Mr Speaker, the intention behind the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act was to deal with an urgent socio-economic problem. It is a social problem because it concerns the social existence of people—in this instance of people who are squatters.

Families live in squatter shacks and children actually grow up in them. There are parts of our country in which entire communities live in shelters made of corrugated iron and plastic. Hundreds of thousands of South Africans try to survive in such squatter conditions. We cannot ignore this problem.

The social implications of increasing squatting are such that we cannot allow this phenomenon to go unchecked. We cannot stand idly by while a large percentage of our population continues to live under these conditions.

The phenomenon of squatting has an economic aspect as well. People live as squatters because they have no choice or else because they cannot afford better housing. I do not believe that anyone would freely choose to live with his family in plastic huts on sand-dunes, in coalyards or wherever else they may find themselves.

However, people are prepared to live in squatter communities, particularly around the metropoles, because this gives them a better chance of finding employment opportunities within the urban areas. Squatting is therefore another product of urbanisation, and should consequently be addressed as part of the urbanisation process.

So squatting is a multidimensional socio-economic problem, and it should be addressed in a multidisciplinary fashion. The Government’s point of departure is therefore that this problem can be solved only if a comprehensive approach is adopted.

A positive strategy for orderly urbanisation and the population development programme are part of the answer. At the same time a strategy for regional development is of crucial importance, together with effective statutory measures.

This amending Bill is part of that comprehensive approach. Provision is made for measures to control squatting more effectively and thereby prevent an unmanageable situation from developing. The maintenance of order is a prerequisite for the satisfactory management of the phenomenon. The upliftment of people has always demanded conditions of order.

Together with the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, legislation such as the Slums Act, the Physical Planning Act, the Housing Act and township establishment ordinances are all measures in terms of which urbanisation is regulated.

†The advancement, within the constraints of affordability, of property rights and homeownership for the members of all communities is a central tenet of Government policy. In principle the provision of housing is the responsibility of the individual, the employer and others in the private sector. The Government assumes responsibility only for those who cannot provide for themselves.

In its programme of assistance the principle of self-help is being promoted. This entails the provision of serviced stands upon which the breadwinner can build his or her own home, while loans for building materials are provided.

The Bill introduces a new concept. For the first time in the history of our country, informal housing is being given legal recognition. At the same time it creates a process by which informal housing can eventually lead to full ownership.

The Government also assists with the provision and upgrading of infrastructure, ie water reticulation, sanitation and other services. Considerable progress has already been made in the provision of infrastructure, serviced stands and upgrading programmes. During the 1987-88 financial year an amount of R820,7 million was provided by the National Housing Fund, the SA Housing Trust and others.

The development of towns and the provision of services cannot, however, always keep pace with the urgent needs which arise due to a high population growth and the migration of people. This situation leads to the occurrence of squatting.

Squatting is usually managed as part of the normal development of urban areas. For example, in the case of Motherwell, an area of 2 300 hectares was utilised to alleviate the pressure on existing urban areas in Port Elizabeth.

Another example is the development of Khayelitsha here in the Western Cape. Khayelitsha is an excellent example of the sincerity of the Government’s desire to solve the squatting problem and address the urbanisation needs of all South Africans on a reasonable basis. This is an enormous project which also innovatively provides for less privileged people.

However, certain church leaders and foreign visitors choose to ignore this because it suits them not to acknowledge it.

The Government will do everything possible to address the needs of South Africans finding themselves in squatter conditions. They will be allowed to reside in temporary transit areas while suitable areas for permanent settlement are developed. Regulations for the administration, maintenance and health services of the temporary areas can be promulgated. Land can also be designated for the establishment of informal towns. These areas are planned in such a way that they can be upgraded and eventually proclaimed fully fledged towns or incorporated in existing towns.

However, if a particular squatting problem cannot be solved in any other way, the people involved will necessarily have to be resettled in areas which can later be upgraded into viable towns. With this purpose in mind a considerable number of squatter communities have been resettled voluntarily and successfully. For example, 3 600 squatters were resettled on suitable land in Daveyton and 46 000 persons transferred from Langa and Kabah to KwaNobuhle. I have already referred to the progress made in Motherwell and in Khayelitsha.

Squatter communities have a need not only for housing, but also for services and infrastructure of a physical and social nature. This entails not only funds, but also adequate land for township development.

Yesterday I referred to the high priority given to the identification of suitable land and to the fact that processes were being evolved to expedite the identification of land. The phenomenon of squatting must be dealt with as part of the comprehensive strategy of orderly urbanisation. When the problems of urbanisation in South Africa are analysed in general, it becomes clear that the challenges of accelerated urbanisation can be met only with creative thinking and utilisation of the available initiative and resources of the private sector.

Urbanisation is not only a national challenge, but also presents a national opportunity because communities and the country as a whole could derive great benefits from it. The interaction between people and their activities creates new markets for products and services. The concentration of people in urban communities gives rise to more employment opportunities and implies advantages of scale for markets and services. Thus existing infrastructure, that is transport and other services, can be fully utilised.

The process of urbanisation must, however, be managed in such a way that the resultant advantages are distributed across the country as a whole. At the same time the pressure on the few metropolitan areas must be alleviated in order not to overburden the existing resources and opportunities.

The Regional Development Programme is an important mechanism whereby the process of urbanisation can be managed and balanced development stimulated. We have to view regional development and urbanisation as the two sides of a coin, as both processes have a direct influence of the development of our country and nation.

The policy of planned urbanisation therefore not only involves urbanisation in the existing metropolitan areas, but also includes rural areas which have the potential to develop into new metropolitan areas or the metropoles of the next century.

One of the main aims of regional industrial development is to encourage economic activities in the different development regions with the goal of accomplishing self-generated growth.

This is also the aim of planned urbanisation in the regional context. Therefore regional development and urbanisation in areas away from the present metropolitan areas are mutually supportin g initiatives.

It remains the Government’s point of departure that a more balanced distribution of economic and social development is necessary, not only geographically, but also socially. The provision of employment in the rural areas is reducing the necessity for breadwinners to migrate to the present metropolitan areas. This is a situation that is of great benefit to the maintenance of healthy family life.

*It is clear that the squatting phenomenon can be addressed only in a multidisciplinary way. Dealing with the problem involves more than humanitarian action and support. It also involves dealing with the problematic situation of development in our country as a whole.

The interests of individuals and groups must be taken into account. Both the needs of the squatter communities and the interests of the established communities must receive attention. This demands a balancing of interests, needs and resources, as well as vigorous action and collective involvement. The amending Bill thus gives recognition to a fundamental aspect of the problem of squatting.

Squatter settlements are merely the outward manifestation of the real problem. The problem is not the structures of corrugated iron and plastic, and neither is it the fact that those structures are unsightly. It is, as I have indicated already, a socio-economic phenomenon. It is a social problem and a community problem. The final solution therefore lies in the upliftment of the squatter communities and in the involvement of the wider urban community in that action.

The established urban community must play a role. The residents of a town or city must become involved in dealing with the problem through their community organisations and local authorities. The way in which the phenomenon of squatting is dealt with and the degree of success achieved will determine the future character of their town or city, and will influence the quality of life of the whole urban community. In accordance with the policy of devolution the Bill therefore makes provision for a greater role to be played and more responsibility to be shouldered by local communities and local authorities.

We cannot escape the problematic situation of development in our country. For the sake of the future we must take steps to address constitutional, economic and social challenges. Sometimes it is hard for us to take those steps, but if we do not, we will be neglecting our duty.

In applying legal measures when development initiatives are being taken, however, we must never forget that we are dealing with human beings. They are people with needs, fears and ideals. We must never forget that laws and strategies are there to serve a country and its people. This Bill is intended to relieve people’s needs and to protect people’s interests.

Mr Speaker, I want to start by posing a question. What is the Government doing about the more than 5 million people in South Africa who are homeless and the more than one million who do not have proper shelter?

Homelessness is arguably the most serious problem in South Africa at this time, and our Government is proposing to increase the punishment of people for being homeless. It is proposing to make even more people homeless by evicting them from their present homes on the farms or in the wrong group areas. It is proposing to deal with the problem, in the first place, by breaking down houses and, in the second place, by removing people from where they are without providing any other place for them to live. Thirdly, the Government proposes to deal with the problem by reintroducing influx control with increased severity.

The squatter is homeless, landless and hopeless. Most of the squatters are law-abiding citizens and they squat simply because they have nowhere to go. Approximately 82% of land belongs to the White people who form 20% of the population of South Africa. Eighteen percent of the land belongs to the non-Whites who comprise 80% of the population of South Africa.

Where is the justification? It is God’s creation, not a human being’s, and we are all children of God. I do not support squatting in any form, but strongly support the fact that accommodation be found for the squatters, however modest. Shelter, food and clothing are the basic requirements of a human being. The squatter is there, not out of defying the law; he is there because he has no alternative. All that the State can do, is to provide basic amenities, water and sanitary facilities. Squatting is a major problem in most Third World countries, and the RSA is no exception.

Before removing squatters, suitable land should be identified and self-help schemes should be encouraged. Let us not criminalize squatters; let us rather help them. The new Slums Bill and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill give latitude to the hon the Minister to exercise his power, to override local authorities and to impose taxes on the residents to pay for the hon the Minister’s discretionary powers.

The homeless are also voiceless. As I said earlier, there are approximately 5 million homeless. The passing of these laws will be more critical in South Africa. The many events which have made headline news these past weeks, the crisis of homelessness in this country, will not be resolved by legislation which seeks to destroy homes and punish people for living in them, but by some form of reform which will allow them to build themselves homes wherein they can live securely and in privacy with their families.

Order! Hon members should please not converse so loudly.

People’s present accommodation must not be destroyed and they themselves must not be removed by force, unless a better and acceptable alternative is available. When labourers are evicted from the farm where they are employed, they look for a place where they can take their extended families and livestock—a farm near their homeland, with access to grazing and ploughing. This is because their particular backgrounds are in agriculture and cattle farming, they have no cash and knowledge of the language which are essential for city life.

It reminds me of an incident where a Black man was squatting in a White area, and somehow the Department of Community Development came to know about this and sent a man to investigate. When the officer in question asked the Black man why he was squatting in the White area, he said that he had nowhere to go with his children and family. He said that he was not wanted anywhere. After a heated argument on the issue the officer in charge said, “Well, go to hell”. The Black man said that that was where he had come from because there was a notice which said “Whites only”!

It is also a fact that squatters squat near the city because they work in the city, and where they lived previously. They have to take two-way transport to reach their working place and pay any increased fare. By living in the city they hope to avoid the transport costs. People are allowed to live on White farms as they provide labour to plough the land, to attend to cattle and maintain the farm. There is often an increase in the family because their children get married and they have to extend their homes to provide accommodation for the married children who are working away from the farm.

A committee is to be established in terms of the proposed new section 6(5)(e) of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act in terms of this Bill. An officer of that administration is then sent to make a report. If he finds that the land is occupied by such persons not employed on the farm, he directs the owner or the legal occupier of the farm to eject such persons. Those persons then have no alternative but to go out and squat. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have almost reached the end of this short parliamentary session. Many have bitten the dust during this session and many will never be the same again.

The constitutional dispensation of the NP lies shattered. Its credibility has been dealt a serious blow during this session. The NP has been knocked out on its feet by this joint meeting and on 26 October, in the municipal elections, the CP will deal the final knock-down blow. [Interjections.]

The NP’s problem—we saw it during these debates—is that it is trying to sit on two stools. Its constitutional partners are abandoning it, and the Afrikaner people have already abandoned it. It also became obvious during this session that the unity of the NP was very shaky. The conflicting accents in the NP which emerged during these debates were clear to everyone. [Interjections.]

The CP says clearly that if this is consensus politics, we want nothing to do with it. Opposed to this we offer each people a full right to self-determination and the right to govern itself. Even though it may happen that the other Houses and some hon members differ with us, there is one thing they need not differ over, and that is that they will always be able to rely on the word of the CP, because they will always know where they stand with us. [Interjections.]

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

I am doing that, Mr Speaker.

The debate today on the Prevention of Unlawful Squatting Amendment Bill demonstrates that the Government’s so-called policy of orderly urbanisation has failed. Orderly urbanisation and the abolition of influx control measures are one of the cornerstones of the Government’s reform policy.

Let us in this connection also consider a Press statement which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning issued on 23 April 1986, and which dealt with orderly urbanisation and squatting. I shall quote what the hon the Minister said:

We ask the Government and the hon the Minister expressly why, then, it is today necessary to come forward with legislation on the prevention of unlawful squatting if everyone can move freely wherever they like within the boundaries of the country. Surely this Bill does not make provision for everyone to be able to move wherever they like. In fact, control must now be exercised in terms of the Bill as to where people may move to, and wish to move to.

In his Press statement the hon the Minister went on to say:

Now the squatters are saying, in terms of the policy proclaimed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, that they want to make a living and reside where they are able to find work. What else does the fact that the Government today recognises the necessity for this legislation mean, but that the Government is in reality saying that the 1986 standpoint is a standpoint which can no longer be maintained?

In addition the hon the Minister said the following in the same Press statement:

The hon the Minister then rejected the standpoint that squatter camps would mushroom overnight. This is a standpoint which the hon the Minister adopted in April 1986. The hon the Minister appealed to a standpoint of the President’s Council that when people were allowed to move wherever they liked, urbanisation in South Africa would only increase from 17% to 23%. The hon the Minister then said the following:

If the country is, or was able, to handle the situation to which the hon the Minister referred, why is it necessary today for us to have legislation on unlawful squatting before us? There is only one reply, and it is that the NP realised that the CP standpoint on squatting could result in the NP being hurt so badly that it could sustain serious damage during the municipal elections. That is why the NP did everything in its power to have this Bill passed before the municipal elections.

Without success!

If I may now make an addition to this Press statement of the hon the Minister, I want to quote from a document from his own department, namely Reform and the Future, A Collection Compiled by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. In it the hon the Minister said the following:

He also understands this to mean reform—

The hon the Minister also said, and I should like to place special emphasis on these words:

I noticed that the hon the Minister was nodding his head while I was quoting that he had said that change and reform could escalate into uprisings and revolution.

Is is not in fact this party, the NP, which levels the accusation at the CP that its policy of partition is giving rise to revolution? I have an advertisement which appeared in the Kempton Express of 14 September 1988, in which the following was written: “Stem vir partisie en kry ’n revolusie”. Now the hon the Minister, in this Press statement relating to squatting, is saying that reform and change could give rise to revolution. Just look how the NP is contradicting itself.

Let us consider the squatter situation in South Africa for a moment. On 7 September 1987, in reply to a question from the hon member for Overvaal, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said during question time in the House of Assembly that a total number of Black squatters in the Republic on 30 June 1987 was 1 310 813. I am quoting this figure from col 781 of Questions and Replies in Hansard of the House of Assembly.

That was more than a year ago. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to inform us in his reply what the increase in the number of squatters has been since 30 June 1987, since the time it was said that the number at that juncture was 1 310 813. The speaker before me spoke about 5 million squatters. The Urban Foundation—consequently it is not propaganda which is being proclaimed by CP sources—talks about more than 7 million squatters in South Africa.

It is significant that when the old NP, of which I also had the privilege of being a member, came to power in 1948, it was faced with the same squatter conditions that exist in South Africa at present. What did the NP do at the time? Three years after it came into power in 1948 the present Prevention of Unlawful Squatting Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1951. The old NP realised that it could not carry on with these squatter conditions in South Africa. Today, after influx control measures were lifted in 1986—the hon the Minister cannot deny this—squatting has increased by leaps and bounds. Squatter camps are proliferatin g in South Africa.

There is not one constituency … [Interjections.] I want to make this statement; there is not one constituency which can say that it does not have a squatter problem. Even in the constituency of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning we are faced with squatting. [Interjections.] Does the Government—this new NP—not realise what it is actually dealing with—that it is sporadically convertin g the whole of South Africa into a squatter camp? This squatter situation in South Africa was caused by the abolition of influx control measures on 30 June 1986. [Interjections.]

At the same time the Government adopted a standpoint—this is a standpoint they may now perhaps laugh at, but they cannot deny it—that NP policy no longer entails forced removals. If the NP and the Government is in earnest with this new Prevention of Unlawful Squatting Amendment Bill, we are asking it now whether it is going to revise its policy of no forced removals, because these two things cannot exist side by side. The Government cannot, on the one hand, tell the voters that the Government has a policy of no forced removals, and on the other hand come forward with legislation on squatting and then want to relocate the squatters.

When, against this background, we consider the separate clauses of this Bill we say there are a few important reasons why the CP cannot support this Bill, and I want to refer in particular to clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 provides that a squatter camp may become a transit area—the old emergency camps—and if it becomes a transit area it may, in terms of clause 10, be upgraded into a residential area—a residential area in which squatters can acquire ownership of sites.

With reference to clauses 9 and 10 in the Bill, as we have it before us at present, cold logic tells us that the result will be that only squatting conditions of a smaller magnitude will be cleared up by the Government. Only when we are dealing with a few squatters—10,15, or 20 or perhaps a small group of 50—will action be taken against squatters, but when we are dealing with a large number of squatters … I see the hon member for Turffontein is shaking his head, but he must come and deny it. He must come and deny it! [Interjections.]

Let us use only one example of an area situated in my constituency, namely the Weiler’s Farm squatter camp, in which 10 000 squatters are resident on one farm. [Interjections.] Is it the standpoint of the Government that they are going to apply this legislation in such a way that they are going to relocate the squatters on Weiler’s Farm, where 10 000 squatters are resident on one farm? Surely they cannot relocate those people, because if they do they are going back in their own tracks, and their own tracks tell them that they will have no forced removals in South Africa.

You lot want to drive them into the sea!

I am not surprised at the fact that the Government’s credibility has been so seriously jeopardised during this debate, because we say that their credibility in regard to the application of this Act is also in jeopardy. We want to see where they are going to relocate squatters, and we want to bet this Government that they will not do it because their policy is one of no removals, and they have already stated this in public.

There is a second reason why the CP cannot support this legislation. It is that squatting, as I have already indicated previously, will in fact be encouraged even further by this Bill because the larger the number of squatters, and the larger the number of squatters becomes, the stronger the possibility that they will not be relocated, because the more their numbers grow in a specific area, the better their chance of becoming a transit area in terms of clause 9.

Once they have become a transit area in terms of section 9, then their chances are better and stronger of becoming a designated area in terms of section 10, and once they are a designated area they can be upgraded into a residential area.

We therefore have the following situation, which the hon the Deputy Minister also knows about. I am referring once again to the Weiler’s Farm squatter camp with its 10 000 squatters. Of course those people will now be entitled—surely the hon the Deputy Minister will not deny it—to become a transit area in terms of section 9. Once they have become a transit area in terms of section 9, then they will qualify to be upgraded into a residential area. That, we say, is in conflict with recognised town planning principles, because then the squatter determines what areas will be zoned as residential areas and on what sites they can possess the right of ownership.

Tell us how the CP will deal with the problem.

We say therefore that although the Bill seeks to control and combat squatting, it will in fact encourage squatting, because squatter camps are rewarded by being allowed to become recognised residential areas and squatters are rewarded by being allowed to acquire the right to own those sites. We say that this is not the way to control squatting; on the contrary, one is encouraging it. We have become accustomed to this too, however, which is that the NP says one thing and does another, and that is why the voters will reject it in future.

Mr Speaker, when I was listening to the hon member for Losberg, he reminded me of the words of Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland: “Speak roughly to your little boy, and beat him when he sneezes.” I am sorry, Sir, but the CP still dwells in the past.

†Mr Speaker, we have just seen the face of a section of the South African community that is still clinging to the past, totally oblivious as to where this country should really be heading—a group of people who shudder at any attempt to inject sanity into this country and who seem to believe that to allow people to live as people is an act of betrayal of South Africa and the White people. How in Heaven’s name does one explain to such persons that their own greed is not in the interests of this country or the survival of orderly government? How does one explain to the CP that their own survival as persons depends solely on whether others have a fair chance to survive as well?

*How does one explain to them that one cannot chase people from pillar to post?

†In this vein it might be opportune to remind the Government and members of the governing party of this truism. While the hon the Deputy Minister used sweet-sounding words this morning in his opening speech, which is a fair contrast to what he did when he opened the same debate in the House of Assembly recently, he cannot hide the harsh and inhuman aspects of this Bill in front of us. In the past four days we believe and hope that White South Africans have had a frank exposure to the deep-seated feelings within the Black community about those laws that were in front of us, and that in our view discriminate most against us.

I have no doubt that today we shall have the same again, for once again we have before this House today a Bill which, by and large, is seen as an attack on the Black homeless majority. While it might be so that there is no direct reference to Blacks in the Bill, the fact is that when one speaks about squatters in South Africa, one speaks about Black people in general. The figures relatin g to resettlement and other programmes presented by the hon the Deputy Minister earlier today are but the tip of the iceberg. One speaks about people who for years were restricted by law—laws largely made by the NP—from the normal process of urbanisation and who are now openly and in increasing numbers exercising that birthright.

I speak of people who, in spite of the influx control laws, have led a clandestine existence within the townships for years. At great risk, they were driven by basic economics to cohabit in overcrowded township dwellings. They did not suddenly descend on the highly industrialised areas as a result of the scrapping of influx control. In this regard I want to differ with my colleague, the hon member for Losberg. I hope he will find it in his heart to allow me to address him as a colleague.

Research findings by the Urban Foundation have shown that 68% of the informal housing settlers have lived and worked in South Africa’s industrial heartland, the PWV area, for five years and longer. They also showed that 71% of those settlers had moved to their shacks before 1968 when the influx control laws were scrapped. What is more, although 40% of the settlers were originally from the homelands or from rural areas, they urbanised in the 1950s, the 1960s and 1970s.

*It may be true that, according to the Transvaal Provincial Administration, there are at present no fewer than 1,2 million informal occupants of houses in that province. According to evidence given before the joint committee, it was found that 80% of informal occupants live in the PWV area where—this is important—they live for the most part in the back yards of houses in Black areas and not in the so-called White areas.

Strangely enough we were also told that most complaints emanated from areas situated outside the Black areas. One need only ask oneself how many of these complaints are encouraged by the CP and its fellow travellers. How many of these complaints are lodged by people who cannot and will not accept the realities of South Africa?

What is more, if most informal occupants find themselves within the framework of existing Black areas and areas earmarked for settlement as such, was the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning right when he agreed with the report of the President’s Council that there would not be a drastic increase of Black people in urban areas after influx control had been abolished?

Why do the hon the Minister, his Deputy Minister and the department now come to this House with a Bill which increases fines drastically for so-called illegal squatters if even the Transvaal Provincial Administration concedes that no fewer than 50% of its Black people cannot be provided with formal accommodation in the immediate future? Why is this Parliament honoured with such Draconian squatter legislation?

†Today the Government plans action not only against the informal settlers, but also against those farmers who see their way clear to house large numbers of Black settlers on their property. We must remember that not all of them are squatter-farmers. Whether they farm with Black squatters or not is not the important point. What is important, however, is why the necessary land was not given to the people so that they could live on it. Had the Government fulfilled its rightful role, it would not have been necessary. [Interjections.] After all, it is the Government’s responsibility to provide the necessary land for resettlement of these people who are helping to turn the wheels of South Africa’s industries.

We must also remember that this is the very government which restricted Black settlement in South Africa. If it is so that these people are being exploited, why then does the Government not provide the necessary land for resettlement?

*Are the hon the Minister and his department now trying to out-CP the CP? Are they trying to introduce a form of influx control by the back door? Why do they have to be so sanctimonious in the interests of Black people even if the large-scale resettlement of people, if they are living in the wrong place, means that people are being turned into criminals? The sole motive of these people is to provide their families with a roof over their heads after a difficult day in a South African factory.

The hon the Deputy Minister—he preached to us yesterday about agreements and dignity—participated in the debate in the House of Assembly on squatting on 22 August and said:

[Interjections.] He must also remember these words when he applies group areas legislation or does he have one set of rules for farmers and a different set for Coloured inhabitants who have been wronged by the effects of the Group Areas Act?

I want to come back to the legislation under discussion, however. Even the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut does not support the Government on this Bill. They are also seeking a different approach to the problem. It is my firm conviction that they also believe that a person should not make criminals of people who are merely looking for accommodation. Otherwise one should not announce sanctimoniously to the world that people may move and live wherever they wish.

I believe that the Urban Foundation is right in saying that the squatter problem is one of urban growth and its management, rather than of urbanisation and its control. I think that the legislation before us deals with the second aspect rather than the first.

†At present about 400 000 housing units are needed annually, and only 45 000 are produced in the formal sector. The informal housing sector—whether we like it or not—is here to stay.

The Urban Foundation also says that besides the PWV area there are a further 1,7 million squatters in the Durban area, 400 000 in Cape Town and 200 000 in Port Elizabeth—more than 7 million informal settlers in total, if the rural areas are included.

One cannot tell people that they may live and that they may work where they like, but deny them the basic right to occupy informal housing when and where no other housing is available.

For the past week my party has been constantly urged to support so-called positive legislation. If the Government were really serious about positive legislation it should have withdrawn clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill in front of us. Those measures should have been presented to this House as a separate Bill, because they deal with a totally different aspect than the punitive measures envisaged in the first part. Instead the Government insisted on a package which deals largely with punitive measures.

*I also wish to ask how the department is going to ensure that the various provinces apply the measures in a balanced way. The joint committee concerned learned in Pretoria how the various provinces differed in this respect, for instance the Cape Province from the Transvaal. Whereas the Transvaal Provincial Administration adopted a more humanitarian attitude, this was not the case in the Cape Province. In fact, a senior law adviser informed the committee that the Act should be applied very strictly.

What is more, we were told that, when this Administration submitted cases to the Attorney General in the past, he threw them out every time—or rather quite a number of times. His reaction was—these are important words—that these cases were not criminal law matters but rather social matters.

Today the hon the Deputy Minister started by referring to them as social matters but he tried to conceal the harsher punitive measures which they contain. An attempt is being made to punish people because they are poor. An attempt is being made to punish people because there is inadequate formal housing for them. This is very important. There is a desire to prescribe to people where they must live, whereas the Government has failed to make adequate land available for housing. Now we are holding out the prospect of prosecution to those who dare to look for a roof over their heads in the wrong place. In this way one is increasing the conflict potential which exists in the country. In this way one is endangering the lives of young men in the security forces. When danger erupts, they are the ones who have to clear up the mess while hon members sit on the soft seats in Parliament and try to pass ideological and vote-attracting laws. History will not forgive us for this.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Newholme dealt with and emphasised only what I would term the negative aspects of the Bill, and yet he pleaded for the opportunity for accommodation. He even used the word “modest” accommodation, but he failed to acknowledge that the Bill provides for exactly that.

The hon member for Diamant, who has just sat down, also emphasised the so-called harsh and inhumane measures, and yet he ignored the very solutions that are spelt out in the Bill. He never even referred to them. I will therefore do just that. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Losberg proved once again today that the CP is simply incapable of dealing rationally and realistically with the realities of South Africa. The hon member came here with a complaint about the thousands of squatters in South Africa. We acknowledge that very problem and that is why we have introduced this measure in Parliament in order to tackle the problem fairly.

The hon member referred to Weiler’s Farm a few moments ago. I want to ask the hon member whether he has perhaps visited Weiler’s Farm over the past few weeks since the province assumed control there. Has he taken the trouble to talk to the squatters who live there? I shall refer specifically to Weiler’s Farm again later.

We on this side of the House want to say that nobody can stem the process of urbanisation which has taken hold in South Africa. Where the lights twinkle, where there appears to be economic activity, where there appears to be a possibility of a job opportunity, that is where the people of South Africa are moving to. We know that the urbanisation process among the Whites, Asian and Coloured community has practically reached saturation point. Urbanisation among Black communities is still in full swing, however.

One should bear in mind that socio-economic and social need accompany urbanisation. Urbanisation even takes place within the context of national states. Urbanisation takes place toward rural growth points and country towns. It ultimately takes place to a greater extent towards our metropoles. In spite of efforts to bring about decentralisation, deconcentration, economic development of the national states and the TBVC countries, population planning activities and various other efforts, the trend to urbanisation remains a fact which has to be dealt with.

South Africa and its people set great store by the maintenance of civilised norms and standards, also as regards settlement patterns in South Africa. This measure is once again conclusive proof that the authorities are tackling a fundamental problem with the necessary determination.

One point must be made very clear, however, and that is that conventional housing for the masses is no longer economically possible and feasible. That is why the authorities have to tackle the problem in such a way that urbanisation is dealt within a responsible way and with a practical approach.

Today one can perhaps understand better than previously why the Riekert Committee, after the abolition of influx control, recommended that a person should be admitted to South Africa only if he had employment, a house or accommodation here. But the authorities accepted the problem as impracticable and rejected that proposal. In addition, evidence given before the joint committee indicates that the vast majority of squatters were already in metropolitan areas before the abolition of influx control.

One of the serious problems arising from this is once again the old story of conflicting interests which we have been hearing about all week. On the one hand there are the established rights and interests of the First World component, ie those of the landowners and established communities. In this regard I am not referring only to the White community, I am also referring to the Coloured and Asian communities, which have established rights and are landowners, especially the Indian communities in Natal.

On the other hand there is the essential living space and housing needs of the Third World component which have to be tackled.

The question is, and it is before this House now, how this problem of illegal squatting is accommodated or, if one wants to state it more euphemistically, the problem of informal settlement. One can call it anything but the problem remains the same.

Mere statutory action, without the speedy identification and provision of alternative space to settle, will in itself not solve the problem.

Last Friday I visited two squatters’ camps. I took the trouble of going with somebody to Weiler’s Farm and to a squatters’ camp called Vlakfontein near Weiler’s Farm. At Weiler’s Farm, which is already under the control and supervision of the provincial government of the Transvaal, I had the privilege of meeting the chairman of the community committee, a Mrs Olga Lutu. That woman is not a Government supporter; on the contrary, I think her politics are of the extreme left, but she showed a great deal of understanding when I submitted this particular piece of legislation to her and she said that they were quite prepared to co-operate with the Government if that was what the Bill entailed. She is doing just that.

I now ask the hon member for Losberg to accompany me. I shall pick him up and take him with me to that squatters’ camp so that he and I may talk to that woman and I can prove to him that a state of emergency exists among those people and that they wish to co-operate with the Government to bring about order.

There is still no control at Vlakfontein. There, too, I spoke to the chairman of the community committee, a Mr Jabulani Mkize. What do these people want? These people want a few things which I think this measure provides for. Firstly, they want their permanence recognised outside the context of the national states. It is widely known that the Government has already recognised this.

Secondly, these people want permanent accommodation. This is also being created by this measure because such a settlement is immediately identified as a temporary transit area.

Thirdly, and I consider this a fair request, they must not, if possible, be relocated, but if they are relocated, they wish to be as near as possible to the vicinity to which they are accustomed. This measure also provides for this. If the settlement fits in with a guide plan, they can be settled and properly upgraded as a designated area right there; otherwise designated areas will be created for them as near as possible to where those people are living.

I wish to state, and I say this with the conviction I found among those people, that there is no fundamental objection to the measure under discussion. There were a few administrative problems. Mrs Olga Lutu told me that certain things were being done about which they were unhappy. I am prepared to convey that message to the Government and to ask it to see whether we cannot solve those people’s administrative problems.

This measure will set the minds of thousands of people in South Africa at rest. People in squatter’s camps now have the prospect of site and service schemes in informal settlement with the possibility of upgrading. Further there is the possibility of property rights and permanence for people, something which they do not have at present. Space for people to settle in must be provided speedily and timeously. I want to make so bold as to congratulate the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, his hon Deputy Minister and all the governmental institutions on a splendid effort which will serve the interests of South Africa in the long term and to wish them every success. I want to state this emphatically. In my humble opinion, Weiler’s Farm will stand out as the greatest example of success which can possibly be achieved, not because the bulldozers were sent in there, but because we have the co-operation of the people who live there.

Unfortunately there are people who deliberately contravene the laws of the land regarding squatting.

There are squatter farmers and there is exploitation by landowners.

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

Sir, I do not wish to reply to questions. That hon member and I can go to Weiler’s Farm and talk there.

There are White and Indian people who exploit the need of people who do not have housing and abuse it to their own advantage and to their financial gain. This must be stopped. We cannot permit this in South Africa. However, we also want to see the Government applying and using these measures in cases in which persons deliberately occupy the property of other people.

There has been adequate opportunity for discussion and there was an in-depth discussion in the joint committee on the measure concerned. There has also been adequate explanation on the part of the officials, for which we are very grateful. There has also been evidence from institutions the joint committee itself decided upon, which were invited and which gave evidence before us. There has been adequate opportunity for discussions and for the consideration of amendments. We are satisfied that, if the measure is applied with caution, understanding and judgment and also correctly, it can achieve great success in solving a fundamental problem in South Africa. This is the reason why we on this side of the House support this very timeous and essential piece of legislation. We wish the Government every success with it.

Mr Chairman, we are sitting on a time bomb, because in another 25 years there will be more than 50 million Blacks in this country. It is a shame that all the CP can think of is the elections on 26 October.

The hon the Deputy Minister recognises the fact that we are faced with a socio-economic problem, but how does he propose we solve the problem? Travelling along the N2 to Cape Town, one is not even aware that there are thousands of shacks just on the other side of the sand dune, because the Government in its wisdom has made these sand dunes higher and higher so that people travelling along the N2 cannot see the misery on the other side of the dunes.

That is not true!

It is the truth and the hon Minister knows it. Because people are squatting near the road, and the Government, after being in power for 40 years, is ashamed to see how people, citizens of this country, are living under sheets of plastic, they have now come forward with legislation to move those poor people to God only knows where. This is a blood-andthunder policy to solve the problems of this country, but it is not going to work.

The poor people who live from hand to mouth in this country, the poor people who build and finance their own homes, are now being removed, their homes are being demolished and they are being turned into criminals. [Interjections.] Then that ignorant person must appear in court—the poor people we are talking about— and the onus rests on him and he must prove that he is not a squatter. The envisaged new section 1 (2) of the Act reads as follows:

1. (a) that he entered upon or into …
2. (b) that he remained on or in …

†Then the onus is on that person to prove the contrary. Why the State, with all its might, now shifts the onus onto a poor innocent squatter, God only knows; I do not.

Oh, shame!

That hon member says “shame”. He must fall down on his knees every day and thank God that he is a White person in this country. [Interjections.] If he had been a Black person, he would also have been a squatter. [Interjections.]

I am not saying that all Black persons are squatters, but the Government has turned the vast majority of them into squatters. Why? They have deprived these people of their basic rights. They do not regard them as fellow-citizens, but look down on them as secondand third-class citizens. This is what they have been doing for the past 40 years. [Interjections.]

†This is an indictment of the NP’s misrule over the past 40 years. If they had ruled to the benefit of all the citizens of this country we would not have been faced with this problem today.

*Where are the squatter camps of those hon members? The caravan parks are their squatter camps. [Interjections.]

Go and see what the situation there is like!

The Whites squat in caravan parks, and when they become too old, they go into old-age homes. How many old-age homes are there in that hon Minister’s constituency? More than 15!

Tow your caravan to Maputu, man.

So the squatters, while they are still alive, are accommodated in caravan parks, and when they become too old, in old-age homes. The squatters of our people are now becoming an own affair, and the Government does not give the hon Minister enough money either.

Where I come from there are 1 445 people on the waiting list. Where do they stay? In tin shanties. While I was walking through the bush near East London recently, I met a friend of mine there, who grew up with me. I asked him: “Pietie, what are you doing in the bush?” He replied: “I am sick and tired of waiting for a house, and I am sick and tired of moving from one house to another and squatting in the slums. I have now built my own house here in the bush, where I can live my own life freely.”

This Government makes squatting an own affair when the Coloureds and Indians are involved.

†However, I want to repeat it. As sure as God made little green apples, whether these hon members like it or not, we are going to have Black majority rule in this country, and perhaps in the not so distant future.

*According to these laws which the hon members are making here, more people will be sent to jail for a longer period, because here the punitive measures are being extended, the sentences are being intensified and the period they have to spend in jail, is being lengthened. [Interjections.] †Those hon members can make all the laws and they can erect all the prisons they want to, but they can never take the freedom of the individual out of that individual. [Interjections.]

*I am sure that if this Government wants to, they can solve the problem of these poor people. It is not a sin or a shame to be born poor. When those people start building their houses, the people from the Government come and demolish and destroy them. The solution to that problem is to leave the people where they are, to give them an opportunity, not to enter into a 99-year leasehold, but to give them a better opportunity. How can a Black man in this country acquire a house although he may not own the land, but he does have the right to live there for 99 years? It is absolute nonsense! The time has come for Black people to acquire full civil rights, and for them to acquire the right to own the ground on which their houses are built. [Interjections.] Yes, today I am speaking nonsense in the opinion of those hon members, because they are living in the clouds and their feet are not on the ground anymore. My feet are still firmly on the ground. I can only say that if those hon members do not devise a plan and save what can still be salvaged in this country, I am afraid that these hon members who are sitting on this side of the Chamber, are not going to remain seated here much longer. The tricameral system can go to blazes … [Interjections.]

Is this the best you can do?

If I had been in that hon Minister’s shoes, there would not have been any problems in this country. [Interjections.] That hon Minister is the greatest problem because he has the solutions in his hand but he is wedded to a policy of apartheid as well as a policy which states: “I am still Boss”, as a result of which the people are still suffering. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is one thing I am sure of. The hon member for Border spoke about Black majority rule, but I am quite certain that if this should be established, he would not be here.

The hon member spoke as if we in the NP had no insight into the position of the poor people, the Black people. This Bill is in fact aimed at accommodating them in South Africa. The LP talks about land ownership. This Bill is in fact aimed at giving people who do not own any land, rights of ownership. The hon member need not talk about 99-year leasehold. The NP is not ashamed of its policy of giving all people in South Africa the right of ownership or a site of their own. This is in the interests of everyone. The NP is making provision for people everywhere. We do not deny the needs. We also admit that in the past the matter was dealt with differently and erroneously. We admit the problem. However, hon members must understand the problem.

The hon member for Turffontein said that it was beyond the means of the State to give every individual a house, as hon members want, but we can in fact give every individual a site on which he can be accommodated. This is the policy of the NP. We are striving for one thing only. We recognise the fact of urbanisation and that the urbanisation of the Black people has only just begun. What we ask, however, is that it should happen in an orderly way. That is all we ask.

If hon member accuse the NP of misdeeds or erroneous intentions, we must see what the policy of the Official Opposition, the CP, is. They deny Black urbanisation and say that they will reverse it. They are going to remove the Black people. That is the alternative. I just want to present hon members with the contrast between what we believe and what they believe. They say they will abolish influx control. We have abolished influx control. We admit that people want to come to the cities. Urbanisation is not an evil. It is a need that must be satisfied, because the Whites, Asians and Coloureds—all of us sitting here—have become 80% or 90% urbanised, and at the moment these people are only 40% urbanised. They will continue to come. All of them are not necessarily going to migrate to the metropoles as part of the urbanisation process. I come into contact with Black people everyday and they have a need, if there is no work, to move to the towns and to the cities.

It is the policy of the CP to withhold all subsidies from the Black people. They promise that they are going to clean up the Vaal Triangle by removing all Black people. They say that they are going to introduce a curfew. I do not know whether they are going to ring the curfew bell for the Coloureds as well and address them too. [Interjections.] The CP alleges that at present an influx of Black people to the national states is taking place. Surely that is not true. They claim that the numbers in Natal have increased. They forget, for example, that in the process of land acquisition we added 500 000 ha to KwaZulu in June. They claim that an influx of people has occurred on those lands.

The CP says that they are going to abolish the regional services councils because they benefit Black people. The Government’s intention is to utilise urbanisation in a positive way to improve the quality of life of all the people in our country, including the Blacks. Improved living conditions are the object of this Government. We are not afraid of saying this in public. Of course we recognise the uplifting effect which urbanisation can accomplish. We consider urbanisation to be inevitable. It is taking place, whether we like it or not. What is nevertheless necessary, and what the NP would like, is proper planning with a view to urbanisation.

Now hon members may say that this need was not satisfied in the past. That is true as regards the provision of land for the settlement of coloured persons, particularly of Black people. Provision was not made for them in time. Consequently it is the intention of this Government to make provision for this at this stage. The proof is there, provision is now being made in good time.

I want to make one thing clear today. Most cases of squatting, I think, do not occur because people are acting wilfully. It is the result of a need. When a person does not have a place to stay, he will establish himself anywhere, it makes no difference where. We now want to give these people better places to live in—residential areas that have been properly planned.

Furthermore I just want to point out that the process of urbanisation is a universal phenomenon. It occurs all over the world. We want to deal with it. The NP wants to make provision and create living space for all the people in our country. [Interjections.] The hon member for Border had a great deal to say here about how it was allegedly the poor people who were involved. That is true of course. These are the less affluent people. That is precisely why the legislation makes provision in cases where the need for a residential site is the greatest. Hon members can go and ask the Black people themselves about this. They will inform the hon members that they have a need for residential sites on which they have the legal right to live; on which they can erect a dwelling. They want to make provision for themselves.

The NP admits that growth tendencies can only be channelled, but that economic forces determine the direction in which a human influx takes place. I do not think it is true to maintain that everyone wants to go to the PWV area, or to the outskirts of Cape Town or Durban. Large numbers of people argue that they would like to raise their children in the area from which they themselves came. Consequently that is in fact where they want to be accommodated.

A good example of this fair standpoint on the part of Black people is of course to be found in Northern Natal, the area from which I come from. In that area, in the past, a different kind of farming practice was applied. As a result of a change in circumstances and the better utilisation of land, as well as the intensification of agriculture, a different method of utilisation exists today. The situation which now arises is that there are redundant people in the agricultural industry. Of course agriculture does not want to lose its workers. The industry would like to retain their services. The desire is to accommodate them. At Ngotshe, near Louwsburg, an agreement has been entered into between Whites and Black people in connection with redundant workers in agriculture. That is the area in which I live. Blacks and Whites got together there and reached an agreement with one another. Those Black people did not ask to be sent to Soweto. No! They asked, if no place could be found for them in that district, to be resettled in an orderly way. They just want a place to live so that they can continue to be accommodated in that district. I think that is a fair request.

I think it is also fair that we make a country-wide survey of the needs which exist in every respect. In every town and district in South Africa needs of this kind exist. We must see to them. Positive attention must be given to the question of supply and demand in regard to land, and particularly land for occupation. This problem cannot be tackled only in the cities or large metropoles.

The hon member for Turffontein said we must protect the rights of the landowners. I want to say that today there are literally hundreds of Black landowners making representations to us to the effect that they would like to utilise their land themselves because in the past, owing to a shortage of land, they were forced to accommodate their own people. However, it is no longer their duty to accommodate those people.

The other day I was visiting an area in the Transvaal in which people have the right of ownership and in which they pleaded with us: “Take these people away”. However, they said we must make provision for them, but not in Johannesburg because those people would like to stay on in the same area. They say we must give them sites in that area. I put a question to those Black people. Frequently there is wilful occupation. Often people allow other people to occupy sites out of pity, and now these people are saying: “Allow me to utilise my own property, because there is a need for the provision of sites”. When we ask the Black people: “Must we, after we have made provision for this, give these people a choice of leaving or staying?” They reply: “If you must make provision you must remove these people from our sites, if they do not wish to leave voluntarily”. These are the realities of South Africa, and we have received this request from many Black people, Coloureds and Asians.

I come now to another matter which is causing a problem in the situation. There are people of all colours in South Africa—Whites, Coloureds and Asians, although the Whites are perhaps guilty of this to a greater extent, but I do not know whether the Indians in Natal are not perhaps more guilty—who earn a monthly income of thousands of rands owing to the existing deficiency in regard to the provision of sites.

Because that deficiency does exist it is the duty of the State to make provision so that the need no longer exists to go and stay there. Hon members must not simply think that these people stay there for nothing. We know about hundreds and thousands of squatter farmers. This is all they have. Hon members should take a look at the conditions in which those people are living and at the prices they are paying. For a single room, even in the rural areas, they are paying up to R40 per month.

I maintain that that situation exists because there no provision has been made for this. These people all say: “Give me a place and I will leave,” and that is true. That is why, on a country-wide basis, and not only in the cities, we must consider a situation in which a person can obtain a place to stay in the area in which he lives.

It may sound strange to hon members when I say that the vast majority of Black people say: “Find a place for us, not necessarily where we work, but in the district in which we were bom, because we do not want to raise our children in the cities”. That comes through clearly. These people say that the breadwinners are willing to go out to work, but he wants to leave his wife and children behind in a place which he is able to own, to which he has the right, and on which he can build a structure. He wants to allow his children to go to school and be educated in a climate outside the cities. This is the general standpoint which we find among Black people in South Africa, and we must give attention to it.

That is why I want to conclude by thanking the hon Minister and telling him that I think he is on the right road. This legislation is not being enacted merely to prosecute people, it is being enacted in order to accommodate them. If there are wilful people, they must be prosecuted and the squatter farmers must of necessity be hit hard.

Mr Chairman, yesterday we heard many speakers from this side of the House. However hard one may try to wish away those submissions, there remains a monumental truth and that is that people remember the pain that they went through and they will not be afraid to say so. Whether it is addressed emotionally or otherwise, a truth remains a truth. Emotion just adds punch to the delivery of a truth.

In the House of Assembly many years ago Dr Verwoerd as the then Minister of Native Affairs made a commitment that there would be no Blacks in the urban areas by the year 1980, or perhaps it was 1979. Mr Blaar Coetzee as the then Minister of Community Development reiterated that message. Sometimes governments and administrations believe stories of this kind. They then fall asleep and fail to address the realities of the situation.

It does not matter how articulate a man is. One cannot accept everything that people say, especially if it goes against the grain of reality. The price that we are now paying is for having taken the advice of somebody who was possibly honest but dreaming.

This problem must be addressed by all of us—we cannot run away from it. What is important, however, is the manner in which we go about finding the solutions to this problem. It is a worldwide problem. The bright city lights beckon people from the rural areas. In South Africa the Black component of the urban labour force cannot be dismissed or wished away.

Unfortunately, over the years—for some reason or other—we have failed to address the problem and to realise that these Black workers will increasingly assume more important roles as members of the labour force. They will also need homes, schools and all the amenities that the Whites, Indians and Coloureds require. As a result of a political philosophy we have failed to address the problem and now—because of its monumental proportions—we want to rush some measures through to find some answers.

I know that the problem exists—we all know that. We all recognise that answers must be found. I believe from information which was passed on to me by one of my hon colleagues who served on the standing committee that Black representatives have made their input. On 26 October we will have elections for Black local authorities. I believe that that component must play an important role in designing the legislation that will affect the lives of their people. There must be a contribution from the local authorities that the Government is creating so that when measures are introduced to find an answer to this very grave problem, they will not be seen as an imposition by Parliament alone but that there will have been a contribution by and co-operation from representatives of the Black community. We are hoping that this will emerge after 26 October so that whatever legislation is enacted by this Parliament will not be seen as an imposition on the Black people by Indians, Coloureds and Whites. That legislation will affect the lives of Black people so let us get the support and understanding of their representatives with a view to drafting legislation which will enjoy their support. I think that is very important.

I believe the days of one or several sectors of the population legislating on matters of this nature which affect the lives and hearts of Black people are over. They are not guilty. Those who made it possible for the Black people to find themselves in their present position are even more guilty.

I want to add that we have high praise for our judiciary and its independence. When we are reminded by the legal fraternity that some of the provisions in this Bill cannot be reconciled with the due process of law it is important that we take note of their reservations.

I think these documents have been widely circulated and it states in this part of this document, and I quote:

I think one cannot entirely dismiss this.

This Bill also imposes responsibilities on local authorities, and in my community we have a number of small local authorities which have no financial muscle. However, they assume responsibilities in terms of this legislation. If they do not have the resources the Administrator can carry out this work and charge the fledgeling local authority with the money that has been expended. That I believe is a responsibility a group area, which for purposes of Government policy has been turned into a local authority, is illequipped to accept.

Additionally, I want to say quite honestly I agree we have a problem and accept that we have to resolve it, but to impose on a Coloured or Indian local authorities the responsibility of cleaning up a situation which is not one of our creation is also going to impose difficulties on us because it could be seen by the Black people as Coloured and Indian local authorities having been given the power of attorney to do a job of work for the White Government. I think that would be manifestly unfair and I have the courage to say so in this House. However, once again we cannot run away from this problem.

At one stage or another all of us will have to face the problem and find answers to it. However, I believe we must do so in co-operation with Black leaders, and I hope that after 26 October there will emerge leaders from the Black community with whom we can work together to find an answer which they can justify to their own people. When they can justify it we shall be able to do it to the satisfaction of the people who will be affected most. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must say that one good thing has come out of the past few days of debate in this Chamber and that is the salutory experience of an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with the victims of apartheid. [Interjections.]

I believe that it is high time that every White representative in this House was subjected to that experience. I must say that while I was listening to the speeches made yesterday on the Group Areas Act, particularly the speech made by the hon the leader of the Labour Party, I saw some of the NP members looking shamefaced as they were confronted with the hardships that have been endured.

This Bill that we are considering today is indirectly related to the Group Areas Act because if the whole country were thrown open and were not made subject to any racial segregation laws there is no doubt that the housing shortage in the townships would be relieved, that many people would move out of the Black, Indian and Coloured townships who could afford to do so, but are unable to find accommodation in the existing areas, and that those vacant houses could then be occupied by people who are at present living in squatter camps. These things are all interlinked.

I am pleased that one thing has happened and has been made evident by these debates and that is that the Government at last realises the acute shortage of land for Black settlement. This is one thing that this Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill has revealed. I must admit that I was depressed to hear the hon member for Vryheid once again suggesting the idea of the migrant labour system as a solution.

It may be that some Black people like to leave their families behind, but the majority of people want to live a decent family life and do not want to have to face the sociological problems that we have seen emerge as a result of the migrant labour system. This includes, I might add, the population explosion in South Africa both in the urban areas and the rural areas.

The Bill we are discussing today does not differ in any material way from the Bill we discussed in the House of Assembly on 22 August. There are a few minor technical changes in the new Bill, but they in no way affect the underlying principles in the legislation. Therefore my party remains opposed to this measure and I make no apologies for advancing the same arguments that I advanced in the House of Assembly, although I have had to summarise them somewhat as even less time has been allocated to us on this occasion.

Very briefly, we are against this Bill, firstly, because, as the last speaker mentioned, it abrogates important aspects of our common law. For example it reverses the onus of proof, which is now laid on the accused. It reduces the discretion of the courts which are prevented from examining other relevant factors such as the availability of alternative accommodation before ordering the removal of squatters. It removes both the protection afforded to individuals by interdict and the suspension of sentence until an appeal has been heard.

Secondly, the Bill imposes harsh penalties on people who have committed the offence of illegal squatting although they have had no way of avoiding this because of the Government’s failure over four decades to provide adequate land for the inevitable process of Black urbanisation— which now, thank heavens, has been accepted by the Government—and also because of the Government’s failure to house the urban poor, who are largely Black people. I believe that harsh penalties on squatters, such as imprisonment of up to one year or heavy fines of up to R2 000, will exacerbate the inherent problems of poverty that squatters have to contend with, since this will destroy any ability of the breadwinner to provide for his family.

Thirdly, the provisions in the Bill which apply to the rural areas will result in the eviction of hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people—according to the estimates made by Prof Charles Simkins of the present size of the Black rural population—because despite the law which has abolished the labour tenant system, it is still widely used throughout the country. Millions of people who have lived on the farms for generations and who have nowhere else to go and are ill-equipped with skills, experience or language to move into the cities, will have to leave the land. Where will they go? They will go unprepared to the cities or else move from farm to farm— becoming impoverished as they do so, since they are going to lose their livestock. They will be subject to summary removal at the behest of a committee if they are dependants of farm labourers who are not themselves employed on the farms. Intervention of the courts is now limited to the shadowy claim of mala fides, which all of us know is a very difficult thing to prove.

I believe the Bill makes it easier for the Government to enforce the removal and resettlement of thousands of other unfortunate people. According to the written reply given by the hon the Minister to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, some 283 000 persons remain to be removed or resettled in the four provinces. Some of these are certainly deemed to be squatters. These people are doomed to removal between 1988 and 1995 at an approximate cost of R500 million.

Clauses 9 and 10 are what I would call the more positive aspects of the Bill. They allow for transit and designated areas to be declared for squatter settlements. However, even these positive aspects of the Bill are reduced because no financial arrangements are catered for in respect of these areas, no implementing agency with access to subsidised funds is established and no criteria are laid down for the reprieve of existing squatter areas.

As I pointed out in the House of Assembly some 26 representations, mostly written, were made to the joint standing committee, and only the provincial administrations were unequivocally in favour of this Bill. All the prestigious industrial, financial and legal bodies that presented evidence were totally against the Bill.

They include the Urban Foundation, the Chambers of Commerce and Industries, the Chamber of Mines, and now the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has added its voice. Seifsa has also added its voice, as well as Amcham—the American Chamber of Commerce—the Institute of Civil Engineers, the Legal Resources Centre, the General Bar Council of South Africa and the Association of Law Societies, not to mention all the organisations concerned with human rights, such as the South African Institute of Race Relations, the Black Sash and the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. All these organisations were against the Bill. I cannot imagine why an hon member of the NP has stated that there is support for the Bill. Only the Transvaal and Natal Administrations support the Bill—nobody else.

Of all the oral and written evidence given, that of the Urban Foundation was the most convincing because it had conducted a searching investigation into the problem of squatting. It revealed the magnitude of the problem, namely the alarming estimate that some seven million people in the Republic are living in what the Foundation very politely calls “informal settlements”, and what I would describe, from what I have seen—I have visited many of these areas—as squalid squatter camps. Those people are living under the most dismal conditions. I wonder how many of us in our cosy beds at night, as the Cape winds blow and the rains fall, give a thought to the thousands of people living in plastic and corrugated iron shelters.

As one member has already pointed out, and as I told the House of Assembly, these people are not recent entrants to the urban areas. The CP is wrong in believing that it is only since June 1986, when the pass laws and influx control were scrapped, that these people came in. The Urban Foundation’s investigation reveals that the majority of these people have been in the urban areas for up to ten years, and more in some cases.

The Foundation submitted a number of amendments to eliminate the objectionable abrogations of our common law, as well as amendments which would make the positive aspects contained in the Bill more effective. I have accordingly placed these amendments on the Order Paper in my name for consideration by the joint standing committee. The adoption of these amendments will at least help to create a more acceptable interim legal environment for the promotion of informal housing, and the protection, as the Foundation puts it, of land rights, amenities and planning principles against the threat of land invasion.

There is talk about “plakkerboerdery”. We hear a great deal of that. I want to say at once that it is a sanctimonious argument. The only thing that will get rid of rackrenting landlords is the provision of adequate land for site and service. That is all. All that is required, is the provision of adequate land, not higher or harsher penalties for either the landlord or the squatter. That means the identification of adequate land is needed. In the light of the enormous shortfall of housing for the urban poor, which is estimated at 1 800 000 at present—this figure is the units required—and will increase to 2 800 000 by the year 2000, the land presently allocated is pitifully inadequate. Therefore the Government must get a move on with identifying suitable land and providing infrastructure for site and service.

Finally, I am not impressed by assurances that the powers given in this Bill to remove squatters will not be implemented extensively. That is the worry of the CP. It is not my worry, because it has been my experience in the past that when powers are given they are used. Unfortunately the Government is now paying more attention to emotional racist elements in this country than to the reasoned arguments of the people who create the wealth and the jobs in the RSA. I think the time has come for us to start educating public opinion, not in a racist direction but in a non-racial direction. Laws do educate, and that is the reason why we have such opposition in South Africa to the removal of racial segregation, the group areas and other racial laws.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon member for Houghton, and I found it very interesting that in the hon member’s speech, as well as in other speeches made in this House opposing this legislation, several cardinal points in this legislation were not addressed by the people opposed to this legislation.

I want to refer very briefly to this, and say at the outset that the Government’s intention to provide and identify land on which people can be accommodated, is clearly apparent in this legislation from the processes which facilitate the identifying of that land, local authorities which are under an obligation to assist in the development of that land as transit areas, and so on. This should eliminate many of the problems which exist at the moment.

This morning I want to refer to three aspects which are being addressed in this legislation. The first is an aspect which is a major problem for the Government and us. There are many organisations and many companies in this country which are big land owners, and from time to time they come to us and complain about illegal squatting on their land. Then one goes to those people and one asks them why they do not deal with this problem, why they do not lay charges in order to get their land cleared. They then argue that they do not want to upset relations, but that they need their land and that is why they are coming to us as members of the Government to help to clear that land.

We really cannot afford double standards of this kind in our society. That is why I am repeating that the Government is not unsympathetic as regards the shortage of land which exists at the moment. The day we allow uncontrolled squatting simply to take place on other people’s property, without those people having proper powers at their disposal to clear that land and use it for the purpose for which it was bought, we will be assailing a very important principle of democracy which we, I hope and believe, together with the hon members, can very quickly develop in this country in the form of property ownership. This implies only one thing, namely that the State must simply be empowered to expropriate the land of landowners at will and go ahead with programmes for the accommodation of people.

Among a category of people in this country, in many respects from the agricultural viewpoint, from the point of view of the development of residential areas for all population groups and for all classes in all population groups, this will create tremendous uncertainty which in the long run we cannot afford in South Africa.

I want to refer to a second aspect, which is a matter of profound concern to me because we come across this very frequently, namely these people who—let us put it this way—farm with people who are not in a position to own their own property or have a roof over their heads. It is all very well to level accusations today that land and opportunities do not exist for all these people to acquire property, but if we look at the circumstances in which these people live, I can take hon members to quite a number of these people who are complaining about the influx of Blacks and other non-Whites into White areas.

I can take hon members in the vicinity of Cape Town to those people who are farming on their land with underprivileged Coloureds and Blacks. And I want to tell hon members this morning that many of those people support the CP. They complain about the influx of people, but they are creating opportunities for this on their land because they are deriving an income from this by exploiting these people in their distress.

Produce some proof. [Interjections.]

This morning I want to tell hon members that if we allow this pattern to continue to develop in South Africa, our endeavour to achieve increased property ownership in South Africa will mean absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] I am really appealing to hon members for us to help one another to establish this principle in South Africa.

There is a third category which is very closely linked to the illegal occupation of land. This concerns those agents who are also referred to in this legislation, who go out and present the urban areas to people as a Utopia of employment opportunities, good living conditions and so on. Those people then come here and see that none of those promises are true. They are taken to an open piece of land and allowed to live there, and they must pay those so-called agents for the right to remain on that land.

In the process of urbanisation which is taking place in South Africa we cannot allow these irregularities. Hon members cannot expect the State to protect the interests of the underprivileged if the State does not have the power to protect those interests.

I want to refer to a fourth aspect, namely that we must be very careful that while the urbanisation process is taking place in South Africa we do not find ourselves in the position that problematic conditions develop around our cities to a greater extent than is at present the case and increase to such an extent that ultimately we are unable to restore orderly development.

This is of the utmost importance for sound relations between population groups. This is of the utmost importance, too, for sound relations between individuals. It is also of the utmost importance for the development of sound community infrastructures that the development process must be an orderly one.

I am not one of those people who believe that this urbanisation process is reversible. The urbanisation process is a reality and we will have to live with it. We shall have to take the needs of people which arise because of this process into consideration, but above all we shall also have to take the needs which arise in the established communities into account and protect them.

I believe that this legislation before the House can and will help us to deal with and regulate this process which is taking place in South Africa properly. I believe that if we look ahead to the greater South Africa, which we all visualise, we shall understand that we must not wreck that future by resorting to emotional statements and reproaches. Instead we must create and use the opportunities to accommodate people, to give people the right to own their own piece of land and to live a decent life. For that reason I support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, today the hon member for Losberg gave me hope for the future. The hon member quoted remarks made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on urbanisation, and here and there he debated in favour of free settlement, particularly with regard to South Africa’s people. One thing which has struck me in this debate was the calm manner in which hon members of the CP stated their standpoint here. This was in shrill contrast to the racist tirades which they frequently launch in the House of Assembly. It even came to light here that the CP has a left wing, and this is definitely an aspect which gives me hope for the future.

The hon member for Losberg did very well by stating the problem with regard to squatting and informal settlement in this country, but he did not suggest any solutions in his speech. He neglected to explain to us how, under a CP government, Black people were silently going to disappear from South Africa—to use the words of the hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP.

The CP members claim that they are going to take over local authorities in this country on 26 October. Today I want to say here that I wish them everything of the best, because the problems facing those local authorities are formidable ones, and it will take great people to solve them.

The hon member for Turffontein accused hon members of concentrating only on the negative aspects of the legislation, but then the hon member made the mistake of concentrating only on the positive aspects. The hon member neglected to tell this House that no organisation from the private sector which gave evidence before this joint committee argued in favour of the Bill. They included recognised organisations which have rendered very important services in this country. Is the hon member trying to tell me that we must simply ignore these people’s objections, as he has done, and go ahead with this, although we know that we are heading for disaster?

The Bill under discussion deals with what is probably the most challenging problem facing this country. According to research undertaken by the Urban Foundation, with the natural growth in the population and the present housing shortage, approximately 4 500 000 housing units will be needed in this country by the year 2000 to house the people of South Africa.

It is quite clear that every person who has the interests of this country at heart will accept the challenge to provide housing in a positive spirit. If we want to solve the problem in this way, it means that 400 000 units will have to be built every year. Approximately 30% of these people who need houses in this country can afford to pay for them. In other words, they must merely be afforded an opportunity and they will be able to pay for a house. In this regard the private sector in particular has a very important function to perform.

I doubt whether the State has a solution to offer the 70% of the people who cannot afford a house. The finances are simply not available to do this, and alienating people by means of this legislation, by forcing them to move from where they are living at present, does not offer a solution—it will simply exacerbate the problem. The research by the Urban Foundation indicates inter alia that at present there are approximately 7 000 000 informal residents or squatters in this country. I want to know what is going to become of these poor people when, in terms of the proposed new section 1, they are declared criminals when they cannot prove the contrary in court, because in terms of the proposed new section 1 of this Act, it is a criminal offence if one does not own a house. One is automatically contravening this Act when one does not own a house and one is forced to squat.

Clause 1 of this Bill is in sharp contrast to our common law, Roman Dutch law, because the onus of proof has now been transferred to the accused. Many positive developments have taken place in this country during the past four years. Probably the greatest single reform measure introduced by the Government was the abolition of influx control, but to a certain extent clause 3 of this Bill is a negation of the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation. Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for summary removal, eviction and demolition of squatter settlement areas.

We know how much bitterness enforced removals caused in the past. A great deal has been heard about this during the past week. This clause is negating all the positive measures which have been introduced, specifically with regard to Black urbanisation. An alarming aspect is that this clause is also delegating these Draconian powers to local authorities that do not have the interests of the people in their area of jurisdiction at heart at all. I shudder when I think that many of these local authorities may consist of members of the CP.

When evidence was given before the joint committee, the provincial administrations frequently argued that this legislation would be implemented compassionately. I want to know whether the CP town and city councils are going to implement this legislation compassionately. Surely we know that we are looking for trouble.

Another aspect which in my opinion is very important, and to which urgent attention must be given, is the local government structure in this country. At present the position is that White local authorities determine the lot of all the other people in a municipal area. Frequently these people do not have the interests of the inhabitants of non-White residential areas at heart.

Our standpoint on own local authorities is quite clear. We will never accept it, because we are not prepared to administer our own poverty in isolation. We are not prepared to make the same mistakes as the Black local authorities by trying to make dormitory towns viable and run them as viable municipalities.

The high rentals which certain local authorities are charging, border on exploitation. The position is that the Government has created a new rental structure in terms of which lessees’ repayments on State loans are determined according to their incomes. This is probably one of the most positive reforms which has been introduced in this field.

However, we find ourselves in the position that the basic rental of a person who earns less than R150 is between R2,50 and R7,50, but that his service levy is sometimes as high as R100. The administration costs sometimes total as much as R10. It costs R10 simply to send him an account. This is a direct reason why people squat, because they have reached the point where they simply cannot afford the service fees of local authorities any longer.

If this problem is not dealt with and attention is not given to the protection of subeconomic communities in particular, the problem will become worse and there will simply be more squatters. Then the problem will not be solved.

A very important reason why we find ourselves in this mess today is that at one stage it was the Government’s policy that Black people were not part of White South Africa and that they would eventually, in the words of the hon member for Lichtenburg, “quietly disappear from South Africa”. In the more than 20 years that have elapsed since 1968 nothing has been done with regard to Black housing—the hon member for Lichtenburg was also in charge of Black housing at one stage— and consequently we have a time bomb in the Black community today.

However, I am very positive about the developments which have taken place recently. For example, when one looks at the beautiful residential area, KwaZakhele, which has been developed in Port Elizabeth, one understands the bitterness in the people’s hearts when they had to live in the squatter camp just over the hill. People who could afford to live in houses valued at between R150 000 and R200 000, had to live in squatter camps simply because their permanence in this country was not recognised.

One of the greatest problems still existing today is the Group Areas Act and the land legislation of 1913 and 1936. These three pieces of legislation are effectively keeping 87% of South Africa in White hands, because only Whites can trade freely and enter into land transactions without a permit issued by a White Minister.

When a person of colour wants to acquire a piece of land he needs a permit or he must wait for the residential area to be proclaimed by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. Unless this problem is dealt with we will not be able to solve the squatter problem, because there is no way in which one State department can perform the miracle of building a total of 4,5 million housing units between now and the year 2000.

One must never underestimate the will of people to improve themselves. For examples of this one can look at Japan after the Second World War. In a period of 40 years Japan has grown into the foremost industrial country in the world, because those people were given the opportunity by the Americans to improve themselves. West Ger many is one of the foremost industrial countries in the world, but in 1945 it was in ruins. One must never underestimate the will of people. All I am asking of this Government is to come up with a more positive approach.

There are elements in this Bill which are very positive, such as clause 9, which deals with the proclamation of transit areas by a local authority, and particularly clause 10, which enables an administrator to acquire land or expropriate land and make it available for the development of residential areas. These are positive measures which are in agreement with the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation. The rest of this Bill is going to be counterproductive to the provision of housing, instead of solving the problem.

I am looking, for example, at clause 11, which provides that the administrator may now appoint a committee which can investigate farms and areas outside the areas of jurisdiction of a local authority. These people can now launch a witchhunt on farm workers. We know that many Black people live on our farms. Millions of them live on our farms. When this committee ascertains that these farm dwellers, if one can call them that, are not bona fide workers on the farm, they can summarily order the eviction of these people from these farms. All I want to ask is where these people are going to live. Where must they go?

We are merely creating more and more problems by passing this Bill in its present form. My party does not see its way clear to doing this. We cannot see our way clear to doing this, because the solution does not lie in implementing the legislation humanely. The solution lies in making the legislation more humane.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister to look at the amendments proposed by the Urban Foundation. These amendments could convert this Bill into a far more acceptable one. It will make it far easier for us to react positively to it. In its present form it is impossible for us to pass this Bill and I want to express the hope that it will be reconsidered at joint committee level. The hon members of the NP who serve on it know that we were not absolutely negative about this Bill. We cannot pass it, because that would be irresponsible, but make it possible for us to take another look at it. Let us take another look at the amendments proposed by the Urban Foundation. Then I am sure we shall be able to find common ground.

Mr Chairman, it is very difficult to discuss this legislation meaningfully if it is not done against the background of the events of the past week. It is a great pity that a crisis of confidence has developed between the NP and the governing parties in the other Houses. Perhaps it is not such a terrible problem. After all, problems frequently crop up in a marriage. If one deceives one’s wife and she finds out, one has problems. One can then lose her trust, and it takes a fairly long time before one can regain it. However, it is possible to do so if one does something about it immediately, discusses matters thoroughly, clears the air and then looks ahead. One can then save that marriage.

Speak for yourself!

I think it is one of the good aspects of this week’s events that we have cleared the air properly, and that we must now forget the past, look ahead and not only forget the past but also forgive the past. Then, I think, we can still find common ground.

Who has been gadding about now?

In 1984 the NP accepted the tricameral system with a two-thirds majority—a system based on consensus. For that reason it is very important for one to understand what consensus means. I think the simplest explanation is that one must be prepared to give and take; not only to give, and not only to take either.

What are you giving in this legislation?

The participating groups must be prepared to meet each other halfway, and in this regard we mainly had three groupings in the House during the past week. We had a left-wing grouping which was prepared to give absolutely everything away; not to share power, but to surrender power, which would be fatal for us. We had a right-wing grouping which wanted to keep everything for themselves, and in the process they might possibly lose everything. However, we also had a middle group which consisted mainly of the NP, a party which is prepared to deliberate in order to reach consensus.

I believe that there are many moderate and intelligent people in South Africa, and here in Parliament, who are prepared to give and to take, but they will have to come forward quickly, and in this regard I am referring specifically to our colleagues in the other Houses. If they do not come forward so that we can meet each other halfway as intelligent and moderate people, we will be gambling with the last chance we have in South Africa to solve our problems. We are not going to get another chance.

Actually this legislation testifies to the attitude of the NP. The NP was prepared to abolish influx control so that people could move where they wished and seek work where they wished, but the party also retained a responsibility, a responsibility to ensure orderly government, and to ensure order around our cities. For that reason we cannot allow people simply to set up house wherever they like. We need this legislation for orderly urbanisation.

However, there are sometimes both positive and negative aspects in an Act which are both necessary. I should like to illustrate this by means of a simple example. If we were to pass legislation which provided that every person who was arrested for drunken driving had to be sent to a rehabilitation centre to be cured of alcoholism, this would certainly be a fine, positive attitude, but many of the people who are arrested for drunken driving are not alcoholics, but occasional drinkers who have had too much to drink and we need stringent measures for them—high fines and imprisonment—in order to protect them against themselves and to protect the public against the behaviour of these people.

For that reason we also have to build certain measures into this legislation to prevent future squatting and to regulate present squatting. However, we also have fine, positive aspects in this legislation, such as the transit areas—designated areas which may be upgraded into townships—but I think the most important positive aspect is the fact that informal accommodation can be created, and as a man’s financial ability increases, he can improve his house. If we bear in mind that the Urban Foundation calculates that we will have to build 400 000 houses per year up to the year 2000, hon members will realise that the establishment of informal housing can to a great extent help us to solve this housing shortage.

It is interesting that people who view the Bill in a pessimistic and negative way, see things in it for which this Bill was not drafted at all. The Government’s objective with this legislation is certainly not to launch a witch-hunt in order to leave people homeless. [Interjections.] The Government is taking a great deal of trouble, with remarkable dedication and patience, to improve human relations, and this legislation will be implemented very compassionately.

It is tragic that the negative attitude which the rest of the world adopts towards South Africa has also blown over to South Africa like some kind of craze. Whatever the NP attempts in this country is greeted with suspicion and negativism, and this after 40 years of successful government. Gradually, step by step, this Government will convince all the people of this country, irrespective of their race, colour or creed, of its integrity and its sincerity. Only by bringing moderate, thinking, future-orientated, positive people together in South Africa will we be able to solve the problems of South Africa with the help of our Creator and with a Christian attitude. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to refer briefly to three previous speakers.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates called for consultation with Black leaders and leaders of squatter communities. Coupled with this call, we have the hon member for Houghton who said—I think we all compliment the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives on his speech yesterday—that she noticed that many members on the Government side looked shamefaced. The question that I would like to pose is: How many more would be shamefaced if the opportunity were to be given to leaders of the Black communities, for example Mr Tom Boya of Daveyton, to address us and tell us of their problems and suffering?

Hon members of this House who serve on the committee that discussed this particular Bill had the opportunity of listening to Mr Tom Boya and other members of UCASA and UMSA. I can tell you this much, Mr Chairman: It was an eyeopener.

They said there were very positive aspects.

Yes, I agree with the hon member Dr Golden. They said there were many positive aspects, and I, too, said this. Unfortunately, however, the negative aspects far outweigh the positive aspects.

I do not agree with you.

The hon member for GraaffReinet called for co-operation. We all call for co-operation. Unfortunately we can only cooperate from a point. We have been asked by hon members who have spoken previously to forget what has happened and leave that to history and to make a new start. I say, let us make that start by withdrawing all the Bills that have come before this House this week. Let us reshape and redraft these Bills in consultation with the people that these Bills tend to affect.

Coming to the problem of squatting, this is a complex problem and not unique to South Africa alone. It is a problem created by unplanned urbanisation, and in this country it is linked to the unfair and immoral allocation of land for persons of colour.

I believe that there cannot be any moral justification for confining the majority of the people of this country to just 14% of the land. That is the Black majority, and it is this unequal distribution of land that is the root cause of squatting in South Africa. South Africa needs a bold and imaginative housing programme to cater for the thousands who are without shelter. It is in the main this desire to provide for one’s family that leads people to squat on any available land in close proximity to their place of employment.

Taking the abolition of influx control on the one hand and this Bill, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, on the other, I get the impression that the Government is in effect saying: “Yes, you may take water from the fridge, but mind you don’t open the door!”

The Urban Foundation’s research found that there are 312 000 backyard shacks, 67 000 garages that are being occupied and 28 500 informal settlement units in the PWV area alone. These are occupied by some two and a half million people, and this is in the PWV area alone.

It is also interesting to note that the squatter community has not in the main, come about because of influx of persons from the rural areas. Natural growth in the urban areas and insufficient provision of housing and land have led to the squatter problem.

An important message has come from the Urban Foundation’s report, namely that the influx of people from rural areas is not the problem. There is an urgent need for more land to be provided for housing in order to accommodate the natural growth rate. If we also keep in mind that there are seven million informal settlers, then nobody could deny that if this Bill is adopted it will create an explosive situation.

The South African Institute of Race Relations has estimated that one out of six South Africans has to resort to living illegally somewhere. This figure includes Indians and Coloureds. Is it then any wonder that several million people have resorted to squatting?

Against this background I believe that the thrust of this legislation is wrong. I believe that what this legislation should be doing is relieving the unbearable pressure on land and housing through disorderly and rapid urbanisation. This does not mean that squatters should be mollycoddled and allowed to do as they like; far from it. In its present form this Bill contains many positive measures. However, the negative aspects far outweigh the positive ones.

Mr Tom Boya gave us one example. He said that persons living in backyards were in effect squatters. However, these people were called upon to register as voters and to vote in the coming municipal elections. They were required to prop up a system while they were illegals in that area. The two do not mix, Sir.

The answer to the squatting problem does not lie in the forcible evictions contemplated in this Bill. It lies not in harsh and brutal punitive action, but in the upgrading of existing informal settlements into areas where people can lead a somewhat better life and in providing a sustained crash programme to eliminate the acute and horrendous housing shortage. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this Bill is yet another example of the inability of the Government to deal with the social forces at play in a positive and in a proactive way in South Africa today. Notwithstanding the good intentions of the hon the Minister, the title itself gives the game away. It is not the Promotion of Legal Squatting Bill but the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. The negative is always emphasised in the Bill and yet Government spokesmen simply talk about the provision measures which exist in ordinary law anyway as things stand at the moment.

Firstly, the Bill says: If it moves control it; if it settles make it illegal; if owners and occupiers can flout the law long enough to make illegality a reality, then only will the State come in and regulate it.

*Always too late.

†Secondly, the agencies of control and eviction are not the same as those that must provide and assist. The left hand can evict. Indeed, it is obliged to evict, without any responsibility with regard to the destination of those who are evicted, thereby creating refugees of whom there are thousands in Natal, drifting from bush to bush. The right hand, in contrast, must provide, although it is under no obligation or threat to do so. It also does not seem to have the ability to deal with the avalanche caused by the agencies who have the power to evict people.

The waiting lists in the formal towns simply become longer. The destitute in this country have nowhere to ask for help. There is no final agency of government one can approach knowing that one’s journey has come to an end.

Thirdly, with regard to landowners such as farmers and certain tribal chiefs who have fulfilled a real need, committees can now intervene in an arbitrary manner and simply prevent a normal response to a real need.

Fourthly, the Bill is said to be part of the group areas trilogy. This is due to the fact that land in and around the metropolitan areas is mostly in White hands as well as in White group areas. Landowners can deal with the demand for White residential development in a normal market related manner and in conjunction with local authorities. However, notwithstanding the Government’s continued lip-service to market forces and so-called private sector involvement, these landowners cannot respond in the same way to the urbanisation needs of people who are not White. Last year in Durban a major building society set aside R90 million for Black housing. We know that there were many White developers on White land who were prepared to enter that market, but owing to the Group Areas Act and the total unavailability of stands by the end of the year they could only place R9 million.

I appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill and to try again. They must simply get off their backsides and use in a positive way the skills and efforts of those whom they now want to hound out squatters, so as to make illegal squatting unnecessary.

The hon the State President should have been the first to visit Crossroads, and not the bulldozers.

Mr Chairman, several hon members have referred to more technical details of the Bill. Personally I should prefer to speak more philosophically about it today, if I may put it like that.

To begin with I want to say that housing, squatting and the acquisition of land is a very complex and multifaceted socio-economic problem. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to that, and the hon member Mr Lockey called it the most challenging issue for our country. This is, indeed, a problem that countries throughout the world, particularly in the Third World, are battling with.

I contend that there are certain things in South Africa that are inevitable. Increasing urbanisation is one of them. Literally millions of people will become urbanised during the next few decades. Millions will have to be accommodated in so-called informal housing; they will therefore be squatters. According to the TPA, as already mentioned, there are already 1,2 million squatters in Transvaal, and there is substantial evidence that the figure is considerably higher than that.

We must give timeous thought to these unavoidable realities. We must plan them and decide about them. We must all work on this problem together and speak about it. It is of the utmost importance that we speak about the problem, not as we would like it to be, but as it is in reality. In this regard I refer to the PFP and the CP that do not face up to reality. However, I shall come back to that.

I repeat that squatting is a very serious and complex problem worldwide. In addition it is a very acute Third World problem. I know that apartheid has caused damage. Mistakes were made with apartheid. [Interjections.] However, I want to make the statement—this is important, for my friends in the Labour Party as well—that squatting has very little to do with apartheid.

I studied for a degree with the University of South Africa and I saw that it was a world-wide problem. It occurs throughout the world. In Buenos Aires one can go and look at the biggest pure white squatter camps in the world. That has nothing to do with apartheid. Go and see what Africa looks like. Go and see what those countries look like. If one wanted to be cynical, if one wanted to be so illogical, one could say that there was less squatting in South Africa because apartheid has contributed to reducing squatting in South Africa. Surely that is true! [Interjections.] I know that is not a logical argument—it is as lacking in logic as the argument that apartheid caused the squatting.

Let me say that I have many good friends on that side of the House. [Interjections.] No, Sir, my plea is this: Let us discuss the problem of squatting and informal housing as it is. I think there is a rule that hon members may not use the word “hell”. I want to say that it will be a “helse” shock, but I want to say that a “helse” shock awaits these friends of mine on the day there is no more apartheid. When there is no more apartheid, there is still going to be large-scale squatting. [Interjections.]

Let me reiterate: all intelligent people will agree that this is an extremely complex problem. We must address this problem intelligently. Blame apartheid for those things that are wrong. We shall admit that there are things that are wrong, but please, do not think that everything that is wrong happened as the result of apartheid. That is quite simply untrue!

I now turn to the attitude of the CP. I say that we must address ourselves to what is real.

†I have here a copy of The Citizen dated 28 April 1988. It contains a Sapa report from London, which quotes from an interview in the Scotsman with the hon Chief Whip of the CP, the hon member for Overvaal. The article reads as follows:

The hon member will also say that one can make this squatting problem very simple. One just has to pass a very simple influx control law for those who are not here already. One can control this by simply passing a little law.

*They do not come here, the “buggers”, and one simply forgets about them. One passes a little law and they disappear! What, then, about those people who are already here? I have before me a little knock-and-drop newspaper, the Hillbrow edition of the Johannesburg Herald. It is a “knock and drop” newspaper, but here it states in big black letters: “Whites in!! Blacks out!!” This is very interesting. The next advertisement says: “The Mafiosi at Pizza Inn have gona mad!!!!” I think there are some other fellows here who have “gona mad”. In this little newspaper there are four advertisements …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the hon member to refer to “buggers” and to employ words of that nature in this House?

Order! Did the hon member refer to “buggers”?

I did, Mr Chairman, and I withdraw it.

Order! In what sense did the hon member use it?

I said that the squatters were regarded by them simply as “buggers” who had to go.

Order! Then the hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I do not think the squatters are “buggers”. I think they think so, but I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must do so unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

They are the “buggers”.

Order! Which hon member said that the CP were “buggers”?

Mr Chairman, I asked whether they were the “buggers”.

Order! No one in this House is a “bugger”. The hon member will withdraw that too.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the whole point I want to make is that on the one hand the CP says that this squatting is a very easy little problem to solve. One passes one little law to stop those who are not here yet, and one throws the others out—end of problem!

I see the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly is now no longer saying that they will simply throw people out of Hillbrow; he now says they will try to do so! [Interjections.] Now he is only going to try.

The other point is that other hon members, including some of my hon friends in the House of Representatives and some of my hon PFP friends, find the problem just as easy. One abolishes apartheid and hey presto, the problem is solved! [Interjections.] Surely that is not true. [Interjections.] I shall assist the hon members. I shall help the hon members to abolish apartheid, since that is part of my and my party’s policy.

Oh yes?

Of course it is part of our policy.

To abolish apartheid?

To abolish apartheid. However, this will not prevent squatting. That is an absolute untruth.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permitted to use the word “wragtig”, since we are now really going downhill? [Interjections.] No, that is really so, I am serious.

Order! That depends on the sense in which he used it. He was quite correct. I was listening. The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Turffontein to refer to the hon member for Losberg as a firebrand (wildewragtig)? [Interjections.]

Order! No, it is not. Did the hon member mean it in that sense?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if I am to invite the hon members to lunch at a quarter to one, I shall leave out part of my speech and finish.

I reiterate that the problem we are addressing in this Bill is a very difficult, extremely complex and multifaceted one. Urbanisation and squatting would occur even if one passed 1 001 laws, and even if all the CP members stood on their heads and shouted “hurrah!”, nothing and no one on this side of the grave can avert urbanisation, informal housing and squatting. It cannot be prevented.

Therefore it must be correctly dealt with, controlled and channelled. It must be correctly and justly controlled and correctly and justly channelled, also in respect of those with existing and established rights where the squatting, or informal housing, takes place. This legislation is an effort to move in that direction.

One is somewhat tempted to say about the hon member Mr Lockey’s proposal to look into this again, that it is “too little, too late”. However, I do not think that it is a case of “too little, too late”. I appreciate it, and even if this legislation is passed, one can always in the future, even next year, take another look at it. If one finds that in practice it does not work as it should, if one finds that there are problems, then one can change it again. [Interjections.] That is why we are here now, and I accordingly invite all hon members to eat with me.

Mr Chairman, I shall speak in support of this measure. [Interjections.] I do not know what the leading figures in the Labour Party are complaining about. They themselves were party to the President’s Council committee’s investigations on this matter. Their representative on that committee signed that very report on which this piece of legislation has been based. That is one position they have taken.

Today I hear the LP spokesmen taking another position. They have wished the CP well. They have wished them success in the elections on 26 October. Must I conclude from that that they have now adopted partition as the answer to the problems of South Africa? Where are they going? Here is the signature of Mr O C Gooden. I think he is still a member of the Labour Party.

He has been suspended as from today! [Interjections.]

I want to say something further that is relevant to that particular point. Whenever a CP member gets up in this House and states categorically that they are going to win on 26 October 1988, and that they are going to become the next government of this country, we hear howls of derision and cries of fear emanating from that side of the House. [Interjections. ] They are shivering in their boots at the thought of the NP out of government. Who is going to fill that vacuum? [Interjections.] They must make up their minds whether they are going to work with the NP to bring about reform or not.

Order! It is also one of the functions of the Chair to look after the interests of minority parties so that they can say what they want to say within the privilege of this House without undue interruptions by hon members of majority parties who can make it impossible for a minority party’s voice to be heard. I ask hon members to assist me in this task and to give the hon member an opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, this Bill must be seen against the background of the Government’s commitment, not only to recognise that urbanisation of rural populations is a worldwide occurrence that cannot be stopped, but also that it is desirable. Urbanisation has a modernising effect upon underdeveloped populations in the Third World context. Modern civilisation has only been made possible by the growth of cities. Cities and civilisation are in effect synonymous. South Africa, precisely because of the fact that it is the most advanced country on our continent in terms of economic development, is now feeling the effects of this great movement away from the rural areas to the large cities. Our urbanisation process is now developing at an increasing tempo.

This Bill before us is a serious attempt to meet the challenge of urbanisation in South Africa. It will ensure—as far as is humanly possible—that the vitally crucial phase in South Africa’s social development of urbanisation takes place in such a way that South Africa is spared as far as possible the negative effects of urbanisation, such as we have seen and still see in other parts of the developing world. [Interjections.]

*If that hon member were to pledge loyalty to that party perhaps he would be nominated as a candidate in the next election. The hon member should settle his debts.

†Where indiscriminate squatting occurs, one sees the accumulation of filth and a high incidence of disease and other attendant ills. This Bill seeks to prevent—and this is most important—the largescale exploitation of squatters.

Among other things the Bill gives serious attention to the interests of property owners, in that illegal squatting will be reduced to a minimum. When I refer to property owners I am not referring only to the wealthy White owners of land and property in this country. There are property owners right across the colour spectrum.

I was present at a joint committee meeting when evidence was given by a hon member of the Labour Party in support of this Bill. [Interjections.] He made the point, to me personally too, that two of his constituents who had purchased a farm in Natal did not have access to their farm because the squatters, armed with pangas and other weapons, refused them access to it. [Interjections.]

In what position does such a person find himself? Does one tell him: “I am sorry, but you believe in the indiscriminate occupation and takeover of land and you have to accept it, or does one say there has to be a measure of control?”

This Bill also makes provision for dealing with unscrupulous landlords and landowners and bringing them to book. These people farm with squatters. The point has been made here. These people—I have heard evidence to this effect— collect squatters by the truckload, drop them on their farms and then extort high rents from them. There was a case in point of a farmer who pocketed about R10 000 a month, which was not taxable of course.

The Bill makes provision for transit areas and designated areas, which may be upgraded and developed into townships where property may be acquired. Perhaps the most important aspect from a health point of view is the definite policy of providing basic services such as potable water, waste removal and planned arrangement of the shacks. [Interjections.]

The provisions of the Bill also make it possible for educational, welfare and health services to be introduced. That cannot happen in conditions of uncontrolled squatting.

Of course the Bill is not perfect, but it does commit the State to providing, as it declares in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, for the “planned and controlled settlement of homeless people”. I might add here that perhaps, had the title of the Bill been The Planned and Controlled Settlement of Homeless People Bill, it may have had a smoother passage through this House.

By this commitment the Government takes full responsibility for seeing that that object of the Bill—housing the homeless—is carried out. [Interjections.] This provision makes it possible for Parliament to monitor the progress of ordered urbanisation and introduce amending legislation to refine the control measures as and when the need arises.

Remarks by this side of the House have implied that any piece of legislation passing through this House is absolute once it reaches the Statute Books. I advise those hon members to have a look at the archives of this Parliament and at many of the Acts, and see how many dozens of amendments have been made over the years. The important thing about a piece of legislation is that it is enacted and put into practice, and where there are still rough edges to be found, they are polished and honed down until one ends up with a far more refined piece of legislation. This is the process of lawmaking.

Of course the opposite of that is the all-ornothing approach, scrapping everything at once and starting anew, which is obviously the recipe for revolution.

Of course, the question arises: What about employment opportunities for these squatters? Without granting the opportunity to be gainfully employed we cannot talk about upliftment, upgrading and eventual home-ownership. It is here that the effects of deregulation, small business programmes, self-help building schemes and training schemes of all sorts come into their own. In conditions of uncontrolled squatting it is impossible to provide the services that are needed.

With this in mind I want to quote briefly from page 159 of a report by the Committee for Constitutional Affairs in the President’s Council, where two things are stated. This report is signed by an hon member of the LP. I quote:

That aspect is the basis on which the Government decided to remove influx control laws. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am very glad indeed to be able to agree with virtually everything the previous speaker had to say.

Many speakers today, including the previous speaker, have pointed out that South Africa is a developing country in the true sense of the word and a society in transition. Part of this is associated with rapid urbanization and we, as representatives of the people, have a responsibility to ensure that this transition is not accompanied by administrative failure. I submit, as the previous speaker did, that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting

Amendment Bill contains some good news for those who support socio-economic reform on an incremental basis.

What we are actually concerned with in this Bill is how this society will manage informal housing delivery and the upgrading of its communities and, in fact, how we will manage a very large proportion of our future urban growth.

This Bill recognises the right of people to help themselves, and steers South Africa in the realistic direction of accepting informal settlements as part of a housing policy.

The new sections of the Bill are milestones in our development, both as far as deregulation is concerned and in relation to a positive attitude towards urbanization. Section 6 provides for both temporary and permanent informal settlements to be established. It lays down the framework for a permanent informal settlement to be upgraded to township status by dispensing with certain laws and by-laws. It cuts through the red tape which would otherwise have inhibited their establishment.

All the facts available to us today indicate a need to accept this informal housing. If one takes the PWV area, where I come from—the industrial heartland and powerhouse of our country—this area now includes seven out of the ten biggest White cities in terms of population with nearly 3 million White inhabitants. At the same time it includes nearly 6 million Black inhabitants, and approximately 2 million of them are housed informally. Make no error, Sir, the PWV economic industrial powerhouse needs this on-thespot manpower.

As pointed out by the hon member, Mr Seedat, according to research done by the Urban Foundation these 2 million squatters in the PWV area live in some 300 000 backyard shacks, mostly in Black townships, some 67 000 garages and nearly 30 000 shacks in informal settlements. These are the facts of life which must be addressed by this administration. Accordingly, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that rapid urbanisation takes place in an orderly, planned and controlled way.

I represent a large part of the southern suburbs of Johannesburg, and many hon members have made the point that we must have sympathy with one another’s constituencies. My constituents are very aware of the increasing numbers of squatter camps that are growing like Topsy on the southern perimeter of Johannesburg municipal area, rather like an untidy backyard. It is strongly felt that this situation should not continue indefinitely in an uncontrolled and disorderly manner and, in fact, that we should not allow the PWV area just to become a huge squatter camp. [Interjections.]

We have one of the best systems in the world for recording and protecting land ownership and property rights. Our system of registration of ownership gives more certainty as to who the owner of land property rights is than many others in the world. Certainty as to private ownership of immovable property is one of the foundationstones of the capitalist system, which in turn is the basis for the creation of wealth. We should not start tinkering with the legal system. People should not be allowed just to arrive and occupy land and buildings and by their mere occupation of them acquire rights enforceable against the owners.

The squatter situation should be seen in perspective. The owner of the land has legal rights. The squatter has no legal rights to the land. [Interjections.] The most one can say is that the State has a very definite obligation to the squatters, or homeless people, to assist them to get roofs over their heads.

Similarly, owners of land cannot be given carte blanche to start squatter farms without regard to their neighbours’ rights. This would amount to abandoning all town planning principles, or at least be tantamount to saying that we have one set of principles for the rich and another for the poor; or worse still, one set of rules for Whites and another for Blacks. Some of my friends and acquaintances in Soweto have complained to me about the increasing number of squatters around, often because of squatter farms.

I submit that the Bill begins to tackle the squatter problem the correct way, and to accommodate man’s aspirations by establishing the framework within which he may strive to better himself. The fact is that squatter settlements near urban centres do represent aspirations. [Interjections.] The occupant of a shack in a temporary settlement will aspire to a better shack in a permanent settlement, and ultimately to formal housing. The squatters are there because they wish to better themselves, and this Bill reinforces their opportunity to do so. The hon the State President himself recently paid tribute to the commitment of the Crossroads community to develop itself on the basis of self-help. [Interjections.]

The squatters, or those occupying informal housing, are there to stay, because a prosperous South Africa will be an increasingly urbanising South Africa. Our priority in the PWV area must be to reinforce the positive aspects of this Bill by making the large tracts of land which have been identified for housing actually available for housing as soon as possible, and to accommodate the different levels of needs of the community.

In conclusion I should just like to state that I regard it as a privilege to take part in this joint debate with the hon members of the other Houses, even if it means taking a tongue-lashing from time to time. I believe that this is only the sixth matter to be so debated, but my impression is that Parliament livens up because real issues facing this country are debated by relevant leaders. An exchange of views that really matter is taking place here. As a member of the House of Assembly I find it also a very welcome change from some of the sterile and superannuated debates we are forced into from time to time with the CP.

It gives me pleasure to support this Bill.

Order! Before I call on the next speaker I should like to point out that I think hon members on the other side set a good example yesterday when they had their altercations outside this Chamber. I would be pleased if hon members would kindly follow their example.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the opening remarks of the hon member for Houghton, who said that she felt that one of the most positive aspects of this week’s debates had been the contact that we in the House of Assembly had had with hon members of the other two Houses. I think it has given us a clear understanding of, shall we say, the strong feelings that exist.

Mr Chairman, I have listened intently to many of the speeches that were made this morning and to the various reasons given for the escalation of the squatter problem in this country. While I accept that most of the reasons are basically sound and correct, I regret that time does not permit me to refer directly to any particular speaker. However, I want to say that on this occasion I give credit to the Government for recognising, for the first time, the need for informal housing.

I think when one debates this Bill, one must realise that the squatter problem, irrespective of whether it is brought about by the Group Areas Act or any other factor, has over recent years assumed such proportions that legislation to control and implement a system of orderly squatting is both timeous and necessary if South Africa is to avoid a situation similar to that which exists in many South American countries. Those hon members who have been to South America will know that this is something that one has to bear in mind.

There can be no doubt that the removal of influx control has been one of the major factors that have led to a freer movement of people. However, accompanying facilities have not been available to them to meet their accommodation requirements. For this reason I welcome the fact that the Government has recognised the need to accept that squatting is an inevitable consequence and that it must be regarded largely as a first step towards meeting the initial accommodation requirements of those who find themselves caught in the web of migration from rural to urban areas, as well as fulfilling the needs of an expanding population.

It is in this context that I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, although I consider that certain provisions appear to be unduly harsh. For this reason I appeal for serious consideration to be given to the proposed amendments of the hon member for Houghton. I think that if some of those amendments were to be implemented, it would at least lend a greater sense of respectability to the Bill before us.

However, one cannot get away from the fact that the legislation before this House is a practical attempt to regularise a situation which is getting out of control and which can, in the long run, have a detrimental effect on the people who are directly affected. These are the people about whom we should be thinking and I also want to make it clear that I hold no brief for the inadequate manner in which the Government has handled major aspects of its Black urbanisation policy, neither am I satisfied that the Government has paid sufficient attention to effective development of SADT land situated in close proximity to towns such as Pietermaritzburg. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when we look at the title of this Bill, it tells us what the amendments contained in it are intended to do. An existing Bill is amended for a purpose. That is also the case with this Bill. There is no question of discrimination, colour or, as a previous hon speaker already said, apartheid, in this Bill. The Bill simply seeks to make orderly urbanisation possible. The amending of good legislation such as the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act 52 of 1951, and the fact that it is being done, as is apparent from the draft legislation which is being debated in this House at the moment, by merely replacing certain sections or paragraphs of the Principal Act, is clear proof of the fact that the Government, when it enacted the Principal Act, identified a problem which could and would have to be adapted from time to time as circumstances changed.

Therefore, anyone who wants to allege, as the hon member for Losberg did, that the squatter problem being dealt with by this legislation arose as a result of the abolition of the Influx Control Act in 1985, is not correct or does not know the history of this problem. Act 52 of 1951 was not, as the hon member tried to make out, the first law which was placed on the Statute Book in South Africa to address the squatter problem. The old Union Government gave attention to this problem as long ago as 1923, on the recommendation of the Stallard Commission, and legislation in this regard was placed on the Statute Book at that time already. For that reason, the NP is once again getting the reform process going in South Africa and keeping it on the go by means of this legislation as it has promised in election after election since 1981. It is continuing the process of reform by means of this legislation.

Those who want to make out that this legislation is something other than what it really is are opposing the reform process in South Africa, or have ulterior motives—like the hon member for Losberg. It was clear from the evidence given before the joint committee that almost everyone spoke with great appreciation of the approach of the legislation in clauses 9 to 15. Everyone saw the positive aspects of this part of the legislation, and described it as good legislation, in which understanding and compassion were shown for this problem. They said that this legislation would make it possible to deal with the problem with understanding and compassion, and that it would be able to solve the problem to a large extent. It was also clear from the evidence given by the chairman, Mr Tom Boya, and the executive body of the Black Municipal Association of South Africa, that they, too, viewed the second part of this legislation in a positive light. They also expressed their gratitude for the approach in these clauses of this piece of legislation. These are the people who are the most closely affected by this legislation. For that reason we can take note of their evidence and pay attention to it.

There were some clauses and paragraphs that they were worried about, and for that reason I want to recommend that when the people who draw up our laws draw up a measure of a general nature such as this, they should also take into account the habits, the traditions and the way of life of the other population groups, because that could be to the advantage of the entire South African population.

After all, the way you live is different to ours.

I want to tell that hon member here on my left, who has said by way of an interjection that the way we live is different to theirs, that there is probably a sector of the population of South Africa whose way of life is different to his way of life and mine, and whose customs differ from his and mine. [Interjections.]

The part of this legislation which provoked criticism was clause 1 up to and including clause 8. Those are the clauses which deal with the penalties involved in implementing this legislation. Any legislation which is placed on the Statute Book without penalties or anything to make it compulsory, is not worth the paper on which it is written.

For that reason I again want to express the idea that when we draw up our legislation, we should not indicate the penalties and the fines in the first clauses of the legislation, but in the last clauses of the legislation. That will make the legislation more positive and it will also remove much of the negativity of those who have to look at the legislation and comment on it.

The reasons for my saying this are apparent in clause 7 of this Bill, which deals with squatter farming in South Africa. This is probably one of the greatest evils with regard to squatters in this country, and not one of the witnesses who gave evidence before the commission referred to it. The reason I ascribe to this is that this squatter farming and the control or elimination thereof, is dealt with in one of the last clauses which deals with fines and penalties. As soon as one spoke about it, everyone reacted positively and said that this evil should be eradicated completely.

For that reason I believe that we should pay attention to these problems which have appeared in the legislation, and find answers to them. I think that if we were to implement this legislation, and in particular clause 9 and 10, with discretion and consideration, we would have an answer in this Bill which would mean a great deal to us in solving the problem of squatting in South Africa, and for that reason it is a great pleasure for me to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, my intention this afternoon is not to waste a lot of time on the undisciplined hon members who have left the Labour Party. I am not going to comment on that except to say that there is an opportunity for the CP to increase its membership among these dissidents. [Interjections.] I want to add that people will now understand why these people left the Labour Party. They are more NP-inclined than they are for the rights of the people.

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Rosettenville, Mrs Camerer. She referred to certain rights and she said that there should be proper town planning and that we must make provision for land for the Blacks and the Whites. I want to tell her to listen to what I have to say this afternoon. She will then be convinced that the party which she supports has no vision to plan for the future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and I want to quote to the Afrikaners from this NP book. It states here that the ethnic composition of the Afrikaner is 40% Dutch, 40% German, 7,5% French, 7,5% English and 5% “other elements.” [Interjections.] Let us examine these “other elements.” Let us analyse the situation. Let us look, for example, at what the hon the Minister of Home Affairs does. South Africa is a wonderful country where one can be a Black person the one minute and a White person the next. We have certain God-given rights. I want to tell the House that if we do an analysis many people will move to the left of this Chamber, so be very careful. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and I want to talk about the Greeks in particular. It says here that the first Greek settlers are believed to have been 11 sailors who jumped ship at Port Elizabeth in 1880. The jumped off the ship without any women. [Interjections.] In the same book it also says that 4 000 Germans were employed by the Dutch East India Company during its rule over the Cape. They settled here and were able to make a living in Cape Town. It says that they were farmers, traders, teachers and doctors and that in 1806 more than half of the White population of the Cape were of German descent.

I want to give the House an example of a Coloured person this afternoon.

Where do you come from, Charlie?

Where do I come from? Keep your ears shut and your mouth open and you will find out. [Interjections.]

†I want to mention an example. If a person of Greek origin marries an Afrikaner, they have two different cultures. All the children bom out of that marriage are Coloured because they are not a pure race—the one is a Greek and the other an Afrikaner. Or it could be that the one is English and the other one Jewish. I want to say to hon members this afternoon that they should go and examine their roots and only after that should they come and criticise people.

Let me come back to more important things. It is a sad day for South Africa …

Order! When the hon member moves closer to more important things, he must also move closer to the Bill under discussion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is my intention. I want to start by saying that it is a sad day for South Africa. It is sad for the following reason. All we have done this week is to debate legislation which discriminates against a section of the population.

I want to tell all my friends who are not White and who have spoken in support of this Bill that this Bill erodes family life. It uproots people, it is just another arm of the Group Areas Act and it strengthens the Act.

I want to quote from something which I shall deal with later on. By way of introduction I want to say the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning is unfortunately not here, but he knows the Tsitsikamma very well. He is aware of the fact that there has been no planning in the Tsitsikamma. There is no place to stay for a person who is not White. No provision has been made by his Government. Where does he expect these people to live? [Interjections.] These people who live in the Tsitsikamma are staying on farms, and in terms of this law the hon the Deputy Minister has to remove those people from those farms in the Tsitsikamma.

What happened over and above that—he knows what I am talking about—is that the Fingos had land in the Tsitsikamma, and that land was taken away from them. They went to court, but nothing happened. The hon member for Rosettenville spoke about proper planning, but there has been no planning as far as Black people are concerned. What has been done is that measures have been introduced and people robbed of their land.

I want to quote from a newspaper article written by Mr George Hill, under the headline: “Horses have it better than people”. He writes as follows:

This is what is happening in South Africa. These people are working there and their families live outside their quarters—

This is a sorry sight in South Africa, where we have land yet people cannot sleep.

However, let us come to the Bill before us.

What did they do with the Fingos?

They took the Fingo’s land away from them. That is next to Woodlands. The hon the Deputy Minister knows what I am talking about. These people went to court, but what happened? Now I am told that this is an honest Government, when they remove people forcibly and take their rights away from them. Is that what we are doing? [Interjections.]

I am being serious about this. Hon members may laugh, and the hon the Deputy Minister may laugh, but I am telling hon members that the day will come when they will regret this because their children are going to suffer. It may be nice for a White man to sit and perform, but they do not know what is is like to sleep in the open veld; they have not had that experience. They do not know what it is to be uprooted from one’s home; they have not had that experience. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon members—I want the hon the Minister or his Deputy to tell us how many White homeless people we have in South Africa. What happened in Port Elizabeth? I used to stay in South End.

Order! The hon member almost made me happy when he said he was going to return to the Bill. I would be pleased if he would move a bit closer to it.

I am doing that, Sir.

†In terms of this law, if an area has been proclaimed for the White man and a Black man is in it he is forcibly removed, and that is what happened in South End. The area was declared White and we were forcibly removed without alternate housing. This is the Government’s problem; they create squatters because they want to satisfy a few White people so that they will vote for them.

One can go all over South Africa. I have travelled all over South Africa and nowhere does one find a homeless White family. The thing to do if there are not sufficient numbers, is to reclassify certain people to occupy those homes. [Interjections.]

I quote from clause 5 (b) of the Bill:

We talk about justice and the authority of the courts, but here a man can go and demolish a structure or a home and uproot that family, and people say that we must support this. How can anyone in his right mind support something of this nature?

Let us read further on about the owners of the land, and they do not all belong to the NP. Some of them feel that because of the lack of planning by the Government they want to assist people. These people are then hounded and they have to go to court and pay a fine. I want to make a public appeal to the Government …

They will not listen.

I know the Government will not listen to me. I know that! I do not care if they do not listen to me, because the day will come when they will be forced to listen. [Interjections.] Ian Smith said the same in Rhodesia: I am not going to listen to people. Over my dead body will a Black man ever rule here. However, what has happened there? [Interjections.] He is half dead and the Black people are ruling. [Interjections.] Hon members must understand the problem in South Africa, that …

Our problem is that you are scared of the Blacks. That is our problem. [Interjections.]

That hon member must not make a noise, but he should go and examine his roots. He should not tell me about Black people, because we are not scared of anybody. That hon member is scared of eventualities. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What do Mr Ian Smith and all the things that the hon member is talking about have to do with this Bill?

They were also squatters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member was subjected to a little provocation. The hon member may proceed.

I refer to clause 9 on page 13 of the Bill.

*I would just like to say that this is stale bread, and here they are telling us that it is a fresh cake. [Interjections.] The problem is namely … [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh. [Interjections.]

You are turning this place into a circus!

Yes, and that hon member is one of the clowns.

Order! Hon members now have to start treating one another with a little more respect. I am addressing all members, not only one in particular. The hon member may proceed.

Clauses 9 and 10 substitute the old sections 6 and 6 A. According to the Bill before us a local authority can remove the people, but in terms of this Bill once the local authority has moved the people out, in terms of the law the Government cannot come and tell them what to do. The final decision still rests with the local authority. How can the Government come and intervene? Let us assume that local authorities are not controlled by the Government. Therefore I want hon members to look at this question properly.

I would like to deal with the proposed new section 6F on page 25. Let us look at the structure of the committees. [Interjections.]

What was the intention in establishing committees? The proposed section 6F(1) to be inserted in terms of clause 11 reads as follows:

We say we are creating jobs. However, when we read clause 12 on page 27 we see that that is where our problems start. It says that any person who hinders, obstructs or resists any person of authority or acting under authority is in trouble. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me an observation or two before I come to my planned address. We encounter here words, expressions and behaviour which we call unparliamentary. In effect, this means they are not allowed in this place. However, I think there is also something which can be called “unworthy parliamentary language” and “unworthy parliamentary behaviour” which is not of necessity unparliamentary. I think we can regard unworthy parliamentary language as something which belongs more on the street or perhaps in public places. My party and I want to dissociate ourselves completely from this type of language and behaviour of which we were witnesses in this Chamber today. [Interjections.]

Another observation is the fact that of all the legislation dealt with this week, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning dealt only with that which, let us say from a leftist point of view, was the least contentious. He left the more contentious, unpopular legislation to his junior colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister. One just wonders whether this perhaps reflects the hon the Minister’s own attitude towards this legislation. One wonders whether he is more in favour of the integratory type of legislation than the legislation opposed to that line of NP philosophy.

*My third observation about what has happened during these few days since Monday is that more is being said about the CP than about the Bills under discussion. That points to only one thing, and that is that the CP is the rising power in South Africa and the party that will have to be taken into account in the future. [Interjections.]

This Bill has been dealt with thoroughly during meetings of the joint committee, the Parliament session which ended on 1 July, and subsequently in the recess. After that it was also discussed during the abortive session three weeks ago. The hon members of the other Houses have made their inexorable resistance to this legislation apparent from the beginning. Nevertheless, the joint committee was again called up to Pretoria for a two-day sitting last week. Last week, 22 members of Parliament from all over the country, four departmental officials and three parliamentary officials gathered in the Union Buildings.

I think that meeting began at about 09h06, and adjourned at 09h18. Nevertheless, the Government persisted with this session, which is not actually a session. This is not actually a parliament, because it cannot make a decision as two of its components are saying that decisions are not going to be made. In other words, as has been said before, at the moment we do not actually have in South Africa a parliament which can necessarily function when it has to function.

Today we are experiencing, as we did last week, the sickening humiliation of the Government before the whole of South Africa and the whole world, and it seems as though the governing party is enjoying it. It seems as though they are hungry for affliction, as though they have a death wish. If only they had it for themselves alone! But it is beginning to seem as though they have it for the whole of South Africa and for the whole White population of South Africa!

The sum total of these abortive attempts of the Government is a further cynical, senseless, scandalous waste of public funds from a Treasury that has already been ruined. [Interjections.] That reminds one of the fable of Wolf and Jackal and their butter churn which went from the first section to the second section to the third section until all that was left was the bottom. In this case though it is worse; in this case the Treasury is no longer scraping the bottom—the bottom has fallen out.

That is what they are doing with public funds with regard to this session as well. They call meetings of joint committees, and Parliament sittings, until nothing is left; until the whole Treasury is going to be beyond the bottom of the barrel. [Interjections.]

I am dealing with this legislation and the activities concerning this legislation. However one looks at this session, it bears witness to ineptitude in its planning, as if panic buttons are being pressed all the time. However much one may differ from the hon the State President, one would have wanted yesterday, the 10th anniversary of his regime, to have been a red letter day for him, even if it was just for the sake of South Africa.

If I were his advisers, I would have ensured that a session such as this one was not arranged at the time of the anniversary of that event. I do not think that the hon the State President finds pleasure in this week. Apparently his advisers did not anticipate it, or otherwise they really believed that the “H-H” agreement, the HendrickseHeunis agreement, would take a different turn to the one it did. But then they were the most naive negotiaters, and I shudder when I think of the negotiations which they are continually involved in. Instead of being a red letter day for the hon the State President and his Government, it was a doleful failure which emanated from the fact that his rule, his reform policy and his consensus politics have completely collapsed.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister something. The House of Assembly is going to agree to this legislation tomorrow. The other two Houses are not going to vote against it. The situation must then be resolved. I am now asking the hon the Deputy Minister or the hon the Minister—actually the hon the Minister—whether or not they are going to refer this legislation to the President’s Council. Are they going to refer all four the pieces of legislation that were debated in this Chamber this week? In view of the threat made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, I think they must have the courage to tell us whether they are going to do so or not. They must please tell us before 26 October. [Interjections.]

In this debate, as well as in previous debates, one reproach after the other was levelled at the NP about the negative aspects of the Group Areas Act and the other two pieces of legislation.

That is what happened in the joint committee. A Mr Ghame gave evidence in our joint committee, and in his evidence he spoke about starvation in the rural areas in South Africa. The hon NP members of the joint committee did not say a word about it, until I accosted him on the matter, and said that he should tell us where the starvation was in South Africa. He fluttered around from one subject to the next until the chairman of the joint committee told him that he could indicate to us in writing where those cases of starvation were. I was a member of that joint committee and I have already received many supplements to the evidence, but we have not heard one word from Mr Ghame about starvation.

I want to ask this NP a question. They have been attacked and under a barrage of fire all the time here, but they have not fought back. It was said here that White land was not used in the whole process of implementing the NP policy in the pre-Botha era. Why does the hon member for Vryheid not tell them about the thousands of White farms that were expropriated for the consolidation of the main homelands? [Interjections.] Why does he not tell them that? Some of those farms had been in the possession of a single family for generations and were expropriated and used for that purpose. Such land was also given to Coloureds and the Indians. Why does the NP not tell them that? Why do they not fight back? Why do they sit there like an emasculated creature?

Tell us about partition!

Why do they not tell the complaining hon members of the House of Delegates about the beautiful shopping centres and plazas which replaced many ramshackle little shops with backyard residences that were leased to Iridian businessmen in the rural areas for next to nothing? [Interjections.] Why do they not tell them that those businessmen were so successful that the Whites were eventually unable to compete with them? Eventually they had to sell their own businesses to the nominees of Indian businessmen. [Interjections.]

Order! No, there is too much shouting.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West has been admonished repeatedly. We are not going to talk to that hon member forever. He must behave himself. No doubt he will have a turn to speak later. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

I am waiting for the NP, the once proud standard-bearer of a civilisation for everyone here on the southernmost tip of Africa, to explain how the Coloureds were taken out of slums where they were being exploited by landowners … [Interjections] … and moved to better places. They were moved to prime residential areas. Why do they not tell us about the palaces that exist in Laudium, Lenasia and Nirvana and those places? They are silent because they have come to the end of their rightful tenure as governing party in South Africa.

Yesterday I had a conversation here with an Indian businessman. Without having been asked, he told me that he had benefitted from the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I know many Coloureds …

Where are they? What are their names?

… who have told me that if it had not been for the apartheid policy—back then we still spoke about apartheid—of the Government, they would not have been where they are today. [Interjections.] The whole Coloured population grew, prospered and developed and raised their standard of living to an unprecedented level during the 30 years of the “old” NP regime.

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

I do not know whether I have time …

Order! In all fairness, it appears to me that the hon member’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker began his speech by speaking and complaining about the actions of certain hon members in this House and the words that were used. There is no way that we can agree with unparliamentary, vulgar words that are not in keeping with the dignity of this House. It is unfortunate, though, that this sanctimonious attitude should come from that party because, although we have been in this House for almost a week, only one hon member has been asked to withdraw from this Chamber. It was a member of that party, that is now being so sanctimonious. The second standpoint adopted by the previous speaker—an hon member of the CP—was that the cost of this so-called abortive session had to be taken into account and that it was a disgrace that we had to be here again. This week has meant a lot in terms of South African politics because there has been an opportunity for debate and the other two Houses have had the opportunity to state their standpoints in open forum, as they wanted to do, with emotion at times. I want to say that this is an investment for the future, and even if it did cost extra money, this session will be worth many more thousands of rands for our future.

The hon member did not have much else to say about the legislation, but I have consulted Hansard as to what the hon member for Soutpansberg had to say about the Bill when he discussed its merits a little more specifically. For example, he used the strategy the CP would adopt to combat the problem of squatting if they were to come to power as an argument when the Bill was being debated in the House of Assembly. He said, among other things, that the negative measures, in other words influx control, should be intensified. He also spoke about the development of homelands and said that the NP, the Government, had deviated from that path. What he did not say and what he ignored was that no government, even when he was a Nationalist, ever succeeded in stemming the flow from the Black areas to the White areas, to say nothing of stopping it.

This influx occurred to an increasing extent and it will continue to do so. That is why these control measures are very necessary. I also want to make a point about the Draconian steps that we can expect from the CP if they should come to power. I should like, for the information …

We shall protect you as well!

… of all the Houses present, to quote what the hon member said in the House of Assembly. He indicated how the CP would approach and solve the problem of squatting.

He said and I quote:

In a moment I shall tell the hon members why I am quoting this passage. It is because he quoted it with approval. He continued:

The deduction one must make from the hon member’s statements is that he admires the brutality of African rulers and that he would do the same. We can deduce from his comments that if the CP should come to power they would act in the same way.

I now want to know what the difference would be between a brutal African government and the CP if they should come to power. It would be exactly the same type of violent government. The point that I want to make is that all radicals have the same mentality. They are mercilessly violent in their methods of government. There is no difference to be expected between a CP government here and any other brutal government in Africa.

I now turn to the other two Houses and should like the hon members to tell me who they think the biggest supporters of the CP are at the moment. In my opinion they are the Labour Party. They are supporters of the CP because they have, by their actions, unwittingly or wittingly given that party leverage in White politics. Every action of the Labour party to embarrass the Government means votes for the CP because the perception exists that consensus cannot work. Does the Labour party really desire to support a right-wing radical party in their activities? [Interjections.]

The Labour party has, from their actions in recent times, enjoyed putting the Government on the spot but every blow they mete out to the Government is a blow to the advantage of the CP in White politics. I ask the Labour Party to stop being supporters of the radical right. I ask for their co-operation. I ask them not to be so naive and not, wittingly or unwittingly, to support the brutality of some Whites.

Does the Labour party think that the CP has good intentions with regard to the Coloureds?

You are pushing us towards the CP!

Do they think that the CP wants to give them a say in politics and the economy? Do they think that the CP will seek consensus? I am warning the Labour Party that they are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping and stimulating the CP by their actions.

I am appealing to them to think and to make this system work. We all know that it is temporary because the political needs of the Black people must still be catered for in some way. It is, however, important for this path of evolution that they make this system work.

Tell them what you said about the Group Areas Act in your constituency. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a third point in the House of Assembly when he asked why the administration of this Act had been shifted on to the provincial administrations. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have been listening to a lot of things these past few days, and we will be hearing much more; there is no doubt about that. When I came through the door of this Chamber this afternoon, I thought to myself: “Leave your friendships outside; do not bring them into these chambers, because while we are in here I do not think that I will be able to call any person here a friend, especially those who are White.” I will be the same person—his friend— outside, but not inside this House because people, not only in the CP but also hon members in the NP, have been telling us a lot of absolute nonsense. [Interjections.] Those hon members do not want friends. [Interjections.] I am not talking nonsense; I am speaking the truth. Those hon members are making more enemies by the way they are trying to treat us.

*Let me tell the hon members one thing. Once an hon member has spoken today, he must remember what he said, because when he comes back here, he must be able to tell us what he said on a specific day.

†We are told a lot of things. Here we have the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. Most hon members did not even speak on the Bill, but beat around the bush. I want to ask hon members something. Does the hon member for Soutpansberg, with his religious, White, European background, want me to stand here today and say: “My baas, ek sal vir jou hoor?”

*Let me tell the hon member that those days are past.

Long past.

Those days are past, and let me tell the hon members that there is a bigger fright in store for them than the one they received here today. [Interjections.]

†Let me tell those hon members about a part of their historical background. [Interjections.]

*If any hon member should say that he does not know about it, let him ask the other hon members what happened in the old days when there was a famine among the White people in the Western Transvaal.

Who helped?

Who helped? The people came to our parents and said: “Abraham, give me credit”. Abraham gave the people credit, and when it did not rain, they asked: “Abraham, it has not rained; we shall pay you after the harvest, next year”. Meanwhile, our parents kept on giving these people credit.

In 1992 the Adju family will have been in Lichtenburg for 100 years. Who brought them in? Who brought them from Mafikeng? Gen de la Rey, a Boer general, brought them from Mafikeng and settled them on his own land in Lichtenburg. The hon members forget what happened before their time; perhaps the hon members were not yet born then.

†Maybe some of the hon members were in orbit at that time. [Interjections.] On the Rand, when they had that trouble—Whites against Whites— and they were killing one another, the Indians cooked pots of rice and left them on the corners.

*The people came quietly at night to collect the food. The hon members forget their background; now they want to come and tell us that we must listen to them.

†You people are so far behind, I can …

Order! The hon member must refer to hon members as “hon members”, and not “you”. The hon member may continue.

Thank you. The hon members … [Interjections.] I have just said that I should not shout because …

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not becoming angry. I am not angry; it is my way, Mr Minister.

Order! It is not good for your heart, hon member. [Interjections.]

That is my way of speaking. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I was a member of this party on my left in the constitutional development in the central Witwatersrand area. [Interjections.]

*The time of samoosas is long past … [Interjections.] … now we are coming to the truth. [Interjections.]

†During that time the agreement was there that there would be another Soweto, but it would be a Norweto. What happened then when it came to Randburg and that side when they wanted to establish Norweto? [Interjections.]

*What happened? The rich men, with their stables and so forth, said: “No …” I may not use the word, but you know what I mean—what you used to call the Blacks. You still do it behind our backs. [Interjections.]

†You call them those same names you used to call us long ago, behind our backs of course! [Interjections.] What did you people do then? You turned around!

[Inaudible.]

Of course, who is in that place? [Interjections.] Who else could it be? Speaking of squatters, Mr Chairman, when I stand and look around me, I see squatters right in front of me. [Interjections.] I see squatters! [Interjections.] One need not be altogether Black to be a squatter. One need not be completely black-skinned to be a squatter.

One need only be a CP or a Prog, and then one is squatting!

Let us return to this Bill. This Bill under discussion is totally in contradiction to what squatters really want. The pain, the hurt that will result from this legislation can definitely never ever be expressed in words. It can never be expressed in words. It hurts! The Government must remember one thing—do not think we are animals because our skins are dark; we are human beings. We can think, and this man in front of you here today, Sirs, wants to tell you one thing—when your forefathers were in figleaves, my forefathers were in silk. They were wearing silk, and let me tell you another thing, Sir—the CP wants us to go back … [Interjections.] Let me just say one thing to that hon member. If it was not for India and the Indians, Van Riebeeck would not be looking at him today. Van Riebeeck was looking for India, with the silks and the spices, and he found Cape Town … [Interjections.] … and therein, in the mixture of the blood, as my hon colleague on this side said earlier, the Afrikaner nation was established, and today some of them do not even want to know what their background is, and so now they are breaking apart.

Who are you talking to? You are a disgrace!

I do not blame you!

You are an absolute disgrace!

Of course you will say it because you are more of a CP than a Nationalist! [Interjections.] You tried your best yesterday to try to explain to us a lot of nonsense. I thought you were an educated person, but today I have a different view. [Interjections.]

*If you do not achieve what you want, what pleases you …!

Order! Did the hon member for Turffontein say that the hon member who is now on his feet was a disgrace?

I did say so. Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia East may proceed.

If one does not go along with them, then one is wrong. How long does the NP want us to go along with them? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this debate on a different tack.

The marked contrast between the Bills previously discussed this week and this one is that the vast majority of people who will be affected by this Bill are not present to state their own case. I refer of course to the millions of Black squatters who are not represented in this Parliament.

I therefore believe the Constitution places an enormous responsibility on all of us here today. We cannot claim to represent Black people, but at the same time we cannot deal with this legislation in terms of the perceived interests of our own constituents. To do this would be to act against the best interests of the country as a whole. This legislation has been framed to cater mainly for the interests of minority groups in South Africa. My party is totally opposed to it as it is in conflict with the principles and values we uphold. We see our task as fighting for a better South Africa—a better deal for all South Africans based on the civilised values of equal rights, personal freedom and the rule of law.

Adequate housing is a fundamental right of all our people. This Bill is intended to deal with the housing problems of those people least able to provide for themselves. It fails dismally. I shall not repeat our reasons for opposing the Bill as clearly set out by the hon member for Houghton.

However, what amazes me is that so many Government speakers have admitted the sins of the past and have made a plea for reconciliation and co-operation in the future. How can they believe that legislation such as this will create anything but deprivation, heartache and racial conflict? My plea is for this legislation to be withdrawn and for a new comprehensive housing strategy to be devised. We have the time. Squatting problems have been with us for a long time. Let us now call a halt to the vicious oppression which has become a hallmark of this Government and seek solutions which are fair, humane and in accordance with our professed Christian beliefs.

To remove a person’s shelter, no matter how humble, without offering a realistic alternative is a bestial act. We are dealing with the lives of fellow human beings—people who are largely unsophisticated and least equipped to contest decisions and to demand alternative accommodation: In short, people who are least able to protect themselves. These people in fact have two alternatives in terms of this Bill: Either to vacate their dwellings and slink off into the bush, or to go to prison for up to one year, whereafter they will again have to squat illegally for they have nowhere else to live. The payment of a fine of up to R2 000 is not an option for these people because they simply could never afford it.

Their crime is to seek accommodation close to work opportunities, at an affordable cost. Many are wives and children who, after the lifting of influx control, wished to be with their husbands and fathers. Many are ageing farm labourers whose services are no longer required or whose farms are now required for residential or other development. We cannot criminalise 7 million people—we cannot make one in every five South Africans a criminal. Mr Chairman, this is not facing up to the reality of South Africa; this is legislating in the interests of minorities through the vicious oppression of the majority. We have a history which is scarred by forced removals. But working through the courts has become inconvenient and Government has therefore devised this legislation which presumes people’s guilt and which makes the eviction of squatters an imperative, not an option. This is a crime against humanity and I believe it cries out for justice.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has advised that approximately 250 000 people still have to be moved, and all of them are Black. It is my belief that most of these people will be forcibly removed against their will and some of the areas are well known personally to me. They include Lawaaikamp in George, Port Nolloth, Kleinskool and Witlokasie in Knysna.

There are two areas in Natal, three in the Transvaal, three in the Free State and a staggering 52 in the Cape Province. It is a matter of great interest that the details for the Cape Province do not include known squatter areas in the South Peninsula such as Noordhoek, Fish Hoek and Hout Bay—possibly they have been granted a reprieve.

The planned forced removal of 350 people in Port Nolloth exemplifies the type of action this Government takes to which we are totally opposed. When influx control was lifted, Black families moved long distances to be with their menfolk employed on the mines and in the fishing industry. They have now been advised that Namaqualand, approximately half the size of the Free State, is reserved for Whites and Coloureds and their only options are to return from whence they came or to move to Khayelitsha, some 800 km away. A visit to Port Nolloth will show anyone that land availability is not the problem there and that this is utter madness.

Then there is also Lawaaikamp in George. In their desperate plight residents wrote to the hon the State President on the 23rd of this month, and I quote:

No, we reject this legislation and implore the Government to think again. Vain and misguided attempts at achieving racial segregation will eventually bring our beloved country to its knees. Let us rather tackle this problem in a humane way. Let us recognize existing informal housing settlements, upgrade them and ensure access to serviced land for the very poor. Furthermore, let us provide a fair mechanism for dealing with the inevitable conflicts between landowners and settlement communities, and between established and new communities.

I believe that failure to do this will hasten our journey on the road to self-destruction.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by issuing a challenge to hon members in the House if they wish to see a true-blue Afrikaner in the mould of the late President Paul Kruger in this House. Just look at me and ask me; then hon members will see that it is me. Nevertheless, President Paul Kruger respected my parents as Arabs.

†We are once again busy with adverse history this afternoon in that we want to change the functions of the judiciary, the highest authority that carries out and implements the law in this country. In terms of the proposed new section 6F in the Bill that is before us, if a committee established in terms of the proposed new section 6E has reasonable grounds to believe that land is occupied by persons who are not in the employ of the owner or legal occupier of the land, the committee will be obliged to direct an officer of the administration concerned to make a report. On the strength of that report the committee will direct the owner or the legal occupier to eject and evict such an unemployed person without any discretion. This will divest our courts of their functions and powers. In other words, the process of law and the advantage of impartiality of courts of justice will be negated. Undue and unrealistic penalties imposed by the Bill upon landowners who fail to eject such unemployed persons, as well as the methods of ejectment will lead to violence, illegal ways of ejectment, confrontation and the breakdown of race relations. We speak about the elimination of the abhorrent factor known as violence and about ways to stamp it out, but this Bill will promote and further it.

I want to read from a report in the Sunday Times of 28 August 1988. It states:

If we do not want violence this Bill must be withdrawn.

The existing common law of contract between a landowner and non-landowner living on his land will be changed and codified in that in terms of the proposed new sections 6E and 6F the force and effect of eviction will shift to a government appointed committee and not to a magistrate or judicial officer—far from our most respected judiciary, and also making a mockery of our courts of law. [Interjections.]

The National Statutory Council Bill was a success because it had two fundamental objectives. Firstly, to bring Blacks into the decision-making machinery. Secondly, all proposed legislation will be discussed with a view to reaching consensus between those serving on the national council prior to Cabinet approval. In this process Black leaders would hopefully be involved.

What is happening here runs contrary to these objectives. Regrettably the legislation—with its far-reaching consequences—on the Order Paper of this House has not followed this procedure.

I want to suggest a revolutionary concept with regard to the working of the joint committees. What we need, is for the leaders of the various communities to be involved prior to the drafting of legislation such as the Bill before us this afternoon. The joint committee should be the forum to which a set of points and principles should be submitted. The joint committee should then invite leaders of the sector to which such measures have relevance. The points and principles should be thoroughly debated and then a final set of principles could be submitted to the law advisers who can formulate them into a Bill.

By following such a procedure the kind of acrimony we have been witnessing during the past week will to a large extent be obviated. Members of Parliament will then be playing the role for which they have come here. The result will be better and more acceptable legislation and it will receive wider support within the community.

I make these suggestions with a view to contributing in a small measure towards removing the kind of acrimony we have witnessed here this week. In view of the events of the past week I feel strongly that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should consider moving forward. A new image is necessary. [Interjections.]

Any good physician will not merely treat an ailment, but will want to go to the root of the complaint so as to cure it. The Bill before us provides no cure or solution to the problem facing us.

I quote from Die Burger of 29 August 1988 under the heading “Los wetsontwerp op plakkery”:

*They went on to say:

*It is a disgrace!

†The Association of Law Societies which represents all practising lawyers in South Africa and which is regarded as the legal brain of the country, also submitted a memorandum to the joint committee in which they objected to the provisions of the Bill before us. The memorandum sets out a plea for a fresh start to the entire problem of squatting and indicates that the amendments will aggravate the situation.

Pleas have come from every quarter, but it appears as if the Government is not taking heed. It appears that the Government’s attitude is like that of the priest who attended an ecclesiastical conference and reported to his mother that he … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the political debate in South Africa today basically centres around two processes. On the one hand there is the constitutional process and on the other the urbanisation process. In both these processes the Black people of South Africa are the main protagonists.

The sensitivity of this piece of legislation before the House today lies in the fact that, when one talks about urbanisation and squatting, one is talking about Black people. The ideal situation would be a political dispensation in which Black people can participate in the decisions on those measures which affect their lives.

South Africa cannot escape the consequences of urbanisation. Hon members have today, in this House, debated the issue of the number of squatters actually present in South Africa. Hon members have debated the backlog in housing, but it does not remove the primary problem with which South Africa is confronted, ie that a squatter problem of phenomenal proportions has to be dealt with.

It is a general and well-known fact that 40% of all Black people today are urbanised. It is expected that the process of urbanisation will have escalated to 70% by the year 2000. This would mean that 10 million to 15 million people would be involved in the process of urbanisation in the period up to the year 2000.

Black urbanisation is a fact. The backlog and the squatting in Black communities is a fact. The answer to this problem must be sought in the opportunities which the process of urbanisation offers to South Africa and all its people. Urbanisation is not a threat. Urbanisation has a phenomenal potential which can lead to an improvement of the standard of living and quality of life of all the people of South Africa. This potential of job creation involving the informal sector must be unlocked. The potential of urbanisation involving the unexploited source of consumer spending must be unlocked. This is the direction in which answers must be sought.

Furthermore, it is a commonplace to assert that the problem of squatting can only be solved by the provision of site and service schemes and the further provision of identified land on which housing can be provided in an orderly and meaningful fashion.

Despite all the criticism of this piece of legislation, the core, the central theme, the aim of the Bill before this House is to make provision for identified land on which Black housing can meaningfully be created.

The solution to the problem of squatting must not be sought in the influx control measures of the past. I do not want to reopen this debate, but we would be failing in our task if we did not apply the lessons, learnt from the failure of the influx control measures, to the squatter problem. Whatever method one adopts in debating the issue, one thing is certain—statutory measures cannot stop an economic process.

Secondly, it does not matter which statutory and coercive measures are applied—squatters cannot disappear into thin air. There will always be squatters, especially in South Africa and in the urbanised context.

I want to illustrate this situation in the Western Cape by means of an example. In 1978 Crossroads had a population of 29 000. Despite the raids and influx control, the Coloured labour preference policy, the withholding of 99-year leasehold, the population of Crossroads has grown from 29 000 in 1978 to more than 400 000. Today one is faced with the result, the fact, that these people did not disappear into thin air. One must deal with them; and Khayelitsha is also one of the consequences of this process.

May I remind the supporters of influx control that there are few measures on the South African Statute Book which have caused so much bitterness amongst Black people, as the influx control measures have specifically done. What is now the order of the day is reconciliation, not estrangement. There are too many inherent risks in the coexistence of people in South Africa to afford any further risks, especially in the form of influx control.

I want to refer to two other aspects which, in my opinion, deserve the attention of this House in a debate such as this. An urbanisation strategy aimed only at the solution to the squatter problem will ultimately not succeed. There are two other facets that deserve attention in the process, ie the development of the rural areas through job-creation programmes and infrastructure. It is a matter of the utmost priority. The rural areas of today are the wellspring of the metropolitan squatter problem of tomorrow.

I advocate a two-pronged campaign. It compromises dealing with the urban squatter problem on the one hand, together with the imaginative development of certain rural areas to anticipate the flow to the cities.

The second aspect is that the squatter problem must be tackled within a developmental framework. In this regard the role of guide plan committees in dealing with the squatter problem is of vital importance. The identification of land for Black housing on an ad hoc basis, as is now the case, creates enormous problems because of vested interests. For this reason overall planning and the identification of land and land-utilisation patterns on a regional basis is an absolute necessity. No urbanisation strategy can be successful if we do not incorporate the handling of the present squatter problem in such a strategy, make provision for the development of rural areas and also do overall planning on a regional basis to regulate future urbanisation. The result of the Bill before the House is that land for Black housing will be identified, that camps will be well-ordered throughout and that informal settlement will be encouraged, that affordable housing will be brought within the means of individuals, that unlimited opportunities will be created for the informal labour sector and that squatter farming will be curtailed. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bellville will forgive me if I do not elaborate on the plea he made here. The hon member made three factual statements which I should like to support, namely that statutory measures can never stop economic processes, that Crossroads is indeed a reality and that the decentralisation of industries is very important. I fully agree with the hon member. I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not support the Bill before the House.

Orderly urbanisation and the abolition of influx control measures form the cornerstones of the Government’s reform policy. In this way the Government has given recognition to the permanence of Blacks in so-called White South Africa. By means the White Paper on Urbanisation the Government announced that henceforth freedom of movement to and within urban areas would exist on a non-discriminatory basis for all citizens of South Africa.

In this regard I should like to refer to the Press statement which was issued by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister said on page two of this statement that the purpose of urbanisation was to create a situation in which most people would be happy, in which most people would co-operate for the sake of the progress and prosperity of our country and in which most people would live in peace with one another. Furthermore, the hon the Minister said that we were all aware that our cities and towns were the most important growth points in the country, that most employment opportunities were created there and that social development occurred most rapidly there. The economic growth of our country would be delayed if we unnecessarily inhibited the growth of our cities and towns. The hon the Minister also said that one of the rights of the citizens of a democratic country was that they should have freedom of movement within the borders of the country. It ought to be possible for every citizen to make a living wherever he chose.

It goes beyond all reason how freedom of movement can exist if occupation rights of premises are granted on the basis of colour and race. Only yesterday we were debating a measure in this House in terms of which the principle of own residential areas was given shape and form. For this reason I cannot support this measure. Inherent in this measure I see nothing less than a covert means of ensuring forced removals. [Interjections.] In this I see a subtle way of applying influx control. [Interjections.] Social problems cannot be solved by merely applying coercive measures. Solutions to problems must be sought at the root of the evil and the cause eliminated, and in this case it is definitely the housing shortage.

The measure before the House is, as far as I am concerned, conclusive proof that the NP has embarked on its route march to classic apartheid in overdrive. The coming local authority elections have definitely allowed the inherent conservatism in the NP to come very much into prominence. It is unacceptable because South Africa finds itself in a phase of reform. Reform does not mean that order, stability and values have to be thrown overboard. No, Sir, as far as I am concerned it means that clear guidelines must be laid down and purposefully pursued. I want to warn the NP that the most dangerous moment in the life of a bad government has dawned when it tries to reform itself and regrettably discovers its inability to do so. It is draft legislation such as this before the House at the moment which plays into the hands of revolutionaries, the revolutionaries who use the grievances of those who have been wronged as their breeding ground.

The Bill is totally unacceptable because it encroaches upon a citizen’s basic common law freedom. It is a regressive step for South Africa. This morning even the hon member for Vryheid clearly pointed out that people do not squat because they want to. A need for a home, even in the form of an unconventional structure, is the direct cause of squatting. The hon member also mentioned that the Bill made provision for a place being designated for so-called squatters. In most cases people are removed to areas far away from their place of work and that usually gives rise to unpleasantness, unfortunate incidents, which this beautiful country of ours can definitely do without.

The Bills which were before the House for the last few days have had two definite effects. Firstly, our White colleagues could take firsthand cognizance for the first time of the grievances of people who have for decades been on the losing side. Secondly, it brought the tragedy of the struggle for White supremacy between the NP and CP to a head.

This week the vast majority of the people in South Africa were concerned spectators, since South Africa is going to get badly hurt in the process. I agree with the hon member for Klip River, and that is why I want to quote from the first novel by M C Botha, Sluvoet, in which the following is written on page 122:

What is important is that he says:

We are extending the hand of friendship and saying that we as the Black people of South Africa should like to act as the catalyst in creating a new South Africa. [Interjections.]

The urbanisation of Black people has been hampered for years by legislation. In spite of that, Black people have continued to seek refuge in the metropolitan areas, and it has been estimated that at present there are roughly seven million squatters in South Africa in these areas. I do not in any way want to rake up the mistakes of the past, but it was an announcement by the Government in 1968 which brought housing schemes for Black people to a forced halt. Research has brought to light that as many as 2,8 million housing units will be necessary by the year 2000 in order to eliminate the present backlog of 1,8 million units.

However, it is also true that poverty among Black people is exacerbated by the rapidly increasing unemployment in the country. This obviously causes that as many as 50% of all homeseekers will not be able to afford formal accommodation. However, if the Government wants to address the problem it will be obliged to accept the occupation of unconventional structures. I mention this firstly because I know that the Government cannot solve our housing problem because of our weak economic circumstances, and secondly because I fully agree with Mr Gerhard Crouse when he says that the elimination of our housing shortage is impossible. In The Star of 3 June 1988 he said, and I should like to quote:

He went on to say:

Sir, today we also want to appeal to the private sector to make their contribution to the solution of this extremely sensitive social problem. It is unfair to expect the State alone to provide housing while businessmen exploit the available cheap labour on a large scale. Appreciative cognizance has been taken of the South African firms which have played their role with much sympathy in respect of social upliftment. However, the time has come for us in South Africa to introduce a code, similar to the Sullivan code which applied to American firms, in order to establish happy and stable communities.

The Bill before the House is not only undesirable, but it also runs counter to my Christian principles. After all, the Gospel teaches me that the poor will always be with us. That is why we have a duty to take care of the infirm and the homeless. Poor people usually squat because they cannot obtain suitable housing. These people have to live somewhere, but clause 2 makes provision for increased fines should a squatter not move within a specified period.

Earlier on in my plea I mentioned that I discerned a concealed form of forced removal, since clause 3 empowers a magistrate to remove squatters.

The urbanisation policy is a direct cause of the influx of Blacks to the cities for economic reasons. On 22 August the hon member for Turffontein said in the House of Assembly that this brought about conflicting interests. I should like to quote him (Hansard, 1988, col 15275):

That is the frankest admission ever made by a member of the NP that in South Africa there is a small group of privileged people and a large group of those who have been wronged. Today the Government must truly prove to this House that Whites, the so-called First World component of South Africa, are being crowded out by the Blacks. Where Blacks have moved into formal housing within White areas it was an economic escape route for White property owners.

This Bill provides that buildings which are illegally occupied may be demolished without any court order being issued. I should like to issue a friendly warning that when one takes away a person’s home, one is striking at their heart and soul.

The implementation of clause 5 could lead to unnecessary violence between officials and the public. What beats all, however, is the fact that this Bill denies squatters access to legal recourse. The Black Act of 1956 is rendered alive and well while the Act was ostensibly abolished in 1986 in terms of the law on the abolition of influx control. Now squatters are expected to prove male fides, but I know that they will never be able to prove it in court.

Earlier the hon member for Turffontein elaborated on the positive aspects of the Bill. I have no difficulty with that, but the increased fines and gaol sentences and the possibility of expropriation included in this Bill will definitely not be taken lying down by those who have been wronged. I also want to quote from a telegramme which the chairman of the Unity Movement of South Africa, Umsa, addressed to the hon the State President. It was stated:

In conclusion I want to mention that the NP will probably get their Act one day, but those who have been wronged in South Africa will always have justice on their side.

Mr Speaker, I should like to illustrate the punitive measures contained in this Bill. Just outside Cape Town, approximately 1 000 squatters who lost all their possessions in the 1986 fires in the Crossroads complex and who have been without a fixed abode ever since, have recently started squatting on vacant land known as Brown’s Farm just opposite New Crossroads in Nyanga, land which is to be developed by the Provincial Administration to house them and the 50 000 other homeless people. Although these squatters have occupied the land illegally, the province has, after negotiations with us, accepted their presence for the time being. The Government, through the province, is refusing to pay heed to their repeated, urgent requests for water and toilet facilities—but particularly water—despite their relatively permanent presence and the squalid conditions under which there men, women and children are having to live in the bush. [Interjections.]

This Government, which claims to be a Christian Government, is refusing homeless people— young children and sick people—something as basic as water. How scandalous! Those hon members ought to hang their heads in shame! Squatters are not animals that one can shunt around; they are people!

Who says they are animals?

They are people with the same basic needs as Whites. If one fails to give a squatter water, one does so because one does not think he is human. One can only wonder what the Government’s attitude would have been if these squatters had been White. I visited those squatters in the bush on Sunday morning.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Deputy Minister should accompany me next Sunday and take a look at those people.

In order to go and stir up trouble.

They have to steal water, and they will be prosecuted if they steal water. They are being turned into criminals. [Interjections.] People who simply want water are being turned into criminals. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should have preferred not to refer to the hon member for Claremont’s speech, if one could call it that, because really, that hon member is one of the most talented troublemakers I have ever met.

Before I come to the theme of my speech, I want to refer to the hon member for Soutpansberg. At the joint committee which met in Pretoria on 21 September, he said that the CP had no interest whatsoever in the proceedings of the joint committee. The hon member said he was a prisoner of this system, and on that occasion he called this entire system a circus. However, he is using—or perhaps I should rather say he is misusing—this so-called circus to spew out all his political standpoints in a vehement manner.

I am sorry that the hon member is not in the House at the moment, but I want to tell him that it would do him good to rid himself of the bitterness inside him, because that bitterness will consume him. Bitterness consumes people.

Although several hon members, particularly those on the left hand side of the House, have already mentioned that the measure before Parliament contains a variety of positive elements, particular emphasis has fallen on the negative aspects of the legislation and the evidence heard by the joint committee.

Particularly insofar as the evidence is concerned, it is true that there was, in fact, some criticism, and what is more, I think this is necessary. Various hon members have already justified themselves by saying that they will avail themselves of their right to express criticism. That is quite right. That is why South Africa is a democratic country.

However, the positive aspects of the measures contained in this amending Bill also came into prominence, even on the joint committee.

When one does not judge the evidence superficially, but takes a thorough in-depth look at it, one discovers that many positive aspects have been perceived in the legislation, even by those who came to give evidence before the joint committee. They were even perceived by certain bodies from whom positive comment could not really be expected. In fact, I want to assert that a true, objective analysis of the evidence and the legislation will prove that the Bill and the evidence contain more positive elements than negative aspects.

Negative elements.

In view of the arguments put forward by that hon member’s colleagues, I should like to accept and to concede that there are specific elements contained in this legislation which his colleagues and others may experience as negative. With a few exceptions, however, a single thought runs like a golden thread through all the evidence, and that is that the problem of illegal squatting is recognised and that the status quo cannot be maintained. Everyone said that, and the Bill says that as well.

It is not possible to refer to all the positive comments on the entire Bill, or on portions thereof, in the course of this speech. I just want to mention a few examples. Important bodies—one such body has already been quoted here—such as Umsa and Ucasa acknowledge the positive aspects of the Bill. The United Municipalities of South Africa name, not one or two, but five positive points contained in it which are of fundamental importance if one analyses their criticism.

The Law Review Project says, inter alia, the following:

They go on to say:

The positive aspects of the Bill were also underscored—I shall not go into the details—by the Urban Foundation. I want to assert here this afternoon that the Urban Foundation also perceives some strong positive aspects in the legislation.

That also applies to the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Research Unit for Developmental Sociology at the University of Stellenbosch. The latter body says, inter alia:

Hon members will see, therefore, that appreciation is also being expressed at the fact that transit areas may be declared designated areas, if this is consistent with the guide plan of the area in question, that it will be possible to grant property rights, and that it will be possible for permanent settlement to take place.

Even the hon member for Houghton is appreciative of the positive aspects of the Bill. It is therefore not as Draconian as some hon members would like to imply.

Despite its many positive points, this Bill was not thoroughly discussed on the joint committees. I personally find this a great pity because I believe that together we could have tried to find a solution to a very great problem in our country. But then there must be discussion; we must communicate. Then hon members must make alternative proposals so that substance and effect may be given to the process of give and take, which is so characteristic of true negotiation. I do not think it is impossible to achieve consensus. Nor do I think it was impossible to achieve consensus on this legislation in the joint committee. My impression was that it was more a case of certain parties not wanting to achieve consensus and not being interested in holding a discussion on this important matter.

There is another aspect to which I should like to refer this afternoon. Mention was made during this debate of certain squatters who could be removed, without enough land being available for them. According to my information it will be possible to accommodate the majority of the squatters in the PWV area, who are living illegally on that land at the moment, on the land which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning proclaimed on 1 June this year as land which was to be utilised for the expansion of existing residential areas for Blacks. This process has not only been implemented in the PWV area, but in the rest of the country as well. I think this is an exceptionally positive development. Might I just respectfully request of the hon the Minister this afternoon that this land to which I have just referred not only remain identified, but that it also be made available to inhabitants as quickly as possible.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Losberg this afternoon. I note that he is not in the House right now, but I want to inform him of something that is happening in his own constituency. Land has already been made available for the resettlement of squatters on Weiler’s Farm. Those squatters living on Weiler’s Farm will have a choice. They will be able to go and live at Evaton, where water, water-borne sewerage and other site and service schemes are already available. They may also go to Orange Farm if they wish, where there is already a central watering point. If they were to exercise that choice, our information—which, incidentally, is correct—is that that area is to be upgraded, so that those people on that land will be able to lead a dignified existence. It is therefore not correct to say that squatters are to be removed forcibly whilst there is no alternative land available.

It will now actually be possible to assist squatters in four ways insofar as their housing is concerned. Firstly, they will be able to settle in existing Black townships where there is adequate space. Secondly, they will be able to go and settle in new, conventional townships. Thirdly, they will be able to go and live in informal townships or in the designated areas to which I have referred. Fourthly, they may go and live in temporary transit areas.

The last point I want to mention relates to property rights. The most fundamental right of every person is to have full authority over his own possessions, his own property. There are certain instances in which people have taken to squatting without the permission of the owners concerned. They have simply settled on another owner’s land. We hear that it is virtually impossible for those owners to have the squatters removed. This applies particularly to some farms and smallholdings.

If squatting is not going to be controlled in a sensible manner and if it is no longer possible to resettle illegal squatters, this could lead to unprecedented disorder in our country and it could also have the effect that landowners will no longer be certain about their personal security. Furthermore, they will no longer be sure about their rights to their property. This is something which a country like South Africa cannot afford.

I am very pleased to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us is the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. Squatting is part and parcel of urbanisation and I shall explain this. When a farmer leaves his farm and moves to the urban areas he finds accommodation and that is a process of urbanisation. However, when because of poverty non-Whites, in this case Blacks—and I do know that Blacks are not mentioned in the Bill, but we are talking about Blacks and we all know this— move from rural areas to find work in the industrial areas and close to the cities they have to squat because they have nowhere else to go. That is why squatting becomes part and parcel of urbanisation.

We have a situation which goes back many years because of the Government’s policy of having no Blacks in the South African situation and that Blacks should go to the homelands. There was also a permit system and migrant labour. The first statement was made by Minister Punt Janson when he said the reality could not be swept under the carpet; that there were nine million Blacks working and living in the country of South Africa as it stands, and they could not be swept under the carpet. Sadly that fact was not accepted by many people, some of whom may still be sitting over here. However, Minister Punt Janson was swept under the carpet and that was the end of that. Until the Rikhoto case which was decided and was sensibly not contested or taken on appeal, there was no turning point. That was the real turning point of accepting Blacks into the urban situation.

However, the fact of the matter is that Blacks need jobs, and industry, commerce and households need them. What, then, is the solution? They have to be accommodated because until the Rikhoto case a Black used to come and work in the urban areas and was given a parcel and a little pay and he had to go back for a month on a holiday. Why was that? To him it was a case of being sent home on a happy journey, but the intention and paperwork behind it was to break that continuity because if he were to live there continually he would become a permanent citizen of the country. That is where the sting was. These people never understood this but went away in good faith and when they came back after a month the continuity had been broken. We now have to face these realities.

Then influx control was lifted and together with that there was the White Paper on Urbanisation. In that White Paper I remember clearly there was an instruction or a request to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to do everything in his power to make sure that the expected movement to the cities was accommodated. What was needed was to acquire land and to prepare for this movement because until then people could not come into the cities legally because of influx control. In spite of that there were millions working in the cities.

Before that people were working on the farms and in the vineyards, and their aspirations were to sell their labour on the free market and to erect the vineyard fences. The could not go any further than that. However, now they are offering their labour on the free market and moving out of the poverty stricken rural areas and therefore there must be this provision for them to come and live here. However, what has been done so far since the White Paper was published? One may say that a lot has been done, but that is not enough. If enough had been done, we would not have been in this sad state today.

I had the good fortune to represent my leader on the joint committee for one day only. I must say that I learnt a lot in that day. We had Black representatives who came to give evidence and one of them impressed me a lot. He submitted a memorandum from which I want to quote because it makes a lot of sense. I quote:

This memorandum from which I have quoted, was presented to the joint committee and it was presented by the United Municipalities of South Africa. The president of that body presented this and in his evidence he said that there were certain positive aspects in this Bill, but there were others which were negative. He pleaded with the committee not to go through with this Bill at the moment. He said: Defer this Bill. Let the elections take place and then, when those people, who will be on those councils for five years, are elected, they can make representations. I would like to ask who else but the people who are affected can make representations. They know the most about it and I challenge anybody here to say that he knows more about it than these people who are really affected.

In conclusion I would like to tell the Government something in Afrikaans. I think I should do that. [Interjections.]

*Sir, one must take risks. One must take risks and remember that nothing ventured, nothing gained. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the hon member for Haarlem is not here. I would have liked to react to what he said here in the House earlier this afternoon concerning the Tsitsikamma. I do not represent those areas myself, but we do have interests there. Those interests extend from 1981, when I became personally involved in negotiations with the Coloured community there to help them to identify a residential area.

It is very interesting that during that time, apart from the Woodlands area, there was also the Thornham area which had belonged to these people for years. When we asked the people of Thornham, because the process would have been much quicker with them, rather to make their land available, it was very interesting to hear their reaction. I would prefer not to repeat the words here, but what it boiled down to was that they would not like to have the squatter community with them.

In the meantime this land at Woodlands has been proclaimed and this afternoon I ask the House of Representatives this question, whether they can carry out this development as quickly as possible and refrain from hurling accusations at the Government. I am aware that this process made far slower progress than one would have liked, but now that it has started, we must not delay it any longer.

During the past few days there has been frequent reference to the NP’s 40-year régime, and to the negative effect apartheid has had on this country. I would like to take the hon members back a bit further to the area which I represent today, Cradock. I quote from a book by Ben Maclarend, A Proper Degree of Terror, and I refer to the first years of British government, on the Eastern border from 1795 to 1800. There was a certain McCartney, who confirmed certain ideas, and I quote:

Furthermore I read in this book that in those years Sir John Cradock gave a certain Commissioner Graham, after whom Grahamstown was named, certain instructions. He said, and I quote:

He was referring here to the Blacks. I would prefer not to repeat the word used here. He went on to say:

Where does apartheid start? He went further and gave instructions for these people to be arrested. The writer concluded by saying:

If this is the language and the history which developed in South Africa throughout the years, do the hon members then expect the NP, the Government of the day, to re-write this history in one day? [Interjections.] I think that during this past session we have broken away from the Khoi-Khoi, who exterminated the Bushmen, and we have broken away from the violence on the Eastern Border. We have moved from the bush to Cape Town, where we are able to meet jointly in a debating Chamber. This is what the NP, the Government of the day, has succeeded in doing. We can look each other squarely in the face and we can debate with one another, even though we differ with one another. [Interjections.]

I want to continue by saying that the blame must not be placed solely on the Government. What does Dr Wim de Villiers say about this? In the past week’s Finansies en Tegniek it was stated:

I should like to make a second point, and that is that the farming industry has been singled out today as the culprit that is forcing people from their farms to urban areas. We in South Africa are involved in a normal urbanisation process which the whole world has known. As a farmer I do not bow my head in shame today, because we provide 1,2 million people in this country with work. We house 5,5 million people, for whom no one but the farmers accept responsibility. For a long period we housed the families of mineworkers; we also housed the families of migrant labourers.

We brought about meaningful changes in disposition in the farming industry, and I want to tell the hon members that a farm worker today looks forward to a career in the farming industry. He looks forward to partnerships, and I am not afraid to tell the hon member of Houghton that she can come and see what relations are like on my farm.

[Inaudible.]

I say that we are working through the Rural Foundation to make a positive contribution to changing attitudes in this country and providing people in the rural areas with opportunities. Last week in Cradock my people asked me why, if the Black people in the towns were not willing to hold discussions, we did not start with a rural council for Black people. This is the contribution the farmers are making. We must stop criticising the Government and rather say let us join hands in order to get the Black people around the conference table.

We are aware of the fact that this is very sensitive legislation, but it deals with people and with land. If one is dealing with these two aspects I find it significant—and I am also saying this with reference to the remark made by the hon member for Haarlem earlier—that we have ended up with an exchange transaction. What happened to the Fingoes of the Tsitsikamma? They stay in Keiskamma, and the farmers of the Kat River stay in the Tsitsikamma today. But this was a sensible relocation of people who were able to re-establish themselves in order to make a new start.

We must apply and manage these limited resources of ours—the agriculture, the human resources and capital—to the best of our ability. Our solution does not necessarily lie in legislation, but it is the enforcement of a law which will determine whether the orderly urbanisation is going to be successful or not.

I take an example from legislation which I am not partial to, and which I think most of the hon members also dislike—the road traffic legislation. Disregard the traffic laws, exceed speed limits, ignore a stop sign, and a person is not free any more. Then you are risking your own life. Why should we then be afraid of legislation when it offers us freedom of movement within its ambit and we can apply it positively to further a total upliftment of the society in South Africa?

For us the answer lies in a general urbanisation policy, an orderly urbanisation policy, in which we can, according to this legislation, designate areas which can be made available to the less privileged, where they can establish themselves in informal housing at a lower cost. I ask this afternoon that these areas be promulgated as quickly as possible. I agree with the hon member Dr Golden when he says that we will provide the people with affordable services and that this process will be expedited as soon as possible.

We ask for a housing strategy as an adjunct to that, which will result in a partnership between the Government and the private sector. My question this afternoon is whether the private sector will in fact, as the Public Service is doing, also contribute to the financing of the housing of its employees, or whether it will expect the Government to do so. Until now that has been the message I have received.

If we have to continue at the figure mentioned by Dr Jan Lombard of the Reserve Bank, of 1 200 houses per day, it cannot be expected that the taxpayer should create this accommodation. Informal housing is the possibility of the future which must be developed, but it must be accompanied by rights of ownership as well as the opportunity to upgrade it. This legislation also makes provision for this.

We say that we need employment opportunities for our people, apart from the farming industry— to which I referred—the informal sector and regional development, which was referred to this afternoon, and deregulation, which makes it possible for our people not to be restricted by a host of regulations, thereby promoting employment opportunities.

I do not think that we are all aware of the opportunity which housing creates in this country as far as employment opportunities are concerned, and in my own constituency I ask why we should import building materials. Why do we not process our own products internally and create the opportunity for more people to make a meaningful contribution locally to the development of their houses?

Finally such a strategy will make provision for the upgrading of the quality of life of all our people, and this requires a meaningful participation in the population development programme of this country. The resources of this country can only support a certain number of people.

If we cannot, in the first place, obtain meaningful participation by means of an enhancement of the quality of life of people, I have no hope for success. However I am not one of those who feel despondent. I am a person who believes there are great possibilities for the future in this country if our people would only join hands. That is why I say to the Government of the day that they must continue to do what they have been doing. I gladly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, for me this week has been a week of learning and certainly a very exciting experience.

It was good for me to listen to people who have suffered as I have, but have had different experiences as well. It was also good to listen to people on the other side and their viewpoints. I think the thing that came through very clearly is that all of us are proud to be South Africans. I want to assure the hon member for Edenvale that I have absolutely no objection to her taking pride in being an Afrikaner. However, I beg of her, if we want to use the example of the Afrikaner to take our people exactly where they belong, not to hold that against us.

I was disappointed last night when, at the conclusion of the debate, the hon the Deputy Minister used a very unfair argument in retaliation to an interjection made by the hon member for Klipspruit West. Group areas are none of our doing, and if we come to the hon the Minister for assistance it does not mean that we are perpetuating group areas. All we are trying to do is to help people not to squat, and the Group Areas Act is directly responsible for the majority of squatters in this country.

Hear, hear!

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

I do not blame the Government for the Act. They have not suffered in the way that we have.

Now they are starting to suffer!

Tell them!

An inference was made regarding the hon member for Klipspruit West. When reference was made to Noordgesig, the hon the Deputy Minister tried to emphasise the urgency because of where Noordgesig is situated. I think the reverse is actually the truth. The insistence of the people of Noordgesig to remain where they are proves emphatically that people have no objection to mixing.

Noordgesig is divided from Soweto by a road. They have been there simultaneously. [Interjections.] Noordgesig, as it is now known, started off as Skoongesig. When I was a little boy, not at school yet, those people were squatters. They squatted in the churchyard at Eleventh Street in Vrededorp, which is now a White area. They were housed in Noordgesig and simultaneously Orlando East was developed. So those two communities grew together without any objections. I want to assure hon members that during the height of the 1976 disturbances there was not a single request to be removed from Noordgesig.

Hear, hear!

If the hon the Deputy Minister is accusing the hon member for Klipspruit West of asking for group areas, he must point the finger at me as well. Since I joined the Johannesburg so-called Coloured Management Committee in 1971 I have been asking for the proclamation of that area. It has been 50 years and those people are still squatting, still dispossessed, and living in those same homes. [Interjections.] Hon members must do something about it.

We are concerned about the polarization that is taking place in this Chamber. We should be concerned about that polarization which is occurring outside of this Chamber.

*We should not use such unfair examples.

†I will come and knock on your door because of the needs of my people, not because I want group areas, but because people are entitled to a decent roof over their heads.

I want of course to respond to the hon member for Cradock who has just made a very interesting remark when he said he was making an appeal to the House of Representatives to develop Woodlands. I want to assure you, Sir, that this can only be done with great pleasure because of the need. But I am reminded every time that when funds are requested, the cupboard is unfortunately bare. I will use the good offices of the hon member for Woodlands—because he surely has greater influence over those who make the financial decisions—to make sure that Woodlands is developed.

But let us look at the Bill that we are busy with today, or the problem that we are confronted with. There is nobody on God’s earth who squats because he wants to squat. I do not think that anybody wants to inconvenience himself and, particularly his family, just for the sake of squatting. I do not think that squatting has an appeal to anybody. People squat because they have the responsibility to provide even the barest minimum, and if squatting is the barest minimum, then they will provide that.

People squat because of economic reasons. You and I know that for many years in this country freedom of movement was not permitted. One was permitted to move at the whim and desire of somebody with a lighter pigmentation. With the scrapping of the Influx Control Act people naturally moved to where the pastures were greener. That is a natural phenomenon that one cannot deny any human being with ambition and aspirations—to take his family and those nearest and dearest to him to where they can enjoy better. If there is no housing and no prospect of housing, because there is not even allocated or identified ground for housing, then the only alternative is squatting.

Let us not then blame people for squatting. Let us rather create the opportunity—and this is what we should be engaging ourselves in today—for home ownership, for every South African to at least have a decent roof over his head.

However, I am afraid that what we are busy with, is introducing a new form of influx control. I may be repeating what has already been said, but we have this great fear after having been confined for so many years that that short-lived freedom may now suddenly be removed by another form of control in the form of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill.

I heard a comment or an interjection from this side of the House, but unfortunately the hon member is absent. He made a reference to Maputo. I do not live in Maputo. I am a South African citizen and all the other people in this country are South African citizens. Let me remind the hon member—I say this without malice and certainly without prejudice—that when White Portuguese in Maputo had problems—I realise that they had problems—and fled to this country, we accommodated them, but not in squatter camps.

I remember the areas of Greymont and Newlands where hundreds of housing units had been standing empty for days and months and years on end while thousands of my people were living opposite those empty units and were begging for housing. However, it could not be given to them because Greymont and Newlands were holy Nationalist ground.

Those Portuguese were given the opportunity to acquire housing in those areas. However, what do we find now? Today we find that the leader of the NP in the Johannesburg City Council, Mr Danie van Zyl, who has represented that area for many terms suddenly found another ward to contest, because those same people he has given homes to are going to vote against the NP. [Interjections.] The same people they took out of a squatting situation have turned their backs on the NP. If it had not been so Danie van Zyl would not have given way. I feel sorry for him, because he looked at the needs of people and came to their assistance.

That is all we are asking for here today and that is all we have been asking for this whole week. Let us look at the needs of people, irrespective of their colour, and let us at least declare that we intend to resolve that problem.

It is good to talk about organised squatting, but in this country that which is temporary has the habit of becoming permanent. It is an absolute joke in my community to go on a waiting-list for a house, because the latest, biggest joke now is that one must first go on the waiting-list for a “zozo”. Those who do not know a “zozo” and have not experienced it, may laugh, but it is not a joke to us. Long before one can ever dream of becoming a resident in a house, one must go into what is commonly known as a garden-shed, a “zozo”.

We would not have had a problem with squatting if we had been prepared to share in this country. I am pleading passionately this afternoon, because I believe that the whole exercise of this week was one of opening our hearts and sharing frustrations with fellow-rulers in this country.

I believe all of us have the responsibility of removing fears from the minds of people. I want to repeat what I said earlier, and that is that nobody squats just for the sake of squatting. People squat out of absolute, dire necessity.

Of course I have a dilemma. What we have under the present status quo is absolutely criminal, because it turns innocent people into criminals. We have to look at how we can improve on it, but I am afraid that we are not even half addressing the problem with this legislation.

I am on record as having said right at the outset— and I am prepared to apologise if I am proved to be incorrect—that we are wasting our time looking at this. I want to say that some of the evidence that was presented to that joint committee opened the eyes of some people. It certainly gave me, one who lives with the situation, a broader outline of and a greater respect for the problems of this country and particularly the problems that squatters are forced to live with. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we have been talking all week about land and the use of land and I agree with my immediate predecessor, the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Representatives, that the Group Areas Act has contributed in large measure to problems of squatting that we have.

I wish I could hate the people who perpetrated the Group Areas Act but we are told that we must not hate the evildoer; we must hate evil and that we must try to win over the evildoer with love. I beg hon members, do not make it impossible for us to try love.

Shack settlements have assumed alarming proportions in most of Asia, in most of South America and all of Africa. Squatting is therefore not a problem unique to South Africa and I do not say that only the Government since 1948 is to blame for the problems that we have, neither will I say that the White ruling class here is solely to blame. Squatting in South Africa is a socio-economic problem which has been accentuated by political factors. Unfortunately, when there was incipient urbanisation many years ago, neither Lord Milner nor President Paul Kruger thought that squatting could become a problem with the developing urbanisation at that time. It was the complete failure of the Smuts Government, the Malan Government and the Verwoerd Government, at a time when tremendous industrialisation was taking place in South Africa, to amend the bad land laws of this country. This has accentuated the problem in this country and has left us with the tremendous difficulties that we face. It has been the racialistic practices of successive governments that have made our problems infinitely worse than they need be.

However, the Urban Foundation and private enterprise as well as the Government are trying— and we must acknowledge this—to provide housing and the necessary infrastructure, but much too slowly, far too slowly. The claim of a shortage of land is false. The claim of a shortage of funds for this purpose is made simply because of the tremendous waste of public funds on projects not half as urgent as housing. Hundreds of millions of rands are spent on weapons of killing, and on social tinkering, and even now on providing yet further rapid transit for military forces, all of which are designed to maintain White domination. Those funds could well be diverted to provide housing for those who need housing desperately.

A pillar of society, the Association of Law Societies, is aghast at several of the clauses in this Bill which constitute a wholly unacceptable violation of the rule of law.

[Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is not easy coming in to bat at the tail-end of a four day marathon test match when most of the shots—I think—have already been played. I think we have been entertained by a number of very fine, fluent innings and some hostile fast bowling, but I think we were disappointed by some inept batting and many balls wide of the mark.

I am certain, however, that we have all benefited from the experience of this debate, and we are resolved to put our heads down to build a better future South Africa.

The hon member for Toekomsrus …

… just made a fine speech!

… I think gave a fairly balanced speech, but I think it is very difficult, in the light of world experience, where there are millions of squatters all over the world in other cities, to accept his assertion that the Group Areas Act is responsible for squatting. Does the hon member really believe his case? Evidence in this country does not back up his claim either. [Interjections.] I do, however, agree with him that we will have to find ways and means of providing housing for all our people.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills had a whirlwind innings in which he swatted at flies—he criticised the Defence Force who protect him. I think he added very little to the score of solving our problems. [Interjections.]

The phenomenon of squatting has been basically brought about by man’s herd instinct, and a consequent movement to urban settlements is nothing new.

What about the penalties?

The phenomenon of informal settlement is as old as the ancient great cities of Babylon, Rome and Cairo, and, in more modern times—hon members who have visited them will know what I am talking about—even London, Paris, Buenos Aires and New York, just to name a few. All of them have had their share of headaches in trying to solve the serious problems of resettlement and the upgrading of massive squatter problem areas. Of the 28 million Black people who are citizens of the USA it is estimated that some nine million are illiterate, and over half of those people are living in squalid conditions …

Where is that?

In the United States of America.

Which town?

… and resettlement is an ongoing process.

Squatting, and its control in South Africa, is not a new phenomenon either. It goes back to the last century when the Vagrancy and Squatting Act was passed in the Cape Colony in 1879, and measures in Natal against squatting were accepted in terms of the ordinance of 1885. The Free State and the Transvaal followed shortly after.

Mr Speaker, while the amendments in the Bill before us are largely designed to ensure workable solutions in the process of orderly urbanisation, together with the associated socio-economic and health problems, I think the words “illegal squatting” conjure up lurid images of forced removals, bulldozers, and cold, wet, homeless and hungry women and children in the minds of many people, and I make no excuses for the tragedies of the past. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I think we have all been privileged this past week to share ideas and to listen first-hand to soulsearching but, at times, unfortunately to bitter recriminations and bitter speeches. I believe, however, that we have come closer to understanding the hurts of the past and fears of the future.

The Bill before us contains certain basic objectives which are designed to back the Government’s responsibility for its duty to maintain law and order and to ensure that the interests of all the people of South Africa are protected and promoted, and that is all the people, not only the Whites.

The Government has already accepted a positive strategy for the control and promotion of orderly urbanisation. We accept that change in our modern society has accelerated urbanisation movements. Technological advances, changes in living patterns and job opportunities, or the lack thereof, as well as our excessive population growth, have created new and sometimes unexpected problems in the movement to our cities.

The CP have attempted to prove that the scrapping of influx control in 1986 has led to this mass migration and consequent squatter problems. Many arguments have been advanced in this debate on both sides of this Chamber that this is just not the case, and these arguments far outweigh the CP theory.

In the case of the greater Edendale area close to Pietermaritzburg, where I live, reports produced by the city and by the Urban Foundation show clearly that the first major migration in that city took place between 1976 and 1983, due to factors involving social change. The next major migration occurred during 1987-88—in the first six months of this year—resulting in a major squatter problem in the area. The reasons given in an Urban Foundation report for the new settlement and migration, include the political conflict between Inkatha and the UDF groupings, in that numerous families were forced to vacate their homes in the KwaZulu tribal areas because they do not belong to the political groupings of their immediate area.

Secondly, squatters are being encouraged to settle in these areas, as they can move in free of rental charge, at least for a period, and they are not able to pay the punitive charges levied by tribal chiefs, or if it is in newly-developed areas, their share of the costs of infrastructure. Furthermore the squatters continue to seek protection amongst their own subcultures against politically or greed-motivated interests. That is stated in the report of the Urban Foundation.

The Government has accepted that increased urbanisation is a reality, and that measures must be introduced to provide for orderly and planned urbanisation. This includes the early identification of land for future urbanisation, the upgrading of existing areas and the provision of housing by the individual, the private sector and various responsible authorities. I believe this must be extended to include the creation of job opportunities and education as well as other basic facilities.

Various problems have arisen in regard to orderly economic development which are addressed in the amending Bill and which, I think, must be given particular administrative attention. These problems are common in most of the squatter settlement areas. For example, squatters are sterilising vast areas of development land, and the cry goes out that there is insufficient land. A solution would be to have early land identification, to survey sites and encourage squatters to settle on these sites in order to facilitate later upgrading of these areas.

It is almost impossible to upgrade haphazard settlements without the wholesale demolition which we all cry about. Then cut the red tape, and preferably let developers plan for their own developments within certain constraints.

It is also important to provide infrastructure timeously, and I think one can facilitate this by way of privatisation of services. Give regional offices the authority to reallocate blocks of land allocated to developers who sit on the land—not squat on it—and so speculate by forcing the prices up.

As for the question of squatter farming which has been discussed here, people say that there is no squatter farming. However, it is a fact of life. In Natal squatter towns on Black, White and Indian-owned farms have sprung up overnight. Just to name a few places, at Itete, Welbedacht, Rooikrans on the Natal North Coast near Stanger and at Trust Feed near New Hanover there are cities of ten to twenty thousand people that have sprung up overnight. There are other settlement areas like these, but enterprising or unscrupulous shack-farming landlords have provided materials, advice and transport in setting up these homes, all for lucrative rental gain. These are known facts. The basic infrastructure—water, clinics, roads and the like—has to be provided and has been provided through the Development Services Board and the Province of Natal at no cost to the landlord or tenants, to avoid a serious health risk. I think these organisations should be congratulated on their efficient and speedy action.

It may be said that there is a need for these types of development, but care has to be exercised to ensure acceptable health standards and recovery of our basic costs.

We all seek a happy, just society, but we need to join hands in cooperation and friendship to achieve this. We must remember, however, that no country or government is perfect. The Government can only act within the limits of the power at its disposal, and that is basically its electorate. Never believe any man who says that if you give him power, he will make that perfect society for you. What he really wants is that power, and then the probability will be that things will be worse than before.

Finally, when we are able to find a way to share power, we shall create the just and happy society we all seek. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill before us.

Mr Speaker, I should like to begin with an observation—earlier today an hon member also said that he wanted to make an observation— with reference to the debate of the past few days in this House on difficult and sensitive matters which affected all of us in one way or another. I think that what affected all hon members in particular was that we were in this way able to debate very sensitive matters, matters which hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates found particularly sensitive. I want to place on record the observation that the layout of this Chamber does indeed lend itself to people being able to get together in this way and debate matters.

Mr Speaker, if you will allow me to do so, I should therefore like to congratulate you, as a functionary of Parliament, the Chief Whip and the Secretary to Parliament on the planning of this Chamber because its layout, and in particular the creation of a rostrum from which a speaker may participate in a debate without making one feel that one is addressing an audience in an auditorium, was very ingenious. Consequently I should like to tell the functionaries concerned that it has been our experience this week that this was a good layout, and sound creative thinking, to suit our situation and our needs.

†The hon member for Newholme started this debate this morning by asking what we were going to do with the five million people in South Africa who did not have a roof over their heads. I would like to explain to hon members in this House what we have done and what still has to be done to provide for those people in future. In referring to this in general, I will also to a large extent cover what has been said by other hon members in the course of this debate.

It cannot be expected of the Government to meet the housing requirements of every inhabitant of this country. The emphasis should thus fall on the timely identification of suitable land and the provision of basic services and the necessary infrastructure. That is the responsibility of central government, the provincial governments, local authorities, and in particular the regional services councils.

It is Government policy that property rights and ownership of an own home should be promoted for members of all population groups within their means. The provision of housing is in the first instance the responsibility of the individual or the private sector. The best possible use should be made of the funds which can be mobilised for this purpose. The Government can only accept responsibility for the less privileged.

In its aid programme, the principle of self-help is emphasised. This implies the provision of a serviced stand on which the breadwinner may erect his own house. Loans for building material and other necessities are made available. This does not, however, imply that the public sector has no responsibility in this field.

The regional services councils and local authorities in whose areas squatting occurs can make a valuable contribution towards this goal by identifying and making available suitable land. The Government also assists with the provision and upgrading of infrastructure such as waterworks, sanitation, electricity supply and access roads.

Considerable progress has already been made with the provision of infrastructure, serviced stands and upgrading. In my speech this morning I referred to the amount of R820 million made available for this year by the National Housing Fund, the South African Housing Trust and other institutions.

It can be said that one of the most important responsibilities of Government is to facilitate the participation of the private sector with regard to town development and housing. The private sector is reacting positively and is becoming increasingly involved in residential development and housing. I am glad to say this, because this refers in particular to the situation of the Black communities.

It is, however, necessary for the private sector to intensify its efforts. The private sector should aim at providing services and housing for the largest possible spectrum of the community and not only for the middle or higher income groups.

In cases where local authorities are not in a position to assist financially the private sector should also provide bulk services. Apart from this the private sector should also make available a large variety of housing units to accommodate people of different income levels.

According to the White Paper on Urbanisation, urbanisation is regarded as an inevitable phase in the history of development in our country as well. It should be utilised in a positive manner to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the country. The management of squatting should therefore be aimed at the economic upliftment of people. However, it is also intimately concerned with the social upliftment of those who strive to improve their own circumstances.

The Population Development Programme which was launched by the Government a few years ago is specifically aimed at enabling people to make a greater contribution towards providing for their own needs, including a home of their own. In the final analysis this is the basis for the stability and prosperity of every community.

*I should like to refer to the question of the identification of land for residential and related needs. This matter was raised repeatedly, and I should like to thank the hon members who referred to it in a positive way. The hon member for Houghton also referred specifically to this matter. I should like to emphasise that a positive solution to this issue of squatting deals specifically with land and the availability of land.

Considerable progress has been made with the identification of land specifically for Black urbanisation. Since January 1986 up to and including 31 August 1988 33 000 hectares of land have, in respect of the RSA in its entirety, been set aside in terms of section 33 of the Development of Black Communities Act. In addition 14 147 hectares of land have also been ministerially approved for allocation, while a further 14 400 hectares of land are at present being considered.

I should therefore like to emphasise that although there was quite a backlog two years ago— that was when we made an active start with the process of orderly urbanisation—in respect of identified land, the steps that have been taken during the past two years are an indication of the positive effect of the Government’s approach in regard to orderly urbanisation. The fact that that land has already been identified on this scale at this stage, and that large sections of it have already been made available for development, means that we are indeed not only eliminating the backlog, but are able to move ahead and in this way identify land for everyone, land which they can acquire to meet their residential needs.

Furthermore I should like to say that with a view to undesirable squatter situations, the respective provincial administrations and the own affairs administrations are continually identifying and dealing with the focal point cases of squatter situations. Their needs are being stated in terms of funds for the purchase of land and the provision of elementary services. For this purpose an amount of R34 million has been made available during the present financial year, solely with a view to focal point cases.

Furthermore, in regard to the way in which squatting is dealt with, there are committees in most of the development regions of the country which are monitoring squatter situations. These committees fall under the provincial administrations and interested bodies are represented on them. The hon member for Diamant asked how these activities were co-ordinated among the provinces, and what I am going to say next is specifically directed at the hon member. There is a co-ordinating committee, under the chairmanship of the Department of Development Planning, which co-ordinates the national subject of squatters on a country-wide basis.

The hon member Mr Lockey asked me how we were going to prevent specific local authorities that might have a negative attitude to the squatter situation, from failing to display the necessary empathy. He wanted to know how we were gong to ensure that those local authorities did not take inhumane action against such squatters. I should like to refer the hon member to the envisaged new section 47 (1) (d) of the principal Act. This section will provide that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning shall determine a policy in regard to the prevention of illegal squatting that has to be pursued by the administrators, the own affairs administrations and the local authorities. In other words, that is the key to providing a policy which can be applied in a reasonable and fair way. The national policy, as determined by the Minister, will be conveyed by the central committee—to which I have referred—to the regional committees, and will be monitored by them.

I should like to come to individual speeches made by hon members. Once again I do not think it is possible to refer to everyone, and I apologise in advance to those hon members to whom I do not refer. I should like to thank them for their contributions.

The hon member for Diamant said that my introductory speech which I made in the House of Assembly differed from the one I made here. I reacted at once and sent the hon member a copy of the introductory speech which was made in the House of Assembly. I should like to invite the hon member to give evidence on this on some occasion or other. He can judge for himself. The fact of the matter is that the same sympathy which was expressed in today’s introductory speech was also expressed in the speech that was made three weeks ago in the House of Assembly. I think the hon member will concede that his statement was a little unfair.

The hon member for Diamant said that this was a Draconian measure, which meted out punishment to poor people and which was aimed at punishing other people. The hon member used a rather daring word. I know him well and I was quite surprised when he began to use this kind of language. However, let us leave the matter at that. I am not going to take issue with him now. All I want to say to this hon member is that this “Draconian” measure that he referred to was approved by a Cabinet Committee. All the Ministers’ Councils that have an interest in this matter were represented at that meeting.

I am not responsible for them!

Now he is saying that he is not responsible for them. I must say it is a strange approach if one can agree to something one day, and refuse to accept responsibility for it the next. I should like to make this point because I think it is important that I place it on record that the principles of this Bill—I have a whole list of them in front of me—were discussed on 22 March by the Cabinet Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It was agreed to unanimously by that Cabinet Committee. All the Ministers’ Councils of Parliament were represented at that meeting. I should like to emphasise this, because this is the measure which the hon member is now referring to as being Draconian.

The hon member for Turffontein made a very important point which I should like to emphasise. He said that conventional housing was not accessible to all the people in our country—at least not straight away. Of course the ideal is that every family should at least, in the end, have a conventional house, or a roof over their heads. If one looks at the facts in South Africa one sees that this physically not attainable. Consequently we have to live with this fact. For that reason, however, it is necessary for one to consider alternatives and, by means of a policy of orderly urbanisation, enable a person to improve his position and indeed his accommodation gradually if he does not at first have the means with which to acquire a conventional house. It is important that that challenge and opportunity should be there.

I am not going to react to the speech made by the hon member for Border; in any event he is not here at the moment. I just want to observe that I do not think he was serious when he was making his speech, because a man who is serious cannot talk so much nonsense.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates referred to the question of the financial affordability in terms of what local authorities should do about squatting. I agree with the hon member that it is a matter of concern. I have referred to what our policy is as far as that is concerned and to what regional services councils can do in terms of assistance to local authorities for this particular purpose. However, it is a matter of concern and we will have to look at that.

The hon member for Houghton referred to the hon the Minister’s reply which was published in the Cape Times this morning about the resettlement of some 250 000 people over the next seven or eight years up to 1995. I want to draw the attention of the Chamber to one or two remarks from this article in the Cape Times this morning because I think it is actually very unpleasant when one looks at the reply by the hon the Minister which was published yesterday.

The following terms were used in the newspaper article:

Then it says the following:

*It is a great pity that this kind of impression is being created here, ie that the Government is engaged in forced removals of people to their disadvantage, because the implication of the words used in this article are surely that this is to the disadvantage of the people who are going to be relocated, and furthermore that they live in fear of this happening any moment.

But what are the facts? If one looks at the written reply tabled by the hon the Minister it appears that it was a total of 3 400 persons in the case of Natal; 17 700 in the case of the Transvaal; 8 300 in the case of the Orange Free State; and, as was indicated, a reasonable number in the case of the Eastern Cape.

Let us now analyse the case in question. The 122 000 people in the Eastern Cape are people who are in fact going to move to better living conditions in Motherwell. This will not happen in a compulsory way, but because better living conditions have in fact been created.

In his speech the hon member Mr Lockey referred to this. He used this as an example of something positive he had recently experienced, where people were moved from Soweto-by-theSea to Kwazakhele, where he was pleased to see that they would have better living conditions. Now one finds these negative conclusions being drawn. I do not want to ascribe this to the hon member for Houghton, but she did raise the matter, and I want to say it is a great pity. It is a great pity that this kind of report is being noised abroad.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member for Houghton emphasized and referred to that point. She said the only solution to this was to make sufficient land available. I agree with the hon member. I have already said that.

*The hon member for Houghton also referred to the squatter farmers. The hon member has already discussed this matter on a previous occasion. None of us like this word, squatter farmers, but unfortunately a better descriptive term is not available, and I shall simply leave it at that. This morning the hon member proposed that we should not deal too harshly with the squatter farmers since they were after all offering these people a way out of their difficulty. However, we cannot allow it. It would mean that all requirements in regard to the protection of agricultural land or rural areas would have to be thrown overboard. It would also mean that farmers could decide that they would like to begin making money by offering people accommodation on their farms.

I have already referred to the speech made by the hon member Mr Lockey. I should briefly like to say the following with reference to what he said. That hon member, as well as other hon members, referred to the number of squatters involved. I think it was the hon member for Losberg who made specific enquiries about the number of squatters. There are many fluctuating figures. This afternoon I can give hon members a figure which in fact indicates that the number of squatters has diminished positively on a country-wide basis during the past year, from 31 December 1987 to 30 June of this year. There are, as I have already said, many fluctuating figures, and I want to admit honestly that it is extremely difficult to obtain reliable figures of the actual number involved. I have serious doubts about the figure of seven million from the Urban Foundation. If one identifies squatters as being everyone with informal accommodation, we are going to arrive at limitless numbers. For this reason it is very unfair to ascribe the term squatter to everyone with informal housing.

Time is catching up with me, but I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon member for South Cape.

Leave him alone.

Yes, well, I want to make another point, so we may as well leave him alone. The point I want to make is that this Bill is not aimed only at the protection of White interests, urban areas or residential environments. It is inter alia also aimed at the protection of established Black urban areas. Hon members should ride out there and take a look—I have done so frequently during the past year—and they will find that the problem occurs in every Black township in the country. In many cases the Black local government institutions are powerless and paralysed because they cannot take action and indeed do not have the capability of establishing order in their townships.

I just want to tell the hon member for Lenasia East that he not only made a speech, but boasted about the past history of the Indian community in South Africa.

The hon member Mr Douw, with reference to a previous point I made, at one stage created the impression that the Government was governing only on behalf of a small group of privileged people in this country.

It is true.

The hon member who made that interjection will probably concede that the fact that he is sitting here places him among that small group of privileged people to whom reference was made.

That is not true.

Of course it is true, but that is not the point. Let us consider every situation in this country. We can take to the road tomorrow and begin driving around. I should like to contend, although I do not have a percentage, that I think we shall see in at least 80% of the Black towns in our country that there are considerable development projects in progress today from which the inhabitants derive advantage. This is taking place under the direction of this Government, on the basis of the administration that is at present being applied.

This afternoon I should like to look for common ground with the hon member for Toekomsrus. He made a fine statement, namely: “(He) would like to take an example from the Afrikaner, to take (his) people to where they want to go”. Those were more or less the words he used, and I should like to say I think it is an important statement that he made. It also ties in with the point I made earlier this week in one of the debates.

Unfortunately the hon member also said something with which I do not think I can agree, and this has to do with what he said about the Group Areas Act also being responsible for the miseries of squatters. [Interjections.] In that case I just want to ask him why there are squatters in South America, in Brazil and wherever. [Interjections.] Why are there squatters in Mexico City? [Interjections.] There is no question of colour or a Group Areas Act there, so why do we have squatters there? [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon member something. He spoke about the need for housing of the Coloured community.

There is not a single White squatter in South Africa!

The fact of the matter is that there are long lists of Whites who also have housing needs. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister can tell that hon member … [Interjections.] The issue is not the magnitude; I am talking about people who cannot afford to obtain houses. That is what I am talking about, because that is the point the hon member made. [Interjections.]

Throwing open residential areas, as the hon member advocated, is surely not going to mean that one will suddenly have houses overnight, in which everyone can go and live.

It would afford relief.

I should like to tell the hon member that the Department of Housing of the Administration: House of Representatives has made considerable progress during the past few years in regard to aleviating the housing needs. [Interjections.]

They have no money!

Well, no one has enough money. [Interjections.]

The hon member went on to say that people did not squat because they wanted to do so, and therefore we should accommodate them in an orderly way. I agree with him. I should like to concede that he is completely correct on that score. [Interjections.] I am going to do so. I should like to tell the hon member I appreciate his having referred to this, because I realised afterwards that the point could be misunderstood out of context and an incorrect perception could arise about what the hon member for Klipspruit West said to me yesterday. I want to point out, however, that by that time my irritation level was rather high, and the hon member was making a constant stream of interjections, and when I saw him at that moment, I thought I must tell him a thing or two. [Interjections ] However, I want to apologise to him. It was really not my intention to offend him or the hon member for Toekomsrus in this regard. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by referring to the speech made by the hon member for Losberg. The hon member said it was an historical week. If it was historical—and I think that in a certain sense it probably was; we are probably assessing it from different points of view—it just a pity that his hon leader missed out on it. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was absent all week. [Interjections.] As far as I know the leaders of all the respective parties represented in Parliament were present in this Chamber at one stage or another during this or other debates during the past week. Many of them participated in debates during the week.

Where is Pik Botha?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is conspicuous by his absence here. [Interjections.] I must say that one at least expects the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to have the sense of responsibility to attend an occasion such as this, which was described by a member of his own party as being historical. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the subject of forced removals. I have already discussed this matter, but may I just refer him to the question I quoted earlier? He should go and read it; he will find the answer there, and specifically on the issue of Weiler’s Farm, to which I referred.

The hon member for Soutpansberg asked whether the legislation discussed this week was going to be referred to the President’s Council. The question is premature, simply because a decision in that regard has not yet been taken by the respective Houses of Parliament. If a decision should be taken it is in any event the prerogative of the hon the State President to decide how to further dispose of this legislation, and not that of the department I represent here.

I should like to conclude by replying to the hon member. He said that the NP was the standardbearer of civilisation.

It was!

I do not think a single party has ever been the standard-bearer of civilisation in this country. I do not think it rests with a party or a specific group of people to be the bearers of a civilisation. Of course, if we are all supporters of specific civilised values, we can all further them. However, I should like to say this: Thanks to the leadership of this Government we have been able to take this step forward in respect of promoting our common interests in this country.

The hon member for Overvaal will pardon me if I refer to him in conclusion. The hon member for Soutpansberg made a plea here, and said that unparliamentary behaviour had no place in Parliament. He said that his party and he dissociated themselves from such behaviour. I just want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that it seems to me the bell is tolling for him. [Interjections.]