Order! Before I call upon the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to speak, I should like to draw hon members’ attention to Rule 149(2), which reads as follows:

As has always been the custom in Parliament, I shall permit the first speakers of the respective parties taking part in the debate to speak more extensively about the principle, but all other speakers must confine themselves strictly to the rules of debate as laid down in the Rule I have just quoted. I trust I shall receive the co-operation of all hon members.

Mr Speaker, we all want to change South Africa. It is generally agreed that drastic political, economic and social changes are necessary. However, we differ about the form that these changes should take and the way in which they should be brought about.

Some people wish to destroy the existing system, and they do not hesitate to use violence to achieve that end. Others wish to undo the renewal that has already been brought about. They have no understanding of the realities of South Africa.

However, most South Africans want their country to change in an orderly manner. They want renewal to be brought about in a way that will not destroy the basis of their existence. They are in favour of change by means of a process of evolutionary reform. That is also the approach of this Government. This Government wishes to reform South Africa. That is why we are engaged in a deliberate process of renewal and of carefully considered adaptation to new circumstances in order to promote the welfare and security of all South Africans.

However, reform requires a certain discipline. It requires one to take unpopular steps in some cases in order to achieve one’s objectives. In order to succeed in the long run, one has to be prepared under certain circumstances to take steps in respect of sensitive matters that may upset people. One has to take those steps when circumstances require one to do so. One cannot hide behind empty promises or meaningless excuses.

†In the South African context, there is a dire need for reform. Renewal in every sphere is an urgent necessity because it concerns the rights of people. It concerns the future of our country and of our children. I concede that the Group Areas Amendment Bill is an unpopular measure for many people. It is, however, an essential step in the process of reform and for the sake of continuing reform.

Reform requires a certain responsibility. It requires responsible actions because certain forces are released within the community. Reform releases political forces as well as social forces. The operation of these forces changes the perceptions which people have of their society and their existence in that society. It changes their experience of circumstances and the realities which they face. People are exposed to new experiences.

This fluid situation causes a degree of uncertainty. People feel insecure, and sometimes even confused. At the same time, this fluid situation makes both a positive and a negative contribution. It is positive in that it makes political, economic and social change possible. Positive change is indeed not possible without more openness and more readiness to experiment.

At the same time, this fluid situation contains an element of danger, the danger that people can be mobilised by individuals and organisations exploiting this uncertainty. In times of change, people can be mobilised on both sides. They can be mobilised in both a reactionary and a revolutionary direction.

*Those who wish to change society in an evolutionary way, who wish to reform South Africa in a positive direction, must themselves act in such a way that neither the reactionaries nor the revolutionaries are allowed to achieve their selfish objectives.

It is the responsibility of the reformer to maintain stability and not to take steps that would undermine people’s security. It is the responsibility of those who initiate reform to guide the process of reform. The reformer accepts that change cannot take place overnight. It has to come about in an evolutionary way. The reformer must always balance the various rights and interests that exist in society. He must do so in the interests of society as a whole, and in order to achieve his reform objectives.

That is why he has to take certain steps at a particular stage and why he has to maintain discipline in the process of change at a particular stage. That is why he has to show consideration for the standpoints and experiences of others. That is why he must be able to act boldly and purposefully and why he must be able to maintain stability and order as well.

All of us in this Chamber who want to create a new South Africa, a South Africa that would include people and not exclude them, must bear in mind that there are forces that would destroy our country and our society if we did not bring about reform in a responsible and self-disciplined way.

This Bill is also aimed at ensuring social order and stability. It is intended to bring about greater clarity and certainty, therefore. The maintenance of social order and stability is an important prerequisite for successful reform. If we undermine these elements, there will be a tendency to resist political reform. Successful reform is not possible unless all communities, including the Whites, have a positive attitude towards it.

The Group Areas Act is being adapted at a particular time in order to deal with particular circumstances that prevail today. This means that it will have to be adapted again in future when new circumstances necessitate this. The amending Bill forms part of a process of adaptation to the practical implementation of the concept of the planning of residential areas. Provision is being made for several adjustments. However, these adjustments have an important element in common. The various Bills provide for greater freedom of choice. This is an important aspect of this Government’s reform policy.

However, the most important political reality of South Africa is the existence of different groups. Any political dispensation that fails to recognise this fundamental reality—that attempts to disregard it—is doomed to failure.

†The NP strategy of constitutional renewal as an integral part of a comprehensive programme which also addresses socio-economic needs, is specifically aimed at establishing a system of equal democratic power-sharing among all our various communities, a system which uniquely incorporates confederal and federal as well as unitary elements. It is a dispensation which will provide all South Africans with security and participation. In practice equal power-sharing means that it would be impossible for one group to dominate any other. This is the key principle of equal power sharing.

In South Africa, given the realities of our country, power-sharing without domination is only attainable in practice if the various communities are assured of a guaranteed degree of self-determination regarding particular matters which are of decisive importance to them—hence own and general affairs. Self-determination regarding own affairs and joint responsibility for general affairs form the basis. Neither is possible nor tenable without the other.

*This means that the opportunity of forming their own community, a separate community life and separate land tenure must be guaranteed to those who consider these matters important. There need not be any fear, therefore, that the principle of the retention and development of separate communities, traditions, cultures and identities will be abandoned. The rights and interests of each group must be promoted and protected.

It is true that many South Africans question the need for legislation to enforce this. The Government is convinced that most South Africa probably prefer to have their own community life. The approach is that the various communities must enjoy the maximum degree of stability. Land tenure and ownership must therefore be protected.

It is important, not only to protect those people who already own property, but also to afford others an opportunity to acquire property. If the process of property acquisition were left to economic forces alone, a large percentage of South Africans would never be able to own property. For this reason, provision must be made in terms of this legislation for residential areas and opportunities that will be accessible to poor or less well-to-do groups in society. We must create opportunities for people.

The orderly planning of residential areas is closely associated with urbanisation. This is a process that is on the increase in South Africa, especially in our big cities. It is a world-wide phenomenon and cannot be prevented even by the use of force. When the survival of the individual or his larger social group is at stake, therefore, it is to be expected that he or his group will consider all possibilities and will decide on the most logical course of action for survival. In its simplest form, this urge to survive implies efforts to obtain food and shelter from the elements.

Whites, Indians and Coloureds have already attained almost their maximum degree of urbanisation. Black South Africans are only half-way through this process. The acceptance of this reality by the Government in the White Paper on Urbanisation of 1986 is proof of this. The abolition of influx control measures provides further proof of the Government’s serious intention to promote freedom and opportunities for all South Africans.

The challenge of urbanisation means that millions of people will have to be accommodated in our urban areas. Land will have to be identified and made available more readily for this purpose. We recognise that there is a great backlog because of certain policy measures adopted in the past, and because of the extent of the need that exists.

†The Government and, in particular, the Department of Development and Planning are therefore giving priority attention to the identification of suitable land for urban development. It is being done as part of an ongoing process to provide sufficient and suitable land for the urbanisation needs of all South Africans. The metropolitan areas, where the greatest need exists, are unfortunately areas where suitable land is the most difficult to identify. This is due to restrictions such as unsuitable soil conditions, mining activities, topography and existing patterns of development. Notwithstanding these constraints, good progress has been made with the identification of land in most of the metropolitan areas.

In accordance with the objectives set out in the White Paper on Urbanisation, specific attention is given to socio-economic considerations and especially to the allocation of lower income residential areas close to the existing and future employment opportunities. The needs of the respective communities, with regard to a wider choice of residential environments, are as far as possible also taken into account.

Good progress has already been made with the identification of land in the PWV complex, the Cape metropolitan area, the Port ElizabethUitenhage region, the wider Durban region and various other centres. Some of these areas are now being planned in more detail, while others have already been developed to the stage where serviced stands are being made available to the building industry. Since January 1986 some 32 000 hectares have been designated and proclaimed to accommodate Black urbanisation. A further 10 500 hectares have already been approved in principle and an additional 18 000 hectares are still under consideration.

That does not make it any less evil!

The concept of setting aside land for the various population groups is therefore not only a mechanism to provide opportunities for the various groups to develop their own community life, but it is also an instrument to ensure that the …

Order! I am sorry, but a large percentage of hon members would like to listen to the hon the Deputy Minister. He is making an introductory speech. I really think the other hon members should show the hon the Deputy Minister the necessary respect by at least listening to the introductory speech to the Second Reading debate.

Sir, the concept of setting aside land for the various population groups is therefore not only a mechanism to provide opportunities for the various groups to develop their own community life, but it is also an instrument to ensure that the economically disadvantaged communities receive opportunities and room to settle and progress.

*Sir, we sympathise with people’s feelings and needs. They are recognised; that is why provision is being made for ministerial discretion to enable the Minister to take a compassionate view of individual cases. This means that the availability of alternative housing and other humanitarian factors can be taken into consideration before action is taken. I realise that a significant number of members at this meeting feel very strongly about this Bill, and I understand that. I am not trying to pursuade them to agree with me in every respect as far as the Bill is concerned. However, I am asking them to support the continued process of reform.

†The pace and nature of change and of innovation are determined by our ability to transform the emotional forces in our society into positive energy, which will enable us to realise all our ideals. We are not afraid of sharing power or values. We know what we stand for and what we are striving for. We cannot know the future, and we do not know what the final result will be. However, we have certain principles and some clear objectives which must guide our actions. We have an ideal: We want a peaceful, prosperous and just South Africa. We accept that change must be managed. We believe that we must govern our country into a new future together.

We will learn important lessons from the development of free settlement areas. We must take action in the knowledge that it is only through a process of sustained evolutionary innovation that we will be able to ensure greater stability.

Greater security is only possible if we act, not only in our own self interest, but to the benefit of our common interest, South Africa. We must refuse to be intimidated by those who demand that we abandon our commitment to evolutionary change. We must recognize our common humanity and all its implications.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister’s initial words gave us the impression that, with regard to the implementation of this legislation, it was the Government’s intention to proceed to take firmer actions of a specific kind. We have our doubts about this statement, however, in view of our experiences in respect of similar statements that were repeatedly made to the effect that in terms of the changes in this legislation, firmer action was going to be taken. It is true that certain penalties are being prescribed, which gives us that impression, but we feel that what is at issue is not what the penalties are, but whether the legislation as such is going to be implemented.

In the same way the lack of innovation, which was initially the intention in the legislation, indicates to us that the Government does not actually intend to carry out what they said they would. We say that because we find for the first time in this legislation that discretion is being removed from the court and placed in the hands of the administration once a conviction in a court has ensued. It is the view of those on the left that when such a law is removed from the courts and placed in the hands of the administration, it is in fact not implemented as strictly as before.

That is one of our reasons for not supporting this legislation. In our opinion such legislation imposes order and discipline, and requires strict implementation. That is what we proposed, and initially the Government saw it in this way.

When this Bill was first published, prompted inter alia by the fact that we had proposed legislation in terms of which compulsory eviction had to follow a court conviction, it was discussed under private members’ Bills. The Government’s standpoint was that that legislation which we had proposed should be held in abeyance because it would be obviated by this legislation. It was in fact obviated by the first amending Bill, but suddenly that legislation and the ensuing compulsory eviction disappeared. For that reason we feel it is clear that the intention is not to implement this legislation.

Another reason that we cannot support it resides in the fact that the Free Settlement Areas Bill is being entrenched in this measure. We are opposed to that Bill, however, because the Bill under discussion provides for compensation to-be paid to a person who is evicted or chooses to sell his property as a result of the fact that his area has become a free settlement area.

In addition the method used to determine compensation is not acceptable, since it will result in the value of the property belonging to a person who is already living in a area which is being converted into a mixed residential area possibly being way below the market value on the specified date. The Expropriation Act does not make provision for the proper compensation of a person in that position. Basically these are our reasons for not supporting this Bill.

It is clear that soon the Government will have to choose between the Group Areas Act and its reform policy. The Group Areas Act is a partition measure which was intended to implement a partition policy in this country. It was one of the pillars on which the partition policy in this country was supported.

In contrast with this, the Government has struck out in a completely opposite direction. It began with the new constitutional dispensation, which instituted the tricameral system and a powersharing system, and progressed to the acceptance of an undivided South Africa with equal rights for all citizens, including Black citizens outside the self-governing and independent states.

In a unitary state of this kind legislation such as the Group Areas Act is a contradictio in terminis. It is a contradiction in principle and an irreconcilability. To try to retain or justify legislation which is intended to be the foundation of a partition policy in such a unitary state borders on the absurd. Logic and common sense dictate that it will not be possible to maintain the Group Areas Act in such a state. We in the CP understand that people of colour will experience the Group Areas Act as discriminatory in such a state. They will feel like second-class citizens in a state of this kind where they may enjoy freedom of movement and the franchise, but may live only in limited and statutorily determined areas and not where they want to. This also gives such citizens a moral basis for agitation, if the State does not acknowledge their full citizenship according to the wishes of the majority in terms of acceptable constitutional rules.

In a unitary state of this kind one incurs the ire of the world. In a state of this kind it necessarily follows that all partition measures have to be abolished. That is why we see little sense in debating the amendment of an Act which in its essence is irreconcilable with the course of reform to which the Government has committed itself.

On the other hand the Government has made a commitment to the Afrikaner people and the Whites to maintain and ensure an own community life. We say the Government can do this only if the Group Areas Act is not only retained, but also implemented stringently and relentlessly. [Interjections.] That is the only basis on which the Government can keep its promise and its undertaking to this people.

We therefore say that if the Government does not want to break its word to the Afrikaner people and the Whites, the Government will have to abandon the direction of its reform and its powersharing policy. We tell the Government that it is seeking consensus, but consensus is being sought in the wrong direction. If the Government does not want to break its word, the course of partition must be followed and the Government will find us there already. [Interjections.]

As far as we are concerned, we want to make one thing clear. We make no apology for the fact that the Afrikaner people and the Whites are the principle owners of the greater part of the territory of the RSA … [Interjections.] … and that it belongs to them. We did not …

Koos van der Merwe does not say that.

We have no guilt complex about that. [Interjections.] We did not steal it from anyone. [Interjections.] We acquired it during the course of the history of this country … [Interjections.] … according to acknowledged principles of constitutional and international law. This is how it was laid down in the Group Areas Act. I want to remind hon members that boundaries are not determined by numbers. History determines the boundaries of countries and peoples.

What history?

I want to remind hon members that a country such as Taiwan accommodates 19 million people in an area as large as the Kruger National Park. I want to remind hon members that a country such as England accommodates 52 or 57 million people in a country as large as the Orange Free State. [Interjections.]

That is why, whether other people and the world like it or not, this is a White fatherland. [Interjections.] The part of it that others get, they therefore get by the grace of those to whom it belongs … [Interjections.] … and that, Sir, is an irrefutable truth.

He is probably not a Christian!

That is why we shall not permit anyone to prescribe to us that we must throw our territory open to all and sundry.

Koos van der Merwe does not agree!

I do agree!

That is why we deny claims by other people that they ostensibly have a right to this, merely because of their physical presence in this country.

You are living in a dream world!

On that basis we would also have to recognise illegal immigrants—refugees from other countries who have already settled in this country in their millions. [Interjections.] For that reason we tell the Government of the day that they are the custodians of the territory that belongs to the people, and they may not deal with it in a way that runs counter to the will and wishes of, and without a properly obtained mandate from, the voters of this country. We say the Government has no properly obtained mandate from the voters of this country to amend this Act in the way in which they have in fact done, because they went from one platform to another saying that there would be no grey areas. This is embodied in their publications. It was declared by the hon State President. We therefore say the Government has no mandate to disrupt an established living pattern in this country as they are doing at the moment. That is why we shall fight this legislation relentlessly.

I want to conclude by using the time at my disposal to refer to another aspect, and that is that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning charged us with having wasted the Government’s money. He said this because we had ostensibly made no contribution to the legislation on joint committees. Sir, I say his guilty conscience has caused him to make such absurd allegations.

Hear, hear!

It is a guilty conscience, because for two weeks, and again during this week, as well as with the joint committees, the Government has wasted the taxpayers’ money in an abominable way. Sir, we say this is ridiculous, because to expect us, when we are opposed to a Bill in principle, to make a contribution and try to improve that legislation, which we reject in its totality, is to be completely absurd! [Interjections.]

Are we supposed to initiate a cosmetic process with reference to a Bill? What I cannot understand about the whole situation is that we are being blamed, whereas they are bending over backwards to comply with the wishes of the other parties which, out of protest, simply do not turn up. [Interjections.] We challenge the Government to prove to us that we did not make our contribution with regard to this legislation on the joint committee in cases in which we were not opposed to the legislation in principle. [Interjections.] We challenge the Government to prove that to us, but they must not expect that of us, and blame us as an excuse. Sir, this situation is too ridiculous for words.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the further opportunity to focus attention once again on what certainly the majority of people—I emphasize “people”—in this country have already rejected and do not want. I refer to the majority irrespective of race, colour, culture or creed.

However, before proceeding, I am reminded that the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning attempted to define the word “dispose” yesterday. I took some trouble to find the Oxford Dictionary and other dictionaries, and they say to me that it means “to settle what is to be done with”. Fine; but it also says “to make an end of’, “to have done with”, “to part with”, and finally “to get rid of’. I believe that is exactly what we are attempting to do.

That is a semantic exercise.

That is exactly what the hon the Minister practised yesterday— a semantic exercise. Because of semantic exercises and the attempt at character assassination, I want to remind the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning of a statement that he made to Die Burger on 29 August 1988, in which he made similar accusations and similar attempts at character assassination when he said:

I then had to remind him that I had visited him on 15 June and that we did talk about possible suggestions. Having made that accusation he goes further and says later on in the article:

After I had brought this to his attention, and he had no doubt consulted his diary, he was prepared to make an admission, and he does this in a statement which reads as follows:

He just called me a liar a minute ago—

We had three statements. The second statement that was drawn up by his staff ended as follows:

But, you see, that amounted to an apology, so his staff were instructed to draw up another declaration, which then said:

I am really just mentioning this in passing, because I think we spend so much time on character assassination when the country is in a situation where we cannot afford to play games, as some people are attempting to do. [Interjections.] We are playing serious games here—if we are playing games!

I also want to say to the House that a member of my party received a telephone call from a prominent civic leader in the Helderberg constituency this morning. This person said: “Ek is baie trots op julle. Julie moet net vasstaan.” Is the attitude of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that of fighting for his political life now, and particularly fighting not to lose the position of being Crown Prince to the hon the State President?

However, before I go on I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the hon the State President on his 10th year of office as Head of State in South Africa. I want to say to him that we are appreciative of what he has done and of what he has attempted to do. We are appreciative of the fact that a process of reform was initiated, but we are regretful because that process of reform came to a standstill on 6 May 1987. Thereafter came the whole question of reinforcement—and possibly enforcement—of the fundamental apartheid Acts.

Oh please, you are talking rubbish!

That is probably where that hon member belongs—in the wastepaper basket.

I want to repeat that the Group Areas Act is fundamental to the NP policy and it can only be described as an Act of violence. It is an Act of violence because it is an Act of dispossession. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Minister can shake his head, but you (julle) stole my land and that of our people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may not, in reference to any hon member in the House, make the allegation that theft was committed. He must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I shall withdraw them if they were a reference to a specific hon member.

Order! The hon the Minister referred directly to hon members, and said “you” (julle). He must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw them. I want to say once again, however, that my interpretation of this legislation and the experience of most people of colour is that this piece of legislation is one of theft.

†We were robbed of our birthright.

Order! I am not going to allow any hon member to make the accusation that legislation of theft is passed in this House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is expressing himself too strongly, and I am not prepared to allow him to do that. It is a reflection on the entire House, and he must withdraw those words.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that. I am aware of the fact that we have to be reminded that in the past we were in no way party to this legislation, which reinforced apartheid. Our interpretation can only be based on what we have experienced, and that is why it is impossible to exclude emotions. We must surely take into consideration that our forefathers possessed the land before Whites arrived in this country. [Interjections.]

†According to the historical journal of Jan van Riebeeck, of the Hottentots and the Bushmen he said: “What these people do not understand, is that that which we have taken by the sword is rightfully ours.” That is an act of dispossession. That dispossession has been going on for a long time, and this year in particular—while certain Afrikaners are celebrating the Great Trek—we must also bear in mind that that Great Trek led to the dispossession of land of people who lived here before those people arrived in this country. [Interjections.]

Certainly we on this side of the House, and people of colour, cannot support the concretisation of the Group Areas Act. I am proud to find in my ancestry people of Hottentot descent.

Hear, hear!

Unlike people within the NP who only know their White ancestors—without wanting to recognise their ancestors from Zanzibar and other parts of this land— and unlike people who make a big noise about the fact that in Pretoria on a mural a Black person was shown as the wife of a Voortrekker, we want to ask where those people of colour—except for the Black people who were there already—in the Transvaal and Free State came from if they did not live there before. Where did the little Coloured babies in Excelsior come from, as a result of what was happening?

One cannot run away from the reality of the South African history. The word “justice” was used by the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to question his interpretation of justice when 20% of the population own 80% of the land. Therefore free settlement means absolutely nothing.

That is an oversimplification!

Of course it is an oversimplification. So is this whole attitude of wanting to remain in a position of control in terms of this “verstewiging”.

Like Koos van der Merwe!

I want to remind this House that the whole question of the Group Areas Act is part of the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly said, and I quote:

Apartheid—

[Interjections.]

*So there we have the answer. If the policy of the NP, which is based on racial classification and on the Group Areas Act, is the cause of the economic predicament in which this country finds itself today, then of course we must not even consider another form of reinforcement. We must look for solutions.

And I want to say that our solution does not lie in amendments or in reinforcements; it lies in the repeal of an Act which more than 50% of the NP members do not want. [Interjections.]

†I want to repeat the old story that is told of an experience where Johnny, after having fought in the Second World War, participated in a massive parade. His mother on the sidewalk was proud of her only son who was willing to lay down his life for king and country. While mentioning that, I just want to say too there were many hon members who are sitting on my right hand side who were not prepared to lay down their lives for their country at that particular juncture. There were many hon members in the NP who were blowing up bridges at that particular time, while little Johnny was prepared to fight for our right to live. As the band went marching past, left, right, left, right, Johnny put his right foot forward every time the others put their left feet forward. His mother turned to her neighbour and said: “Look at that. My son is the only person who is marching in step”.

This is the impression one gains when one meets people from outside, or when one goes overseas to meet people from the outside world—that South Africa is out of step with the rest of the world. And yet, our Government and our leaders are continuously seeing South Africa as being the only country that is in step.

John Donne said: No man is an island. I want to adapt that and say that no country is an island. In today’s world we cannot say to the world: Do your damnedest! At a time like this we cannot arrogantly say to the world: We will go it alone! We must recognise the reality of growth, of international dependence and of our interdependence, the one with the other.

The reality of the situation demands that we should move away from apartheid and not window-dress apartheid. We should not deal with apartheid on the outside, while on the inside the fundamentals remain. The Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act are the two fundamentals. If we want to take our rightful place on the international scene, we must demonstrate very clearly to ourselves and to the world that we seek justice, that we seek true democracy, and that we seek a country where the existing potential cannot only be discovered but also developed to its fullest extent, where sharing of power means sharing of power and not a dividing of power which says: You have so much, and I have a little more.

The challenge that faces the Government is the fact that when one wants people to come closer to one in terms of one’s thinking and understanding, one must not say to them: So far and no further.

*This morning we were once again reminded of the reality which says that groups do exist.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Innesdal must please pay heed when the Chair is trying to attract their attention. They are making it very difficult for me to listen to the speaker.

I believe that we in high positions must seek a solution that is acceptable to all South Africans.

That solution must not be found in the concretisation of apartheid legislation, but in a movement towards the realisation of total Black aspirations. Until such time as total Black aspirations are recognized and taken cognizance of and accommodated, we cannot move out of the situation of violence and the escalation of violence which is presently being experienced. We must ask ourselves whether we are happy about the continuous bomb attacks, which we on this side of the House condemn most strongly, or whether we are going to perpetuate a situation which gives rise to such responses.

In saying that, however, I am also aware of fears from all sides, fears from the Black side and fears from the White side, but one has to move away from the bogey of communism. Let us move away and ask ourselves who the cause of the situation is under which communism can possibly flourish.

*Hon members themselves are responsible for the fact that people are moving in other directions, whereas the solution lies in their hands to create a South Africa in which people will not move in those directions. One of the things of which I am proud is the fact that the majority of people of colour are committed to their religious principles, and that inherently they have no room within themselves for communism. However, we in this House must then make use of that religious commitment to build a new South Africa, and not to alienate people.

I believe, however, that we must be freed from those aspirations alone and from the frustrations, but I also agree that we must be freed from those fears which cause this reinforcement, fears that have become clearly apparent. Without repeatin g unnecessarily what we have already discussed with the Government, this Government harbours a fear of the CP. [Interjections.] We are saying to this Government that it is far more important to win the support of this side of the House and of the people outside of Parliament than to give up processes of reform merely to accommodate the conservative elements.

†It is a greater investment to seek the support of the majority of South Africans who inevitably are going to become part of the decision-making process at all levels. Inevitably! History must repeat itself, for in all history never has a situation been perpetuated where a minority can rule over a majority forever. It is not only the Roman Empire I am referring to; it is also the Greek Empire in classical times and the British Empire when people said “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves” which is now all gone. It is all gone now because it was based on discrimination in which the minority was ruling over the majority.

The Government is a victim of its own fear—a victim of the apartheid ideology.

*They are caught up in a longing to move away from yet retain what they have.

†Great men are required to take great steps. One cannot take one small step forward and two big ones back. That is not what we are looking for.

While we hoped that by our participation we would encourage the governing party on the road of reform, we find that while it started well, it has declined and that two fundamentals remain, namely the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act.

In terms of the Group Areas Act we are called upon not to be emotional. However, to call upon me or people of colour who have suffered the indignity of race classification and of being uprooted to respond in an unemotional manner is to ask us to forgo our very being. Certainly, we are governed by our thinking, and our thinking is governed by our emotions.

I am nevertheless encouraged by the fact that there is a group of people in the NP who are prepared to rethink the situation. I hope they will have the courage of their convictions at some stage to come out loudly and clearly and make their presence felt on the South African scene. When they do come out, like the editorial in Beeld which called upon people and said: “Staan stil, kom ons kyk hierna”, those people should not be denounced, condemned and threatened with the possibility of not continuing to be editors.

*We have to accept the truth even though it hurts, instead of reacting in the way in which people have reacted.

Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot act in any other way.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must please address members as hon members. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

Mr Speaker, hon members, we come to Parliament day after day, and daily the majority of hon members drive down Roeland Street past District Six. During the past couple of years we have pleaded for District Six to be thrown open,, but those pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The area is probably going to be thrown open now, but I cannot but quote from the Lamentations of Jeremia, chapter 1, verses l and 12:

Perhaps it now causes people concern again, but the problem is, as the Englishman says: “It is always a little too late.”

†The lonely city that lies there and which was once full of people can never be restored, even if it is declared a free settlement area today. That which has been destroyed can never be restored. It can never be restored in the sense that people who have never been to District Six or lived there will never understand our emotion. [Interjections.] There was a community, but that community character was destroyed by the Group Areas Act. It was destroyed because of selfishness, greed and an ideology. People were sacrificed on the altar of apartheid. [Interjections.]

It is nice to ask who owned the land. We know that 80% of the land was owned by White people, but people were living there. It had a character of its own. It had its own peculiar culture. It had a community, and it was destroyed.

After 22 years the Government say that here is a process of reform, namely the possible declaration of Distrix Six as a free settlement area. Those people who have died have gone and are buried; they cannot be brought back. Those people who were removed have developed an own character down in Mannenberg, Hanover Park and Mitchells Plain. They have a form of life. They have gone through a process of adaptation to a situation concerning where they live, how they get to work and where they work. Economically they can never afford to come back.

Therefore this is not even a sign of goodwill. The only goodwill that can be shown to the majority of people in this country is the repeal of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Then we can take a small step towards the consolidation of a national feeling.

I am reminded that the hon the State President made this appeal on the Grand Parade:

That is a beautiful dream, a beautiful appeal and a beautiful prayer. He went to Bloemfontein thereafter, however, and made this appeal to the hon leader of the CP:

I do not think this is a reflection of movement. [Interjections.] I am simply quoting from newspaper reports. If it is not true, it must be said that it is not true, but thousands of people saw the tears in the eyes of the hon the State President as he made this appeal for Afrikaner unity. I want to ask from this platform: What is more important as an investment in the security and the peace in this country than a national consolidation on an absolutely nonracial basis? [Interjections.] There are people outside, such as Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who are far more important as an investment for South Africa than making overtures to the hon leader of the CP. [Interjections.]

I wish to continue by stating that we should see the legislation before us as an attempt to sidestep a Supreme Court decision. Any attempt to sidestep a court decision, and any reflection on our respect for the courts, must be regarded as immoral. One is reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said that that which is morally wrong, can never be politically right. I should like to hear from the Government and the majority party in the House of Assembly how they feel about morality while honour and morality have been the subject of discussion here for the past two days. [Interjections.]

If the hon member would only speak up, I could reply to him. However, when one does not have the courage of one’s convictions, one swallows one’s words and does not speak out loudly and clearly. [Interjections.]

I want to say that it is important for us to stand still. In spite of opposing these Bills and being accused of confrontational politics, we in the House of Representatives have done far more in terms of protecting and, to a certain extent, defending our country. I want to say that we in the House of Representatives—myself and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in our House—have been instrumental in influencing Dr Bevel’s attitude.

A long time was devoted on the radio this morning to what Dr Bevel had said about the South African situation. He came here as a man supporting sanctions. He was an important leader in the civil rights movement in the United States. However, we sat down and convinced him that sanctions was an evil act of violence and that we still had time to seek peaceful solutions for this country. He went back as a friend, fighting for our existence.

Experience overseas has shown that we as people of colour have far more influence and are better heard by people in foreign countries than members of the governing party in the House of Assembly. I have found in recent times that even people in our embassies are appreciative of the fact that at least the voice of resentment, the voice of rejection of apartheid legislation is now being heard. One of the things that had helped them to get off the hook was the fact that regarding this particular session, the decisions of the House of Assembly had been withdrawn. Criticism had increased and feelings had hardened because of the fact that the House of Assembly was prepared to go ahead with legislation.

I again want to say that if this Bill and the Bills which were discussed yesterday and the day before go to the President’s Council and the President’s Council makes a decision, hon members must not ask us to defend further the situation in this country, because then our feelings are not being taken cognizance of. [Interjections.]

*No, Sir, I had the opportunity to join the ANC but, as a person who is committed to the whole process of peaceful change in this country, I was prepared to run the risk of losing my family, my friends and my church as a result of this participation. Please do not accuse me now of wanting to join the ANC or tell me to go and join them. There is no way in which I can support the issue of violence.

†He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. However, we must be careful how we interpret this. If we are ruling this country violently, we must beware that that violence does not produce violence. My appeal in this House is that we must show the world and the detractors very clearly that we want to continue with the process of reform.

We want to show the world that we are no longer prepared to persecute and prosecute people in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I do not see the hon the Minister of Justice here this morning, but I am appreciative of the fact that the hon the Minister assisted me in regard to the youngest member of my family who holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Law degree to enable him to become part of the prosecution process as a State prosecutor. However, he is no longer there, because he was asked to prosecute a person in terms of the Group Areas Act.

Shame!

That is how we lose young people. The Government is going to lose young people, both White and Black, because of its willingness to continue on this road of apartheid. What particular case was this? Let me mention it. A woman who years ago came from Beaufort West eventually became a caretaker of a block of flats. She and her little boy lived there for more than 20 years. Then her son got married and brought his wife with him to the flat where his mother lived. However, in terms of the Group Areas Act, he is now being prosecuted, she is being prosecuted and the owners of the flat are being prosecuted. [Interjections.] This is completely indefensible. [Interjections.] Now it is expected of us to support this legislation, which deprives people of a moral right—the right of an individual to live where she works, where her son was born and where he now lives. [Interjections.] There has been the question of talking about what we have been talking about, and that is one of the reasons why we are here. I have no problem with that. There were no secret meetings with this Government. There were no secret meetings and perhaps other hon members who participate in this debate will refer to this. The impression has been created that there is no talking since I came back. Far from it. The basis I will leave to others who are going to participate to say more about. However, what is important is that we cannot use this House to accommodate the NP in terms of finding a way of counteracting the CP.

*The CP has become such a bogey in the thoughts of the NP that we are sitting here to pilot this legislation through the Presidents’ Council quickly so that they can attract more votes on 26 October. [Interjections.]

†That is why we are meeting today. [Interjections.] I also believe that the closing of loopholes is not the answer, because since this Act was promulgated, year after year the House of Assembly has sat closing loopholes. I still recall one of the ridiculous incidents regarding the Group Areas Act. At that stage I was a manager of schools and this school was situated in the little fishing town of Jeffreys Bay. At the time I received a letter from the Group Areas Board saying that because the area where the school was situated had been declared White and, since schools were exempted from the Act, I as manager of schools had to apply for permission to enter the school. [Interjections.] I had to apply for inspectors of education to enter the school. [Interjections.] I also had to apply for teachers to enter the school, because in terms of the Act only bona fide pupils were allowed to occupy such building. [Interjections.] This is the absurdity that we are asked to perpetuate in the South African circumstance.

We have lost valuable people and we are going to lose more. I remember an Afrikaans businessman in Kirkwood who employed a person classified as a Coloured female and who eventually had a child by her. He decided to do the honourable thing, namely to marry this person. However, he was hounded out due to the Group Areas Act, which prevented him from living there with his wife. [Interjections.]

I remember the case that I mentioned at the highest level—at Cabinet level—of the Coates family in Uitenhage. A man lived for more than five years with a person of colour and had two children by her. While they were not married the people in the neighbourhood accepted that she was the domestic servant and he was the “baas”, and nothing happened. [Interjections.] Then, upon the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, he did the honourable, Christian thing—he married this woman. Since he married this woman, he has been forced by the Group Areas Act to sell his house because he has now become Coloured in terms of that sort of classification. [Interjections.]

How long can we continue on this road of madness? [Interjections.] I am reminded of a saying to the effect that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I am looking for life, not for death. I am looking for a new South Africa, and not the destruction thereof. I cannot but convey to hon members on the Government benches, as part of an educative process, the feelings that we had to experience in terms of the rejection of our humanity. There is a lack of understanding, and unless we can understand one another or move closer to such an understanding, this country is on the road to destruction. In order to understand this, the American saying still holds true, namely that we must walk a mile in the other man’s moccasins.

*It is so easy to reject the emotions, the feelings and the experience of other people when one is in the position of not having gone through that experience. [Interjections.] That is why I welcome this opportunity to address people from the governing party. I cannot do otherwise but remember the injustices we suffered. Let us look at a few of them.

Now we are again talking about the possibility of Fairview as an open area. When the hon member for Schauderville laid claim to Fairview, it was rejected by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It was rejected earlier this year, if I remember correctly. When I negotiated with the relevant hon Minister, I again suggested this. It was again rejected.

We asked more than that. We asked if the Government was consistent in regard to the relocation of people, why was Algoa Park where it was in Port Elizabeth … [Interjections] … because New Brighton and kwaZakhele are here, and there are the industries which separate us from the Blacks, as well as the Schauder residential area on the other side. In the middle is this White spot, Algoa Park.

The people of Algoa Park were brought there deliberately as voting cattle for the NP in 1953, when there was a redelimitation. The Englishspeaking supporters of the United Party in Perseverance, Swartkops and Redhouse were negated by bringing in these people. Those Englishspeaking supporters of the United Party then found themselves in the Somerset East constituency.

†Now one dares not touch those people. Let us ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and other hon members if they know how many White families have been uprooted in terms of the Group Areas Act.

None!

No, there were some. I think there were probably 100 families, but the hon the Minister must supply the statistics. At the same time more than 100 000 Coloured and Indian families were uprooted under this particular Act.

In the town of Uitenhage—the hon member representing that constituency, Mr Dawie le Roux, is unfortunately absent at the moment— the group areas demarcation runs like a zigzag pattern. Every White house has been excluded from the declaration of an Indian area and is in a White area. Let us go further and examine the South African situation. How many Afrikaner families have been uprooted?

*There were only a few. I could probably count them on the fingers of one hand. [Interjections.] Give me the figures of the number of Afrikaner families that have been uprooted in terms of the Group Areas Act. Let us have a quick look at the various places. Let us see why that specific part of Wynberg was declared a Coloured area. Not a single Afrikaner family was affected, but English-speaking families were affected. Let us also have a look at Red Hill and Greenwood Park in Durban.

†Are there any Afrikaans-speaking families there?

No! [Interjections.]

No. What about the area where the beach for the so-called Indian people is? I am referring to Isipingo. How many Afrikaner families were living there? [Interjections.] No, give me the figures. In every case there was the protection of the minority while the majority had to pay the ideological price.

I was visited in the home in which I was born by the Police because I was living there in contravention of the Group Areas Act. That was the house in which I was born! Do hon members know what I mean? Have they experienced it? Do they share my experience? Yet they sit here in judgement on the whole of South Africa and they want to make a law.

Fortunately there were at that time right-thinking individuals in the NP—I hope there are more of them today—like a previous hon member of the House of Assembly, Mr Frans Conradie. He made representations to the Group Areas Board. He received a letter saying that if the immediate neighbours would be prepared to have the Hendrickses there a permit would be considered. Every neighbour living in that area where I grew up—Afrikaners, Jews, Afrikaans-speaking, English-speaking, Indians, Chinese—signed a document saying that they were happy to have us there and that we had grown up there.

Then the permit was refused! Then Frans Conradie—with respect and appreciation to him— made representations and I received a permit to live there for one year. Now we are asked to support what I regard as an Act of dispossession. I could show the members who would like to have these Bills the photographs of what was once the home and house of my father. It was beautiful in an area, Uitenhage, where there is clay soil and almost every house is cracked. I should like some of the members as part of their educational process to have a look at this to show them how it was broken down brick by brick. We are reminded that it was expected of us like the Israelites of old to sing a new song and not weep or experience sorrow and suffering. That has been the reality.

I said at one stage during this debate that we had lost so much. Go and fetch the people of colour out of Canada, out of England and out of Australia—our doctors, our lawyers, our engineers, our artisans. South Africa has lost so much because of group areas legislation and group areas legislation associated with race classification.

It is expected of me to divorce myself from my own and my family’s experiences, but I am reminded of another instance. My brother, for those who know the medical term, is a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, MRCOG, and was refused re-entry into South Africa because he had married an English girl. When my father was ill he applied for a visa to visit and it was conditionally granted, again at the request of Mr Frans Conradie. The condition was that for purposes of the Group Areas Act his wife would be regarded as Coloured while in the country. What a strange land! Notwithstanding that experience, I and my party are being asked to enforce the legislation which has done this.

There is only one answer. If we want to restore the credibility of this land, if we want to restore respect and if we want to develop healthy relationships across the colour and cultural lines, then we must show clearly the direction in which we want to move. A clear sign must be the repeal of the Group Areas Act.

I believe, and many like me believe, that in this strange situation where two fundamentals of apartheid that cannot be dressed up remain, we will remain an island in the international scene in the sense that people are categorised and classified and by virtue of classification are denied the right to live where they want to live. They are denied the right to associate with whom they want to and are denied the right to be the person God created them to be.

We have lost much in terms of history. However, we are afforded an opportunity to regain something of what we have lost by repealing what I regard as an iniquitous Act. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House, as members of the NP, would also like on this special occasion to convey our congratulations to the hon the State President on the anniversary of his tenth year in office as Premier and as State President. The lot fell to him to assume leadership during the most difficult period of the history of South Africa. We thank him for the way in which he has done this and we pray that he may be blessed and strengthened on the road ahead.

This morning the hon the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives said here that, if we had not stood in his shoes, we had no comprehension of what he had experienced. We concede that we have not stood in his shoes and we have not had that experience. Today, however, the very point at issue in the times in which we live is that we should make an honest attempt to stand in one another’s shoes and to develop understanding for one another’s problems. [Interjections.]

The hon leader of the Labour Party referred to the Lamentations of Jeremiah and commented on how desolate and solitary the city was. He tried to draw a parallel with District Six. He knows, however, that the task rested especially on the shoulders of Nehemiah and Ezra to rebuild the walls of that abandoned city. In terms of the Free Settlement Areas Bills which has been passed, the Nehemiahs and Ezras in their ranks must surely rebuild that city.

In addition, the inhabitants of that city had to live in exile, and surely it is not true that the inhabitants of District Six went into exile. [Interjections.] Surely many of the inhabitants of District Six, who were the victims of exploitation by unscrupulous landowners, were also accommodated elsewhere under better conditions. [Interjections.]

I hope hon members will forgive me if I say that the introduction to the hon leader’s speech—and I say this with all due respect—sounded very much like a racist sermon. I think he was guilty of exactly what he accused us of doing. Surely it is a fact that the Afrikaner also experienced injustice, but there is no sense in fighting the AngloBoer War over again in 1988.

The hon leader added that reform had ground to a halt after 6 May 1987. Surely he was also a party to a decision which made a National Council possible subsequent to 6 May, and surely that is a significant step on the road to reform. We should remember the Chinese saying: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Surely we have already taken that step on the road to reform. Reform cannot take place overnight in South Africa either.

By implication the hon leader also took it amiss of the hon the State President for being overcome with emotion when he made an appeal for cultural unity in spite of political differences in Afrikaner ranks. If the hon leader of the Labour Party can have the proverbial tears in his eyes about the situation in District Six, surely our leader can also have tears in his eyes when he pleads for cultural unity in Afrikaner ranks. [Interjections.] Surely this has nothing to do with political unity. This appeal did not exclude national unity at any stage, and this must be emphasised.

We wish to thank the hon leader of the Labour Party for the part he plays in warding off sanctions from this country. There is great appreciation among us for his actions in this regard. [Interjections.] The regrettable aspect, however, is the hidden threat which he hinted at here. I do not think one should qualify one’s loyalty toward South Africa. It is in the interests of his people, of our people and of all South Africans that sanctions be warded off without qualification. Nevertheless we want to thank him again for the significant part he is playing in this regard.

The fact that we are able to conduct a joint debate here this morning on what must be one of the most sensitive matters in South African politics is surely also proof that the tricameral Parliament has passed its period of infancy. This does not mean that the problems of adulthood do not sometimes hurt, but the mere fact that we are able to debate this sensitive matter here, is also proof of the success of this system. It is one matter to utter emotional slogans concerning the Group Areas Act within the protection of one’s own ranks, but it is a different matter altogether to adopt a standpoint on this issue, in a responsible way across the floor of this Chamber. In the long run it is in the interests of all South Africans for us to take note of one another’s standpoints on this matter in a responsible way. The success of political reform is determined by the attitudes towards one another of the various population groups. If there is no acceptance and goodwill, we can forget about political reform.

It is also a fact, however, that during a process of reform a feeling of uncertainty is created. In spite of this uncertainty, most Whites are prepared to support this process of reform in the interests of South Africa. Nevertheless Whites at the same time place a high priority on the security of their own living space. It is precisely during the course of a political process of reform that uncertainty is created and a high premium is placed on own residential areas and own schools. If a person is denied this right to his own living space during a process of reform which creates uncertainty, it can also have an adverse effect on reform. This Group Areas Amendment Bill is specifically aimed at making this right to one’s own living space more effective, but it is not a right which the Whites are claiming for themselves alone in terms of this amending Bill. Other population groups are also being granted this right; in fact, one of the most important amendments in the Bill before us, in comparison with the one which was discussed in the House of Assembly, is the very fact that the concept of “local authority” is more clearly defined. As far as the new definition is concerned, it is clearly stated that Indian and Coloured management committees had also requested in terms of section 41 of the principal Act that suspected offences regarding occupation and possession be investigated. I have no doubt that these management committees will make use of this power in future.

It should also be noted that most Whites do not state this right to own living space as an absolute condition at all in the sense that provision is not also to be made for other circumstances and needs. Precisely because there is understanding of these needs, the legislation on free settlement areas was also debated in this Chamber. The Group Areas Amendment Bill must therefore be viewed specifically against the background of free settlement areas. Precisely because provision is made for people who choose to live in a mixed community or where circumstances require this, it is being requested at the same time that the right to their own residential areas for those who choose this should be upheld in an effective way.

The NP places a high premium on the right to one’s own living space within the framework of one’s own residential area. The Group Areas Act is the instrument which seeks to uphold this right. This does not mean that the instrument as such is being absolutised. If there is another method which will make this right to an own lifestyle possible within the framework of own residential areas, the NP will examine it.

At present there is no such alternative. At present market forces enable only a small privileged group of people to maintain their own living space within their own residential areas. I want to emphasise that to the NP the cause is more important than the method, and the instrument is not being absolutised.

The amending Bill which is at present being discussed contains important amendments in respect of the principal Act, but also in respect of the legislation which was debated earlier in the House of Assembly. One such amendment is related to the procedure which may be followed in the case of suspected offences. Apart from the existing procedure that a person may go to the Police and that it ends in court with a conviction and sentence, another procedure is being created.

A local authority may bring a suspected offence to the attention of the Minister concerned. This Minister may then order an investigation by an expert person. If an offence is then suspected, it is in the discretion of the Minister either to issue an eviction order or to order the sale of property as well.

I welcome this alternative procedure because it decriminalises the application of the Group Areas Act to some extent. My personal opinion is that it is a step in the right direction to create an alternative administrative procedure outside the ambit of the police and the courts. I think the successful application of this administrative procedure will be an indication of whether it will be considered as the only method in future.

One gained the impression throughout that the resistance to the Group Areas Act was rooted inter alia in the fact that its application had an inhibitive effect on the provision of land to all population groups for the necessary housing. That is why, at the end of the day, the provision of land for housing—adequate provision, is the surest guarantee that the right to one’s own living space in one’s own residential areas will be maintained. That is why the designation of such land must be welcomed.

I want to make two short comments on the designation of land. I think that the resistance which is sometimes experienced from White ranks as regards the availability of land for Black people arises from certain experiences connected with adjoining residential areas. If new extensions intended for Black housing will mean that an adjoining White residential area will be permanently blanketed in smoke, surely one has to expect resistance. That is why I think it no less than right to make the same measures which apply to White residential areas applicable in planned new residential areas as well, and then only in those residential areas which will be situated adjacent to existing residential areas.

My second comment is that this Bill also provides for the distribution of depreciation in the case of free settlement areas. It is true that there are certain odd patches of land on which Whites are housed which have not specifically been designated for the development of Black residential areas. I wish to request that these odd pieces of land also be considered sympathetically by the department to enable these people to settle elsewhere.

Finally, I think that this Bill has proved an embarrassment to the CP because the CP goes from house to house in its propaganda campaign telling people that the NP intends to abolish the Group Areas Act. If one therefore has a measure with the objective of applying own residential areas more effectively, it is an embarrassment to them. That is also probably why they voted against it. I support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the NPP I want to extend our congratulations to the hon the State President on the occasion of his tenth anniversary as Head of State. I want to record our appreciation for his continued concern for the total upliftment of South Africa.

Having listened attentively to the various speakers and particularly my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, I think feelings came from that which cannot be described or expressed in any language, so much so that there is at times no language strong enough to express these views.

We understand in this period of transition that we are now faced with the various colour groups in this forum. South Africa is a great country in which we have a First and a Third World situation. What is manifesting itself is the actual feeling that has existed for many years in this country. Every individual, irrespective of who he or she is, has his or her own convictions with regard to what they would like to see South Africa to be.

When it comes to the Group Areas Act it has been noted, particularly among the non-White community in this country, that this is one of the most objectionable pieces of legislation remaining on the Statute Book. It is legislation which has indeed impoverished certain sections of the South African community. Today we are in a forum in which we are able to express the agony and the frustration caused by this particular Act, so much so that we want to negotiate the possible and the total repeal of this Act.

Having said this—I want at all times to be a realist—this particular debate reminds me of the time when Mahatma Gandhi liberated India. When he had finally liberated India and he was called to Britain and addressed his Majesty the King, he said he hoped he had not been a source of frustration or irritation to him and he asked the king not to let that come between man and man. I think in that same spirit we echo our feelings here.

Hon members are aware that South Africa is a country that is being watched and observed by the entire international community. On the one hand the Group Areas Act is a piece of important legislation. On the other hand we have to take into consideration the views of and the events in the international community. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives spoke about Dr James Bevel, the director of strategy for civil rights of Martin Luther King, who came to South Africa in support of sanctions, but left South Africa with a new spirit of realism. He said: “Sanctions function as acts of war, but not of peace”. He now plans to return to South Africa with a group of radicals to prove the tangible results of reform in this period of transition.

President Chissano of Mozambique commented at the Press conference after the meeting with our hon State President that we are for peace in our region, we are for peace in South Africa and we will stand for co-operation.

When the UN Secretary General, Javier Perez De Cuellar, arrived on his mission in South Africa to negotiate and try to resolve the political impasse over South West Africa he said: “I can rely on the goodwill and good faith of South Africa”. The head of the Roman Catholic mission, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, in his speeches condemned violence and even disagreed with the stance of Robert Mugabe in respect of violence. Referring to Southern Africa he said: “This place is one of reconciliation”.

The Government initiative to end the Angolan conflict by its active and positive participation in the summit meeting and the withdrawal of its troops, clearly indicates its resolve to bring peace in this region. Even a radical leftist like the Rev Jesse Jackson, who not so long ago called South Africa a terrorist state, having met our ambassador acknowledged that there was change and that we must look towards that change.

In view of the remarks of all these people who leave the desired impression on international opinion, it is perhaps ill-timed to legislate on any matters as sensitive as the Group Areas Act. Any resultant deadlock could lay waste any benefit which could have accrued from these events. By now it should be apparent from all the publicity that this particular legislation has had from throughout the country—including, may I say from the CP—that the group areas policy has in actual fact been breached by the population pressures in this country. There is no way we can turn back. The acceptance of any further spicing of the Group Areas Act would be opening our doors to the inevitable.

This Bill will further compound the problems of thousands of people of colour who, not by choice but by virtue of circumstances, find themselves in areas not grouped for them. Let us not as a political policy erode the role of the legal arm by empowering the respective Ministers to exercise eviction and force the already impoverished people further up against the wall of antagonism. Are we in a position to unscramble that which prevails today with regard to the magnitude of the contravention of the Group Areas Act?

I have mentioned that we find ourselves in a very difficult situation in South Africa—on the one hand in the First World and on the other hand in the Third World—and in a short space of time in a period of transition it is not going to be easy to bring about a balance. But we cannot also conveniently overlook the past. In this forum I would like again to remind this House of my own pangs and pains and my involvement that has occurred as a result of this particular Act. In this House we have my colleague, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, and the hon member for Umfolozi. Some twenty years ago, when the Group Areas Act fell on the Indian and Coloured communities north of the Tugela River, the Van Wyk Commission was established to investigate the possible removal of those communities. The Van Wyk Commission took a decision but it was the responsible Minister at the time, Carel de Wet, who took the decision for their ultimate removal. But what has happened? I am glad that we have in this House the hon Minister of Home Affairs who will acknowledge that negotiations began and those negotiations highlighted the pangs and predicament of those people.

For some unknown reason, as a result of legislation and attitudes, some 87% of the Indian community were sandwiched only in Natal, apart from Act 33 of 1927 which restricted the free movement of Indians in Northern Natal district and equally in the Orange Free State. By way of negotiation and together, may I acknowledge, with the co-operation and our presence in Parliament, that legislations was repealed, so much so that people in those regions could once again see the sun above them.

However, there are many aspects to the Group Areas Act, and it is only those who have been affected and who have suffered in silence who will understand the difficulties. Therefore we as representatives not only of constituencies but also of the aspirations of our people, must be able to air our views in the best way that we can, so that posterity will record our feeling.

Nowhere else in the world is the constraint on an individual choice enshrined in a statute. Elsewhere in the world where particular race groups are formed as a community in a particular settlement it is based on their own choice, circumscribed perhaps by their own economic limitations.

Reform in South Africa has made many commendable advances. Whilst I favour moves aimed at peacefully dismantling prevailing legislation which discriminates on the grounds of race, I submit that this should be done in a positive and an irreversible manner. Whilst it must be acknowledged that there is some merit in reposing the decision of whether to open the residential areas on settled groups, it is my respectful submission that meaningful reform would be better served if no further group areas were ever allowed to be created and the applicability of the Act was repealed forthwith.

With respect, the history of the Afrikaner is a history of a people’s struggle to free themselves from government interference in their lives so that they might live according to their own values, but this heritage and feudalism and the pursuit of freedom has been largely forgotten since D F Malan piloted the Group Areas Act through Parliament in 1950.

Whatever the Group Areas Act was intended for, it has happened that approximately 98% of the victims of it have been non-Whites. One can visualise the agony and the trauma it has caused.

We are all humans. We have our weaknesses, our aspirations and our values, but let us learn from the lessons of history. Our hearts and minds should change on the basis of negotiation and also on the basis of what is said in these debates, so that we can look at South Africa with a new vision.

With all the humility at my disposal I want to appeal to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, to perhaps shelve these Bills. South Africa is a great country and cannot afford the onslaught that it is faced with as a result of this legislation. Let us be able to stand upright and defend South Africa as we are doing today. We are fortunate in this era and particularly this year that South Africa is making history on the international front. With this my appeal is that the Group Areas Act be shelved in its entirety.

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to follow on the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates and I hope to refer during my speech to a few remarks that he made.

*A while ago I had the opportunity to talk to a respected member of the Coloured community about this Bill. [Interjections.] That person told me that if we were to hold a referendum in the Coloured community today on whether or not this legislation should be abolished, 70% of the Coloured population would vote for its abolition. [Interjections.] The percentage might be higher. He also conceded that if we were to hold a referendum among the White population today, at least 70% of the voters would vote for the retention of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

I asked myself whether, if this was correct, this meant that we had to abolish the legislation. Does this mean that whether one wants to or not one must live in a mixed residential area? That is the question I want to ask. Is it not fairer to give people a choice regarding the community in which they want to live? Is it not fairer to give people such a choice?

This trilogy of Bills before us in fact affords communities such a choice. It affords such a choice. We have leaders in this House who believe in the abolition of the Group Areas Act. I concede this absolutely. Nevertheless, here is a wonderful opportunity to abolish the Group Areas Act in the Coloured areas. There is an opportunity to do this. Let them abolish it. Let them show us. Let them show us how well these mixed residential areas work. If the House of Delegates were to decide to throw open all areas, the hon members could demonstrate to us the feasibility of such a residential area.

The hon members will also succeed in doing something else. The hon members will also … [Interjections.] I am coming to that. The hon members can also demonstrate something else to us. There are persistent rumours doing the rounds that there are members in those hon members’ party who are not in favour of the abolition of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] There are persistent rumours in this regard. By deciding that all areas which are at present Indian group areas are going to be thrown open, this rumour could be eliminated once and for all. The same applies to the hon members in the House of Representatives. Precisely the same thing applies there. There are also rumours doing the rounds that there are many people in their ranks who are not in favour of the abolition of this Act. This also applies to the PFP and the NDM. They could also do this and their representatives could also request that their areas be thrown open. I promise that I will give them my full support if they want to throw open their areas, all they must do is say so prior to the municipal elections. [Interjections.]

While I am talking to the hon members of the PFP, I want to say the following. I have noticed that there has been increased contact between members of the PFP and members of the Labour Party in the lobby during the past few days.

We talk to you too!

Yes, I appreciate that, but now I want to give the hon members of the Labour Party a bit of unsolicited advice. They must be wary of the advice they get from the PFP.

We are giving them advice.

They must be very careful. Those hon members do not know what to do themselves. They cannot give that hon Minister any advice. He may possibly be able to give them advice. [Interjections.] The PFP has become the proverbial neutered cat in the politics of South Africa, they simply wander about giving advice because they cannot do anything themselves any more. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow hon members to refer to other members in those terms. I request the hon member to withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer a question. [Interjections.] I want to refer hon members to the debate which we had here on the envisaged National Council, when the hon members of the PFP clearly stated that it was their standpoint that those hon members should not be here. The hon members’ standpoint has not changed yet. I want to tell the hon members that now.

Is that your standpoint?

The hon members are sitting here. Our standpoint is that the hon members should sit here.

That we must remain separate.

The hon members are sitting here. Surely that demonstrates our standpoint. [Interjections.] Surely that demonstrates that we believe in this. I want to tell the hon members that they must not think that the PFP has adopted this standpoint on the basis of their wonderful principles. They know that you and I cannot afford to live in Bishopscourt. [Interjections.] They know that we cannot afford to live in the Houghtons.

I can!

Well, Mr Speaker, in that case I must apologise to the hon the Minister; then his estate has increased dramatically since I last spoke to him. [Interjections.]

Where do you stand?

Mr Speaker, I believe local government is the basis of all tiers of government. A central government governs an area and the people who live in it—the country. A second-tier government governs provinces and the people living there. A third-tier government must also govern an area and the people living there, but those of us on this side of the House believe that group representation in the constitutional dispensation gives us the solution to our constitutional problems, and I know that some hon members do not agree with me; they believe in individual representation. However, I want to say that developments during the past few days have simply strengthened my belief in the representation of groups in the constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

Consequently when one considers the third tier of government, and one wants the existence of groups to emerge clearly in this tier, and if this must take place within a specific area, as far as I am concerned the Group Areas Act has become a necessity for our future politics. [Interjections.] It gives us an option.

A question which can be asked is whether, by accepting free settlement areas, the NP has not renounced the concept of group representation, and that is a fair question, a question we dare not run away from.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, to reply to this question as follows. I believe that there are many people in our country who want to or already have left the group of which they are a member. I believe this. However, there are also quite a number of these people who cannot link up with another defined group, and I submit that these people are in the process of forming a new group in our country, namely the open group. All I want to say is that we are merely recognising the existence of an open group. By means of this legislation we are at the same time also recognising the existence of a closed group.

As regards the open group, we considered the constitutional implications yesterday—franchise, etc, in these free settlement areas—but in our other constitutional matters we shall also have to give attention to other tiers of government in order to make provision for this open group in them. Theoretically this open group can become a formidable factor in South African politics. If all groups who feel like it today want to throw open their areas and form part of this open group, this group can play a very important role in South African politics.

I want to ask seriously that we please accept that people should exercise their choices; that we do not force people into situations. By means of this legislation choices are being created for our communities and, Sir, I want to ask that we exercise these choices to the best of our ability.

Mr Speaker, at the very outset it is important that to make something very clear. I stand here as a member of the LP and, as such, I see it as my democratic right to disagree and to criticise.

My leader, Rev Hendrickse, has been an inspiration to me in this regard, especially in this particular debate. St Thomas Aquinas said:

I wholeheartedly support that viewpoint.

The Group Areas Act was designed to address the poor White problem that existed in 1948 and to uplift them socio-economically and otherwise. We believe that that goal has long since been achieved, although in the words of a member of the public: “The NP has resolved the poor White question, but has failed to eradicate the poor White mentality.”

In its application the Group Areas Act is iniquitous, immoral, ungodly and unjust. We have said this over and over in the past, and we shall go on saying it until it is repealed. In laying the Group Areas Amendment Bill before this House, the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have extended that immorality, that iniquity and that injustice, because the penalties provided for in this Bill make harsher those found in the existing Act.

In his introduction to this debate, the hon the Deputy Minister made a pathetic and pitiful attempt at justifying these proposals. In effect, what the Group Areas Amendment Bill proposes to do is to make it a crime to give shelter to the homeless. Sometimes in debates with the NP we cannot help but conclude that debating with that party is like talking to the wall.

*As my hon leader, Rev Hendrickse, said:

“You hear what we are saying, but refuse to listen.”

†Mr Speaker, I view with cynicism, too, the hon the Deputy Minister’s statement in a public meeting that the provisions found in this Bill and the penalties thereto would be applied with compassion.

*What rubbish!

†Is it compassionate to fine someone R10 000 or to imprison that person for five years and, worse still, to summarily expropriate the owner’s property by ministerial decree, and in the process bypass the due process of law?

That’s compassion!

The Financial Mail, in a recent edition, hit the nail on the head when it said that the group areas trilogy, together with the Bills on squatters and slums, represent the reimposition of influx control. [Interjection.] Sophisticated, yes—but certainly a reimposition of influx control.

Instead of moving towards a South Africanism and a national unity, this Bill has created the situation in which neighbour is now spying upon neighbour. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, today I am standing here with 10 minutes at my disposal. I am sorry that I do not have any more time because I should have liked to say everything I feel about this subject. I stand here as a senior member of my party, the governing NP; I stand here as an individual politician in his own right. Today I say that I am grieved at the polarisation taking place in our country. I am grieved at the polarisation and emotions which I have witnessed in this debate and the last few debates in this House.

I want to emphasise that every single member of the NP on my side of the House, every single member of the LP and every single member of all the other parties, with the exception of the CP, would like to have peace in South Africa. We should like to see South Africa as being our country in which our shared South African nationality, our common values, are more important than our petty egos.

If we want to destroy this country completely we must—in our discussions in this House, by means of interjections, remarks and conversations in the Lobby—increase the polarisation that already exists in regard to race. That is why the essence of my contribution in respect of this measure is not to ask our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates to support it.

I have said that, and I want to repeat it in the most forceful language I could possibly use. If I were a Coloured or an Indian I would have hated the Group Areas Act with all my heart and soul.

Hear, hear!

And as a Christian?

I include Christianity in this, but I should not like to politicise Christianity. What we need in South Africa instead is to Christianise politics. I am referring specifically to my colleagues, the CP members in the House of Assembly who speak at length about these concepts.

I am disappointed by the emotions which prevail here. On Monday we discussed the Free Settlement Areas Bill. As practical politicians in the NP we cannot change South Africa’s countenance overnight. Nor can we do it today either. It is simply not possible in terms of practical politics.

I listened to the hon leader of the Labour Party. As an individual politician I want to tell him that I have compassion and understanding for every iota of heartache and violence which he and his people have experienced as a result of this Act. Moreover, 90% of the White residents in my constituency have understanding and compassion for the heartache which has been caused by the Group Areas Act.

That is why I want to say that the most positive development concerning this measure—and I should like to say so to the hon the Deputy Minister—is the fact that the hon the Minister is going to have discretionary powers in its application. I also want to say at once that the penalties which can be imposed in terms of these measures if specific contraventions are committed are enormous. Here I am speaking as an individual and I do so for my own political account. It addresses me personally. Yet we do at least live in a country in which the Minister involved can exercise his discretionary powers.

Furthermore it means nothing more and nothing less than that any individual, family or group of people who are affected, do have the right of access to the courts. We place a premium on the courts. I refuse to believe that in the application of administrative law in South Africa there would be a single court that would not question the discretion of the Minister if he were to exercise it incorrectly. I want to add that I have complete confidence—at this juncture in South African politics—that there is not a single Minister on our side of the House who would consider the situation without human compassion. We are therefore confronted with the reality of legislation which contains tremendously stringent provisions. Furthermore we have the assurance on the part of the Government that it will be dealt with with discretion. I should like to tell our colleagues that in addition to all of this there are the courts, which will have the right in terms of administrative law to determine whether the Minister has used his discretion well.

I want to take this opportunity to touch upon certain other aspects of the Group Areas Act. I should like to make an appeal in this forum to the hon members of the Cabinet on this side of the House and I am not going to beat about the bush. We must think again about the issue of open business districts in South Africa. I also say this to the voters in my constituency, and therefore there would be no point in my only saying it covertly. I say in speeches from public platforms that we must reconsider section 19 of the Group Areas Act so that all business premises in the whole of South Africa are thrown open in respect of occupation, possession and business activities to everyone regardless of race. No one in this country stands to lose anything if we were to do so and that is why I am making this appeal today.

We are standing here as people who all want the same values in our country. We all want peace and justice and that is why we can speak frankly in this House. That is why, in my party, we can discuss openly with one another what we consider to be solutions for our country and how we see the future.

If one turns one’s back on the truth, mendacity seizes one with all its mighty tentacles. That is why we in the NP will in no way try to run away from the truths surrounding the needs of people to live. That is why I sincerely believe that this measure will never ever be applied by my party and this Government, as was done in the past when many injustices were committed.

We can argue at length about over history since the time of Jan van Riebeeck. We can consider each and every commission which investigated land dispensations in South Africa, between Whites and Blacks, between Whites and Coloureds and Indians, and throughout this country’s history—I say that unequivocally and without prejudice, but it is not my fault; it is history’s fault—tremendous injustices have been committed against the so-called people of colour.

Hear, hear!

I am not saying it so that hon members of the House of Representative should say “hear, hear!”. I am saying it because I have to convince my own voters in the Innesdal constituency that this Government’s road of justice and equity means that my people, and I as well, have to reflect again and ask ourselves what in the past was right and what was not.

There is no way in which the White population group in this country could ever have a future unless justice and equity are inscribed in large letters on everything. There is no town or city in the whole of South Africa in which one can consider the historic distribution of land and say in all sincerity that it was just and fair. That is why with this measure we are not saying that we want to maintain what was wrong yesterday as such. We as the NP are saying that—I should like to make this appeal to the other hon members of the House—because we know there is a lot that has to be rectified. We say that because we believe we are going to rectify it.

I believe that we deserve a little more credit from our hon colleagues in the other two Houses.

†I do not want to ask any hon member in this House to say thank you for the Group Areas Act. Of course they could never do that. However, I want to make one plea. For the sake of South Africa, let us face one another and let history remain something of the past. The new South Africa is something towards which every hon member in this House should work.

Of course we do not agree on everything. We have our own personal views and naturally a great deal of emotionalism prevails in our constituencies. However, I want to conclude with this plea to all my colleagues: Let us not in this Chamber stress the conflict potential of South Africa.

Let us rather ask ourselves what is good for all of us. What can we look at as positive? Let us take that which is positive and let us work on that. I can assure all hon members in this House that all NP supporters and all hon members sitting on my side of the House have in their heart of hearts much more understanding than they would ever think.

Mr Speaker, when the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act were repealed by Parliament, one of the most important reasons for their repeal was that in terms of those measures one of the most fundamental manifestations of human nature, namely the choice of a marriage partner or sexual intercourse, was considered a crime when that choice or that intercourse took place across racial dividing lines. We repealed those measures, in spite of the fact that no one could really have complained that he or she did not have a wide choice of marriage partners or other sexual partners within his or her own race group.

The Group Areas Act also deals with a fundamental aspect of human nature, namely the need to have a roof over one’s head, the need for housing. The Group Areas Act also criminalises the acquisition of a roof over one’s head when it is acquired in an area which has not been proclaimed for one’s own race group. What makes this prohibition even worse than those laws that we have already repealed is the fact that those who are not White have very little choice as to where they may live, that there is a serious housing backlog and housing need for all except the Whites in this country, and that the Group Areas Act is therefore conducive to blatant discrimination and inequality.

The Bill that is before us is in fact intended to make the implementation of the group areas dispensation more brutally effective, to make it possible to deal more harshly with those who contravene the Group Areas Act, whether or not they have been driven to do so by necessity. I was surprised that many hon members of the NP who served on the joint committee on this matter said that it could surely not be the aim of the Bill to deal harshly with those who had been driven by necessity to move into White residential areas in particular.

The same sentiment has now been expressed here by the hon member for Innesdal, for whose feelings I have a great deal of sympathy and respect, but do those hon members not realise that they can have virtually no influence over who will or will not be prosecuted in terms of this Bill? Do they not know that, once the Bill is on the Statute Book, the police and the courts will be forced to deal with people according to the letter of the law, and that they will have to regard the drastically increased penalties as a serious indication of the view that the legislature takes of this matter? That is the duty of the courts. The courts do not have that choice. They have to take the legislature seriously. If we prescribe drastically increased penalties, the courts have to take cognisance of that. Do those hon members not realise that the deliberate circumvention of the court’s ruling in the Govender case is a clear indication that the legislature does not want the non-availability of alternative housing to be a factor when it comes to legal action against offenders?

†Two weeks ago I was consulted by a lady about a group areas dilemma. I shall refer to her as Mrs A. I would like to relate this story to hon members. Mrs A works as a caretaker—she is virtually the manager—of two adjacent blocks of flats in the southern suburbs of Cape Town. As such, she occupies a small flat in one of these blocks. I suppose her flat could more accurately be described as servant’s quarters.

Mrs A struck me as a warm, friendly, helpful human being and I am sure she must be indispensable to her employer, but Mrs A is a Coloured lady.

About 18 months ago an elderly White lady—let us call her Mrs B—applied for a flat in one of those blocks managed by Mrs A, and although Mrs B’s pension was so little that technically she did not qualify for that particular flat, Mrs A was very sympathetic and allocated the flat to her.

Moreover, this Coloured lady, Mrs A, loaned one of the beds from her own flat to Mrs B so that Mrs B’s son could reside in the flat with her. During the course of the succeeding months she did this White lady, Mrs B, many little favours and acted as any concerned and good neighbour would.

Mrs B has a son, however. He is the one that sleeps on the borrowed bed belonging to Mrs A. Mrs B’s son receives a disability grant on account of some illness he had in his youth. Although there appears to be nothing wrong with him at this stage, this 24-year-old man has never done an honest day’s work in his life.

However, there are two things he does with his life. Twice a week he takes the bus across town to play putt-putt in Mouille Point and twice a month he attends a meeting of the AWB. This young man, who is unable to work, earns a disability grant and carries a gun which he likes to show around.

Pursuant to this young man’s newly found political loyalties, of course, he persuaded his mother to report to the police the fact that Mrs A and her husband, Coloured people, were committing the heinous crime of living in a White block of flats. That is the thanks Mrs A gets for her generosity as a human being.

That is the kind of thing one sometimes has to expect from ordinary people, but the tragedy is that this Bill before us clearly aligns the Government with the heartless, immoral attitude of that young man. It is the prejudice of that young man that the Government serves with this legislation. It is to his intolerance that they pander with this legislation.

Recently we also saw reports of a British immigrant living in Claremont who complained about a Black man who was living in a White group area in that vicinity. He phoned the public prosecutor, he phoned the provincial authorities and he canvassed support from his neighbours.

I want to tell that immigrant to go back to where he came from. He has the barefaced cheek to complain of a Black South African with his roots in this country exercising his choice of where to live in his own country!

Once again, one can accept the errant behaviour of individuals, but the tragedy is that it is with that immigrant that the Government sides. They side with him against their fellow South Africans.

This Bill, like the Group Areas Act it seeks to amend, is racial intolerance clad in the respectability of law. This is the case in spite of all the nice-sounding words and arguments we have heard this morning, and we have heard a lot of them.

The hon the Deputy Minister has said, for instance, that the Group Areas Act is not only an instrument of residential order but also an instrument to make housing and land available to all in this country, suggesting of course that housing and land could not be made available if it were not for the provisions of this Act. In that sense it is a cynical and, quite frankly, a dishonest argument, because it suggests something that is simply not true.

The hon the Deputy Minister also repeated the argument that certain provisions of this Bill make it possible for the Minister to give attention to humane considerations before he decides to evict somebody or otherwise. Once again it is a cynical argument, for what he omits to say is that those humane considerations are part of the law at present. Subsequent to the Govender decision it is part of our law. The Government and the courts are obliged to take humane considerations into account when they decide whether to evict or not.

The truth is that this Bill, compared to the status quo, is now giving to the Government and the Minister the discretion to disregard these humane considerations if they wish to do so. It is not something new that is being added by the Bill. It is something that is being written out of our law, and, much as they plead and talk about humane considerations, the fact is that the status of those humane considerations in our law is being grievously undermined by this Bill.

The hon the Deputy Minister talked about revolutionary and reactionary forces and attempted to position the Government somewhere between those two forces. I want to tell him, as far as apartheid and the Group Areas Act are concerned, that the NP forms an integral part of the reactionary forces in this country. As such they play into the hands of the forces of revolution.

Government speakers tell us that the Group Areas Act is a sensitive issue for Whites as well. We all know that, but in arguing so strongly about the sensitivity of that issue, they are saying that those who are obsessed with race deserve as much sympathy for their attitude and their determination to treat others as second-class citizens as those who are treated as such. They suggest that we should show the same understanding for those who discriminate as we show for those who are discriminated against. This is simply unacceptable. One cannot compromise between good and evil.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to what the hon member for Innesdal said. Within the NP context I want to congratulate him, because it took a lot of courage. However, I know that hon member can do better. He does not belong there where he is sitting. He said that if he had been a Coloured or Indian he would have hated this law.

*As a fellow-believer and a Christian, I should like to say to that hon member that he should certainly hate this law, because it is an ungodly, unchristian en immoral piece of legislation.

†There is no such thing as applying the Group Areas Act with compassion. That is a figment of someone’s imagination. Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made certain remarks in this House which caused suspicion and created doubt about the deal made by the hon member for Toekomsrus and myself. The hon member for Toekomsrus, after a meeting in Pretoria, asked me to accompany him to that meeting with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Deputy Minister. We have learned from experience not to be alone when we speak to the NP.

The purpose of that meeting was to decide what was going to be done at that committee—the hon the Deputy Minister referred to the meeting and I therefore no longer regard it as confidential— and also to persuade us to support the two free settlement areas bills, while we could object to or reject the Group Areas Bill. He wanted to know from us whether it would be possible for us to reject that Bill in the joint committee and still support it here. We said that if we made such a decision, it would not create a problem for us. We also said that our leader was out of the country and that we were not in a position to give them any undertaking or make any decisions. We also said we would try and meet again. The understanding was that we would contact the hon the Deputy Minister if it was possible for us to meet him on Sunday. Due to reasons beyond our control maybe the contact was not made to inform him in time, but when the hon the Deputy Minister phoned us on Sunday night, he was informed that we were not prepared to talk about it.

Hon members have heard what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, as well as other hon members, had to say about the Free Settlement Areas Bill and other Bills.

We were also told that we could discuss the Group Areas Act on Monday and that it had the approval of the hon the State President. When we got here on Saturday we found that the programme had been changed. Let us rather not talk about honour.

I asked why so little time had been allocated to discuss the group areas legislation because we had so much to say. I wanted to know whether the voting on Friday could not be postponed to Monday, but was told that it could not because of an NP congress. We did not give any undertaking that we would vote on it.

Much has been said here about the Group Areas Act. I wish to congratulate my leader, who is also my father, and tell him that I am truly proud to be his son and to have him as a mentor.

This Bill is based on race. There are no other grounds for this Bill. It is based on race and it is therefore a racist piece of legislation. My only sin is the colour of my skin. The hon members on that side of the House are not concerned about my religion, my culture or my language; all they are concerned about is the colour of this skin of mine. That is what this Bill is all about.

I wish to say to hon members on that side of the House that they cannot defend the indefensible. I wish to challenge them to stand up and be counted. It is only in the interests of the country.

I am sorry that my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order is not here. I should like to ask him whether he can in conscience send those policemen of his in to evict people in terms of this legislation. The hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry is also not here. Can he truly, in his heart of hearts, justify selling this story to the people, using our money? I wish to ask the hon members for Bellville, Newton Park and Mossel Bay whether they really believe in this legislation. Those gentlemen should stand up and be counted.

I should like to leave hon members with this poem as I believe it sums up a lot of the emotion around the Group Areas Act. It is called, Oos, Wes, Tuis Bes by Adam Small:

Mr Speaker, we in this beautiful country are certainly privileged to belong to a democratic system. We have the privilege of debating in this fine building on matters which affect us all very closely. I have sympathy for the emotionalism of hon members on my left. They put their standpoint with emotion and I can understand this because, just like us, they are also here to debate rights for their people. We as Whites on this side of the House also have the right to debate on things which our voters would like. We want to debate the situation calmly and without bitterness. To debate without bitterness will ultimately benefit everybody.

I am proud to say today that I am a White South African. I am proud of the contribution that we have made and have helped to make to bring this country where it is today after 300 years. South Africa is unique in its different ethnic groups, each with its own culture, language and standards. We come into contact with one another every day because ethnic membership is specifically something born to us. It is inborn and it has a strong influence on our entire outlook on life.

I can now say to all members of the PFP, the NDM and other independents who advocate a non-racial democracy for this country of ours that this will not work because of our group context. We refuse to deteriorate into a grey mass without identity. [Interjections.] Something which I find very interesting is that an hon member mentioned here today that he was proud of his descent. He was talking about the Hottentots in South Africa. We are all proud of our descent. We all belong to different groups.

Hon members on that side of the House can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that an ideal exists among Coloured people too as regards a separate sense of identity and self-respect.

No! No!

Do they not have an own identity and self-respect? [Interjections.] I am very sorry but we are not colonialists either. No, we are part of this subcontinent. We are an integral part of South African society.

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

No, Sir. I am sorry but I have too little time at my disposal.

The idea of racial segregation is not to enforce our culture on other population groups but to offer each the opportunity to develop freely in its own area and with its own racial characteristics. The idea is not to dominate other groups in the least.

So much is said about what happens overseas. That is a Utopia! Can hon members tell me why no non-Whites live in certain areas of New York? Great care is taken that Black people do not move in there. Why does a person very soon become aware, when one is travelling through certain areas of Boston, that only Black people live there?

Own choice!

Talk about double standards! No, Sir, that is hidden apartheid. We in this country are at least frank that we also want to give our people who would like to live within an own group context the opportunity to strive for this. If we were to scrap the Group Areas Act entirely, it would only be the fat cats in this country who would not be affected by this.

Many of our own White people would suffer as a result of this. As I have already said, I am very proud to be able to say that I belong to the White group. They will suffer most from this. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to permit hon members to keep up a running commentary. These are not interjections which are being made; it is running commentary. If hon members want an opportunity to speak, would they please make the necessary arrangements with the Whips. The hon member may proceed.

We South Africans have come a long way. There has also been mention today in passing of the poor-white situation. At the turn of this century the Afrikaners were on their knees. We had nothing. We had lost everything but we banished that bitterness from our hearts because we realised that we would have to work together with all people in this country.

What happened in 1930 during the depression and the drought? Our people poured into the cities in search of work and any livelihood. We did anything to keep body and soul together. At that time the NP realised that it was the future of its people which was at stake. We then came up with racial segregation, we then came up with group areas …

Mr Speaker, is the the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, I am busy with my address and I am just on my way now. [Interjections.]

*Our people were desperately poor, we lived anywhere, and the NP of those days then realised that if our people were not looked after … [Interjections.] The PFP people may laugh and the Coloured people may laugh but it was my people who were uplifted there, who existed in those difficult circumstances, and who are in the position they are in today. [Interjections.]

I shall quote from one of the leading articles of Die Burger of 1934:

A person accepts today that our survival is no longer threatened. Not in the least! We have become a people in our own right and that is why we are reaching out our hands today to join hands with all population groups in this country of ours, regardless of whether they are Coloureds, Indians or whatever, to go into the future because we have people of quality in our country. That is why we want hon members to forget what is water under the bridge just as we were big enough, just as we became mature enough, to forget those things which almost destroyed us as a people too. We have forgotten now because we realise …

Hon members are sitting here in a democratic system, they are also making a splendid contribution to this people and that is why we want them to continue with this.

Have hon members of the House of Delegates forgotten about Cato Manor already? Have hon members of the House of Representatives forgotten about Alexandria already? Alexandria was a Coloured area but Black people pushed them out. They feared for their lives. Our Government provided them with an existence in their own right in a beautiful town where they are free today, where they can conduct business, where their children can attend school and they can live as they like.

In Cato Manor the Indians and Black people also tackled one another and the Indians were moved to Chatsworth, KwaMashu and Umlazi. [Interjections.] Those hon members would probably have liked to see them wipe each other out. [Interjections.]

Order!

That would probably have been their solution. Unfortunately it is not the solution.

I have listened closely over the past two days and have thought that there is really no problem with these free settlement areas and that we will all stand for them because it is a step in the right direction to create areas for people who would like to live there. Unfortunately they derived bitterness and dissatisfaction—which was altogether unnecessary—from the entire situation. [Interjections.] It was quite unnecessary! That is why I feel free today to say that we on this side of the House are quite frank about it and that we mean it sincerely when we say that we should like to co-operate with them. That is why we should like … [Interjections.]

It is my turn to speak now. We listened attentively to hon members who participated in the debate today and I feel that it is also my right as a White South African, of which I am very proud. I hope hon members are also very proud of the fact that they can trace their descent as Brown people and Indians too and that is why I request them all to join hands today. We are all South Africans. Let us all go forward together in the best interests of all our people.

Mr Speaker, I am deeply indebted to the last speaker for reminding us about the life of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the 1930s. I want to respond immediately by saying that when nobody else in the business community could give anything to help impoverished people, and I refer to the Afrikaans-speaking community, the Indian trader said: “Take what I have got, have it and if the good Lord gives you rain, we will survive once again”. [Interjections.] This was told to me in Piet Retief on the 75th anniversary of that town by the son of an Afrikaner gentleman to whose father that message had been given by an Indian trader in Piet Retief. It is recorded in the history books of this country. [Interjections.]

All I am saying is that it is a sad day when we tend to brush over and forget acts of this kind which are part of humanity, something that must always be alive in the hearts and minds of all people. I do not gloat over it, but I think it is necessary to remind people that these acts of human compassion did happen and that they brought humanity together in pain and suffering. That is what I am pleading for today.

I have just looked at an answer given by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in response to a question that was raised in the House of Assembly regarding the amount of land made available in terms of the Group Areas Act to the various race groups as at 30 December 1987. The figures are 750 000 ha for Whites, 100 000 ha for Coloureds and 51 000 ha for the Indian community. Taking a ratio of 5 Whites to 3 Coloureds to 1 Indian, there is something seriously wrong in the calculations when a community which is entirely urban and another community which is increasingly being urbanized are strait-jacketed as a result of a shortage of land. The Group Areas Act has been the chemistry for creating that kind of situation.

Today the Bill before this House will make criminals of people who did nothing wrong, people who took up employment and who sought accommodation. White landlords were pleased to receive these people and they earned their profits from the rents paid by these people. Yet today the Government is doing something to criminalize a community through no fault of their own. Where is morality, decency, human justice and fair play?

I have known the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for 20 years and we have been friends. He said yesterday, or the day before, that the group areas approach merely recognises existing racial patterns. When the Government cleaned up the Indians of Durban, whom did they recognize? Only the White community was recognized. We were taken away from every street which we occupied in that city. In Pinetown everything was taken away but for the railway station, the Imperial Hotel, the police station and the graveyard. It was 90% Indian. The Government took us out and paid peanuts for our properties. We came back to pay the Whites hundreds of thousands of rands for a quarter of an acre in the business area. In Sea View the Government took away land for R1 000 and homes for R5 000 and we bought it back as industrial land at hundreds of thousands of rands. Who made the profit and at whose expense?

In 1939, 50 years ago, the process of race separation was started in this country. The Pegging Act of 1939 and the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act of 1946 culminated in the Group Areas Act. The Government has not separated races but brought about a situation of racial hatred and conflict through 50 years of experimenting and trying to devise ways and means of how people should live by law. These laws regulating the lives of men have failed, and in their wake the Government brought racial conflict and antagonism.

In Villa Lisa they want to sell land to the Indian community at R17 per square metre or R70 000 per ha. Is that not exploitation under the guise of the Group Areas Act and its application? An advertisement stating this price appeared in the Sunday Times of 4 September, and it says: “Contact Mrs Greyling”. [Interjections.]

I have the advertisement here. I have attended group areas hearings since I was a boy of 16 without charging anybody a cent. I could not help these things come to pass, because land and properties were taken away from our people. I can talk about Sea View, Bellair, Hillary, Malvern, Escombe and Sarnia. Indians owned the major part of Queensburgh, but every single one of them was taken out and moved across the river to Chatsworth. What is more, they were initially given a portion of Queensburgh, bounded by the so-called Blue Line, and block houses, old tumbledown wooden houses, were sold at an enormous profit to the Indian community. A year or two later even that area was proclaimed White, and the people were robbed for a second time. [Interjections.]

In Pietermaritzburg our people were living in the city, in the main street, but they were taken away. I am sorry that my good friend the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said yesterday in this House that the State gave recognition to existing group areas. Far from it! The Group Areas Act provided legislators in Natal with what they had been waiting for since 1860—something to sweep the Indians out of the province of Natal, and they did a fine job with the assistance of those hon members from the Government benches. [Interjections.]

I am someone who has tried to forget the pain and suffering of yesteryear. I built my home with my own hands. After cutting a road a quarter of a mile long with pick and shovel to get to my home, still the road did not reach there because the municipality was not prepared to do it. We built a home, but remember, I left that home with flowering litchi trees, mango trees, a lawn, roses, etc. [Interjections.] I can recall as much as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, but what I am saying to hon members is this: Let us move away from this legislation. We have spoken from our hearts. In Chatsworth where I lived 6 000 acres of the best banana-growing land in South Africa was taken away for Indian housing. We were taken away from Durban and brought to Chatsworth. There was an understanding that those farmers would be given land to carry on banana planting. What happened in the process, however? A Banana Board was created. That was the achievement. Banana farming slipped away from the Indian community and became virtually a White enterprise. [Interjections.] How can we justify this? [Interjections.]

I wish to say that there are very few areas in South Africa where the Indian community was left alone and where an Indian area was given recognition in terms of the Group Areas Act. I believe that would apply to most people affected by the law, and very large numbers of our people were affected by the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] The people do not remember the homes that have been built by the State, but they remember—they will continue to remember for a long time—for ever the homes from which they were taken away, because they were emotionally attached to those homes. [Interjections.]

I wish to say that the debate in this House today is a painful one for me, because the world is listening to people participating in the reform process, people who tell the world outside that we are going to find one another and are going to come together for the sake of South Africa. Today, however, we are saying things that come from our hearts which will give those outside the ammunition to say South Africa is not what some people make it out to be. I feel saddened by that, but those hon members belonging to the ruling party have caused it. [Interjections.] They have done so by bringing before this House a piece of legislation which should be sent to the scrap heap. [Interjections.]

I have gone around the world. I have spoken to many people about sanctions, here and abroad. It is a pity that the late Dr Connie Mulder is not here, because I sat alongside of him in the United States and I spoke out, saying that they should give the Afrikaners a chance; they were trying. That was what I said. Give the Afrikaners a chance. They are trying to find some answers. I said so on behalf of these people in the United States, and I have said so in other parts of the world. But, if this is what is going to happen, a man like me will have no place here. I could rather be on the other side and articulate the views of the people who want a different solution as adequately as I can on this side. [Interjections.] Do not drive people like me out of this Chamber. [Interjections.]

What about your own assets?

I came with nothing; we will go with nothing. What we acquire in the process is not ours. [Interjections.] I have lost a great deal already.

What I want to say today is this: I want to make an appeal from the bottom of my heart to a gentleman like the hon member for Innesdal. I think that quality and chemistry exists in all members of the NP. They have to search for it, bring it to the fore and respond in a positive manner. Let us say this afternoon that we have to find one another and let us forgive and forget the past. Let us make a new beginning. All these pieces of legislation, except the Group Areas Amendment Bill, can be brought onto the Table. Let us examine them with a fresh approach and with a view to finding an answer which will be acceptable to all of us. That is what consensus is all about.

The joint committee stage of Bills is all right in respect of certain measures, but there are others which are sensitive and which cannot be discussed after the Bill has been drafted. They must be discussed in the planning stage. Hon members will need our co-operation and assistance and we extend that to them. I say that we are presented with an enormous challenge this week, but in that challenge is an opportunity for men and women to realise that we cannot continue on a confrontation course; that one cannot alienate people who have taken the risk of participating in this Chamber and that we have to work together. This land belongs to all whom the good Lord has placed on it. We have to shape its future and we can only do it together. To do it together, we have to make compromises and accept one another’s feelings, but we cannot have a situation where only the concerns and the sensitivities of a particular section are remedied and those of the others ignored. We cannot have that.

I want to ask hon members why there still exists a need to regulate the purchase and sale of farming land through the Group Areas Act. If bona fide farmers want to sell and buy, they should be allowed to do so. Hon members know of the Indian gentleman who has taken up farming in Northern Natal and has brought credit to the farming community with the kind of herds he possesses and the manner in which he demonstrates at shows what kind of farmer he is. Is he not a credit to the community? All those farmers, whether they are Jews, Afrikaners or Englishmen, compliment him and enjoy the sense of achievement that this man has gained for the farming community at large.

Do hon members really represent the feelings of the people? There is a desire for change, but let us not stifle that desire. Leadership must lead, and give meaning to reform. It must induce people to accept changes. We are not saying that everything must change overnight, but every little step must be a permanent step forward and not one backwards. If hon members are prepared to accept that challenge, they will find in us men who will stand by them and help them in the face of all that may come to bring about reform in South Africa through peaceful means. I address this challenge to them and I hope that they will rise to the occasion.

Mr Speaker, I shall wait until the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates has taken his seat, because I would like to ask him a couple questions after hon members have congratulated him on his speech.

In the first place, I would like to challenge him here in the House to tell this House whether he is prepared to open his constituency to all the people. [Interjections.] This is a challenge. He shook his head. He denies this. [Interjections.] In the second place, I would also like to ask him whether he personally asked for the Indian Development Corporation because he did not believe that the Industrial Development Corporation could do justice to the needs of the Indians as Indians.

Mr Speaker …

Order! I am not prepared to allow this kind of debating. When an hon member addressing the House resumes his seat he has had the opportunity of making his speech. [Interjections.] Order! I understand the predicament of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates, but I am not prepared to allow this kind of debating and the hon member addressing the House must also adhere to this procedure.

As it pleases the Chair, Sir. I think the hon member will give us answers to these questions in due course.

During the course of my speech I want to confine myself to the definition of “disqualified person” as contained in the English version of clause 1(h) of the Bill.

Speak English!

I shall speak English in a moment. The hon member can make an effort to try to understand Afrikaans from time to time. [Interjections.]

During the previous two debates I argued the idea of freedom of association and freedom of associated people. The group that is in favour of freedom of association places a certain premium on the freedom to live where its members wish, without living in own residential areas. Provision is made for that group of people in the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, but in this … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must make it possible for the Chair to hear what a speaker is saying. The hon member may proceed.

Provision is now being made in this amending Bill for that group of people who do place a premium on own residential areas, however. During the course of the week it was also argued—I think by the hon member for Haarlem and the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development in the House of Representatives—that “the right of the individual is paramount”. Is that correct?

Yes! Yes!

Thank you very much. The specific approach of those hon members attests to a lack of perspective on the existing nature of the State and the community. If it is true that society consists only of individuals, surely there is no reason to talk about a church, a school and professional community, or an ethnic subculture [Interjections.] Even freedom of association means that the individual who exercises that choice is associating himself with a group. In our politics the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is to the right of the spectrum, and their point of departure is an exceptional ethnic allegiance which they absolutise.

Why don’t you go and join them?

Then there is also the group to the left of the NP, which overemphasises individual freedom. The essence of political debate is not either individual rights or group rights, but instead both individual and group rights. We are dealing here with supplementary legislation and not opposing alliances, and in such a way that new rights are being created and established rights protected, and obsolete rights are being removed.

This leads to the question: Is the concept of group rights obsolete? [Interjections.] I am asking those hon members whether it is obsolete. [Interjections.] I am asking whether or not the concept of group rights is obsolete.

You people created group rights!

The hon the Deputy Minister says we created group rights. [Interjections.] We did indeed create group rights—because they exist. [Interjections.] The existence of group rights is acknowledged throughout the world. It was acknowledged by the American Congress in 1983, to such an extent … [Interjections.] … that a specific article by a certain Prof Blauwstein was regarded as being of great importance.

†This particular article was considered of such importance that it was discussed in the American Congress and even incorporated as part of the congressional record. What was the content of this particular article? The essence of this particular article is, and I quote:

The author gives many examples of such rights which exist in every continent and subcontinent in the world and he also concludes that they should be protected. [Interjections.]

*In 1979 there was also an investigation by the United Nations in which group rights were in fact acknowledged as an existing right and a right worth protecting. Let us move a bit closer to our own ranks, however.

In 1986 there was an investigation by RAU’s research team, and after an opinion poll they found that there was definite resistance among Coloureds and Asians to the incorporation of Blacks in their residential areas. [Interjections.] But let us move even closer.

See what we look like!

I shall address the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives in a moment. [Interjections.] In July 1988, only a few months ago, the joint committee, of which certain hon members are sitting here, was in Pretoria and the South African Institute of Race Relations gave evidence about the acceptance of the group concept. Only under cross-examination did they admit that they had also undertaken an investigation in the Coloured communities and that the Coloured community was opposed to the abolition of the Act, because they were afraid that their residential areas would be inundated by Blacks. [Interjections.] They therefore make use of the advantages of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

I now ask the other hon members of the House of Representatives whether they were informed by these members of the joint committee. The answer is no. Do hon members know why not? It is because it does not suit them. [Interjections.] It does not suit them because these people are using the Group Areas Act to their own advantage, but the moment it comes to the crux of the matter, it is more convenient for them to keep quiet. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House of Representatives recognised group rights by implication when he spoke this morning about “our land which was taken by Jan van Riebeeck” and immediately identified himself with the group concept. [Interjections.] He identified himself with the group concept willy-nilly.

We were the Khoi-Khoi.

Yes, you (jy) were the Khoi-Khoi. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon speaker address the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as “jy”?

Order! That is for me to decide. The hon member need not concern himself with that. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In conclusion I want to ask the hon member who drove the Bushmen out of their territory.

You people did! [Interjections.]

Who drove them out of their territory? (Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I always prefer to reply to someone while he is in the Chamber, but what the hon member for Edenvale said I would have expected from the CP instead. Then I could have understood it completely. However, coming from the ranks of the National Party I found her speech absolutely shocking, and I hope that the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly will reprimand her. [Interjections.]

I have no quarrel with her when she says that the Afrikaners were on their knees, but there was one big difference. They could use the power of the ballot box to uplift their people to where they are today. However, we have been scaled down to the House of Representatives, and now we must sit here together and listen to the governing party in the House of Assembly telling us what laws must be passed in this country. [Interjections.]

When the hon member said that the Blacks had swallowed up and overrun the Coloureds in Alexandra, that was quite untrue. The Coloureds in Alexandra were expropriated and the area was declared Black by the Government.

When I talk about this Act I do not want to be accused by anyone of trying to force the issue and disregarding realities. When I look around in this House, I see an example of the implementation of the Group Areas Act, because if I try to send a message to an hon member on that side of the House, the messenger does not dare to walk over to that side of the House. He must put the note on the desk of the White messenger so that the White messenger can take it to the hon members of the House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow such a wrong impression to be created in the House. There is no such rule which prohibits an hon member from going to speak to another hon member in any bench. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, you misunderstood me. I was talking about the messengers. If I send a note by messenger, he puts it down on the desk where the White messenger fetches it and takes it to the White member. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make it clear that there is no such rule in the House. If this has taken place in practice, it was a bona fide understanding between the service officers. It is not an official rule of the House.

Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling in this regard.

This piece of legislation came to this Parliament at the most inopportune time. It was already inopportune and inappropriate at the time when the Erika Theron Commission was discussing it. I myself was a member of that commission and I should like to relate an anecdote about those days. While the evidence was being heard, the Chairman asked a witness the following, in the same way that the hon member Mrs Hunter asked us a while ago: “Are you not proud to be a Coloured?” The witness immediately replied to this as follows: “There is nothing wrong with it, it is just that it is so darned inconvenient!” The next question was: “Why?”, and the reply was: “I must live in a Coloured area with untarred roads and too few or no facilities. My child must go to school in a cold asbestos building and I must use the inadequately equipped non-White side of the hospital.” If I have time later I shall quote from the report of the Erika Theron Commission, but I do not want my time to expire before I have said what I want to say.

It is also not the right time for this Group Areas Amendment Bill because a call is going up from various quarters—not only here in Parliament, but also outside—for the abolition of the Group Areas Act in its entirety. The United Democratic Party also says so. What is more, the measure is wrong because it is being tabled at a time when overcrowding in the Black and Coloured areas is already so great. A Black or Coloured person with average accommodation must live in a space comprising three square metres. That person must therefore live in a space which is no larger than the space occupied by a double bed.

The situation is being excessively exacerbated because investigations into the group areas and the subsequent proclamation of an area generally take a very long time. I can mention innumerable examples, but the following will suffice. Firstly I want to say that it took 11 years to get the borders of Reigerpark extended. Although a request was addressed to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning more than two years ago no finality has yet been reached on the further extension of the borders of Reigerpark.

Secondly I want to refer to the Indians of Actonville. It took more than two years to finalise the matter of Villa Lisa, which was open ground. And all this while there is an average of 12 persons per dwelling unit living in Reigerpark! In Kathlehong in Alberton there are 16 and 24 persons per unit; and in Port Elizabeth 15 and 20 persons per unit. Can we not believe like Jean Jacques Rousseau: “Freedom is not to be found in any form of government, it is in the hearts of free men. They take it with them wherever they go.”

Without going into great detail I merely want to state that the Bill contains a number of Draconian measures which are totally unacceptable to us. Firstly, in the old Act only proprietary rights in respect of unqualified persons were initially addressed. Now mere occupation is also being included in the vicious circle. Secondly, the ripple effect of such a measure is going to have a devastating effect on the affected persons in such areas. Thirdly, the criminal law measure increasing the fines to as much as R10 000 is excessive. Fourthly, the Minister is being authorised to order the seizure of property and the eviction of persons living in such areas. Fifthly, officials are going to investigate illegal occupiers in order to bring about evictions. Surely it is as clear as daylight that this is going to give rise to an unprecedented witch-hunt. Sixthly, inspectors are going to be appointed to advise the authorities on the implementation of the Act. In other words the bureaucracy is yet again being unnecessarily enlarged. The seventh point—I consider this important seeing that so much is being said about the free-market-orientated economy—is that the free market economy is also going to be badly affected by this Bill.

The aim of the legislation is inter alia to determine the value of properties in an area which is to be proclaimed for another race group. Where is the free market economy? I am of the opinion that the abolition of the Act will prevent the deterioration in the property market and will stimulate the market to a great extent instead. This is proved by the increase in property prices when people of colour move into areas.

This inhibiting measure to determine the price of property must also be seen against the background of a prominent Cape Town estate agent with an office in London. He markets properties in the high-price category to foreigners. They buy these properties in South Africa with the financial rand, which is worth far less than the commercial rand. In other words, property is far cheaper overseas than it is even for White South Africans. However, what is so heartbreaking is that people of colour cannot even buy the property unless a permit is acquired under the Group Areas Act.

This diabolical anomaly must be eliminated by the abolition of the Group Areas Act. The world will not come to an end and large-scale moving will not necessarily take place and people will not be overrun.

Recently Johan Fick, Christo de Köning en Nellie Oliver of RAU found in a study that integrated suburbs only survive under circumstances of intensive social manipulation by, for example, quota systems, strict rules for the maintaining of standards and the prevention of crime rather than the legal prescriptions to maintain segregated residential areas. This was their finding in Windhoek, Mafikeng, Harare and Mayfair, Johannesburg. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, while I was listening to this debate and in particular to the Government’s speakers, I asked myself what justified the fact that Blacks, as servants, could be taken into a person’s employ and could live in cramped single quarters on that person’s property but could not live as that person’s equal as a neighbour in the house next door, a house comparable to the one that person was inhabiting. I do not believe that any of the hon members on the Government’s side would object to employing people and allowing them to live on their property—even with their families. They refuse, however, to permit that these people live in the house next door. Each one of them is prepared so to speak to employ the leader of the Labour Party and his wife as gardener and domestic help and to allow them to live on their property, but so help me they may not live in the house next door. [Interjections.] What kind of morality is that? I honestly cannot understand it. [Interjections.]

The Government cannot enforce the Group Areas Act. They cannot maintain it and they are not going to maintain it. To a great extent this reality has dawned on the Government and that is why they have come up with the free settlement areas. These areas are now being declared because they are already there. The Government cannot separate the people physically, but has now come forward with this legislation. This is a step in the right direction, but suddenly they are assailed by a great fear of these open areas. The fear of an open community is there and consequently group areas remain with the Government, haunting them like a superstition—dogmatic and absolutistic. It is almost like a tokkelossie. [Interjections.] When the Government saw these open areas approaching, they started to take precautions against them. [Interjections.]

We have these precautions in front of us again today in this Bill. There are precautions with which people are invited and appointed to go and hunt for other people in places where they may not live and to chase them out merely because of their skin colour. These are precautions which magistrates, judicial officials, use to fulfil an administrative function to evict people from areas simply because of pigment. Those precautions say that because of race people’s property may be confiscated and the money deposited in the Treasury to enable the Government to proceed with a policy of appointing even more people to smell out others and have them thrown out as well.

And then the Government speakers still debate about honour and integrity! What has in fact become of integrity? Hon members of the NP rise here to participate in the debate, but so far not one of them has discussed the merits of any one of these measures to which I have referred. The exception was the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, but he merely compared the Bill before us with the previous Bill and not with the status quo. The hon members are not prepared to discuss what is before us.

It is of course a sensitive topic which we are discussing. In essence this is make-or-break legislation, and in a sense has a bearing on our very future. There is no urgency about it nor is there any reason why it has to be implemented now. The Government is pushing it, however, and wants to implement it. We are calling for it to be withdrawn. Why now? [Interjections.] It is really not necessary.

Today the hon the State President has been in power for 10 years and we convey our congratulations to him. He has done many good things. It is recorded in Hansard that there was a time when he said that his vision for South Africa in respect of group areas—that was in reaction to a question by the former member for Hillbrow, Mr Widman—was of a South Africa in which people could establish themselves without any legal coercion. That was his vision at one time. Would he not like to give us a present on his anniversary by merely withdrawing the legislation before us so that we can see whether we can share a vision of the future in which we do not have to try to regulate people by means of legal coercion because of their skin colour? From that vision we can look back on the present and consider what is happening today. In a sense we shall have the benefit of hindsight regarding what we are doing now. Once again I appeal to the Government. I have done so repeatedly. There is no urgency. Withdraw this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randburg will excuse me if I do not react to his argument owing to a lack of time.

In this atmosphere and at this time and in this place I should like to say as I am standing here today that there are many things in South Africa’s past which are fine and good.

Unfortunately there is also a great deal which is wrong and ugly. The hon leader of the Labour Party spelt out some of this to us. Those are facts but they are of the past; the future lies ahead. Let us build a new South Africa. [Interjections.] Let all of us build a new South Africa together.

The hon leader of the Labour Party, in my opinion, made a fair, balanced and responsible speech. Obviously he said things with which I cannot agree at all but on the whole I think it was a fair and balanced speech.

If I may put it so simply, today is the first day of the eleventh year in which the hon the State President has been in power. On 13 August 1986 two important things occurred in Durban. My wife was there with me when she celebrated her birthday and, secondly, the hon the State President made a very important speech there. I want to quote from his speech in honour of the new 10-year period in office which is commencing now:

The hon leader of the Labour Party also referred to the religious aspect.

I want to say a few words about the concept of absolutism. It seems to me that it is a concept which the CP simply cannot get away from. There has to be group areas legislation in order to have absolute apartheid. I want to say that absolutism excludes reasonableness. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member who made that interjection that “all or nothing” can also exclude reasonableness.

Since 80% and more of our people are Christian I want to submit very respectfully that we must consider the Ten Commandments. It is written there that one may not work on the Sabbath— absolutely not. It is not absolute, however, because Christ came, in my words, and said it was not absolute, exceptions were possible; drastic action might be required. [Interjections.] Hence, as far as this Bill is concerned, there is no absolutism either.

Time permitting I want to react briefly to the question of how the NP can say that own residential areas is its policy yet introduce legislation with the intention of establishing and organising open areas. As I said, in the first place we are not absolutistic. In this regard I want to say to the hon the leader of the Labour Party that I do not think mixed marriages are a threat to South Africa in any way. In addition I do not think that the location where a mixed couple lives in any way constitutes a threat or a danger to any community. [Interjections.]

You are a fencesitter!

I am not a fence-sitter, nor am I a crazy absolutist. [Interjections.]

In the light of two simple examples I want to indicate to hon members why one can be in favour of open areas and also be in favour of own residential areas. Firstly: Two girls, Elsie and Elna de Beer live in Hillbrow. They both speak Afrikaans. Both have a B Com degree. Both have brown eyes and black hair and they work together in the same office. They are also very good friends.

At five o’clock, when the office closes, Elsie can cross the street and enter her flat in Hillbrow. Elna de Beer must walk a great distance to the station, she has to catch a train, she has to catch a bus and then in addition to that she has to go even further and live in another place. In terms of the present legislation it was illegal for her to go into Hillbrow and I am saying that is sheer stupidity. [Interjections.]

There have to be open areas, because they are there de facto. There have to be open areas because that reinforces the moral aspect of a person’s standpoint when he wants his own area and is able to say that there are open areas after all. If there is a sufficient number of open areas— I am saying a sufficient number—the pressure will also … [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not have time to reply to questions. The hon member must have enough intelligence to know that as well.

I am saying that there must be a sufficient number of open areas so that there will not be any pressure on people—be they Brown, Coloured or Black—who want their own areas. That is why I am in favour of open areas.

On the other hand there are areas such as Homestead Park and Paarlshoop where I live, with the R20-million children’s home and all that goes with it, in a small community. If that community does not remain White, that age-old children’s home which harbours the heart and soul of the Afrikaner will not remain there either. It will cost R20 million to move it. The construction of a school cannot be justified; the construction of a church cannot be justified and that is also why I am in favour of own residential areas.

By way of summary, I am in favour of open areas, a sufficient number of open areas, and at the same time I accept a Group Areas Act which is applied with discretion, fairness and humanity.

That is a contradiction in terms!

Time unfortunately does not allow me to discuss the absolute urgency of making more land and more housing and other facilities available especially to people of colour as well. If one does not do so, if one does not approach this matter as soundly as possible, one cannot justify the Group Areas Act with good grace. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to offer two further quotes from what the hon the State President said. On that same 13 August, the hon the State President said the following. I am saying it slightly tongue in cheek, not to tease, but he should abide by what he said:

He was speaking about the Group Areas Act—

I want to ask, if we are consistent in wanting to abolish property rights and the right of landownership for groups, what will happen to land destined for groups such as tribes and others which I could expand upon? If we want to be logical, surely that is no longer valid.

The hon the State President proceeded on the same subject to say the following concerning group areas and own residential areas:

But this legislation is not flexible.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives says that this legislation is not flexible. In certain regards this legislation is not flexible but it is definitely more flexible than the original legislation which was introduced here.

Never!

Furthermore, one cannot view this legislation in isolation. It is flexible in that open areas were not legal and they have now been legalised.

What about that gaol sentence?

We shall encourage the implementation of this legislation as forcefully as we can, because its flexibility is to be found in the proclamation of open areas.

What about the gaol sentence and the fines?

One could argue about that. If hon members want to argue with us whether they are too heavy or too light we can discuss it. That is why I am standing here and saying that we must discuss the matter. I am asking that we not say “all or nothing”. Those hon members must not start falling into the same category as the CP, who merely want to absolutise everything.

The CP cannot introduce legislation.

[Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte has the right ideas, but as I proceed this afternoon I will indicate to him how ill served people of colour have been through the Group Areas Act.

Before I proceed, I want to tell the hon member for Bloemfontein North, who put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates when he challenged him about opening the Indian areas, that Indian areas by and large throughout the country are in fact open. We do not discriminate against any people. [Interjections.] I want to invite hon members and the hon the Minister to my home town to come and see how many Coloured, Black and White people are living in my area. I want him to come and see how many Coloured children are attending our schools. We are not racist in our approach.

The run-up to today’s debate on the Group Areas Amendment Bill has generated much discussion and many recommendations. The honour and integrity of hon members of my party, as well as that of hon members of our alliance and the LP, has been questioned. I make no apology for the role that I played during this period, for that which has generated such strong feelings is an Act of Parliament which has been condemned universally and which is evil in its intent and application.

In the limited time available to me, I want to explain why I am totally unrepentant of our endeavours to obstruct the passage of this Bill. Much play has been made of honourable conduct, but let us thoroughly examine this “honourable” Bill.

Firstly, when the Group Areas Bill was introduced in Parliament, during the Second Reading speech on 29 May 1950, the then Minister of the Interior, Dr T E Donges said, and I quote (Hansard, col 7433):

Then, on 1 June, in the same Second Reading debate, he said the following (Hansard, col 7827):

Now, if one takes one’s cue from these noble sentiments then honour—the honour we talk about today is the same parliamentary honour that existed in 1950—demands that the application of the Act will be fair, equitable and based on justice. I ask how this honourable justice was administered. The available statistics up to 1984 indicate that 83 691 Coloured and 40 067 Indian families were uprooted through the Act—this against only 2 400 White families. Then during the same period, 187 Coloured and 2 530 Indian traders were uprooted, against only 54 White traders who were uprooted. This means that for every White family or trader who was uprooted 50 Coloured and Indian families or traders were uprooted. Is this the fairness and justice the Minister spoke of in 1950? Is this what fairness and justice means—that 50 times more people of colour than White people were affected by this Act? Is this the practical application of what the words “fair”, “equitable” and “just” mean?

Let us look at how land was apportioned during this period. The Coloured people were given 95 608 hectares, the Indians 50 725 hectares and the Whites 749 201 hectares. This means that with only 2 400 displaced families, the White people obtained for themselves seven times more land than the Coloured people, and fifteen times more land than the Indian people.

We come now to 1988 and we are required as representatives of our people, who have been so ill served, denied, dispossessed and made to suffer all kinds of indignities, to support an amending Bill which will have the effect of imposing on our people suffering which will be even more severe than what has gone before.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, who spoke this morning, in fact spoke for all of us. Whatever we say now merely underlines what he had to say, and what he pleaded for was nothing short of the repeal of this Act. That is the only situation that will meet our aspirations.

We are concerned that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as well as his deputy, was not able to make any concessions to us whatsoever during the various discussions that we had with them. We sought a halt in the harassment of our people in terms of this Act. We sought an opening up of agricultural land usage for all people. We sought an opening of all commercial and industrial land for all peoples. We sought a reconsideration of this amending Bill. However, the NP’s information director has made it clear that these Bills are largely a strategy to counter the CP at the polls in the forthcoming municipal elections, notwithstanding the fact that prominent people like Mr Harry Oppenheimer, Dr Anton Rupert, Mr Steyn and the board of governors of the Urban Foundation, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives to a man, the editors of newspapers and the majority of the people of South Africa have all called for a halt to this Bill. Yet, for the sake of appeasing a small minority of White bigots, the larger interest of our country is being ignored.

In his introductory speech this morning the hon the Deputy Minister said that good progress was being made in the identification of land, and that he was striving for a just and prosperous South Africa. But the real position is that after land is in fact identified, the long-drawn-out process of making land available and the delays involved are not only causing us frustration, but bedevilling race relations in this country. This Bill, if made law, will make criminals of people, who, through no fault of their own, could not house themselves in the areas where it is legal. This Bill will unleash forces of awesome proportions. This is not an idle supposition; I can see it happening.

Those of us who are participants were moderates when we came into Parliament, but for the first time a Bill has been introduced in Parliament which may well have the effect of turning us away from being moderate and from participation in politics. When this is heard from someone like the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates, it is saying something, because he has a reputation as a very moderate person. I say that this Bill will turn all of us away from the moderate stance that we have adopted up till now. We supported the National Council Bill, flawed as it was, for the reason that it was a step in the right direction—a reformist step and a seeking of solutions.

Now the message to the hon the State President is that this Bill signals a U-turn on the road to reform. We cannot take the reform with him, and we cannot take the U-turn with him. This is a road along which there will be many pitfalls and disasters. Please do not take this road.

This amending Bill is having the effect of undoing all the good that has been done by the reform initiatives of the hon the State President. We have had occasion in the past to praise him for his efforts in driving the country along the highway of reform, but I reiterate that this Bill is turning the country away from that road and we as a country and as a people just cannot afford that.

The world community of nations is watching us. This Bill is not the key to a re-entry as a member of the family of nations. The people of our country are yearning for a solution to our problems. They are not seeking a continuing situation in which people cannot live happily with one another. They are sick and tired of the violence that prevails. They are sick and tired of being the pariahs of the world. They also want to participate in world sport, move freely and trade freely with other nations. However, the way to achieve these ideals is not through this Bill—it is rather through the repeal of this Act.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs has addressed the problem relating to the Bill before the House viewed from his own experience, perception and conviction, but he will also concede that this is not the only view which manifests itself with regard to this controversial and complex problem in our country. He will also concede that from the compulsory and absolute division of communities we have now reached the stage at which provision will be made for free settlement areas.

The figures quoted by the hon the Deputy Minister are obviously distorted in that the land which belonged to the Whites and which was not proclaimed as group areas should also have been taken into account.

*When the trilogy of Bills was referred to as sensitive legislation in this House yesterday, a question was asked by way of an interjection from the ranks of the House of Representatives as to why the Government was proceeding with such sensitive legislation. To run away from sensitive matters will not solve the problems of reality. If it is necessary to deal with the matter, the matter must be dealt with, regardless of whether it is sensitive or not. What is required, however, is that it be done at all times in a dignified manner, with understanding for each other’s differing standpoints.

As a result of the heterogeneous structure of South African society, it is inevitable that from time to time, and even more often than we would choose, emotionally charged matters will become before us, which are not pleasant to deal with, but which demand rational consideration.

In this regard I want to thank and congratulate the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives on the way in which he dealt with a matter here this morning which was very close to his heart. However, it is a pity that I detected an element of blackmail at the end of his speech.

The advantage of democracy and of the parliamentary system is precisely that a constitutional forum is created in which representatives of the various communities can adopt their standpoints fearlessly. In this way political opponents are exposed to one another’s standpoints and a process of cross-pollination takes place. However, when the stating of these standpoints is accompanied by bitterness and personal attacks, it is counterproductive and a resistance to it builds up.

It is also a universal truth that the greater the fundamental differences, the less chance there will be that consensus will be achieved. Such differences exist with regard to the legislation before the House and anyone who thought that consensus would be possible among all the members or groupings in the joint committee was out of touch with reality. In fact, although consensus is an extremely important component of the successful functioning of Parliament, it is not an absolute prerequisite for its functioning. There will, of necessity, be some cases in which consensus will not be achieved, and it is precisely for those eventualities that the Constitution makes provision.

Furthermore, not only is this statement not new, but the members of the Labour Party in the joint committee were thoroughly aware of it. Their attitude throughout was that consensus on the Bills would not be reached and that there would be no point in even discussing them. I mention this to illustrate the realities. Attempts to encourage discussion did not succeed. At the end of the day, consensus cannot be achieved if the topic is not discussed. Because the standpoints on this subject were so diverse, the proceedings of the joint committee were brought to a head when the desirability of the Bill was voted on. One of the principles contained in the Bill is the effective eviction procedure which must be followed when somebody breaks the law.

Needless to say, the House of Representatives voted against the desirability of the Bill. Hon members were not blamed or reproached for having adopted this standpoint. In fact, the NP component tried throughout to show a spirit of goodwill towards the hon members, and tried to maintain healthy relations. It is already known that the Bill is intended to amend the principal Act so that the Act can be effectively implemented.

It is interesting that the CP’s criticism of the Bill was, apparently, that the proposed amendments did not go far enough. If that was their attitude, one would have expected them to have come forward with amendments in the joint committee. Not only did the hon members not propose amendments, but they even voted against the desirability of the principal Act being more effectively implemented. If the hon members were honest, one would expect them also to have wanted to bring this fact to the attention of the community at large. After all, it serves no purpose to proclaim one thing and do another.

This Bill cannot be seen in isolation. It forms part of the now familiar trilogy of Bills. This series of Bills deals not only with the strengthening of the existing Acts, but also enables people to live in areas in which the Group Areas Act will not be applicable, if they prefer to do so. Furthermore, communities can request that their existing group areas be declared free settlement areas in order to avoid the effect of the Group Areas Act and the proposed amendments. In this lies the crux of the whole problem, as well as the test of the sincerity of the opponents of the Act. If the trilogy of Bills were accepted and incorporated in the Statute Books, I would watch expectantly to see whether the other communities declared all their group areas to be free settlement areas. [Interjections.] I have a feeling that they would be hesitant, because the need for free settlement areas would not be generally accepted by all members of those communities, and they would not want to reject or do away with their group protection. If the Ministers’ Councils of the other two Houses were, in fact, to declare their areas to be free settlement areas, the areas under their control in South Africa would no longer be subject to the effects of the objectionable Group Areas Act. In this way, the whole of South Africa, with the exception of the White group areas, would be open or free settlement areas.

If the Whites should decide at any stage that they no longer desired the protection of the Group Areas Act, their group areas could also be declared free settlement areas. Therefore, the Bill provides protection where it is wanted, and emancipation where this is the wish of the community. Although it is true that the application of the principal Act will be made more effective if the Bill is passed, there are also certain positive aspects in the Bill that must not be overlooked. In terms of the proposed new procedure, the identification of offenders will now also be able to be done administratively. When offenders are evicted, a variety of factors will now be taken into account, including alternative accommodation and the period for vacation, which will be dealt with administratively by specially trained people.

What did you do with our people in North End?

These improvements are welcomed. One of the problems that is being experienced with regard to making land available for low-cost housing for Blacks is that, as soon as land is identified for possible development, speculators immediately descend upon the land and push up the prices. This is a pity, because the stage is being reached at which property prices are completely out of step with the prices of construction, and if this pattern should continue, the point will soon be reached at which it will be virtually impossible to provide housing for Black communities. In order to put a stop to this process of artificial price increases, a provision is included in clause 14 which will enable property prices to be fixed. This clause is particularly positive and deserves commendation.

Mr Speaker, I also want to offer my congratulations to the hon the State President on his tenth anniversary as Head of State. In this regard, I want to make reference to an interview conducted with a certain Mr Nicholas Winterton on television the other morning. He is an Conservative Party MP from Great Britain who had fulsome praise for the hon the State President as being the man who has done the most in this country to bring about reform. After that, however, he said something very strange. He said: “Sadly, I must admit that the NP is the party leading reform in South Africa.” Here, I suspect, we see one of the fundamental problems in South Africa standing in the way of reform, and that is the disease of anti-Afrikanerism, which is still quite virulent in certain circles. [Interjections.]

The nine independent members have concurred—I speak on their behalf—that we will oppose the measure for reasons that have already been spelt out in this Chamber. The hon member who spoke on behalf of the CP at the beginning of this debate stated quite clearly that measures designed to act against people who had fallen foul of the Group Areas Act “moet onverbiddelik toegepas word”. In English that means: “These measures must be applied mercilessly”. We cannot support a measure that embodies penalties far harsher than those in the principal Act against people who, in many cases, are friends of hon members of this side of the House, or even family members. The measure asks us to agree to the persecution of our very own.

What does Chris say?

This is not reform, Mr Speaker, but a retrograde step, and I would urge the hon the Minister to withdraw the measure in its entirety. The problems he purports to solve can quite easily be addressed by the rapid implementation of the positive measures embodied in the Free Settlement Areas Bill. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives stated that it was strange that those of us who had left his party had sought legal advice from a lawyer in Port Elizabeth who was connected with the NP. [Interjections.] Of course the implication was clear. We wanted once again to proclaim the smear that the NP is behind our rejection of the LP’s dictatorial leadership. [Interjections.] But, Mr Speaker, can the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives say with absolute certainty that he himself has not consulted that particular firm of lawyers? The question therefore arises: Is he prepared to make the same statement outside this Chamber, because it contains a clear innuendo that this lawyer’s political affiliations influence his professional conduct?

I have already made it!

This is a statement prejudicial to that lawyer’s practice.

I have made it already!

What the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives failed to mention is that the whole opinion that we have acquired, rests heavily on an authoritative work by Adv Bamford, once a PFP MP. Will he also see political influence here, Mr Speaker? [Interjections.]

What is the opinion of the hon the Chairman and his party’s head committee in suspending six members? I want to quote from an opinion, and this is my last point. I want hon members to listen carefully. I quote from the opinion provided by a very liberal Senior Counsel in that part of the world, who says:

Read his last paragraph!

Mr Speaker, to begin with I should like to refer briefly to an allegation made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North with regard to the CP’s participation in the joint committee. This hon member alleged that if the CP wanted to intensify the Bill under discussion, one would have expected them to submit amendments to this effect in the joint committee. It seems to me that unfortunately this hon member is not at all conversant with what is going on in the joint committee, nor is he conversant with what is going on in his Order Papers. Had he merely looked at his Order Papers over the past few months, he would have seen that it was in fact the CP that submitted a private member’s Bill at the beginning of this year—right at the beginning of the parliamentary session at the beginning of the year—specifically to give muscle to the existing Group Areas Act. It looks as though this hon member is completely unaware of that, however, and we can only appeal to him to pay more attention to his work so that he will not make such ridiculous statements in a House such as this one.

This is one of the most enlightening debates as far as the views of the NP with regard to the implementation of the Group Areas Act are concerned. On the one hand the hon member for Innesdal rose and made an appeal for his new South Africa, showing a clear aversion to the whole history of the Group Areas Act. I want to refer briefly to what he said on Monday, and I quote him:

[Interjections.] He went on to say, on the same day:

He went on:

That was the hon member for Innesdal on the one hand. On the other hand the hon member for Edenvale spoke so conservatively in this debate that one wondered where she had been when other NP speakers—such as the hon member for Innesdal—had taken part. Particularly enlightening was the fact that while the hon member for Edenvale was trying to defend her cause—the cause of the Whites in South Africa, as she put it—her NP colleagues sat here in the House stony-faced, with no sign of encouragement, support or enthusiasm. They sat here impassively.

The whole debate so far proves what the CP said on a prior occasion, approximately five weeks ago, when the predecessor of this Bill was debated in the House of Assembly. We pointed out the NP’s tactics of concealing the negative effect of the abolition of certain legislation, that previously protected Whites, behind promises of preventing that negative effect by means of other measures.

Clauses 7 and 10 of the present Bill are being presented to the White voters by the NP for this purpose. Sir, what a fiasco! We have seldom observed such contradictory attitudes about a Bill among NP ranks in such a short period as in this debate. The reason is obvious. The NP has fallen victim to its lack of a fixed standpoint in principle on the handling of the racial and ethnic diversity in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Instead of that the NP is trying to give its popularity a boost among the radical left-wingers in politics, who condone miscegenation, as in the case of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. The NP feels compelled to do this, so as not to appear ridiculous, because the NP cannot tell the world that its policy comprises one undivided South Africa in which all races form one nation, enjoy equal opportunities and must have a political say right up to the highest level, as was stated by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, whereas it is retaining residential partition.

On the other hand the NP knows that its new integration policy is totally unacceptable to the majority of Whites. That is why it must try to bring—and keep—them under the impression that it still advocates racial separation. The NP is doing this by introducing and passing the Group Areas Amendment Bill, along with the integration legislation, including the Free Settlement Areas Bill. In that way it can tell the conservative White voters that having own residential areas is NP policy, and at the same time tell the radical left-wingers that having mixed residential areas is NP policy.

I want to refer briefly to a report that appeared in the Highveld Ridge regional newspaper on 14 September 1988. In this report the hon the Minister of Agriculture referred to a report about what the hon member for Bethal had ostensibly said about throwing open central business districts. The hon the Minister said, and I quote from his letter:

I want to reply to this briefly. I have in my possession the original letter to which the hon member for Bethal referred at his meeting, and I should like to quote briefly from it. It reads:

Sir, once again this is an example of how the NP plays to the left-wingers on the one hand, and to the side of the right-wingers on the other.

Only ten days ago I bumped into one of the organisers who is connected with an NP candidate in the municipal election in Roodepoort. He objected strongly to the CP posters’ reading “Reject open areas—vote CP”. When I asked him what his objection to that was, he said it created the impression that the NP approved of mixed, open areas. When I asked what he had to say about the Free Settlement Areas Bill, which was to be introduced by the NP, he said the Bill had reference only to new areas, not to existing established areas such as residential areas in Roodepoort. When I pointed out to him that clause 2 of that Bill makes potential mixed residential areas of all separate residential areas, he was shocked and then referred to the Group Areas Amendment Bill that is under discussion here today. He said the NP had said that, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, they would take stricter action against people of colour in White residential areas. I then told this person about the people of colour—to whom I have referred in the House of Assembly on a prior occasion—who have been living in a White residential area in Roodepoort for three years. The NP and the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development are fully aware of this, but no action has been taken against these people.

During the recent debate we had to hear the alarming news about this Bill, and also about the related Free Settlement Areas Bill, that certain areas had already been identified for consideration as free settlement areas. These are areas in which, as the media put it, people of colour are, de facto, already living.

One wonders then whether we can make any other reasonable deduction than that the Government is bluffing the electorate when it is ostensibly “giving teeth” to the Group Areas Act, not implementing it, and then coming forward with the Free Settlement Areas Bill? I claim that it is completely logical to deduce that the NP is purposely permitting—and will continue to do so once this amending Bill has been passed— people of colour to settle illegally in White areas, and once a de facto situation of this kind has come into being, they will declare it a free settlement area.

In my opinion the speech made by the hon member for Innesdal won the CP a number of voters today. I want to tell him to keep up the good work. He is doing a great deal for the CP.

I want to refer briefly to certain things the hon member said on Monday about the implementation of the Group Areas Act and other related legislation.

Order! The hon member is deviating from the legislation. He must come back to the legislation under discussion. I shall give the hon member more time.

I also want to inform the House that most of the hon members who were the first speakers of parties have made their speeches now, and that hon members who are still going to participate in the debate must confine themselves to the Bill under discussion. The hon member may proceed. I shall give the hon member more time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In terms of clauses 7 and 10 of the Group Areas Amendment Bill, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is given the authority to act as he deems fit when people of colour live in White residential areas in conflict with the provisions of the Group Areas Act.

In order to determine how the Act is going to be implemented, and how the Minister is going to exercise his discretion, one must consider all the available information. In that respect I think the hon member for Innesdal gave us a very enlightening pointer, because in the debate on Monday the hon member said that he would refuse in future to have a notice put up in a park, merely on the basis of race, in terms of which that park would be reserved only for the White population group.

We now ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and we think this is a fair question, whether he agrees with this. Is this going to be his approach, also in respect of the Group Areas Act? Is he going to say: I am not going to instruct anyone to move out of a White residential area merely on the basis of race? We should like to have an answer to this. [Interjections.]

We want to ask the hon the Minister—within the political framework one is permitted, as he put it, and he was referring to the threat of the CP— whether in the meantime he is going to make use of exceptions, to which the hon member for Innesdal referred, in that situation. Is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development’s approach going to be that he is going to use the exceptions, for which provision is still made in the Act, in every case in which it looks as though the constituency is not quite lost to the NP? What is his attitude going to be?

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Before I call upon the hon member for Turffontein to speak, I want to say that a number of hon members have now made sufficient interjections. I do not think any more will be necessary. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Speaker, in lighter vein, I wondered this morning whether the astrologists could not make a contribution to help us to reach consensus. I read the following under my own horoscope in an English-language newspaper, and I should like to quote it:

Perhaps we can try to start this debate with one another over again.

There is consensus on one matter, and that is that two clearly conflicting interests have emerged in this debate. On the one hand there is the absolute, emphatic, and at times even emotional aversion to and rejection of everything that has anything to do with the Group Areas Act, and on the other the explicit and positive desire for the recognition and protection of traditionally established rights. The reconciliation of these two opposing standpoints is made so much more difficult, because reciprocal recognition and understanding cannot be obtained and because people are resorting to recriminations about the past.

I listened with great compassion and understanding to speakers on the left-hand side of the House today, but especially to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. With all due respect, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives came forward with accusations and innuendos which at times were preposterous. He referred to Jan van Riebeeck’s actions and the exploitation of the Hottentots. He claimed that the people of the Great Trek had obtained land unlawfully in South Africa. Surely that is a slap in the face of hon members of the Labour Party in the Transvaal, because many of them are descended from the people of the Great Trek. They lay claim to that! Then surely they also shared in the unlawful obtaining of land. My question is this: As a proud descendant of the French Huguenots, should I launch an attack on the Roman Catholics because they persecuted my Protestant forefathers in France to the extent that eventually they had to leave that country? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Haarlem must please stop making interjections, otherwise I shall request him to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr Chairman, should I launch an attack on the British because my grandmother was incarcerated in a concentration camp? No, Sir, on Monday I addressed a request to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives in which I said that recriminations would not solve the problems in South Africa.

Why do hon members rake up only the negative aspects of the Group Areas Act? What about the positive aspects? How many slums in South Africa were not cleared up and cleaned up under the Group Areas Act? How many happy communities, with an orderly and happy community life, were not established under the Group Areas Act? How many economic and subeconomic communities in South Africa did not obtain proper accommodation in terms of the Group Areas Act?

We on this side of the House respect the emotion that gained the upper hand here and there, but I should like to quote what the hon the State President once said:

Is there any place in the world that has a similar combination of First and Third World components where the masses are doing as well as those that belong to the subeconomic groups of South Africa? [Interjections.]

†I see the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates is not here. I do not want to do this unnecessarily, but I want to put a question to him. I want to ask hon members of the House of Delegates: Where in Africa does the Indian community have the right to participate in the decision-making processes as they do here in South Africa? [Interjections.] Recriminations will not solve our problems.

The answer given by Senator “Simple Simon” from America when he visited South Africa and he was asked to compare Mozambique with South Africa, was that there is a big difference because the Mozambican child has the right to become the president of that country.

‘This argument is just as ridiculous as the recrimination of that side of the House that we had to listen to this afternoon. The only thing that is achieved, and I say this to my hon friends on the left-hand side of the House, is the intensification of the cynical and sadistic delight of those elements that want to cast suspicion on the sincere intentions of this Government in South Africa. [Interjections]

These two political parties in South Africa, namely the PFP and the CP, delight and revel in any possible embarrassment that may be created for the Government in this debate. [Interjections.] I maintain that that does not provide any solutions for this country.

Order! The hon member for Addo must contain himself now.

Mr Chairman, this measure, along with all the other measures before the House, requires moderate people across the dividing lines of colour to show mutual understanding for the respective needs, interests and points of departure.

We on this side of the House are being scrutinised. Once again I come to the realisation that there is only one party in South Africa which is a bastion between order and chaos in South Africa. If the NP should disappear from the scene, if that is what these hon members want, they will see what will happen to South Africa if this country is left to the Tutus and the Treurnichts, to the Boshoffs and the Boesaks, to the ANC and the AWB, to the Afrikaner Volkswag and the UDF and to the Black Sash and the Kappiekommando. Hon members must tell me what will be left then!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It has been said repeatedly from the Chair today that hon members should confine themselves to the Bill in question. I do not know what the hon member’s last remark has to do with the Bill.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan has raised a reasonable and valid point. The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this side of the House has two basic points of departure which are contained in this measure. In the first place South Africa’s diversity of communities must be accommodated politically in a group context. Secondly, in the social sphere, South Africa’s diversity of communities must justifiably be able to lay claim to their own community life. I contend that more people among the ranks of the Labour Party and the House of Delegates than are prepared to admit to doing so, support this principle.

If hon members differ with one another on this point, we should debate the issue, but we must stop slinging reproaches at one another in these debates.

I am grateful to hear that the hon the leader of the Labour Party is proud to admit his Hottentot origin. For that reason we request the understanding of this side of the House when we express our pride with regard to our origin and nurture it with reverence. [Interjections.] In my opinion, however, it is unjust to elevate one’s origin above that of another. One is committing an injustice if one misbuses one’s identity at another’s expense. When this does happen, it is everyone’s duty to rectify the matter and to cease uttering reproaches.

Mr Chairman, I want to respond to what the previous speaker said when he indicated that we only look at the negative features in the Group Areas Act. There is nothing else to look at. There are only negative features. There is nothing positive about the Group Areas Act.

The hon member also indicated that previously people of colour were living in slums. The important factor there is that in those slums, the Coloured, Indian, Black and White people were happy. That is the operative word. The hon member also wanted to know where else in Southern Africa Indian people enjoyed such privileges as in South Africa. What we enjoy here is not something that is handed to us on a platter. It is our right, as it is the right of every other South African. We have a stake in this land, just as much as anybody else, irrespective of colour. That is why we say the Group Areas Act is something that cannot be amended. If there is anything to be said about reform in South Africa, then the Government is committed to reform. The only reform we can see in this country is the total repeal of the Group Areas Act and nothing less.

The amending Bill before us is a bad plastic surgery job. In fact, I will go so far as to say it can be compared to a backstreet abortion. [Interjections.] Let us look at the facts.

The notorious Native Land Act, No 27 of 1913, was the foundation of all the racial and hateful segregation legislation which came before Parliament at that time. People of colour have experienced tremendous bitterness. People who were pushed out of areas like Pageview and Sophiatown still carry that hurt with them. This is why they speak out with emotion. This is the only forum the people in Clairwood in Natal and the people of District Six have to address these issues. That is why we say that those people of colour who against all odds opted for participation politics came here and, not wanting to adopt a boycott stance, chose co-operation and negotiation politics. However, the Government of the day is now forcing these moderate people to opt for confrontation politics. It is Acts like these which come before Parliament to be legislated into law which will be the downfall of this tricameral Parliament.

Up to now the Houses of Delegates and Representatives, as well as a good portion of the House of Assembly, have played this thing down very sensitively and in a low key. However, I think the time has come for us to take stock of ourselves and decide whether it is really worthwhile to participate in a legislative process where we know the NP holds a trump card in the President’s Council which can push through any legislation which we reject. The President’s Council can be adequately compared to the old Senate. We all know that the Senate gave birth to the Black Sash Movement at that time. If these Bills, which have been rejected here by two majority Houses, are going to be pushed through the President’s Council, I think every right-thinking person serving in the House of Delegates, as well as the House of Representatives, will reconsider his commitment to participate in the tricameral Parliament. Leaders of colour have always said the only good thing about the 1983 Constitution was that it could not work. I think we have reached the point where we have to decide.

A former Minister in the fusion government in 1960 said that the Group Areas Act was inequitable, unjust and unethical. We have heard those very same words here, said in different ways by different hon members. Just the other day the hon member for Springs said that when the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development was in hospital he visited him.

What the White Government of this country fails to realise is that although we view such visits as a kind gesture, it is not the visits we are interested in. These people miss the point. Because our homes and our places of employment are bombed, they come to visit us in hospital and ask how we are and say they are sorry about it and they sympathise with us, but that is not what we want. The bitterness and the hurt that we carry within us is something we cannot share with them.

On 1 October 1987 there was a limpet mine explosion at my offices, and I alone know the kind of pain I suffered. We are being ostracised by the community because of our participation in the tricameral system, and all we are trying to say collectively here is that this Bill should be withdrawn. The Group Areas Act is not an Act that can be amended. It has to be scrapped. If that message does not come through loud and clear perhaps one can predict that the tricameral system in this country is nearing the end of the road. The Government will be forcing all of us here to opt for confrontation politics.

Many of us considered ourselves radicals for participating within the system, but there is no other option left to us but to become radicals participating outside the system. I wish to endorse every word of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates. He spoke with emotion, because he knows what kind of hurt the people of colour have suffered. We experience it daily. It is a pity that God cannot make all these White people Black people for one month. [Interjections.] Then they will experience what we are going through, and then they will realise that our emotion comes from deep down within.

We have extended our hand to them and told them to take it; we are prepared to sit down and talk. Then they come with a Bill like the Group Areas Amendment Bill! They dress it up in some fancy gift paper and they push it and they want to present it to us. We know that this Bill is going to go to the President’s Council and it is going to become legislation before 26 October, so that the ruling party may gain the votes that they have lost along the wayside. However, I wish to make an appeal here from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of the hon members of the House of Delegates, to the hon the State President that, just as he stopped the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill and the National Roads Amendment Bill from going to the President’s Council, he should seriously consider not referring these Bills to the President’s Council. If these Bills go to the President’s Council and become law, the repercussions are going to be so serious that we will never be able to have peace in South Africa again. We will be discussing matters and debating here in whatever waste is left in South Africa, but it will not be South Africa, the beautiful country where we can all belong and live together.

Much play is made of the protection of minority rights. That argument is threadbare now. Minority rights is just something which is thrown in. There are countries such as the United States where minorities live in different designated areas.

Mr Chairman, I shall come back to the speech by the hon member for Lenasia Central in due course.

Allow me first of all to touch upon a subject which was discussed earlier, namely the Bill before this House and, in particular, that part of the Bill that makes provision for the administrative handling of certain matters.

*Mr Chairman, the Bill makes provision for administrative action in order to implement certain objects of the Act. There has been vehement objection to this.

Some of the most important legal philosophers in the world today regard it as the task of the law— in fact, as its greatest task—to be an instrument for social planning and engineering.

†The idea of social engineering is accepted throughout the world as part and parcel of what the law has to achieve.

*Let me say at once unequivocally that, as a legal man, it is my opinion that the courts should only be used to do social engineering in exceptional cases, because the method which has to be used is usually that of the criminal courts. I think it ought to be used only in exceptional cases. Social engineering is something that ought to be dealt with administratively, under supervision of the court, thereby being administrative action which takes place through the administrative authorities.

In this legislation we still encounter criminal sentences being passed for certain offences in terms of the Group Areas Act. As a legal man, I would be the first to be prepared to discuss that aspect—once again because I emphasise that social engineering must take place by way of administrative and economic action and other measures. The question automatically arises as to why the Government of the day still finds administrative action with regard to social planning and engineering between the various population groups necessary at this stage.

†Hon members of the Labour Party were not present on Monday when I referred the House to what Prof David Welsh stated only last year in an article entitled “Democratic liberalism and theories of racial stratification”. I appeal to hon members to listen to what he says:

He says further, and I quote:

*That is an historical fact. I invite hon members on this side of the House to reread the 1950 debate on the Group Areas Act. I also invite hon members of the PFP to read that debate again, and to read what their financial, if not spiritual father, Mr Harry Oppenheimer, said on that occasion. He said emphatically and in so many words that he supported the principle of apartheid.

Sir, we are looking at a reality, an imperfect reality, a reality full of shortcomings. The fact is that we cannot rationally explain history. The product of history is also often the result of incorrect actions, reprehensible actions, incorrect motives and prejudices, but the fact is that we in South Africa, as is the case throughout the world, find ourselves with different ethnic groups in this country. As is admitted by academics throughout the world, this is one of the fundamental causes of tension which must be dealt with by the Government of the day.

I want to say today in all earnest that we in this Chamber have a responsibility to set an example by accepting one another. We have an example to set to the rest of South Africa, namely that it is possible for us to accept one another, because one truth is as clear as day—dignity and respect are precursors to acceptance. One does not find that dignity and respect in oneself, but one earns it in the eyes of others. I want to emphasise that one earns dignity and respect in the eyes of others.

That brings me to the speech made by the hon member for Lenasia Central. The veiled threats of violence which he made here are not conducive to the dignity and respect that I should like to cultivate towards all hon members.

That is not what he said. [Interjections.]

Order! Various interjections have been made by hon members of the LP. I want to draw their attention to the fact that a speaker from the LP will soon have the floor. I believe he is quite capable of replying to this, and hon members can then give him the opportunity to do so. The hon member may proceed.

Hon members on that side of the House demand the abolition of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] The abolition of the Group Areas Act has nothing to do with the abolition of a law; it concerns the abolition of the striving for group areas in the hearts of people. [Interjections.] The Act must be abolished in the hearts of people …

Not my heart …

… and there is only one way of abolishing the Group Areas Act, and that is for people in South Africa to accept one another. [Interjections.] Acceptance is based on mutual respect and appreciation. [Interjections.] I am making an appeal, once again, that we should set an example in this House by showing that we can, and want, to respect one another.

Another argument which was raised was that the Group Areas Act led to poor living conditions. However, the housing question is a difficult one. After all, the housing question throughout the world has something to do with the growth rate. What country in the world with First World standards with regard to housing, but with a Third World growth rate, has sufficient housing? [Interjections.] It is economically impossible. It is economically impossible to achieve First World standards with regard to housing, while there is a Third World growth rate. [Interjections.]

What about the growth rate of the Whites in 1934, the social and economic position as a result of …

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives has now made enough interjections. I request him as well as the hon member for Swartland to assist the Chair. The hon member may proceed.

The other important argument that was advanced was that there had been unfair treatment in the past as a result of the Group Areas Act. Who denies that there was unfair treatment in the past? Must we dwell on that? Surely that is the important question. Surely we are not dwelling on that when we introduce legislation relating to open areas or free settlement areas. Surely that is a sign that we are not harping on that.

I want to conclude by saying that in the final analysis, the issue for these members is that they perceive this Act as an insult, that the Group Areas Act in its totality is perceived as an insult. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker, the hon member for Sundays River, is rapidly becoming the euphemism champion of this Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to the Bill under discussion as “administrative action”, as “social planning” and as “social engineering”, and in this way he tried to make it more acceptable. In reality this Group Areas Amendment Bill is nothing but naked racial oppression. [Interjections.]

Clause 10 of the Bill increases the penalty in respect of people who contravene this so-called legislation from R400 to R10 000. It goes further than this, however. The penalty is increased from two years to five years’ imprisonment, or both a fine of R10 000 and five years’ imprisonment.

The hon member also asked who could deny that there had been injustice in the past, and whether we should allow this to prevent us from moving forward. This is the question with which he concluded his speech. However, my question to him is whether we should continue to perpetuate the injustice. Must we make it more difficult and more severe than it was in the past? Have the R400 fine and the two years’ imprisonment not done enough damage, so that we now have to make it R10 000 and five years?

In addition, in clause 7, the Bill grants the Minister the power summarily to evict people who ostensibly contravene the Group Areas Act from a residential area, without offering them any alternative accommodation. It goes even further, however. In terms of this clause the Minister has the right to instruct a sheriff or bailiff to sell such property, without permission from the owner. [Interjections.]

Much has been said in this Chamber in the course of the past week, and there are people in the NP in whom I can detect a willingness to put this country on the road of reform. However, as far as the majority of the members of the House of Assembly is concerned, I now feel like Alan Paton, and I understand what he meant when he said, “Cry, the beloved country”. [Interjections.]

I want to pause for a short while to consider something which is very important to me, which is human dignity. The previous hon speaker also referred to dignity and respect. There is nothing more important to people than the recognition of their human dignity. About three years ago we experienced a crisis here in Parliament about a dining room which was reserved for members of the House of Assembly. After a demonstration by the Labour Party this dining room was opened to all members. What has happened since then, however? Neither my hon members nor I ever went there again. The signs were removed, however, and our human dignity was no longer affected by exclusiveness.

It is not the ideal of any middle-class Coloured, Black or Indian person to live next to a poor White. That is not our ideal in life. That is not the pinnacle of achievement for which we in this country are striving, but making it impossible for us to buy where we want to is eroding our human dignity.

If someone’s human dignity has been affected, how can one expect that person to join forces with one in fighting against the enemies of this country? How can one expect it?

The hon member for Edenvale astounded me. All she needed was a bonnet and an apron, and I would have taken her for a member of the Kappiekommando. [Interjections.] Amongst other things, she referred to the fact that Boston is predominantly Black, but what was her point? There is no law preventing a White American from living in Boston.

How ironical that the hon member had to end her speech with the words “Come, we are all South Africans”! What a sharp contrast to the racialistic tirade which she directed at us here. “Come, we are all South Africans”, and then the call for co-operation to build a new South Africa.

The Russian leader recently said the following about reform, and I should like these word to be heard on the Government side today:

We are prepared to make sacrifices for reform—

White supremacy, naked racism and White exclusiveness will have to be given up for good if we want to save this country from disaster.

This legislation has the potential of destroying consensus in this country forever. Character assassinations on hon members of my party will not promote consensus either, but will make it all the more difficult in future.

There are hon members who can bear witness that I have tried to negotiate with hon members of the Government. I have tried to put our point of view. It is becoming difficult for me, however, because certain actions of certain hon members in the Government have made it impossible to trust them any further. Things are being twisted, given to the Opposition, and misused against one, and this is nothing but character assassination.

If people’s attitudes are not going to change, and if the new South Africa which the NP envisages is going to mean that I will remain a ‘hotnot’, then I am not prepared to work toward that new South Africa with the NP. If, however, the Government is prepared to recognise my fundamental rights as a person and my human dignity, I will be prepared to continue the journey with them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte pleaded with us to forget the past, to consider the future and to build a new South Africa. I want to ask him how it is possible for us, with a Bill such as the one we have before us today which extends and entrenches racial segregation, to forget the past and to build a new South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in his introductory speech on the Free Settlement Areas Bill made the claim that the three Bills that we have been considering are measures in pursuit of a system to eliminate discrimination and protect the interests of groups—not at the cost of others, but to the mutual advantage of everybody. The hon the Deputy Minister today stated that this Bill was designed to maintain stability, inter alia.

Those are familiar words to anybody who is familiar with the introduction of the original Group Areas Act. The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs from the House of Delegates mentioned some of the statements that were made by the then Minister of the Interior, Dr Dönges, in 1950. He claimed that the Bill was a major measure aiming at the elimination of friction between the races in the Union by providing separate areas for the different races. He said that the object would be achieved “without recourse to discrimination between the various races and that the restrictions imposed on one group would also be imposed on the other groups. He said that “each group surrenders certain of its rights for the common good of all groups”. He added that “the object of this Bill is to ensure racial peace”.

The introduction of the Group Areas Act was steeped in hypocrisy, as its implementation proves, for the “surrender by each group of its rights” has in fact been for the good of one group only—the White group. The report of the President’s Council Committee on the Group Areas tells us that between 1950 and August 1984 over 126 000 families were resettled under the Group Areas Act. I believe “uprooted” would be a more accurate word. Of these, 98,08% were Coloured and Indian families.

Table (B) tells us that of the 6 414 families “eligible” for resettlement—I would say that *under threat of removal” would be more accurate—95,98% were Coloured and Indian families. Table (C) reflects the number of people removed from business premises. Of the 2 771 people so removed, 98,05% were Coloured and Indian of whom the Indian community represented a whopping 91,3%.

I do not believe that this is a shining example of common sacrifice. As for the claim that residential segregation has ensured racial peace, I say that since 1950 South Africa has lurched from crisis to crisis and now endures an ongoing state of emergency. This is hardly a sign of racial peace having been achieved.

Let us look at the experience in other countries to see if this bears out the contention that residential segregation ensures racial peace. On the contrary, racial hostility has been at its ugliest in the de facto residentially segregated areas such as Watts in Los Angeles, Harlem in New York and Brixton in London. As a result, the government in the USA and England have enacted laws in an effort to eliminate residential segregation and have made continuing efforts to reverse the acknowledged ill effects of racial ghettos.

Only in South Africa has the Government endorsed racial segregation by law, and today, as the long title of the Bill makes clear, we are enacting more stringent penalties for people owning or occupying property in contravention of the Group Areas Act. By giving greater powers by fiat and diktat, through wide and unchecked ministerial discretion, and through abridgement of the authority of the courts, the Government will ensure further enforcement of the hated and hateful Group Areas Act.

It is a law which is insulting in the very definitions it contains with their negative emphasis regarding Coloured and Asian people, as the hon leader of the Labour Party pointed out. It is also insulting in that it “downgrades”—I use the word in inverted commas—people who marry or cohabit across the colour line by depriving them of the privileges that they enjoyed as White people.

I have here two statements by the National Party. One is a pamphlet which I think has already been referred to and was put out in The Nationalist of September 1988, and which makes it clear that the Group Areas Act is being drastically altered. This is what it says:

Then it mentions how this is going to be done in order to apply to people illegally occupying and illegally owning land or property in the wrong ethnic areas. It does mention that there is provision for exceptions, but it then lists all the difficulties in obtaining those exceptions. [Interjections] I wish the hon the Minister would listen to a bit of sense for a change instead of talking nonsense. [Interjections.)

Last month in August this full-page advertisement appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, the main paper in Ottawa where, as hon members know, Canada’s legislation is enacted. It was placed by J Hendrik de Klerk, the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa. Of course, it sings a very different tune. It tells us that the Government is moving towards a changed society. It states inter alia:

This is the statement I like best of all, in view of the law that we are considering today:

Hon members know how much this Bill abrogates many of the normal concepts of common law—

Well, it evidently depends on which side of the equator one lives how one interprets the policy of this Government.

The Government is now proposing to establish free settlement areas and thereby it accepts the fact that some of our citizens would prefer to live as neighbours in an integrated area. As I say, the pamphlet itself shows that there are very many obstacles placed in the way of the proclamation of such areas. Indeed it is our contention that the opportunity that is given to prejudiced White residents to oppose such proclamation could convert the whole of South Africa into a background for racial conflict by allowing the prejudiced members of certain suburbs to organise their neighbours into protesting against the proclamation of free areas.

It is also true, as hon members have mentioned, that other people choose to live in areas that are culturally or socially homogeneous. The hon member for Sundays River quoted Prof Welsh in this regard. The President’s Council Report stated that this was a worldwide and generally accepted phenomenon, but the point is—and this is important—that this phenomenon should be based on preference and not upon compulsion. That is the point. The privilege of living in exclusive groups cannot be allowed to override the fundamental rights that are inherent in an open society. That is what the hon members in the NP and even more so in the CP do not appreciate. This should be done by preference and not compulsion and one cannot infringe the rights of other people by wanting to live in an exclusive group when the fundamental right inherent in an open society is the right to choose where one wishes to live.

Now instead of endorsing de jure racial segregation the Government should concentrate its efforts on refining the laws that prevent nuisance and unneighbourly behaviour. I think that everybody on that side of the House would agree that one must have laws that prevent unneighbourly behaviour. [Interjections.] I know of a case where a well-spoken Indian lady phoned me and said that she had moved into a suburb in my constituency and she had been told by the Group Areas Board that she had to leave. [Interjections.] I told her to apply for a permit and that I would support it, which I did. Unfortunately, in the event, it was not granted. But the very next night after her phone call a man phoned to say that he lived in my constituency and he wanted my help. I asked him what his problem was and he said that Indians had moved in next door to him. [Interjections.] I said: “Really? Do they throw beer cans into your garden?” He answered: “No.” I asked: “Do they have vicious dogs that attack your children?” He said: “No.” I then asked whether they played their radio very loudly at night, to which he answered, no. I said: “Then what is your problem?” He said: “I have told you; they are Indians!” [Interjections.] I then said: “And I tell you, Sir, that you are a racist. I must also tell you that I have supported your neighbour’s application to remain where she is.” [Interjections.] As I said, unfortunately the permit was not granted. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if I were to tell you this afternoon that it was with great pleasure that I was participating in this debate, I would not be telling this House the truth. I think that we are living in a time in which conditions in South Africa make very heavy demands on the sound judgment of every one of us sitting here and on every member of the public. I think we are living at a time in which the mistakes of the past cannot become the building blocks for a future in which we all have to share.

I listened attentively to the debates which have taken place in this Chamber since Monday. I want to make it very clear this afternoon that I stand here as a representative of my people. I stand here as an Afrikaner, and I take the strongest exception to the fact that my people and my people alone have been blamed, in these debates, for every act perpetrated in this country in the past. [Interjections.]

If we wanted to adopt that view, for the sake of the debate it would probably have been fitting to have mentioned the shortcomings in the composition of other population groups in this country too. We in South Africa cannot, however, build a future on that foundation.

Who do you think is going to do it?

The hon member for Mamre is making interjections in the Chamber, but he is the last one to talk about the moral justification for the abolition of the Group Areas Act. He owes us an explanation. If he is morally so strongly in favour of the abolition of this Act, on what moral basis do those hon members deny people the right to invest in business undertakings in their areas?

You must come and live there! If you want to do business with us, you must come and live there!

Order! The hon member for Mamre will probably be given a chance to make his speech a little later. The hon member for Durbanville may proceed.

It has never, in the history of this country, been a prerequisite that someone has to live in the area in which he does business. I do not know when the hon member for Mamre introduced legislation to this effect, and I cannot understand what he aims to achieve. The hon member must be a little less hasty and a bit more consistent in what he does. [Interjections.]

I said initially that, if we built upon the mistakes of the past, if we wished to single out one another’s weaknesses and thought we could thereby achieve consensus, this could not possibly be to the benefit of South Africa. I therefore want to take it upon myself this afternoon to refer hon members to the statement the hon the State President made here in the Chamber on Monday. I am aware of and can understand the dissatisfaction of hon members on this side of the House when legislation is referred to the President’s Council for approval. If we look at the statement, however, we see that the hon the State President explained very clearly that the President’s Council had a much more comprehensive role to play than merely that of agreeing to legislation. I think that in doing so the hon the State President displayed an attitude which makes it worthwhile for all of us to take a fresh look at that aspect, to reflect on it and to conduct a meaningful discussion on this issue.

Secondly the hon the State President went on to refer to certain pieces of legislation which he was not going to refer to the President’s Council. He said:

Since this is one of the most sensitive situations that can develop between various peoples, between various groups, in this country—we cannot dissociate ourselves from that; we are all part of a group—I want to advocate this afternoon that we examine this recommendation, this gesture, on the part of the hon the State President and again put our heads together about the Rules of this House with a view to extending and improving the procedure for consensus in the interests of South Africa.

I want to make it very clear that, in speaking about the Group Areas Act, I respect the views and opinion of others. We shall also have to understand, if we wish to achieve consensus, that there is also that portion of the larger ethnic community in South Africa which is in favour of its own community life in its own residential areas. We shall also have to listen to what they have to say, and we shall also have to pay attention to what they say.

The hon the Deputy Minister must not make derogatory remarks here. This is not a question of White supremacy. I want to tell the hon member … [Interjections.] If it was not the hon member, I apologise to the hon member who did do so. I am really not scared of him. We shall have to listen to what the other people have to say too. Hon members cannot come and tell me that the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to them and then negate the rights of another group of individuals in society.

We shall have to examine that aspect, and the only way in which they will be able to do so is to have a joint round-table conference and to seek consensus about living patterns in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to what the hon member for Durbanville said. No doubt he is not to blame for the poor track record of the NP. When punishment is meted out, I expect that he will take it like a man. The policy of the NP is based on a policy of privilege and injustice, and it is very difficult to be listening to that all the time. I also want to tell the hon member for Durbanville that the vast majority of South Africans did not say, by way of legislation, that they wanted to live in separate communes. A minority group in South Africa passed that legislation, and it is being applied to us by violent means.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to react, firstly, to what previous speakers said during the course of the day. I am thinking, inter alia, of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys who said that he wanted to express the hope that our management committees would use the powers embodied in this legislation to kick out other people who did not belong there. I want to tell Dr Geldenhuys and other hon members of the NP that our areas are open. The outcasts amongst the White who are dehumanised as a result of a marriage across the colour bar, are welcomed with open arms in our communities. We will not use any ungodly legislation to deny those people a roof over their heads.

I want to tell the hon members for Parow and Bloemfontein North that they must ask the hon the State President to hold a referendum. Sound our people out. Do not say things here which are based on hearsay. Our areas are open.

The Constitution states that there will be an election in 1989, and we shall all see who has the support of the communities they represent. [Interjections.] It is easy to shout it out, because I hope that that election will be held on the basis of group areas.

The hon member for Innesdal has compelled a great deal of appreciation among members of my group, but South Africa demands that my good friend, the hon member for Innesdal, make a stand. There is one thing he owes South Africa. He must say that he, as a White man, hates the Group Areas Act. We are waiting for that.

I am sorry the hon member for Edenvale is not here. That was a spectacle second to none. I want to tell her that I am proud to be a South African. I did not come here by boat. I am “home-made”. She made it clear that the apartheid policy was implemented in order to solve the poor-white problem. Has she ever seen that legislation being implemented in order to give other afflicted persons an equal chance in this country?

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made the admirable statement yesterday that the Coloured people and the Afrikaners were very close. That is quite true, but I cannot understand why he introduces such a discriminatory measure in this House.

This afternoon I had a luncheon appointment with a woman who works in the office of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. I was amazed when she told me that one of her mother’s sisters was a member of the CP and lived in Louis Trichardt, and that her other sister lived in Sanddrift and was a member of the NP. What the hon the Deputy Minister said was therefore quite true, but nevertheless they discriminate against us! [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister began his introductory speech today in a dramatic fashion. He said that we all wanted to change South Africa. That is very true, and we know that in what the LP does and says here we enjoy the overall support of moderate leaders. I am going to quote, inter alia, from a telegram that the governor of Lebowa sent to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives:

During its annual congress in the Skilpadsaal, the Labour Party stated unequivocally that it was not prepared to settle for anything less than the abolition of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I want to endorse fully what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives said earlier this afternoon. However, I took strong exception to the snide remarks made by an hon member on the Government’s side to the effect that my hon Leader should join the ANC. I want to tell hon members of the NP that the struggle and the goal of the LP and that of the ANC are exactly the same, namely equal rights for all South Africans. We differ radically from the ANC, however, with regard to strategy. Our Constitution commits us to opposing all forms of violence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman …

A former Labourite!

… I should like to enter into a debate with the hon members of the CP this afternoon, and specifically with the hon member for Ermelo, who participated in this debate earlier.

The CP is engaging in what is probably the greatest attempt at political window-dressing in the history of South Africa with regard to their approach with this specific Bill. If one were to look at the history of the CP with regard to this Bill, one would see that during the discussion of the forerunner of this particular Bill, before the previous session this month, the hon members of the CP on the joint committee chose to abstain when the Bill was voted on. They also reserved their decision.

When the legislation was debated in the House of Assembly, they voted against it because they had specific objections to the effect that it would not go far enough. We then had an interesting shift in emphasis. When the present Bill, which is now before the House, was brought to a vote on the joint committee, the hon member for Ermelo voted against the principle of desirability of this Bill. He then voted against the principle of this legislation on group areas. What did that hon member do in this House today? He said that the Group Areas Act in South Africa as it was at present could not last.

In fact, he said that this legislation was intended for a unitary state and I shall return to his definition of a unitary state as it has been documented. He said that this legislation was essentially untenable. That is what he said in this House today. He also said that power-sharing should be abandoned. It is a good thing that he adopted that standpoint, but I think we should also look at his definition of power-sharing. He said that the Afrikaner obtained his native country on the strength of recognised and accepted international law etc. Why is that hon member opposed to this legislation and why does he say that it cannot endure?

In such a state?

Yes, in such a state. The point that I am going to try to illustrate is that that hon member along with the hon member for Bethal worked on publications for the “Oranjewerkers-Promosies” in the eighties, and adopted certain standpoints. Already in those publications they adopted the standpoint that the Group Areas Act could not contribute to ensuring the continued existence of the Whites. In fact, what did they say about the Republic? I quote:

That is their standpoint which they have been upholding since that period. About power-sharing he said:

They continue, and that hon member and the hon member for Bethal wrote:

Then that hon member, who was involved with the “Oranjewerkers” at that stage, continued:

Order! I am trying to ascertain what bearing that has on the legislation under discussion. I find it difficult to do so.

Mr Chairman, I am trying to illustrate why that hon member and his party are opposed to the principle of the desirability of this legislation, and I shall return to the Bill at once. Therefore he says, and I shall be brief, that his conclusion is:

What do we have here? If we look at the rest of that hon member’s argument … Let me just say, by the way, that I wonder what has happened to the hon member for Overvaal. Why does he not tell us in this debate about group areas from his standpoint on Hillbrow and Prof Jakes Gerwel.

Why is that hon member opposed to the Group Areas Act? The standpoint that he adopted, and apparently still maintains, is that an entirely separate state must secede from the existing Republic for Whites—a smaller state—and that the rest of the Republic must be deliberately Africanised.

Apparently we are dealing with a hidden agenda of the CP. They are opposed to this Bill because they want the rest of South Africa to be Africanised, while they try to demarcate a smaller homeland.

At the moment, those hon members are trying to create the impression that the NP is not prepared to protect White residential areas. I want to know from them how that can be reconciled with what we are experiencing on the part of the House of Representatives. Why, then, are we experiencing such formidable opposition if we were not prepared to protect or are not in the process of protecting White residential areas? [Interjections.]

The CP is opposed to the principle of desirability of this Bill and are saying that it does not have a chance of survival in the Republic. Somewhere matters are not consistent, and judging by the conduct of the CP in this debate, it is very clear that those in favour of the secession are gaining the upper hand over those in favour of partition. That is why the hon member for Overvaal is not here and is not participating in the debate.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to say that my party, the Labour Party of South Africa, and I are completely opposed to the Group Areas Act. When we heard that the Act was to be amended, we were sure of one thing, and that was that in these days, on the road to reform, the NP would not go back and make the Group Areas Act even harsher.

We did not take the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning seriously when he said earlier this year in Maitland that the Government intended to give potency to the Group Areas Act. I honestly did not think that the NP would amend this Act so drastically. The pain, humiliation and impoverishment that the Group Areas Act has brought about over the past years, cannot be compared to the detrimental effects that the amended Act will have.

I am personally sorry, because I had begun to appreciate and respect certain personalities and friendships. The sound relations and attitudes which have been built up over the past four years are now effectively being destroyed by the amending Bill before this House.

Hon members are aware that South Africa and South Africans are being denounced, ridiculed and reviled in the worst possible terms. I once said that when the Government was dealt these blows, I as a South African suffered just as much’ as they did. I said that when the blows of criticism and prejudice were meted out to the South African Government, they also affected me as a South African citizen.

I still believe today that we as South Africans can and must find common ground. As a veteran of the North African and European campaigns during the Second World War, I never let South Africa down or caused it any embarrassment. My family also had to move, after having had great difficulty in acquiring property. We had to move to new areas and scout out and tame new regions. This happened in spite of the fact that my three brothers and I came forward to offer our services to South Africa during the Second World War. It was not just for South Africa, however; we also came to the rescue of all people everywhere. Today, Coloured surnames still embellish the rolls of honour of the South African Army and the South African Navy.

This amending Bill empowers the Minister to issue an eviction order against any occupant after he has been found guilty. The court is deprived of its discretion and the right of appeal to the courts also disappears along with it. If we do not come to our senses—an Afrikaner gave evidence before the joint committee to this effect—we shall pick the bitter fruits of this Bill. Our most outstanding characteristic in the eyes of the world until now has been the independence of our courts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Grassy Park will pardon me if I do not react to his contribution, but turn to another aspect of this Bill instead.

I represent a workers’ constituency, and I am very proud of the fact. It compels me, when I speak to my people, to discuss the full realities of the RSA with them at all times. When it comes to a Bill such as the one now before this House, I would point out to them that the Group Areas Act at present makes provision for decisionmaking about property which is owned illegally, but not about property which is occupied illegally. I would point out to them that the Bill which we now have before us makes it possible to act against illegal occupation of a property. Furthermore, I would point out to them that the Minister is now empowered to issue an order for the eviction of any occupant from such property after a conviction; in addition that special officers can be appointed for administrative enquiries and assistance in connection with the implementation of the Act, and also that the penalties have been made heavier, and that, amongst other things, more group areas for Black people are being created. I would also point out to them that this Bill is part of a trilogy of Bills submitted to this House. While this amendment ensures that the rights of people who want to reside and live apart, are better protected, provision is on the other hand being made for the creation of separate free settlement areas, where those who choose to can live.

I now want to refer to the fact that before a free settlement area can be declared by the State President, their existing rights will be protected, and that a board of experts will conduct a thorough enquiry, that the enquiry must be brought to the attention of the legal residents and everyone who could be affected, that the opinions of everyone who could possibly be affected will be duly taken into account, and that all the facts and information which could influence a decision will be gathered and considered.

I would also refer them to the third Bill in the trilogy, which makes provision for the residents of such free settlement areas to be represented on their own separate committees in order to negotiate with local municipalities. The general principle of self-determination on the local level and separate franchise are not affected by this.

The NP has committed itself to a policy of co-operative coexistence. This means that each individual and community in our country of numerous minorities can enjoy equal opportunities and treatment in all spheres, without one group harming or dominating another.

One of the fundamental premises that this policy defines is a separate community life in which a group’s own nature and character can be preserved, and in which self-determination about precisely those matters which affect each group most deeply, the effective protection of each group against domination by another, and a recognition of the collective right of the group as a group, balanced by individual rights, are ensured. These premises take the realities of South Africa into account, which are that South Africa is a country in which a diversity of population groups—different groups of people with different customs, lifestyles and values—have to coexist.

It is true to say, however, that in a society as varied as ours, there are those who wish to live with their own people, and live a separate community life, but, on the other hand, there are also those who feel equally strongly that they do not want to live in a specific group context.

The fact is, however, that everyone wants to live in an orderly community. For this reason the NP has adhered to its standpoint that each group must have its own residential areas, with its own schools and its own political and constitutional institutions on a local level. It is primarily the Group Areas Act which is utilised for this purpose, and it is at present being reinforced. Provision is also being made now for people who want to live with other groups precisely in order to reduce the pressure on separate areas.

As far as group security is concerned, the NP is convinced that the best interests of the various communities will be served by the assurance of a separate community life of its own for all communities. In order to give effect to this system, it is the NP’s aim to allow all the country’s inhabitants to take part in decision-making which affects their interests, while the security, selfdetermination and stability of each population community must be maintained by means of decision-making on its own affairs—a separate community life, which includes separate residential areas and schools.

However, I also tell the voters in my constituency about the alternative policy of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the CP. I am also telling the CP that according to their policy the existing Coloured and Indian Group Areas will become their homelands. This means that the Coloured State will consist of about 620 sections, and the Indian State of about 250 sections.

That is an old argument!

But as relevant as ever, Mr Chairman. This means that when one travels through a town like Newcastle, where there are Coloured and Indian group areas …

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

I do not have time for questions, Mr Chairman.

Nor the courage!

… two international border posts will have to be crossed every time one travels through that town.

This also means that if one’s car is stolen, one would have to deal with two ministers of foreign affairs to recover that stolen car. What a farce, Sir!

How do Whites see this policy of the CP, however? In a scientific survey carried out amongst White voters this year, it was found that most Whites do not understand the CP plan, and those that do understand it are of the opinion that it cannot be implemented. Nearly 40% of Dr Andries Treurnicht’s followers say that the partition plan is not clear to them. One-tenth of the CP supporters who do understand the plan doubt whether it is practicable, or they admit frankly that it cannot work. In general there is no market for the partition plan. The 35% of the group who understand the plan, and believe that it is practicable, represent only 10% of the total survey. [Interjections.] We shall see on 26 October, Sir!

You are going to lose!

In contrast to this confusing policy of the CP which cannot be implemented, the NP still says that it will continue to deal in a responsible manner with the realities of the Republic of South Africa. I quote the words of the hon the State President:

It is my privilege to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to get caught up in this fight between the NP and the CP, save to say that I believe that partition is a pipedream.

Like others in this House this morning, I listened with rapt attention when the Leader of the Labour Party spoke against the Bill before us, and after he had finished I believed he had made out an unassailable case, not only for the repeal of the Group Areas Act, but certainly for a rejection of the proposals that are before us and before this House.

I listened to speakers from the NP in particular to see whether they addressed the issues raised by that hon gentleman, and I must say that as far as I am concerned, not a single hon member, with the exception possibly of the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Langlaagte, even addressed any of the issues raised by him. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting him on his brilliant contribution, and I want to say that he articulated the feelings of many of us in this House today, and here I include members of my party as well.

Talking about the hon member for Innesdal, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I want to say that the plea that he made, that we—all of us— should forget the tragic experience of our past history and begin working together for the building of a better South Africa for the future, needs to be examined very objectively. I want to say that I have a great empathy for the sentiments expressed by that hon gentleman. I want to say to him that surely he must agree that the future of South Africa cannot be planned and built unilaterally by his people alone, without due regard for the wishes and aspirations of all South Africans, some of whom are represented here in this Chamber this afternoon, but the great majority of whom are not. Does that hon gentleman not agree that the majority of the people of South Africa want a repeal of the Group Areas Act and a rejection of the repression that is inherent in the Bill that is before us? The Group Areas Act has caused racial hostility and friction in South Africa and this, I believe, was amply spoken about by my colleague the hon member for Houghton.

I believe that the proposed amendments are a recipe for civil violence and for the disruption of peace in South Africa. Not only is this undesirable, but it is avoidable. Peace begins at home; it begins here in South Africa. Although we laud and commend the hon the State President in his efforts to bring about hope for peace in Angola and in South West Africa, to establish better relations with Zimbabwe and to breath new life into the Nkomati Accord, in the final analysis these efforts will count for naught if peace is not achieved within South Africa.

It has been established and estimated that, should the amending Bill become law, so brutal are its effects that more than 200 000 people, all of them Black, would be turfed out of their homes onto the streets within months. This is so because this Bill seeks to circumvent the landmark Goldstone judgement of 1982 which ensured that people could only be evicted from their homes in terms of the Group Areas Act if alternative accommodation was available in their group areas. This was a humane decision. What is happening now, is that the Government, which never fails to state its high regard for the court, is seeking to overrule this precedent. Can it be that the Government has now acquired a heart of stone from witnessing years of human suffering spawned by apartheid’s forced removals? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall refer in a moment to standpoints put forward by the PFP in the debate as well as outside the House. I would, however, in passing first like to refer to a statement of the hon member for Ermelo when he spoke at the very beginning of today’s debate. In defence of the group areas principle, the hon member made the statement that numbers do not determine borders in South Africa, but that they are determined by history. This is not a new concept. It is nearly 30 years old. In January 1959 the late Dr Verwoerd made this statement when he declared the size of the surface area of land for Black residential areas.

We wholly agree with the statement of the hon member. It is true that history determined borders with regard to traditional Black areas in Southern Africa. It is also true that one can call upon the testimony of history when you want to justify group areas for different population groups. It is true that different population groups have settled in different parts of the country. However, the hon member has perhaps forgotten that with that he draws a line through the whole basic partition policy of his party. One cannot call upon the testimony of history to justify the creation of a homeland for Coloureds or for Indians. Least of all can one do so to justify the creation of a White “Boerestaat”. [Interjections.] I mention these things only in passing because we are bound to return to the statements of the hon member for Ermelo.

†The hon the leader of the LP in the House of Representatives made the point that they entered the tricameral Parliament with the eradication of apartheid as their main objective. We have no quarrel with that, Sir. In fact, it is some years ago now since the hon the State President renounced apartheid in Parliament.

There is not a single member here who can deny that the Government of this hon State President has done more to remove unnecessary discrimination from the Statute Book than that of any other leader in our history. However, if members of the Labour Party and other parties in other Houses allow themselves to be deluded by the PFP … [Interjections.] … into seeing all measures which give recognition to various groups as apartheid measures, we have a long road of constitutional conflict ahead of us. [Interjections.]

Whether our group differences are ethnic, cultural or merely historical, the fact is that they do exist. To deny that, is to deny a South African fact. In this day and age they are simply too deep to be glossed over or to be ignored in our constitutional order.

What about the reclassification of Coloureds as Whites?

Any Government which strives to do that will experience the rejection of the electorate, as the PFP has only recently discovered to their cost. [Interjections.] It may well be that those differences in time grow less pronounced. It may even be that they disappear.

We are celebrating 300 years of Huguenot settlement this year. Like the Dutch, those ancestors have disappeared as a separate White entity. However, that did not happen without painful social adjustments, and it only developed over many years as a natural process. Hon members may say, and indeed have said, that we should not try to arrest such a process and that we should promote it actively.

We submit that this package of Bills allows the South African society to freely indicate the future residential pattern in our country by building into our group areas legislation for the first time a measure of local option.

Why is it then that the PFP and those who follow their lead insist …

To hell with the Group Areas Act!

Order! Will the hon member for Dysselsdorp please repeat what he has said?

I said: “To hell with the Group Areas Act”.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

No, say it; I want to hear the remark. [Interjections.]

I withdraw the remark: “To hell with the Group Areas Act”.

The hon member for Umlazi may proceed.

Why is it, Sir, that the PFP and those who follow their lead refuse to acknowledge that this option which is built into this package, together with the fact that for the first time ever our group areas legislation makes provision for open areas, are the two most important aspects of this package of Bills? Could it be that the PFP leaders are desperately worried that in these open areas the principle of free association will tend to support the group areas principle, namely that people generally prefer to live among their own kind?

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

Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not have enough time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take any questions. The hon member for Umlazi may proceed.

Sir, is it not a fact that the PFP and those who think as they do, know that the residents of all residential areas in this country—or most of them—will reject the conversion of their suburbs into free settlement areas as strongly as those Whites in my own White suburb?

Instead the PFP advances two ridiculous arguments against this package. It says it will lead to hopeless overcrowding of the open areas and underutilisation of the declared group areas. However, that is mere speculation on their part. Even if it were to be the case, surely that would be a powerful argument in their hands to increase the number and distribution of open areas.

Secondly, they say that people may not wish to live in designated open areas. We know, however, that the PFP-held seats are the most desirable residential areas in the country. Why then do the PFP not ask the authorities to allow the residents of Houghton, Orange Grove, Bishopscourt or Cowie’s Hill the opportunity to open up their group areas’ designated suburbs? [Interjections.] No, Sir, with the passage of this Bill we will have a situation where the loudest proponents of free association will be able to persuade communities to set up free settlement areas as examples of the freedom from apartheid they profess to yearn for.

So let those communities who are in the vanguard of this freedom cry show the way for the rest of South Africa to follow. There are certainly indications that PFP members are only too well aware of the fact that the electorate is showing increasing signs of disenchantment with their utopian dreams. [Interjections.]

In the Durban municipal election we have the situation that, despite the fact that the PFP has been the governing party for the past number of years, not a single PFP supporter has the guts to stand as an official party candidate—not a single one! [Interjections.] This week we saw a similar reluctance on the part of PFP members to stand up for their declared policy to abolish the Group Areas Act.

The hon member for Johannesburg North went to great lengths during an earlier debate to denounce Mr Danie van Zyl for daring to suggest that the Group Areas Act should not apply in those wards where voters send a PFP member to the Johannesburg City Council. He used the argument that Mr Van Zyl outdid the CP and he boasted that the PFP would not be browbeaten by Mr Van Zyl’s threats.

Why would a spokesman for a political party see the prospect of the implementation of its own policy not as a heaven-sent opportunity, but as a threat? Is it not obvious that that hon member and his party know only too well, as their Durban colleagues realise, that the implementation of their own policies would sound the deathknell of their candidates’ hopes?

The PFP in its desperate struggle to get out of the dilemma of this proposal say that they want to implement their policy in the entire country, and not on a piecemeal basis. This must really rank as one of the weirdest arguments ever to come from a political party. If that were to be the yardstick, the city councils of Cape Town, Durban and Sandton would have had no justification in years past to apply PFP policies until such time as the PFP ruled the country. [Interjections.] No sir, the most important consequences of this package of Bills will be that those parties who want group areas to disappear from our Statute Book need no longer look to the Government to do it for them. They can simply persuade their own communities to change their residential patterns.

Mr Chairman, I am really not going to waste time in replying to the hon member for Umlazi. He said that the PFP was thinking for us. He said that the PFP was leading us around in Parliament. He does not have the courage of his convictions. He knows for a fact that this is an immoral law. He knows it cannot be defended. Now he wants to fight with the PFP. The PFP does not initiate laws in Parliament. It is not their function. It is the function of the Government.

I am convinced that these debates will never change the Government of the day. My reason for making this statement is because there is no vision or dynamic leadership. I have taken the trouble to calculate the following figures: There are 179 hon members who oppose this Bill, and 129 who are in favour of this Bill. The difference between these two figures is therefore 50. However, despite its defeat, the NP is still going to run to the President’s Council. They are fighting an impossible fight.

I want to say that all persons are born free and are equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Everyone has a God-given right to freedom of movement. What is the cost in terms of money, lives and the disruption of family lives in terms of the Group Areas Act?

Let us look at clause 7 as it appears on page 13 of the Bill. Hon members will see that the hon the Minister has given himself the God-given right to write to people, giving three months’ notice. He will tell them that what they are doing is not right.

Then he goes further and instructs the sheriff to sell that land. He instructs the sheriff to sell that land and then the sheriff must execute that instruction! What about the jurisdiction of the courts? What about the fairness the hon the Deputy Minister spoke about this morning? What about his introductory speech? Who are you trying to bluff?

That was a fine speech!

It is a fine speech if you understand what you are saying, but the danger is that you do not understand what you are doing.

†You have been hedged into a position. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not administer the Group Areas Act. It will be your task and you are foolish enough to fall into that trap. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member should moderate his language. He should not refer to hon members as “you” and “your”, but as hon members.

I crave your indulgence, Sir.

Will the hon member please proceed.

The proposed new section 41 (5)(b)(i) to be inserted by clause 7 reads as follows:

Then the Minister must be satisfied that the people who are buying the property are of the so-called group which is qualified to live there. The sale in execution then follows.

It is funny that the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are both legal people and it amazes me in this hour while we talk about courts that they authorise the sale in execution and give a person that right without testing it in court! Where is South Africa going? How can we be talking about justice? The hon member for Umlazi came here and he had a lot of unimportant things to say.

Let us proceed to page 17 of the Bill. It contains a new innovation. The sheriff shall have the power to do whatever may be necessary to effect transfer of any property sold in terms of this law. I do not know where we are going. In effect this Bill stipulates that the sheriff will be running the deeds office. That is what it means.

If one looks at the speech of the hon the Deputy Minister, he says the following:

Am I reading the truth? Hon members know what the effect of that is. There is not a single Black person in this Parliament. Although provision has been made for them to come, they are not here at this stage and we know for a fact that if one talks about power-sharing with the NP Government it must be prescriptive.

I quote from the hon Deputy Minister’s speech what the strategy of the NP is:

Yet they are the cause of people being poor! How many of our people were evicted from their homes and thrown into ghettos? How many? I was twice removed in terms of the Group Areas Act. I used to live in South End and I was thrown out of South End! By whom? The pen is mightier than the sword. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I will not pay tribute to the hon the State President today for his ten years in office. I actually mourn this event in view of the fact that it was he, as Minister of Community Development, who kicked 60 000 people of colour out of District Six. I think hon members should bear that in mind.

*At a time when the crisis in which South Africa finds itself requires that we do away with all discriminatory measures, the Government is in fact doing the opposite by giving added potency to the detested Group Areas Act. If hon members on the Government side pass this Bill, they must bear in mind that such a step is going to have certain consequences. They must bear in mind that they are adopting the Bill in spite of the large-scale racial discrimination, misery, suffering and disruption which it causes. After everything hon members have heard here today, the Government will not be able to say that they did not know what inhuman consequences the Act had, still has and is going to have. If the Government goes ahead with this folly it will be doing so with open eyes. While the Government is piloting the Bill in question and so many other discriminatory laws through Parliament, they are making dozens of laws and regulations which make it impossible for the majority of people to assert their wishes in a democratic and peaceful way and keep such hated legislation as the Group Areas Act out of our Statute Book. The inability of the other two Houses to overthrow the decision of the White House illustrates this.

While hon members of the Government were and still are engaged in advancing reasons why the relevant Bill should be adopted, I went to the Supreme Court building across the road from Parliament to listen to the evidence of young Ashley Forbes, who has been found guilty of terrorism. I wish hon members could have heard for themselves how this system of apartheid and racial discrimination, as embodied in the Group Areas Act to which the Government wants to give added potency here today, forced a young man like Ashley Forbes to participate in the armed struggle and resort to violence.

The Government makes laws, but this does not take place in a vacuum. Every law which is made has certain consequences. Every time the Government places an apartheid law on the Statute Book, and every time it refuses to get rid of such measures, hon members, as the governing party, are creating dozens of people like Ashley Forbes, people who would have preferred to help to create a democratic and peaceful South Africa.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill under discussion.

Sir, I am coming back to the Bill. Those people who believe that there are people in South Africa who specifically want to live in a mixed area are talking nonsense. The people in South Africa are insisting that in actual fact they must have the right to live anywhere and in any residential area in South Africa. This includes the best residential areas. However, what did the group areas do? The Group Areas Act deprived people who were not White of the finest and best land and property, and made it White. People who are not White and who were moved out to the flats consider this theft. If this Parliament and Government cannot get rid of the Group Areas Act in 1988, they do not have the ability to govern the country and they must also accept responsibility for all the misery and bloodshed taking place in the country. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I do not consider it necessary to reply to the hon member for Claremont. He is again engaging in his normal protest politics to which no one is paying any attention anyway. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Haarlem, who spoke after me in the debate on the Free Settlement Areas Bill on Monday, 26 September, made certain statements in his speech which I feel compelled to react to because they are also of importance in this debate. It is not true that the NP or I do not see people of colour as an integral part of our economy. As a matter of fact I said the following in my speech, and I am quoting:

The Bill under discussion, in fact, makes provision to incorporate all population groups in the same Act because provision is being made for the proclamation of group areas for Blacks in terms of the Group Areas Act. The difference in the treatment meted out to the different population groups is therefore being eliminated. That is the difference between the NP and the CP, namely that those of us in the NP recognise this fact and are striving towards allowing everyone to live a decent life.

To state my personal standpoint even more clearly, I should like to refer to my speech in the House of Assembly on Thursday, 2 June 1988 (Hansard, col 12415) in which I said:

From the passage quoted above it should be clear that I am anything but insensitive to the position of people of colour and have in fact repeatedly declared myself in favour of more land being set aside to satisfy the housing needs of these people. [Interjections.] We may disagree on the way in which housing matters can be dealt with—everyone is entitled to do so—but we shall not achieve anything by launching personal attacks; as a matter of fact, this may only succeed in damaging attempts to achieve greater understanding between the respective population groups, and this will not be to anyone’s advantage.

A great deal has already been said about the obligation which elected members have to their voters, and I agree with this. The vast majority of White voters voted for the NP on 6 May 1987, and did so specifically because one of the cornerstones of the NP’s policy was the recognition of separate population groups, with their own cultures, religions and backgrounds. [Interjections.] On the strength of this the NP therefore has a duty to serve the interests of its voters and take steps to guarantee own residential areas.

The strengthening of the existing Group Areas Act to enforce it more effectively is in fact aimed at achieving this objective. However, because the NP is a realistic party we are also recognising the wishes of those persons who feel differently and prefer to reside together across the dividing lines of colour. That is the purpose of the Free Settlement Areas Bill; nothing more.

The Bill under discussion does not detract from the principle of own residential areas for the White, Coloured, Indian and Black population groups; on the contrary, it strengthens the principle. However, because the Group Areas Act would seem to be so abhorrent to people of colour, if the legislation is passed, they will be free to throw open all their areas. However, most Whites do not want this, and the NP will comply with the wishes of its voters. This, and this only, is the reason for the amending Bill before us, namely to comply with the wishes of our voters. [Interjections.]

The misrepresentations by the CP that the NP no longer supports the retention of own residential areas, are therefore unfounded, and a deliberate attempt to bring the NP into discredit with the voters. The CP is definitely not alone in its endeavour to maintain an own White identity. The NP stands by this promise to its voters regarding own residential areas and will keep its promise. [Interjections.]

However, our similarity to the CP ends there, because the NP is a realistic party, which realises that we can only retain what is our own if we are prepared to afford others the opportunity to acquire their own. In contrast the CP’s policy of total racial segregation, or partition, is definitely not keeping pace with the realities of South Africa, and even a person like the hon member for Overvaal admits this when he talks about Hillbrow.

However, the prerequisite is the identifying and developing of more land. Unfounded White opposition to the making available of land to people of colour is absolutely counterproductive if we hope to keep our own residential areas White. [Interjections.] We as Whites will have to choose: either sufficient own residential areas and order in those residential areas, also for people of colour, or intrusion into and chaos in existing White residential areas and unregulated and illegal squatting on unoccupied land. [Interjections.]

Order! I must really make an appeal to hon members. They are becoming impossible. I know it is late in the day, but hon members must give a speaker a fair chance, and also afford the Chair an opportunity to hear the speaker properly. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of no avail for us to demand unrealistic prices for land, and the Bill will help to stabilise the prices of land needed for township development. Time is also important, and for that reason it is encouraging that reports of committees appointed by the hon the Minister can be sent directly to him, and this should also help to speed up investigations for more group areas.

People who view the matter realistically will realise that as long as there is a need for more than 400 000 housing units for people of colour, any accommodation, also in White areas, will be snapped up. That is the reality. No legislation will be able to solve the problem on its own. History has proved this.

However, let me say at once that the policy of the PFP and other left-wing groups calling for the throwing open of all residential areas is merely a dream solution to the problem, because it is estimated that there are no more than 37 000 housing units available in White areas for occupation by people of colour. Opening an area will therefore not have any significant effect on backlogs.

The PFP’s opposition to free settlement areas merely proves that they are paying lip-service to the throwing open of areas, because areas under their control can now be thrown open if they really want this. I wonder what the voters in the PFP-controlled areas would say if they were to be confronted with it.

Let us forget about the lack of realism on the part of the CP when they deny and deliberately overlook the important role played by people of colour in our economy. Let us also forget the lack of realism on the part of the PFP when they deliberately ignore and overlook the existence of different population groups. Let those of us who understand and accept the realities of South Africa join hands and afford people of colour the opportunity to live a decent life in their own areas. If we do that we are entitled to demand the same for ourselves and even enforce this by way of legislation.

The new measures, if they are agreed to, will be applied with great circumspection and compassion. The proposed amendments do not set aside the finding in the Govender case, but are aimed at allowing the Minister to adopt a more lenient approach. Because those of us in the NP realise that we are dealing with people and decisions can affect a person’s entire life, we will not implement this recklessly and allow a witch-hunt to be launched. The NP only wants order, and will protect the rights of everyone when the law is deliberately contravened and the rights of others are assailed. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill before this House.

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to react to certain hon members of the NP before I address the substance of the Bill before the House.

Firstly, I would like to react to the hon member for Umlazi. If he wants to sow his wild oats, he has plenty of White land in the Steinbank Reserve. He deemed it necessary to insult my intelligence by saying that the PFP is my think-tank. Maybe his think-tank lies in the Umlazi township, in the Inkatha movement, so that he is talking from experience. His assumption that the think-tank of every hon member on the left side of the House is the PFP is just a wild accusation and I charge him with insulting hon members.

I would like to question the hon member for Turffontein. In his speech he asked where in Africa there were Indian members of Parliament. I would like to ask the hon member and members of his party where in the world there are statutory restrictions on the choices of people as to where they want to live, so that they are in fact told where they must live. Where in the world is there such an obnoxious, pernicious and wicked Act as the Group Areas Act? Where in the world? [Interjections.] On that I would like an answer from the hon member for Turffontein or a successive speaker from his party. I am at a loss.

The hon member for Sundays River quoted the erstwhile philosopher David Welsh, where he said that ethnic group determination is logical and right. I also agree with that. However, what that hon member failed to tell us was that up to the time of the enactment of the Group Areas Act the people in South Africa of their own free will and through their own self-determination lived apart. For example, the Coloured component of Natal settled in today’s Park Estate/Loon Road area. No law compelled them not to buy property in the Morningside or Berea area of Durban. They are well-to-do, they are businessmen, they are transport operators. However, of their own free will and self-determination they settled at Park Estate/Loon Road. The Indian community in Durban in particular can talk from experience of Natal. I was born there, I spent all my life there. Cato Manor was predominantly Indian. Not a single White man settled in Cato Manor. People should live where they want to without any statutory law and without force or compulsion from any government or any authority. That is self-determination and that is how people should live.

However, I would like to come to the Group Areas Act. The late Dr D F Malan, who was Prime Minister of South Africa at the time of the enactment of the Group Areas Act, gave his reasons for supporting the Group Areas Act as a piece of legislation that was absolutely necessary and essential to protect poor Whites from settling and living among non-Whites. On that primary motivating reason—which at the time seemed to be rational—the Group Areas Act was piloted through Parliament and became law. However, what did the NP Government do immediately thereafter? As I told hon members, not a single White man was residing in Cato Manor. What did they do? They uprooted the entire community of Cato Manor. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Randfontein to speak I take pleasure in informing the House that today the hon member has 30 years of political pranks behind him. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, today, 28 September 1988, is an historic day. Exactly 10 years ago today the eighth election of the Prime Minister of South Africa took place and by coincidence it was also my 20th birthday. Today, exactly 10 years later, I am celebrating my birthday again but I am privileged, as a democratically elected member of this Parliament, to participate in this debate as a member of the CP. [Interjections.] I accept that my judgement is subjective but I want to predict today that 10 years from today the history and the voters of South Africa will already have passed judgement on the regime of the past 10 years.

In today’s debate, during the third sitting of Parliament this year, we are discussing the Group Areas Amendment Bill. We have been dealing with the third Group Areas Amendment Bill since 2 July 1988. We first had Act 112 of 1988, consisting of 23 clauses, before us. This Bill was withdrawn, however, and we subsequently received Bill 115 of 1988, consisting of 17 clauses. After an abortive second part of the session, during which taxpayers’ money was again squandered, this Bill was also withdrawn and today we are discussing Bill 124 of 1988. consisting of 18 clauses.

The fact that two Houses of this Parliament have already indicated that they will not take part in the voting on these Bills and the fact that the other House, the House of Assembly, has already voted on them, confirms as far as I am concerned that technically speaking Parliament is not in session and that we could just as well have held this meeting, like any other convention of Toasmasters, in the Cape Town Civic Centre or in the Aula in Pretoria.

It has been said repeatedly that this Bill should not be viewed in isolation but that together with the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Local Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill it forms a unity or a so-called trilogy.

It is interesting that the hon the State President announced salary increases on Monday. I expect that the Minister of Finance will probably be given the task of announcing the increase in taxation to justify this.

In the same way it strikes one that the two integration measures of the trilogy have been handled by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning but that the less popular Group Areas Amendment Bill is being left to the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] It is also striking that during the voting on these three measures in the House of Assembly, during the second session, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning voted in favour of the two integration measures but did not participate in the voting in respect of the Group Areas Amendment Bill.

Order! Would the hon member please come back to the legislation before the House.

The Group Areas Amendment Bill is founded on three basic principles, namely, in the first place to adapt the Group Areas Act to the concept of free settlement areas and free trade areas or, in common parlance, to mixed residential and business areas. Unlike what the NP or their candidates are trying to imply, ie that these areas will only be created in highly exceptional cases, the hon member for Innesdal said yesterday in this House and I quote him from his unedited Hansard:

I hope and I wish that the party’s other candidates would also say this frankly. [Interjections.]

The second basic principle of the amending Bill is to make the application of the existing Act possible and, in the third place, to stabilise the price of land in new developments.

Before I come to the second principle, however, which is the effective application of the Act, I want to dwell for a moment on a comment which was made by the hon member for Innesdal dealing with this group areas legislation. The hon member for Innesdal had the following to say in connection with the Group Areas Act:

Today he says:

In this he is apparently diametrically opposed to the standpoints of his chief leader, the hon the State President, and also with his party leadership.

At the NP congress, as reported in Die Burger of 2 October 1986 on page 1, the hon the State President had the following to say about the Coloured population:

On 2 October 1985 the Evening Post, on page 3, reported Mr P W Botha on this subject, as follows:

The hon member for Innesdal apparently disagrees with this. He says that it is his independent standpoint. He will have to look out; he might shortly be an independent member of this House.

Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the amending Bill deal with those measures which are now being instituted to apply the existing Act more stringently, to rectify matters in the case of the State v Govender and to effect certain changes in order to apply the Act more stringently. The Minister is now being given discretion to apply this legislation.

The Government says that these three Bills should be read together and that it now intends keeping Whites’ own areas White. It intends applying the Act more stringently because the Act has muscle now. My problem is this, however. Surely this is not the first time that the NP has said this.

Beeld of 18 October 1983 reported on this as follows on pages 1 and 2 under the headline: “Onwettige bewoners finaal gewaarsku”—as must now happen again in future. The report reads as follows:

Then he continues:

We must deduce from this that these are the measures which we have here now. This appeared shortly before the referendum, however, when the Government was still looking for votes. The Government then made a promise to rectify the position. The position was rectified so well in those areas, however, that the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced on Monday that those areas of which the character had to be rectified had been rectified so effectively that the Free Settlement Board now had to examine them specifically in order to create grey areas there.

In this Bill we are dealing with an effort to conduct politics to the right and the left. The Government is falling between two stools. An effort is being made toward the right to satisfy the Conservatives. To the left the aim is to satisfy other groups with free settlement areas. The Government is failing miserably in this, however, and is not reaching anyone with it.

The hon member for Langlaagte sketched a tragic example. He would not reply to a question at that stage so I shall talk to him about it now.

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

No, that hon member would not answer my questions. He must keep quiet and listen to me now.

The hon member told the story of Sannie Joubert or De Beer or somebody who lives in Hillbrow and apparently has a friend of colour with the same language—Afrikaans—the same qualifications and the same religion. He referred to the unfairness of the situation that the Coloured friend had to travel a great distance after work in the evening. He asked why she could not live in Hillbrow too. That was the hon member’s argument.

If the hon member’s argument is valid, I want to know why there have to be three Houses in this Parliament. Why do there have to be separate voters rolls? Surely one is not being consistent. The Government wants to take this as far as it suits it but, when formal, fundamental political power is at issue, it wants to retain this safely in its own hands. One has to be realistic and just. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude. The Government’s dilemma with this Bill is that it is falling between two stools. It is conveying an ambiguous message to the voting public. One the one hand it is a message of integration with free settlement areas but on the other hand it is also trying to convey a message of conservatism. The Government should not be surprised that the voters no longer believe it because its time is past. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randfontein has reminded us that this is the tenth anniversary of the accession of the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, to the position of premiership of this country. I can only state— with respect to the hon member’s late father— that I am very grateful that the hon the State President won that particular election. [Interjections.]

As for the hon member for Camperdown, he indicated that he resented the suggestion that the PFP represented his think-tank. I am inclined to agree with him—I would hate to be accused of having the PFP as my think-tank!

It is a historical fact that long before the Group Areas Act was even thought of, most of the land in this country had been acquired by the White community. It was not that there was a law against any of the other races acquiring immovable property and it was not because the NP came to power in 1948. It was because the White community was financially more favourably endowed. Through their initiative and economic drive and with their European background of capitalistic free enterprise they acquired the necessary wealth to legally purchase the land.

The hon the leader of the Labour Party made a lengthy speech to which we listened with great interest as it had an important content. However, with the greatest respect to the hon the leader of the Labour Party, to say as he did today that the land was stolen from his people is in my view absolute nonsense. It was not stolen from anybody. [Interjections.] He hinted that he could trace his ancestry back to the Hottentots and the Bushmen. History shows that the Bushmen and the Hottentots were in fact nomadic and they did not have a fixed geographical area in this country. [Interjections.] The fact is that the White community over the centuries …

Order! I am not prepared to let hon members continue in this manner. There are hon members who have apparently got into the habit of keeping up a running commentary while other hon members are making their speeches. This must stop immediately. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the White community over the centuries acquired almost the whole of South Africa by original government grant or by purchase. This phenomenon worked to the detriment of the Black, Coloured and Asian communities who could not compete economically with the Whites and did not have the wealth to acquire the land. [Interjections.]

Later when they began to progress economically and when their population numbers increased and they needed to acquire land for housing, they found the frustrating fact that the Whites were already in possession of the land. There was really no land available for them. Nothing substantial was in fact done prior to 1948 to address this problem other than the enactment of the Land Act of 1913 and the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 to set aside roughly 13% of South Africa’s surface area as trust land for Black occupation.

It was in fact the NP Government, shortly after its election to power in 1948, that first gave serious attention to this problem. There was a dire need for residential land for the Coloured, Indian and Black communities. Thus the concept of the Group Areas Act was born not with the motivation of preserving White land for Whites, but on the contrary of acquiring White land and land owned by White local authorities to establish residential areas for the Coloured and Indian communities.

The original principles were praiseworthy and what someone described yesterday as a means of social engineering.

Land is always a sensitive issue and it is not surprising that the Act in its application became controversial. Whites were upset because they were required to sacrifice their land for other groups. In the task of urban renewal, areas, including certain slum areas, were expropriated. Unfortunately, certain of their areas represented land owned by Coloured and Indian South Africans and the forced removals of these folk resulted in much bitterness, as we have heard from our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. There were good and justifiable reasons too for feeling hurt. [Interjections.]

I want to say that I personally have a compassionate understanding for those feelings; they are real, they are deep and they cannot summarily be forgotten or written off. Nevertheless, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Innesdal when he said that we are looking to the future in South Africa. He emphasised a Christian approach.

If we want to succeed in this country in establishing a new and better constitution and eliminating all discrimination based on colour, we shall have to find each other.

While this debate and the debates of yesterday and Monday have disclosed widely differing views, they have not been abortive as the CP claims. I believe they have been an excellent exercise. We have truthfully and unashamedly expressed our views on these great issues that are facing us. Even if painful, let us never be guilty of ducking the issues or remaining silent when we have a case to put. That is what this great institution of Parliament is for. This is where democracy must be cherished and revered.

I believe that these debates have done much to clear the air. We on both sides of the House know where we stand. The Government has listened carefully to all the arguments. They will not and cannot be ignored. We must continue to debate and negotiate. What we need is more debate, not less debate. There have been strains and tensions. What else can we expect when we are grappling with issues that affect the future of our country, of ourselves and of our children?

I want to appeal to hon members to see this trilogy of Bills in the broader perspective of South Africa.

We in the NP represent the overwhelming majority of White voters in this country.

That is not true!

We do have a mandate and it is true. We have a very serious mandate to ensure that the wishes and the aspirations of over 1,2 million voters and 5 million Whites do not go unanswered. We have a grave responsibility to the electorate. We ask no forgiveness for conveying the message and the mission entrusted to us by our people and our constituencies. We would fail in our duty if we did not do this.

This does not mean that the messages brought to us from other constituencies represented in this Parliament by other parties are irrelevant. They are vitally relevant and we will not solve South Africa’s problems without more negotiation. Let us try to break away from the recriminations of history. Let us not forget the lessons of the past, but let us learn from them.

Despite the criticism of certain aspects of this Bill there are several positive features. It introduces a new uniform approach to residential areas for Black, White, Coloured and Indian communities. Industrial land is made available to all races. It limits the possibility of land speculation and it provides for amendments to accommodate free settlement areas. These advantages are all welcome. [Interjections.]

I would like to quote from that great fighter for freedom, Abraham Lincoln, President of the USA, on the occasion of his second inauguration. He said:

We have a recess of four months ahead of us and we can study the standpoints of the various parties as they have been put to us. Let us return here in January, determined to continue to negotiate a future and better South Africa. I support the adoption of the the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Unaligned Group.

Underlined?

I wish to put on record that we have to reject this Bill. [Interjections.] It might be difficult for the other group to try to understand our position, but being persons of colour under no circumstances can we support this Bill.

It is important to note that, while South Africa has become the polecat of the world because of discriminatory legislation, at this very moment people of colour overseas are stating our case and fighting for South Africa against disinvestment. Therefore it is difficult for us at any time ever to support this Bill.

*Regarding partition, all I can say is that the ideology can only do us, the Coloured people, more harm. Therefore it must be rejected.

†Today I sat and listened to the most heartrending speeches with regard to group areas. Every hon member on this side of the House can stand up to testify to the injustice and the hurt that has been done. However, after we have all been to the wailing wall we have to come back, and this is important. We have to come back to sit down and find solutions to solve this very problem in South Africa. During this particular process every participant will have to make sacrifices. Everyone today has spoken about a new South Africa and everyone is working towards and looking for solutions for this new South Africa.

In this process we definitely have to sit down and find solutions. We can have all the excuses for what has happened in the past, and we can perhaps bring up all the reasons for what has happened in the past, but whilst we are looking towards a future, I want to say again we must not look for a number of excuses for what has happened. We must now be able to stand up and get together in order to map out a future for South Africa in regard to which we will not stand accused in history one day for what we have done to South Africa.

*Thus far there have also been speakers from the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates who complained about the Group Areas Act. I am able to associate myself with them in this regard because the Bishop Lavis constituency consists of people who were thrown out of the Akkers in Goodwood. In Bishop Lavis one finds people from Transkei who still speak their Xhosa. They stick to their language.

What does a new South Africa, however, portend for us? Of what use is it going to be to refer back to these things? Therefore, let us rather say that what happened in the past is over and done with and that there is nothing we can do about it.

We cannot under any circumstances support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, anybody who has observed the debate of the past few days and has followed the chaotic sequence of events surrounding this legislation must wonder why on earth the NP has subjected itself to this ordeal. Why this self-inflicted humiliation of forcing through legislation which they cannot defend morally, economically or even politically? Every single speaker in this debate, and in the related debates, from every political party, even the CP, has condemned this Bill. A number of Government spokesmen have been more than apologetic, but have nevertheless managed through devious logic to attempt a variety of justifications for the retention and strengthening of the Group Areas Act.

Hon members may recall that yesterday the hon member for Springs, in one of the debates relatin g to this legislation, had the grace to acknowledge that the Group Areas Act was a sensitive issue to people of colour. However, he added that it was also a sensitive issue to the people whom he represents. This is rather like pinning a man to the ground with your foot on his neck and saying to him: “I know this is hurting you, but you must realise that it is rather uncomfortable for me to have to stand here with my foot on your neck.”

Earlier today the hon member for Parow tried to persuade us that this package is an improvement on the existing Group Areas Act because, according to him, with the introduction of free settlement areas we are now offered a choice of where to live. I cannot believe that a man of his intelligence can even attempt to sell such bunkum. Who is given a choice? More important, what is the scope of that choice? The hon member knows full well that there is not a single residential area in which he would choose to live where he is prevented from doing so by law. On the other hand, what choice does a Coloured, Indian or Black man have? Even if the White Ministers’ Council, under the new legislation, sets aside a portion of Woodstock or Hillbrow for free settlement, will a Black man be allowed to live where he wants to? Will he have a free choice? Can he live in Rondebosch, Newlands or Parow? If he works in the northern suburbs, can he live in Bellville? The answer is obviously no. The White man’s choice will be as free and as wide as ever. The Black man will still have Hobson’s choice.

The hon member for Umlazi suggested that we in the PFP have some reservations about the scrapping of the Group Areas Act in our own constituencies. We accept that the Group Areas Act will not be repealed by the NP Government. For that reason we would gladly see not only Woodstock, but the whole of the Cape Peninsula free from the Group Areas Act. If the White Ministers’ Council would not endorse this—I say this on behalf of my constituency—I and the vast majority of my constituents would be more than willing to have the Groote Schuur constituency, including Newlands, Rondebosch, Rosebank, Mowbray, Observatory and parts of Woodstock open so that any person, regardless of colour, can share the privileges of living which we presently enjoy. I would welcome the support, which the hon member for Parow has promised, to free my constituency from the shackles of apartheid. [Interjections.] I would welcome that and my constituency would welcome that. I can assure the hon member of that.

The PFP and our voters are happy to take the lead in demonstrating to South Africa that non-racialism does work. Unfortunately the NP has no intention of allowing free settlement areas in areas other than those where large-scale integration has already taken place.

Necessity, not desirability, will be their criterion. There is a very simple reason for this. It is because the retaining and the strengthening of the Group Areas Act is not, for the purpose of the October elections … [Time expired.)

Mr Speaker, we have nearly reached the end of this debate. I am the 40th speaker and do not intend commenting now on what previous speakers have said. I think the hon the Minister will make use of that opportunity.

†I must refer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the speech which he delivered on Monday. He referred to the Group Areas Act, saying that it was why this legislation stank in the nostrils of decent men anywhere. He went on to say that no decent person could possibly support this Bill. By implication all other hon members who do support this Bill are not decent. I want to reject this with the contempt it deserves.

There must be something wrong with your nose!

Must there be something wrong with my nose? He must be smelling something else.

*If there is one thing in South Africa which none of us can escape, it is the reality of this country. We cannot get away from the fact that by the will of the Creator there are people of different cultures, people of different colour and people of different groups in this country; people of the First World and people of a Third World. This diversity is not the creation of the NP. No, this is what the NP has inherited! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Then it is the responsibility of the State that where people of different groups and colours live together there will be order and peace. If it is necessary for the maintenance of that peace that instruments …

Order! The hon member for Robertson either wants to put a question or a point of order.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to reply to a question.

The hon member is not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member may proceed.

If it is necessary to institute instruments and laws to make it possible to maintain this order, this has to be done. It may be true that such measures have brought heartache and inconvenience to some people but surely there is another side to this question too. The hon member for Turffontein referred to it this morning. Is it not also true that better order was created for many thousands of people, that better residential and living conditions were perhaps created? Surely it is also true that in terms of this very Group Areas Act various slum areas in this country were cleared.

The Government has already made great progress on the road to reform. The very fact that we are sitting together here today as three groups in this Council Chamber is the best proof of this. The times in which we live specifically require sober and responsible thinking of us and that we do not deal only with the emotional and try to gain political advantage through it.

A great deal was said this morning about land which had been stolen. I do not own an inch of land which was stolen. I bought every inch of it and every other hon member sitting in this House bought his property. Nobody stole any land. [Interjections.] I do not expect everyone to agree with me.

I think the best example set here today was that of the hon member for Bishop Lavis who came forward and stood here and said that he could not agree with this legislation. Nevertheless I respect and honour the way in which he did it. I want to congratulate him on it. [Interjections.]

It is said that the Group Areas Act is immoral, unjust and unchristian and that it is founded on skin colour. Yes, this may be true as far as certain groups in this Parliament are concerned but it is not the view of everyone in this Parliament.

What is the difference between your skin and mine?

If the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates regard this as true, why do they not request that this be made an own affair? [Interjections.] The hon member for Parow has already referred to this. Why do they not request that this matter be made an own affair? [Interjections.] They will then be able to decide for themselves concerning their areas and be able to throw them open as it suits them. In this way whoever wishes to live in their areas, White, Black, Coloured or Indian, will be able to do so. [Interjections.] I say to hon members that they will not do this because they are afraid that Black people will inundate them. That is why they will not do this.

The PFP make a great fuss about how easily they will throw open their areas. What happened, however, when an investigation was conducted into Norweto? Suddenly there was a green belt which had to be protected. No, I think the time has come for us to examine these matters with greater honesty and sincerity.

When I listen to hon members of the LP and also hon members of the House of Delegates, all we need in this country is to abolish the Group Areas Act and then heavenly peace will descend upon us … [Interjections.] … and then all apartheid, all racial tension and all unsatisfactory attitudes will disappear. Yes, we need only abolish the Group Areas Act and then there will be peace and tranquillity in this country. [Interjections.]

I also want to return to the hon members of the CP because it is very interesting to hear the fuss they make about the supposed waste of the taxpayer’s money by the State. When those hon members boarded planes here in Cape Town and flew to all the provinces where we held sittings of the extended provincial committees, and when they boycotted the sittings of those committees and used the opportunity to hold meetings, whose money were they wasting then? They did not attend one of those meetings. [Interjections.] These are the people who are now making a great fuss about how the Government is wasting taxpayers’ money. An interesting aspect is that those people are not only opposed to amending this Act. They are opposed to the entire existing Act because the hon member for Ermelo rose here this morning and shouted out that it was the Act which they rejected in its entirety. In other words, he rejects the entire Group Areas Act!

You are dreaming!

I am not dreaming! Hon members can read his Hansard. [Interjections.] We can understand this very well, however …

You must just wake up!

… because the CP has various groups in its ranks which are involved in a race to see who will be first to institute the “volkstaat”. They believe that only Whites will live in that “volkstaat” and they will then not require any group areas. That is why they are opposed to the Group Areas Act.

Very recently the leader of the CP referred at his congress in Cape Town to a smaller White South Africa. This can mean only one thing—a White state or a “Boerestaat”. Another well-known leader of the CP, Prof Carel Boshoff, came up on 22 March of this year with a new foundation, the “Stigting Afrikanervryheid” and listen to what he says. He says the point of departure and the activities of this new foundation are freedom for the Afrikaner people on its own land. The foundation will strive for the creation of a sovereign “volkstaat”, separate …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member is dealing with subjects which have nothing whatever to do with the legislation.

Order! I think that the hon member for Bethlehem should make a serious attempt to deal a little more specifically with the legislation.

Sir, I am trying to prove that these hon members of the CP are opposed to this legislation because they do not need it. They do not need it because they are in the process of creating a “volkstaat” in which only Whites will live. Yes, I repeat, the foundation will strive for the creation of a sovereign “volkstaat”, separate from the RSA as a “burgerstaat”, but I have a surprise for these people. There is yet another group which will steal a march on the AWB. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You warned the hon member seriously to make an urgent effort to come back to the Bill. He is still on the subject of the AWB, here and there …

Order! The hon member may calmly resume his seat. I shall see to this.

Yes, but you are not doing so, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethlehem may proceed.

I have an invitation in my hand to the formation of a new party. I am still on the subject of the Group Areas Act because it is important. The invitation to the formation of a “Boerestaatparty” …

Order! The hon member has only a few seconds left and he must please come back to the Bill under discussion.

It should be good news to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates because the principles of this party are that they say, and I should like to spell this out to hon members, that there will be no group area … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, following upon the hon member for Bethlehem, I want to say that the impression he made upon the House is that he is obsessed with racialism from head to foot. I do not think the South Africa of today, or that of the future, needs the calibre of people who still go on propounding pigmentation as supreme.

I recall the words of the Rev Jesse Jackson and I want to quote them this evening. At the Atlanta Congress of the Democrats, speaking on the American elections, he said:

That is the spirit in which we South Africans should find ourselves with one another. We are South Africans, and let us look at our problems as South Africans, and seek answers benefiting all of us in this country.

The hon member for Houghton quoted from an advertisement which appeared in the Canadian Press. Advertisements like that do not help South Africa, because those responsible are hoist with their own petard.

The more they advertise that they are democratic and moving on the road of reform, and yet do what they are doing today in relation to this Bill, the more it is a farcical exercise on the part of South African Nationalists and extremist Whites in this country.

The hon the Deputy Minister cut a pathetic figure when he set out the justification of the amendments to the Group Areas Act. Are we not aware of the loss of life and property because of that Act? The Government knows full well what the Group Areas Act has done to the population of South Africa. Suicides have been committed as a result of this Act, and yet we now have to tighten it. The opposite should in fact be true. We should be working for the repeal of the Group Areas Act.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North, as a result of prompting by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, put two questions to the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates, and asked him whether he had wanted the IDC. Yes, we wanted it at that time, because the IDC was not serving the small businessmen. However, the moment the SBDC was established, the IDC was disestablished.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North does not know his own country when he speaks of own areas. What does he mean when he speaks of opening own areas? South Africa does not belong to one particular group or one particular section of the South African community. It is an open area for all to live in.

We are all South Africans. My ancestors came to this country at the invitation of the White man and the White man should show respect to me and not disrespect. [Interjections.] We have assimilated ourselves in this country for the benefit of this country. We have made sacrifices in the interest of this country. Despite the fact that there is no conscription or compulsion, the Coloured, Black and Indian people serve in the Defence Force, the Navy and the Police Force.

They do not serve in the Defence Force!

Is this Group Areas Amendment Bill what we get in return? [Interjections.] We demand that all statutory discrimination be removed.

Order! There are hon members in the House of Representatives who constantly refer to other hon members by their first names and also sit and shout to hon members, using their first names. I gave a ruling on this last year and shall not tolerate it a moment longer. If hon members wish to refer to other hon members across the floor or if they wish to contact them, they must address those hon members in the proper manner.

†The hon the Minister may proceed.

I tax the integrity of the NP, who are the governing party to make changes from their position of strength. They must not use that position of strength to weaken the bonds of friendship that they should be building amongst the people of South Africa. I repeat that if they want a true South Africanism they must allow us to show and display that South Africanism to one another.

Coming to the transgression of the Group Areas Act by people of colour, I want to say that they went there by necessity. They went into the forbidden White areas to pay the highest possible price for property and residential rights. What dictated that? The economic factor dictated their presence in those areas and I am proud to say that those of us who have transgressed live above the standards of our neighbours. Is this what makes the Whites jealous of the penetration of people of colour into their areas? They should be proud of the fact that they have such neighbours.

I want to refer to what the hon member for King William’s Town said about the purchase of land by the White people. The Whites had an advantage over the people of colour. Crown land in Natal was sold to the White people at two and sixpence an acre. Whites did not go into the interior of South Africa as entrepreneurs, but as conquerors.

They conquered that land and got it for nothing, and yet they are proud that they purchased it. The economic factor again dictated the desires of the White people when they bought land.

I want to relate how the Indian has been assimilated into this country. The Indian served Boer and Englishman during the Anglo-Boer war. The service was that we were the stretcher-bearers of the wounded on both sides. That is our history and this is what we have contributed. In return we ask for no more than the removal of all forms of discrimination so that we can be together on the road ahead, as the hon member for Innesdal said. That is the goal, that is the aim that we should all have in mind.

Let us not be imbued with racial prejudices and with the false philosophy that everything White is supreme. There are hon members on the other side of the House that are even Whiter than other hon members. I respect that. Colour does not make a person. Human values and human dignity should be the criteria of all peoples of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates, a man who expresses his intentions very honestly. However, let me start with a few of the things that were said here this afternoon.

I want to start with what the hon member for Bloemfontein North said. The old bogeyman stories do not work anymore. I am not going to be frightened. I am standing here and I make it very clear that I am not afraid to open my areas. To open Coloured areas means one is only opening what is already filled to capacity and surely that is not a question of throwing things open. Here we are discussing throwing open what is empty and that is a meaningful way of throwing things open. †They ought not to ask me to open my areas if they have no honest intention of opening South Africa to the peoples of South Africa. No matter how much we try, we can never justify the unequal distribution of land in South Africa. No matter how hard we try, we cannot wipe away the injustices of the past.

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

The hon member has had his opportunity; allow me to proceed.

Previously in this House an interjection was made which was then withdrawn unconditionally. “To hell with the group areas” was withdrawn because perhaps it was not the language which is usually used in this House. What I am saying is that among the general public and in the hearts of most hon members on this side of the House that is exactly what is said about the Group Areas Act. There is not a person of colour who can show any love for the Group Areas Act.

*While the Nationalist Party admits …

The National Party!

Whatever the hon members wish to call themselves! The hon members have problems with the Group Areas Act, and so do we. When we come together, do the hon members know what the end product is? It is a Group Areas Act with teeth and with greater hurt. If that is consensus, if that is the purpose of coming together, are we really serving this country? Can we really be called patriotic South Africans? I am afraid that we do not qualify. Let me tell hon members what has been taken from us.

The hon member said that we had trekked with the Afrikaners. Of that we are not ashamed— that we trekked north with the Afrikaners!—but that which the Afrikaner gave to us, that which Pres Paul Kruger’s government gave to the people of colour in the Transvaal, was simply disrespectfully taken away by the Nationalist Government. [Interjections.]

There was an interjection from this side of the House when the question about Pageview was asked.

*Sir, I grew up in Vrededorp. I was nine months old when I came to Vrededorp. Vrededorp was given by Paul Kruger and his government to the Coloureds for the services which were rendered. Sir, what happened?

†What is happening in Pageview? The mosques are standing there; the churches are standing there, but the congregations have been removed.

Disgraceful!

We talk about a country that respects freedom of religion, and I was dismayed, disappointed, maybe even disgusted, when an hon member on this side of the House made a remark about the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives, and District Six, which was totally unacceptable. To us District Six means our roots. To us it means our civilization. To us it means deep tradition, and that which has been removed and replaced with Manenberg and Hanover Park and Bishop Lavis. Please, Sir, do not tell me that has been compensation for that which meant so much to people! No matter how hard the Government tries to establish District Six as a free settlement area, the heart of District Six has been removed, and that the Government can never compensate for. That, Sir, the Government can never return to us.

Hear, hear!

South Africa has merely become poorer because of the injustice which was committed against the majority of people in this country.

†Sir, it is about time that we honestly searched our hearts …

[Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Toekomsrus. He and I have come a long way together in Johannesburg. We are good friends, and I do not intend quarrelling with him tonight, because he was letting off steam in any case and it is a good thing to let off steam.

It is not a question of letting off steam! Can you not understand that?

In any case we still see one another as falling within our greater Afrikaner family in which we have our connections and he is welcome to let off steam as he did. [Interjections.]

The CP seized upon the Group Areas Act and related legislation as an election ploy and 90% of their election propaganda is based on this Trojan horse. When one travels through Pretoria, one sees CP posters depicting graves and crosses with the wording: “Geen Hillbrow-slums vir Pretoria”. The CP state unambiguously that the presence of those of colour in a White group area will inevitably lead to slum conditions. They are too frightened to display this disgraceful generalisation, these disgraceful posters, which they do put up there, in Johannesburg and in Hillbrow as such, because they know that it will blow up in their faces there. Various inhabitants of Hillbrow and Joubertpark have expressed their shock at this insult with which the CP have dishonoured them. Their crass generalisation and simplification of a complex situation have created infinitely greater problems instead of being helpful.

Johannesburg and Hillbrow are not slums in the least, and on behalf of our people I want to record our objection and indignation most strongly. [Interjections.]

An inspection by an inspectorate of the health department of the Johannesburg City Council, which inspected the buildings in Hillbrow, found that no single building as such could be regarded as a slum or the structure as representing an extraordinary risk. What is true is that by the nature of their occupation people can create a risk, but this must not be ascribed to skin colour. I admit readily, however, that conditions in Hillbrow, Joubertpark, the city centre and Doornfontein have deteriorated appreciably. Definite problems of overcrowding, noise, health and a lack of security exist, but urgent attention is being paid to this.

A member of Parliament who represents this area can either ignore the problems, make false promises or run like hell. On the other hand, he can address the matter in an objective way with a view to improving conditions and standards.

As regards the influx of those of colour to this area, I have consistently adopted the standpoint that the quality of life should be the decisive factor with regard to occupation. Last year, in the heat of the electioneering period, I stated that any person who alleged that all those of colour could be removed from this area without further ado was living in a fool’s paradise. I want to re-emphasise that, whatever the circumstances and future decisions regarding these areas may be, I shall not become involved in a witch-hunt in any way.

Those who wish to spoil the living space and lower the standards of the inhabitants of this area, however, are unwelcome. Where existing regulatory orders may prove inadequate, they should be supplemented so that one can take steps against these persons and expel them from our area. People who create disturbances in the area and in the community, regardless of the colour of their skin, and who are guilty of overcrowding, pollution and contravention of the law must simply be put out.

At the previous Transvaal NP congress I stated these guidelines and appealed for greater control of standards. I also said that the point at issue among the inhabitants of Hillbrow and Johannesburg was not necessarily the presence of those of colour, but certainly the maintenance of standards and the quality of life.

In order to effect an improvement in the quality of life in the long term it is essential that there is co-operation between various bodies. It is essential that owners of flats should maintain a certain standard of occupation. It is common knowledge that certain owners of flats are exploiting the current situation to make extra profits in the short term by permitting overcrowding and neglecting to maintain standards. In this respect it is interesting that the Group Areas Act in its present form, read together with the Rent Control Act, has created opportunities which have given rise to abuses and which have lead to the exploitation of those of colour and especially our senior citizens in that area. There is no time to go into detail now, but we can certainly discuss this later.

By means of holding in-depth discussions with owners of flats, Sapoa and the Central Business Association we succeeded in obtaining the cooperation of the major owners of flats and businessmen in this area. It is true that various smaller groups remain who do not take any notice of basic standards but they are being paid active attention. These owners will have to realise that relentless action will be taken against them. We cannot permit selfish individuals to bedevil the quality of life of decent people of the area.

†I should like to refer to the establishment of a special working group for the greater Hillbrow and city area. This area includes Joubertpark, the central business district of Johannesburg and a portion of Doornfontein. This is a comprehensive plan involving government, provincial and city departments, which has been launched to revitalise this area. The programme of action provides for coordination by bringing together diverse interests in both central and local government. This will result in ensuring the stricter and more consistent application of municipal bylaws concerning the overcrowding of flats with regard to the overburdening of services. A detailed survey is being carried out with a view to remedial action. Vagrants and loiterers are being systematically removed, whilst renewed efforts are being made to rehabilitate, educate and shelter the homeless street children.

The provision of street cleaning on a 24-hour basis is being considered and additional public toilets are being erected. Police and traffic officials pay special attention to late night revelry and a larger number of police are now being stationed at Hillbrow and foot patrols have been increased. This will have a significant influence on the crime rate and the security of the area.

I am positive that in the longer term this area will become an area that we will be proud of. We are concerned about all the people living in the greater Hillbrow-Johannesburg area. We will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain and to improve the standard of living, regardless of colour or creed.

*I have spelt out a few matters. Here we have to do with purposeful action and positive steps by people who care. It is necessary to keep pace with changing circumstances and to comply with the NP philosophy of live and let live. This presents a stark contrast to misleading statements by the CP which gives reckless promises that this area will one day become a pure White area again under its control. Surveys indicate that more than 50 000 people of colour live in the Johannesburg area. And then the hon member for Lichtenburg can say that they will not use bulldozers; they will simply disappear. What reckless wishful thinking!

The hon member for Overvaal was my predecessor in Jeppe and his local knowledge provided him with understanding. Prof Jakes Gerwel may well stay with him but the question remains: Will the CP get it White or will it merely excise the area of Hillbrow from its White area?

Now strange and unusual events are taking place. His leader repudiates him because it does not serve the Farmer Brown ideology of partition and “it is so good because it tastes so good”. If no tree grows in Hillbrow, one will have to be conjured up. These are splendid ideals provided they are not used to deceive credulous, simple people. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon the Leader of the House of Representatives for giving me some of his time.

Yesterday, in this House, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, according to an unedited version of Hansard: “I challenge him and any hon member who has been party to this agreement, to refute any elements of statements that I have made.” It is here in the statement. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to answer me please, because at the back of my conscience I do not feel that I had ever agreed to “dispose of” legislation. I want to remind them too that there are three declarations. The first one, No 1689B/17, speaks about “debated” and “disposed”. However, there was a second declaration which sounds more like the one to which I was agreeable. This declaration, No 1689B/19, reads:

At the bottom it states that:

However, there is also a statement which was handed to the Press and, as such, I regard it as the official statement. It states:

The Bills in question are those ones that are before the House. The statement continues:

Those are the Bills that I mentioned before. I therefore ask that this House should be given an answer. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, before I react to the rest of the debate, I would very much like to start with a matter which was raised at the end of the debate.

I cannot react to the first statement to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives referred. There was only one agreement, and as far as I know only one statement was issued. It is possible that in the drafting phase there were different versions. I cannot pass judgment on that aspect. [Interjections.]

I would very much like to have studied the documentation. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not, however, make it available to me in advance. It has now come to my attention. I therefore did not have the benefit of examining it and seeing what allegations he made. I am, however, prepared to state in this House that there was only one agreement, and that only one statement was made. [Interjections.] And one “disposal”. [Interjections.]

I did a quick check with the relevant official in our department who was on duty that evening and was responsible for issuing this statement on behalf of the Ministry after the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had made their joint statement. The official has just confirmed that that was the statement he made available to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, and that was the statement furnished by the hon the Chairman when he appeared at the news conference on TV News.

Here it is.

It is this statement which the departmental official gave the hon the Chairman, and the relevant official was also present when this statement was read to the Press. I should like to quote the relevant paragraph to hon members, because it is applicable:

Number 17.

I do not know to what number the hon the Chairman is referring. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate.

I therefore want to emphasise that there was only one agreement. I can vouch for that because I attended the proceedings involving the discussions that took place. I can also vouch for the fact that there was only one agreement and that it was the intention throughout to dispose of the legislation this week, meaning that there would be a vote.

What was written was written.

Secondly I want to ask why, in the discussions that were held, that point was raised at all. The hon the Chairman referred to that this morning; in other words, he acknowledged that the question had arisen. Thereupon the hon the Chairman and his colleague, the hon member for Toekomsrus, asked in the course of the debate whether the voting could not be postponed to the following Monday, meaning next Monday, 3 October 1988. That was an express request. [Interjections.] That is true, Sir. He referred to that this morning. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives therefore acknowledged this morning that the concept “dispose of” or “afhandel” was part of the agreement. That is why he tried to convince the House of another meaning attaching to the concept “dispose of”.

Come back to the statement!

No, with all due respect, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives must not try to sidestep the agreement relating to the disposal of this legislation during this week.

I should like to return to the debate and make a few general remarks and statements before referring to a few specific arguments and reacting to them. Personally I have had mixed feelings, in the course of the day, about the debate which was unfolding before us. At a certain stage I thought that the fact that hon members were discussing matters here in a joint debate was perhaps a mistake. I thought it was perhaps a mistake that we were discussing a contentious matter such as this with one another in a joint debate.

Towards the end of the day, however, in the late afternoon, I wrote a note for myself which, in broad outline, I should like to bring to hon members’ attention, because it deals with my observations. At the end of the day I thought it was a good thing that we had, in fact, debated these Bills in a joint meeting. I am saying this because we have travelled a long road when it comes to social relations in this country. This is not going to come to an end with a debate such as this one, but perhaps it was a good beginning for us to have been able to enter into a discussion with one another.

Hon members who argued against this Bill and asked for it to be scrapped are not going to get what they asked for. The parameters we are discussing are wide-ranging and diverse. I must say that I did not listen equally pleasurably to all the speeches made. There were a few chaps who got under my skin in the process! [Interjections.] In one of the last speeches the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates referred to my pathetic speech of this morning. I thought it was quite a good speech. [Interjections.] The fact is that we succeeded in discussing a very delicate subject with one another.

Social relations are not built up overnight—not within a week or a year either. In fact, in the majority of cases throughout the world, if one were to analyse every individual country in which there was any question of racial tension or relations involving colour, it has taken years, and in many cases even centuries.

The other day someone explained the Swiss constitution to me. I do not want to use it as an example to be imitated, but what is significant is that wars were fought before the Swiss constitution was finalised. The overall period involved extended from 1291 to 1846. We do not have virtually 600 hundred years at our disposal to do such things in South Africa.

What was significant to me, however—and this is the positive note I should like to carry with me after the conclusion of today’s debate—was that we were indeed able to discuss a very contentious matter from totally different angles and various points of view. I think that is important.

I think we should regard today’s debate as the beginning of further discussions that must follow on the road towards moving closer to one another in our social relations. Discussion does not mean that everything will eventually be cleared up. The fact of the matter is that the diversity that exists in South Africa does not make discussion superfluous, but is part of the reality in accordance with which we must act. In the long run, however, discussion must lead to a basis being found for living and working together in this country. That is the fundamental element of which today’s discussion could possibly be an important building block in the long run.

As far as our readiness is concerned, even a year ago hon members would probably not have been able to sit in this House and speak as we have spoken about this matter today. We were all probably a bit nervous about the possible outcome of a debate such as this.

†In general I would like to say that the three pieces of legislation we have discussed since Monday are intended to establish a pattern of land settlement in South Africa. This implies a new approach to the development of residential areas, which will accommodate the aspirations of various groups and individuals.

From our point of view the three Bills must be seen and judged as an entity which on the one hand opens up opportunities for free association and, on the other, is aimed at securing the right of communities to protect their existing way of life should they wish to do so.

The legislation will enable those individuals who want to associate on the basis of group identity to safeguard their own way of life. At the same time those people who prefer a different kind of life or association are given the opportunity to form communities on another basis.

The Bills represent a realistic approach and assessment of the needs of South Africans of today. It is aimed at meeting today’s needs. Laws have to be adapted as needs change. This is the essence of evolutionary change or reform.

The parameters of the debate on the three measures are clear. Some hon members argue persuasively in favour of the total repeal of the Group Areas Act and others are adamant that the Act must be applied rigidly. I understand and appreciate the strong emotions which motivate both arguments. Hurt and fear are powerful human emotions. They are powerful forces.

The objective of these Bills is to strike a compromise, a compromise which will provide for flexibility, both in the concept of group settlement and in the application thereof. To my mind the three Bills represent such a compromise, in a sincere attempt to find the middle ground between the two extremes voiced during the debate of the past few days.

The Free Settlement Areas Bill and the discretion accorded to the Minister in the application of the Group Areas Amendment Bill represent this compromise. The discretion the Minister is being accredited with will enable us to accommodate exceptional circumstances.

It will be possible to give practical effect to a new sense of understanding and a new sense of acceptance. Such a new spirit does exist. It would be unfair and incorrect to deny it.

I am convinced that we as a Government have made a clear case for why it is necessary to proceed cautiously. I do not expect all hon members to acknowledge it today or tomorrow. However, I believe they accept the validity of my argument in favour of evolutionary reform.

They have experienced the effect of actions which have ignored the complexities of our situation. We have to balance the needs and fears of people. We have to recognise the rights of groups as well as the rights of individuals. We therefore need measures to manage change effectively. We need to secure and protect our community life. We also need measures to bring it about in a discretionary manner. We need the flexibility to manage different situations differently.

The Free Settlement Areas Bill provides necessary and sufficient flexibility to accommodate large numbers of people who want to establish a more variate community. The Group Areas Amendment Bill can be regarded as an instrument to enable people to develop and maintain an own community life.

At the same time the Bill provides a discretionary mechanism which enables the Minister to deal with the needs of individual citizens.

*I now want to refer to the contributions hon members made. Unfortunately I cannot reply to everyone—there were approximately 43 speakers—and it would be unfair to those hon members who are listening to me if I were to attempt to do so.

I want to thank hon members who spoke in support of the Bill. I also want to thank them for the way in which they made their contributions, and for the dedication with which they put their case. I also want to thank those who do not support the Bill, but who expressed this in a responsible fashion. In the course of the debate certain statements, which got one slightly hot under the collar, were made. I can understand that, since this is an emotional issue, but certainly not everything that was said here today about the relevant Bill, and specifically the Group Areas Act in its previous form, is true either. Perhaps this resides specifically in the fact that not everything was said. I can give examples to prove that both members of the House of Representatives and of the House of Delegates have intimated in the past that there have been specific elements of the Group Areas Act which have been beneficial to their respective communities. I do not want to incriminate hon members, and for that reason I shall specifically not be mentioning relevant names. [Interjections.] If the hon member were really to challenge me, however, I could advance sufficient proof. I have a petition here, for example, but for the sake of the community in question I shall refrain from in any way mentioning the name of the area involved. This petition contains the signatures of 600 people in a specific community who are not White and who want a specific area not to be declared an open area because it would be to the detriment of the community concerned. We must therefore be careful—if I may use these words—about making sweeping statements when it comes to matters such as this. We all know what this ultimately means to the relevant community life, regardless of how we view the situation.

[Inaudible.]

During the past few weeks the hon member for Klipspruit West has repeatedly pestered me to proclaim Noordgesig a Coloured town as quickly as possible. I agree with the necessity for expediting this matter, but if one looks at the location of Noordgesig, one wonders why the hon member feels such a terrible urgency about the proclamation.

Because it has been dragging on for 53 years now!

Sir, I immediately want to address the question of time in regard to expediting the process. It is true. Since I have become involved in this matter I have repeatedly, in the past few months, negotiated with officials of the department about expediting the process we must put into operation in regard to declaring areas of this nature. There are, in fact, ways in which this can be expedited, and we are in the process of doing so. It is important, and I therefore have no doubt that we must do so.

I see that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives is no longer here. Consequently, I am only going to refer to a few statements he made at the beginning of the debate this morning.

Amongst other things he quoted Jefferson who said: “What is morally wrong, can never be politically right.” That is probably a very true statement. I think we can live with that, but if that is to be applied to the circumstances in the USA why, in the fifties and sixties, almost two centuries after Jefferson, did a civil rights struggle sweep through America, and why are civil rights campaigns and organisations still actively participating in civil rights movements and activities to promote the position of people of colour in the USA? [Interjections.] If it has taken more than two centuries in that country, and final solutions have not yet been found with regard to social relations, we must not expect it to be possible to achieve this overnight in this country. [Interjections.]

I am arguing that point specifically because this hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and other hon members have repeatedly made calls to “Scrap the Act immediately.” I am using this argument specifically in reply to that by saying that it is not viable, that it is not possible, to do so summarily. I think hon members know that too.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives asked how many White families, and specifically Afrikaner families, had been affected by the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I do not know what the number is, and it was not possible to ascertain this today. The fact of the matter is that I can give the hon member for Toekomsrus the names of numerous areas in which Whites have also been affected directly as a result of residential planning and the measures involved in that planning. [Interjections.] I can immediately mention three areas in which Whites have, in fact, been affected as a result of this, if we must be specific. In the vicinity of Kuils River there is Eerste River, a residential area with approximately 500 to 600 families. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West has now made his last interjection. If he interjects once more, I shall ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude. The next area I want to refer to is Kenville, in the vicinity of Durban, where approximately 300 to 400 families were involved in relocation. In the constituency I represent, in the Mayfair area, hundreds of families have been directly affected over the past few years as a result of residential area planning patterns which have changed. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to say the following in regard to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. We could quote numerous examples from historical sources which he and other hon members could very compassionately present, as indeed they do. There is also the other side of the picture, however, in which I could present hon members with examples of people in the White community, who are deserving of consideration on compassionate grounds. I could keep hon members just as busy with examples of this from the piles of letters that land up on my desk about people who are affected as a result of changing residential patterns. I therefore think we should be careful of placing our reliance solely on the emotional aspects of this subject.

I should like to say that we must try not to perpetuate those historical aspects which are caught up in an emotional web. Let us try instead to create a future which can bring us, those hon members and everyone in the country, closer to the point of acceptability. I do not think that complete acceptability is humanly possible unless one receives a great many blessings from Above.

†The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates addressed the question of the balance that is necessary in legislation such as this. I would also like to thank him for the point he made in connection with the different levels of development we have in this country and for saying that we should also try to address this when we try to achieve balance as far as measures of this kind are concerned.

*The hon member for Green Point …

… made a fine speech.

Well, I could question that. In my opinion the hon member did not really come to grips with the Bill or make a very thorough study of what we want to achieve here when it comes to ministerial discretion. I am not going to argue with him at any length about that, but the hon member has completely missed the point in regard to ministerial discretion which, as I have indicated, is embodied in the Bill as it now stands, enabling the Minister to take alternative housing and other factors involving humanitarian considerations into account.

But what is the position at present?

Sir, we are speaking about the Bill which is before the House and which specifically makes provision for the situation in future. That was what my argument was based on previously.

The hon member made a very interesting statement. In my introductory speech this morning I referred to the question of making land available in South Africa specifically with a view to facilitating residential planning. In his speech the hon member said that that was a very cynical statement. That is a very strange statement for the hon member to have made, because how does he want to resolve South Africa’s urbanisation needs—in other words, additional living space— if not by way of identifying and making land available? That is the point I emphasised. If the hon member understands me correctly, I think he ought to agree with that.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates also referred to a number of examples as far as past history is concerned. However, he concluded on a positive note and said that we would have to make compromises because we had to be sensitive to each other’s feelings. He said that he did not believe that things could change overnight. I think that was a good note on which to conclude.

*The hon member for Reigerpark referred to evidence before the Erika Theron Commission. We are speaking here, however, of a period more than 15 years ago. Over a period of 15 years the position of the Coloured community has changed considerably, and changed for the better too. Surely that is true. The hon member knows as well as I do that the evidence he presented here this morning may still be relevant in exceptional circumstances today, but in general the living conditions of his community, and of less affluent people in particular, are considerably better than they were 15 years ago.

The hon member also referred to problems in regard to the proclamation at Reigerpark. In the course of the day I went into that aspect. It is true that in the Witwatersrand—I referred to that this morning—we have the problem of mining rights and mining land. The hon member is aware of that. That being so, unfortunately we sometimes have delays in the overall process of declaring a specific area.

I thank the hon member for Randburg for being here, because he apologised and indicated that it would not be possible for him to be here. He is, however, here now.

At the beginning of his speech the hon member advanced a very emotional argument about the position of Black domestic servants as opposed to the acceptability of Black people as neighbours. I understand the hon member’s argument. I am not going to argue the fact that from his point of view his argument has merit. What is interesting, however, is that the hon member represents a community which in his time, as the representative of that constituency, on occasion had a PFP city council. When that very PFP city council wanted to open up specific facilities to other groups in the Randburg area a few years ago, it was only a question of time before that PFP city council was toppled and was replaced by an NP city council. The hon member knows that. It is a fact. The reason why I mention this example is that the hon member knows, as well as I do, what the factual situation is in regard to the needs of our communities in South Africa. Surely the hon member knows, as well as I do, what is viable and what is not viable, what is possible and what is not possible. Why does he present us with a moral aspect here which he knows he is not able to uphold or implement in his own constituency? Yesterday evening he said that the party or group he represented had been in existence for about a year—if I am right—but I am repeating this because he was not present then. The hon member repeatedly presents his vision of the future as the subject of the contributions he makes in this House. I think the time has come for the hon member to tell us what that vision embodies and to spell out the details for us. [Interjections.] He must not simply talk about it; he must tell us what, in fact, it embodies and what its significance is. [Interjections.]

†The hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs referred to the question of the identification of land, specifically in the Durban metropole. My reaction to that is as follows: In the case of the Durban functional region the existing and projected land needs of the respective population groups have been established and various recommendations have been made as to how these needs can be addressed. At present the recommendations are being evaluated by the departments concerned in consultation with other interested parties. The recommendations will be submitted for consideration as early as November this year. I therefore hope that through that we can expedite the process as far as that region is concerned.

The hon member for Lenasia Central made a loaded remark. I want to ask him to refrain from remarks of such a nature and also to refrain from thinking about that, because what he said was not to opt out of the system but to opt for a radical alternative. I appeal to him to refrain from thinking about such an alternative and such an option.

*The hon member for Houghton referred to this “racial segregation law”.

†Then she referred to examples in other parts of the world where segregation had been applied on more or less an economic basis. To deduce from what she said, it is a fact that segregation was achieved through economic patterns for economic reasons. I would like to ask then the question whether economic segregation is acceptable, but not legalised segregation. [Interjections.] I just want to point out that one must be very careful with this kind of argument because I cannot see how economic segregation can replace legal segregation.

I did not say that. I said …

The hon member may not have said it, but there is only one conclusion one can make from what she has said as far as that is concerned. This is just as immoral in terms of the argument of the hon member as her argument in terms of legalised segregation.

*From her constituency, Houghton, I also received objections from the residents of an entire block of flats about an application for a permit in that specific block of flats. [Interjections.] Let us therefore not accuse one another of different patterns of conduct in this regard. [Interjections.]

As far as hon members of the CP are concerned, in the first place I should like to ask the hon member for Ermelo why he did not repeat here today the statement he made earlier in the debate in the House of Assembly.

He decides about his speeches.

I shall be coming to the hon member for Overvaal in a moment. [Interjections.]

In the debate in the House of Assembly the hon member for Ermelo lodged a serious plea—that was virtually his entire argument—for the rigid implementation of the Group Areas Act by way of evictions without any discretion and without the relevant Minister taking any factors into account. That hon member used fairly strong terms—I am not going to repeat the words he used there—about how he wanted action to be taken. [Interjections.] The hon member came along here today, however, and made a very moderate speech. That is a great pity, because I actually wanted hon members of the House of Representatives to hear what hon members of the CP really felt in their heart of hearts. [Interjections.] I am specifically mentioning this because, in the course of the day, these hon members have repeatedly accused us of dealing here with legislation aimed at satisfying that party. I actually wanted those hon members to say what, in point of fact, their standpoint was.

That is why I referred, at the beginning of my reply, to the relevant parameters. [Interjections.] On the one hand there is the attitude which states “scrap the Act”, and on the other the insistence on its rigid implementation, as that party wants to do. I want to emphasise the Government’s approach by way of these three measures. It is, in fact, aimed at giving effect to an own community life and to the needs of people who do not feel strongly about that. [Interjections.] In other words, it is not aimed at being prescriptive by telling everyone: “Adhere to this. This is the pattern and there is no other.” [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randfontein used the argument that this legislative package was trying to satisfy both left-wing and right-wing elements and that because that was so, it would come a cropper. I think that hon member will agree with me that South Africa does not consist solely of rigid right-wing and left-wing blocs. Perhaps he would very much have liked to have it that way, because then his party’s policy might have worked, but that is not what South Africa consists of. Because that is so, because ideologically it does not consist solely of a right-wing bloc and a left-wing bloc, but in actual fact consists of a diversity which makes provision for a great deal more than that, we must also have an administrative pattern in regard to social planning which makes provision for the accommodation of the diversity, including the diversity of needs. That is why we specifically argued, earlier in the week in regard to the Free Settlement Areas Bill, that that Bill was also aimed at a principle based on needs which were substantially identifiable.

Well, let me congratulate the hon member and tell him that I hope that it is a wonderful thirtieth year that lies ahead for him and that there will be many more. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Overvaal is concerned, in the debate in the House of Assembly we referred to the hon member’s statements, and there have also been a few references to them today. I really expected that hon member to come along and furnish a contribution here today. [Interjections.] That hon member really came under fire in the House of Assembly. The hon member knows what was said there. I am sure his colleagues informed him. He should, in any event, consult the Hansard record. He does not, however, have a turn to speak today. Normally he has a great deal to say. Normally he is someone who takes part in every single debate. I would have thought that with these three Bills being discussed during the past three days, it would have been an ideal opportunity for him to participate in the debate. I must conclude that either he decided to take a back seat and not to participate in the debate, or his Whip prevented him from doing so. It could have been his leader. [Interjections.] I am speaking of his Chief Whip.

He is too left-wing.

For that party he is altogether left-wing. Let us take a brief look at what he said. Before speaking about Hillbrow, he made the following statement. Mr West asked him:

To which the hon member for Overvaal replied: “You have a good point.” [Interjections.] Then the hon member went on to state:

[Interjections.] The hon member must please take an opportunity to explain to us how he reconciles his standpoint with that of his hon leader, because his hon leader still states—and now again in pamphlets distributed by the CP— that all people of colour will be removed from Hillbrow.

Show me evidence of that.

I have a pamphlet over there on my bench and I would gladly quote from it, if someone would bring it to me.

Show me, because I write all the pamphlets. [Interjections.]

I do not want to waste the House’s time now, but the hon member has presented me with a challenge. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if I will have to go to my bench myself. Perhaps the pamphlet is in the briefcase on the floor.

Look for it, look for it!

Hon members will probably find it in a moment.

I should just like to react to the hon member for Addo. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment. The hon member made certain statements about what I said yesterday concerning the conversations that took place. I merely want to state that I am not alleging for one moment that there was anything sinister about the conversations or anything of that nature. They were the kinds of conversation that should take place between the various parties participating in a joint committee’s proceedings. [Interjections.] I did not allow those discussions to take place behind the hon the leader of the Labour Party’s back. The morning before the hon the leader of the Labour Party went overseas, I telephoned him and told him that I realised that he would be overseas for 10 to 14 days and also that he did not permit decisions to be taken on behalf of his party if he himself was not involved. I told him that I respected his attitude and that I was telephoning him to tell him that the joint committee was going to convene whilst he was away. I wanted to know from him whom I could consult, with a view to the proceedings of the joint committee, because it was important for us to decide on a modus operandi. The hon leader told me to contact his deputy leader, the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Representatives. That is how the discussion arose. I telephoned the hon the deputy leader and asked him for a meeting with a view to examining the joint committee’s proceedings. I merely want to confirm one point.

†It was not only with the majority party in the House of Representatives that we met. We also met with the various parties in the House of Delegates, and the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, who is present here, will concede that. It is therefore not a question of us trying to point and force the Labour Party in a particular direction as far as these Bills are concerned.

*We held a discussion in the normal course of events. I then asked the hon the Leader of the House, who had been designated by his party leader as the one with whom I should liaise, whom I should bring along, because I knew the hon the leader would prefer to have me bring someone along. Spontaneously, off his own bat, he brought along the hon member for Addo, who was also a member of a joint committee. That is the basis, and I merely want to have it on record, because in reaction to what I said about this matter yesterday evening, the hon member for Addo jumped around here this morning with some considerable signs of anxiety. His reaction showed extreme anxiety, and I do not know why, because it was unnecessary. I was not trying to corner him.

The fact of the matter is that we firstly spoke about the proceedings of the joint committee— when we would start meeting and the normal matters relating to the procedure to be adopted. Secondly, however, we spoke about the Bills which would be on the agenda, because even at that stage it was clear that the Bills would again come before the joint committee without any changes to their substance or content. We had to consider that aspect. The question of acceptance, specifically in regard to the Free Settlement Areas Bill, came to the fore. We did not, however, raise the issue with the specific purpose of hemming the Labour Party in as far as acceptance was concerned. In fact, surely the hon the leader of the party himself was instrumental in bringing the subject to the fore, because today the hon the leader of the Labour Party again referred to a meeting which he is alleged to have had early this year with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, a meeting in which he made certain proposals in regard to possible open areas. That of course brought the question of free settlement areas to the fore. That is what we began talking about.

I am not stating for one moment that we reached an agreement, but we felt so strongly about the matter that we agreed to another meeting so that we could again discuss it as soon as the leader of the party had returned. In other words, it is a bit different to the hon member for Addo’s version this morning when he said that we tried to steer the party in a specific direction to have it accept this Bill. The question I am therefore asking is why, in any event, there was an agreement to postpone the appointment and to reconvene if there was nothing further on the agenda to talk about. That appointment was the one I referred to, which ultimately did not take place on Sunday evening. I merely wanted to clarify this for the record, because I think it is important.

I now want to conclude by referring to the hon member for Overvaal once again. I think he has received the pamphlet by now.

Yes, you were wrong!

Let me then quote what is stated here. This is the heading and there is a photograph of the leader of the CP, who is not here:

Where did he say that every Black person must leave? [Interjections.] Roelf, why did you mislead the House? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Overvaal permitted to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he misled the House?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, may I just inform you that what I meant was that the hon the Deputy Minister said that my hon leader had said that all people of colour should be removed from those areas. In the pamphlet …

As far as possible! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal may proceed.

Sir, apparently I am addressing you from the confines of a kindergarten.

The standpoint which the hon the Deputy Minister adopted here does not, in any way, accord with what he said. It gives a totally different slant to things, and I am therefore saying that he misled this House. I am not prepared to withdraw it.

Order! Since he has disregarded the authority of the Chair, I instruct the hon member for Overvaal to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

I shall do so, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Overvaal return to his seat. Did the hon member, whilst returning to his seat, look at the Chair once more and say: “He misled the House”?

No, Mr Speaker.

Order! What precisely did the hon member say?

Mr Speaker, I said he had misled the House, but I did not look at the Chair; I looked at the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! I merely want to tell the hon member that I shall give a ruling on this tomorrow. In the meantime the hon member may withdraw from the Chamber. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to address hon members on this very important and sensitive issue once again. I should like to express my gratitude right at the outset towards every member of this House for being co-operative and for giving me the opportunity to debate an issue in which every South African outside has an interest and, certainly, something on which every eye outside this Chamber is focused at this moment, namely how we are going to handle this particular issue.

I do not have to expound the importance that every voter outside places on this whole question of apartheid and the Group Areas Act. The reason for my introducing this motion is not to give attention to it, but to express to South Africa how we, the people of colour of this country, feel about the Group Areas Act.

I do not have to expound how it has touched us emotionally. I do not have to expound how much it has cost us. I do not have to expound how much poverty it has caused the people of colour in this country, because we will get the opportunity to do so this afternoon. Every hon member in this Chamber who wishes to participate in this debate will get the opportunity to do so this afternoon. Therefore I find it so surprising that there appears to be some objection to our debating this issue this morning. I found it disturbing that there was an objection to the motion yesterday. I would have expected that all people of colour would have an objection and would express their abhorrence to legislation of this nature.

Sir, I am not playing for time. I am also not playing a tactical game in this Chamber. All that I am trying to do, is to show in the strongest possible terms the objection that every member in this Chamber has to this kind of legislation that is on the Statute Books. It is immoral, ungodly and totally unacceptable and it must be rejected in no uncertain terms by every hon member in this Chamber.

This is the one time I had expected absolute unity from this House regarding this kind of immoral situation. When we went to the polls on 22 August 1984 the people voted for us to come to this House to express their dissatisfaction with South Africa’s apartheid laws.

*Now I find that there are objections when one wants to express one’s attitude concerning apartheid in the strongest possible terms. People object to that now.

†In no uncertain terms I will make sure that maximum publicity is given to our objection to this kind of attitude. We owe it to those people who came in their thousands to vote for us and support our objectives. We must never forget that 77 constituencies were won on a Labour Party ticket, supporting Labour Party principles, in 1984. Therefore the Labour Party is closest to the people who object to the NP rule in this country.

Mr Chairman, because of the fact that we were told that we could not address the House officially, we shall arrange that the members will rise when you put the question.

Yes, the hon members are not an official party yet, but I have a list here.

Mr Chairman, we do not deny the fact that we all came here to oppose the Group Areas Act. That is not the issue. At yesterday’s joint meeting the hon the Leader of this House went to great lengths to express his disgust at the manner in which the House of Representatives had been treated by not having been consulted. Similarly we, who are also part of this House, do not expect the hon the Leader of the House to get up here and move a motion which is meant to be passed unopposed, without-consulting us. The same objections that he had yesterday are now applicable to us in this House, as we are not part and parcel of the Labour Party caucus. Had he consulted us about what he intended to do, perhaps there would have been consensus about the matter. However, he comes to this House, after having objected in the other House to exactly the same thing, and does exactly the same thing. That is why we are opposing this motion and why we feel that he could have consulted us out of common decency.

Apart from the Labour Party members we also belong to this House. The hon the Leader of the House owes us this out of common decency. Since we are all involved in this fight against apartheid and the NP and since we all want to teach them this lesson that they cannot just steamroller things through and that they cannot hope to make use of the President’s Council to force certain legislation down our throats, I am sure things would have stood differently in this House had he approached us about this matter. The hon the Leader of the House failed through not extending a basic and fundamental courtesy to this side of the House.

That is why we lodged the objection. We lodged the objection because we did not know the reasons behind the matter. We all wanted to know the reasons and if it had been discussed with us in private, I am sure we would have taken a different view of the matter, but it was not even discussed with us, hence the objection.

We, too, abhor apartheid.

*No one on this side of the House can ever condone apartheid, much less the Group Areas Act, but there are certain troublesome aspects which we hope will be cleared up during the course of these debates.

According to a President’s Council report, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture requested that the Slums Act, for example, be abolished and that the Slums Bill be submitted in this House as an own affair. That is troublesome, because it is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party. It is in conflict with the principles of everyone who is sitting there, but according to the President’s Council this was stated in black on white.

That is not true!

Consideration was to be given to the Slums Act. The hon member was not present at the standing committee meeting. The hon members who were there will know. When one takes a good look at the report, one sees at the end that seven parties were consulted, including the Administration: House of Representatives. When I asked who had given the green light, it was said that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture had given the green light for that legislation to be submitted here. That is in conflict with the principles of the Labour Party as I know them.

That is not true!

It is true, as the hon member very well knows. The Director-General, Mr Van Blommenstein, said so in his presence. Or is the hon member deaf? [Interjections.]

When one takes a good look at that piece of legislation, one sees at the bottom of the last page that the Administration of this House was consulted and that they agreed that the Slums Bill be submitted and the old Slums Act be abolished. Act 76 of 1979 is going to be abolished on the request of the Administration of this House. Who is in control of the Administration? The Ministers’ Council is in control. Does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council have knowledge of this? Does he have knowledge of the evidence given by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture before the President’s Council that he was in favour of the Slums Bill being submitted here? Surely that signifies support of the Group Areas Act, which the hon leader said so nicely this morning we were opposed to.

We are opposed to it, but that hon Minister owes this House an explanation, because surely that signifies support of the Group Areas Act and support of apartheid, which we have just said we came here to fight. It is important for this House to know why that hon member requested that that apartheid legislation be dragged in here. It is a pity that the hon the Minister is not present here, but he owes this House an explanation.

There are hon members who go to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for land in terms of the Group Areas Act. There are members of the Labour Party who go to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for land in terms of the Group Areas Act. Ostensibly the Act must be abolished, but when people want to make money out of it, they go to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] That is the truth! I shall mention names if hon members want to hear names.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he means that he will not go to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and ask for more land for his area to accommodate his people?

There is a difference between going to the Minister and asking for more land to accommodate one’s people and going to the Minister to ask for land one can develop and profit by.

And on a Sunday!

And on a Sunday, on top of it! That is the difference. Everyone is bound by the Group Areas Act to ask for more land. We all know that. However, when one does not ask on behalf of a constituency because one does not have one, it makes a difference.

*We also want to hear that explanation in this House. That is why we opposed the matter. We did so so that honesty could be reinstated in this House and so that this House, which is objecting to this legislation, will be consistent at all times. That is why we opposed it.

Until such time as the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture can explain to this House why he agreed to the abolition of the Slums Act and the submission of the Slums Bill here as an own affair, we shall never be satisfied with the explanation that we are all opposed to this Group Areas Act. On the surface it appears that certain members of that party are not opposed to the legislation to such an extent, and that they have been swallowed up by the system.

They have already moved away.

No, they still have some backbone. There are still many of them. [Interjections.] I am pleased the hon member for Klipspruit West spoke about the nine, because they will have a chance to defend themselves today. I am not talking on their behalf. I am talking on behalf of those who broke away previously.

[Inaudible.]

I have ten minutes in which to speak. We on this side of the House demand an explanation from the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

Why do you not explain outside Parliament why you are talking down this motion?

I shall explain. I have been allotted ten minutes, and it is my democratic right to speak.

[Inaudible.]

You are responsible for this state of affairs. The hon the Leader of the House must not blame me. Had he consulted with us in the first place, the problem would not have arisen. [Interjections.] Now the hon the Leader wants to turn around and blame me. He must cast aside his own sins first, and not malign me. The LP owes this House an explanation, just as the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture owes each of us an explanation. He must explain why he supports this apartheid legislation.

Chris Heunis is fond of you.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was fond of that hon member until Sunday, when he did not go along to lunch. Now the hon member is no longer fond of him. I wonder who would have paid for the food in any case.

Hon members on that side of the House talked behind closed doors. We talk in public, because we are not ashamed to do so. If we have to talk down something, we shall do so. Why do hon members on that side of the House not vote about the Bills under discussion? Why are they using these tactics to delay the proceedings? We want them to spell this out to us.

You are too much of a blockhead.

The hon the Leader of the House taught me to be a blockhead. Sometimes he is one himself.

Order! Hon members must please not make personal remarks. The hon member may proceed.

All of us experience problems with the Group Areas Act. Hon members are aware of that. The negotiations that took place behind closed doors appear to have certain deficiencies, now that they have been made public. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Leader of the House for providing me with the opportunity to partake in the debate this morning and to air a few important matters.

You have nothing to air.

I do have something to air that may surprise the hon member.

The question I want to ask hon members of the LP is where do they think their leadership is taking them as a party by boycotting? [Interjections.] They will hear it again. The hon member for Matroosfontein was perfectly correct yesterday when he accused the LP and its leadership of refusing to vote because they do not want to be seen in the same bed as the CP, as they are also opposed to those Bills. It will be a peculiar thing to see the LP in public as bedfellows of the CP. There is a far more sinister implication to the LP’s decision to boycott instead of voting against the legislation. They say they are opposed to the legislation, but the only acceptable way to express that is to vote against it. They walked into this institution to accept the rules.

He is your master, yes.

No, not my master.

†I freed myself from dictatorship. I stand here as a person who expresses his own personal point of view. I identify myself with people who share the same views, as I share the hon member for Border’s views now, in demanding from those hon members an explanation for this action here this morning, the lack of consultation, and I shall prove to hon members that this is typical of LP leadership not to consult, in spite of the fact that they accuse other people of doing the same thing. Two wrongs never make a right.

The LP leadership is leading this party to a position where, using this approach, they hope to see the destruction of the parliamentary system as such. I wish to warn against this, because Parliament is the only instrument whereby effective change may be achieved, not only in society, not only politically and socially, but also in the evolution of the parliamentary system itself, as it needs to be adapted in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the danger.

There is another implication of this and the signs of it are there. I know that CP members have congratulated members of the LP, saying they should carry on with the good work. “Gaan voort met die goeie werk, mense,” is what they said. The hon members of the LP are playing into their hands, because they say things. [Interjections.] This is not what I say; it is public knowledge. The Press has made a great point of this, namely that the LP has the hon the State President in a corner where the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives dictates strategy. [Interjections.] This is not I saying so; it is the media. [Interjections.]

This attempt at making it possible for the CP to take over is an old strategy that has never worked. Those of us who remember the years around 1948 and the Unity Movement will recall that it was said that the Nats should be allowed to come into power, and liberation would be around the corner. Hon members know how many years have gone by. It is a strategy which failed miserably.

Allan Boesak said in the United States not so long ago that if one let the CP come into power, liberation would be around the corner. Now I see the LP is moving in that direction as well.

[Inaudible.]

What! [Interjections.] I am speaking right now; listen to me.

This is the line which the LP leadership has adopted and I am afraid it is leading the hon members of this House along the same road. It is significant that out of well over 60 hon members—I do not know what the LP’s number is exactly; it is decreasing slightly, and probably will continue do so—only a few people were permitted to express that party’s point of view. Look at the speakers’ list of the past two days for the joint debate. Where were the rest of that party? [Interjections.]

I wish to say that the hon members of the LP will find themselves outside Parliament sooner than they expect, if they follow the current leadership of the party.

Mr Chairman, that hon member keeps on repeating himself. He has done so three times now.

Order! The hon member was quoting certain points, but not in the same context. Each time he used a different argument. I am listening to him.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

†The accusation has been made across the floor by the hon member for Rietvlei that we will not be coming back to Parliament. This morning at 07h30 one of his own constituents telephoned me …

One.

Well, half a dozen people cannot telephone one person all at once, can they? One person telephoned at 07h30 this morning saying that she was sitting there in Maitland Garden Village with an eviction order. She asked me whether I could do something …

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Rietvlei wants to say something, he must rise and do so in the proper manner. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Rietvlei wants to put a question, he must address the Chair so that he can be given an opportunity to do so. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rietvlei invited me to go with him to this particular area to assist the people there … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask the hon member whether he was a member of the LP when he went to Garden Village with me? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order; it is a question.

Mr Chairman, I was a member of the LP. [Interjections.] What is important is that I tried to assist Mr Ross to integrate this corner called Maitland Garden Village—which is part of the Maitland/Kensington complex—into his constituency. However, this morning the person said to me: “Mr Ebrahim, I am sitting here. I have an eviction order. I tried to get hold of Mr Ross. He said he would call a meeting.” It took me two minutes to solve the problem. The woman could go and pay her rent and she could enter into an agreement to stay on. The eviction order has been squashed. [Interjections.]

I should like to draw the attention of the hon member for Wentworth to that point. His attitude is that MPs should not be overly concerned with every little eviction that takes place in any corner of their constituencies. However, taking up issues concerning the people is the very gist of constituency representation.

When last were you in Walvis Bay?

I shall come back to that hon member later. [Interjections.]

Order! I must appeal to hon members. I have a major problem because I have not been provided with proper speakers’ lists. The lists are changed at will and I want to appeal to all hon members to help me. I have not received a complete list, and the hon member now wants to give me a speakers’ list on which I must make a decision. [Interjections.] The LP has a list … [Interjections.] Order! Hon members know that we only have one hour in which to dispose of this debate.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to waste the time of my own debate. However, the hon member for Southern Cape is repeatedly insulting this Chamber by referring to members by their names. This is not parliamentary. He should know from which constituencies members come and he should have the courtesy to address them in the proper manner. If he does not know, there is a list in front of him on which he can see where members are sitting.

Order! The hon member for Southern Cape may continue.

Mr Chairman, I take the point raised by the hon the Leader of the House and I will in future refer to the hon member for Rietvlei. I do not know how that will not identify him. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I still have to make a further point of order.

Order! The hon the Leader of the House can do so at a later stage because the time of the hon member for Southern Cape has now expired.

Mr Chairman, you must permit me to raise my point of order because the hon member is insulting the hon member for Rietvlei even further.

Order! What did the hon member for Southern Cape say?

Mr Chairman, I said I take the point raised by the Leader of the House and I will in future refer to the particular member as the hon member for Rietvlei. I do not know how that will conceal his identity.

Order! Does that satisfy the hon the Leader of the House?

Mr Chairman, I shall react to that again.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With reference to what are you saying that the time of the hon member for Southern Cape has expired?

Order! Does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not know that the Standing Rules and Orders have been amended and that, since 10 minutes ago, new times are applicable? [Interjections.] Order! The new Standing Rules and Orders … [Interjections.] Order! Hon members must come to order.

The hon the Chief Whip must provide me with a speakers’ list on which the turns to speak have been indicated. I received a speakers’ list from the hon member for Bishop Lavis, but the time allocated to hon members was not indicated on that list. I received a list from the hon the Chief Whip on which the time of the hon the Leader of the House was indicated. However, I have not received anything from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as yet. That is why I requested the hon member for Macassar to ask the hon member for Durban Suburbs to provide me with a list. [Interjections.] Order! If there is no list, I cannot call upon anyone to speak.

May I address you on this matter of the speakers’ list, Sir?

Order! I have a speakers’ list in front of me.

Mr Chairman, you do not have the LP’s speakers’ list yet.

Order! The hon the Chief Whip gave me a list, and I gave it back to him. [Interjections.] Order! I now call upon the hon member for Macassar to speak.

Mr Chairman, I find it unacceptable to postpone this legislation to 1 November, as the hon member for Border put it.

I cannot see why we should waste so much time. Already 14 days, for which the taxpayer has to pay, have been wasted and I find it unacceptable to postpone this once again to 1 November. I think the time has come for every hon member to decide exactly where he stands, and for us to group ourselves and decide which direction we want to take. We could have used the time that we have wasted during the past few weeks to deal with the problems in education, since according to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture,

2 000 teachers are under threat of being dismissed because there are not sufficient funds to pay them.

We could also have discussed other problem areas, such as the serious unemployment problem, but instead we have been making use of delaying tactics. I find that unacceptable. I think it is a question of saying where one stands and that is it. It is a question of saying yes or no. [Interjections.] Or is it true that there are certain areas that have to be proclaimed first, as the hon member for Border said? I am sick and tired of Nicodemuses who creep closer at night and then want to put their case. They must rather make their appearance during the day …

Order! What does the hon member mean by those words?

Mr Chairman, I am referring to people who do not want to be seen or associated with people during the day. [Interjections.] What I am saying by implication is that I speak to a Minister in public, so that everyone can see what I am doing. I do not go and see him after church on a Sunday morning.

It is the prayer of thousands of people outside this House that this House will help solve their problems. I find it striking that there were a number of long faces the other day when the hon member for Southern Cape referred to an enquiry made by the LP which had brought certain facts to light. No one has disputed that fact in this House as yet. I am referring to an hon member who has just left the LP, someone who has come with fresh information—it is like warm bread out of the oven. As yet no one has denied that there are people who are opposed to the Group Areas Act and do not want their areas to be thrown open. [Interjections.]

When we talk about these problems, I want hon members on the opposite side to tell us how many permits they have approved during the past four years. I want to state unequivocally—and the hon the Minister of the Budget is my witness—that the first time I received a letter explaining that all of a sudden I had to grant permission for the approval of a permit was when we met in the Strand on 16 November. I went to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and asked what direction we were going to take. [Interjections.] I was told to hang on a little while. I submitted a letter in which I set out my standpoint and I can assure hon members that since becoming a member of Parliament in 1984, I have never approved or rejected a permit.

My reply remained consistent. I did not bring about the Group Areas Act and that is why I am not interested. I want us to discuss this matter, however. Next year I am going to table a question in terms of which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must submit a list to us of each of the hon members as they are sitting here, to indicate how many permits they have approved, how many they have rejected and how many they have requested. It was made very clear to us the other day that the constant excuse is that there is no room for our own people, and that is why permits are not approved.

I can tell hon members that I have no problems with what are now called free settlement areas. We have five Whites, nine Blacks and one Indian living with us in Macassar. Not one of them came to Macassar as a result of a permit. [Interjections.] When people apply to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture … [Interjections.] … it is that department which deals with the permits and they are the ones who reject applications. I have always said that I am not interested in permits. I ensure that people come and live there. [Interjections.] Tell me then how many are living in Kleinskool, if the hon member wants to talk about the whole of Macassar. I think Macassar has a better record than Kleinskool does. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think there is a right-thinking person in the whole of South Africa who will ever raise his hand to vote in favour of the Group Areas Act. The whole concept of group areas which has been with us for the past 40 years cannot simply be thrown overboard overnight, however. I request that someone else do this, and I do not want to help him to do it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is anticipating the discussion of the Group Areas Act. It is on the Order Paper and will be discussed later today. The hon member is not discussing what is on our Order Paper.

The hon member is quite correct. The hon member for Esselen Park cannot discuss the Group Areas Act as such, but must confine himself to the draft resolution as it appears on the Order Paper.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. In that case I merely want to tell the hon member for Swartland that he must not be afraid of the truth. I watched him carefully while the other speakers were speaking. Those stalwart labourers of the lean years have always been disciplined …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must go and have a look at his constituency up there. He is going to lose it.

Let us think about matters soberly for a change and let us begin to lead our people. Let us try not to nominate women in Dysselsdorp if we ourselves are going to be candidates. [Interjections.] That is correct, Sir, I am going to sit.

Mr Chairman, once again on a point of order: That hon member is not discussing the motion before us.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We can jump up 10 times, but we cannot escape the truth. We can be out of order 18 times, but truth is going to be the victor on 26 October. Avis will have to bring cars “to come and talk on the crests” once again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will have to help me. Is the hon member giving his reasons as to why the decision on the Bills must be postponed? Give us those reasons.

This motion, as put to this House, requires leadership not only at the top, but also on local government level.

You have nothing to say, man!

Mr Chairman, I am pleased I have nothing to say, because I still have a constituency where I know I am going to stand for election once again as soon as this Labour Party walks out. [Interjections.] I do not appease people.

Order!

Yes, I have a constituency because …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Addo knows, because there are heads over there that must roll. There are heads that must roll. That is why they are clinging so.

I do not know the Labour Party as it is today. I really do not!

Order! The hon member is letting his time run out.

I am pleased about that. The time can expire as long as the truth comes to the fore.

I attended a congress yesterday and I want to mention that … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please give the hon member for Esselen Park an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to tell hon members what happened at Assomac’s meeting yesterday. A member got up because a letter from the hon the State President had been delivered …

Order! Will the hon member please forget about Assomac and state his reasons?

This is applicable here, because people say we want to dismantle apartheid. That hon member then said that we should walk to Tuynhuys this morning, and when I looked around some of the hon Labour Party members were ducking. I conclude by proposing that hon members walk out of Parliament this morning and I request that an election be called. [Interjections.] That is correct, the hon nominated members must come along too.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon the Leader of the House deliberately tried to misrepresent the reasons why the Official Opposition yesterday objected to his unopposed motion which is on the Order Paper today. The fact of the matter is that the hon Leader of this House did not see fit to consult with the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. That is basically the reason why the Official Opposition objected to that unopposed motion of the hon Leader of this House.

In fact, if the hon Leader of the House’s memory serves him right, he will recall our warning on a previous occasion that we would oppose a motion if he put an unopposed motion without having consulted with the Official Opposition first. He is well aware of that, but yesterday he tried to slip in this motion, thinking that there are a lot of fools on the side of the opposition and hoping that the motion would go through.

The fact of the matter is that although we share that hon Leader of the House’s repugnance of apartheid laws, particularly the Group Areas Act and the race population provisions in the Population Registration Act, it is not the reason for our objection to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.]

The LP objected yesterday and said the rules which are applied in this Parliament are the White man’s rules. They called them White men’s rules. They want to break the rules willy-nilly. It is a tradition and a convention in parliamentary politics and in the parliamentary system that the majority party consults with the opposition about unopposed motions. That is a convention which has been set. Hon members on the other side of the House want to abide by the rules when it suits them and also break these rules when it suits them. What kind of an attitude is that?

It is unfortunate that the hon member for Mamre is not here. He was a former prominent rugby administrator. I want to ask him, by virtue of the fact that the rules of rugby were drawn up by Whites over many years and decades, whether he will encourage people in the SA Rugby Federation to break those rules simply because they were made by White people, former oppressors from the British colonies and colonial government. The same principle applies in this case. One should be logical throughout, because if that is the case, we will have to break all rules which do not suit us. [Interjections.] This is what arrogance does and how people become when they think that they cannot be ousted at the polls. They are living in a fool’s paradise—the fact that the LP actually won some by-elections is not an indication of the people’s support for the LP. It is definitely not an indication!

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I want to tell the hon member for Addo that a shock is waiting for them in the Eastern Province as far as management committee elections are concerned. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will not see his own seat again.

A couple of weeks ago an area in the constituency of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, namely Kleinskool, was proclaimed a Coloured area. How was this area proclaimed Coloured? It was done in consultation with the northern areas management committees of Port Elizabeth which are fully LP-controlled.

That is not true!

Sir, if the hon member for Haarlem wants to contradict me, I suggest he requests that his name be put on the list of speakers.

The fact of the matter is that one of the members of the northern areas management committee gave evidence before the Group Areas Board on behalf of that committee in support of the declaration of Kleinskool as a Coloured area against the wishes of the inhabitants of that area. The people living there are a mixed group—Black husbands with Coloured wives and vice versa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Schauderville is not telling the truth. I want to refresh his memory about what he did when he was vice-chairman of the LP.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

Those are the facts of the situation. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, Administration: House of Representatives, concurred in this decision to have Kleinskool declared a Coloured area. The LP wants to promote the Group Areas Act behind the scenes, but in public they posture to the international community as if they are against this Act. Hon members will remember that one of the reasons we left the LP was the LP’s sympathetic attitude towards the Group Areas Act. In one caucus meeting the hon member for Wentworth defended the Group Areas Act. Hon members will recall that if they are honest. That hon member fiercely defended the application of the Group Areas Act as far as the city of Durban’s Coloured areas were concerned.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member for Swartland has a point of order he must raise it with the Chairman.

The Local Affairs Committee of Durban which was controlled by the LP—the LP was in the majority—rejected a permit application from a so-called Indian South African who originally was a Coloured person. [Interjections.] The hon member for Wentworth defended that decision. [Interjections.]

Order! Please come to the motion and tell the House why you want this. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the fact is that if one looks at the motion of the hon the Leader of this House one will find that it reads:

If hon members know the Constitution they will realise that once Friday has passed, the hon State President will be empowered to issue a notice in the Government Gazette that the House reconvene within 14 days to consider the question on those Bills. [Interjections.] That is what the Constitution provides. [Interjections.]

We know that!

The hon members know that. Who are they then trying to fool? The fact of the matter is that after Friday 14 days will elapse. Those hon members will not turn up in Cape Town for that part of the session in order to consider the question on the Order Paper, and those Bills will be referred to the President’s Council. Why do those hon members not have the courage of their conviction to stay here and vote against the Bills? [Interjections.] I believe that is the honourable thing to do. [Interjections.] What are they trying to do? [interjections.] That hon member had better go to Haarlem himself, Sir.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Addo should not interject in that manner.

Who are they trying to fool, Sir? The fact is that the hon the State President will issue a notice on Friday …

We know that!

That hon member knows that because they have come here with a motion which they wish to present as unopposed, expectin g the Official Opposition not to object to that motion, after those hon members have discussed tactics concerning their attitude in their caucus, and they expect us to follow willy-nilly. [Interjections.] That is the reason for our objection. It is not that we are not opposed to the Group Areas Act or that we do not share the repugnance and moral indignation of those hon members at all apartheid laws. [Interjections.] I share that. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the House knows that. He knows what my attitude regarding the apartheid laws is.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Leader of the House says he does not know. Yet, at times in this House he actually thanked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for having brought us here. I can quote him from Hansard … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to state that we reject this motion which the LP has put on the Order Paper. I am not going to support it. There was not even—as the hon member for Schauderville said—the decency to arrange it with us. It was just a matter of getting up here and arranging it. [Interjections.]

The whole thing behind this was again a matter of trying to avoid having to vote on Friday. They have the right, they can decide to vote. Nobody is going to stop them. They can vote for or against these Bills. [Interjections.] Of course all of a sudden a motion must be made in order that there is a valid excuse for them not to come back here to vote. Nothing is stopping them, as I said, from carrying on with it.

People are under the impression that I do not understand. I am sure the hon member who says I do not understand does not understand, because it is just as difficult for him to be sitting there trying to say something. [Interjections.]

I think it is about time that the LP accepts one thing—that the LP is trying to dodge their responsibility.

Ag shame!

Yes, ag shame!

The shame is on you! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this morning it was so sad when it was mentioned here again today that the LP had asked for group areas. [Interjections.] It was stated this morning and yet they are very quiet and nobody said anything when the hon member for Schauderville brought up Kleinskool.

Furthermore, the hon members’ argument was that they were against group areas—which is their prerogative and their right—yet they turn around and condemn it and in the meantime they are asking for it. This evening we heard another demand for group areas. I want those hon members to tell me what they actually mean.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member the very question I asked him this morning and that is whether his head is too thick to absorb that he has been living in a residential area for 53 years and he has to get proclamation …

Order! Will the hon member please start his question again? [Interjections.]

Will the hon member refuse proclamation for his area, where he has been living for 53 years, or will he tell them that he does not want it and he wants an open area or a grey area—of which he does not even know the meaning?

Order! Are those the exact words used by the hon member the first time?

Let him try again.

Order! Were those the hon member’s exact words before I asked him to repeat the question?

They were more or less the same words …

Order! No, I do not believe the hon member. He must tell me the truth so that we can understand one another. I did not hear what he said the first time. We shall have to see what Hansard says.

I would very much like to answer his question. Is it possible for him to try again?

Order! What did the hon member say now?

I should like to reply to the hon member’s question, but I shall give him another opportunity to put his question.

I am going to say it the way I said it the first time …

Order! No, no, no!

All right, then I shall say it in a new way. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat. The hon member for Bishop Lavis may proceed. [Interjections.]

Something that hurt me deeply this week was that the integrity of the hon the leader of the LP, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House, was called into question today and yesterday.

What about your integrity? [Interjections.]

The integrity of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House, and whether or not he had kept his word, was questioned in public. Today we have been caught up in words about his honesty. Never, as far as I can remember in the 19 years during which I have been a member of the LP, was the word of the hon the leader of that party questioned to the extent that his integrity was also questioned. For a party that for 21 years …

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

I like replying to questions. Ask away.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Southern Free State must please lower his voice.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Bishop Lavis the following question. This morning he heard a long explanation and we even quoted from encyclopedias to explain what it was all about. Now he comes to this Chamber this evening and gives the impression that he only believes what a White man says—is that his intellect that we are dealing with this evening … ?

Order! The hon member has put his question.

No, Mr Chairman, I have another question.

Order! No, the hon member must reply first and then the hon member can put a further question.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that was not a question.

Order! Very well, the hon member may proceed.

I must say it is a pity that the integrity of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House was questioned in public.

It is a pity that you are denigrating him so!

I did not denigrate him! That hon member must listen to what I say. [Interjections.] I merely said it was a pity that this was the first time I can remember in 20 years that the integrity of the hon the leader of the Labour Party was impugned in such a way. This never happened in that fine and wonderful party. It is a pity and that is why, when these things happened, when M D Arendse was also accused of certain things …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This hon member’s speech does not have reference to the motion. He is talking about the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House, the hon the leader of the LP. He must come back to the motion under discussion.

Order! Will the hon member please proceed?

That is why I am referring to this again. We talk about a certain thing. The hon member comes back and once again sets the whole Parliamentary process in motion. [Time expired.]

Order! The hon member for Schauderville has asked me whether he could announce or state something.

Mr Chairman, our fundamental objection to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House was one of lack of consultation. However, we are assured that the Official Opposition believes that the point has been made and we therefore withdraw our objection to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by saying that I express my gratitude to the hon member for Schauderville. It is not always possible to consult but I believe that that is obviously the best means of communication. It is the best means of achieving the kind of results that one wants to achieve in this Chamber.

It would be discourteous of me if I did not answer the members that took part in this debate. But before I do so I want to state quite emphatically that it is a privilege to have been associated with this leader of the LP. I do so with great pride. I believe that he is a true son of South Africa. I believe that he will play a great role in shaping the destiny of South Africa. If, as the hon member for Bishop Lavis tried to indicate to this House, his honour and dignity have been questioned by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I want to say, while there have been attempts to do so, that it has come to my notice—I want to believe that it came through quite clearly in the debate—that the honour and integrity of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was really at stake.

By the production of the document I think we conclusively proved that there had been no agreement to vote. [Interjections.] I want to state further that it has come to my notice that after that agreement had been circularised to the Press, it was withdrawn from certain people and was torn up and replaced.

The excuse used was that there was a typing error. However, I am not going to debate that issue. I leave that to the conscience and the intelligence of hon members of this House.

The basic objection of the hon member for Border was the question of not being consulted. I have apologised for that and I say quite openly that there was no chance to consult them. When I stood up I thought on my feet in the interests of this House of which I am the leader.

I am not afraid to vote against the Group Areas Act, and I cannot believe that anybody in this House is afraid to do so, except for the hon member for Southern Cape who openly said—he stands accused by all people of colour—that he was in favour of the Group Areas Act. I have now said that there was a misunderstanding and if my language is not good enough for people to understand, I apologise for that.

The hon member for Southern Cape was the next hon member of this House who took part in the debate, and instead of confining himself to the motion under discussion he went on to a wild attack, with his flowery language, on the leadership of this party. I am not going to defend them. I think I have made it quite clear where I stand with the leadership of this party. Fortunately I am part of that leadership and it is continuously under review.

Unfortunately for the hon member for Southern Cape he tried to get into this leadership. He tried to oust me, but confidence is the deciding factor. Confidence determines these matters and will not judge one by one’s academic achievements. Confidence judges one by one’s involvement in the social, economic and political upliftment of people. [Interjections.]

I also want to thank the hon member for Macassar who took part in this debate. He basically expressed the same objection with regard to the question of consultation which I have already touched on.

Unfortunately I cannot reply to the hon member for Esselen Park. He spoke about Avis and I really do not have a brief for Avis. [Interjections.] I cannot advertise Avis here, but I thank the hon member for his interest in the debate and his contribution.

The hon member for Schauderville explained this and I do not think it has to be pursued any further. I thank him for his contribution.

It is with regret that one also has to reply to the hon member for Bishop Lavis. He tried to talk about the consultation and thereafter he tried to waste the time of this House. I do not know what he was trying to say when he said that this party was in favour of group areas. He referred to Kleinskool, although I do not think that he knows what happened there. [Interjections.]

I am not an expert on the issue, but allow me to try to explain. This side of the House requested that Kleinskool be upgraded and that the people who originally inhabited it be allowed to reoccupy the place. If that is asking for group areas, I do not apologise for requesting that people who had been there for years be allowed to live there peacefully.

I want to come closer to home and speak about Noordgesig. I am not advertising my age. It is common knowledge that I am 57 years old. I was a baby of three or four years old when the people in Vrededorp—I mentioned it in the joint chamber today—were put out of their houses. They were herded out and were left to the mercy of the church.

They were housed in a tent in Eleventh Street, Vrededorp. I remember that as clearly as if it happened yesterday. Those people were sent to Noordgesig, or Skoongesig as it was known originally. Those people have been living there since the late 1930s. Up to today—I believe that all of us in this Chamber are advocating home ownership—those people cannot own a house. Why, if those houses are to be sold, can they not own them, after having lived there for more than 50 years and after they have paid for those homes over and again? The hon member has the audacity to call that group areas. If those are group areas then I ask for group areas.

Group areas are not my doing. While South Africa is not open to my people, while all of us experience the overcrowding and the long waitin g lists in our areas, are we going to stand by and say: Wait until tomorrow comes because tomorrow holds freedom? It is not evil, it is not wrong to ask for a group area out of necessity. The basic principle of the objection is that we do not enjoy the right to choose where we want to live and with whom we want to associate. Let me conclude on this note by saying that we are not avoiding going to vote. In the strongest terms, we want to show our objection to that which is discriminatory.

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

In doing so, I want to take this opportunity to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister, in the light of the opposition that has emerged from the widest section of the South African population in respect of this particular legislation, to consider not proceeding with this legislation, and to give all of us who are participating within the system the opportunity to come back and reach real consensus in this particular regard. The impression and perception that is being created is that regardless of what we may have to say, regardless of our opposition, whether we vote against it or not, it is still going to go through in the form in which it is printed, even in the amended form. This is not going to do anybody any good. In fact, it is going to undermine participation politics. This is why I say that the object of our asking that this legislation be dealt with on 1 November 1988, is to afford the hon the Minister and the others the opportunity to come together to try and resolve this—not on the basis that we represent respective constituencies and that we can put in an objection just for the sake of an objection, but rather on the basis that we find common ground in this particular regard.

I do not want to exasperate hon members by going on about the argument which took place yesterday in the joint session with regard to certain undertakings and the question of moralities, etc. I find myself in a rather awkward position over here, awkward in the sense that we who constitute the majority in this House, are being asked to play the role of an opposition. This is exactly what the position is. That in itself is an immoral situation! It is immoral in the sense that if we are considered to be the majority in this House, we should be recognised as such, but such recognition is not forthcoming.

I do not want to prolong the impasse that has been reached on this particular issue. I could go on and on about this subject, but much has already been said in this particular regard in the joint debate. However, I wish to make a plea to the hon the Minister: Now that we have proposed a resolution that this matter be discussed and disposed of on 1 November 1988, we again, in all sincerity and in all earnestness, want to afford the hon the Minister an opportunity to reconsider these issues in view of the massive opposition that he has encountered in the Chamber, especially from people of colour who are directly affected by this.

I would like to suggest that the hon the Minister take this seriously. It is not intended to create any confrontation, as some people would like to believe. On the contrary, it is intended to make people come together and find common ground. With these words, I would like to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to reconsider the issue.

Mr Chairman, in the first place, we have followed the sequence of events with regard to the introduction of these pieces of legislation, and it is understandable that these pieces of legislation are acknowledged far and wide as being objectionable and unacceptable. They do not fit in within the ambit of the present day, age and era. Therefore, on the basis of negotiation, we must be able collectively to find the solution. This solution can only be found within the framework of the legislature, and through the changing of the hearts and minds of those who are responsible.

Going back—and I say this with all due respect— to the events, it has been recorded that there had been a continuing negotiation between the various parties and my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, in finding a solution to this very sensitive impasse. This particular resolution presented before this House, is equally questionable. Hon members talk about principles, but this resolution was not discussed with this party. Irrespective of party affiliations, courtesy demands that this resolution should have been discussed with us.

On 26 September, when we arrived in Cape Town, my party leadership, under the chairmanship of the hon member for Laudium, was called to the joint caucus of the PPSA and Solidarity. They expressed their views with regard to their new stance. We accepted, taking into consideration the sensitivity of this legislation …

It is ugly; not just sensitive.

We accepted it in good faith. Thereafter we were called in again, because it appeared that the proposition made was probably not constitutional and had to be reconsidered. Again, out of wisdom and deep consideration, we accepted the proposal that was made collectively by both parties. I want to point out that that very afternoon we were again urgently called in, together with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leaders of the PPSA and the Labour Party, in order to reach further consensus. Here again, this further consensus entailed that we join hands on a completely different stance. In one day there were decisions and indecisions. [Interjections.]

Nobody compelled you.

Order! The hon the Minister must be afforded th opportunity to make his speech.

I appreciate the feelings of the hon member for Isipingo, Mr Chairman. I agree that nobody compelled us. However, common courtesy demands that when there is a request from different parties to get together on vital issues of this nature, then naturally we must be able to consider …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether common courtesy is more important than principle.

Mr Chairman, common courtesy is equally as important as principle. In any event, in the absence of common courtesy we will not be able to effect principles as expected.

Where is principle in this House?

The principle of racial domination!

Where is your party?

Do not bring the other people in. Talk about us.

You are supporting racialism.

Yes. [Interjections.] What racialism are you supporting?

Order! I want to appeal to the hon member for Mariannhill to contain himself.

Mr Chairman, on Monday evening, when there was a further request to accommodate the parties on a new stance, the hon member for Reservoir Hills came to us. He said that if he stood up and moved that everybody should walk out, then we should follow him. I did not reject it.

I did not speak to you at all before that.

In the House.

In the House.

The hon member spoke to us outside. We have accepted that we were trapped in this situation, not having sufficient time to consult each other. One must understand that all of us have constituents behind us and we are answerable to them. However, the fact is that the National Peoples Party, regardless of the circumstances in which we found ourselves, accepted, partially at least, the suggestions made by both the PPSA and Solidarity, together with the PFP, to walk out.

However, this has left my party in disarray. What did we do next? We did not play party politics. At the same time, it must not be construed that we are a part of the National Party. It must not be construed that way. We have been labelled as being part of the National Party. That is not true.

I must say that the members of my party rose to the occasion and requested an immediate meetin g that night. [Interjections.] The decision taken was that we should call upon the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who was responsible as the principal negotiator, to give us absolute clarity as to what had transpired.

What transpires is that they will make it illegal … [Interjections.]

My colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning came along to our caucus meeting yesterday and we made it very clear that there was no question of any favouritism, that there was no question of being in connivance with any particular political party or movements, but that we wanted to establish the actual truth as to what prevailed. [Interjections.] I say this with respect because I do not want to be embarrassed and neither do I want to see the hon members of my party embarrassed. What is more, I would not be happy to see anyone embarrassed, irrespective of his affiliation. We are part and parcel of one another.

I have here the written report which my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has placed on our Table, outlining the factual position regarding what transpired. Amongst other things, he says:

Having gone through this report, we were satisfied that there had been a change of heart in the interim which was not in accordance with the arrangements made.

Here again I say with all due respect that the integrity of certain hon members also became questionable because this was a question of honour, a question of an agreement or understanding. However, when one reneges on these things, one’s actions become questionable. Then any further action must be justifiable. In this instance I am satisfied …

That we were misled!

… that it is by virtue of certain circumstances that we find ourselves in a different position. Here again, if a decision has been taken in conjunction with the leaders of various parties and there is an acceptance with regard to the disposal of all these Bills, and there is then a reversal, it is natural that we should have reached the point where we are not in agreement.

I also want to make something very clear with regard to the draft resolution moved by the hon member for Stanger to the effect that this matter be deferred until 1 November. I want to know, although it is not mentioned, whether this has anything to do with the forthcoming elections. Let us be very honest about this. No right-minded individual within the non-White community in South Africa will be a participant or will in any way support any measures contained in this legislation. [Interjections.] It is a question of principle that we are discussing here. The very fact that there has been an agreement relating to the disposal of …

What about the principle of a Minister not telling lies in Parliament? [Interjections.]

On this basis, the very fact … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made certain statements in the joint sitting. I am not prepared to dispute those statements which related to a meetin g in his office in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. I led the call on Monday asking people to leave the Chamber and I did so in pursuance of a joint meeting of three political parties. I had agreed with the decision taken at that meeting at which unfortunately I myself could not be present.

I am completely unrepentant as to the call that I made yesterday, and I will tell the House why. These Bills were supposed to be referred back to standing committees. There was no promise that there would be substantial amendments but there was a hint, a wink and a suggestion that there might be amendments. However, no reasonable amendments were forthcoming. More important, on Monday morning the hon the State President told us all about the virtues of consensus and about not forcing matters through the President’s Council. If there is a genuine desire not to push matters through the President’s Council then it is perfectly proper to defer voting so as to give everyone concerned a reasonable opportunity to go back, reconsider and discuss among themselves …

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

Mr Chairman, I have no time for questions because my time is very limited. Those are the reasons. The hon the State President himself was very persuasive on Monday morning when he talked about the need for consensus. A need for consensus does not involve steamrollering …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Reservoir Hills pre-empting the desires of the hon the State President that these Bills will go to the President’s Council?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member obviously does not even know the meaning of the word “pre-empting”. I want to deal with the so-called aspirant leader. He is not the acting leader but the man who obviously wants to become the leader of the NPP. [Interjections.] He talks about principle but what is the main principle? The main principle in life is decency in human conduct and this Bill is indecent. The Group Areas Amendment Bill is indecent and we want to make it as difficult as possible for the Government to enact that in legislation. We do not want to make it easy for them. The National Peoples Party or the National Party’s People obviously want to make it as easy as possible for the Government to push this Bill through the President’s Council. Everybody knows that the President’s Council is on standby. We are not prepared to be part of that machine.

I am not blaming the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I know what his problems are, but he must know that we regard this Bill with complete and utter disgust. We absolutely and positively hate what he wants to do. [Interjections.] He must be very careful and he must not make it possible for us to hate his people who want to do this thing to our people. When I speak with emotion I feel the emotion and the hon the Minister must understand that.

Unfortunately he has satellites. He has people to whom he went and spoke yesterday morning and within half an hour he turned them around. Good luck to him. He has the charm and the ability … [Interjections.] I have said before that he never tells a lie, but he is “baie, baie slim”. He can dribble a political ball so fast that he takes it to the goal post without anybody even seeing the ball. That is obviously what happened to the NPP people yesterday. [Interjections.]

The Group Areas Amendment Bill is so demoniacal that some of its provisions are absolutely maniacal. They distort the fundamental virtues of civilised conduct. Whether one is a Christian, a Hindu or a Moslem, when somebody comes to visit one and he is homeless, one is supposed to take him in and give him succour. If I, a member of the Indian group, take a White person, a Black person or a Coloured person into my home and keep him there for more than three months I will be committing a criminal offence. If this Bill is made law, my property will be liable to virtual confiscation. That is a hallmark of barbarism and in that respect this Group Areas Amendment Bill is absolutely barbaric. It is savage and this Government wants to introduce that kind of utter barbarism, assisted by their satellites in the NPP. We, however, are not prepared to have anything of that kind.

I want to say something else. People talk about honour in politics and they talk about morality. What morality is there when this House passes a resolution on 20 May 1988 and the hon the State President and his advisers, by misinterpreting the Constitution, use force majeur on other members in order to get that resolution vitiated. What kind of morality is that? What kind of morality is it when a leader of the House of Assembly, by prostituting the Rules, tries to make group areas—which is a general affair—into an own affair? What kind of morality is that? Is that the kind of morality that the people of the NP want to uphold and support?

What kind of morality is it when a Minister of State who is appointed by the hon the State President and therefore carries out the duties of the hon the State President in an indirect form— because the State President is the executive head of the entire nation and every Minister is a functionary of the State President—tells lies, not once, but twice to this House and yet the hon the State President retains that man as a Minister. What morality is there then in Government and what honesty is there in Government and what integrity is there in Government? And that is the Government of which these people, these hon members here, are supporters. [Interjections.]

We are more honourable than you are!

That is why the people in Pretoria took that hon member to court and proved that he had behaved dishonourably. He behaved so dishonourably that the Supreme Court made an order but the Pretoria City Council will be saddled with the costs. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I sincerely hope that, whatever the outcome of the proceedings of today and of the next few days, we shall be able to debate in a calm atmosphere. I believe that is important even if we disagree to the hilt. I gained the impression yesterday that everyone lost their cool and then instead of addressing the problem that we were confronted by, conducted a witchhunt which I think is unnecessary.

I want the hon the Minister to hear this; I make this statement categorically. After he had spoken we gave him a categorical assurance that we would do what he requested of us, and let us not argue about that. I think big men should have the guts and the gumption to honour a commitment, to honour the undertaking we gave in this respect, and we cannot deny it. [Interjections.] We must not deny a commitment that we have made. [Interjections.]

Let me express very clearly what I want to say: I do not want to stand up here and say that we did not agree with the proposals put forward by the hon the Minister. There is no question about that. Yesterday the hon the Minister referred to me by name and I want to admit that these were things he said to us and we agreed that we would participate. However, having said that, certain developments—some of the matters referred to by the speakers—have caused us to take another look and to change our stance. However, there is a message in that, and I want to get that message across to him. Why would people who are members of Parliament and who have been here for four years and have co-operated in passing many pieces of legislation today, adopt this stance? I think it is up to him to ask himself the question, “Why are my friends doing this?”

We search and we find. That is a challenge and in that challenge, there is an opportunity. The answer simply is that many pieces of legislation are passed in this House in far less time than people have set for themselves because we agree on those things. However, there are also many pieces of legislation—in particular the legislation which we are looking at—which are sensitive and which we detest. Therefore, to present that legislation to a standing committee and expect us to come up with some answers or amendments which will make it acceptable, is an impossibility.

The message is that the standing committees can deal with certain pieces of legislation, maybe the majority of legislation, but there is other sensitive legislation where even before a draft of the legislation is made, leaders of all the parties should come together around the table and address the problem and how to resolve it in such a manner that we can get the largest measure of support from all the parties and avoid the kind of impasse that we now find ourselves in. [Interjections.]

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that it takes a big man to do what I am asking him to do. However, I believe that he has the capacity to do that. What we ought to do, in the light of the hon member Mr Poovalingam’s reference to the hon the State President’s message, is to defer for the present all the legislation that is before us. Let us meet one another with open hearts and open minds. I submit that the extent of the success that will result, will probably surprise everyone.

I make the reservation that on the Group Areas Act we have made a commitment to our people never to support any amendment which tightens the screw.

Hear, hear!

That is what we want. I want to be honest with you.

As far as the other pieces of legislation are concerned I think of men like Mr Tom Mboya who pleaded before the standing committee. Are you going to let them down? What we are trying to do—in dealing with this impasse—is to remind the hon the Minister of the greater responsibilities that he has to other people who are entering the process of participation. Help them to help us. Nobody is a winner and nobody is a loser. We shall all win if the hon the Minister takes this as a message and says to us: I accept your challenge. Let us come together to find answers in a different climate at a future date.

Mr Chairman, I want to make it absolutely clear that at no time did the NPP agree to any of these pieces of legislation. In our debates in the Joint Sitting this side of the House also objected to the legislation. We did not say that we were going to support any particular measure. Just as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said that he cannot support any form of legislation which tightens up amends the Group Areas Act, we will never support such legislation. [Interjections.]

We talk about unanimity. Why are we having this debate? There is no unanimity. We were accused yesterday of being the NP’s people. However, we have the same situation prevailing in this House. Because the NPP refuses to toe the line for the so-called alliance, we are labelled as the NP’s people. That is not fair. The alliance is doing in this Chamber exactly what the NP is doing in the House of Assembly. They are dictating to us because of our unfortunate circumstances. [Interjections.]

You had supper with them.

The NPP met with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning yesterday. As a political party we can have supper with him. Who is the alliance to prescribe to the NPP whom we should meet with and whom not? It is our prerogative to meet with the hon the Minister and discuss certain issues.

I do not think we should explain what has transpired in our caucus to anybody. [Interjections.] As a political party we must stand firm and defend ourselves. [Interjections.] We talk about an alliance. For once in this particular House we tried—from the side of the NPP we did so with all sincerity—to work with the rest of the alliance.

We shall continue trying.

We demonstrated that very effectively on 26 September. What we wanted when we extended our hand was for the alliance to take us and embrace us. However, they used us as a political football, and for that the NPP will never forgive them.

We are talking about that particular alliance, that strange marriage between Solidarity and the PPSA. We on this side are frustrated, because at this particular moment they have the numbers. Let us look at that alliance that they have. I issued a warning when the alliance was formed that Solidarity should be aware of its bedfellows because of the Aids it was going to get. The PPSA is a political party that fell pregnant in the corridors of Parliament and it gave birth in the corridors of Parliament. It had absolutely no mandate from the electorate outside. [Interjections. ] It fell pregnant in the corridors of Parliament, and it gave birth in these corridors. [Interjections.] Because that child did not have a name, they married Solidarity for convenience. [Interjections.] They married Solidarity to give that child a name.

You are a nominated member.

[Inaudible.]

I do not want to respond to interjections from the hon the Leader of the House, but that is the situation in this particular House. However, let there be no misunderstanding: What they have not foreseen is the determination of this side of the House to succeed. We say equally that we are totally opposed to the Free Settlement Areas Bill. We opposed that Bill that came up for discussion yesterday with regard to local government in free settlement areas. Today we are going to oppose the Group Areas Amendment Bill. However, the manner in which we do it must not be prescribed by anybody else, because we are not going to toe the line for anybody. We shall do it in the way we deem fit, whether we see the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or the hon the State President.

Nobody objected to that. [Interjections.]

We will decide whom we will see. [Interjections.] It would appear that the hon members on the opposition benches … [Interjections.] All the NPP is doing is honouring a commitment of our leadership, and we believe, even though some members … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, let me say this. When one loses the respect of other people, it is bad enough. When a man loses his self-respect, however, he has nothing left. I should like to address this principle to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He will get an opportunity today to get rid of his hatred and his venom for my people or …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The hon member for Lenasia East, Mr F M Khan, said in an interjection that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had no self-respect.

Order! Did the hon member for Lenasia East say that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had no selfrespect?

I did not say that, Mr Chairman.

Order! I shall accept that. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I also want to address this issue to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. There are different ways in which people can convey messages. There are different ways in which people can convey their deepest feelings, but nothing can ever detract from what people of honour do.

Christian principles?

Sir, that includes the truth as well. The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that he wanted to honour the commitment. There is only one way in which a commitment can be honoured, and that is by carrying it out. I can see what the hon member for Reservoir Hills is trying to do. He is trying to cloud the issue that is before the House by dealing with the substance of the Bills, which is not relevant now. By doing so, he suggests that certain hon members of this House are, in fact, collaborating in the acceptance of the Bill. This is not true. [Interjections.] Do hon members know what is sad? I do not like saying this, but he confirmed the agreement to dispose of the Bills. He said this. He was there.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of personal explanation: I chose my words very carefully. I deny that I confirmed it. I said I did not dispute it. There is a big difference between the two.

Listen to this! The hon member says he did not dispute it. He says there is a big difference between confirming and not disputing. Maybe he can explain the difference to me some day, but let us forget the subterfuge. I want to come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to talk to him, and to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

I say the non-acceptance of this motion is a breach of faith—maybe not to the hon the member for Reservoir Hills. I accept that, because our codes of honour apparently differ. I say it is a breach of faith. I say it is a breach of honour. I say it is a breach of an agreement between honourable men. If hon members are able to live with this, they must never talk to me about democracy again. They must never talk to me about the rules that we apply in democratic institutions. I do not seek any praise. I need not be lauded, but have spent my life trying to eradicate—and if I could not, at least diminish—racism.

I have devoted my life, at personal sacrifice among my own people, to bringing other people—not my own people—into the institutions of democracy. It may not have been the way that they wanted it to be, but no-one can deny the truth of this statement.

What was the agreement? Nothing more and nothing less than that the House of Assembly would withdraw the Bills and reintroduce them, and that they would be disposed of during this week. I resent the insinuations that I did not give hon members across the floor the facts. Let it be known this morning that there is no misunderstanding as to what the basis of that agreement was. Is that not true? The hon member says yes. Well, if that is true, and hon members are not prepared to abide by that truth, how on earth do they think that we can accept the word of hon members of this House in future? How can I, in future, convey messages of agreement and then find myself in the position that the very parties to those agreements are dishonouring their own agreements?

I am not speaking to hon members because of myself, but because of them. I am speaking for the people out there who look up to us to interpret their feelings and convey the messages in their hearts here, but above all, to honour the rules of the game. No, nothing can be done; nobody can do anything if people go back on their word. There is, strangely enough, no written rule against this.

What did the House of Assembly do with the rules?

They acted within the rules.

Is that possible?

Sir, I did not interrupt the hon member, and he can show the same courtesy to me. There is nothing that anybody can do if people renege on their word. However, by doing so, the unwritten laws have been broken. The unwritten laws are more important than the written ones. I want to appeal to hon members not to put themselves in that position. Disposing of the Bills does not imply subscribing to the Bills. It was never part of the agreement—never. There are no quislings. There are no satellites. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have just heard the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning deliver his speech. I am not going to say much owing to the time constraint, but I do want to participate in some of the discussions that took place. First of all, I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has made it clear that there was an agreement, and he is not denying that an agreement existed.

He is an honourable man. [Interjections.]

He is honourable insofar as that is concerned. I am not going to go into the statements he has made.

I just want to repeat what the hon member for Central Rand said, and I want to make it very clear that we took part in the joint discussions with the other two parties to the alliance at their invitation, when they told us that this was the position. When we had further talks with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning we subsequently agreed, and the message was then relayed to the hon the Minister, that we would participate in the debate and dispose of the Bills.

After that, when we had further talks with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, the whole picture changed once again. I mention this for the information of those hon members on the opposite side of the House—especially the hon member for Springfield, who is looking directly at me— who may not be aware of the sequence of events. Then it was changed once again, for the second time, in that we were going to defer the voting after we had held further talks with the three leaders and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives. We were thrown into a dilemma. Every minute there was a further change.

Then, all of a sudden, this resolution was brought before this House without our being consulted at all. The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture has said that. We feel that we should also be given the opportunity to make our own decision. [Interjections.] We were prepared to negotiate with the alliance. We are prepared to talk to them, but not in the manner in which this matter has been conducted.

I want to make it clear once again—and I repeat what the hon member for Lenasia Central has said—that we do not support the Bills. Let me make this very clear. At no time did we on this side of the House say that we would lend our support to the Bills. We shall not support them, but the manner in which we are going to dispose of the Bills is our own prerogative and no one must prescribe to us how we should do that. They should not dictate whether or not we are going to vote and whether we are going to do this or that. We do not need any advice from the other side of the House, after they have misinformed and misled us. I want to make this very, very clear.

That is all I want to contribute due to the time constraint upon me. With those words I just want to clarify the position of this side of the House.