective of dismantling hurtful and discriminatory laws. I cannot visualise the promulgation of this Free Settlement Areas Bill as assisting in any way towards resolving our problems. Our problems stem from the fact that the universally hated Group Areas Act has denied us democratic rights and that it has been used to the benefit of one group in our country. We will support any legislation that will make it possible for people to live wherever they choose, anywhere in the country.

This Bill will not prevent the snoopers, bigots and racists of our country from harassing innocent people who, through no fault of their own, live in areas not proclaimed for their race group. This Bill does not address the problem we have of a serious land shortage for our people. This Bill will, rather than resolve problems, aggravate race relations in our country. [Interjections.]

If the Group Areas Act is not deemed to be a sacred cow, why then do we not simply slaughter this cow, thereby directing our attention to the matter of reconciliation and development and the restoration of good race relations with our neighbours and with the world community of nations?

The devious mechanism for establishing the free settlement areas makes this Bill suspect and unacceptable. Those of us who over the years have been involved in group areas inquiries remember very clearly how decisions were taken against our interests, notwithstanding the fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence led at these hearings was in our favour. Therefore, when one looks at the composition of the Free Settlement Board it makes this Bill most suspect. I cannot visualise that a board so loaded will allow for the proliferation of free settlement areas. I believe that this Bill, if implemented, will have the reverse effect—that free settlement areas will be rather the exception than the rule.

I wish to appeal in the interests of consensus politics that this Bill, together with the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Group Areas Amendment Bill, not be promulgated and that a joint committee of Parliament be established to investigate the whole question of land usage and availability in our country. It should also establish the effect which the further retention of the Group Areas Act will have on the economy and the race relations situation in our country. I believe that we have reached a stage in the history of our country where bold decisions need to be taken.

I do not believe that we should pander to the prejudice of a minority of bigots who are attemptin g to impose their minority will on us. This imposition by racialistically inclined people will turn the clock so far back that this country will never recover and be able to restore an image acceptable to the majority of our people and the world at large.

Another aspect of this Free Settlement Areas Bill which is also of the utmost concern to us is the provision, built into this Bill, that any free settlement area may, by proclamation, be deproclaimed. I lived through the trauma of a deproclamation in Ladysmith. I know what effect the deproclamation of an area has on people who are not allowed to put down roots, but are summarily removed because of prejudices prevailing in communities.

There is also a provision in this Free Settlement Areas Bill that the Ministers’ Councils can establish free settlement areas in their areas. How on earth are those of us whose land is in short supply, who do not have sufficient land for our people, expected to establish free settlement areas? However much we might like it, it is physically just not possible for us to establish free settlement areas. However, I must hasten to add that I am proud of the fact that we in fact share our areas with all race groups. I come from an area where Coloureds, Whites and Blacks live together. So to us a free settlement area is not something to which we are unaccustomed. However, the availability of land is our problem, and this problem must be addressed. As long as the problem of land usage in our country is not addressed, and addressed to the advantage of all the peoples of South Africa, so long will there be friction insofar as group areas and related matters are concerned.

The cost of not making land available to people of colour is enormous. Just look at what is happening around the country. On the one hand there is an abundance of land for a particular race group, and on the other hand there is a shortage of land for other race groups. On the one hand there are scarce resources, and homes and educational facilities lying vacant, and on the other hand other communities need land, houses and the facilities which are lying vacant. In many areas of our country those that have are adopting a dog in the manger attitude. They will rather tear down and demolish liveable homes than share with those people for whom homes are in short supply. Unfortunately, this aspect of the South African way of life is not being addressed in the Free Settlement Areas Bill. For that reason, and for the reasons I have enumerated, we find it impossible to support the Bill. I believe this Bill must go back to the drawing board and that, as a previous colleague of mine said, we must find a Bill which is acceptable to all the peoples of South Africa. I believe the leaders of all political parties in this Parliament have to get together and talk about law-making. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon the Deputy Minister. I realise that we have different views on matters, but I believe this is an honest attempt to give people who want it a choice of residential area without affecting the existing rights of others. Furthermore, the Government is serious in its endeavour to make more land available to other population groups for housing as soon as possible. I am sure that this matter will be given serious attention by the Government.

It is a pity that the CP, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, deem it fitting to continu ally attack the Government without spelling out to the voters what they themselves would do should they come to power. It is bad enough keeping the voter in the dark, but it is unforgivable to make representations of another party’s policy which are incorrect. The CP are continuing to spread reports that certain areas which are at present inhabited exclusively by Whites, are going to be declared open or—as they put it—grey areas one of these days. This is not only a misrepresentation, but a violation of the truth.

After all, Parliament is still considering legislation to create free settlement areas. On what grounds therefore, could decisions in this regard already have been made. The announcement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says nothing but that the possibility of changing the areas which he mentioned into free settlement areas can be investigated. The announcement as such definitely does not yet make the areas free settlement areas.

Why does the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly not rather spell out to the voters what the policy or dream of complete racial separation or partition is going to cost the taxpayer? Let the voters then decide whether it is economically viable and whether economic realities in South Africa will allow it.

Let us also ask the business sector whether they see their way clear to making the grade in our economy without the labour and the buying power of people of colour. Every person with an ounce of realism will know that it is not possible.

Because people of colour form such an integral part of our economy, they are entitled to housing opportunities relatively close to job opportunities.

Those are the realities of South Africa which we must deal with. To the left of the White political spectrum there is a greater realism as far as the economic interdependence of the different population groups is concerned. However, it is a pity that this political grouping is not prepared to acknowledge the particular population structure of the Republic. We are a multinational society, with separate cultures, religions and other differences, and precisely for this reason, a policy of general throwing open of all residential areas is not practical in the South African situation.

Politically it may be necessary at this stage for other groups to plead for the throwing open of all residential areas. However, it is true that there are even many people of colour who prefer to live among their own people. It is not something which is unique to the Whites.

In view of the fact that the PFP and other left-wing factions feel so strongly about the throwing open of all residential areas, it is strange that they are not supporting the legislation under discussion. After all, seen from their point of view, it should be a positive step. Or are we again dealing with protest for the sake of protest?

The same goes for the objections of hon members of other Houses of this Parliament. It is true that this legislation does not achieve what they consider to be the final goal, namely the abolition of the Group Areas Act. However, it is also true that this legislation is moving closer to what they see as the final goal, namely an open community with a right to free association. I said before that we should take note of the realities of South Africa and look for our solutions in terms of those realities. That is exactly what the NP is striving for.

We are giving recognition to the wishes of the various population groups to reside and live separately and realise that everyone strives to improve their own position by means of economic activities, also with regard to housing. Because we are a realistic party, we are also prepared, however, to accept that there are people in South African society who prefer to live across the colour bar. The legislation under discussion is therefore an attempt to recognise and establish the rights of people who prefer to live across the colour bar. That is all that this Bill is trying to do.

Surely the proposed legislation will not force anyone to live in a free settlement area. The individual still retains the right to association or dissociation. If the fears of the CP had any substance, surely the Government would have acted differently. Surely the whole country cannot be declared a free settlement area. Surely if that were the policy, it would be easier to abolish the Group Areas Act.

Free settlement areas will only be declared where and when such a need arises, and specific communities in which such a need does not exist, will not be forced to accept such a situation. Surely the establishment of open areas does not replace the existing policy and principle of separate residential areas for the various population groups, and in order to make progress with regard to the eradication of the housing shortages, more separate residential areas will have to be proclaimed in terms of the Group Areas Act.

Fear of the unknown is something with which we are all familiar. However, the danger exists that the fear can be or become so overwhelming that we stagnate. We must guard against this. The Government is aware of the fears of the inhabitants of areas such as Hillbrow and for that reason intends to protect such people who have established rights. The Bill under discussion contains certain mechanisms for the protection of a specific group’s rights. A free settlement area will not be declared within an area proclaimed to be a group area for a specific population group without the permission of the particular Ministers’ Council responsible for that population group. The importance of the own affairs concept is made clear in this legislation. Each Ministers’ Council can ensure that the interests of the group that it represents are protected. What is of particular importance is that it would even be possible for a group or groups to throw open all their areas, if they preferred to do so.

The Bill contains a long list of subjects which must be taken into account by the Free Settlement Board during its investigation. If a free settlement area were eventually to be declared, the Government has committed itself to ensuring that the established rights of lawful owners would be protected, and it would be seen to that such people would not suffer financial loss as a result.

By means of the entrenchment of protection mechanisms, people who did not want to remain in a declared free settlement area would be in a position to move and again acquire suitable housing.

In a debate such as this it is also necessary to look briefly at the reasons for the emergence of areas such as Hillbrow, and I make so bold as to say that the reason is largely an economic one. Many Whites no longer want to live in such areas and a market is being created for people of other population groups who are in need of housing. As a result, White owners let their properties to members of other groups and an influx of those people takes place. That is the reality, and it can only be prevented by the provision of sufficient housing for members of other population groups in areas that have been set aside for them.

Reproaches will not solve the problem. Co-operation with everyone, also with members of other population groups, is necessary in order to bring about stability in areas such as Hillbrow. It will definitely not always be possible, but where it is possible, let us disentangle an affected area and return it to its original status. Where the realities of a given situation make this impossible, let us rather work together and negotiate the best deal for such an area.

Sacrifices on all sides will be necessary. In the interests of the greater goal, which all of us ought to be striving towards, let us make the sacrifices that we are asked to make. Let us not allow this positive legislation to be shipwrecked on the rocks of short-term petty political advantage.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that I can participate in this afternoon’s debate.

*I nevertheless want to ask that in future I be allowed to speak after someone who knows what is happening in South Africa. I do not know where this person lives, but he does not look like a South African. I merely want to say to him …

Order! The hon member must refer to other hon members as hon members.

I really do not know whether the hon member who spoke before me is a South African. [Interjections.]

†However, I want to tell him in no uncertain terms that if we go to Hillbrow the Black people are keeping up the economy of the White man. That is in actual fact what is happening.

The second thing I want to point out to him is that if he goes to Port Elizabeth he will see that the houses we occupied are now occupied by White people. Holland Park, Lea Place, South End—I can name the areas. The consequence of that is that there is no shortage of housing for White people.

I can explain the way we look at the Free Settlement Areas Bill by means of an example. Let us take Fairview as an example. Our people stayed in Fairview and they had lots of land there. In terms of the Group Areas Act they were moved to the ghettos, and that is how slums originate. Slums originate when people are drafted into a place which can then be called a ghetto.

What has happened? A White developer bought that land, and he has been sitting with that land for a number of years now. What is he going to do with it eventually? All these developers belong to the NP, and by hook or by crook one has to satisfy them. In consequence we want to take Fairview and make it a free settlement area. That land belonged to us and it was stolen from us, because we received a pittance compared with what people are going to charge now.

I want to come back to the Bill. I want to say that I read—I do not have the newspaper clipping with me—that the hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said—that free settlement areas would be the exception rather than the rule.

Allow me to motivate why it is going to be so. In terms of the Bill before us the local authority, which is 99% White, will have to give its approval before one can have a free settlement area in any place. As far as we are concerned that is out. It is just a story and it is not going to come true.

I do not want to waste time on that: I want to come to the issue. The hon the Minister made a beautiful speech this morning. He said:

The way that I understand “peaceful” is that everything is in order, one talks to people and there is no harassment.

When we talk about “constitutional change”, who and what are we talking about? One cannot make a constitutional change if 99% of the people are outside and not here to negotiate. Furthermore, we must stop bluffing ourselves and we must not play around with words. I do not think that there is anybody in this Chamber today who can morally support the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

I would like to compliment the hon member for Innesdal on his brilliant speech. I find him, as an NP member, honest and willing to face reality, and he knows for a fact what is going to happen in South Africa and to him.

The hon the Minister accepted that in order to be meaningful and enduring, change must be brought about by Parliament itself. He continued as follows:

I wonder, if we sit around quietly and concentrate and listen to those words, what is meant by joint responsibility. Do we mean that the House of Assembly has got the final say and can be prescriptive? Do we mean by consultation that we prescribe to other people what they should do? Have we any proof that we are talking about joint responsibility? What does it mean? How do we control our lives and have an effective say jointly? If we are going to decide jointly on matters that affect the lives of all South Africans, the principle will be that only when we have no Group Areas Act or other discriminatory Acts on the Statute Book can we sit down and talk about meaningful change or co-operation. He went on to say:

God created everybody in South Africa and I do not think for one moment—we are all convinced that we are all Christians—that it is the desire of God that we should live in separate areas. I do not think it is God’s desire that we should have the Group Areas Act, and I think if we are sincere and we read the Bible we shall know what God wants.

You should rather leave the Bible out of this. [Interjections.]

Order! I think that kind of remark is uncalled for. The hon member for Haarlem may proceed.

Mr Speaker, with respect, it is a reflection of the type of people we are dealing with. There is no other description for them. These are the people that run about saying that they are going to rule South Africa. I want the voters to take note of their attitude. That is important.

I want to return to the issue of the Labour Party. We in the LP believe that the right of the individual is paramount. That is important. While talking about groups, I want to mention that people from other countries come to South Africa, for example Greeks and Italians, and they live in so-called White group areas. Some of them can hardly speak English or Afrikaans, but they have the right to come and sit in Parliament.

We had the case of a certain gentleman who came to play rugby here. He was an immigrant and he went to Parliament. That is the absurdity of the law in South Africa. I defy any man to understand South Africa. The Whites do not know what they are doing. They are messing up this country and they are totally confused. One can ask anybody who has been overseas.

Our leader has had the privilege of going overseas. What was he supposed to have done overseas? He had to fight and talk for White South Africa, because the Whites are having problems and anybody who goes overseas to hold talks faces double standards, because they do not say the same things overseas that they say here. [Interjections.]

The only thing that has saved South Africa is our participation in this tricameral Parliament. Whether the people believe it or not, we have saved the Whites. I want to tell the Government that by running to the President’s Council with all their Bills, they are making it difficult for themselves. That is the end result.

I want to return to the Labour Party and read the following important quotation from the party’s policy as published in Steadfast:

There is a hymn that we sing. The Xhosa version of it is “Senzeni, na?” The English version of it is “What have we done?” and the Afrikaans version is “Wat het ons gedoen?”. Finally we sing, “My only sin is the colour of my skin.”

I briefly want to read the following quotation to hon members:

That is very important. We have listened to previous speakers and in particular to a certain gentleman who has left this party. They know what we stand for.

We stand for loyalty to the cause of the people. I want to say to hon members who leave the Labour Party that they must at least have the decency and the courage to resign their seats and stand on the platform from which they speak today. I want to say that that is important. [Interjections.] If we talk about honesty of purpose, that is what should be done.

I think that with that we have enunciated our policy, in terms of what we stand for.

No amount of interjecting is going to change the course of history. No matter what we say—if we want to praise the Nats, that is something different—we have a conscience to deal with and we know that any oppressive law cannot be to the benefit of the Black people. Irrespective of how it is presented to us it is the same medicine. Only the bottle is different.

I want to deal with the last piece of what the hon the Minister said, namely:

When we read that sentence we ask ourselves whether it is mutually acceptable to all. We are debating a Bill today that is not acceptable to 99% of the community in South Africa. The hon the Minister went on to say:

Now I ask the hon Minister what type of reform we are dealing with?—

I think that we have done that. The hon the Minister went on to say:

[Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I must compliment the hon member for Haarlem on his speech. I felt that it was a positive contribution. It brought to light the hurtful effects that the Group Areas Act has had on a number of the people of other race groups in this country.

The two minutes allocated to me afford me little opportunity to do justice to this debate. It does, however, enable me to reiterate my support for the Bill. I do so in the knowledge that this legislation is the first meaningful crack in one of the basic cornerstones of the Government’s apartheid philosophy, a cornerstone that has been the cause of so much condemnation and criticism in the past. This I welcome as a positive step in the reform process, a process which is in motion, albeit slow, but one which cannot be halted.

If one is to be realistic, one must recognise the fact that philosophies and measures that have been in force for as long as 30 to 40 years have tended to acquire a sense of permanency about them, and it is for that reason that one must realise that they cannot summarily be done away with overnight without causing chaos, and I see this legislation as a positive step in the direction of phasing out apartheid in that it will dilute, as a start, many aspects of the Group Areas Act, an Act which has had so many hurtful consequences.

One cannot get away from the fact that the mechanics associated with the implementation of the Bill are unduly complicated. As I see it, local authorities should be given more discretion to decide on their own future composition, with the concept of local option playing a significant role in the orderly establishment of all free settlement areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I grew up on the outskirts of a mixed area. Consequently I have had a close bond with my fellow South Africans whose skins are brown since childhood. I have great understanding for their feelings about the Group Areas Act.

There are places in the country where much pain has been caused by this Act. One of these is my own town, Stellenbosch. If I could, I would undo now what happened there. This was done at a time before township renewal was an everyday phenomenon. When residential areas had deteriorated destruction, clearing up, removal and replacement were the order of the day worldwide. In many respects this was a heartless way of doing things. Secure communities were upset; sometimes also destroyed. One can understand that people on the receiving end felt this to be merciless. There must be understanding, therefore, for the fact that this provoked deep emotions.

As an Afrikaner, I understand this well for another reason too. I am part of a people which was also affected by history in a way which still affects it fundamentally today. Our experience also resulted in a deep emotional reaction, and in fact, these emotional experiences of the Coloureds and of the Afrikaners encompass part of the mystery as to why these two groups which actually belong together, are still separate. Those who cannot understand this cannot evaluate our country’s problems properly either.

The Afrikaners’ long struggle against domination is still fresh in their memory. In their deepest being they fear a repetition of this. That is why they seek their security within their group context. That is why their group identity is so important to them. This tendency towards self-protection has been transferred to many other Whites in the course of time. In this very important respect there is still a profound unity of feeling and thought in the White community, which otherwise is divided. That is why there is no point in simply insisting that the Government abolish the Group Areas Act. No government can take steps that are not approved by its electorate, and the majority of this Government’s voters are not ready, and therefore not willing, to permit it to abolish the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

The proof of this can be seen in the number of House of Assembly members who do advocate its abolition. We must be realistic about this. I would give anything to change the circumstances but I cannot, just as I would do anything to make South Africa a non-racial country, but cannot. Many hon members want to make a non-racial country of South Africa. They will not succeed in doing so, because the facts will not allow them to. The facts say we are multiracial, and those facts are the only things we can work with. We cannot change the material that we have at our disposal to build a better South Africa.

Yet there is nothing wrong with dreaming of a future in which race and colour will no longer play any part, but then the conflict that is still part of our society must not be fuelled by wilful or untimely actions. Change that is forced to take place too soon creates resistance; it leads to conflict which delays the process of national reconciliation. Taking today’s facts into account, change must take place step by step, as and when changing conditions permit.

Times have indeed changed. Since the early fifties large numbers of people of all population groups have moved upwards in the economy. Despite allegations to the contrary, contact across the dividing lines of colour, particularly in the work place, is much more common these days than it was before 1948. This has changed attitudes. Among many people—Whites and others—free association has become the order of the day. This is a welcome phenomenon on the way to greater normality in the relations among the people of our country. It is also proof that in reality change is unstoppable—it cannot be halted. These changes have made it possible to effect an adjustment to the rigid residential settlement pattern of South Africans.

That is why we have come forward with this legislation, to make it legal for those who want to, to associate freely, while at the same time the rights of those who do not want free association will be protected. This is an important step forward for South Africa, because in reality substance is being given to a new group situation which has already been established within our society by means of free association across the dividing lines of race.

Time will prove that so far this measure has been the most fundamental step taken since reform was begun. That is the one reason I support this measure with confidence. I support it as I shall support all future steps that are made possible and essential by the dynamics of the South African society itself.

Each change is a dynamic event which perpetuates itself. This legislation in itself will also develop a new dynamism which will make further changes possible and essential. Consequently change will not stop at this point. South Africa is going to be in a transitional phase for some time. At times things will go quickly, and at others more slowly, but in the end nothing will check the course of change. This unavoidable process of change is best promoted by people who, with patience and good judgement, read the signs correctly so that they can fully utilise the obvious possibilities at the right time.

I am merely trying to be a realist. As a result I have accepted the fact that I shall not see the South Africa I dream about in my lifetime; one in which all South Africans will finally be reconciled with one another. What I do want to see is constant change on the course toward my ideal. This legislation represents such progress, and that is my other reason for supporting it.

Mr Speaker, there are several points which were raised by hon members and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to which I want to pay particular attention. One of the points made by the hon the Minister was that the South African community was made up of different groups, and the hon the Minister went on to say that this was a fact.

In the four years that we have been in Parliament, the LP has tried to engage the NP in debate on this particular issue, and I believe that it is time for the political parties engaged in this debate to pay particular attention to this issue. The question that needs to be posed, is: Who created these groups? In 1950, when the Population Registration Act was passed by the pure White House of Assembly, representatives of people of colour did not participate in that debate.

Therefore they had no say in the passing of that Act and we could argue that this whole group concept was forced upon us. We also have—and this point was raised by other hon members—the Portuguese, French, Italian, Greek, Jewish, English and the so-called White Afrikaners within the so-called White group, and each one of these groups has a distinct culture and different customs, traditions and language. The obvious question that follows: Why do all these groups not have their own group areas and own Houses within the parliamentary system? I could go on and on. We look to the hon the Minister for a clear answer on this particular issue.

The hon the Minister also stated that it was a perception that the apartheid laws were unjust. I want to say to him that this is not a perception; it is a fact. The Free Settlement Areas Bill does not give recognition to freedom of association, as was also alluded to. Indeed, it serves to underscore the strategy of social engineering that has been used by the Nationalist Party.

National Party.

Mr Speaker, the NP cannot speak about the concept of fundamental rights of the individual. It has tried to do so in this particular debate but its policy of group above all else does not allow it even to begin to understand the concept of the rights of the individual. The Nationalist Party also speaks of the protection of minorities while we know that the ultimate minority is the individual and, if one protects that individual, all else falls into place.

We in the Labour Party enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon member for Innesdal. That has already been stated. However, after having listened to him, we can only come to the conclusion that the time has come for NP members to educate their constituents to know that, as I stand here, I am a human being and an individual, and that they should accept us as human beings and individuals. It is a sad day that these measures should come from a group of people who have for many years regarded themselves as the superior race. It is also sad to say that those same people need to be brought into the 20th century by measures such as the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

*We listened carefully to the hon member for Innesdal and we want to tell him that he has a vast educational task in his own caucus and amongst White South Africans.

†More than anything else the growth and existence of de facto desegregated areas is singular proof of the failure of the NP’s Group Areas Act, which in effect is social engineering—another euphemism for forced removals. The only solution, as has been stated by the LP and other hon members, and the means towards achieving that much desired reconciliation which we are all striving for in this country of ours, is the total scrapping of the Group Areas Act.

*Then there will not be a legal deficiency, as the hon the Minister of National Education indicated.

†During our consideration of this and other Bills in the joint committee several pertinent facts came to the fore which proved that our standpoint was the correct one. Some of these have already been mentioned, and I should like to list them for the hon House.

The process whereby racially exclusive group areas became desegregated came about as a result of the need for shelter. It did not come about because people wanted to confront the NP Government, but as a result of the need for accommodation and affordable housing, a need which, not surprisingly, came about as a result of the implementation of the ungodly and iniquitous Group Areas Act.

Secondly the desegregation of central business districts was an orderly process and development.

Thirdly, the Free Settlement Areas Bill does not address demographic and economic realities. [Interjections.]

Fourthly, three-quarters of greater Johannesburg is not White.

In the fifth place, if one tries to control population pressures then the effect is a breakdown of that control.

Furthermore it came to the fore that there was no correlation between Black occupation and an increased crime rate. Another important fact which was mentioned by the hon member for Wentworth, is that it is the fear of change, or the anticipation of that change, which is greater than the actual change when it does occur. This fact was proved when this Parliament repealed section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, when as I am so fond of saying, the sky did not fall down, neither was there a revolution of any sort. Fewer than 1% of people of different race groups married across the colour line.

Mr Speaker, we do not need this Bill. What we do need is the recognition of one another as South Africans. This Bill does not give that recognition and does not enjoy my support.

Mr Speaker, existing White residential areas, which are the most sought-after areas, will only be able to become free settlement areas if the sitting members of Parliament for the areas support this. Listening to NP and CP MPs, and bearing in mind that their constituencies comprise 87% of all White residential areas, there is little chance that any of these areas will be opened to all races.

I also have to say this, because I have information that certain NP MPs have provided the provincial authorities who handle group area permit applications with letters in which they say that they automatically oppose all applications for permits by people who are not White and who want to live in their constituencies. They do so regardless of the circumstances that are forcing people of colour to humiliate themselves in applying for such a permit. They do not even want to see the reasons. They do not want to know. At this stage I do not want to mention any names. If they are proud of their attitude, they can do so themselves. This is nothing but naked racism at its worst, a racism that will ensure that virtually all White residential areas remain White, and a racism that will make a joke of this Bill.

However, this is what one can expect if one allows Whites to choose between maintaining and sacrificing White privilege. They nearly always choose the former. This land of ours belongs to all who live in it. I therefore do not believe that people should have such a choice. NP MPs such as the hon member for Springs, who suggested that we reach a compromise between a majority who want all of South Africa to be a free settlement area and a White minority who want to retain the racist status quo and only open up some new suburbs, are dreaming. There can never be a compromise with racism. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively to the debate which was conducted during the course of the day. It was very clear that the subject that is being debated today is a profoundly emotional one. I do not find that strange, because listen to what the well-known Prof David Welsh of the University of Cape Town says in his book, Democratic Liberalism in South Africa. He made certain comments during a lecture in 1985 about groups in the world and the role played by ethnic groups throughout the world. He said:

One can understand, therefore, that when one is dealing with a Bill which affects the fundamental being of a community, serious emotions will be involved. I want to issue a warning, however, that blind emotionalism will in fact increase tension. That is precisely what will lead us astray. I want to mention a few examples from today’s debate. This led to the hon member for Addo, who is not here with his hon colleagues at the moment, making the amazing statement that there was no difference between the NP and the CP, merely on the basis of the fact that both acknowledged the existence of groups.

So much emotionalism is involved in the acknowledgment of the reality of the existence of groups that it leads to a blind judgment and standpoint. Does the hon member for Addo not see that the CP envisages a Coloured homeland in which the Coloureds will be sentenced to a miserable existence in a fragmented, independent little country without viability, in which independence will be enforced on them without their being self-sufficient? This is what results when these matters are considered from a standpoint of blind emotionalism.

Blind emotionalism also leads to unrealistic expectations, however, such as emerged among some of the speakers—particularly amongst the ranks of the Labour Party today—as if the mere abolition of the Group Areas Act would immediately lead to a Utopia in South Africa; as if reform in this area should not go hand in hand with political, social, economic and educational reform; and as if the history of Africa is not in reality a history of too much, too soon rather than of too little, too late. Events in Africa have shown that when only political or partial reform takes place, the result is chaos and the destruction of those communities.

A further example of the result of blind emotionalism is the inability to separate the merits of one matter realistically from those of another. The argument of members of the Labour Party here today that they might support the principle of free settlement areas if these Bills were not linked is an example of this. With all due respect, this shows an inability to understand the democratic processes and participate in them fully, because the participating parties within the democratic processes are required to consider the merits of each matter separately.

A last example in which blind emotion leads to imbalances is the fact that many hon members could not succeed in appreciating the relationship between free association and group formation. The principle of free association can come into its own only if there is free choice. Free association presupposes the existence of various groups. Prof Marinus Wiechers made this relationship between association and group formation very clear. He said action could be taken in the following way:

Just in passing, it is interesting that Prof Wiechers’ standpoint on free association on this occasion received the full agreement of Prof S C Jacobs, the present hon member for Losberg. This is how strongly he stated his view:

When we go on from here, when we have to salvage this difficult situation, sketched by Prof David Welsh as a situation which essentially can lead to conflict, we must use our emotion and our passion circumspectly. We must be level-headed with regard to matters that are important to us, matters that affect our fundamental existence.

†Let us rather direct our deepest passion and deepest emotion towards a quest for peace and prosperity. [Interjections.] Let us not grab but rather ask, and let us not keep but rather share. Let us allow ourselves and our respective communities to grow towards each other. Let us seek peace and prosperity in South Africa. I support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, implicit in this so-called Free Settlement Areas Bill is a continuation of all which is evil, destructive and hateful. It is hated by 23 million people in South Africa. There are 23 million hearts beating as one in their hatred of the Group Areas Act and in their rejection of the further manipulation of the Group Areas Act which is intended.

The very notion of so-called free settlement areas inevitably envisages other unfree areas—in other words, racially ear-marked camps, reminiscent of ghettos.

The people of South Africa are hungry for the elimination of group areas, but what does the Government do? The Government offers a thin slice of bread in the guise of the so-called Free Settlement Areas Bill. They put that bread in the middle of a muck heap and want us to pick it up from the muck heap of the Group Areas Act.

There are, oddly enough, those who use terrorism as a political weapon and who say that there is some merit in maintaining separate group areas for the White ruling class. They say this make the targetting easier for the limpet mines. They say that when precision rockets are used, it will be easier to target the areas of the ruling class. We who eschew violence cannot accept even that kind of Machiavellian concept. We therefore continue in our total rejection of group areas.

I have not the slightest doubt that having compulsorily racially defined and racially exclusive residential areas gives rise to friction. There was no interracial hatred in South Africa until 1950 when the Group Areas Act was passed. We have proof that the Group Areas Act is disfunctional and societally disruptive. We know that it has created animosity between groups, quite apart from the tremendous, gross injustice that has been perpetrated upon the victims of group areas as a result of the greed and avarice of the haves— the ruling class—which made criminals of lawabiding citizens. The victims of group areas have been robbed of assets worth hundreds of millions. The hon leader of the LP in South Africa had to look on when his house was destroyed brick by brick because of this vicious thing called the Group Areas Act. Decent people have been turned into criminals. Many have been forced into suicide.

I try, even when I am emotional, nevertheless not to be subjective but I cannot go and live on that piece of land where I was born. If I did so, I would be a criminal. I could be arrested by any policeman and shoved into jail. The piece of earth on which any human being is born is special to that person, but the Group Areas Act would make a criminal out of me. If the owner of that property today allowed me to go there, his property could virtually be confiscated from him. That is why we hate this Act. We are told lies in support of the Act.

We are told that the difference is not racial, but cultural. That is an absolute falsehood. There is a certain Dr Gerald Pillay who has two doctoral degrees, both on missiology, the spreading of the Christian gospel. Dr Pillay is a Christian but he has been told that he cannot live in the house in which he now lives. That is why this Act stinks in the nostrils of decent men anywhere. That is why no person who is decent can give any support to the Free Settlement Areas Bill.

Since no decent person can possibly support this Bill, and in spite of the fact that other people have said that they will support it, I say that there is no point in remaining in this Chamber when evil has taken possession of so many of our countrymen who at other times appear to be nice and decent people. I appeal to everyone in this Chamber who opposes compulsory separation by race or by colour to join me in leaving this Chamber this afternoon with due courtesy and respect to Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, for many of us there is always a first time, and so it is truly a privilege for me to take part in these proceedings for the first time this afternoon.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills made a very interesting contribution. It appears as if this hon member did not know what to say against the Bill under discussion, but used the Group Areas Act to say it. That is so typical of the party of which the hon member is now a member.

In my contribution I should like to attempt to rise above conflict-seeking politics, particularly that of the PFP, and also that of the CP. I should like the emphasis to fall on the spirit of reconciliation and flexibility which can emanate from this legislation. The question I want to put to my colleagues in the Labour Party is why they do not at least want to give this legislation a chance. [Interjections.] Let us forget about the CP. The CP is a political manifestation of embittered, aggrieved, selfish White South Africans. At least we know why the CP is opposed to this legislation, but I am not quite sure why the Labour Party is opposed to it.

I am a member of a generation of Afrikaners who had no part in the 1948 NP victory. I was too young to have any part in this country’s endeavour to become a republic in 1961. Nevertheless I was a member of the first generation to train soldiers that had to fight in Angola in 1975. On the other hand I was also part of White South Africa which knew untold White privilege. As a young Afrikaner I had many opportunities, and because of those opportunities I can stand here today. I honour my forefathers for those opportunities.

At the same time it is true that there are hon members of my age, hon members on the side of the Labour Party, who have to concede that they have had similar opportunities, especially during the past decade. I am part of a generation which is no longer prepared to die for apartheid. [Interjections.] There are other hon members who are not prepared to do that either. [Interjections.] It is true, after all, that we share certain common ground. Given our history, our age and our endeavour towards a new South Africa, there is common ground.

At this stage I want to point out some common ground between me and the hon member Mr Desmond Lockey and the hon member for Addo in particular. I want to ask these two hon members something. If one takes a careful look at this legislation, one finds that it gives substance to certain common ground in South Africa. [Interjections.] I regard the legislation as a positive contribution to effect good attitudes and mutual understanding in South Africa. This Bill has the inherent power to defuse the dispute and emotion with regard to the Group Areas Act, and in future it will play an important part in bringing about a new spirit which is so essential in building a better South Africa. The emphasis must fall on the development of new residential areas and more housing for the less affluent. Consequently an orderly framework must urgently be created, in which developers can meet an increasing demand and can make an input to streamlining the implementation of this legislation.

I want to conclude. This legislation can make the negative symbolism of the Group Areas Act disappear. It can establish a new symbol of reconciliation and flexibility. Let that be the objective of this generation—I am including hon members of the Labour Party, my contemporaries, in this—of which all of us are part. Let us be positive and concentrate on our common wealth. Let us use every opportunity to make a better country of South Africa. Our generation owes South Africa something. It is easier for us to approach the reproofs and the emotionalism in a rational way.

I was not a victim of the Group Areas Act. I was not removed. The hon member for Addo and the hon member Mr Lockey were not moved in their time either. I believe that this legislation gives our generation an opportunity. Let us use it to the advantage of South Africa and all its people. Let us rise above the past. I am a member of a new generation, with a new vision for South Africa. I ask my contemporaries on the Coloured side of this House: Let us join hands and do this together.

I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I have listened to this debate …

Your coalition associates are deserting you! Look at them walking out!

As long as one does not desert oneself and one’s conscience, as the hon member is doing. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I have listened to this debate, and if I must identify one aspect of it, it is that we have shown what the diversity of this country is like. This debate has shown us how differently people from the various groups and communities formulate their standpoints. As a matter of fact I would say that this afternoon we most probably saw one of the best examples of the inherent differences between various communities with regard to their expectations and aspirations.

I would have liked to hear that those of us sitting here were mature enough and big enough to find a basis on which to co-operate with one another in spite of the different matters stressed by the communities we represent. If it is not possible for us to do so here it is not possible to do so outside either.

I want to come to the hon members for Ermelo and Brakpan, who are not here at the moment, but who will hopefully return. Actually it is not important, but the hon member for Ermelo made a point which I want to deal with. This concerns what secret agreement was reached between the NP and the Labour Party in respect of this session. I submit that the entire agreement entered into was reflected in a joint statement issued by the leader of the Labour Party, my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education and myself. It involved nothing more or less than that the parties undertook to dispose of the Bills during the session which started today. I want to state categorically that anyone who says something different is telling a lie. I am prepared to say outside that that person is a liar. Only the protection of the Rules of the House can prevent me from saying that here too.

If in dealing with these Bills—including the one we are dealing with now—parties do not abide by the agreement, the integrity of leaders in this House is called into serious question. The code which should apply in this highest legislative body of our country is called into serious question. The system as such is in question, because this system presupposes a number of things. It presupposes integrity and it presupposes that one keeps one’s word irrespective of the circumstances.

†I would like to take it further. An agreement was arranged—that is public knowledge—among the leaders of Solidarity, the NPP and the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs that they would attend the session and that they would dispose of the legislation. If they deviate from that undertaking and agreement, their word is seriously in question.

That is your side of the story.

No, it is not my side of the story; it is the truth and that hon member is the only one who gives truth sides. I have only one truth.

*A total of 37 hon members participated in this debate, and there are a few delineations I would like to make in this debate. For the sake of politeness I would have liked to have reacted to each hon member. However, on the other hand I feel that I would not like to subject hon members who spoke to this, and so I shall not discuss everything each member said.

This brings me to the hon member for Brakpan. I have said something about him before. I want to endorse it this afternoon. The hon member said that we had an abortive session, and he would like to know how much these sessions were costing the taxpayer. Let me say at once that in my view this was a valid question, but I want to ask him whether he does not want to place a question on the Order Paper and ask how much money was paid out to members of his party who attended committee meetings without making any contribution whatsoever. [Interjections.] Either we are dealing with a principle or we are not dealing with it, and if the principle is the squandering of the country’s money, then the hon member will surely agree with me on the fairness of my reply to him.

This afternoon I want to go further and say that I am convinced that if there is a party which not only talks about reform but is really prepared to carry through reform initiatives it is the NP and the Government. [Interjections.]

That is why it looks the way it does.

It is larger than any other party which has governed the country. [Interjections.] The hon member for Overvaal was abroad for some time; I do not think he knows what is going on here anymore.

I know that you …

Hon members of the LP and of the House of Delegates submitted that it was basically the linkage which existed in the legislation before us which was wrong. Surely that is a fallacious argument. There is, after all, nothing in the consideration of this legislation preventing or prohibiting any hon member or any party from voting for or against any of the Bills which are to be dealt with and disposed of this week according to the agreement.

†Therefore, Sir, with due respect, it is a completely fallacious argument to argue that the linkage is the real obstacle to accepting one or other of these measures.

*I now want to put a question. Is it or is it not true that a need exists in South Africa for residential areas in which people can live of their own free will? If the answer is in the affirmative, no hon member in this House can vote against the principle of this legislation. In other words, if hon members, irrespective of the party they belong to, argue that such a need has been identified, that communities prefer a pattern of living other than opting for an own community life, and those hon members vote against this legislation, they will be voting against the interests of the communities they represent here. [Interjections.]

That is nonsense!

Yes, it is nonsense to vote against it. No semantic argument can detract from that truth. [Interjections.]

I want to discuss the following argument which is so readily advanced by the CP here, namely that it is mainly White land which is in jeopardy. I want to ask hon members whether it is not also White land which is in jeopardy when we have to proclaim group areas for the other communities. I also want to ask them whether it is not White land which is in jeopardy when we have to identify land for Black states, whether they be self-governing or independent.

If what I am saying is true—and it is true—I want to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly on what false premise their arguments are based in respect of legislation which seeks to deals with aspects of the division of land. On what premise is it based?

I want to pursue this matter further and I should like to do so seriously. I do not think we have a choice regarding the issue of the division of land and its allocation to other communities. Whether it is for the purposes of the Group Areas Act or a free settlement area or the establishment of a state for Black communities or homelands for Coloureds, it is the division of land which is at issue. [Interjections.] For how long do we intend to try to mislead the voters outside with our fallacious arguments?

You must stop doing so! [Interjections.]

I want to say this, and I am not able to prophecy the future, but the peace and the prosperity of this country also depends on our ability to reach an agreement on land. I do not think it is true that our responsibility as leaders— every hon member of this House is a leader because he was chosen to come here on the basis of his leadership—is solely to interpret the wishes of our own communities or voters.

Of course this is an important facet, but our responsibility is also to lead our voters and to help to formulate their thinking. Our responsibility is to lead our voters and not to follow them. If we merely want to follow, convey and interpret what we say about our own constituencies, then I submit that there are no solutions to the problems of our fatherland. Somewhere along the line our communities are going to demand greater leadership of us than mere interpretation.

It is alleged that only one group benefits from the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I say that is untrue. Today I want to say that if there had not been legislation which dealt with the allocation and acquisition of land for communities, the less wealthy communities would have had less land than they have today. [Interjections.]

I want to pursue this matter further. If I am interpreting matters correctly, there is only one party in this House which believes in a simplistic solution for the individual, as well as superior numbers as the political solution. That is the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. Because they cannot get rid of this simple idea regarding numbers, they must find a homeland in isolation somewhere which no one wants. [Interjections.]

Let us look for a moment at the seriousness of the CP’s approach to their group obsession. Let us look for example at the seriousness of the CP in respect of the group definition as the absolute alpha and omega for the solution to all problems.

Their hon leader is not here. It is not because he is busy elsewhere. In the words of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis he is boycotting this session. [Interjections.] If a boycott action is the extent of his emphasis on group rights, then he deserves to be rejected—even by the few people who still follow him. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member for Ermelo is a very interesting member of the House. He says the issuing of permits does not affect the principle of the Group Areas Act. I want to tell him that since the Group Areas Act was promulgated it accepted that in addition to specific group areas for specific communities, there would be exceptions which would have to be dealt with. Those exceptions were dealt with in the concept of designated areas. They were dealt with in the concept of controlled areas. On this basis, as far as I know, there are only two proclaimed group areas for the White community in the Free State. That is why the hon member is juridically and politically wrong.

The law is right!

The law is right, but I want to submit at once that the hon member for Overvaal does not know very much about the law or its implementation.

I had a bigger minority than you did!

Yes, but you ran away.

I did not have a mere 39 votes! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me take this matter a little further. The hon members in that party were delighted when they thought there was no consensus regarding the continuation of the session. However, when we reached an agreement with the other parties, that fallacious argument also came to nothing. [Interjections.]

I merely want to say that the issuing of permits was of course not an encroachment on the provisions of the Group Areas Act. The Act itself made provision for this. The Act made provision for this for precisely the same reason—the hon the Minister of National Education referred to this—that all those hon members endorsed the principle of own community residential areas, wherever possible, in 1981. This Bill does nothing more nor less than endeavour to achieve those community objectives, but it also makes provision for residential areas where this is not possible.

I now come to the hon member for Toekomsrus who is not here. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member’s leader and deputy leader are not here either. [Interjections.] The hon members who participated in the debate are not all here either. The hon member said: “People must have the right to choose.”

†What this Bill intends doing is to give people the right to choose. I should like to state …

Order! The hon member for Overvaal and other hon members are making it very difficult for me to hear the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

This Bill has everything to do with the right to choose and the people who propound a philosophy of such a right but vote against this Bill are belying their own philosophy regardless of the words in which they choose to do so.

*The Bill is therefore a Bill which makes provision for choices. For that reason hon members who believe in choices are not entitled to vote against the Bill in principle.

All four PFP members—the hon member for Green Point, the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Randburg and the hon member for Johannesburg North—spoke. [Interjections.] I expected the hon member for Johannesburg North to react in that way, but he need not worry because they are going to find themselves in the same party in the not too distant future. But consider what the hon members—or some of them—are doing now. They are objecting strenuously to what Mr Danie van Zyl is supposed to have said in respect of the municipal election. That was very interesting. What actually happened, if I am interpreting it correctly, was that Mr Danie van Zyl did nothing more nor less than expose the fundamental hypocrisy of the PFP.

There is a proverb which states: “Talk is cheap, but money buys the whisky”, and I want to advise the hon members to go and set an example in their constituencies. They should throw open their constituencies and show the country that the PFP wants the entire country open. Until they do that they are maintaining a facade which no one believes in.

I just want to tell the hon member for Wynberg that if he believes what he is propagating, he must fight his municipal election on that basis in the wards in which he is standing: Go and propagate the idea there that investigations must be undertaken for the throwing open of the area. [Interjections.] No, I meant the hon members for Sea Point and Green Point.

I now come to the hon member for Laudium, who is not here. He said: “We can go along with the principle and some of the clauses of this Bill. It is the marketing that was wrong.” Listen carefully, Sir. They can go along with the principles and the clauses, but the marketing was wrong. [Interjections.] I did not know the House was being asked to adopt a standpoint on the marketing strategy of the Government. Either the hon members find the principles of the legislation weighty enough to vote for them or they do not.

The hon member Prof Olivier and I have known each other for a long time now. He and I know that if it had not been for a personal disagreement with the then Minister of Bantu Administration, Dr Verwoerd, when the hon member was with Sabra, he would not have been sitting where he is sitting today. Up to the time of that disagreement the hon member supported the principle and the provisions of this Act. If that hon member were to stand up now and say that he was wrong, I could understand it. Until he does that the hon member must, however, forgive me if I suspect his bona fides. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that is true. What he considered moral at that stage suddenly became immoral to him.

†The hon member for Addo made some observations upon which I do not wish to comment in too much detail, because it would not be fair to the hon member. However, he says that we should allow those who want to live together the right to do so. Now this is exactly what this Bill purports to do so that people can make that choice.

*However, listen carefully to what he then said. The areas must be larger; otherwise the CP’s predictions of chaos will become a reality. He is actually saying that he accepts the principle of free settlement areas; but they must be larger.

The hon member for Pietersburg remains a phenomenon to me. [Interjections.]

He is a rarity.

Yes, but a rarity is something out of the ordinary; he is very ordinary. [Interjections.]

That hon member must reply to a few questions which were put to him earlier on by the hon the Minister of National Education. I want to ask him whether he, as an MP, is going to object to or has objected to Pietersburg being the headquarters of a regional services council. If he does not or has not done so, his arguments fall away. I also want to ask him whether it is not true that members of city councils who support his party are getting involved in voting to be elected to regional services councils.

Of course it is true.

He says it is true. That is very interesting, because if it is true, what is the hon member’s party going to do about that?

We are going to do so again after the election.

He says they are going to do so again after the election! [Interjections.]

We are going to take it over and we are going to scuttle it.

That is very interesting. That hon member says they are going to do so again in order to scuttle it. I challenge the hon member that any member of an RSC who supports the CP will resign from his post after the election.

No, we do not want to resign. We want to get in and destroy it from the inside. [Interjections.]

You see, that is the kind of argument we have to deal with. I want to conclude the debate.

With this legislation we have placed ourselves on the road to new circumstances. With this legislation we have placed ourselves on the road to making provision for new entities. Either it is true that such a need exists in our country for communities that want to live by way of a free choice or it is not. If that is the case, this Act makes provision for it. What is more, if it is true, Bills we are going to discuss later on, make provision for the handling of interests in such communities. If it is true that there must be a group definition with a wider scope than race or ethnicity, and that it must be defined according to choices, the Bill will prove this to us. The content of the Bill and the choices it postulates are important for the country. However, the choices we make regarding this Bill today are perhaps even more important, because we are supposed to make these choices for other people, which can enclose.

I thank all the hon members who support the Bill. I also thank all the hon members who said they reject the Bill, but actually support it in their hearts. I have a feeling there are many more of them than we think. [Interjections.] I think they are sitting on all sides of the House. Perhaps the greatest, most important thing we achieved was the fact that we had this debate. Perhaps the greatest, most important thing is the fact that members of different communities in this House find common ground with members of other communities. If there is nothing else, perhaps this is the greatest milestone we have achieved today.