Mr Speaker, the amending Bill under discussion is a result of certain practical problems that have arisen, namely that if Parliament is not in session a special sitting day of Parliament must be convened to table a decision of the President’s Council on a Bill on which a disagreement existed. As the House is aware this happened in respect of two Bills at the beginning of the year.

Since some doubt as to the exact implications of the existing provision may exist from a legal point of view, a flexible arrangement that tabling does not have to take place within a fixed period, but as soon as possible, is being proposed in the Bill.

The amendment eliminates any possible doubt and expressly ensures that Parliament will not have to be specially convened for the tabling of a decision by the President’s Council. What we are dealing with here, therefore is a purely technical question. It is a minor amendment in an effort to solve a specific practical problem and to eliminate any legal doubt in this connection.

The amendment does not affect any principle. Firstly, it does not in any way affect the role and functions of the President’s Council.

The role the President’s Council plays in the present constitutional dispensation is of particular importance. It not only serves as an important source of advice from assembled experts, but it performs a necessary decision-making function in respect of any disagreements which may arise among the Houses of Parliament.

The amending Bill does not address this task or function of the President’s Council in any way. It is not aimed at changing the principle of the Council or its functions as specified in the Constitution. This debate therefore does not deal with the desirability of the President’s Council as an arbitration body. We finalised that principle when the Constitution was debated in Parliament in 1983.

During the debate on his Vote on 21 April of this year, the State President mentioned the possibility of a rethink on the composition and functioning of the President’s Council. We shall therefore have ample opportunity to debate this issue in due course.

Secondly, the amending Bill does not in any respect affect the authority of Parliament over legislation. Section 32(4) of the Constitution clearly provides that a Bill on which the President’s Council has given a decision, shall be deemed to have been passed by Parliament. The Constitution therefore already contains the principle that the President’s Council may be called upon to give a decision in cases of disagreement, that its decision will be final and that Parliament has no further authority over the matter. The amendment in question does not affect this specific aspect.

In addition the amendment does not affect the principle that a decision or accepted recommendation by the President’s Council shall be tabled for the information of Parliament. It does not deal with the fact of tabling, but with the period within which it shall take place. The amendment is therefore not aimed at withholding the President’s Council’s decision or advice from Parliament and therefore affecting the status and authority of Parliament in any way.

Thirdly the amending Bill does not affect the validity of legislation on which the President’s Council has given a decision. It is evident from the explicit wording of section 32(4), to which I have already referred, that the Constitution does not require a Bill on which the President’s Council has given a decision to be tabled in Parliament before it becomes law. The section provides that the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by Parliament and shall be submitted directly to the State President for his assent. The Bill becomes a valid Act as soon as the State President has assented to it.

A further indication that tabling of a decision is not an essential link in the legislative process is the fact that the State President has in at least one of the six cases in which the President’s Council has given a decision, assented to the Bill before it was tabled in Parliament. In this connection I wish to refer to the general rule that the validity of actions is normally not affected by tabling. This is also confirmed by our courts. In the case Rex vs Hildick-Smith, 1924 TPD, 96, for example it was stated:

Steyn, in his Uitleg van Wette, 1981, quotes this decision with approval.

Although the tabling of a decision is not the same as the tabling of proclamations and other similar executive actions, and there has as yet been no court decision on section 78(8), I am convinced that failure to table a decision of the President’s Council will, in view of the explicit wording of section 32(4), not affect the validity of the Act in question either.

Two additional factors reinforce this argument: Firstly, Parliament has, contrary to the case of proclamations and regulations, no authority whatsoever to change or even to consider a decision by the President’s Council. On this the Constitution is quite clear.

Secondly, we are not dealing here with noncompliance with the tabling requirement, but at most with tabling at another or later time. If non-compliance of a tabling requirement normally does not affect the validity of an action, surely late tabling will affect it even less.

In view of this explanation, the question that may arise is what purpose the tabling of the President’s Council’s decision serves.

Since it deals with a Bill which has originally been dealt with by Parliament, I believe that tabling of the President’s Council’s decision is only for the information of Parliament. Parliament is informed of the fate of the Bill as a matter of courtesy.

In the case of advice accepted by the State President, Parliament may of course consider the advice, since it may lead to amendments to the Bill.

I therefore want to conclude by saying that the amendment effects a flexible arrangement which could eliminate practical problems in future.

Mr Speaker, this is a very short Bill, consisting as it does of only one clause. It has a brief but nevertheless interesting history. This legislation first saw the light of day as part of B 101-88. In pursuance of what the hon the State President envisaged, that Bill made provision for a Prime Minister, if I understood matters correctly, even though the legislation only referred to the Chairman of the Cabinet. In our view it was a meaningful attempt, and the arguments were sound. We in the CP actually had no objection to the legislation as it stood.

When B 101 came before the joint committee, however, an informal discussion ensued. What then happened was that B 101 was withdrawn, without any reason being furnished. Suddenly, without any explanation, it was summarily withdrawn.

When the legislation came before this House in its present form, as B 113-88, we found that that clause relating to the crown prince had disappeared into thin air. [Interjections.] The question that arises is why this kind of thing happens. The reasons for the initial introduction of that legislation, in its original form, have surely not vanished from the scene. Surely they are still as valid today as they were at the time. What is more objections to this aspect of the legislation were in fact raised by the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives at the time of the discussion in the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

The answer must be sought elsewhere. We should seek the answer in the conflict within the ranks of the NP, a conflict which existed then and still exists now, and in the fact that that such a designation would probably accentuate the difference that existed and would also give some indication of the direction in which the governing party was heading, whether it was inclining to the north or inclining to the south. [Interjections.]

Are you talking about rugby?

That hon Minister must not talk about rugby; he is hardly an expert on that subject. If his knowledge of politics is anything like his knowledge of rugby, we are lost. [Interjections.]

Say thank you to him!

Yes, that is true; I must thank him sincerely.

There is another aspect we have to take note of, and this involves the fact that for the purposes of this Bill, which consists of one clause—only three sentences—this joint committee had to convene in Pretoria. [Interjections.] We convened there and discussed this legislation in all its detail, the meeting lasting only 40 minutes.

I think that is a deplorable situation. It indicates the degree of arrogance with which this Government acts and the degree of contempt with which it views the taxpayers of this country, because thousands of rands were spent in discussing a trifling Bill which we could have disposed of before breakfast in a committee meeting in this building. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

When, during the discussion, the officials were asked about the motivation underlying the initial inclusion of this 14-day provision in the Constitution, the officials said it was merely a technical error they had made and that it had been an oversight. The explanation was accepted. What should be borne in mind, however, is that when this Constitution was initially before this House, the guillotine was applied and these matters were, of course, not discussed. If they had been discussed at the time, as they should have been, we would probably not be sitting here today to debate this Bill.

Let me nevertheless indicate that we on this side of the House support this legislation. We agree that it is necessary, that it does not embody any principle, that it is of a purely technical nature and that, for the reasons advanced by the hon the Minister, it is a practical measure.

It is also true that it could save money. We have no problem in supporting the principle, and we also want to make it clear, as the hon the Minister pointed out, that we do not see this legislation having any adverse effect. That is our view of this matter, and our interpretation of this aspect is that if section 32(4) were read correctly, it would not even have been necessary in law to introduce this amendment because the validity of the legislation is not being affected.

Given these facts, the question that arises, of course, is that if this legislation were really that neutral—a view we share—how it was possible that two other Houses were not prepared to support it. We have come to the conclusion that the reason is quite clear. Those Houses are not prepared to endorse the entrenchment of the power of the Whites via the President’s Council.

If that is so, I think that we have to ask the hon member for Innesdal and his spiritual allies in Government circles—those who want to deprive the Whites of power—how they justify this? [Interjections.] Here it is white power in the President’s Council which is going to give effect to these matters for them. What is the present position? The hon member and his spiritual allies must justify this for us. [Interjections.]

There are no logical reasons why this could not be passed by the other Houses or why consensus could not be reached. In our view this ought to be a lesson indicating to those on the Government side that they should emerge from that dreamworld in which it thinks it is possible to protect minorities by way of the creation of constitutional structures. They must take note of the fact that it is nothing but an acquisition and utilisation of power.

It is time the Government accepted that no majority will allow itself to be hamstrung by a minority. They are at present the majority, and it is on the strength of that majority that they want to have this legislation passed regardless of what minorities say. In their dream-world it will be equally impossible for them to protect minorities. May this be a lesson to them, and let us hope that it puts an end to that foolishness on their part.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ermelo said that this Bill had been withdrawn because the clause that was to have dealt with the appointment of a Prime Minister would have resulted in a conflict within the NP. I now want to tell the hon member immediately that we have no conflict within the NP. However, I want to ask that hon member what is going on in their ranks. I hear that Mr Eugéne Terre’ Blanche is now establishing CP branches in South West. Who is the leader of that hon member’s party? We have no conflict. When things are done in our ranks, we have only one leader. We do not, however, have two leaders as that party has at the moment. [Interjections.] We are watching expectantly to see who is going to win that conflict. [Interjections.] I should very much like to know where the hon member, who is not a member of the Chief Council, is going to apply his advice and powers. We are also looking forward to seeing that. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that we went to Pretoria to discuss the legislation. Yes, there were people who discussed the legislation, but the hon member for Ermelo was not one of them. They were once again the silent CP that we usually experience in the joint committee sittings. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that we had spent a lot of money holding such a committee meeting in Pretoria. The hon member is correct. We are adhering to the Constitution of the country. That is why we do it. We have this Bill before us because we want to adhere to the Constitution of the country. What is interesting, however, is that in his next argument the hon member conceded that the adoption of this legislation would have brought about a substantial saving for the country. Therefore, if we spend a few rands in order to save money, the two cannot be weighed up against each other in the long term. [Interjections.]

The hon member warned us against the so-called White power entrenchment. The hon member said that the Coloureds and the Indians were not prepared to accept that White power entrenchment. If that hon member lives in a dream-world in which he believes that Coloureds and Indians are going to accept Coloured and Indian homelands, he is living in an unbelievable dreamworld. To tell the truth, he is then like a Rip van Winkel. He cannot accuse us of anything at all in that regard.

A constitution must work in practice in order to be credible. A constitution must work in practice to give dignity to the legislative process as well as to the institutions of that legislative process. If it seemed that the provisions of a constitution would violate this credibility, it would be the duty of this Parliament to set those matters straight. That is what we are concerned with here.

Section 78 of the Constitution clearly identifies three functions of the President’s Council, namely to give advice on the request of the hon the State President, advice mero motu and decisibns with regard to Bills that are referred to them. Whatever the decision and advice of the President’s Council is, it is provided that it must be tabled in Parliament. The purpose of its tabling is important.

With regard to advice, we must remember that the advice given by the President’s Council has not yet been discussed in Parliament. For that reason the tabling is necessary so that Parliament is given the opportunity to consider and debate the advice of the President’s Council. In the case of decisions with regard to a Bill, Parliament has already debated those matters and this Bill, whether it is agreed to or negatived, is also tabled. Here I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who said that the purpose of the tabling in this case was, firstly, for the information of this Parliament and, secondly, to give recognition to the importance of Parliament. However, we must remember that tabling can only be done during a session.

A further aspect that we must bear in mind, is that section 33 of the Constitution states that the State President must sign an Act which is submitted to him. He must sign it. He is obliged to do so. Section 32(4) states that a Bill that is approved by the President’s Council shall be deemed to be an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the State President is obliged to sign it.

Section 78 (7) states that the advice requested by the State President shall be laid upon the table of every House within 14 days if Parliament is then in session or, if Parliament is not then in session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.

In the case of decisions, the opposite of advice, these must be tabled within 14 days after their receipt. This can only be done if Parliament is in session.

Under the present circumstances, the State President has one of three choices. Firstly, he can convene Parliament at the cost mentioned by the hon member for Ermelo. Secondly, all members of Parliament and the entire State legislative machinery is disrupted if provision is made only for a formal meeting which is opened with the usual Prayer. Parliament is then prorogued, because during that time the document in question is tabled. It makes the legislature ridiculous. A second choice that the State President has is to ignore the provisions of the Constitution. He can simply say: “I am paying no attention to it”. As I know the present State President, it is not in his nature not to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. That ought to be the standpoint of any State President, and in this regard, I think all parties will agree.

The third possibility that the State President has is to arrange with the President’s Council that the latter does not make a decision while Parliament is in recess, or within 14 days. That is not a desirable state of affairs either. It leads to legal uncertainty and interference in the normal sittings and order arrangements of the President’s Council. This amendment is the only alternative that we have under the circumstances.

At this joint committee meeting the PFP debated vehemently against the adoption of this particular amendment, so much so that I had the strong impression that the hon member for Sea Point must have supported this Bill very strongly when it was originally introduced in this House.

I have already referred to the CP. Unfortunately, contrary to what the hon member for Ermelo alleged, it is apparent that the other Houses of Parliament did not base their opposition on the merits of the legislation.

This must be said. The resistance to this amendment has nothing to do with this Bill, it concerns other measures that must still be discussed in this Parliament.

According to those Houses, it may be a clever political manoeuvre to do so. They think they can make political mileage in that way.

Today I want to allege that they are not doing the country as a whole a favour by adopting this standpoint. In this country we cannot play off laws against one another. In this country we cannot govern by attempting to twist one another’s arms if we do not like a Bill. Of course I admit that there are political and ideological differences. We can only govern this country, we can only make joint decision-making succeed, if each Bill is dealt with on its own merits.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just sat down said that the hon the State President would have had three options open to him: To convene Parliament, at great expense and inconvenience; to ignore it; or to scheme with the President’s Council.

There is a fourth method. The Government does not have to submit that Bill to the President’s Council. It could go on trying to reach consensus.

As I understand it, the whole NP principle with regard to this tricameral constitutional system is that it should be a consensus-seeking system. Now that the Government is unable to bring about consensus, however, it is using the President’s Council to impose its will upon the other race groups. I say that there is a fourth option, and that is for the Government to withdraw the measure and to carry on negotiating until consensus can be reached among the three Houses or among the various race groups in South Africa.

†The hon the Minister and the hon member who just sat down were correct in the sense that when one looks at this Bill on its own one sees that it is a relatively simple Bill in which they argue that it does not affect either principle or legality. I do not want to argue with the hon the Minister on the question of legality. It could be that he is correct. Equally, there has not been a court judgement on the 1983 Constitution on this matter. All I am saying is that there is a matter of debate on the legality, so let us leave it at that. It is not a question of its being merely a procedural arrangement. I contend that there may well be an element of legality. Section 34 of the Constitution states that the court may adjudicate on whether the Constitution has been complied with or not, except in respect of the question of own and general affairs.

However, I want to say that even if it had only been procedural we would have argued against the amendment because it is fairly fundamental in that it could well be that two Houses unanimously reject a measure. It is then sent to the President’s Council which overrides them and then the President’s Council or whoever is the agent is not even required to have the courtesy of reporting to that House during the session within 14 days.

It is a fundamental thing when Houses have rejected Bills and somebody else who is not even Parliament approves of them. Surely in those circumstances they should be presented to that House within those 14 days, especially in view of the fact that section 38 states that in any case the President’s Council decision must be taken during the same session. So that still remains and I believe the question of the session of Parliament and immediate reporting is just good manners. It is good taste and it also allows those Houses to be aware of the fact that this decision has been taken against their wishes.

This cannot just be seen as a technical, procedural Bill. The hon the Minister and the acting chairman of the joint committee conceded that. This has to be seen against the background of the announcement and tabling of committee reports in which eight out of nine joint committees fail to reach consensus and the fact that in respect of seven Bills relating to the Group Areas Act which vitally affect the lives not only of Whites but also of Coloureds, Indians, Blacks and all South Africans, consensus has not been reached.

The fact that this Bill is being brought in in this short session is advance notice by the Government that it intends forcing those Bills onto the Statute Book against the wishes of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. If it were not so there would be no reason to have this Bill. If it were not so we could wait until the next session, get the report and deal with it.

This just tells us that behind the technicality of this Bill lurks the heavy hand of a political bully. This has become the character of the NP Government in respect of the minorities represented in those other two Houses.

The Government intends pushing these other Bills through in spite of the resistance, and I am advised that the House of Representatives has adjourned. They find themselves so opposed to those Bills that they are not even going to consider them. They have adjourned.

The hon the Minister has said he is going to proceed with a new Group Areas Amendment Bill. I have taken note of his official statement and I must say there are some amendments which may ameliorate the worst of the evils of those Bills. However, even in its amended form the Group Areas Amendment Bill tightens the screws of the application of separate racial compartments in South Africa.

I believe that in a society like ours it behoves all of us to look for consensus rather than to ignore opposition. We should be looking for consensus, especially when it affects the lives of other racial communities in South Africa.

We say it should be more difficult for the Government to depart from consensus. Let them make Parliament come back. Let them demonstrate to the world that they have overridden the wishes of the Coloureds and the Indians in Parliament. Let them have the extra cost to show how determined they are that the will of the White NP must prevail against the wishes of other racial communities in South Africa. I believe the provision, limited though it was, was essential and a brake on the NP. I would say this: If the NP has within 14 days to summon Parliament in connection with the amendments they are making to the Group Areas Act and the Slums Act etc, the NP will be publicly embarrassed. They will be publicly embarrassed to admit, prior to a municipal election, that they have used the President’s Council to force through legislation which I know is not wanted by a number of younger members on that side of the House and which has been rejected by the Coloureds and the Indians. They have not got the guts to come back here and say: Yes, we have done that and we are proud of it. Even members of the NP are ashamed of forcing through this legislation in any case and, in particular, forcing through these Bills against the united wishes of the other two Houses of Parliament. Is there anybody on that side of the House who is proud of it?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say “they have not got the guts”?

Order! I was considering that question when the hon member for George raised the point of order. In terms of a previous Speaker’s ruling, that word is not parliamentary, and I ask the hon member to withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, if it is not parliamentary I withdraw it and say they have not got the political courage to face South Africa, to look themselves in the eye and to say: Yes, we did this thing and we are so proud of it that we are prepared to summon Parliament again in order to enact it. [Interjections.] We appeal to this Government, if in fact an appeal is relevant at all. The other Houses have expressed their point of view on a matter which vitally affects them. [Interjections.] Take notice, Mr Speaker, of race relations, take notice of the warnings they have had on sanctions, take notice of the fact that this legislation reveals the mockery of powersharing as embodied in this Constitution. To the NP, even at this late stage, I say: Stop in your tracks and abandon this set of Bills which can only do untold damage to race relations and untold damage to South Africa. I notice that the hon the State President … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must deal more specifically with the Bill under consideration.

I am talking about a Bill which has been introduced because the President’s Council, is required to pass certain Bills which have been rejected by the other two Houses. If, in fact, it was not to be used for this purpose the Bill would not be before us. When seven or eight Bills have been rejected by the other two Houses we sanctimoniously pass legislation which is making it easier for the NP to subvert the will of those people. We are doing South Africa a grave disservice. I say to the hon the State President: Put South Africa first. For the first time in history will the NP not put the interests of the people of South Africa before those of themselves. Listen to the pleas, we are starting on a short, sharp session of Parliament.

Order! The hon member is now discussing a particular Bill which is not presently before the House. The hon member must come back to the Bill before the House.

On this Bill, which sets down the procedure that this House has to follow when it thwarts the will of other bodies, I wish to say: If the hon the Minister would stand up and withdraw this Bill alone, at least he would be saying that we are not proceeding with the trilogy of Bills that will do damage to this country. I am using this opportunity to say to the Government: Put South Africa first; put the interests of its people first and withdraw the measure. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it was difficult to listen to the hon member for Sea Point, who failed to discuss this specific short measure, insofar as Mr Speaker allowed him to make his speech in terms of the rules of procedure.

†The hon member said the President’s Council does not even have the courtesy of referring legislation back to the Houses within 14 days after it has been discussed. I would, however, like to argue with the hon member. This has nothing to do with courtesy. In fact, whether legislation is tabled within 14 days or at any other convenient time does not affect the question of courtesy, I want to submit to the hon member. The fact of a decision by the President’s Council is not affected by when it is tabled. The finality of the decision is not affected by the tabling.

Mr Chairman, this Bill contains only a procedural arrangement, and I cannot understand why the hon member for Sea Point has adopted this standpoint.

The other point that he made, is that we should be consensus-seekers—we should be looking for consensus. I would like to submit to the hon member that this procedural arrangement has nothing at all to do with the seeking of consensus. In fact, the whole tricameral system, the system of point committees, the giving of notice of joint committee meetings, and the ability of joint committees to call for evidence to be given before the committee are all elements of the search for consensus.

*I think the hon member for See Point is being unfair when he accuses this side of the House of deliberately abandoning this principle of the search for consensus in terms of a simple procedural measure such as this one. I conclude by expressing my support for this measure.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister’s speech, and particularly that of the hon member for Parow too, indicated very clearly that the intention is merely to dispose of this legislation as quickly as possible, especially without the attendant costs of convening Parliament again for its information and the tabling of the President’s Council’s report. The hon member for Sea Point used an argument which I used on the joint committee in opposition to this clause.

Did you consult one another?

The existing section 78(7), which refers to the reports of the President’s Council which are to be laid on the Table, provides that they shall be tabled within 14 days or, if Parliament is not in session, within 14 days of the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament. The provisions of this Bill deviate from this without giving any indication of why the same approach is not being followed here. Here there is merely mention of “as soon as possible”; there is no mention here of who is to be the judge of this and in any case it would have to be some objective test or other which would leave the possibility of a later tabling open.

This is not my fundamental objection in any case, Sir. My basic objection is also included in an argument which the hon member for Parow used—that one does not govern by twisting one another’s arms about a Bill which one does not like. If we are really seeking consensus, armtwistin g is the very point at issue. If we cannot see eye to eye, we should see whether there are no other ways in which we can reach agreement. If reason alone does not work, we should see whether any delaying tactics and delaying procedures cannot be included. This is one of the arguments which the Government frequently used in previous legislation—the legislation concerning regional services councils and decision-making there and notice of revision. To reach optimal consensus, delaying techniques come in for particular examination.

I think it would certainly be a deterrent to proceeding with legislation against which there is strong opposition if its consequence would be that Parliament had to be specially convened and it is on that basis in particular that I consider it important that we should not make it easier for a government to ignore the lack of consensus. If it is clear that there is a lack of consensus, they will also have to consider the costs attached to the convening of Parliament, the attendant publicity and so on.

For this reason I should like to content myself by saying, on behalf of the NDM, that we would wish to see the status quo maintained and that the Government preferably try to achieve consensus rather than, as has now become clear, merely proceed to use the President’s Council to dispose of its legislative programme.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Ermelo is inclined to use terms so easily and loosely. He says we meet in Pretoria from all over the country …

That is a mistake.

He says it is a slight mistake. I want to tell him, however, that I was not there when the meeting took place but I have been informed that not one of the members of the CP raised any objection, during the meeting that, to having been summoned basically to discuss this one clause.

The second point which I want to make is that the hon member—he is a member of that joint committee—and his fellow party members merely lodged their protest in regard to most of the Acts on constitutional subjects and took no further part in the discussions on the legislation. They were all there at Government expense. Now I wonder whether it is not a great waste to have people attend committees at the expense of Parliament only to decide that they will not participate in the activities of the committee, except to lodge their protest once. [Interjections.]

This brings me to a second point. He says it is arrogant to convene a committee to consider such a Bill. I could not quite make out whether the hon member supported the Bill or not and that is why I want to ask him …

You do not hear very well!

Well, even though I do not hear very well, I could really not understand him. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the nonsensical arguments the hon member uses. He discusses the question that there was previously another Bill which contained these and other provisions. He now deduces that that Bill has been withdrawn on the basis of tensions which supposedly existed in regard to crown princes or successors. I find no provision whatsoever in the Constitution which designates a successor to the hon the State President. What I do find there is a procedure which provides how the State President is to be designated and nothing which would detract from those provisions and procedure. In any case, the hon member knows that those provisions are entrenched in terms of the Constitution. He knows this. He is therefore welcome to use the opportunity now to see whether he can conduct cheap politics in this specific way. [Interjections.] I do want to ask him, however, whether he would not give us the benefit of his knowledge on the joint committee or committees in those debates in which we have to be persuaded to accept one another’s points of view instead of merely politicking in public, as he did this afternoon. That is all I want to know. [Interjections.]

He goes further, however. He says that we know that the reason why the other parties of the other Houses do not wish to support this legislation is that they do not want to accept White authority, as it is entrenched in the President’s Council. Let us test that statement now. In the first place, all the parties in this House and in Parliament accepted the provisions of the Constitution regarding decisions when they decided to function within the system. [Interjections.]

When they decided to function within the system that provision was in the Constitution. [Interjections.] During the referendum in fact the hon member for Randburg propagated the entire Constitution and all its provisions with great enthusiasm …

Yes, the enthusiasm was exaggerated.

But then he exaggerated the enthusiasm; not I.

What are the facts? I want to associate myself with the hon member for Parow in mentioning the facts. When Parliament adjourned after the joint sitting and the joint voting, a member of the Labour Party issued a statement that they would support no further legislation unless I said where South Africa was headed constitutionally. This happened just after Parliament had passed a Bill for the creation of a forum to investigate, give advise and seek consensus in regard to South Africa’s future course. The hon member’s argument is therefore simply not true. It is simply not true! This is not so important, however. The hon member knows that it is not true.

It is true.

He knows it is not true because he served on the joint committee where a discussion could not even be held on the principle of Bills. They know this.

I come now to the hon member for Sea Point.

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

No, I would rather reply to the hon members.

The hon member for Sea Point made a sanctimonious fuss about the search for consensus. I want to ask him what contribution he made during the discussion on the constitutional Bills to try to find consensus between conflicting standpoints. [Interjections.] He serves on the joint committee. An example of the ambivalence in the approach of the hon member and his party is the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill, which aimed to establish a national forum. They fought this in principle and in detail.

We moved amendments.

But he opposed it!

He and his party fought it and they are entitled to do so. Perhaps one should take another look at the terminology which the hon member for Berea used when he opposed the Bill. When a Bill which purported to create institutions for Black communities within the national states came for discussions, or when they came to amendments to the Constitution, they said the amendments to the Constitution should be referred to this National Council which was to be established.

If the hon member wants to prove his bona fides as regards the search for consensus, I ask him whether he would be prepared to take it upon himself to persuade the leaders who can or ought to become members of this council in terms of the Bill to participate in it so that that council can be established and can consider the further constitutional development of the country. Will he do that? If he will not do that, and if he is not prepared to make a statement on this, he must forgive me but then I do not accept his bona fides in connection with the search for consensus.

Furthermore, as far as the hon member for Sea Point is concerned, he says that the provision that the Bills on which the President’s Council decides shall be tabled should not be amended for the practical reasons which I have mentioned.

He says we should convene Parliament, which we supposedly do not have the moral or political courage to do. Let me tell the hon member now— I make no apology for this at all—that the Constitution of 1983 provides for various things. It makes provision for population groups to participate in it. It provides for specific provisions of that Constitution to be entrenched and not easily amended. Nevertheless it also provides for procedures by which the country may continue to be governed if specific people, singly or in association with others, want to be obstructive.

I want to ask the hon member further—he is free to give us his honest opinion—whether it is not a fact that parties came to standing committees in order to be completely obstructive as regards any specific legislation. Is that not true? The hon member for Randburg knows only too well that what I am saying is true. He is nodding in agreement.

Yes, that is so.

He says yes. When he nods in agreement and says yes, must we then decide in consequence that legislation which we judge to be in the interests of the country and therefore essential should not be passed? I want to tell the hon member today that he knows better than any other hon member how we tried to obtain consensus on various pieces of legislation.

During the present session?

No, I am not referring to the present session. I am referring to what happened in Parliament and on the standing committees. He also knows that in the case of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill—the measure in connection with the National Council— we struggled for years to obtain the broadest possible basis of consensus. For the sake of the record and for the sake of honesty, the hon member should therefore be prepared to admit this.

The hon member further contends that we should seek other means of consensus. We did try and it is well known too that the hon the State President has on occasion, for the sake of a search for co-operation, also asked the leaders of other parties in the other Houses to come and hold discussions with him. The hon member is well aware of this. There was certainly no lack of goodwill; neither were attempts to search for consensus lacking. The hon member and other people wish to differ on the definition of consensus, however. This difference is nevertheless due to the fact—I am not saying this in reproach— that the hon member no longer bears co-responsibility for the government of the country.

The hon member for Parow put forward the best arguments. I want to say the following today. This society is divided—it is divided in this Parliament; in this House of Assembly …

In the NP too! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the Whites are strongly divided in regard to political solutions. The Coloured people are strongly divided on political solutions. The Blacks are strongly divided on political solutions. When, in our search for consensus, we try to apply the approach of using our objection to one portion of a piece of legislation with which we are in overall agreement as a lever against another piece of legislation with which we disagree, no one can tolerate this.

If the hon member wishes to discuss this with me and with other leaders, I shall do so with pleasure, but then I think we should cease this bandying about of vague consensus theories by people who speak about consensus and then block and obstruct every step which is taken to achieve it. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that we gave prior notice of our intention to amend this Act as well as the other Acts to which he referred. The hon member forgets, however, when the principle which is contained in this Bill was published for the first time. Oh no, surely we cannot argue with one another on this level! The aim of the Bill is nothing more and nothing less than to make a practical arrangement for tabling decisions of the President’s Council on Bills of this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the hon the Minister and I want just briefly to reiterate our point of view.

The hon the Minister will recall that I was a member of his constitutional committee and, although we differed with him in regard to the Constitution, there were many amendments that we moved to try to improve the situation, and this is one of the areas in which we believed that this should apply. We believe that the status quo is better than a departure in this particular instance.

Secondly, we cannot view this amendment in isolation. We have to see it in the context of the other six Bills which have been rejected by the other Houses and which this Government is determined to steamroller onto the Statute Book before Parliament meets again next year.

Finally, I want to reiterate a point that I made, namely that nothing should be incorporated in the Constitution that makes it easier for the Government not to have consensus. The provision in the Constitution as it stands at the moment does at least force the Government to think seriously about using the President’s Council. We may not discuss the principle of the President’s Council being used, but the hon the State President is not required to use the President’s Council. That is an option. We believe that there should be as many brakes as possible, formal and informal, on the hon the State President using the President’s Council, and that he should rather use the consensus-making machinery which is built into the present Constitution.

For these reasons, we cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister did not convince us in his reply. It is true that there were in fact cases, earlier, in which consensus was sought and even reached, but with regard to what is before us for the purposes of this part of the session—I am referring to the collection of Bills on the Order Paper—most of them were published after Parliament had adjourned in June.

There is no indication that the hon the Minister sought consensus with any of the other parties prior to that, or that any information with regard to the contents of those Bills was made available, and those of us who had already left Cape Town at that stage, had to struggle to acquire that information which we did by means of the joint committees. There was no real attempt to seek consensus, and it is against that background, namely that it is more of an authoritarian action and less of a need to seek consensus, that I adhere to the standpoint that I adopted.

Mr Chairman, I want to repeat at once that the events that gave rise to the amendment that we are now discussing were the events that took place at the beginning of this year when in terms of an interpretation of the law adviser, we had to convene Parliament merely to table a decision concerning the present provision. All hon members are aware of that, the hon member for Sea Point included. The hon member for Randburg is also aware of it. We are dealing with a practical reason. Surely we could, if we wanted to, convene Parliament before the session that begins in January, if we wanted to table rulings of the President’s Council in terms of the present interpretation. Surely we could do that. Surely it is not correct to say that we do not want to wait until next year.

However, I want to go further and, in all fairness, tell the hon member for Randburg that a joint committee comprising hon members of all three Houses of Parliament considered the Constitution as it pertained to constituencies.

I am talking about what is before us.

But that was before us. Surely the hon member was not speaking merely about what is before us now; we are talking about everything. The majority parties in all three Houses reached consensus, and when the legislation that had to implement that consensus was before us, what happened? [Interjections ] Surely consensus is sought with various parties, and not just with one. I think the hon member ought to get that message, and not address himself to me each time.

The House divided:

AYES—143: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Jager, C D; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Ville, J R; De Villiers, D J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jacobs, S C; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, F J; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Mare, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Mentz, M J; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Mulder, C P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nolte, D G H; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, C B; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smit, H A; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Snyman, W J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Wyk, W J D; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Thompson, A G.

NOES—19: Andrew, K M; Burrows, R M; Cronje, P C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Olivier, N J J; Schwarz, H H; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Eek, J; Van Gend, J B de R; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Malcomess, D J N; Soal, P G.

Mr Chairman, at present South Africa is experiencing far-reaching and comprehensive changes and our society is in the process of changing dramatically. We are experiencing adjustments in all spheres of life—in the constitutional, the economic and also in the social sphere. This attests to comprehensive innovation and development.

We are all experiencing the necessity for adjustment and we are all in favour of positive political and socio-economic development in South Africa. It is the Government’s declared objective to bring about innovative development in South Africa—to promote and stimulate development to the advantage of all communities. With a view to this comprehensive development programmes have been launched. All these programmes have as their objective the improvement of the quality of life of every South African and the protection of the dignity, freedom and rights of every individual in every community.

†The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill is an important Bill. It comprises a very sensitive issue. It touches on the basic needs of people. It is therefore comprehensible that this legislation will evoke some emotional response from people. Squatting is an emotional issue in any society. This is also the case in our society, maybe even more so, given the composition of the population and the development realities of South Africa.

The Government has a certain responsibility—a duty to maintain law and order to ensure that the interests of all the people of South Africa are protected and promoted. The phenomenon of squatting must therefore be addressed. As in all other societies this problem cannot be ignored. A workable solution has to be found, a solution that not only will ensure orderly urbanisation, but will also address the plight of the communities concerned.

The Government accepts that people migrate to areas where more and better opportunities exist—especially the urban areas. These new arrivals, however, are not always in the position to become part of the formal urban structure immediately. Therefore they establish themselves in squatter communities within or in the vicinity of urban areas. This is a phenomenon that has certain socio-economic and health implications for the urban community as a whole. Squatting is therefore a problem that has to be addressed.

The Government intends to approach the problem in such a way that it can be solved to the benefit of both the established citizens and the newcomers to the city.

We have two points of departure. In the first place the phenomenon of squatting has to be addressed within the context of a comprehensive strategy for orderly urbanisation.

Order! There is too much noise. I appeal to hon members to lower their voices.

In the second place the communities concerned have to be involved in the management of the problem and the improvement of their own quality of life.

The Government has already accepted a positive strategy for orderly urbanisation. Great progress has already been made in the implementation of this strategy. In a nutshell, it entails that increased urbanisation—especially in the case of our Black population—is accepted as a reality and that measures must be introduced to provide for orderly and planned urbanisation on a longterm basis. These are measures such as the early identification of land for urbanisation, the upgrading of existing urban areas and the provision of housing by the individual, the private sector and the various authorities.

In the first place this Bill provides for the amendment of existing legislation in order to ensure more effective management of the phenomenon of squatting.

In the second place mechanisms are being instituted to address the problem of squatting within the framework of the policy of orderly urbanisation.

In the third place community involvement and the streamlining of the application of legislation on squatting are promoted by the devolution of power and responsibility to lower levels of government.

*Squatting and its control are not new phenomena. In the 19th century the authorities were already confronted with the problem. In 1879 a Vagrancy and Squatting Act was passed in the Cape Colony, while Natal took steps against squatting in terms of Ordinance 2 of 1885. These examples were followed by the Orange Free State’s legislation on squatters of 1893 and the Transvaal’s legislation on squatters of 1887.

The first Union legislation on squatting was Chapter IV of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. These provisions were repealed in 1986 on the recommendation of the Riekert Commission. A more comprehensive measure, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, was incorporated in the Statute Book in 1951 and was aimed specifically at preventing squatting in and around urban areas.

Hon members will remember that after the Second World War there was a tremendous migration of people to urban areas. They settled in large numbers in and around towns and cities.

As is also the case at present, the Act was not merely a negative prohibition. Provision was also made for the resettlement of people affected by this. The Government also started a town and housing development scheme which was more comprehensive than any other comparable scheme elsewhere in Africa.

The Government will not allow squatters to endanger other persons’ rights to land and a proper and civilised environment. Under no circumstances can depriving someone of his property, or right or use of his property, be justified.

Today the Government has a fourfold approach in mind. In the first place measures will be introduced to prevent an unmanageable situation from developing. In addition stringent steps will be taken against the phenomenon of squatter farming.

Squatter farming has become a lucrative business for some people. Landowners are becoming increasingly careless and are behaving in an openly provocative manner towards the authorities. In terms of the present legislation it is not always possible to take legal steps against this behaviour, because permission is not needed for the erection of buildings or structures outside municipal areas. It is also difficult to take action against the squatters, because they can say that they have received permission from the landowner.

In the second place the Government will do everything in its power to accommodate the squatters. They will be allowed to live in temporary transit areas, while suitable areas for their permanent settlement are being developed. The provision of scope for the upgrading of areas in which squatters are already living is receiving precedence.

Some people are suggesting that all squatters should stay where they are—the Government’s only duty would be to provide them with facilities. These people are extremely naive and even irresponsible. In their mouths the call for “upgrading” has become a false political catchword—an attempt to prove that the Government is hard and unapproachable.

They are attempting to make it appear that the Government’s policy on squatting is a continuation of apartheid. The fact of the matter is that squatting must be controlled, irrespective of whether or not legislation on separate residential areas exists. Squatting is a problem of urbanisation and not a problem of race.

In the third place it must be mentioned that if a particular squatter problem cannot be solved in any other way, the relevant persons will have to be resettled.

Fourthly, in accordance with the policy of the devolution of power, the Government wants to vest the administration of squatting in the relevant own affairs administrations, the provincial administrations and the local authorities. This goes hand in hand with the responsibility of such authorities for township development and housing. Squatting is usually a localised problem which can be best understood and solved locally. However, in the context of urbanisation squatting is a national matter. Consequently the overall policy is determined by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

The amending Bill before Parliament contains the following policy objectives:

Clause 1 was inserted to facilitate control. It creates a rebuttable presumption that persons prosecuted in terms of section 1 are deemed to have entered a building unlawfully or to have remained therein without the permission of the owner or lawful occupier. Owing to the increasing number of contraventions in terms of clause 2 the penalties are being increased.

In terms of clause 3 the courts are compelled to recommend the ejection of persons found guilty of illegal squatting.

Clause 5 gives persons a more effective right to demolish illegal buildings and structures.

Clause 9 makes provision for the establishment of transit areas in the place of emergency camps. Provision is also being made for comprehensive arrangements for the management and control of such transit areas.

From an urbanisation viewpoint clause 10 is the most important provision. Provision is being made for the designation of land on which squatters may settled permanently. In order to facilitate and speed up the development of areas, the ordinary laws with regard to township establishment and other relevant legislation will not be applicable there. The provision is comprehensive enough to make provision for the upgrading of existing informal settlements. In the process of upgrading the provincial administration or local authorities can provide essential services.

Clause 8 embodies several provisions which make more effective implementation of the Act possible. Local authorities are authorised inter alia to appoint officers to deal with squatting.

Clause 11 extends the scope of the Act to such an extent that committees can control squatting in areas situated outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. A committee has the power, by way of written notice, to order the ejectment by the owner of persons not lawfully in his employ.

Clause 15 obliges the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to determine general policy in respect of the prevention of illegal squatting.

In general the Act has been adjusted so that the administration can now be handled by the own affairs Ministers, the provincial administrations and local authorities.

†It is therefore clear that the amending Bill represents a comprehensive approach to the issue of squatting in South Africa. While some measures of enforcement are being enhanced, ample provision is being made for the accommodation of squatters and others in need. I believe that the problem of squatting, one of our major social challenges, will be adequately and successfully addressed by this Bill.

Mr Chairman, firstly, in discussing this Bill, I want to refer to the Announcement, Tablings and Committee Reports of 19 August 1988. I am referring to the third page of this document.

It is expressly stated there in regard to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill, which was referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, that the committee was unable to reach consensus on the desirability of the Bill. In fact, I would say that the inability to reach consensus on this one Bill also applies to all the Bills in this document.

Let us consider the various Bills on which committees were unable to reach consensus—the Constitution Third Amendment Bill, the Group Areas Amendment Bill, the Local Government Affairs in Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Free Settlement Areas Bill, the Self-governing Territories Bill, the Moutse (Validation of Actions) Bill, as well as the Constitution Second Amendment Bill.

We want to ask the Government and the hon the Deputy Minister whether this is what consensus within the present constitutional dispensation looks like. Surely what has happened is simply that the piston which has to keep this car on the road has seized, as the hon member for Lichtenburg said on a previous occasion. [Interjections.] We should like to know from the Government how they are going to get this failing constitutional dispensation going again.

There is only one way the Government can do this and that is by referring this Bill to the President’s Council. They cannot do so by means of the approval of the other two Houses because they were unable to obtain that approval. The House of Representatives has already adjourned; there is no longer any possibility of their even considering this Bill, which is the measure of their contempt for the Bill that has been tabled. In fact, Mr Chairman, it can be said that what is embodied in this Bill is an expression of the fact that the constitutional dispensation of the Government is failing.

Let us now consider the way in which the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid dealt with this Bill. The House of Representatives explicitly announced in Cape Town, on the joint committee, that whatever happened, they would not support this Bill. A few moments ago we heard from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that their leader once issued a statement—I suspect he was referring to a member of the Labour Party—in which it was said that they would not support any new legislation before the chocolates had been brought in regard to the abolition of the Group Areas Act. Despite the fact that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, in view of what the Minister had said, therefore knew that it would not be possible to reach consensus because of a previously adopted standpoint of the House of Representatives, the deliberations of this particular committee were proceeded with. In fact, on 3 and 4 August witnesses were brought from all over South Africa to testify before the joint committee, at great expense, and on 18 August the joint committee met once again and did not even sit for half an hour.

At the commencement of the proceedings on 18 August there was not even a quorum present because certain members were absent.

Only one member!

It does not make any difference whether it was only one member. It was an important link in the entire process of a search for consensus. In fact, if that side of the House wishes to imply that only one member was absent, it shows how essential it was for all hon members to be present there in order to form a quorum so that a valid meeting could be held. It was then necessary to obtain the prior consent of Mr Speaker before the proceedings of the joint committee could continue …

Hopeless system!

… and after the consent of Mr Speaker had been obtained, the committee had not even met for half an hour when the leader of the House of Representatives component announced that they would not support this legislation, as they had already stated in Cape Town. Now we want to ask that side of the House: Is this the way a constitutional system works, or ought to work, or should work? In fact, it is not working.

It is their dream!

That is the dream world—an accusation they level at us—in which they themselves are living. [Interjections.] It is also true that it entails great expense for the taxpayer.

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

Mr Chairman, I want to …

Order! The hon member must now come back to the Bill under discussion. He has discussed constitutional matters for long enough—precisely five minutes. The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter?

Order! The hon member may.

Because I am subsequently going to refer to consensus and the provisions in this Bill, it is essential for me to sketch the background against which it was not possible to achieve consensus because certain clauses contained in the Bill were at issue.

Order! However, the hon member cannot make it the main point of his discussion. I am sorry but the main point under discussion is this Bill which is now before the House. The hon member can incorporate what he wants to say into it, but I cannot allow constitutional aspects to be discussed in this debate because if the hon member does so, another person has to reply to him on those points. Then we will end up a long way away from this amending Bill. In view of the fact that if the hon member discusses a matter, all the other hon members may also discuss it, I am asking him to come back to this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I defer to your ruling. I shall incorporate what I have to say into the discussion of the clauses concerned.

The debate today on the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill demonstrates that the Government’s so-called policy of orderly urbanisation has failed. Orderly urbanisation and the abolition of the influx control measures are one of the cornerstones of the Government’s reform policy. In this connection let us examine what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in regard to orderly urbanisation and illegal squatting on 23 April 1986 by way of a Press statement:

We are asking the Government very explicitly why it now finds it necessary to place legislation on the prevention of illegal squatting on the Statute Book if it is its express point of departure that everyone can move wherever they like within the borders of the country, as was stated in this Press release. This Bill does not make provision for everyone to be able to move wherever they wish. In fact, more control must now be exercised over where they can and must move to. [Interjections.]

In the second place the hon the Minister in question said the following:

The squatters are now saying that in terms of the policy of the Government laid down on 23 April 1986 they want to make a living and reside wherever they wish because in 1986 the Government gave them the right to move wherever they wanted. What else does it mean but that when the necessity for this legislation is realised, the Government is in reality saying that the 1986 standpoint is one which can no longer be maintained? [Interjections.]

In another example the hon the Minister said the following in his Press release:

The hon the Minister in 1986 rejected this standpoint “that squatter camps will mushroom overnight”. He rejected the standpoint by referring to a statement made by the President’s Council that urbanisation would only increase from 17% to 32%. The hon the Minister also said the following:

I think the country will be able to handle that. If the country was able to handle that situation, why is it necessary today for the Government, which adopted this standpoint as recently as 1986, to come forward with legislation on illegal squatting? I shall give this House the answer. In the first place the Government has to come forward with such a Bill because the CP, through its policy on squatting, has grown to such an extent among the voters that the Government realised that it would have to do something about it if it did not want to bring a CP government into existence as a result of the way it was dealing with—or perhaps I should say failing to deal with—squatting.

Now they are trying to control squatting in this way by means of the back door. I shall spend some time discussing individual clauses later to indicate that squatting is not being controlled but is in fact being encouraged and legalised by this Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill.

Next the hon the Minister in question, in that same Press release, said the following:

I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, and if he does not know I am asking him to be so kind as to establish from the hon the Minister, what was meant at the time in 1986 with the words “squatting will be dealt with in terms of the ordinary laws of the country”. Was this a reference to common law or was it a reference to the present Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act? If this was a reference to the present Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, the Government is acknowledging with the tabling of this particular Bill that the old Act could not control squatting sufficiently, and that they therefore had to create additional measures. Then it means at the same time that the 1986 standpoint could not be maintained.

However there is an addition to the Press statement which I should also like to present. The hon the Deputy Minister would do well to look it up. I am quoting from a document from his own department, namely Reform and the Future, A Collection Compiled by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, in which a very important addition occurs which contains an exceptional admission. I want to quote it to the hon the Deputy Minister and ask him whether or not he agrees with it. The hon the Minister said the following:

Is it the object of this particular Bill, which is at present on the Table, to control unrest and protest which the hon the Minister mentioned in 1986? However, the hon the Minister went further and said the following in the same Press statement:

Is it an implicit admission that the reform policy of the Government could escalate into revolt and revolution? We on this side of the House know far better than that. We say that the reform process of the Government has already escalated into revolt and revolution. In fact, it is the situation among the White population group, among the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people, which gave rise to a situation in regard to squatting which could no longer be tolerated.

Let us now consider for a moment the squatter situation in South Africa. I want to present it to hon members on the basis of questions asked in this particular House and the replies furnished. In column 781 of Hansard, 7 September 1987, Mr J H van der Merwe asked the following question in regard to squatting:

We then heard the following reply:

On a previous occasion when I discussed squatting the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning asked me this relevant question, whether squatting had only arisen after the abolition of influx control measures or whether it had not previously existed. In this particular reply the Government says that no figures are available on the squatter situation in the RSA for the period 1984 to 1986. [Interjections.] The important point in this connection now is that influx control measures were abolished on 30 June 1986. The hon the Minister will surely concede that I am right on that score.

Consequently if the squatter situation has nothing to do with the abolition of the influx control measures, I now want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister why there are no figures available in regard to the squatter situation between 1984 and 1986. [Interjections.] Surely that proves that from 1984 to 1986 the squatter situation did not in truth really exist as a problem. When influx control measures still existed and were still being applied, one could not really speak of a squatter problem. There are not even any figures in this connection.

The other side of the argument would be that the squatter situation has grown and increased in extent, but that the Government has closed its eyes to it and consequently has not even been able to make figures in regard to the situation between 1984 and 1986 available.

Now the hon the Deputy Minister can exercise his choice of a reply. Has the squatter situation increased after the abolition of the influx control measures or not. If it has increased why are there no figures available in regard to it? If it has not increased, surely the present situation does have something to do with the abolition of influx control measures. Surely this is an argument which the Government simply cannot evade. [Interjections.]

Let us consider for a moment what the situation looked like in regard to legislation which existed before influx control measures were abolished.

Prior to 1986 the following measures were still on the Statute Book. I shall quote them briefly. Act 25 of 1945, the Urban Areas (Blacks) Consolidation Act, which in brief regulated the entry and accommodation of Blacks in prescribed areas. Then, too, there was Act 67 of 1964, the Black Labour Act, which resulted in the Director of Black Labour having powers in connection with the accommodation of Blacks on certain premises. In addition there was Act 18 of of 1936, specifically Chapter IV, which constituted labour control boards, which consisted of farmers. Act 52 of 1951 is the measure we are discussing at present. Act 29 of 1972 made provision for a scale of tariffs for employed Blacks in connection with approved accommodation. Act 36 of 1966—the Group Areas Act—will be discussed here one of these days.

Surely that Act still exists!

That Act no longer exists unchanged when we read it in conjunction with the Free Settlement Areas Bill, but of course the hon member does not want to read it in conjunction with that Bill because he would in that way succeed in presenting a different policy to the voters than the policy which the NP in fact advocates. [Interjections.]

After 30 June 1986 the situation was changed completely by means of the abolition of the influx control measures. In fact, the Government also adopted the standpoint that no more forced removals would take place.

If we look at the individual clauses contained in the Bill, against this background, I say there is a very important reason why the CP cannot support this Bill. I want to refer to clauses 9, 10 and 11.

In respect of clause 9 the hon the Deputy Minister states in his speech which he made by way of introducing the debate:

Surely that is not correct. Transit areas are not being introduced in the place of emergency camps. In fact, it is simply a change of name, because the old emergency camps now become transit areas, and then certain legal consequences follow.

The important reason why the CP cannot support clauses 9 and 10, which make provision for transit areas and designated residential areas, are the following. The Bill as it is on the Table at present only makes provision for clearing up squatter situations of a smaller extent. Only where we are dealing with few squatters will it be possible to take action against squatters, but when we are dealing with, say, a thousand squatters or on Weiler’s Farm in the Losberg constituency, where we are dealing with 10 000 squatters, I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister—I think it is his responsibility to reply—whether he intends applying this Bill to clear up the squatters camp in Weiler’s Farm, where 10 000 squatters are living.

Surely there is no question of that happening, because then he is going back on his own tracks, and his own tracks say that no more forced removals will take place. Surely the hon the Deputy Minister cannot have his bread buttered on both sides and say that he adheres to the policy of no forced removals and at the same time say that he is going to relocate the squatters on Weiler’s Farm in terms of this Bill.

There is another reason why we cannot support the Bill. It is that squatting, as I have already indicated, is going to be encouraged in this way, because the larger the number of squatters, the stronger the chance that they will not be relocated because the Government is adhering to its policy of no forced removals. This means that squatters are in fact being encouraged to increase their numbers, because if those numbers increase, the area concerned, which is called a transit area, can eventually become a designated area in terms of clause 10, and if it becomes a designated area it qualifies to be upgraded into a residential area.

We therefore have the situation that a squatters’ camp like Weiler’s Farm, can, in the first place, be made a transit area, and if it is made a transit area, it can subsequently be upgraded to become a residential area, and certain committees can be established to exercise control there.

The CP’s standpoint is very clear. We say that the squatters, in terms of the Bill, determine which areas are going to be zoned as residential areas. Surely we cannot in South Africa tolerate a situation in which it is not the State which will determine by way of a controlled situation where zoning for residential areas will take place, but that it is in the first place the squatters and their number which determine where residential areas will be developed.

Therefore we say that although the Bill envisages the control of squatting it does not offer, as it has been published—I am now using the hon the Deputy Minister’s terminology—“a workable solution” to combat squatting.

We approve of certain clauses of the Bill but for the reasons mentioned above we cannot support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon member for Losberg does not simply support the legislation, because if one hears what Prof Boshoff says nowadays, namely that they are going to break away from the CPs and “trek”, why should he worry about the rest of South Africa, which Prof Boshoff wants to hand over to a Black majority government at the same time? [Interjections.] Therefore, why they are making such a fuss about it, only they would know. [Interjections.]

This afternoon the hon member—I do not want to break the Rules of the House—made a few remarks and criticised the system. He brought up the principle of consensus and said that if that was an example of consensus, this entire system had collapsed.

Surely that is a fact.

The hon member may say it is a fact, but I want to tell him to put it to the test. He can go and calculate how many measures have been approved by this tricameral Parliament since 1984, and how many have not been approved by consensus, and then he can decide for himself, if he wants to be objective, whether it is working or not.

However, the question is how that party, if it were to come to power, would implement the idea of the Coloured homeland and the Indian homeland without the co-operation of those communities.

The hon member also criticised the joint committee because we wasted time by going through the whole procedure and, inter alia, hearing evidence. The hon member for Houghton in particular, as well as an hon member in the House of Delegates, thanked the committee for having gone to the trouble of hearing evidence, because it gave matters a perspective which had not existed before. In the case of the hon member for Houghton—no doubt she will deal with it herself—it may have confirmed her argument and her standpoint. Those of us on this side of the House want to express our sincere thanks to the people who went to the trouble of giving evidence because I think they helped us a great deal. I shall leave the hon member at that, because it seemed to me he did not really know what the legislation was about in any case.

Those of us on this side of the House want to make something very clear. This country and its inhabitants are used to orderly government. This country and its inhabitants are intent upon the preservation of civilised norms and civilised standards in South Africa. Although our people have embarked irrevocably on the path of reform, we nevertheless demand that the Government maintain orderly government and civilised norms and standards in this country.

In my opinion this measure is an example of the earnestness and the understanding with which the Government is approaching, addressing and will eventually solve a real problem in the interests of all people in South Africa, including the squatter communities in this country.

We must seek the spirit of this measure in the words of our hon State President. I want to present what he said in this House on 5 October 1987 (Hansard: Assembly, 1987, col 6677):

I maintain that the spirit of this legislation is based on this approach of the hon the State President.

In whatever way we look at this measure and in whatever way we approach it, there are a few premises that we must bear in mind and that we cannot exclude.

Firstly, it is a fact that the process of urbanisation, also among our Black people in this country, is unavoidable. Secondly, the recognition of the permanence of our Black communities outside the context of the national states is a fact that we must take into consideration. Thirdly—this is very important—the traditional, conventional housing for the masses of our Third World people is simply no longer economically viable and practicable. Finally, this Government has a responsibility with regard to orderly urbanisation in South Africa.

I want to allege that this debate has only just started, because the implementation of an urbanisation strategy on the road ahead is going to make heavy demands on us all inside and outside this House.

Hon members will remember that the Riekert Committee, which had to submit a report on urbanisation to the Government, observed for example that if influx control were abolished it would have to be on condition that a particular person had a place of abode or a job before he came to the city.

Owing to problems of practical application, the Government could not accept the proposal and addressed the matter accordingly in its White Paper on Urbanisation. For that reason I believe that the present squatter problem confirms the correctness of the decision of the Government on that occasion.

We can debate the situation before or after the influx control measures were abolished with one another here. The hon member for Losberg referred to it in a disjointed way. [Interjections.] The hon member also sat and listened to the evidence at this committee. The fact is that we had contradictory evidence before the committee with regard to where these people who are creating a squatter problem for South Africa came from.

Some people who gave evidence alleged that people were now streaming to the cities because influx control had been abolished. Other people who gave evidence before us alleged that the vast majority of squatters were already in the metropolis before the abolition of influx control, and I think the hon member for Houghton would also state that as a standpoint.

Be that as it may—we can call it before or after influx control—conflicting interests unfortunately emerge in the process of urbanisation. These are on the one hand the established rights of the First World component in South Africa— the landowners; the people who have established their own community life over the years. They are seeking to protect it; they do not want anyone to encroach upon it.

On the other hand there is the demand for living space and a housing shortage in regard to the Third World component which is undergoing a process of urbanisation in South Africa. The fact is, and this is the important thing I want to say this afternoon, that not only White communities, but Coloured, Asian and Black communities have established rights that are being threatened by illegal squatters.

One member of the committee of the other Houses said it straight out. If he and his colleagues want to be honest they will admit that they too have voters who complain to them about squatters who are squatting on the outskirts of their towns and that it is a problem for them.

Our problem is: How do we accommodate this factual situation? We can call it illegal squatting; we can soften the word and talk about informal settlement, but call it what you like, the problem remains exactly the same. Let me say immediately that statutory measures alone cannot deal with the problem. For that reason we want to tell the Government that apart from having to continue with the approach of deconcentration, of decentralisation, of the development of the national states, of proper population planning in an effort to curb the population explosion, the priority lies therein that alternative space must be created, also for informal settlement, even if one had then to call it controlled squatting.

That is precisely what this measure envisages. It is tragic that only the negative aspects are noised abroad in the media and by many people who are critical of the Government. Those of us on this side of the House want to advocate this afternoon that land and the identification of alternative space for informal settlement as well should be regarded as an absolute priority by the Government.

In other words site-and-service schemes, with the abolition of other statutory measures during upgrading, must be implemented as soon as possible, and that is precisely what this measure is proposing for this House and for South Africa. The urbanisation strategy of the Government must be implemented without delay.

I now want to make a further observation. I want to say that it is a pity, it is really a pity—I do not want to pay any attention to the hon member for Losberg, who wants to gain party-political advantage from the fact that we are struggling to achieve consensus—that we could not reach consensus with one another on a measure such as this.

With all due respect I want to have a few serious words with our colleagues in the other two Houses this afternoon. To simply decide that the legislation is not worthy of further discussion does not solve any problem whatsoever!

I think those people are actually pushing their responsibilities in the process of government aside in the interests of their own party-political advantage.

I want to make the observation that we could abolish the Group Areas Act in South Africa tomorrow, but that that would not solve the problems in regard to squatting. It will remain a problem and we shall have to deal with it regardless of whether we are for or against the Group Areas Act.

We have covered all the ground. We held informal discussions on the committee. We received advice from the department and in particular I want to thank those two gentlemen who gave us that information because they came to speak to us openly and honestly. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who gave evidence, on behalf of the authorities and of other institutions. Some were positive; others were negative. Some were very realistic, others, I think, were rather unrealistic. Then there were the ordinary people who were rather naive and who were unable to grasp the crux of the problem. However, it all contributed to bringing about greater clarity and perspective with regard to this measure.

It is interesting that everyone acknowledges the problem, but when it comes to dealing with the problem we get stuck. On the one hand, there is opposition on the part of the leftists such as the PFP to the statutory action.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to say that a witness who gave evidence before the joint committee was naive?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

You are more than naive!

I must say that they were not quite as naive as the hon member for Losberg.

On the other hand there was opposition from right-wing ranks, such as the CP, to the acknowledgement of the presence of squatters in South Africa, as if the problem would disappear if one merely closed one’s eyes. That is apparently how the CP wants to deal with this problem.

What was worse still was that there were demands from people for alternative accommodation before action was taken against squatters. There were even arguments that squatters and farm labourers who were redundant on farms, had established rights. I must say that if we were to follow that path and if we had to accommodate that situation, I would envisage real problems for the Government. Yes. everyone admits that there is a problem, but at the end of the day it is the NP Government alone which must bear the responsibility of ensuring order and stability for all our people in South Africa. We on this side of the House have no difficulty in supporting this measure, because everyone outside this House who believes in order also supports the Government.

I want to conclude with a few final remarks. This measure is a practical one. It makes provision for the identification of existing squatter communities in transit areas which will function temporarily under control. The hon member for Losberg once again made a fuss about Weiler’s Farm. The hon member must pay attention now, because this is the answer to Weiler’s Farm. Only if an area which is identified as a transit area, were to fit in with the guideplan for that particular area as an area for that particular community in terms of this measure, could that transit area become a designated area. Otherwise, those people would be dealt with.

I now want to tell the hon member that if one went to the inhabitants of Weiler’s Farm—who live in pigsties with a roof over them—and one gave them an area where they would have siteand-service facilities and where they could have proprietary rights. I am convinced that one would persuade those people to move out of the pigsty and go and live somewhere where they could establish a decent place for themselves. For that reason we are not going to act precipitately against everyone. We are going to do it in a humane way and in such a way that it is attractive for those people to settle elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, this measure makes provision for designated areas. I believe that the identification of these areas ought to be a priority, so that siteand-service facilities can be created and proprietary rights can be offered to people. We must then accept the principle of informal settlement and eventually upgrade these areas. A witness, a mayor of one of the cities on the Witwatersrand, told us that a town on the East Rand had begun as a squatter camp, and had been upgraded. Today, that town exists as one of the gems of the Black towns in South Africa. That mayor is just as proud of his own residential area as we are of ours.

However, where mala fide squatting occurs, where people are farming with squatters, where exploitation of landowners is taking place and where deliberate illegal occupation of other people’s land is taking place, statutory measures are necessary.

We believe that this measure can make a positive contribution to the eventual realisation of the ideal of achieving the proper establishment of orderly metropolitan and rural communities in South Africa. We want to congratulate the Government and wish them everything of the best and express our trust that we are going to address a problem in a responsible way by means of this measure. They must not pay attention to the left-wing and right-wing protests with regard to this measure. Let us implement this Act. Eventually, the people who are suffering the most, the squatters, are also going to be accommodated in a decent situation in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would say at the outset that there are some things which were said by the hon member for Turffontein who acted as the chairman of the Joint committee which considered the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill on which I served, with which I would agree.

Other things I will not agree with but I do want to say that he did give every member of the committee the opportunity to put his or her point of view, and for that, I for one am duly grateful.

I want to say too that I agree with him that it was very valuable indeed to hear oral evidence before the committee, and therefore a lot of factual information which I am quite sure the vast majority of members on that joint committee did not have prior to hearing of such evidence and which they did have after having listened to organisations and individuals give evidence before the committee.

All in all something like 23 organisations and individuals gave evidence to the joint committee. We are fortunate that the officials have presented us with a bound copy of the evidence and it has a wealth of information in it. Even the least objective member of the House who looks at this compilation of evidence will agree that organisations and individuals who came before the committee represent some of the most prestigious business and financial organisations in the country and comprise some of South Africa’s betterknown individuals.

When I mention just a few of those, Sir, you will see what I mean. They include the Urban Foundation, the Chambers of Commerce and Industries, the Chamber of Mines, the Institute of Civil Engineers—not all gave oral evidence by the way; the Urban Foundation did give oral evidence. Most of the others presented evidence in writing but here it is for our benefit—the Legal Resources Centre, the General Bar Council and the Association of Law Societies. All these organisations presented the joint committee with evidence.

Of these 23 organisations, on which I have done a little statistical analysis, 16 were unequivocally against the Bill which we are considering today. The other seven were for the Bill though not unequivocally, and it is interesting that the only institutions or individuals who were fully in favour of the Bill were the provincial administrations. They were in favour of the Bill because they have to deal with the problem of the huge squatter camps which have settled in their areas and they feel that the law has not been strong enough, firm enough and far-reaching enough.

They know what the problem is!

Of course, but they have suggested the wrong remedies, and this is where I am going to disagree with the hon member for Turffontein.

The hon the Deputy Minister in presenting the Bill said some very interesting things and I am going to come to him in the course of my address. He said that the Government had already accepted a positive strategy for orderly urbanisation and that great progress had already been made in the implementation of this strategy, but when we look at the enormity of the problem, which we have to deal with, we will see that really the Government has hardly made any progress at all.

For years it has been dilly-dallying about the allocation of suitable land, serviced land where the site-and-service schemes can be set up. It is only in the past year or so that land has actually been identified, but this problem has been with us for years. The hon member for Berea and I have been in this House for many years, and the hon member who was here with me earlier on in 1953 will remember that in those early years when the squatter problem had already begun to assume big proportions, we suggested site and service as the only way in which to solve the problem. We said that one could not have these First World standards to deal with what was essentially a Third World problem.

We suggested this at the time and I remember actually complimenting Dr Verwoerd—and believe me, that did not happen very often—on the plan that he evolved in 1948 when the Moroka squatter camp outside Johannesburg had emerged as a result of Blacks flocking into the urban areas with their families—not as migrant single workers—to prosecute the war effort. Because not a single house was built by the municipality during that period to house those people— their labour was required and therefore they were allowed in—the squatter camps began to develop. It was Dr Verwoerd who set out the first site-and-service scheme.

Suddenly it was abandoned. Suddenly, when I mentioned site and service in this House, I was told that I wanted to reduce the standards of South Africa to Third World standards. We have no option. We cannot afford to house all those millions—there are millions of people and I can tell the hon member for Losberg that according to the Urban Foundation’s researchers his estimates on the number of squatters are very low indeed—on First World standards.

There must be site and service, identified land for that purpose with the Government providing infrastructure in the form of reticulated water and water-borne sewerage, and then people must be allowed to build their own shelters. They will then upgrade them as their economic position improves. That is really what it is all about.

I am glad that the Government at last accepts, in the words of the hon the Deputy Minister, that people migrate to areas where more and better opportunities exist, especially the urban areas. We have been telling the Government for years that the permanence of the urban population is inevitable. It has to be accepted and the law has to be changed to deal with it. So there we are.

I now want to move on to the actual Bill itself. There has been a great deal of Press publicity about this Bill and I think there must be few people in the House who are unaware of the Draconian provisions that it contains. We are against the passage of this Bill for reasons which I shall make clear and have already mentioned during the deliberations of the joint committee.

From the purely legal side, the major objections are the abrogations of the existing common law insofar as the onus of proof is concerned; interference with the discretion of the courts, which are not allowed to consider other relevant factors when they have to order the removal of squatters; the blocking of the right to apply for interdicts; and the suspension of sentence until an appeal is heard. These are all abrogations of our existing common and statutory law.

Then, of course, the increased penalties are unbelievably stiff and, as the American Chamber of Commerce which also presented evidence rightly pointed out, “problems of homelessness and squatting are almost inevitably linked to the problems of severe poverty, unemployment and housing shortages. Punitive measures in no way change or offset these social problems, but instead they reinforce poverty cycles by gaoling or fining breadwinners.” In other words, the very people who are earning a livelihood for the squatters, are the people who go to gaol because they cannot pay these heavy fines.

I want to just mention the magnitude of the problem before I get further involved with the details. As I say, there is no point in harking back to the unfortunate history of why we have a proliferation of squatter camps around every major metropolitan area in the country. It is because for so many years the Government did not accept the inevitability of the migration of Blacks to the urban areas and refused to accept their permanence.

“There is no point in overemphasising the mistakes of the past”, says the memo of the United Municipalities of South Africa, who are also against the Bill. They do say, however, that “new legislation must take full account of the results of past legislation to avoid punitive measures against people who are driven by desperation into certain actions”. This memorandum goes on to say that “failure to address the squatter problem of the homeless poor will negate all the political and socio-economic benefits of the White Paper on Orderly Urbanisation and will amount to economic influx control.” We abolished influx control and the pass laws two years ago, Sir, and now we are introducing economic influx control.

The enormity of the squatter problem is emphasized by the Urban Foundation. In the PWV area alone, there are 1,4 million to 2 million people living under squatter conditions. In Durban it is close on 2 million—my hon colleague from Natal will discuss that problem—and there are something like 1 million people in the Cape living under informal settlement conditions, if one wants to call them that; I call them squatter conditions in squatter camps.

This has now become a tremendous problem. There is an existing backlog in housing units of more than 1 800 000 units, and that will reach 2 800 000 in the year 2000—I am talking from Urban Foundation figures. All the existing Black residential areas are overpopulated. Throughout the country as a whole, the Urban Foundation estimates there are 7 million squatters—7 million people living in informal settlements. This is an unbelievable situation in a country like South Africa which, after all, has some pretentions, at least, to being a First World country.

I have mentioned the legal objections to the Bill. We have had a lot of sanctimonious talk about squatter farming; we heard that in the joint committee as well. That was the main reason for this—people should not be allowed “plakkerboerdery”, that is what the term was, and people were making fortunes out of letting land to squatters. I do not approve of rack-renting and I do not approve of exorbitant rentals, but we must look to the source of this, and it is because there is no alternative land. If there was alternative land, people would not be living on the land of farmers and others who are charging them these exorbitant rentals. That is the question, Sir, and the American Chamber of Commerce is absolutely right when it says that heavy penalties are an entirely misdirected form of action in response to a serious social problem. I concur with that. I mean, the way to solve it is not to impose fines of up to R20 000 on landlords; it is to find alternative land where people can live at reasonable rentals and where people can settle permanently. I agree with the hon member for Turffontein—give them that inducement and they will move voluntarily, from Weiler’s Farm and from everywhere else. So that is the answer to that, but where is the land?

Support the Bill. That is what the Bill says.

The Bill says so, but where is the land?

It has been identified—13 000 ha.

It has to be identified, Sir, in sufficient quantities.

There are Draconian provisions which relate to people in the rural areas, not only in the urban areas. Committees have to be set up under the Bill to investigate the presence of people on land in rural areas outside the jurisdiction of local authorities, to investigate the position of these people who are not employees, and if the committee suspects that this is so, they must then instruct an inspector to investigate. If he confirms the suspicions, the committee must direct the owner to evict such persons within 30 days, and there are very heavy penalties, again, if they do not do so. This will lead to the eviction of thousands of families of farmworkers who may have lived on farms all their lives. They are rural people who have absolutely nowhere else to go when one considers the position of the overcrowding in the homelands and the fact that people are having to leave the homelands in order to look for a livelihood.

The intervention of the courts is removed, except in cases where bad faith can be shown, and that, of course, is extremely difficult.

There is no recourse to Parliament, as far as the removal of these people is concerned, as there used to be under the old, what was then the Native Administration Act, which became the Black Administration Act of 1927 which was repealed a couple of years ago.

There are positive provisions in the Bill, namely clauses 9 and 10. Those are the ones which allow transit and designated areas to be declared available for squatter settlement. However, the Bill does not provide—and I want the hon member for Turffontein or the hon the Deputy Minister, when he replies, to tell me why—for the financing of such settlements. There is nothing at all in the Bill that makes provision for that or for the timeous setting up of such arrangements, or even for an implementing agency with access to subsidised funds. Until those things are contained in the Bill these positive aspects of the Bill are meaningless. It is no good saying that one can have this and that, when one does not have the funds. It is like giving local government in the Black areas authority and no money to run those areas. That is why there is so much turmoil in the Black local authority areas today.

Order! Hon members must lower their voices.

There are no criteria for the reprieve of existing squatter areas, and I believe that declaring transit areas for new areas is a very wasteful mechanism. Existing transit and designated areas will not solve the problem of the urban poor, for the land areas allocated so far are far too small and will not accommodate even the natural increase of the squatter population, let alone any further influx into the urban areas. It is absolutely imperative that new and authorised informal settlement areas be created at a pace and on a scale commensurate with the actual volume of need—and that is enormous.

For the benefit of the CP, I just want to point out that the Urban Foundation in its researches found that the vast majority of people living in the squatter camps are not persons who come in newly from the rural areas. They are not.

Where do they come from?

They come from the urban areas. They have already been there for five to ten years. [Interjections.] The survey was done, and it revealed they have been there between five and ten years. [Interjections.] There is a natural increase in that population. They come … [Interjections.] … this newcomer is very talkative … from the backyards of Soweto where they have been shack-dwellers. They cannot afford rentals in the urban townships. They come from the surrounding farms which are approximate to the urban areas, but they are not people who come in from the homelands as a result of the removal of influx control and the pass laws, which those hon members want to reintroduce—heaven help us! If they ever do try to reintroduce them— heaven forbid!—if they come to power, one can be sure that this country will be in the greatest state of revolt and turmoil that any of us could ever imagine. [Interjections.]

I want to sum up. This Bill will not deal with the huge problem which is facing South Africa. We have to set aside further areas, large areas, for site and service, otherwise we are heading for a situation of total chaos in and around the urban areas.

We are told by officials, and I also heard this on the joint committee, that there is no intention of implementing this Bill in a harsh fashion. The hon member for Turffontein nods his head. I wish we could have nods recorded in Hansard. We are told it is going to be implemented only in order to mop up pockets of squatters who are settling in and around the urban areas, but not the huge proliferations of squatters who are already here. There will be no harsh implementation of this law. My experience is that these assurances mean nothing at all. Once a law appears on the Statute Book, it is implemented. I remember being here in 1967 when the Terrorism Act was introduced—when section 6 which allows indefinite detention for purposes of interrogation with solitary confinement, was introduced in this House. I was the only one who voted against it, despite the assurance of the then Minister that it was only going to be used against terrorists in the bush and the jungle. We know the widespread and farreaching way in which it has been used.

The Bill will not achieve its objective, that is, the prevention of illegal squatting. It will not prevent the exploitation of homeless people, as there is no real mechanism created by this Bill for meetin g their needs. There is no orderly urban development promoted by this Bill and, unfortunately, the negative aspects of this Bill far outweigh any of the positive aspects. I am sorry that we could not have amendments discussed on the joint committee, and it is my intention to put some amendments on the Order Paper so that the Bill will be referred back to the joint committee and maybe we will then be able to discuss amendments.

The Urban Foundation states, and we concur, that the Bill is directed more at prohibiting informal settlement than at the positive features of informal settlement as a means of addressing the acute housing shortages in South Africa. This is a non-consensus Bill. It can only become law if it is referred to the President’s Council together with its ugly sisters, the four other Bills, for example the Bill amending the Group Areas Act and the Free Settlement Areas Bill. There it will go through because the President’s Council consists in the main of the “President’s men”.

Since the inception of the tricameral Parliament in 1983 seven Bills have found their way onto the Statute Book via this devious method. There have been seven. I believe that the Bills which have already been passed by the President’s Council have had two major deleterious effects— they have undermined the public’s respect for the parliamentary system and they have minimised the effectiveness of the other two Houses within their own communities. They have been emasculated within their own communities.

I believe that referring this Bill to the President’s Council for induced birth, for that is what it will be, will compound the damage which has already been done by the other seven Bills.

The Government should stop paying attention to the demands of the lowest common denominator in this country, the racist, for that is what this Bill does. It should instead pay attention to the opinions of the creators of wealth and jobs in South Africa, and it is totally incomprehensible to me that the Government chooses to listen to the lowest common denominator instead of to the people who build up the wealth of South Africa.

Years ago I said that I believed the NP had a death wish, and I believe that its action in forcing highly offensive measures onto the Statute Book at this critical time in South Africa’s history confirms that view. To do so when the country is facing increasing isolation from abroad, when the United States Senate is in the process of passing the Dellums Bill, which is the most far-reaching sanctions measure against South Africa, when race relations are at their lowest ebb, can only be the suicidal action of a government which no longer cares whether it or whether South Africa survives.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon member for Houghton, I should firstly just like to express my gratitude to the chairman of the joint committee for the wonderful way in which he took the lead and for his patience in attempting to accommodate everyone. My sincere thanks and appreciation also go to the officials who assisted us and to the Parliamentary officials who ensured that all arrangements went without a hitch.

On the joint committee it was very clear, and here again today, listening as we have done to the CP and the PFP, that they both reject this Bill, although for diverse reasons. It is interesting that the CP rejects one part of the legislation—specifically that part which the PFP accepts—but that they are still not prepared to come to light with positive proposals about those portions of the legislation with which they agree. What we must ask ourselves, in my view, is whether we want to live and continue to live in a well-ordered community. After all, if we want to maintain civilised norms in this country of ours, the maintenance of law and order is a prerequisite. Without that, these civilised values would be destroyed and would give way to retrogression and decline.

Illegal squatting is a contravention of the law and therefore has to be addressed. Examples such as the one at Crossroads are clear proof that such communities degenerate into unhygienic, disorderly slum communities characterised by social iniquities, disease, etc.

The Bill under discussion specifically recognises everyone’s right to live and to work. That is why transit areas are being created. That is why provision is being made for orderly settlement in terms of which stands can be demarcated and allocated on a properly planned basis, including streets, services, schools, open spaces, etc. These are all aspects which are necessary to ensure the happiness of a community. Thus existing squatter settlements can now be declared transit areas. In no way is it the intention to move people to areas in which they cannot be assured of a livelihood. The hysteria surrounding the legislation under discussion creates a false picture, giving one to believe that bulldozers and lorries will be descending upon those unfortunate people. Property owners who are being driven off their properties surely deserve protection. Or is there anyone who wishes to allege that squatters have the right to occupy other people’s properties and to drive them from those properties? Is there anyone who wishes to condone the exploitation of squatters by unscrupulous individuals?

White, Black and Coloured owners have already asked the State to remove squatters from their land. Equally Blacks, Whites and Coloureds have become involved in squatter-farming, in the exploitation of squatters. The very positive measures embodied in the legislation, measures to which the hon member for Houghton did at least refer, are not mentioned. There is no recognition of the fact that the settlement of squatters would be permitted and that they would be assisted when it came to their settlement. There is no recognition of the fact that illegal and disorderly squatting lowers the morale, the norms and the standards of a community.

Suddenly wonderful recipes from the USA are presented to us as a magic solution. Suddenly the municipal regulations are the answer. The question that arises is whether, if this Bill were implemented by way of municipal ordinances, it would then be acceptable. [Interjections.] There are complaints about the possibility of sudden midnight raids being embarked upon to determine who lives in certain areas. We are not told, however, how this wonderful recipe from the USA is to work. Or will they go along at 11h00 or 16h00 and see who is sleeping there?

In this regard it is very interesting to note the views of the new leader of the PFP. It is a pity the hon leader is not present here to inform us personally of his new views. We must therefore accept that the hon member for Sea Point is the parliamentary leader, that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert is the extraparliamentary leader and that Dr Zach de Beer is now the chief leader. This sets one wondering. It strikes me that in 1986 the PFP was returned to Parliament with 19 members. Since then the foxes have caught a few and only 16 remain. I wonder whether one of those 16 hon members is going to be loyal enough to his party and his leader to resign his seat so that the new leader can come to Parliament.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It appears to me that the hon member is not discussing the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! I am of exactly the same opinion.

*The hon member for Walvis Bay must come back to the Bill.

I shall also steer clear of the windmill, Sir. [Interjections.]

Here I should also like to refer to three of Dr Zach de Beer’s views on this legislation on squatting. He says there are three ways in which one can deal with this. Firstly, one could drive them off, but that would mean that they would settle elsewhere. Secondly, one could ignore them. That is better, because apparently it is amazing how well they can look after themselves. Is that leader now telling us what those clever monkeys say—“Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil”? Apparently one should only close one’s eyes and this problem would be solved.

Thirdly Dr De Beer states that a government could create proper mechanisms for advising and assisting these squatters. Apparently that works extremely well because there are thousands of families who want to co-operate with the Government in establishing settlements for themselves.

That, however, is specifically what this legislation envisages. I therefore cannot understand why such hysteria surrounds this Bill, because that is specifically the aspect which this legislation tackles. We should, however, guard against simply wanting to let things slide. We should also be told about Mexico City where six million people have to get along without sanitation. That is not the recipe for South Africa.

The present hysteria surrounding these punitive measures is groundless. An Act without a penal provision which can and must also serve as a deterrent is simply not good enough. The Government, however, has no intention whatsoever—I again want to give the hon member for Houghton the assurance—of unnecessarily instituting legal proceedings; there are not going to be any witch-hunts. Nor is it the Government’s intention to turn South Africa into a third-rate country. We therefore request hon members to accept this legislation. The success of this legislation, when it is implemented, will be determined by the enthusiasm, the goodwill and the co-operation of everyone involved.

The hon member made extensive references to land. Evidence was submitted to us by the Transvaal provincial officials, and there were announcements by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about land already having been designated, land which would prove sufficient up to the year 2000. I therefore think that that argument also falls away. We really are in a position to ask for a reconsideration of this matter so that we can implement this measure with a view to helping those unfortunate people.

Mr Chairman, because illegal squatting is causing a great deal of concern, I listened very attentively to what all the previous speakers had to say about these matters, against the background of the policy of their party, or of the absence of a policy in their party. [Interjections.]

Is it not time you bought another razor?

What was an honour to the NP in 1949, namely beards, is now an embarrassment to them. [Interjections.]

We have bought mirrors in the meantime. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for East London North and the other hon member would give the hon member for Delmas a chance, we should now like to listen to his speech. The hon member for Delmas may proceed.

I listened to all the previous speakers because this legislation on illegal squatting is causing concern. Unfortunately, the hon member for Turffontein once again made personal attacks in his prophetic capacity. I am going to quote—he has been quoted before in this House—what he said in this House in 1972 about his chief leader (Hansard: Assembly, vol 38, col 4876): [Interjections.]

The hon member for Turffontein was then a member of the UP—

I want to ask the hon member for Turffontein to leave Prof Carel Boshoff alone and to concentrate on the legislation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member to ask his leader what he said about my leader concerning the eagle and the mice? [Interjections.]

Order!

The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill is one of the amendments that is being introduced to bring about orderly urbanisation. The memorandum on the objectives of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill maintains that, on the one hand, the old Act has become outdated and, on the other hand, it is ineffectual, and that what is now being envisaged is to bring the legislation into line with present needs and make it more effective in the prevention of disorderly and illegal squatting. So far we agree wholeheartedly. With regard to the following passage, namely that the amending Bill should make provision for the development of informal but planned and controlled settlement of homeless people, we have many questions to ask.

Why has squatting increased so considerably? It is the direct result of the abolition of influx control measures, against which we on this side of the House warned time and again. [Interjections.]

As a result of the abolition of the influx control measures, a suction effect towards the cities has taken place; actually an attraction to the cities which has also been aided by the scheme to employ the unemployed, thereby creating expectations of an income among people. For that reason they squatted near the towns and cities. The fact that the finances of the regional services councils will be used to uplift these undeveloped areas, has also assisted this process.

The squatters were clever and knew that it was cheaper to squat just outside a town or city in order to be as close to the town as possible. Therefore, we welcome the compulsory ejectment of persons who are found guilty of the crime of illegal squatting. We also welcome the stiffening of the penalties for illegal squatting. The penalties for the landowner or tenant of land who is guilty of contravening the prohibition on the collection of moneys, is also acceptable.

[Inaudible.]

What did the hon member say about my farm? I wonder whether he knows what a decent farm looks like.

We agree that buildings or structures on farms may be used only for bona fide farming activities such as the housing of farm workers. To envisage the establishment of committees to determine whether squatting does indeed occur on farms, is also acceptable provided organised agriculture is consulted in this regard and farmers serve on these committees. So far so good.

We now come to the problems which make it impossible for us to support this amending Bill despite its good points. The legislation states that provision will be made for land that is being occupied by squatters, or undeveloped land, to be declared transit areas. In this way the Government wants to endorse squatting, and this is our big problem with regard to this matter. We do not agree with this at all.

I want to tell hon members what is happening to farm labourers at the moment. A farm labourers takes half his possessions in his house to a squatter town and therefore ends up on the waiting list for accommodation. He keeps the other half of his possessions in his house on the farm where he is employed. Neither of these houses, or semihouses, are kept tidy. In this way squatting is therefore deliberately promoted in a place that is quite unacceptable to farmers, but is convenient for the squatter.

It would be convenient for the squatter to live there, and now his place is being classified as a transit area. Surely this transit area is now going to fall within a regional services council area, which will place heavier economic obligations on the RSC’s. Who will have to pay for this eventually? The RSC’s are already experiencing the situation in which levies are having an effect on income and job creation.

These squatters must live and eat; as a result, theft is increasing alarmingly. Entire maize fields are being stripped of green mealies. Certain areas, especially the Eastern Highveld, are being hard hit by the actions and theft of these squatters, so much so that the farmers have organised themselves on their own initiative and are patrolling their farms. Some farmers have pulled out of certain branches of farming.

Many of the squatters are the wives of mine workers who follow their husbands and find themselves in the squatter towns. The joint management centre of the Witwatersrand reports the following in this regard, and I quote:

We cannot accept that a temporary transit area can be set aside, because as we see it, this is the temporary beginning of a permanent town in an undesirable place which will lead to constitutional disruption and Africanisation instead of constitutional development and planning.

This infiltration of manual labourers to cities where there is no work, away from their traditional areas where their labour is now going to be replaced by mechanisation, increases unemployment and creates vulnerability, and a wonderful breeding ground for revolutionary propaganda. It also creates the ideal opportunity for uncontrolled growth in the population.

The influx to these squatter towns makes matters extremely difficult for the inhabitants of an area because everyone is opposed to such squatting. We had the wonderful example of this opposition to squatting in the reaction of the inhabitants of Lilyvale and Putfontein. If hon members do not believe me, they can ask the hon the Deputy Minister of Education. The Whites of that area want to remain on their own land and will not allow squatter towns, which are springing up like toadstools, to be legalised, because they feel insecure. Surely the proof of this lies in the increasing number of murders of defenceless elderly people.

No, the CP cannot support this amending Bill, because we see in it a tremendous danger to the peaceful continued existence of the White people. We know that under the present policy of power-sharing of the NP numbers will eventually triumph, and for that reason we stand for orderly partition and not for this amending Bill that seeks to legalise disorderly squatting anywhere in South Africa. It is important to note that it is not necessary to wait until squatting occurs—ie until a form of accommodation has been built by the offender—before action is taken, because it is difficult to act at that stage. It is therefore our considered opinion that if the Government would simply take action, instead of making laws, we would be much better off.

Mr Chairman, I am becoming a little confused when it comes to distinguishing between that hon member and the hon member for Pinetown. Increasingly they are coming to resemble each other. [Interjections.]

In a moment I shall be speaking to the hon member for Delmas, but I should like to start by thanking the officials and the chairman of the joint committee on which we served. There was only one thing that struck me. We tried and also succeeded in achieving consensus on more than 200 Acts, but in regard to the one on which we could not reach consensus, they did not participate either. During the joint committee discussions on the other 200 Bills they made no effort to speak, and not during the discussion of this one either. It is therefore only now that we are hearing their views.

The standpoint adopted by the hon member for Delmas is typical of those individuals. They say that the problem does not exist and that they are going to turn their backs and go back to 1972, 1910, 1948 or 1932. It is a dream-world they are living in, but this Government intends to solve the problem with this legislation.

That is not true!

It has been acknowledged that urbanisation in South Africa, as in the rest of the world, cannot be checked, as though we were employing all the soldiers, police and public servants in an effort to do so. It was demonstrated, during the period in which we tried to do so, that it could not be done, because that is a fact of life.

The fact remains that 80% to 90% of the other population groups—excluding Blacks—have been urbanised. At the present moment the figure for the urbanisation of the Black people is around 40%, and any person who thinks—those who know say that in 12 years’ time 70% of them will be urbanised—that he can halt that process must really be stupid. [Interjections.]

For that reason we must make the necessary provision, and the Government is prepared to do so. It is prepared to acknowledge that this is a wave which, throughout the world, has swept everything before it, and this applies to South Africa too. It is not the end of the world, and the Government is prepared to ascertain the needs and make provision for those people who are going to flock from the farms to the towns and cities. Mention is made of millions, and that is a fact that we must take into consideration. We are prepared to provide a place for people to live, to give a plot of land to people who need it, if they wish to move, because we maintain that they have freedom of movement, as does any other person, when it comes to selling their labour to the highest bidder in the country. That is a fact.

The imposition of influx control, as the CP alleges, is a pipe-dream. They say that they would deprive Black people of their proprietary rights if they were to come to power. That is a pipedream. Because the State cannot build houses for everyone, with a view to orderly squatting and the regulation of the process in such a way that it is not a health hazard, informal settlement is a fact of life.

It is no use closing one’s eyes to reality. I am therefore telling my hon friends in the CP please to stop dreaming. The hon member for Losberg had lengthy stories to tell about the fact that this was not happening; it is happening. It is no use retreating into the past; reality is upon us. It is no use being negative, because it is to no one’s advantage to do so. Be more positive and accept the situation.

Urbanisation is a fact. They must please believe me when I say that. The influx of people from the rural areas to the towns and cities is upon us. There is talk of seven million people, of even many more people before the end of the century. That is the truth of the matter. No CP member or anyone else can put a stop to it. We must accept that fact and make provision for it. It is a fact we are up against. The Government, the NP, is not ashamed or afraid of having changed its standpoint. In regard to this fact it has, of course, changed its standpoint, because we realised that there were hungry people, but that hon member for Ermelo, who is not a pretty sight—when he opens his mouth he is even uglier—cannot see reason. People do not go to the cities because they want to be there; they are driven by hunger. They think that they can obtain work there, that they have a better chance of obtaining work there.

Hon members of the CP say that we can make provision for people by way of regional development aid, but they are opposed to our spending money to keep the people there, and they are also opposed to people coming here so that provision can be made for them.

Why do people squat? I have just given the reason. Why do people pay for the privilege of squatting? They do so because they do not have a place to live, and by way of this legislation the Government intends to give people a place to live.

The CP sees itself as challenging the world and challenging Africa. They are prepared to fight everyone. They will fight everyone—America, Europe, the whole lot. They will fight Africa. They want to impose their will on all people of colour, but that is not possible. They say they will reintroduce influx control. That is a pipe-dream. They say they want job creation in the rural areas—without money. They say they will prevent urbanisation. They say they will reverse the flow, sending people back to the rural areas. That is another pipe-dream. They say they can obtain peace by conquering Africa and the world. They really must wake up to reality. They must not hoodwink the voters in this way. They say confrontation is their solution. The hon member for Potgietersrus said in the Press that peace was an obsession as far as we were concerned. Of course it is, because peace is cheaper. War is expensive.

When we were at war with the British at the turn of the century, my grandmother always used to say that those who fired the first shot, those who were most eager to fight, were the first to surrender. We must be careful that those who want to tackle the whole world are not the first to surrender (hendsop).

This legislation deals with orderly urbanisation. They say that 400 000 houses per day are needed, but that the Government cannot build them. It cannot provide everyone with accommodation, but it can provide a plot of land. We have already divided up the land in terms of the 1936 legislation, and the Government has indicated that that has been finalised. The next step is to give people a place to live, a plot of land. That is what the Government is going to do.

I do not know whether the CP can quite comprehend that, but I cannot make it any clearer. [Interjections.] The Government is prepared to make provision for the basic needs of all people in South Africa, and that includes the Black people, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to call other hon members on this side of the House “joiners”?

Order! On a previous occasion the word “joiner” was declared unparliamentary. I therefore ask the hon member to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member entitled to point his finger at another hon member? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Vryheid may continue.

Sir, let me say that in that party there are more “hendsoppers” who have quit their party for another than in my party. [Interjections.]

Must this squatter-farming continue? Must we allow people to receive thousands upon thousands of rands from these individuals each month? I have proof of individuals who exploit this situation. The fact that people do not have a place to live affords certain other individuals incomes of R3 000, R4 000, R5 000 and R10 000 per month which they receive from the squatters. Who would pay that money if they had a place to stay? We must make provision for those people so that they do not have to pay, thus being exploited by others.

We speak of these transit areas. The hon member for Delmas does not understand what a transit area is. This refers to the temporary provision made for people who have flocked into an area and settled themselves in undesirable spots. That is what it is. [Interjections.] We do not want to fight. We want to provide for people. That is clear, and I am saying it clearly on behalf of the NP so that everyone can understand it. We have no intention of making war on fellow South Africans of colour. I want to make that clear. When the hon members for Delmas and Carletonville are speaking, I get the impression that they want to make war. We on this side of the House do not want to do that. [Interjections.]

We say that the people of colour here in South Africa are our allies in the struggle against communism. Somebody must convey that fact to them so that they can come to realise it, and that is why I am saying it. [Interjections.]

We want to meet the needs of all our people—we want to give everyone a place in the sun. The Black people, the Coloureds and the Asians are our people, South Africa’s people. They are citizens of this country, whether one wants to believe it or not. It will not be possible for the CP to deprive them of their citizenship, and they are not going to be able to send them back. They are here, and we must make provision for them.

We can provide a stand on which they can build a house or have a house built. The State cannot afford to build houses for everyone. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon member. We in this party believe that what he has just said about giving every person and every South African a place in the sun is exactly what we want to achieve.

We do not believe that the measure that we have before us is the means to do that. I want to express the point of view of the 1,7 million squatters in the Greater Durban area that this measure does not provide an answer. I want to quote the example … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, that hon member who interrupted would have heard me say that there are 1,7 million squatters in the Greater Durban area. Many of them are in KwaZulu but they are part of the greater Durban settlement area.

I want to talk about Emzomusha, which is a squatter settlement where 650 to 700 shacks were demolished by bulldozer last Tuesday, and where the people were due to have their possessions burnt today, a situation which we believe should not be tolerated and which we accept that the people on the other side do not want to have exist. I quote the hon member for Turffontein from Hansard, 4 May 1988, col 8834: [Interjections.]

We accept that point of view, and I accept it from the hon the Deputy Minister. My problem is that this legislation creates a situation or increases the possibility of a situation in which private owners will issue documents like this one, a “notice to vacate” given by the private owner of the land— it is private land—in terms of Act 52 of 1951, which is what we are amending today. I quote:

1. 1. Demolish the dwelling occupied by you;
2. 2. Remove all building material from the property;
3. 3. Vacate the property together with all persons claiming occupation through you.

The land was owned by a quarrying company and a property developer purchased it for property development in order to build, sub-economic housing for the so-called Coloured community. The land lies directly between a Coloured housing area and KwaMashu; it is right on the border of KwaZulu. Onto that land, in the late part of last year, moved certain squatters—some from KwaZulu and some from Natal—who were forced out of their homes by the floods, and they built squatter houses on that privately owned property, some of them fairly substantial.

Order! I have a problem with the argument being advanced by the hon member. As I understand the hon member, he says that certain squatter huts were demolished in terms of the existing law. The hon member must, however, relate the factual situation to which he is referring to the Bill presently under consideration.

Mr Chairman, allow me to refer to two provisions in the Bill. In terms of the proposed new section 6C, “Failure by local authority to perform its functions”, the local authority can be compelled to carry out certain actions. If it does not, the administrator may do so and charge the local authority. The Bill also states that in an area outside the local authority the administrator may carry out an order for private persons to demolish structures. The gist of my argument is not about demolition, which I am going to cover in a moment, it is about the issue of land supply, an issue which we believe is germane to this amending Bill. May I proceed?

Order! The hon member may proceed, but would be well advised to come to the gist of his argument.

I am in the process of doing so, Sir. Those houses were demolished last week, an action which we accept the State may wish not to have happened. The situation thus became one in which the owner wished to get these people onto other land. I can quote from extensive Press reports in which the owner said that he wished that to happen. Whom he negotiated with, I do not know. I wish to quote from an interview with the owner in the Sunday Tribune of 21 August 1988:

These are penalties which would be imposed on the owner of the land in terms of this legislation—

I have spoken to the landowner and he cites this measure as one of the reasons why he went ahead in order to proceed with eviction.

He made a lot of money out of them and now he wants to chase them away!

Please, what I am saying is that the land issue and the necessity of these 3 000 people going somewhere, is to us the key issue. They may have to get off the private land; of that we have no doubt. They may have to, but we have been in contact with this Deputy Minister’s department through the Community Services Office of the province, and the Department of Development Aid, and we have had a very sympathetic response. Those officials have done as much as we think they can in the three or four days they have had in which to do it. The phone calls that have gone through today and the response we are getting indicate that it is very difficult to find additional land.

My colleague from Durban North has today been in touch with the KwaZulu Government—he has gone through to Mr Bhengu, a member of the Legislative Assembly—to do the same. KwaZulu says they have very little land in the immediate area of Durban, but the problem exists that 3 000 people will have their possessions burnt tomorrow night—this is what the owner said—unless land can be found. We believe that this measure does not address that, and what we should be doing is that we should in fact be providing, and I quote from the words used by the Urban Foundation in its submission, “an institutional mechanism with powers and capacity to ensure that land is especially set aside for informal settlement”. Mr Chairman, it is a very real problem. The people cannot disappear into thin air and, unfortunately, a landowner with a penalty of R10 000 or five years’ imprisonment hanging over his head will send in the bulldozers.

This is not helping South Africa, Mr Chairman. We accept that the Government is not sending them in; we accept that totally. We in fact need— and this is the difficulty this Deputy Minister is under—some form of guarantee, South Africa needs it, that before a landowner, whether it be a local authority or whether it be a private owner, is put in a situation of having to send in bulldozers in order to demolish structures at least some land is made available, because I will tell you what is going to happen to these squatters if they are burnt out tomorrow, Mr Chairman. They are going to move onto the neighbouring White land and it not going to help anybody. Therefore, whilst we have had a sympathetic response from the Government officials concerned in these two departments—they have done all they can and I believe they will do all they can to try to find land—the real issue is that it may be necessary to get an interdict against that owner to stop proceedings against those squatters, but who is going to get that interdict? We cannot. Is the Government going to get it? One certainly cannot do it under the new Bill if it goes through.

We believe that there is a Government responsibility. It has been voiced today by the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Turffontein, among others on the Government side, that every person should have the right to some area of land but it has to be done in an orderly fashion.

My problem is a very real one; it is a practical one—that on the ground there are people, many of them are children and women with no husbands, whose shacks have been demolished, who have money from the Disaster Relief Fund invested in their building material and they simply cannot move it, and if they can move it, where do they go? Where do they go?

Mr Chairman, we do not believe that this measure addresses the problem of the individual on the ground. We believe in the end, in the words of the Urban Foundation, that this measure is going to be unenforceable because the moment the Government comes to enforce it, it is going to be asking for forced removals to be done by another agency, that of the private owner or the local authority.

Mr Chairman, I fully appreciate what the hon member for Pinetown said about those people who will injudiciously be removed from their shelters with bulldozers, but to resolve this we will have to look at land tenure in this country. After all, we cannot deprive people of their land tenure overnight, and if that person who owns the property wants to do that, he at least has the right to do so. After all, the preamble to our Constitution gives us the right to own private property.

When I listen to the opposition speakers I also get the impression that they admit that this is a big problem, because to them the problem has become so big that they have thrown in the towel and said they cannot do anything about it. We, the NP, would like to tackle this matter properly and see to it that we find a solution to this problem. I want to assure the House that the NP has great sympathy with every squatter, wherever he is squatting. We do not need this legislation to disrupt people unreasonably and upset their family life. We need the legislation to bring order in a situation which has become untenable in this country. The abolition of the influx control legislation is not the cause of the problems we have either. When there were influx control measures, 18 million people were arrested. What did we achieve by doing this? We merely made 18 million enemies. We did not achieve anything with that legislation. Consequently we must now deal with this second problem as well as we can.

The Government is painfully aware of the enormous housing shortage in the country. When our country’s economy permits this, we would like to deal with this and provide those people with housing. However, in the meanwhile it is the Government’s responsibility to be concerned about the squatter himself. We are concerned about the people’s health and their general hygiene in the squatter camps. We are concerned about the morals prevailing in these camps. We are concerned because irregularities and crimes take place on a large scale in the shacks in which the people live, because they cannot lock them. We are concerned about this, and we would like to protect those squatters in some way or other.

As some speakers have already said, we are concerned about the large-scale exploitation of the squatters in many areas. We have heard this new word, which actually gave me a fright, namely “squatter farmers”. To my dismay I learned that there were squatter farmers in my own constituency. We are concerned about the uncontrolled increase in this squatting phenomenon.

Let us, however, see what we can consider to be the causes of this situation. Today I do not want to go back to the Tomlinson Report or the disappointments we had with regard to decentralisation, which hampered the creation of employment in the rural areas. I want to say what others have already mentioned, namely that urbanisation is after all a worldwide phenomenon. Here in South Africa it is so much more noticeable because of our population composition. The rural areas, as well as the traditional Black areas, do not at present have the economic viability to provide work for everyone who is seeking work there. I want to repeat what some of our colleagues have already said, namely that an unemployed man is a hungry man, and that he must of necessity move to a place where he may possibly find work. [Interjections.] However, hon members must remember that when he arrives there he is a stranger. There is no empty house into which he can move; there is no empty flat for him. He is compelled to find a place where he can at least stay so that he can look for work. It is cheaper for him to squat than to rent or buy a house in a residential area and pay the service fees.

I want to contradict the people who say that this legislation is intended as a subtle way of legalising influx control and enforced removals again. That is not true. I submit that the people who are saying this are being malicious. If this legislation is implemented no squatter’s living conditions will be worse than they were before.

Even in the temporary transit camps which are to be established, provision will at least be made for health services, water, rubbish removal and sewerage. Anyone who wants to think will know that proper roads or streets will be laid out, with proper street blocks, and that in this way we will be able to combat crime more effectively in those squatter camps.

When provision is made to convert such a transit camp into a township, or when such a temporary camp is cleared away to settle the squatters permanently in a new township, the squatter should be far better off than he was before. In any case a site will be allocated to him on which he will be able to build himself a proper house in due course.

There is another aspect I want to mention in connection with this Bill. I see this Bill as part of our essential education task to teach people to maintain civilised standards and to rehabilitate themselves into useful citizens who can live together peacefully in this country.

In my constituency there are so-called Black spots where, in the company of the hon the Minister, we recently held interviews with Black landowners. They pleaded with us to remove the squatters and settle them elsewhere. This squatting

started because they were lenient to a woman and several young children. Her husband went to work on the mines. However, her husband has been working on the mines for five years now and those young children have grown up and are wreaking havoc. This is the problem which exists among all the Black people.

We would like to improve these living conditions of our people and uplift our less privileged fellowman to such an extent that we can change chaos into orderliness. I take pleasure in supportin g this legislation which is absolutely essential.

Mr Chairman, throughout his speech the hon member for Queenstown expressed a fine sentiment, as did most hon members; as a matter of fact all hon members on the Government side who participated did so. The hon member for Turffontein tackled the problem and said that it was not the intention simply to take action against people and leave them to their own devices. The hon member for Queenstown spoke in a splendid way about the compassion they have for squatters—for each and every squatter.

The hon member for Vryheid’s speech was one which expressed true feelings throughout and which attested to the fact that he cared about the squatters. He cares about people in distress. That was the theme of his entire speech, and he concentrated on the CP and pointed out that they either did not understand the circumstances or did not want to understand them. Yet the hon member for Vryheid, in particular, did not refer to the details of the legislation, but spoke about the spirit in which, according to him, this legislation came before the House.

Let me state my standpoint at once. I do not believe that illegal squatting should be allowed at all. By definition illegality must not be allowed. Secondly, I want to associate myself with previous speakers who said that action had to taken and that the problem had to tackled in cases where for example conditions were bad, negative, dangerous and where disease was rife.

However, if we come back to the Bill itself, reference is made to positive aspects in this legislation. I shall come back to this later. These are the so-called transit areas and the designated areas where squatters may settle and may later settle permanently.

However, the focus of this Bill is on taking action against people who find themselves in these circumstances, which are undesirable in terms of legislation. This kind of action is like using a shotgun to keep pigeons in the air. The pigeons are not allowed to settle, in that they are fired at if they do so, and they must therefore remain in the air.

In effect this is what is happening. It is then argued that we must take action because diseases can break out among the people. This is almost like saying that if I keep firing at the pigeons with a shotgun and they stay in the air, at least they cannot pick up any lice. However, they must land again. They must land.

It is true that provision is made in the legislation for the power to identify and designate transit areas and to settle the people there. There is also the power to create permanent settlement areas. However, this is not really new. This is merely a reformulation of the old section 6 and 6A—the old transit camps and the old settlement areas which the Minister was able to designate, a number of which were in fact designated.

The hon member for Turffontein spoke about mala fide squatting. In this respect he also referred specifically to those persons who farm with squatters. Nevertheless, I challenge the hon member to show me one of those squatters who are being exploited by the squatter farmers who is squatting mala fide; a person who is squatting there simply because he wants to break the law. I maintain that there are no mala fide squatters.

That is right!

The people are looking for a place to stay, and they need a place to stay.

No matter where?

No, Sir! I did not say that at all; on the contrary …

But then they are mala fide!

No, Sir! I think that hon member himself said that people needed a place to stay. He said that the Government had to provide that place to stay. As a matter of fact he said that was the reason why the provisions for transit areas and designated areas existed. I want to agree with that. It is necessary. They must be there.

What I am saying is that we must look at the needs first. The figures have been quoted here. The Urban Foundation spoke about approximately 7 million squatters, 2 million of whom were in rural areas. I have quoted statistics in this House before on research and surveys undertaken in 1985 which indicated that 56% of Black households could not contribute a single cent to their housing needs.

In the memorandum which the Urban Foundation submitted to the joint committee it also pointed out that the present housing policy and provision of settlement opportunities involved at most the top 30% to 40% of the actual need. It is the accommodation of the remaining 60% to 70%—as a matter of fact I suspect it is actually more—that we must give attention to.

If we only concentrate on the negative methods— I shall come to the positive methods in a moment, before the hon member for Turffontein interrupts me again—no international experience has indicated that any success is achieved with an approach involving prosecution, the removal of people and the destruction or demolition of structures. Evidence was also submitted to the joint committee on the expenses which in reality went to waste when these shelters were simply demolished. The Government has said—the hon the Deputy Minister also said so in his Second Reading speech—that they accepted the migration of people and that the search for opportunities was the reason why they migrated. They are seeking a way to survive; hence the urbanisation process.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that they would like to implement this legislation with the intention of doing so in the interests of everyone. This brings me to clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill, which introduce these transit areas and designated areas. This is a power being given to the central Government to do this; not an obligation. The courts are compelled to issue ejectment orders when a person is convicted. It is not said that the person must be moved to a place where he may live legally. Yet again he is being chased into the air like a pigeon.

The same applies to the demolition of buildings. Nothing is provided in its place. If we look at clauses 8 and 11 of the Bill—clause 8 which deals with the appointment of officers, and clause 11, which deals with the committees in rural areas and owners who must be directed to give people notice and eject them—it is clear that this matter is being handled incorrectly. It is being handled in the rural areas and in this way the pressure on urbanisation is being increased. After all, people are not going to live elsewhere in the rural areas if they are constantly being chased about. They are going to come to the cities to seek a livelihood. In the cities, where we already have five million squatters, if we take the figures of the Urban Foundation into consideration, the process simply continues. The problem is simply being made worse.

The argument regarding the implementation of the legislation with compassion, the argument that land will be identified where people can settle, and the very fine intentions expressed here, are all opportunities to be found in existing legislation but they have not tackled the problem and more stringent measures are now being introduced. The power of the courts to protect the people is being further restricted, at least to give them access to protect their interests, but no further obligation is being placed on the authorities really to make this provision.

I shall accept the good intentions of the Government, but I shall really only accept them for the purposes of implementation if those good intentions are checked and if the Government is under an obligation, ie if the system in the Bill provides that when a person is removed from the area where he is living legally, he will be shown a place where he may live legally.

We are only too eager to talk about squatters, and then we think about the social or socioeconomic conditions in which they live. We must really define a squatter—I have advanced this argument here before—as a person who does not have the security of title.

†What people need is security of tenure. They need to know that they can live in a place even if they have to live there with nothing but a piece of plastic sheeting as shelter. That would be better than not having security of tenure and being liable to be deprived of their occupancy at any time.

*The hon member for Turffontein said that there were people who were naive and who did not want to get to the crux of the problem. My dilemma is that the crux of this problem is not being addressed in this Bill. One of its symptoms is being addressed. The actual crux of the problem is the provision of land. If this Parliament wants to do its job, it will oblige the authorities to provide land, and then everything will fall into place. Then we will also be able to give the people the opportunity to take steps when their interests are threatened, when people move and simply squat on private or public land.

However, I predict that if this Bill is passed as it stands, if there is no control over the authorities to provide land, we will see people literally invading areas and settling there in large numbers. Then the problem will manifest itself in a way which will not be in the interests of any of us.

The Government has given notice that a Bill which was to have served before us has been withdrawn and that another Bill has been referred to the joint committee. I want to request the Government not to continue with this Bill and to do the same in this case. I request the hon the Deputy Minister to withdraw this Bill and to tackle the problem. After all there is enough evidence for this. The indication by the speakers on the Government side regarding their intentions is, to my mind, adequate proof that they would really like to solve the problem too, but the way in which they discussed the Bill here indicated that even they had absolutely no hope that it would solve the problem.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Randburg, but seeing that he referred to pigeons which fly away from shotguns, I want to tell him that he must also accept the realities of the moment and that he must guard against becoming one of these pigeons that will eventually not have a place in the politics in this country.

This afternoon it also became very clear to me that the Official Opposition is stating their policy in respect of the handling of the Black people in this country far more clearly, because for the first time they said: “We are seeking orderly partition”, but then they went further. I am referring to a report in Inside South Africa, which was a repetition of a view which the hon member for Overvaal expressed to us during a luncheon date, namely that the Black people in South Africa cannot simply be moved. In an interview with Norman West, when he was asked what he was going to do about the Black people in Hillbrow, he said that he conceded that those people could not be forcibly removed. They would have to be excised from the CP’s White state instead.

Therefore if we mention orderly partition here this afternoon, I submit that we will most probably excise innumerable squatter camps in South Africa from the RSA, from this so-called White state. If that is the solution then I submit that we do not have a solution; at least the Official Opposition does not.

We find that the Government is held responsible, and I think this is only right, for sufficient land for the people in this country to settle on. The Government can also be held responsible for an infrastructure and services, for security, order and the protection of civilised norms, as was said here this afternoon.

I think the Government also has an important duty to the agriculturalists of this country, namely that agricultural land will be best utilised for production in this country and that the land identified for residential areas will be the lower potential agricultural land.

The Government also has a very important duty in respect of health, in respect of the hygiene of our people and also in respect of their housing.

It is necessary for attention to be given to the exploitation referred to here this afternoon. Now the question is, if adequate legislation is not available, how the Government can achieve what is expected of them if they do not have the necessary measures.

I also submit that housing for the individual is not the duty of the Government. Alternative accommodation, if a person must move, is not the duty of the Government either.

They have got to provide the land.

We have admitted that. We have said the Government must provide sufficient land. [Interjections.] We have frequently advanced this as our policy to each other across the floor this afternoon.

Order!

We also say that doubts are being lavishly sown in the Press, by the private sector and by the Opposition regarding the Government’s attitude and the policy it has already formulated. I think we have just had another typical reflection of this.

You have the policy but no land.

Mr Chairman, if we consider what the Government has done in the PWV area recently, when it identified 13 000 ha, is that not proof of its intentions? We go further and we ask whether the people who are sowing these doubts support unplanned township establishment patterns in South Africa. Do they admit that no removal of people may take place?

This brings me to the evidence of the MEC for the Transvaal, Mr Olaus van Zyl, in which he expressly admitted that the problem in connection with squatting clearly originated as a result of the shortage of land and because the legislation did not meet the needs set. He also emphasised that compassion would be the point of departure of the province if there was sufficient land with which these people could be provided.

We therefore see this legislation as the first step to provide informal housing, and to establish the concept in order to provide transit areas and designated areas which can look after themselves, because provision is also being made for democratically elected committees which can bring about proper control and management in those areas.

They can go further and also start to provide services if they can carry out the normal procedures of an urban local authority. We also see that the Government can undertake the necessary upgrading and that full-fledged towns can develop from a squatter camp.

The point is, and this is what we very clearly referred to, also with reference to what the hon member for Randburg said, that these matters cannot take place in a disorderly manner, because we would be placing unnecessary pressure on the infrastructure of this country, and on the costs of the infrastructure, if we were to allow squatter camps to develop at random throughout the entire PWV area, for example.

For that reason we advocate that the next step should be for a total strategy to be advanced in which the urbanisation policy of the Government will be tackled very effectively …

Order! Hon members are conversing far too loudly. The hon member for Cradock may proceed.

… so that regional development will be carried through to its logical consequences. The role of the rural environment and also of the farmer must be realised. The farmer must not neglect the role which he must play in respect of the slowing down of the movement of people to the urban areas either. We must also strive to further develop the economy and employment opportunities in the independent and self-governing areas of South Africa, but all of must also contribute towards implementing the population development programme in this country.

I want to make an appeal for us to take this opportunity which is being given to the South Africa society today to use this instrument which the legislation is introducing to bring about meaningful town planning. We must make sufficient land available, but the meaningful utilisation of these scarce resources of capital and infrastructure are equally important.

We are addressing the private sector and asking them not to hold the Government solely responsible, but to participate in the establishment of 1 200 houses per day. According to Dr Jan Lombard of the Reserve Bank this is the daily need up to the year 2000. They must help us to establish these informal houses, to offer employment opportunities and to afford their employees the opportunity to make a contribution towards orderly settlement in these designated areas.

I take pleasure in supporting this legislation and ask that we use it in a positive way.

Mr Chairman, before I go on to the specific aspects of the Bill I would first like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to provide us with some answer on this legislation in general. The first question I have is whether the law, as set out in this Bill, is subject to a complaint being lodged or not, because there seems to be a lot of confusion existing as to when a complaint must be lodged for the law to be applied and when the law is just applied.

Will you be lodging some complaints?

This is illustrated by the answer I received to a question which I directed recently to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I asked him whether he would furnish information on the statutory provisions in terms of which criminal investigations are initiated prior and subsequent to a complaint being lodged. I asked if that was not the case why it was not so, and if it was the case what the provisions were. The hon the Minister gave me the following reply.

I think it must be clear from this answer why so much confusion reigns in the minds of the SAP members as to which law they must apply and which they must not apply. I would therefore like the hon the Minister’s answer on that.

Commenting on the whole Bill and the ability of the hon the Minister to apply this Bill, I must say that I certainly have my doubts. I think the hon the Minister’s credibility is about zero. As was the case with the Group Areas Act I think we can expect this legislation, which has positive aspects, to go the same way. Why I say this is that I also put a series of questions to the hon the Minister about the disbandment of development boards in the Southern Orange Free State and so forth, and I received twelve answers in total. The answers to each question are identical. They read along these lines:

They are not able to provide me with the value of the board’s assets and liabilities at the time of dissolution, and that is more than two years ago, and they tell me that these assets and liabilities have been transferred to the relevant Administrator of the province. I ask then how that Administrator can give any undertaking or assurance to this Government and to this Parliament that he, in fact, has the assets that were transferred to him when the hon the Minister cannot provide us with a list of which assets and liabilities were transferred in the first instance.

There is a great cause for concern in South Africa and I will come to that later. I just want to refer briefly to the hon member for Turffontein.

*He asked how the Coloured and Indian homelands were going to work. I merely want to say to that hon member that he must take a good look when the CP comes into power next year, then he will have his answer.

†There are certain positive aspects of this Bill. In fact, the Bill could be divided into two groupings. On the one hand there are the attempts of the Government to combat squatting and to increase the penalties. These attempts we could support if we believed that they were sincere. On the other hand we cannot support a situation where we have squatters squatting in large numbers in terms of clause 9 and are then given approval to stay where they are. Such an area could then in terms of clause 10 be upgraded into a residential area.

The hon members must tell us what numbers will be considered as being the requisite numbers prior to the formation of a transit camp, or is the NP in fact going to surprise us all and act as swiftly as possible when they identify the developing squatter camps to prevent this thing from happening? But we have serious doubts over the ability of this weak NP Government to apply the law before the situation gets out of hand.

The hon member for Turffontein says that in cases where the NP Government does not wish to allow a transit area they will negotiate with the squatters. If they are going to negotiate then what is the purpose of the law in any case? What is the purpose of this whole futile exercise from a Government that is terrified to act, and the laws which we have on our Statute Book bear witness to this.

You are a political plague!

You can say what you like, but I know what you are and I cannot repeat it in this Chamber. On his own admission they will not enforce the law.

We on this side say that if there are illegal squatters then action must be taken immediately to prevent exactly what the hon member for Turffontein agrees will happen and what he states will be done, or should I rather say, will not be done.

For the left-wing NP Government it does not have to do with the principle of removing squatters or the principle of forced removals. Principles are not valid here, only numbers. If there are a few squatters then the NP will throw them out. When the numbers become too large, then the principles are thrown to the wind and promises and guarantees with them. For example, in Krugersdorp we have a Black area called Munsieville where, when the Government …

Order! The hon member is struggling to make his speech. Hon members must please give him an opportunity to speak.

… undertook and guaranteed to the people of Krugersdorp that they would move that eyesore, because that is the only way to describe it, to far more suitable homes in Kagiso, there were approximately 3 600 people residing there.

Then the population multiplied in the same miraculous manner as described by the hon member for Houghton and suddenly 30 000-plus people— and that is according to Government estimates and I do not know how accurate they are—were squatting with the legal residents who were about to be transferred. As a result of that the Government then became afraid to act.

We must ask them what is going to happen because the whole question of Munsieville developed not as a result of there not being a law against squatting, but as a result of serious intimidation by radical Blacks—and we know that Winnie Mandela made her famous necklacesand-matches speech in Munsieville—who forced themselves onto elderly Black people legally residing there and where those people had no option but to accommodate these radical Black criminals, as I call them.

I would like to refer to the hon member for Houghton, who is not in the House at the moment, who mentioned a figure of seven million illegal squatters presently in the urban areas.

They are squatters, not illegal squatters.

As far as I know squatters are not legal. Nevertheless—he is playing with words, as the Progs normally do—the seven million illegal squatters are supposedly residing in areas where they are not supposed to be.

You are a legal squatter.

The Government says there are 1,2 million in the Transvaal only. This was according to a recent SABC programme. We in the CP wish that we had the magic formula that makes people appear from thin air. We would then solve the problem that we have in South Africa with the shrinking White population very quickly.

If this information is correct, we demand that the Government launch an urgent investigation into the whole situation at the earliest possible time. In fact, what we would like them to do, is to urgently investigate the situation and then report back to the voters of South Africa before 26 October so that they can take suitable action against a government that has become too weak to look after the rights of White people in this country. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Houghton says these people come from urban areas. What then of the squatters in rural areas? Where do they come from? Are they the ones who drop out of the air?

We cannot allow this Third World type of population to swamp our areas indiscriminately. When the hon the Deputy Minister says that squatting should be addressed within a framework of orderly urbanisation he is already opening doors for future excuses by the NP Government for not acting in terms of this legislation.

There are other things which are going to cause them not to act. I shall come back to them, but I first want to mention some of the consequences of this illegal squatting and I do not believe it is going to improve at all when the Government legalises squatting in large areas.

I quote from a report in The Citizen of 19 August headed “Non-violent strategies have proven successful”:

We all know that squatters just pitching up and squatting on the land is a non-violent method of getting something done and I would say that that qualifies for description as a non-violent strategy. One of the six changes which they believe were effected by these non-violent strategies, was the abolition of most influx control laws. He also pointed out that the Government was only one of the actors involved in the change which they caused. The report goes on to say:

Is this going to happen with other legislation? In fact. I am quite convinced that it is going to happen with this legislation as well.

What is another consequence? I want to quote the following report that appeared in the Sunday Star of 17 April 1988:

That is into Rosebank, a very wealthy shopping area. Beggars are being ferried in by the busload to ply their trade. We all know that when beggars do not succeed with their begging they resort to other methods, because they have to make a living somehow. We read further—and I hope the hon members from the Cape listen to this very clearly, because in terms of a report on 3 April 1988 “Blacks will dominate the Western Cape by year 2010”. I quote from the report:

He says that by 2010 there will be 2 million Black people in the Western Cape metropolis. There is nothing like a serious influx of Black people to change one from a left-wing radical to a rightwing radical.

Speak for yourself!

Speak for yourself! [Interjections.]

Even the hon member who sits next to that hon member is now appealing to the police to come and solve the problem created in Rosebank. They first allow the problem to arise and when it gets serious they appeal to the already overburdened SAP to come and sort out the problem. [Interjections.]

Another side issue of this whole thing is the question of pollution. I live on the West Rand. My colleagues on the East Rand tell me that exactly the same situation prevails. One cannot breathe in winter because of the smog that settles over one’s residential area. I have already asked the hon the Minister to tell me whether there are different anti-pollution laws for Whites and Blacks in this country because if there are it is another example of serious discrimination against the Whites. We are not allowed to enjoy the privilege of a fire in the hearth because it is against the law, then we get swamped with other people’s smoke. [Interjections. ] We do not waste our breath in talking, we get moving and we act.

What are you going to do about it?

Wait until we take power, then you will see.

We cannot trust you. [Interjections.]

Then I read the following in The Star of 9 August 1988 … [Interjections.] under the headline: “Proposed squatter laws could promote conflict”.

This was just to hire one of those, so-called, orderly urbanisation sites which are available. What sort of a problem does that solve?

Then I would like to refer to a report in the Business Day of 29 February 1988 headed: “Group Areas Act to be defied”:

I want the hon the Deputy Minister to tell me what he is going to do if Anglo American, which has a very big farm next to the constituency of the hon member for Edenvale, opens that farm to their idea of legal squatting in spite of the law. Is he going to have the courage to buck them or is he just going to kow-tow as he has done in the past? [Interjections.]

I have here 38 pages of selected clippings, not big reports, small reports, 38 pages of how crime has escalated and the type of violent crime that has escalated since the abolition of the influx control legislation. I think that if those hon members are not aware of the situation at this stage then they must really be living in cloud-cuckoo land because it is obvious for everyone to see. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to something else that I received in my mail today—a memorandum from the South African Federated Chamber of Industries in which they object to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. There are lots of reasons why they object. They object to compulsory ejectment, they object to forced removals which are going to be legalised and they object to excessive penalties.

The voice of reason!

The voice of reason? I want that hon member to talk to a resident from Illovo who ’phoned me the other day. That voice of reason told me that a house burnt down behind him in Illovo, an exclusive suburb in one of these hon members’ constituencies; maybe they had better investigate it. The house burnt down. All that was left were the hovels of the servants’ quarters on that stand. [Interjections.] This gentleman ’phoned me on Friday to ask me: Please; he has turned everywhere without success. The police cannot act, the municipality cannot act in terms of the health legislation, can I help him to get rid of 50 to 60 squatters who are living on that stand and have been there for months? What do those hon members of the PFP say now that they sit there so quietly?

Do you understand our point of view?

You must also understand our point of view when it comes to squatting. It is a different matter once you feel it at your side. [Interjections.] That is the biggest message.

I also want to say that I agree with the Federated Chamber of Industries when they say that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is to be entrusted with the power to determine a policy in regard to the prevention of illegal squatting. I also question that, but for another reason. I would like to close by saying that in view of what they say—that there is a further positive side of the Bill to increase the penalties for squatter farm exploitation of the workseeking homeless by unscrupulous landowners; the same thing happened in Hillbrow with the flats—whilst we agree with that there are too many loopholes and shortcomings in this Bill for us to support it and therefore we do not support this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! I have to announce that the following vacancies in the representation in the House of Representatives have been filled:

1. (1) Karee, by the election of Mr M G Masher with effect from 4 July 1988;
2. (2) Alra Park, by the election of Mr A J Roper with effect from 17 August 1988.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, in all seriousness I take strong exception to and I want to place on record my disgust at the direction in which South Africa is heading.

Sir, it is certainly not right for a country to be governed by a council constituted of nominated people. I believe that we are overstepping …

Order! Which Order of the Day is the hon member talking about?

I merely want to move a motion, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I believe that the principle of democratic government lies in government by the people. That means that elected people must govern the country …

Hear, hear!

…and if we move in the direction of the President’s Council governing this country, I want to place my protest on record here and now. I do not believe it is wise, and it is certainly not in the interest of South Africa, that the President’s Council should be entrusted with the final law-making machinery. This House and the other two Houses should have the right to determine the legislation in terms of which South Africa is to be governed.

Hear, hear!

Hon members may remember that I recently had the privilege of visiting South America. While there has been some adverse publicity in regard to my visit, I went there as a representative of South Africa to state our case at the invitation of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As a South African and on behalf of my people I deemed it an honour to tell the outside world what is happening in South Africa. I believe that reform is alive in this country, but we are crippling it with this kind of measure. Out of concern for the South African process of reform, I want to move without notice:

1. (1) at its rising today adjourn until Wednesday, 24 August; and
2. (2) at the conclusion of the business of the Joint Meeting on 24 August, adjourn until Friday, 2 September.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I should like to inform the House that the Minister has withdrawn the Group Areas Amendment Bill, No 112 of 1988, and that he submitted the Group Areas Amendment Bill, No 115 of 1988, to Mr Speaker today.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for having allowed me the opportunity to make a personal explanation. I wish to advise the House that I shall tender my resignation as Leader of the House of Delegates in writing to the Ministers’ Council this afternoon, while my resignation will take effect tomorrow. I do this with certain reservations, namely that I have come here to serve my people and my country, not only when holding a position, but at all times and at all levels.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, we support that measure.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the State President I give notice of the following subject for discussion for Wednesday, 24 August: The negotiations on peace in South Western Africa.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I would like to inform the House that the Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 112—88 (GA)] has been withdrawn and that the Group Areas Amendment Bill [B 115—88 (GA)] has been submitted to Mr Speaker today.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, as a result of a decision in this House, a select committee was appointed. After its deliberations, evidence, et cetera, the Interim Report of the House Committee on Allegations of Maladministration, dated 29 June 1988, reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, this is a very important report of the House Committee on Allegations of Maladministration. In my opinion—and I am sure this opinion will be shared by hon members of this House—this was a highly irregular action on the part of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who, as we have seen, flouted the authority of the then Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

We in this House have so often repeated that we stand for clean administration in relation to our duties. I borrow these words from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who has also repeatedly said in this House that he stands for clean administration. He said so repeatedly when allegations and counter-allegations were made in this House. It was the unanimous wish of this House that if the specific nature of the irregularity was mentioned, we would have a legitimate reason for acting as we should in this House. I therefore believe that we need to adopt this report which after much deliberation and evidence collected by the House Committee has come before this House. In adopting it, we should also send the evidence, papers and report that have come in relation to this matter alone, to the James Commission for attention.

I would like to make a very sincere appeal. The hon the State President has said over the years, even before he was State President—when he was still the Prime Minister of this country, the Minister of Defence and in other portfolios that he held in the highest form of government in this country—that he stands for clean administration. Therefore, to save the hon the State President in his pronouncements over the years from any embarrassment, I believe that the House must support me so that this matter is taken to the hon the State President for his immediate attention and action, if need be.

I believe that this report directs that in relation to the six petrol station sites, no transfer must take place to the people that have been allocated these sites. Furthermore, there is a Supreme Court action by one Mr Parow in relation to a petrol station site. I believe the judge has given time until October to come back to this.

Therefore I do believe that the members of this House will adopt this report unreservedly.

Mr Chairman, the report before us represents one of several that this House will have to discuss before the House rises in September.

I think what is important is that the report makes known certain information as a result of the subject having been canvassed by this committee. In view of the fact that the six sites in question may be the subject of further action, I believe that this House must recommend very strongly to the hon the State President that the recommendations at the bottom of this report be given serious consideration and receive the immediate attention of the authorities in whatever way possible. Having regard to this fact, it could very well come to pass that some of these sites, or in fact all of them, may have to be repossessed by the State on the basis of this report. I want to support the submission made by the hon the Minister of the Budget in this regard.

I also want to say that it is indeed a pity that regular calls for the institution of an inquiry, made in this House and which go back a number of years, met with no positive response from the authorities. I believe much of what is going to come up before this House and elsewhere could have been reduced to a minimum had the authorities in the first instance instituted some kind of inquiry which would have sent a warning signal to all those who have been involved with this kind of activity.

Without going into the debate any further, Mr Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the committee for the work it has done, resulting in the presentation of this report. I want to support the adoption of this report. Again, just to reiterate, whatever is possible must be done to see that those properties which have not yet been transferred are held over, since this would make the task of the hon the Minister of Housing, or the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, of the State itself, or of the House of Delegates, more difficult.

Mr Chairman, I find it somewhat ridiculous …

You should.

… that there is, with idiots like you on the other side … [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member Mr Nowbath say?

In response to something said on the other side, I said: “With idiots like you on the other side.”

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that statement, Mr Chairman. As I was saying, I find it ridiculous, idiotic and stupid that, the hon member Mr Thaver having moved that all the evidence before this House Committee be referred to the James Commission, this House should now be asked to act on a portion of that evidence. That is the sumtotal of the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He is prepared to act on a portion of the evidence, while saying that all the evidence should go to the James Commission. The James Commission, having received the evidence, will then consider the whole issue in toto, not in part. That is why I say that the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and supported by the hon the Minister of the Budget, is illogical. [Interjections.]

I can hear some idiots saying something.

Order! Did the hon member say that there are some idiots saying something?

Mr Chairman, I said I can hear some idiots.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw the word “idiots”.

I will also say to this House now that when the motion was moved …

Order! The hon member must please withdraw the word “idiots”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I should like the hon members of this House to accord me the same courtesy that I accorded them when they spoke. [Interjections.] I did not interrupt; I did not interject; I remained a perfect gentleman … [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member kindly resume his seat. I want to appeal to hon members to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech without interruption. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I was saying, we have here the bifurcated situation that on the one hand the Leader of the Official Opposition and those who support him say that action must be taken by this House to prevent certain decisions being taken by the Administration, while at the same time saying that all the evidence before that House Committee should go to the James Commission for evaluation.

I submit that that is illogical—totally illogical. It is not reasonable, it is not intelligible. I go further. In the mandate that was given by this House to that House Committee there is no reference to the production of an interim report; to the submission of an interim report.

I submit that in producing and submitting, in tabling an interim report, that House Committee has gone beyond its mandate. There should have been a specific request in the original mandate that the committee, at its discretion, should be mandated to produce interim reports.

Furthermore there is no provision in the mandate that this House Committee is entitled to make recommendations. There is nothing in the mandate given to the House Committee entitling it to produce recommendations. Therefore I find it unreasonable that in respect of this House Committee, elected by this House, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should say that this matter must now be attended to by the State President. This is not a committee appointed by the State President. This is a matter for the House. The House may take its decisions by virtue of the fact that it has a majority, which is an accident in terms of what I call jumping from one side of the House to the other.

With regard to that particular House Committee I should like also to draw the attention of this House to the fact that the hon Mr Justice James, the chairman of the James Commission, is an eminent judge of this country. He carries with him …

Eminent.

… the DMS. Eminent, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills cannot hear, that is his problem. This House Committee was chaired by a member of this House whose only association with law, as far as I can remember, for the last 16 years has been that he has been a teaboy in a lawyers’ office; that he has been a messenger in a lawyers’ office … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the gentleman referred to by the hon member Mr Nowbath was elected by this House without any dissension, and we must accord the office that he held in that committee the respect that is due to it.

Order! What is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

My point is, one cannot allow the hon member Mr Nowbath to refer to the hon member as a teaboy. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member Mr Nowbath intend to denigrate the hon member Mr Thaver by referring to him as a teaboy?

Mr Chairman, I was drawing a comparison between one chairman of a commission, who is a most eminent judge in this country, and another chairman of a commission … [Interjections.]

Order! With regard to the explanation which the hon member Mr Nowbath is giving, I think it is derogatory to attempt to draw comparisons and to refer to an hon member of this House as having been a teaboy in a lawyers’ office. I think the hon member must withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if that is the feeling, then I withdraw it unconditionally.

You have shown the level to which you can descend. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair will decide what level the hon member has shown. The hon member may proceed.

I therefore say that in opposing the acceptance of this interim report, this House should rather leave it to the James Commission to decide whether the whole egg is addled, or whether only a part of it is addled.

Mr Chairman, I have every respect for the ruling by the Chair, but may I say with all due respect that the reference to the hon member Mr Thaver as having been a teaboy at one time …

Mr Chairman, I object to that reference. I have withdrawn it, Sir.

Order! I should like to call upon the hon member for Reservoir Hills to refrain from making a reference to that statement, as the hon member has already withdrawn it.

Well, Sir, I shall not allude to the statement made by Mr Nowbath in that respect but I happen to know that the hon member Mr Thaver was a junior office clerk in an attorney’s office. I wish to place on record that in my respectful submission, it is to his tremendous credit that the hon member Mr Thaver has risen to the heights that he has, and that in his chairmanship of the committee upon which I had the honour to serve, although he was under considerable strain from the heavy workload, the hon member Mr Thaver proved that he could be an excellent chairman, which he indeed was.

Hear, hear!

The hon member Mr Nowbath referred to the draft resolution of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as being ridiculous, idiotic and stupid. Unfortunately, the hon member Mr Nowbath is not the …

Mr Chairman, I doubt whether I used the words “ridiculous” or “stupid”. I did not do so.

You are stupid!

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed, but I should like to appeal to hon members not to refer to the chairmanship of this committee. The chairman was chosen from among hon members and I think it would be wrong to make continual references to the chairmanship. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

I respectfully agree, Sir, that any reference in a denigrating manner to the chairman of any committee, is uncalled for.

The draft resolution which was proposed by the hon member Mr Thaver was, as I understood it, to the effect that the evidence gathered by the committee of which he was the chairman, be referred to the James Commission, and that was adopted by this House. There was no reference in that draft resolution to the effect that the report which has been or is to be submitted by that committee, need necessarily be referred to the James Commission.

That committee was under instruction—and I trust that it will carry out that instruction—to report to this House. It is unfortunate that the hon member Mr Nowbath does not seem to have understood that very important distinction. It is also unfortunate that he seems to have failed to understand that a committee of a House can mero motu decide to submit interim reports if it deems it desirable to do so and obviously that committee did, which is why this interim report under discussion this afternoon was in fact submitted.

Now, what was the content of that report? It was simplicity itself. The committee declared that on the basis of evidence submitted to it at that time it had formed certain prima facie views and that pending the final submission of its report following the enquiries that that committee intended to hold, the situation should be frozen; in other words, that any proposed alienation of any of the Government-owned land into private ownership—that was the import of that report—should be suspended.

Now any Minister in any country which is not a dictatorship would have heeded that caveat immediately. No Minister would have arrogated to himself the power to disregard completely a recommendation made by a committee of Parliament appointed by Parliament, more particularly if the Minister in charge is the person who in fact instructed that steps be instituted which would have resulted in the alienation of those properties to the name of those six persons. Their names were Mrs I P Hoover, who it later transpired was in fact Mrs I P Adams, Mr Jivan Seebran, Mr P Imrith, Mr K Krishna, Mr R Rambhuran and Mr C V Ramlall. Each of these individuals was propelled forward for consideration by the very hon Minister who decided to ignore the recommendations made by the committee to this House. What is even worse is that the hon Minister gave instructions that an allocation which was made to Mrs I P Hoover alias Mrs I P Adams be made in the name of another person entirely, namely the mother of Mrs I P Hoover, who had never up to that stage made any application for that site or for resettlement.

The conduct of the hon the Minister of Housing, Mr A Rajbansi, in deciding to instruct the officials to ignore that recommendation is not only questionable, but I submit it is utterly and completely disgraceful.

Corruption of the first order.

I shall not agree with the last comment. There certainly was no proof at that stage that there was any corruption involved in the ordinary sense of the word. However, if the subversion of normal administrative processes can be included in the meaning of corruption, in that case corruption of the normal administrative processes did take place and that is to be deplored. I am quite certain that no hon member of this House would want to defend that kind of conduct, let alone want to be associated with that kind of conduct. [Interjections.]

I am sorry to say that because the hon the State President of this country refused, in terms of a misinterpretation of the provision of the Constitution, to heed the request of this House contained in a resolution passed on 20 May 1988, one of these properties was indeed alienated to a person who had not applied for it. Her name is Mrs M L Hoover. This was done in June. I beg your pardon, Sir, it was a company apparently nominated by Mrs M L Hoover, and the company was never a displaced person. The company never even existed at the time the Group Areas Act was applied to Cato Manor. [Interjections.]

Now, Sir, that company, called Fearchance (Pty) Ltd, apparently received transfer of this property. I shall not deal further with that aspect, because I have reason to believe that the House Committee makes certain recommendations in that regard. I do not have a great deal of hair on the top of my pate but even the hair which is not there has stood on end as a result of the actions of the Minister of Housing.

Mr Chairman, this House Committee was appointed by a majority vote of this House. The Chairman was nominated by the House and he has done his work. The Committee has gone to great lengths to do the work, and I think for an hon member who served on the committee—he was supposed to have been elected to serve on the committee—to criticize the committee after he had been absent from the committee is most inappropriate.

Mr Chairman, that is once again a reference back to what was said.

The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am not referring to anything that has been said. What I say is that a member was appointed to serve on the committee and he saw fit not to attend any meetings of the committee. If he disagreed with the findings of the committee or the finding of the chairman, he should have voiced his opinion there and should have made it known there. However he failed to attend any meeting at all and left it to the committee to decide what was good and the committee has decided what is correct.

There is nothing wrong with any committee at any time issuing an interim report. An interim report is a report which is to precede a final report, and there is nothing wrong with it. I do not see anything wrong anywhere. Any committee has the right to issue an interim report at any time. This interim report was necessary and urgent because certain acts were being perpetrated which would have entailed injustice being done to the other legitimate and qualified applicants. This is exactly what has happened, because we recently become aware of Supreme Court proceedings—an interdict—against the person to whom the hon chairman of the Ministers’ Council wanted to grant transfer of a property. That speaks for itself. Therefore this interim report was most necessary and it was issued for that reason. I think it is most appropriate that it should have been issued.

In view of the fact that the interim report is now being published, it is for this House to decide and to make a decision as to what steps should now be taken. However as far as the interim report is concerned, the committee saw fit to publish it. I see nothing wrong with that.

Whilst I am on my feet, I just want to refer to the illness of Mr Nelson Mandela on behalf of my party, the PPSA. Mr Mandela is recovering from his illness and I wish him Godspeed. It is also my wish that he recuperates as soon as possible. May God grant him relief from his illness and recovery from his ailment.

I think that now is the right time, whilst this man, at the age of 70, is very ill, for the hon the President to consider the release of Mr Nelson Mandela, because we do not want this man to die in prison. That would be to the detriment of South Africa. I think that now is the time for us perhaps to take steps to see to it that the man is released and returned to his people. In this way the criticism by the outside world will be silenced. It must be without preconditions because I think the man will be harmless if he comes out today. In view of his prevailing illness I think it will be just right if …

Order! I think it will be just right if the hon member returns to the report.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. What we have before us is the interim report— the final report is still to come. It is necessary that this should be discussed and decided upon today. That is my appeal.

Mr Chairman, before I go on to this report I want to make a comment. In a way I feel it was gratifying to hear that the hon the State President and his Cabinet had decided to withdraw the Group Areas Amendment Bill. We know of the reaction that it has had. At the same time, however, it grieves me that they saw fit to put another Bill before Mr Speaker. In saying that, I want to stress—this also includes the subject matter under discussion at the moment— that we must stop skirting around issues. I believe that we should get down to the real matter. When we look at the Group Areas Amendment Bill we find that the entire question of group areas is objectionable. Likewise, the entire question of maladministration is equally objectionable to us.

I feel that this committee has taken its time to make investigations and to make recommendations and I have no difficulty in supporting these recommendations. I want to completely dissociate myself from the comments and sentiments of the hon member Mr Nowbath.

The view is shared!

For once in this House, in the pursuit of truth, fairness and conduct that brings about integrity and honour, we should stand united. We should remove all artificial divisions in this House if we really believe in those noble ideas. It is evident to me that we are sometimes overcome because of our sentimental attachment to certain people. I have no problem with people being sentimentally attached to other people but then one must not be compromised in one’s sentiment. In one’s sentimental attachment one must not allow oneself to be dragged into the quagmire. I would like to suggest that this House stands united on this particular issue and I would like Mr Nowbath to reconsider the comments that he made earlier on. Let us stand united on this issue in the House.

I am not gunning for any position in the House!

With those comments I support the draft resolution before the House.