Mr Speaker, the Group Areas Amendment Bill was discussed in this Chamber during the past week. If it is apparent that many of the standpoints and principles of the respective participating groups are irreconcilable in a joint political system such as this tricameral system, it stands to reason that power simply cannot be shared with regard to those principles and standpoints. If speakers on all sides concede that there cannot be agreement with regard to these matters—specifically with regard to the amending Bill under discussion—this simply means that power, and more specifically with regard to the three Bills concerned, cannot be shared.

The CP will be voting against this Bill because this measure forms part of a trilogy in terms of which the Government wants to continue on its course leading to total integration. The Group Areas Amendment Bill cannot be viewed in isolation, but is the reverse of the same coin of which the Free Settlement Areas Bill and the Local Government in Free Settlement Areas Bill form a part.

The CP is not in favour of allowing the Minister this discretion either. Experience has taught us that we can justifiably be concerned about this. The CP will consequently not be supporting this legislation and will vote against it.

Mr Speaker, obviously the PFP will not be supporting this amending Bill either, basically for the following three reasons.

Firstly, the humanitarian considerations which at present form part of our law in consequence of the decision in The State vs Govender, in the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court, are now being removed from our legal system and replaced by a form of ministerial discretion. I am trying to emphasise this because hon members of the governing party, and specifically the hon the Deputy Minister, are apparently unaware that it is at present a specific legal requirement that those considerations must be taken into account. Obviously we object very strongly to the status of those considerations now being undermined in that they are being replaced by a ministerial discretion.

Secondly, we believe that the new, increased powers which are being granted to the Minister to evict persons from buildings which they are occupying in spite of the Group Areas Act, and to sell buildings and premises, are also a harmful development which is being embodied in this Bill. We also object to that.

Thirdly, we object vehemently to the far heavier and greatly increased penalties, which now make the penalties prescribed by the group areas dispensation comparable to those in our legal system which are prescribed for extremely serious crimes. We shall therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I find it impossible to support this amending Bill. I accept that there are certain positive aspects to it, but in my opinion these are far outweighed by its negative aspects.

For the life of me I cannot understand why such harsh penalties are now to be made applicable. Neither can I understand, when I think back on the spirit that prevailed during the debate on the National Council Bill and the support that that engendered, how legislation of this nature can be brought before this Chamber. I find this Bill to be a complete contradiction of the spirit of that Bill of which so many of us felt supportive, thinking that it was really setting the course for true reform in this country.

It is on that basis that I find it impossible to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Group Areas Act was placed on the Statute Book for the first time in 1950. It has been amended many times, and consolidated Acts have been passed twice—in 1957 and in 1966. Owing to changed political, economic and social conditions it has become necessary during the past few years to take another thorough look at this legislation. It was investigated by a judicial commission and by the President’s Council and it was decided to make free settlement areas possible, but in conjunction with this to ensure that group areas were maintained.

The Group Areas Amendment Bill embodies this decision. The Bill consists of three parts. Firstly, it contains amendments which are necessary owing to the passing of the Free Settlement Areas Bill. Secondly, the implementation of the legislation is being streamlined. This is specifically necessary to enable communities that prefer their own way of life to realise it. Thirdly, it has become necessary to make certain adjustments, simply to bring the legislation up to date, to replace outdated words and expressions and so on.

Last but not least, the Bill contains provisions which are aimed at stabilising the prices of land needed for township development. It is hoped that these provisions will help the authorities to acquire land for housing at affordable prices. This side of the House believes that this legislation is essential at this stage, and I consequently recommend that it be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I will not detain this House long. The reasons why we oppose these Bills have been clearly expounded in this Chamber. It is regrettable to notice the absence of a vast number of people who claim that they are opposed to these measures, yet we know that there are many of them who support these measures. Possibly that explains why they are absent today.

I believe Parliament is a place where one must fight about the matter, where one has to debate issues and from which one does not run away when the question is to be put.

A quorum not being present,

Decision of question postponed.

No members of the House of Delegates being present,

Decision of question postponed.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—91: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, Al; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van de Vyfer, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—31: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; De Ville, J R; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Eek, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Walsh, J J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the CP rejects the Free Settlement Areas Bill and will vote against it because it is an obvious deviation from the principle of the segregation of residential areas as embodied in the Group Areas Act of 1966. It is going to lead to mixed residential areas and schools, and to demands for representation in government at higher levels on the basis of joint franchise.

The established rights and wishes of inhabitants of local government areas will be ignored and will not receive satisfactory consideration. The Government has not received a proper mandate from the White voters of South Africa to encroach upon or amend the principle of the Group Areas Act in any way. The danger exists that such free settlement areas will be established in contravention of the recognised and established patterns of living in this country, and that this, as has already manifested itself in the RSA and in overseas countries, will give rise to racial friction and conflict.

This will lead to further urban decay because it proceeds from the fallacious and unmotivated premise that there are people in South Africa who want to live together in a mixed area on the so-called basis of free association, whereas in actual fact this is merely a smoke-screen, behind which the authorities are hiding in order to conceal their inability to implement legislation properly. Attempts made in the Bill to compensate people for economic damage in certain circumstances are unsatisfactorily and inadequate. We are also voting against this Bill because White land throughout South Africa will be constantly in jeopardy of potential investigation with a view to the establishment of free settlement areas.

The CP is also voting against this legislation because the proposed Free Settlement Board, which is to be established in terms of this measure, will take far-reaching decisions regarding the future of White land, and areas that are primarily White residential areas will consequently be dominated by non-Whites. Because this represents a further concession to left-wing forces in this country by a visibly faltering Government, which thereby confirms its incompetence to govern the country any longer, the CP will definitely not be voting in favour of the measure under discussion.

Mr Speaker, the PFP will also oppose this Bill and our objections are the following: We see that the broad purpose of the Bill is clearly to sustain the group areas dispensation as a whole. This is borne out by the linking of this Bill to the Group Areas Amendment Bill, a statement and an attitude made very clear by Government speakers. It is clearly the Government’s aim to do no more than to legalise existing grey areas and to create a few new open residential areas.

To the extent to which the Bill can be used to bring about change in residential patterns, the procedural requirements are so onerous and cumbersome as to dredge up every ounce of racial resistance against the creation of open areas. In fact it will be much more difficult to create free settlement areas than to create group areas in the first place. The very significant role attributed to the own affairs administrations will hinder the normalisation of residential areas even further.

Thirdly, the piecemeal opening of suburbs will maximise the fears and trauma of residents in such areas. I want to stress the point that there is a population pressure that has built up as a result of housing shortages in the Black, Coloured and Indian communities in this country. We must expect that when open areas are created at least some of that built-up pressure will flow into those open residential areas. If too few areas and areas that are too small are opened up, we must understand that it will traumatise and exacerbate the fears of people, particularly Whites, living in such areas. The creation of small areas will be a grave mistake and will aggravate and complicate the creation of further open areas in the future.

We will therefore oppose this Bill and say to the Government: This is a grave mistake; this is not reform and the Government itself will pay the price if they proceed in this fashion.

Mr Speaker, I reiterate my support for this Bill because, as I see it, it is a noticeable move away from the original concept of the Group Areas Act.

It is a positive step towards breaking down synthetic barriers that have caused so much hurtful feeling among race groups. It is a move towards facilitating the necessity of providing more equal opportunities for people of other race groups.

I also accept that in the light of what has been built up over many years, the Group Areas Act cannot be summarily dumped overnight. To do so would cause a chaotic situation. It affects particularly those people of the lower income group, and I think those are the people whom one should be thinking of in this respect.

It is for that reason—that an opportunity is being afforded other race groups to move into what have hitherto been designated White areas—that I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, during the past week we have debated a fundamental Bill, one of the most important steps to social reform of the past decade. The Bill not only deals with extremely sensitive aspects of our society, but it also addresses those aspects in the most fundamental way.

The Bill attests to the fact that the Government does not deal with matters of this kind haphazardly, but goes straight through to the principle of the matter. The Bill recognises the need and the right of people and communities to exercise a choice with regard to the nature of the residential area in which they want to live.

The Bill introduces the principle of free association with regard to residential areas and residential patterns. It is fundamental to our coexistence in this heterogeneous country. The Government is not shying away from this, and is trying, by means of this Bill, to deal with the matter in a mutually acceptable way.

We are not merely talking about the concept of free association either. The Bill makes provision for mechanisms which enable that choice to be exercised. That is why the Bill is practically orientated. In this Bill the realities of our society are being addressed in a realistic way. The Bill is aimed at recognising and protecting both common interests and community interests.

In addition the Bill is still in accordance with the spirit of the Government’s reform policy. The Bill is a demonstration of our point of departure that no law is an end in itself, but an instrument to deal with needs and circumstances. The Bill is a demonstration of our conviction that the status quo must be adjusted where and when necessary, and for that reason it is indicative of flexibility.

We believe that the fundamental rights of the individual as well as of groups must be protected. We believe that an effective balance must be maintained between individual rights and group rights, and we believe that this Bill will contribute a great deal towards achieving this in the case of residential areas and residential patterns. Mr Speaker, we believe that this Bill will lead to sound inter-group relations and to happy living conditions for all communities, and for that reason we take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, what we are experiencing here today is proof to the whole of South Africa that even if the LP says otherwise, they have failed miserably with regard to the process of negotiation in South Africa. The only thing they can do is demonstrate, instead of confronting the Government about those things they want rectified in the country. This legislation resulted from a President’s Council report, which was agreed to by the Labour Party and was signed by members of the Labour Party, namely Messrs Adams and Gordon.

On our part we merely want to say that if this legislation had not been linked to the other three Bills, our attitude to it would have been different, as I have indicated during the course of the debate.

I now want to make a serious appeal to the hon the State President to dissolve our House completely, because it serves no purpose but to perpetuate apartheid through the medium of the Administration and the extension of own affairs. That is the only purpose it serves.

What is more, the hon members who are promotin g this extension of own affairs are not even succeeding properly in negotiating the necessary funds with the Government to effect that extension. Hon members have seen the spectacle with regard to the increase of pensions in this connection.

If, however, the hon the State President does not want to dissolve our House, I want to propose that he postpone the election of the House until September 1992 so that the LP’s little crown prince, who was sitting on the gallery over there a moment ago, can lose his hold on that party. I say this, because those hon members who walked out of here are split in two in their very being because they did not leave this Chamber absolutely of their own free will.

These are the reasons for our opposition of this Bill.

A quorum not being present,

Decision of question postponed.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time.

A quorum not being present,

Decision of question postponed.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—96: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cronje, P C; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, P T C; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, W C; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, Al; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van de Vyfer, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—27: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Ville, J R; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Walsh, J J.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Some of our members have just left the Chamber for a few moments. They did so after they had voted, but before a ruling had been given that they should return in order to vote again.

Order! In that case the bells will be rung again.

Mr Speaker, the CP votes against the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill.

As was the case with regard to the other Bills debated this week, the debate on this Bill clearly illustrates the shattering of consensus government and the imminent collapse of the Constitution.

It is the CP’s opinion that this Bill is introducing voters’ lists on the level of local government on which all population groups will be registered— in other words, joint franchise for the same management body on a basis of one man, one vote, which is fundamentally in conflict with the CP’s ethnic policy.

We see this as the beginning of a constitutional process which will eventually result in one government in a unitary state in which it will not be possible to afford proper protection for the minority rights of all the ethnic groups present here today.

We regard this legislation as the continuation of the Government’s integration plan which will ultimately degrade our people to a minority group without its own living space and without its own fatherland.

Since this is in direct conflict with the CP’s policy of freedom with justice for the peoples of Southern Africa, we shall vote against this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the PFP wishes to reaffirm that it finds the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill unacceptable and consequently cannot support the measure.

In the first place our opposition stems from our fundamental rejection of the concept that we can regulate human and group relations in South Africa on the basis of enforced residential separation, with race as the underlying principle, and consequently from our total rejection of the Group Areas Act.

In the second place our opposition stems from our rejection of the principle of separate local authorities for the various colour groups in South Africa. We believe that all South African citizens who are not disqualified on account of generally applicable norms and who are domiciled in the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, should have the right to vote for members of that local authority and to serve on it. Moreover, we believe that the provision in the Bill for a multiracial management committee—which is the only positive feature of the Bill—should be made applicable to all local authorities.

In the third place we reject the Bill because the management committees which will be created in free settlement areas in terms thereof, are subordinate bodies that will still be subject to the superior authority of the local authority in whose area they function, instead of the inhabitants of these areas having direct representation on that local authority.

Mr Speaker, the debates during the past week have emphasised a specific point, viz how difficult it is to progress with development in our country, also in the social and constitutional spheres.

The NP’s endeavour is to become a co-designer of a social, political and economic system which will ensure civilised and Christian standards, which will be democratic and which will reflect the special nature of our South African composition. Unlike its opponents on the right, the NP knows that this is not possible except by way of negotiation. Unlike its opponents on the left, the NP also knows that peace is not possible unless all the realities of our society are taken into account. People do indeed differ with one another, and they regard one another with suspicion and mistrust. The NP will not stop negotiating for the sake of our country and all its people. Nor will the NP permit hindrances to become insurmountable obstacles in its way, or temporary setbacks to lead to destructive doubt.

It is true that nothing that has not been obtained by means of a struggle is ever worthwhile. That is true in general, but it is also true with regard to political and social solutions. Neither the political opportunists on the left, nor the political intolerance on the right, nor the contempt others have for parliamentary codes of conduct and the unwritten rules of democracy will prevent the NP from acting in what it considers to be the best interests of our country.

The allegation made by hon members of the PFP, that there is no interest in management committees and their existence, is not true. In fact, when I look to my left, I find it is true that the majority party in the House of Representatives suspended some of its hon members because they wanted to take part in local management committees. If we should refer to the number of candidates designated for those specific management committees, hon members will be able to appreciate the respect for and need among the Coloured community for participation in those systems. [Time expired.]

Question put to House of Representatives: That the Bill be now read a second time.

A quorum not being present,

Decision of question postponed.

Question put to House of Delegates: That the Bill be now read a second time.

A quorum not being present,

Decision of question postponed.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—91: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, Al; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van der Merwe, C J; Van de Vyfer, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—28: Andrew, K M; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; De Ville, J R; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malan, W C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Walsh, J J.

Mr Speaker, there is some uncertainty and lack of clarity in the ranks of the independents with regard to Order of the Day No 4. I therefore request that the proceedings be suspended for a few minutes so that we can see you in your chambers in order to gain clarity on this matter.

Order! May I ask whether it is the procedure that is creating problems for hon members?

That is correct, Sir.

Mr Speaker, I request you to suspend business for a few minutes in order to explain to hon members of the House of Delegates in your chambers as to how you would rule on the technical procedures on Order of the Day No 4.

Order! Since we are dealing with new procedures, and I am prepared to accept that there are senior hon members in the two Houses in question who are requesting the assistance of the Chair in this connection, I shall suspend proceedings until the bells are rung again. The relevant hon members must please come and see me in my chambers together with the Secretary and/or the Chief Whip of Parliament.

Order! I have availed myself of the opportunity to inform hon members on the procedure that is to be followed, and I am satisfied that hon members in the respective Houses agree with the procedure that I shall now implement in terms of the Rules.

Mr Speaker, the CP took cognisance with indignation of the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives was reported in this morning’s Die Burger as having said that the hon the State President had pleaded with him to help oppose the CP. [Interjections.]

And you simply believed it.

It must still be denied by the NP. We are voting against this Bill because its provisions—I am referring in particular to clauses 9 and 10—will give rise to the unacceptable state of affairs that squatters will determine where, when and how residential areas in residential zones will be demarcated. Such a state of affairs is in conflict with recognised town planning principles.

Secondly, we are voting against this legislation because in terms of the Bill steps are not going to be taken against large-scale squatting since the Government is opposed to enforced removals.

Thirdly, we are voting against this Bill because squatting is actually being encouraged and legalised, because the larger the number of squatters, the better the chances are that the area in which they are living will become a transit area in terms of clause 9 and will then be upgraded into a residential area in terms of clause 10.

In terms of these clauses the squatters are again determining that the place where they are squatting must become a residential area. This is totally unacceptable to the CP, because squatting will not be discouraged but encouraged.

Fourthly, we are voting against the Bill because we do not agree that the control of squatting should be placed in the hands of the mixed Executive Committee of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I am saying this with specific reference to the fact that Mr Mavuso is in control of squatting in the Transvaal. This is creating an untenable situation for us. [Interjections.]

Lastly, we are voting against this legislation because it is misleading the voters. I am referring in particular to places like Weiler’s Farm in the Losberg constituency on which large numbers of squatters are concentrated. In terms of this legislation this large number of squatters cannot be removed because the Government is still opposed to enforced removals. For these reasons the CP will be voting against this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the PFP opposes the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill because, firstly, it abrogates important aspects of our common law.

Secondly, it imposes harsh penalties on people who have had no way of avoiding committing the offence of illegal squatting because of the Government’s failure over four decades to provide housing or adequate land for site and service schemes for the urban poor.

Thirdly, the measure will result in the eviction of thousands of the dependants of rural Black employees on farms, who are not themselves employed.

Fourthly, the positive aspects of the Bill are outweighed by its ill effects. Clauses 9 and 10 which make provision for the proclamation of transit and designated areas for squatters, are not bolstered by financial arrangements or implementing agencies with access to subsidised funds.

Fifthly, we are not impressed by the argument that this Bill will put a stop to squatter-farming or “plakkerboerdery”. Rack-renting landlords flourish only under conditions of acute shortages of land or housing. Squatter-farming will only be eliminated by the provision of adequate land for site-and-service schemes.

Finally, we are distressed that the Government has totally ignored the considered opinions and cogent objections to this measure by so many prestigious industrial, financial and legal bodies that, after careful investigation, presented evidence to the joint committee. Inter alia, they argued that this amending Bill will negate the positive recommendations of the White Paper on Orderly Urbanisation.

Furthermore, neither the principal Act nor the amending Bill provides the solution required for the formulation of a national strategy to promote the development of informal housing which is the only way in which to solve the vast problem of squatting involving some 7 million people in the RSA. It is depressing to place on record that the Government was not prepared to accept a single amendment proposed in the joint committee.

I believe that we should remember that every law that this Parliament passes is subject to the probing eye of the outside world. What we need at this critical time in our international relations is legislation with a clear stamp of reform on it, not legislation like this which bolsters apartheid.

Mr Speaker, I want to make only one comment on what the hon member for Losberg said. I think that all the hon members of this House know that if one knows and understands the style of the hon the State President, one also knows that the hon the State President does not beg people for help. The hon the State President indicates his own course that gives every responsible South African the opportunity to serve the interests of South Africa fully.

Nor does the hon the State President cry.

South Africa clearly prefers order to chaos and because this very amending Bill addresses the orderly settlement of people, within the Government’s clearly stated policy of orderly urbanisation, we support the measure for the following reasons:

Firstly, the measure addresses a serious social problem. Secondly, the measure provides for the identification and the recognition of existing squatter areas and for their declaration as temporary transit areas under proper control. Thirdly, the measure provides for designated areas even for informal settlement, the proper planning of site and service schemes, the prospect of home ownership and the upgrading of these areas to proper townships. Fourthly, the measure provides for strict statutory action against property owners and squatters who wilfully and deliberately either squat illegally or exploit the desperate housing needs of other people. Lastly, the measure provides for the protection of vested rights of property owners and existing communities.

We are convinced that the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and all authorities involved will apply this measure in a humane and responsible way and, furthermore, that urgent attention will be given to the provision of sufficient alternative settlement areas for people of colour. We therefore support this very reasonable, important and necessary measure, in the long-term interests of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I have already explained why we are opposed to the legislation at present before the House. I merely want to single out one example with regard to how people are going to be adversely affected if the Bill is implemented as it stands. In my own constituency, in the town of Boksburg, we have a Coloured residential area, Reigerpark, in which 628 dwelling units have been built, but in the backyards of those dwelling units there are 812 corrugated-iron shacks because the land, and the infrastructure, do not make adequate provision. Yet again I want to refer to the majority party in the House of Representatives. Once again, they are not here to debate the matter, but they agreed to it on two occasions, namely in the President’s Council and in the Cabinet Committee, on 22 March of this year, and I am not certain but I think the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture served on that Cabinet Committee. That is why he has been conspicuous by his absence this week. He preferred to go and build on own affairs there at Assomac so that he can enlarge the management committee system and the separate Government structures.

I believe that one cannot carry on with such contradictions in a governing body like Parliament any longer. Sir, this not only deceives those persons who enter into agreements with the LP, but is a blot on the name of the so-called “Coloured”, or let me put it another way—“Hotnot”.

If I have the time—I hope I do—I want to tell this House a story about Jonas. [Interjections.] The madam on the farm called old Jonas and said: “I want to send you to the neighbouring farm to take this basket to the madam there, but you must not open the basket. Promise me that you will not do so.” He walked to the neighbouring farm carrying the basket, but he became inquisitive and instead of merely peeping in, he opened the basket and a rabbit jumped out and ran away and he said: “You can run as fast as you like; you do not have the old madam’s address.” [Interjections.] Now I want to tell the LP that they can run as fast as they like; they do not have the address of the negotiating table. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move all the amendments printed in the name of Mr Y I Seedat on pp 441-447 of the Order Paper of the House of Delegates, as a whole, as follows:

1. To insert the following new Clause:

Amendment of section 3 of Act 52 of 1951, as amended by section 4 of Act 68 of 1986

3. Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) by the substitution for subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection(1) of the following subparagraph:

“(ii) To effect the transfer of such person and his family and dependants to such other place, whether within or without the jurisdiction of the said court, as it may indicate, including a transit area or place where a specitied portion of land has been designated by [the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning] an Administrator under section 6A or otherwise been made available by the State, a local authority or any other competent authority [as land on which persons who are unable to find accommodation may settle or reside];”;

(b) by the insertion of the following proviso after paragraph (b) of subsection (1):

“: Provided that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances under which such person and other persons in the vicinity are living, are likely to be improved or that the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons (including the relevant persons themselves), is likely to be promoted if the relevant land is declared a transit area or designated by the relevant Administrator under section 6A, and if such court is further satisfied that the interests of the owner of the relevant land are likely to be protected if the land is so declared or designated, the court may suspend the proceedings before it and make its recommendation to the relevant Administrator or local authority, or to both such Administrator and local authority, that the land in question be so declared or designated: Provided further that if such local authority or Administrator indicates or both of them indicate to such court that it or he is or they are not prepared so to declare or designate the land in question, the court shall thereafter cause such proceedings to be resumed.”; and

(c) by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection: “(2) If such persons as aforesaid have at any time been transferred to any particular place in terms of subsection (1), [and] the magistrate within whose district such place is situated may hold an enquiry and make a recommendation to the relevant Administrator or local authority that the land in question be designated under section 6A, or declared a transit area, mutatis mutandis as contemplated in subsection (1), or if he is satisfied, on information” placed before him, or on personal investigation, that the said place provides no suitable accommodation for the said persons, or that they can be more suitably accommodated elsewhere, or that they have no proper employment within a reasonable distance from such place, such magistrate may take all such steps as appear to him to be reasonably necessary for the tranfer of the said persons, or any one or more of them, to such other suitable place (whether within or without the said magistrate’s district) as he may indicate, and for such purpose such magistrate shall have unconditionally all the powers conferred on a [magistrate] court under subsection (1).”

Agreed to.

On Clause 4:

1. On page 7, after line 5, to insert:

(b) by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection: “(3) Unless the court orders otherwise, the building or structure with respect to which any person has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) shall be demolished and removed from the land in question by the convicted person at his own expense within seven days after expiration of the period allowed for the noting of an appeal against the conviction or, where an appeal has been noted, within seven days after dismissal of the appeal: Provided that the court may, before exercising its discretion as to whether or not to issue such an order, and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances under which persons occupying the said building or structure are living there along with other such persons, are likely to be improved or that the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons (including the relevant persons themselves), is likely to be promoted if the land on which the said buildings or structures are situated be declared a transit area or designated by the relevant Administrator under section 6A, suspend the proceedings before it and make its recommendation to the relevant local authority or Administrator, or to both such local authority and Administrator, that the land in question be so declared or designated: Provided further that if such local authority or Administrator indicates or both of them indicate to such court that it or he is or they are not prepared so to declare or designate the land in question, the court shall thereafter cause such proceedings to be resumed.”; and

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 5:

1. On page 7, after line 45, to insert:

(c) Any local authority which or Administrator whose administration has been notified as contemplated in paragraph (a), shall consider and decide whether or not to declare a transit area in respect of the land on which the building or structure is situated, or to designate such land under section 6A, as the case may be.”;

2. On page 7, in line 59, to omit “mala fide action” and to substitute:

unlawful action or action not authorized under this section

Amendments agreed to.

On Clause 7:

1. 1. On page 9, in line 37, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”.
2. 2. On page 9, in line 39, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”.
3. 3. On page 9, after line 41, to insert:

(ii) to effect the transfer of such occupants to such other place, whether within or without the jurisdiction of the said court, as it may indicate, including a place which has been declared a transit area or where a specified portion of land has been designated by [the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning] an Administrator under section 6A or otherwise been made available by the State, a local authority or any other competent authority [as land on which persons who are unable to find accommodation may settle or reside]:

Provided that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances under which the occupants of the land or buildings concerned are living, are likely to be improved or that the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons (including the said occupants themselves), is likely to be promoted if the said land on which the said buildings are situated is declared a transit area or designated by the relevant Administrator under section 6A, the court may suspend the proceedings before it and make its recommendation to the relevant local authority or Administrator, or to both such local authority and Administrator, that the land in question be so declared or designated: Provided further that if such local authority or Administrator indicates or both of them indicate to such court that it or he is or they are not prepared so to declare or designate the land in question, the court shall thereafter cause such proceedings to be resumed;

Amendments agreed to.

On Clause 8:

1. 1. On page 11, after line 21, to insert
   and that the condition and the circumstances under which such persons are living on or in the said land or building are such that unless they are removed therefrom, the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons (including the said persons themselves) may be endangered,
2. 2. On page 11, in line 34, after “been” to insert:
   declared a transit area or has been
3. 3. On page 13, after line 2, to insert:

(cc) if it is proved to the satisfaction of a magistrate that the circumstances under which such persons are living, are likely to be improved or that the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons (including the said persons themselves), is likely to be promoted if the said land or the land on which the said buildings are situated is declared a transit area or is designated by the Administrator under section 6A, he may so declare or designate the land in question, and shall thereafter cause the enquiry to be resumed.

Amendments agreed to.

On Clause 9:

1. 1. On page 13, in line 20, after “authority” to insert:
   or, subject to subsection (3), also an Administrator
2. 2. On page 13, in line 28, after “authority” to insert:
   or an Administrator, as the case may be
3. 3. On page 13, from line 31, to omit subsection (3) and to substitute:

(3) Any local authority or, in respect of an area situated outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, also an Administrator, may of its or his own volition, or after having been requested to do so by any interested person or body or on the recommendation of any court or magistrate or, in the case of an Administrator, also of a committee as contemplated in this Act, by notice in the Official Gazette—

(a) after it or he has been satisfied that it is desirable to do so, declare a portion of land defined in the notice to be a transit area for the temporary settlement of homeless persons: Provided that such land is at the date of such declaration occupied by homeless persons; and

(b) abolish such a transit area upon such land being designated under section 6A or after it or he has been satisfied that such transit area is no longer suitable for the settlement of such homeless persons and that there is or are one or more other areas which is or are available for the purposes of permanent settlement by such persons.

1. 4. On page 13, in line 44, after “authority” to insert:
   or an Administrator, as the case may be,
2. 5. On page 13, in line 45, after “by-laws” to insert:
   or in the case of an Administrator, regulations
3. 6. On page 15, in line 5, after “authorities” to insert:
   or the relevant Administrator, as the case may be,
4. 7. On page 15, in line 7, after “authority” to insert:
   or such Administrator
5. 8. On page 15, in line 8, after “authority” to insert:
   or Administrator
6. 9. On page 15, in line 11, after “by-laws” to insert:
   or regulations, as the case may be,
7. 10. On page 15, in line 14, after “by-law” to insert:
   or any regulation, as the case may be,
8. 11. On page 15, in line 20, after “by-law” to insert:
   or regulation

Amendments agreed to.

On Clause 10:

1. On page 17, from line 4, to omit subsection (3) and to substitute:

(3) An Administrator may of his own volition, after having been requested to do so by a township developer or an interested person or body or on the recommendation of any court, magistrate or committee as contemplated in this Act, by notice in the Official Gazette—

(a) after he has been satisfied that it is desirable to do so taking into account—

1. (i) the health or safety of the public generally, or of any class or classes of persons, including the relevant persons themselves;
2. (ii) the feasibility of providing rudimentary services and of the upgrading of such services over a period of time in the future;
3. (iii) the feasibility of housing persons in temporary shelter in the relevant area, whether or not such temporary shelter has been or is to be erected by the relevant persons themselves;
4. (iv) the feasibility of the development of appropriate community facilities and services;
5. (v) the suitability or otherwise of the relevant area taking into account its location in relation to employment and transport facilities;
6. (vi) the feasibility of providing occupants of the relevant area with appropriate security of land tenure;
7. (vii) the feasibility of developing permanent housing or shelter over a period of time in the future;
8. (viii) the feasibility of establishing or providing appropriate local government or similar structures, services or bodies;
9. (ix) the possibility of persons settling in the area being able to acquire sites which are affordable for them, taking into account their likely income;
10. (x) any similar factor, principle or criterion determined by the Minister under section 11A (1) (b),

designate a portion of land defined in the notice for development as a residential area in accordance with the provisions of this section, whether such land is occupied by homeless persons or not;

(b) where this is necessary to correct any error in such designation or to extend the residential area concerned, subject to subsections (1) and (2), amend such designation: Provided that such designation may not be withdrawn unless all persons residing in such residential area, have consented to such withdrawal.

Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 11:

1. 1. On page 25, in line 38, after “thereof’ to insert:
   persons who are not former employees of such owner or legal occupier or their predecessors in title, persons who do not have the right to use such land for bona fide agricultural, farming or related purposes or are not dependants of any such persons,
2. 2. On page 25, in line 38, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”.
3. 3. On page 25, in line 43, to omit “shall” and to substitute:
   may, if it is satisfied on the basis of such report that it is appropriate to do so—
   1. (a) recommend to the relevant Administrator that the land in question or the land on which the relevant building or structure is situated be declared a transit area or designated under section 6A, and if it is informed by such Administrator that he is not prepared so to declare or designate the land concerned; and
   2. (b) taking into account the circumstances under which such persons are living, the circumstances under which they would live in any other area where they are likely to settle and the availability of shelter and employment in such other area,
4. 4. On page 27, in line 17, to omit “shall” and to substitue “may”.
5. 5. On page 27, from line 31, to omit subsection (8).

Amendments agreed to.

On Clause 15:

1. 1. On page 31, in line 3, to omit all the words after “determine” to the end of the subsection and to substitute:
   1. (a) the general policy in regard to the prevention of illegal squatting and the encouragement of the development of informal housing which shall be adhered to in the Republic; and
   2. (b) the particular principles or criteria, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, which shall be adhered to in the exercise of any discretion conferred upon any local authority or Administrator under this Act.
2. 2. On page 31, in line 7, after “policy” to insert:
   , principles or criteria
3. 3. On page 31, from line 8, to omit section 11B.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr Speaker, these amendments were formulated at the suggestions of the Urban Foundation, and they have a lot of merit. They are supported by Assocom, the FCI, the Chamber of Mines, and many other reputable organisations.

We on this side of the House support these amendments. It is unfortunate and regretted that Dr Beck, one of the officials who represented the Government in the joint committee, indicated that he was instructed not to support these amendments or any amendments whatsoever.

If that is the attitude, what is the purpose of submitting legislation to joint committees?

Before I resume my seat, I want to take this opportunity to dissociate hon members of my House from the derogatory remarks made by the hon member for Lenasia East in the House yesterday against the Afrikaner “volk” as such, as we deem these remarks to be irresponsible.

Order! I note that there are fewer than 11 members present, and therefore I cannot proceed to put the Question.

*The position is that there are fewer than 15 members of the House of Delegates present. According to the Rules this is not a quorum and subsequently there will be no voting in the House of Delegates. For this reason voting is deferred.

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence. Once again there seems to be some confusion. This is a new system and I ask you to bear with us. I believe that the hon members who walked out just now were under the impression that the question in respect of the Bill itself was being put. If I may have your permission to call them back, Sir, I should like to do so.

Order! I put the Question as amended, because all the amendments printed on the Order Paper and proposed by the hon member for Actonville have been accepted. Therefore the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, as amended, has been put to the House of Delegates.

Mr Speaker, we do not have enough members present.

Order! I put the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, as amended, and that was the Question before the House. Does the hon member understand and is he satisfied?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! Because no members of the House of Delegates are present, no division will be called and decision of the Question will be postponed.

The House of Assembly divided:

AYES—90: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J v R; Botha, J C G; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Marais, G; Mare, P L; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T;Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van de Vyfer, J H; Van der Walt, A T; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, GvN; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

NOES—29: Andrew, K M; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; De Ville, J R; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Malan, W C; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Eck, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S S; Walsh, J J.

Order! Before I announce the conclusion of business, I should like to express briefly the great appreciation of the three Houses toward the Secretary to Parliament, Mr De Villiers, on his last working day today. I want to assure him of our exceptional appreciation of the fact that, in the last week of his term of service at Parliament, he has put in such a hel … [Interjections.] … such an exceptionally active and hard week. Hon members are not to misconstrue my use of the language.

I should like once again from the Chair—we have already expressed our thanks toward him but, because this is the very last opportunity and today is such a special day—to thank him very much. In future Parliament will retain only very pleasant and fond memories of Mr and Mrs de Villiers. I thank him for his assistance up to this stage as well as the help he will give me later today.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, since this motion will not, to the best of my knowledge, be opposed, it therefore brings us to the end of this year’s parliamentary activities. I should like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude to Mr Speaker in his absence, as well as to you, Mr Chairman, and to all the presiding officers who assist you, for the guidance and direction you have given us throughout the year, during all the phases of the session.

I should also like to address a sincere word of thanks to the officials. We have already formally taken leave of Mr De Villiers at some length. Nevertheless, since this is his last day here and since this is probably the last time he will enter this Chamber and sit in that seat, we should like to wish both him and his wife a long, quiet and happy retirement.

Hear, hear!

We should like to record our gratitude once again for the wonderful service he has rendered here in various capacities over so many years. We shall remember him especially for his friendliness, as well as for the monumental task he performed in helping to bring the new system fully on line.

I also want to extend another word of sincere congratulation to Mr De Villiers’s successor, Mr De Kock. Our sincere thanks also go to the secretariat and to all those who assist them.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to address a sincere word of thanks to the Whips—to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and the hon Chief Whip and other Whips of the NP, as well as the hon Chief Whips and the other Whips of all the opposition parties in this House. In order to allow Parliament to function as an institution, it is necessary for everyone to rise above their partypolitical differences insofar as practical arrangements are concerned, and to work together as a team when it comes to the functioning of this, the supreme authority in the country.

We have received the co-operation of the Whips of all the opposition parties throughout in this regard, and at the end of this 1988 session, I can attest to the fact that our co-operation was both cordial and constructive. What is more, we encountered very few problems. As to those problems which we did experience, we were usually able to solve them to everyone’s satisfaction by way of good communication. For that reason, I convey my sincere thanks to them as well.

The parliamentary system was subjected to tremendous pressure this year. The events which took place after the recess which followed the first part of the session, placed the system as a system in jeopardy. In fact, one might say that the system as a system is in jeopardy as a result of the attitude displayed by certain parties in some of the other Houses. In this House, too, there is a small minority which, contrary to the general trend and to the overwhelming majority in this House, does not place the same premium upon the maintenance of Parliament and the parliamentary system. [Interjections.] Fortunately, they are a dwindling minority. [Interjections.] For this reason, as far as the House of Assembly is concerned, the general public may rest assured that the elected representatives of the White electorate will at all times take great pains to maintain the parliamentary system with its long tradition in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should like to wish all hon members a pleasant rest, in so far as there will, in fact, be time for rest. That time will probably only arrive after 26 October. I hope we shall all be able to come to grips with one another in good health and with renewed strength when we meet here once again to begin the 1989 session.

Many thanks once again to everyone. Sir, I also wish you and all hon members a merry Christmas and a very prosperous 1988.

Mr Chairman, permit me to associate myself with the kind words which the hon the Leader of the House addressed to the outgoing Secretary to Parliament. We, too, wish him everything of the best, including good health for him and his wife. We in the Official Opposition also extend a warm word of welcome to Mr De Kock and we offer him our sincere co-operation.

On behalf of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, I also want to extend my gratitude and appreciation to the hon the Leader of the House for the way in which we were able to work together this year, as well as for the pleasant hospitality we were able to enjoy in his office and the sympathetic manner in which he listened to and gave attention to the matters we raised. We are also especially appreciative of the way in which he poured oil on troubled waters from time to time, particularly since I think he has had a trying time in the Transvaal this year. I think that in the days that lie ahead up to 26 October he will have to endure even more trying times. (Interjections.] However, we want to tell him that we hold him in high esteem as a person and that we are greatly appreciative of his leadership and the sympathetic attention he devotes to matters.

Permit me also to address a special word of appreciation to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. We enjoy working with him very much. He is very enthusiastic in his efforts to bully us. One must be very careful not to allow oneself to be bullied by him and the hon the Chief Whip of the House of Assembly. Nevertheless, we enjoy and appreciate working with them very much. We wish them, too, a very pleasant break, and prosperity in 1989.

As far as the system is concerned, we are sorry that the hon the Leader of the House has simply said that the system is in jeopardy. We had hoped that it would have come home to him after the two weeks from 22 August to 2 September, as well as this week, that the system cannot work; that it is a failure. We now hear that we are to adjourn until 3 February 1989. We only hope that the hon the Leader of the House will not be pressured by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning into recalling us once again before the end of the year. We merely want the hon the Leader of the House to give this system some deep thought, because it is not working and it is costing South Africa money. We are wasting money on this system and we are not achieving anything by it. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, we want to say that we are grateful that we can adjourn today, that we can escape from this chaos in time to go and watch Northern Transvaal drive (boor) WP into the ground, just as we have done to the Government this week. [Interjections.] Northern Transvaal will do so without a Heunis. [Interjections.]

Order! Under today’s circumstances, I shall rule that the word “boor” is not unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to speak politics today …

Hear, hear!

… although I hear a “hear, hear” over there. I must say, I thought a notice of motion was needed for the type of speech that the hon member for Brakpan made. [Interjections.] However, the Rules do change very rapidly around here. Over the past few months we have experienced instant rulemaking on the trot as Parliament has progressed.

I would like to associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks made by the hon the Leader of the House about the Secretary. I would like to wish him a long and not too restful retirement. I do not think Mr De Villiers will ever become totally restful; he needs to be busy. So I wish him a fruitful and happy retirement. I also wish Mr De Kock success in the job that he is going to take on. It is a very tough job, but he will have the co-operation of the hon members on this side of the House and, I am sure, of everybody. I wish him great success and happiness in the task which he is undertaking.

I would like to say just a word about the staff of Parliament—not the most senior Secretary to Parliament, but the people under him.

For many months the staff of Parliament have worked long hours under this new system. They have been called upon at short notice, and have had to respond to the whims of hon members. They have had to be available for short sessions, and staff leave has been cancelled. One finds staff members still working here at 22h00 or 23h00, and as far as I am aware they do not receive overtime pay for that. I would like to say that this Parliament could not function if it were not for the people of Hansard, the translators, the committee clerks, and all the people who take care of the mechanics of Parliament and keep this place running. I think those people deserve a vote of appreciation for the work they do in making it possible for us to do our job. We certainly appreciate it.

I would like to respond briefly to the remarks made with reference to the Whips. Yes, the Whips have worked well, and I think that there is a good spirit among them. As far as the Whips are concerned, personalities do not creep into the disputes which occur among the parties, except on very rare occasions. When there are differences, 99% of them concern matters about which the Mafia would say: “This is business.” We have to deal with them on a business footing, and they are not personal matters. I think the relationship among the Whips has been a good one, and I think that we have worked well together.

All of us have learned a few lessons, and I think some of us will not again take the chances we tried to take from time to time. I think this teaches us that where there is consultation and yet more consultation, there will be cooperation and yet greater cooperation. I would simply ask members to remember that. If we try to build upon the basis of cooperation and consultation among Whips, and avoid unilateral decisions, I think we will find that Parliament will work even more smoothly than it has in the past.

In closing I would like to thank you, Sir, for your impartial chairmanship during this past session— it has been appreciated by my colleagues and me—and for the competence you have brought to the Chair.

We wish all members a happy Christmas and express the hope that, at municipal level, very few Nationalists come back next year. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself very briefly with the good wishes extended to Mr De Villiers upon his retirement, and with the words of thanks addressed to you, the Parliamentary officials and the Whips. We too are grateful that we may profit from their services.

In conclusion, I should like to support the motion. I think it has come not a moment too late.

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.] I always appreciate applause, Sir.

Order! The hon member need not address the House in Afrikaans! He may do so in English. [Interjections.]

I too would like to bid Mr De Villiers farewell, and to welcome and congratulate Mr De Kock. I would like to thank you as well, Sir, for the courtesy that I have always been accorded.

I tread a lonely path, but I must express my appreciation to the Whips for the manner in which they have responded to my appeals when I wanted to participate in debate. I am very grateful to them for the cooperative attitude that they have always displayed.

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.] I had not intended to rise, but I have been subjected to very great challenges. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to express my appreciation for Mr De Villiers’ contribution to this House and to Parliament. I just want to have this placed on record because if I had not said it, it could have been interpreted as indicating that I was not appreciative of his efforts. I echo the words of congratulation that were extended to him and I hope that he will return here many years from now to assess this place and certain contributions made by certain hon members in particular. [Interjections.]

Order! On behalf of my two colleagues, I should also like to thank those hon members who have expressed their appreciation toward the Chair. We are not really accustomed to “thanks”. I also thank the Whips, who worked very closely with us.

We also want to say thank you very much to Mr De Villiers. Those hon members who were in the Chamber of Parliament today will have noticed that he really surpassed himself, because he dealt with many problems there. It is typical of Mr De Villiers that he always assists us with advice. Both in my personal capacity and on behalf of the House of Assembly, I thank him very much for that. We wish him and his wife every blessing for a long and joyful life together.

We have already conveyed our thanks to the officials, but I just want to emphasise this. I also want to wish each and every hon member a very pleasant recess.

All that now remains for me to do, is to ask whether there is any objection to the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House. If there is no objection, the House will adjourn.

Order! I want to inform the House that messages to the House of Representatives were received from the hon the State President. The messages read as follows:

MESSAGE
by the
STATE PRESIDENT
to the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Representatives to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 121—88 (GA)] which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE by the STATE PRESIDENT to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Representatives to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 122—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE by the STATE PRESIDENT to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Representatives to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill [B 123—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE
by the
STATE PRESIDENT
to the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Representatives to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 124—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

Mr Chairman, I would like to say, hopefully on behalf of this House, that we reject the message that we have received about having to make a decision on or before 17 October 1988, with the contempt and in a sense the respect it deserves. I believe that justice must be done and must be seen to be done. When one takes cognisance of the feelings of the majority of people outside Parliament and the majority of people inside Parliament such a message must be seen as a travesty of justice.

As already indicated during debates—I am not going to repeat this—this House feels extremely strongly about and is certainly filled with resentment at the fact that White domination has again come to the fore. It is again White decisions that have been made and will be made, while the wishes of the majority of people are ignored. It is regrettable that these Bills will now be sent to the President’s Council where a minority of appointed people will make a decision on behalf of the whole of South Africa. I believe that this is not in the interests of South Africa.

I would again remind the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is a cosignatory hereof, that this House is bound by a decision that it made not to meet to make decisions on these particular Bills before 1 November.

In the light of that which is already proposed, we can indicate, particularly on this side of the House, our complete rejection of the message.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the rejection of the discussion of this legislation, I am in full agreement with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I merely want to ask him one thing, however. We can make suggestions and his party can take the decisions, but we are placed in an embarrassing position when his party agrees to the legislation under discussion and it comes before Parliament because it was agreed to at that point, and a change of attitude then follows. I have no problem with that, but when the change of attitude concerns something one has already agreed to, I think it is only fair to ensure that that legislation is never tabled.

All four pieces of legislation were agreed to by hon members of that party in Cabinet committees and in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] This was indicated, and was put in writing for everyone who wants to read it, and even for those who cannot read, to whom it can be read by others. That is my request. In addition we on this side of the House are not happy with the hon the State President’s message that we must reconsider those matters.

I quote from the report of the President’s Council, because the hon members say they will not read it.

You are still fighting a losing battle.

I appreciate that hon member’s interjection, but the honour of the community they serve is being assailed by dishonest action in respect of what they approve and then reject afterwards. [Interjections.]

Order!

I quote:

In the same way I can quote what those hon members agreed to at one stage. This is my only objection. I must honestly say that, like Genis, one feels aggrieved (beswaard) when people conclude an agreement on behalf of the community they serve, and never inform the people with whom they have concluded the agreement that they are no longer in agreement. That places us in an embarrassing position.

[Inaudible.]

My resignation depends on me and my constituency, not on the hon member for Addo. [Interjections.] It does not depend on anyone. It depends on me and my constituency.

Order! Will hon members please give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition an opportunity to continue?

That is my only request to the hon the leader of the Labour Party. His people, who serve on various committees may have done so behind his back. I do not know, but the fact is that it was agreed to and is in writing and we are in the embarrassing position of having to follow this course with him. I agree wholeheartedly with the other sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, however.

The hon members who said this was not true must go and read the documents. They are available in the library and are received regularly in the post.

Mr Chairman, kindly allow me a point of privilege and explanation as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and Leader of this House. One must clearly understand the difference between that which is said …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made that request as the Leader of the House. Surely he is not the leader of this House.

I meant as leader of the majority party.

That is better.

I do not argue about trivialities. There are, however, two things I want to state emphatically. It would appear that the Leader of the Official Opposition accepts the word of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning rather than my word.

I want to give this House the assurance again that, in spite of my having debated the question of the disposal of the Bills, the document which was released to the Press is the authentic agreement which was reached by us. I leave it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to decide whether he accepts it or not.

Secondly, I have checked with the DirectorGeneral of the House of Representatives and this matter was at no time discussed by the Ministers’ Council or decided upon by the Ministers’ Council or this party. I raised this matter—and I want to put it on record—with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Then how can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that this Administration had made a decision on the Slums Act? The hon Leader said the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture had agreed to it in the Cabinet Committee. If that is in fact the case, I dissociate myself, as well as the Ministers’ Council, from that decision, because it was not taken with our consent.

Mr Chairman, I do not want the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to misunderstand me. I did not say things here because I believed either what the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had said. I was referring specifically to what hon members of the LP had agreed to in various committees, and to what we have in writing. That is all I was referring to. I have no problem with what the hon the Minister said. That is their indaba, not mine.

Mr Chairman, I will be failing in my duty if I do not express my gratitude to this Chamber. We have had a difficult week and I want to express my appreciation towards every hon member for his contribution. I will certainly also fail in my duty if I do not express my appreciation towards the Chairman of the House for his guidance and sympathetic ear. I also want to thank every official. We certainly appreciate their guidance and assistance. I also want to thank our young people—I am referring to the service officers—who have always been willing to help us. I also want to thank every other member of this institution, who at some stage or another has helped us in the successful completion of our duties in this Chamber. In conclusion, I just want to state that this House also expresses its appreciation for the guidance of the hon the leader of the LP during this very difficult period.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of this House wish to associate ourselves with the appreciation expressed by the hon the Leader of the House in respect of the officials of Parliament, the Chairman of the House, as well as the Hansard staff and members of the Press.

Order! At this stage of the proceedings, we shall proceed to the first notice of motion as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Hon members on this side of the House did not receive the Order Paper containing such a notice of motion. With all due respect, hon members do not know what is going on at this stage.

Order! As I understand matters, all hon members received Order Papers.

Sir, the notice of motion in question was drawn up by hon members on the opposite side of the House and not by those of us on this side of the House.

Order! Apparently not all hon members received the Order Paper, and I apologize for any inconvenience they have been caused. Before the hon the Leader of the House moves the adjournment, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank all hon members for their contributions. I want to associate myself with the thanks expressed by the hon the Leader of the House to the officials. May you all have good fortune, and may God bless you.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker.

Agreed to.

Order! I have to announce that the following messages have been received from the hon the State President:

MESSAGE
by the
STATE PRESIDENT
to the
HOUSE OF DELEGATES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of

South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Delegates to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 121—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

PW BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE by the STATE PRESIDENT to the HOUSE OF DELEGATES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Delegates to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill [B 122—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE by the STATE PRESIDENT to the HOUSE OF DELEGATES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Delegates to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill [B 123—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

MESSAGE
by the
STATE PRESIDENT
to the
HOUSE OF DELEGATES

In terms of section 32 (2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), I hereby request the House of Delegates to, before 17 October 1988, dispose of the

Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 124—88 (GA)]

which has been passed by the House of Assembly.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Republic of South Africa at George

on this thirtieth

day of September

One thousand Nine hundred and Eighty Eight.

P W BOTHA

STATE PRESIDENT

By Order of the State President-in-Cabinet

J C HEUNIS

MINISTER OF THE CABINET

Mr Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is serious about the point he is trying to make. I appeal to hon members to restrain themselves. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, who is this Mr George? Where is he? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the State President apparently signed this instruction at George in the Southern Cape.

Mr Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order concerning the dignity of this House. You have just read a message from the hon the State President, and that message must be accepted by hon members in this House with dignity and honour.

Order! I am pleased that the hon the Minister of the Budget rose on a point of order to make that observation. I want to tell hon members that when the hon member for Reservoir Hills was trying to address the Chair on a point of order, there were members present who were laughing. I think this is a very serious situation which does not call for laughter. I appeal to hon members to accord the necessary seriousness to matters that come before us.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon the Minister of the Budget, as well as your response, Mr Chairman. I also want to place on record that at all times this side of the House has respected the Rules and …[Interjections.]

Order! I think the point has been made, and I request the hon member to resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, while you were reading the first message from the hon the State President, I heard the hon member for Reservoir Hills interject, “Ag, sies!” Was that proper?

Order! I did not hear that. I appeal to hon members not to be frivolous.

I should just like to point out to the hon the Leader of the House that we are now coming to the Notice of Motion in his name. Prior to that, however, I shall permit any hon member of this House who wishes to make any input on the message that has been received from the hon the State President, to do so. May I remind hon members that in terms of the Notice of Motion which is still to be debated, the House at its rising today shall adjourn until Friday, 3 February, whereas in terms of this message, this House may have to be reconvened at any time between now and 17 October. I should like the hon the Leader of the House to bear this in mind.

I shall permit discussion on the message received from the hon the State President. I realise that hon members were not aware of this and I want to add that I only became aware of it when I took the Chair. Therefore I, too, was unaware of this message and there was no opportunity for the Whips to meet in order to arrange a speakers’ list. I will permit hon members to speak if they wish to make an observation or a statement.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to enter the debate at this stage. However, if the hon Chairman could give us a few minutes to adjourn in order to decide on the times for the different parties, the number of speakers … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member’s request is granted.

Mr Chairman, there have been responses from the floor. Hon members feel that it might not be necessary to adjourn. If you, Sir, think it will be necessary at a later stage, we can decide to regulate time, but at the moment I think this might be disposed of without having to adjourn.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that I am most disappointed that the hon the State President has seen fit to serve notice in terms of the Constitution. The views of the majority of people who have participated within the system were not taken into account and this will undermine the credibility of those who are participating within the system. It is apparent to us that the purpose of this notice is to speed up the process of this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament and to do this via the President’s Council.

I want to warn that the hon State President, having served this notice, should caution against using the provisions of the Constitution to force through these measures which are resented by so many of us. My hon leader spoke out so brilliantly against these measures the other day and we have had a positive response from the public at large. People from outside Parliament and extraparliamentary groups realised that those of us who were participating within the system as a result of the joint debate were able to highlight the aspirations of our committee. This having been done so effectively, I would rather that the hon State President and the hon members of the other Houses take cognisance of these feelings and not use the draconian measures which are enshrined within the Constitution as a safeguard to protect one minority group within the tricameral system.

It is now a fact that the hon State President has served this notice. However, even if we have to meet in terms of this notice, which we will be obliged to do, the hon the State President should be cautioned that he should not use the President’s Council to act against the wishes of the community again. I make this earnest appeal from this House to the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, when one receives unpleasant and unacceptable information one can react with anger, indignation or in a manner which makes for levity. This is why I said: “Ag sies, Meneer!” The message which you were obliged to read to us was a message which provoked a reaction of “Ag, sies!” I repeat the words, “Ag, sies!” even though the hon member Mr Nowbath, in fealty to the hon the State President …

Oh, rubbish!

He now says “Rubbish!” in reference to fealty to the hon the State President. He therefore says that anyone who owes fealty to the hon the State President, is a rubbish. He is self-confessed in that manner.

Order! May I appeal to the hon member, in view of the seriousness of the matter, to try to confine his remarks more directly to the message.

Well, Sir, the message itself is abhorrent. It is constitutional. It is legal. However, the fact of its constitutionality or legality does not make it honourable—and this remark is specifically directed at the hon the Minister of the Budget. It does not incline us to treat that message with honour. We may treat it with dignity, as we always treat any message from the hon the State President. However, we do not have to treat such an unacceptable message with honour.

What is the reason for that message? Why has the hon the State President sent that message? He has sent that message in terms of section 32(2)(a) of Act 110 of 1983. Not one single hon member with any self-respect will admit to having been a party to that Act. If there are hon members in this House who have no self-respect, who would like to give honour to a message emanating in terms of that Constitution, let the ignominy be on their own heads.

If there is any hon member here who wants to treat with fealty this message emanating from the hon the State President, let that disgrace be on his own head. The object of the message from the hon the State President is to oblige this House to act in one of two possible ways. There are only two possibilities. In terms of the Constitution, in the making of which we played no part, one of the possibilities is to do nothing. We have already expressed our abhorrence of those Bills. However, not all of us did so. Nine hon members of the NPP did not share the abhorrence of the majority of this House. The persons concerned were the hon member for Northern Natal, the hon member for Newholme, the hon member for Umzinto, the hon member for Brickfield, the hon member for Tongaat, the hon member for Lenasia South, the hon member for Mariannhill and the hon member for Allandale. They did not share the complete and utter disgust which the majority of hon members of this House and the majority of the House of Representatives felt towards these Bills. These hon members showed their disgust by having their physical absence from the House recorded. These hon members found it desirable …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member for Reservoir Hills what his counterparts in the House of Assembly did.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Mariannhill is referring to the hon members of the House of Assembly belonging to my party …

Your party? [Interjections.]

The question is valid. The hon member Mr Nowbath has never belonged to any party. He came in by the back door. He told us that he was emasculated. Nobody else made the allegation. The hon member Mr Nowbath was supposed to be appearing before a tribunal, but obviously his services were terminated, and that is why he came here.

However, be that as it may, in answer to the question …

Rubbish!

I have to give a reply to the question, Sir. It was necessary for hon members of the House of Assembly who opposed all these Bills to remain there to record their opposition, whereas in respect of the other two Houses, the absence of the majority of members was adequate notation of the abhorrence which those hon members felt. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, no single other hon member of this House has ever confessed to having been emasculated. The hon member Mr Nowbath confessed to that and he is the only person who will know whether that statement is true or not. We do not know the truth. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have two options before us. Firstly we can do nothing and allow the Government a free hand, in terms of the Constitution, to deem these Bills to have been rejected.

The second alternative, Mr Chairman …

What will you do after that?

What we will do after that is not to suck up to the Government.

You will stay here and do so.

The hon member Mr Nowbath may do that which I said we shall not do. He is at liberty to do that. [Interjections.]

The second alternative is to assemble and to vote against these Bills, and to state why we are doing so. These are options which we will have to consider in caucus among those of us who, unlike the hon member Mr Nowbath, are disgusted by these Bills and are not prepared to defend them or the actions of the Government.

Go and stand for Whites! Do not stand for Indians.

We know that the hon member Mr Nowbath stated once that he was appointed as a member of this House, not by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, but by the hon the State President. Naturally, he who appoints can demand loyalty. If the hon member Mr Nowbath feels himself loyal to the hon the State President, that is his personal responsibility.

All that I can ask here at this stage is this: Why is the Government so anxious to have these Bills negatived? It is unusual for any government to be so anxious to have a Bill negatived. The answer lies in the diabolical fact that Act 110 of 1983 has a provision built into it that even if the majority of the members of Parliament or the majority of the constituents of Parliament, in this particular case, two Houses out of the three Houses of Parliament—a two-third component of Parliament and a two-third majority ipso facto—rejects a Bill, the hon the State President can refer that Bill to the President’s Council. The President’s Council is a completely non-elected body. It is a body in the appointment of which the populace at large had no role. The hon the State President can then use his tame majority in the President’s Council to override and overrule the wishes of the majority in Parliament. If that is not a complete negation of democracy and intended to be an absolute prostitution of every single concept of that which is fair and proper, I shall be surprised. That is the ultimate intention of the hon the State President. That is why I said “Ag sies” and I will continue saying “Ag sies”.

Mr Chairman, when I spoke about order and honour I was not referring to the hon member for Reservoir Hills in particular, but I detected a certain cynicism on the part of certain hon members of this House. I think that when messages from the hon the State President are received by this House, we should accept them in the spirit in which they are sent. We cannot contest the right of the hon the State President, within the terms of the Constitution, to have acted accordingly.

However, we on this side of the House—and I feel sure that I echo the sentiments of many hon members of this House—would have very much liked the hon the State President, and particularly the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, to have taken cognisance of the message that was delivered in the debates over the past four days, and at least to have responded to the earnest appeal made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and others that instead of these Bills being referred to the President’s Council, they be referred to the committee in question. At the very least, the leaders of all the political parties, representing all political persuasions, should have been brought together to look anew at the entire matter. However, by that I do not mean that we necessarily want amendments to be effected to the Group Areas Amendment Bill or any of the other Bills.

Having said that, I believe we now have a responsibility to respond to the hon the State President’s message. The options open to us are clear. Either we decide upon a date on which to meet before 17 October and set that date, or, if we do not meet at all, the Constitution contains a provision to the effect that the hon the State President may deem us to have rejected all those Bills. That is as I understand the Constitution.

As the deadline given is 17 October, I should like to suggest with the permission of hon members that we meet on Saturday 15 October at 10 am in order to deal with this Bill, if we are to meet at all. [Interjections.]

Why on a Saturday?

Well, we have two days before the 17th. [Interjections.] Oh, you do not want to spoil your weekend. I understand. Perhaps there is some merit …

We can meet on the Sunday.

Have it on the Sunday? No, Sunday is the Sabbath day. We cannot. [Interjections.] I suggest that we hold it on Saturday 15 October from 10 am onwards.

Mr Chairman, I am equally saddened by the fact that the hon the State President has sent this message to us at this late hour. I want to reiterate what the hon the Minister of the Budget has said, namely that in these times, when we have heard the outcry against these Bills, we find it regrettable that the hon the State President has deemed it fit to invoke certain provisions of the Constitution in order to implement some of these measures.

I want to support the sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister of the Budget in this regard.

Mr Chairman, in deliberating on the Bills in question at the joint sitting, I think what is important is the fact that we delivered a message to the governing party and to the Cabinet Ministers present, and that message was that we had no option but to oppose these pieces of legislation. I think a very clear-cut case was made out in this regard.

Insofar as the Group Areas Amendment Bill is concerned, let us once again make it absolutely clear that neither now nor at any time in the future will we be prepared under any circumstances to subscribe to amendments which will make the measures already incorporated in the Group Areas Act harsher in their application.

That must be a commitment by all of us in this House.

We say to hell with the Group Areas Act as a whole!

Secondly, in respect of the other Bills, I think we went to great lengths to indicate that by bringing together the leaders of the various groups represented in Parliament—possibly the members of the standing committee—and in addressing the problem together, we could possibly have found one another and we could very well have come forward with legislation which would be acceptable to the majority and to which we could lend support in the legislature. I too wish to express my disappointment that not one of those Bills has been considered in the fashion that we suggested in the course of the debate in the joint sitting.

I still trust that, notwithstanding the delivery of this message upon which we have to act, good sense will yet prevail and that there will be a greater appreciation of our difficulties and problems in the days ahead. I trust that some positive response will be forthcoming so that our participation in the tricameral system will have some meaning.

Mr Chairman, we have been accused of selling out the Indian community, but I want to say that when we stood for election we gave an undertaking to the people in our constituencies that we would not support Bills that affected the Indian community badly. We said that we would go in there and fight these matters.

How do we fight?

Yes, how do we fight? We must not be frightened. We must vote to reject these Bills. However, that is the opinion of others. I want to give my opinion that I conveyed to my constituency.

I know that some of our leaders gave an undertaking to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that if they were called to Parliament they would help to dispose of these Bills. How does one do that? One does not do it by walking away from it. It is all very well to say that the names must be taken down of the people who were there, but we have told the people in our constituencies that we would fight this matter. How does one fight it? Not by leaving the Chamber like frightened Jacks. We want to vote that we reject this matter. That is why we stayed there.

Mr Chairman, I think that if one has to be analytical of what transpired during the joint sittings in Parliament this week, one would come to the conclusion that the feelings of the non-White community have never been expressed like this. The Bills that were discussed this week touched the inner core of the non-White community in South Africa. Every hon member in this House—regardless of his affiliation—expressed his feelings with the utmost sincerity and concern. No one can deny that the utterances in the Chamber were more than mere utterances for the purpose of debate.

It demonstrated what this community has been going through. We are satisfied that during this week White parliamentarians realised the pain, frustration and irritation of the non-White community.

What is more, these pieces of legislation have been the subject of discussion by the various political parties, even leaving us in some confusion, but all of us have co-operated.

Originally the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved that these pieces of legislation be held over until next year. Unfortunately, however, a decision has been taken to have them discussed during this week and the decision has been carried out and implemented, but not one hon member has ever expressed his approval. Coming back to approval, I want to react to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I say with respect that all of us have our own way of doing things; those hon members who remained in the House in no way supported those measures. However, they have their own method and their presence did not in any way indicate their acceptance. There was total rejection.

Your acting leader walked out. He would have nothing to do with it.

Therefore, I want to place on record that notwithstanding our participation in these structures, we have justified it in every possible way and having done this as the last generation of moderates to understand and appreciate the principles of negotiation, we now find that those very pieces of legislation which not one hon member in this House has supported now have to come back for discussion. This leaves us at the crossroads to a certain extent.

I want to say that we are extremely concerned about the statement that has been made. Whilst it is contained in the Constitution of South Africa I cannot imagine any hon member deviating from the discussion and decisions that have been taken this week, regardless of how many times this statement is heard.

Mr Chairman, I wish to address this House, particularly now that these pieces of legislation have been put before us and debated over the past few days.

These pieces of legislation are ones which we abhor totally and in our abhorrence of this legislation I cannot for the life of me see where the division is between that side of the House and this side of the House.

It is legislation that has caused so much harm and has, in fact, destroyed the goodwill that should have existed. One takes into account the initiative of the hon the State President to go around the Black states of South Africa in that he is propagating goodwill and understanding for the South African concept in particular.

He is undermining it today.

I just cannot see that whilst the hon the State President goes about seeking this sort of reassurance on the one hand, on the other hand he himself is destroying it from within. It is understandable that the hon the State President has now sent us this message. The understanding there is that he is concerned primarily with the coming municipal elections on 26 October, and I maintain that that is a fact. He is afraid that the CP could gain the extra seats required in the municipal elections, which may perhaps dampen the reform process which he has undertaken.

Now the question is: What reform processes are we talking about as regards the introduction of these abhorrent pieces of legislation? Is this what the hon the State President and the Cabinet now say is a part of reform?

Shame!

Unfortunately we are placed in the situation, in terms of the Constitution, that we now have to deal with this matter by 17 October. I believe that we are honourable people who will deal with it as we see fit at the time. My only sadness in this entire episode is that during the debate of the last few days, cognisance has not been taken of people who feel deeply that they have really suffered as a result of these pieces of legislation that were drafted simply to retard the progress of the people of colour. How long do they think they are going to be able to stop this?

I appeal to the hon the State President and the relevant Ministers to realise that the time has now come to stop behaving like a bull in a china shop and destroying the goodwill and the little good they have produced thus far. That will cost this country more dearly than the “kragdadigheid” that we have seen and that is being displayed here.

Mr Chairman, I, too, agree with many of the things said in this House today. I want to say one thing, and that is that it is time that the hon the State President considered others besides the White Afrikaners that we Indians are going bootlicking to. I want it placed on record that what I said yesterday in the Joint Sitting was the truth. I did not pick on the Afrikaner nation as such because of any hatred or malice towards them on my part.

However, the NP members stood up in front of us and practically asked us to get in with them and do what they wanted us to do, namely to get rid of the Blacks. I hope that one day hon members can read the book They dared speak out. It is written by a congressman in America, and deals with the very situation that we have in South Africa. Senator Findlay explains how governments are being terrorised into doing what they are doing. There are chapters on this that will tell hon members exactly what is happening to us here in South Africa. Therefore, when a member of the NP stands up there and speaks Afrikaans, the reason he will not speak English is that he knows that half the time, half of our people do not understand half of what he is saying. Therefore as regards what I said there yesterday, I guarantee that if the hon members want any proof, I shall give them historical proof of what I said.

As far as these Bills are concerned, the people that have suffered are the Blacks; we lived with them in Sophiatown, Vrededorp, and just about anywhere you can mention in the Transvaal. You yourself, Mr Chairman, were involved in this type of thing when you lived among the Blacks and the Coloureds. Germiston is a location where the Indians, until very recently, were in the position of not being able to do anything, and they dared not stand up and speak about it.

Order! I just want to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that we are straying very far from the message now.

Mr Chairman, I am talking about what is happening to us. Why then must the hon the State President—these hon Ministers do not see what is happening among our people— speak a language here which others do not understand and tell us that these Bills are good? Some of us practically agreed to these measures. I, for one, will never take that for granted.

Even if the date is set for the Saturday I will accept it, but it will be even better if we stay away.

Mr Chairman, it was not my desire to enter this debate on the message of the hon the State President. However, I am forced to do so because I believe that it would be only appropriate for hon members of this House to know that it is the sequence of developments that perhaps led to this kind of situation.

Firstly, I want to remind hon members that on 22 August 1988 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved without notice in this House that discussion of certain Orders of the Day stand over until 1 February 1989. As regards all these Bills referred to in this motion, viz the Slums Bill, the Self-governing Territories Bill, the National Roads Amendment Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Constitution Third Amendment Bill and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, everybody in this House agreed unanimously on that, because we felt that it was important to consider this very difficult legislation before the House.

I should like to explain how we arrived at this present situation. I want to read an extract, without mentioning any of the participants in this matter, because I do not wish to reopen any wounds, if there are any.

Because you want to support the Government. Carry on.

Perhaps the hon member for Reservoir Hills does not know, because he led the march out and took the credit for what other people had been striving to do in an orderly manner.

All White members of Parliament do not follow the rule book. They obey certain conventions and participate in Parliament in terms of the Rules. [Interjections.] That is why no hon member of the House of Assembly walked out.

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

Order! Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Sir, I do not have enough time.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Do you believe in telling lies in Parliament?

It is stated here that the agreement entails that certain Bills which are approved by the House of Assembly will be withdrawn; amended Bills will be introduced and considered by the joint committees concerned during the week of 19 September 1988 and debated and disposed of at a joint meeting of the three Houses of Parliament during the week of 26—30 September 1988. The Bills in question are the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Group Areas Amendment Bill and the Slums Bill.

I do not want to blame those who are responsible for the situation we find ourselves in, but I believe that is perhaps why the hon the State President has been forced into the situation in which he finds himself. We are in a very high institution and I think we must learn to respect our undertaking. If we here in Parliament cannot do this, what will our constituents do? [Interjections.]

If we did not want to deal with those Bills at all, then we should have honoured what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said here on 22 August 1988. The fact that we behaved in that manner and dishonoured what we were supposed to honour—not only members of Parliament, but Ministers of State who have taken the second oath—I believe, without being radical, hurts. We must behave in a manner befitting the position which we hold.

We had the option to reject it and not participate. However, to come here and play around and try and score a goal from the back of the post, will not pay. Although I regret very, very deeply that the hon the State President had to take this step, I wish to say that it is not acceptable. We know that the pains and aches are healed, but the scars remain. Who is really to be blamed for this?

I feel this is a lesson. It is an historic occasion, but it is a lesson, nevertheless. I wish to make an appeal to every hon member in this House to learn from this. Let us apply our minds and adopt procedures that will be acceptable. We should not lead people at a higher level to supersede us at this level. I do not believe that that is the game which hon members would like to play.

Mr Chairman, honour apart, I too regret the fact that this message from the hon the State President has come on the heels of a week’s intensive debate. Our message was given loud and clear to our electorates, as well as the House of Assembly, that the Bills before us were absolutely contrary to our desire.

We still have time between now and the day of meeting that was called by the hon the State President. I do hope that better judgement will prevail upon the hon the State President himself, apart from those who give guidance to him. I do hope that those who guide him will have the wisdom to prevail upon the hon the State President not to push these abhorrent Bills through the President’s Council. He still has time to give thought to this matter. He still has time to look at the pains our people took to convey our message to all hon members who were assembled at the joint debate.

That message was given from the bottom of our hearts, and if it is not taken seriously, how serious can the hon the State President be in bringing about reform and in bringing about Black participation in the decision-making processes of this Government? The message to our Black counterparts is absolutely clear from these debates. If we, their counterparts in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, can be treated in this way, what will their position be when they answer the call that was made by the hon the State President? This is a serious matter which the hon the State President must give some thought to during this intervening period of 17 days that he has given us.

I do not want to rediscuss those matters that have already been discussed, but I think every hon member that spoke at the podium in the joint debate made it absolutely clear that every one of these Bills should be set aside. All that we in this House want to do at this stage, is to get this message to the hon the State President once and for all: If in his wisdom he thinks he must go ahead with these Bills and use the Presidents’ Council to this end, then the message to us is clear: Should we remain here any longer?

I think every hon member has to entertain that thought in his mind as to whether there is any purpose in his coming here any longer. With these words I hope that the hon the State President will give some serious thought to this measure.

Mr Chairman, much has been said about these Bills this week, and I think every hon member in this House, those who expressed their views as well as those who did not, rejected these Bills.

My concern here is that we have a message from the hon the State President. It is obvious to me that the stance which the alliance took this morning constitutes protest politics. I am shocked at the hon the Minister’s suggestion that we come back on the 15th. Why do we not adopt the same stance, and protest and not reconvene? Why do we have to come here on the 15th? What are we expected to do here on the 15th? We will probably do the same thing we did this morning, namely walk out. If we do not reconvene by the 17th it will be deemed that the Bills have been rejected. Either way, why are we coming back on the 15th?

Mr Chairman, democracy and the democratic right and function of Parliament are now being buried. Indirectly, the democratic right of the voting public is now being demolished. Acting upon the notice received from the hon the State President will result in the undemocratic, dictatorial and loathsome method employed by the Government before the commencement of the tricameral system. We are going back to square one. The ultimate object of the exercise is to get the abhorrent Bills on the Statute Book before the municipal elections on 26 October 1988 in order to pacify the antiGovernment voters and the CP.

These Bills are detested and rejected by all human beings, associations, governments and bodies of various natures throughout the world, save the NP of South Africa. Only that one party in the whole of this universe wants these Bills. The NP, which purports to be on the road to reform, is in fact on the road to deforming this beautiful land of ours.

The worth of the elected member of Parliament is now being reduced to nil, because of the unique parliamentary system in this country whereby the nominated members of the President’s Council have the power of constituting legislation. The Bills will now be enacted by the NP members in the President’s Council.

The world is watching while we are making it obvious that the tricameral Parliament is not working and will not work, because consensus, which is loudly sung about and clearly articulated at all times by Government members, appears to have vanished into oblivion.

How are we to face the electorate, our people, all people of South Africa except the Whites? What are we to tell them? What must we tell the world? Some time ago when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was debating the issue of reform with an American on television, he pleaded for time. He said: “You people must please give us a chance.” What kind of chance must we give? A chance to make abhorrent laws more rigid and more abhorrent? Is that the chance for which the NP is looking?

It is now expected by the Government that we as legislators must proclaim our people lawbreakers, illegal occupiers of land and criminals. We must now act to make criminals of those who are homeless and have nowhere to go. We must stay in this Parliament and see to it that before 26 October—just because of the municipal elections for the Whites—our people are thrown into the streets. Must we stand and watch? Is this what we are required to do in this Parliament? Is this why they have called us into this tricameral Parliament?

When Langenhoven wrote the poem Vergewe en Vergeet there was a philosophy behind it. He made it very clear in that little poem that although the injury inflicted on the Afrikaner group by the English will be forgotten as time passes, the marks and scars will remain. This is exactly what is happening here.

Every time the Indian and Coloured communities are asked to take part in an election, there is always an obstacle placed in their path. There are always impediments. At the time of the SA Indian Council election we had the giant bogey of the Pageview issue. People in 14th Street Pageview were moved out with the assistance of dogs. Dogs were brought in to move people out of their homes and shops. At that time we had to fight the election against those odds.

When the South African parliamentary elections came about in 1984 and the Indian community was called upon to participate, the Mayfair issue came to the fore and we were once again faced with a dilemma. What were we to tell our people? Under those circumstances they asked us to fight the election. It was against those odds that we opted to come into this Parliament in order to be of some assistance in bringing about reform. Must we now be a party to the deforming of South Africa, instead of its reform? Is this what we are here for? [Interjections.] My heart is heavy. Let me speak; let me say what I feel. [Interjections.] With regard to these five Bills about which we have heard so much, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has placed his own interpretation upon this matter. As I understood it, we had to dispose of five Bills. Which five Bills? The two income tax Bills, one transportation Bill, one constitutional Bill and the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill. Those are what we had to dispose of, and we did so. We disposed of two of them on the day on which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning came to speak to us, and we met specially on 7 September to dispose of the other three. However, it was definitely said that these five Bills which are now under discussion would be withdrawn and that they would be referred to the standing committees, after which they would come back to Parliament on 26 September for discussion. There was no mention of disposing of those Bills, however. [Interjections.] That is how I understood it. It is no use giving us a different interpretation now. [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning wants us to honour our word, he must honour his word as well. He must not use his dictatorial powers to tell us what he wants us to do and then, if we do not do it, say that we are dishonourable. [Interjections.]

I think we should register our strongest protest in this regard. I feel that we should let the hon the State President think what he wants to, but we should call it a day and not come back until 3 February of next year. Let him do what he wants to. Let us, however, show the people that we are standing by them and not working against them to make them criminals.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, with leave, I should like to alter Notice of Motion No 1 and I therefore move:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business; and
2. (2) the reports, proceedings and evidence of committees be printed on presentation to Mr Speaker:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I ask you leave to express a few words before we adjourn, if I may do so now. At this stage I would like to thank all hon members for the understanding and co-operation which I have enjoyed over the past few weeks as the Leader of the House. On behalf of the House I would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to Mr Speaker, to you, Mr Chairman, to members of the secretariat, to members of the staff of Hansard and to our very helpful and ever-willing service officers in this Chamber and in our offices. Furthermore I would like to extend good wishes to all hon members for a very refreshing and productive recess.

I look forward to the hon members’ return for the 1989 Parliamentary session, ready and willing to meet the many challenges that face us, in the interests of South Africa and all its people. May I conclude with an appeal to all my hon colleagues that we should all work together as a team in this House and meet the challenges of the future positively and with dignity.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the message given by the hon the Leader of the House. I, too, hope that we will find one another and that we will come back as a united front.

Mr Chairman, I would like to support what has been said, particularly in respect of the help and co-operation given to each of us by members of the Parliamentary staff. I shall not embarrass any one of them in particular by naming them. A particular member of staff has had greater calls made upon him by many of us and he has always been extraordinarily willing to make available his experience and expertise which is greatly appreciated by us. I would also like to support the motion in which the members of Hansard are thanked—particularly the beautiful young ladies who provide such a magnificent floral display in this Chamber each day and who make attendance in this Chamber worthwhile. I would like to record our appreciation to them and also to their hirsute male colleagues who provide efficient service even if they do not look so lovely.

There have been certain strangers in our galleries whose attendance at our sittings has been noticeable and they have been scribes recording the activities of this House. I think it will be apposite to record our appreciation to them as well, and finally, Sir, to yourself and to Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with all the sentiments that have been expressed here by the speakers preceding me who expressed their appreciation to the various persons who have made it possible for us to function and to perform our duties in this Chamber.

At this stage I want to say that in the unlikely event of our not meeting before Christmas, this is the last day that we will be together and I want to wish everyone well for the recess. If it is going to be interrupted by a short sitting, we look forward to seeing them and our missing them will be short-lived as we will be here earlier.

I do not want to repeat all the sentiments, but once again I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed and I trust when we come back things will be as exciting as they were during this year.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PPSA I wish to thank all the members of my party and the non-members who have been so co-operative and who have given assistance at all times when required. We had to approach them on many occasions.

I also want to thank you, Mr Chairman, the secretariat, the officials and other members in this House who have all been helpful. I want to wish them well over the recess and Christmas period and I pray that the Lord may spare them for many more Christmases. I hope everyone will return in good health after having spent some time with their families.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council I want to take the liberty also to endorse the sentiments expressed this afternoon to Mr Speaker, your good self, the secretariat, the Hansard staff and the members of the Press for the tolerance they showed us at all times and for the assistance given, particularly by the secretariat, to all of us.

I want to pray very sincerely and fervently that when we come back to this august Chamber, we shall come back with the aim of having stability in this House. This is very, very important.

We need to show that despite the differences in political affiliations we stand together for the common aim that we all, in the first instance, promised our electorate, namely that we are here in the interests of South Africa and to dismantle, as it were, apartheid and discriminatory laws. Let us not forget our promises to our people. I hope we shall all have a pleasant recess.

Mr Chairman, as the Leader of the Official Opposition I want to associate myself with all that has been expressed here. All I should like to say here is that we have given an undertaking to make a contribution towards reform. This is not a one-sided affair and I hope that in the intervening days understanding will prevail and that our involvement will become meaningful; otherwise the position will have to be re-examined because we do not want to express sentiments at the end of each year only to come back with renewed vigour to carry on saying the same things.

I think what is important is that at the end of a period of four years we have demonstrated how far we can go and what the things that we cannot accept, are. We have come this far and next year we must continue from here, not on a course of confrontation, but by making a commitment to seeing that what is required by this nation is done and, in fact, to accept opposition to it as a challenge.

Order! On behalf of my hon colleagues, the other two presiding officers, I firstly want to thank each and every hon member as well as all members of the staff and the Press for their assistance and cooperation in making our task a very easy one. After six months in this position, I want to ascribe our successes to their assistance and understanding at all times. It may not have been easy to please everybody, but I think that hon members have displayed a high degree of tolerance and understanding, and for this we as presiding officers are truly grateful.

Hon members will recall that this is the last working day for the retiring Secretary to Parliament. Mr De Villiers has had a hectic week. I am certain that he looked forward to a quiet week before his final retirement day, but we want to wish him Godspeed, good health and a happy retirement. I trust that the secretariat will convey this message to him.

Hon members are aware that Mr Lucas has been promoted—I think it is with effect from tomorrow—and to him, too, we convey our good wishes on the new challenges and new duties that he will have to embark upon. I think that Mr Lucas, together with his staff, has been the guiding light here in assisting hon members, and the presiding officers in particular, and making our task much easier. Every time we encountered a problem we depended upon his wise counsel, and wise counsel it always was.

May I wish all hon members a very restful period. There is work ahead for all of them, but may they enjoy the few months ahead. I wish all hon members Godspeed, and a safe return to their homes and dear ones.